Repeal of the law that prohibits sale of oral tobacco

The repeal of the laws that ban the supply and sale of moist smokeless tobacco such as snus from Sweden or the likes of Skoal and Copenhagen from the USA. The laws affected are Oral Snuff (Safety) Regulations 1989 and The Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992 both of which prohibit the sale/supply of oral tobacco.

Why is this idea important?

The repeal of the laws that ban the supply and sale of moist smokeless tobacco such as snus from Sweden or the likes of Skoal and Copenhagen from the USA. The laws affected are Oral Snuff (Safety) Regulations 1989 and The Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992 both of which prohibit the sale/supply of oral tobacco.

There is no such thing as compromise

I disagree intensely with the idea of fully bringing the death penalty back; it is an outdated and cruel concept, as we have seen with the uproar in Iran over the stoning of the adulteress. However, I also believe that a compromise is necessary. If one commits a catalogue of treasonable offences- say, trying to blow up a plane or try to kill the Queen- then they should face the death penalty if they are British citizens and if there is plenty of evidence to show, and not suggest, that a serious crime has been committed.  

The same idea of compromise applies to smoking; pubs are designed for adults and not children. Therefore, there should be either a smoking room, or one should be able to smoke indoors. This decision is entirely up to the pub management and the landlord. The pub should pay nothing for smoking to be legalised indoors. Restaurants, buses, trains and cabs should remain non-smoking. There is no compromise; it is all or nothing. The preponderance of the population would like a cigarette with their pint; politics goes on and on about Human Rights, well, where have at least some of the smoker's rights got to?

Why is this idea important?

I disagree intensely with the idea of fully bringing the death penalty back; it is an outdated and cruel concept, as we have seen with the uproar in Iran over the stoning of the adulteress. However, I also believe that a compromise is necessary. If one commits a catalogue of treasonable offences- say, trying to blow up a plane or try to kill the Queen- then they should face the death penalty if they are British citizens and if there is plenty of evidence to show, and not suggest, that a serious crime has been committed.  

The same idea of compromise applies to smoking; pubs are designed for adults and not children. Therefore, there should be either a smoking room, or one should be able to smoke indoors. This decision is entirely up to the pub management and the landlord. The pub should pay nothing for smoking to be legalised indoors. Restaurants, buses, trains and cabs should remain non-smoking. There is no compromise; it is all or nothing. The preponderance of the population would like a cigarette with their pint; politics goes on and on about Human Rights, well, where have at least some of the smoker's rights got to?

Drug bought online as legal high following ban on mephedrone causing several hospitalisations and possibly one death

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/17/ivory-wave-drug-alleged-death

thats what prohibition leads to and thats what you get when you dont listen to scientist like professor david nutt.

dear Mp's god will ask you what you have done when in power what will you tell him ?

Why is this idea important?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/17/ivory-wave-drug-alleged-death

thats what prohibition leads to and thats what you get when you dont listen to scientist like professor david nutt.

dear Mp's god will ask you what you have done when in power what will you tell him ?

Relax the smoking ban

Approximately 40 public houses are closing each week and although the smoking ban is a contributary factor it is not the only reason. Cheap supermarket booze is also a factor. However, should the ban be relaxed many smokers would return to pubs and clubs.

Who wants to stand in the street in all weathers for a "fix" ?

The sooner this law against civil liberty is looked at more closely the sooner our pubs will begin to operate and function as the social venues they once were.

ARE YOU LISTENING MR. CLEGG ??

Or was this a case of SMOKE and mirrors.

Why is this idea important?

Approximately 40 public houses are closing each week and although the smoking ban is a contributary factor it is not the only reason. Cheap supermarket booze is also a factor. However, should the ban be relaxed many smokers would return to pubs and clubs.

Who wants to stand in the street in all weathers for a "fix" ?

The sooner this law against civil liberty is looked at more closely the sooner our pubs will begin to operate and function as the social venues they once were.

ARE YOU LISTENING MR. CLEGG ??

Or was this a case of SMOKE and mirrors.

Ban Smoking in Public, not Private, Places

Smoking in public places shoudl be illegal. Isn't it already banned you say? Yes, but, absurdly, only on some private property, where people have a choice to be.

Out on the street, where one often has to be at some point, it is allowed (including outside offices and pubs where ironically it is banned).

(No, you don't "have a right to go into a pub and not passively smoke" as I have heard it argued – you are permitted entry by the landlord/manager at their discretion.)

I would reverse the ban on smoking on private property – i.e. the rules on smoking int he workplace, leaving employers to decide on their own policies – no-one has been forced to work anywhere since the abolition of slavery!

Instead the ban should apply to publicly owned space.

(I am not a smoker!)

Why is this idea important?

Smoking in public places shoudl be illegal. Isn't it already banned you say? Yes, but, absurdly, only on some private property, where people have a choice to be.

Out on the street, where one often has to be at some point, it is allowed (including outside offices and pubs where ironically it is banned).

(No, you don't "have a right to go into a pub and not passively smoke" as I have heard it argued – you are permitted entry by the landlord/manager at their discretion.)

I would reverse the ban on smoking on private property – i.e. the rules on smoking int he workplace, leaving employers to decide on their own policies – no-one has been forced to work anywhere since the abolition of slavery!

Instead the ban should apply to publicly owned space.

(I am not a smoker!)

Revise the smoking ban

I am a smoker and do appreciate the improvements in general that have been acheived in the UK by this law.

I am also aware of the absurdity that exists where in some cases pubs now have a external smoking zone on public footpaths creating a congested area of drinking, smoking rowdies and a 'fog' of smoke which other members of the public have to pass through or avoid by crossing to the other side of the street.

It also creates late night noise and disturbance outside pubs and clubs where neither the 'landlord' nor the authorities are able/willing to address unless it escalates to another level and finally creates litter in the form of cigarette butts, empty beer glassess, broken glass and other litter spread around the vicinity.

I have noted that in some cases, airports for example, smoking areas have sensibly been re- introduced inside the terminal building, albeit that they are not actually 'in the building' and are distinctly basic, to avoid smokers taking to the toilets for a final fix before their flights.

The law is virtually unenforceable with regard to lorry drivers who smoke in their 'company' cabs.

The law must also have deterred a proportion of the public from 'dining out' although this probably has encouraged non smokers to enjoy themselves more.

I also have visited restuarants, bars and other places abroad where smokers are allowed but segregated from non smokers; where there are 'smoking allowed' and 'non smoking' establishments and thsi approach seems sensible.

The 'one size fits all' is fine for the nanny state where it is practical and can be made to work without creating other problems, but why can't the Smoking Ban be revised to allow some degree of choice with proper controls (e.g. extraction/filtering of air) and where smoking is licensed inside buildings.

I do not advocate a repeal as I think the principle is good but I would like to see some revisions to address the balance and provide flexibility and practicality.

Why is this idea important?

I am a smoker and do appreciate the improvements in general that have been acheived in the UK by this law.

I am also aware of the absurdity that exists where in some cases pubs now have a external smoking zone on public footpaths creating a congested area of drinking, smoking rowdies and a 'fog' of smoke which other members of the public have to pass through or avoid by crossing to the other side of the street.

It also creates late night noise and disturbance outside pubs and clubs where neither the 'landlord' nor the authorities are able/willing to address unless it escalates to another level and finally creates litter in the form of cigarette butts, empty beer glassess, broken glass and other litter spread around the vicinity.

I have noted that in some cases, airports for example, smoking areas have sensibly been re- introduced inside the terminal building, albeit that they are not actually 'in the building' and are distinctly basic, to avoid smokers taking to the toilets for a final fix before their flights.

The law is virtually unenforceable with regard to lorry drivers who smoke in their 'company' cabs.

The law must also have deterred a proportion of the public from 'dining out' although this probably has encouraged non smokers to enjoy themselves more.

I also have visited restuarants, bars and other places abroad where smokers are allowed but segregated from non smokers; where there are 'smoking allowed' and 'non smoking' establishments and thsi approach seems sensible.

The 'one size fits all' is fine for the nanny state where it is practical and can be made to work without creating other problems, but why can't the Smoking Ban be revised to allow some degree of choice with proper controls (e.g. extraction/filtering of air) and where smoking is licensed inside buildings.

I do not advocate a repeal as I think the principle is good but I would like to see some revisions to address the balance and provide flexibility and practicality.

Declaring smoking bans, as Toxic risk factors

One of the topics the anti-smoker cartel will always avoid like the plague [pun intended] is the topic of medicinal smoke. They tell us that the principles of dilution and evacuation by environmental controls don’t work. Yet if we look at the safeguards in place in a safe room? When a contaminant is released, the most efficient means of evacuating that toxin from the room is to inject particulate fog and evacuate it with air continuously until the toxin is no longer in the room but now trapped in the particulate that left before it had a chance to settle on other solid objects that remain in the room.

In a smoke free environment the toxicity of airborne contagions become much more deadly, because there is a reduced level of particulate to collect them. In the reductions of indoor ultra fine particulate the same is true. Your dosages of a much more dangerous form of particulate than is found in cigarette smoke are tremendously increased.

Cigarette smoke if you can follow the consistent portion of legitimate unbiased research over the years, is evacuated by bodily functions over time. This is why they tell you if you quit, over time your health risk will eventually align with those of a non smoker. Ultra fine particulate such as coal and diesel particulate remains within the body and accumulates, because the lungs are powerless to evacuate it.

Black lung is entirely evident during autopsy whereas cigarette smoke is virtually undetectable, with no connection to the pictures in your mind that Public health has been painting for years [smokers lung?], a surgeon can’t tell if a person smoked for decades or if they never smoked by visual inspection. They have no problem at all telling that someone worked in a coal mine or in a diesel engine repair shop. Just like asbestos it becomes an irritant which leads to breathing ailments and the eventual total destruction of your lungs with no viable treatment, beyond making you more comfortable as the process of destruction continues.

Utilizing tobacco smoke particulate to reduce the risks of both viral infections and ultra fine particulate exposures, is a taboo subject because the Public Health entourage doesn’t feel comfortable. They in fact become quite violent in their reactions, to what they consider damaged thinking.

Irrespective of their emotions and comfort levels, the logic and science is squarely on the side of increased health risks by a tremendous degree, in a smoke free environment. If tobacco smoke is thought to cause the deaths of 3000 in a 300 million population as a lifetime risk perspective [requiring a lifetime of exposures at very high levels in order to see even one] and the same population produces by a shorter process of exposure and immediate effect 35,000 deaths per year by common flu alone. Think of all the other things in your life that could cause mortality by inhalation exposures. The odds that someone in a crowded bar or stadium might cough or sneeze and infect a greater number of those present, than would be possible in the same venue with cigarette smoke present, requires a pretty twisted evaluation process, devised in corruption and emotional trash to argue against.

So do the Public Health “experts” in their current rendition, offer increased protections or increased risk, when the predominance of what they study and profess, is based in purely emotional analysis, as opposed to science and legitimate unbiased observational skills?

We already know the answer to that one. What is missing is a way to divide the soothsayers emotion tested rhetoric, from the professionals with something real to say, so we can judge fairly among the many “the sky is falling” promotions, understanding which one should be taken seriously, or as the growing norms are demonstrating today; in reaction to all alarm bells; we simply shrug and open another beer.

The world has not gone mad around us, the opportunists are simply growing more efficient in the production of propaganda.

Clearly the self regulation of mainstream media groups, considering the sources of their funding in the financially conflicted behemoth ad agencies, is simply not working out. Currently we are trapped within an environment where politics guides scientific oversight. While emotionally enhanced promotions, are destroying the very sustenance of personal and parental autonomy.

Vote them all out; allowing the medical mafia and big pharma / big Oil prosecutions to begin.
 

Why is this idea important?

One of the topics the anti-smoker cartel will always avoid like the plague [pun intended] is the topic of medicinal smoke. They tell us that the principles of dilution and evacuation by environmental controls don’t work. Yet if we look at the safeguards in place in a safe room? When a contaminant is released, the most efficient means of evacuating that toxin from the room is to inject particulate fog and evacuate it with air continuously until the toxin is no longer in the room but now trapped in the particulate that left before it had a chance to settle on other solid objects that remain in the room.

In a smoke free environment the toxicity of airborne contagions become much more deadly, because there is a reduced level of particulate to collect them. In the reductions of indoor ultra fine particulate the same is true. Your dosages of a much more dangerous form of particulate than is found in cigarette smoke are tremendously increased.

Cigarette smoke if you can follow the consistent portion of legitimate unbiased research over the years, is evacuated by bodily functions over time. This is why they tell you if you quit, over time your health risk will eventually align with those of a non smoker. Ultra fine particulate such as coal and diesel particulate remains within the body and accumulates, because the lungs are powerless to evacuate it.

Black lung is entirely evident during autopsy whereas cigarette smoke is virtually undetectable, with no connection to the pictures in your mind that Public health has been painting for years [smokers lung?], a surgeon can’t tell if a person smoked for decades or if they never smoked by visual inspection. They have no problem at all telling that someone worked in a coal mine or in a diesel engine repair shop. Just like asbestos it becomes an irritant which leads to breathing ailments and the eventual total destruction of your lungs with no viable treatment, beyond making you more comfortable as the process of destruction continues.

Utilizing tobacco smoke particulate to reduce the risks of both viral infections and ultra fine particulate exposures, is a taboo subject because the Public Health entourage doesn’t feel comfortable. They in fact become quite violent in their reactions, to what they consider damaged thinking.

Irrespective of their emotions and comfort levels, the logic and science is squarely on the side of increased health risks by a tremendous degree, in a smoke free environment. If tobacco smoke is thought to cause the deaths of 3000 in a 300 million population as a lifetime risk perspective [requiring a lifetime of exposures at very high levels in order to see even one] and the same population produces by a shorter process of exposure and immediate effect 35,000 deaths per year by common flu alone. Think of all the other things in your life that could cause mortality by inhalation exposures. The odds that someone in a crowded bar or stadium might cough or sneeze and infect a greater number of those present, than would be possible in the same venue with cigarette smoke present, requires a pretty twisted evaluation process, devised in corruption and emotional trash to argue against.

So do the Public Health “experts” in their current rendition, offer increased protections or increased risk, when the predominance of what they study and profess, is based in purely emotional analysis, as opposed to science and legitimate unbiased observational skills?

We already know the answer to that one. What is missing is a way to divide the soothsayers emotion tested rhetoric, from the professionals with something real to say, so we can judge fairly among the many “the sky is falling” promotions, understanding which one should be taken seriously, or as the growing norms are demonstrating today; in reaction to all alarm bells; we simply shrug and open another beer.

The world has not gone mad around us, the opportunists are simply growing more efficient in the production of propaganda.

Clearly the self regulation of mainstream media groups, considering the sources of their funding in the financially conflicted behemoth ad agencies, is simply not working out. Currently we are trapped within an environment where politics guides scientific oversight. While emotionally enhanced promotions, are destroying the very sustenance of personal and parental autonomy.

Vote them all out; allowing the medical mafia and big pharma / big Oil prosecutions to begin.
 

that polluters should be the ones to remove pollution and not the innocent (particularly as it applies to the smoking ban).

It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.

This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.

 POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.

Why is this idea important?

It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.

This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.

 POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.

Sale of alcohol

I have been involved in the Licensed Trade for 50 years having been brought up in  the family hotel business in Scotland where, as most of you will know, has a severe problem with alcohol consumption although the rest of the U.K. seems to be catching up quickly.

I learned to respect the effects of alcohol ,as did my own two daughters both of whom attained a degree in Hospitality Management.

All of us were involved  in the management of Licensed Premiises both within and outwith  the U.K.  so I feel qualified to give my opinion on how to tackle the increasing level of alcohol consumption and the social problems caused by the abuse of alcohol.

None of us work within the Licensed Trade any more.I recently resigned from my position as manager of a city centre bar due to my  concern about the increasing level of verbal abuse and threats of violence after service was refused to either an individual or group of people due to their inebriation. The general public should be also concerned at the loss of such experienced personnel within the Trade as it will directly affect their safety and ability to enjoy our town and city centres.

The sale of alcohol must be returned to the hands of those who are qualified  to judge whether a person or persons are entitled to purchase what is,after all, a mind/mood -altering drug  the over-consumption of which is causing major problems in all areas of our country.

 Alcohol should be removed from sale at supermarkets. It should not be sold in the same premises as food, toys etc.Indeed, the present problems can be traced back to when alcohol became widely available within supermarkets instead of dedicated Off -Sale premises or pubs.

The Licensed Trade used to be just that – a respected trade which had strict criteria about who could become a License Holder .and the social responsibilities attached to that vocation

This position has now come down to the checkout operator at the supermarket  who  should not have to make  a judgement on how any alcohol purchase is to be used – nor should she/he be put in that position by an employer whose main source of income is not the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Why is this idea important?

I have been involved in the Licensed Trade for 50 years having been brought up in  the family hotel business in Scotland where, as most of you will know, has a severe problem with alcohol consumption although the rest of the U.K. seems to be catching up quickly.

I learned to respect the effects of alcohol ,as did my own two daughters both of whom attained a degree in Hospitality Management.

All of us were involved  in the management of Licensed Premiises both within and outwith  the U.K.  so I feel qualified to give my opinion on how to tackle the increasing level of alcohol consumption and the social problems caused by the abuse of alcohol.

None of us work within the Licensed Trade any more.I recently resigned from my position as manager of a city centre bar due to my  concern about the increasing level of verbal abuse and threats of violence after service was refused to either an individual or group of people due to their inebriation. The general public should be also concerned at the loss of such experienced personnel within the Trade as it will directly affect their safety and ability to enjoy our town and city centres.

The sale of alcohol must be returned to the hands of those who are qualified  to judge whether a person or persons are entitled to purchase what is,after all, a mind/mood -altering drug  the over-consumption of which is causing major problems in all areas of our country.

 Alcohol should be removed from sale at supermarkets. It should not be sold in the same premises as food, toys etc.Indeed, the present problems can be traced back to when alcohol became widely available within supermarkets instead of dedicated Off -Sale premises or pubs.

The Licensed Trade used to be just that – a respected trade which had strict criteria about who could become a License Holder .and the social responsibilities attached to that vocation

This position has now come down to the checkout operator at the supermarket  who  should not have to make  a judgement on how any alcohol purchase is to be used – nor should she/he be put in that position by an employer whose main source of income is not the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Reform ASBO’s but don’t get rid of them!

I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them.  in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.

 

ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.

Why is this idea important?

I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them.  in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.

 

ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.

Repeal/Amendment to the Smoking Ban

As an ex Publican I saw first hand the destruction of a once thriving industry. I lay 90% of the blame at the feet of the Smoking Ban. To this end I have a solution.

All pubs, bars, restaurants and anywhere that serves alcohol has to, by law, have a premises licence to trade alcohol. My solution to the smoking ban would be to do the same thing – licence it! The government could use it as a stick to beat the industry with in terms of tax generation, however that would be offset by the turnover that would undoubtedly be increased.

With the licensing would obviously come restrictions; pubs and restaurants with x% turnover on food (say for instance a pub with a 50/50 split on food against drink) would not be eligable for the licence. The scheme in my mind would be for the pubs with the greatest dangers – the drinkers pubs, or the pubs with kitchens too small to give a suitable food offering. Also, the requirements would have to mean that pubs taking part would have to have a set standard of air filtration and extraction, which would again mean investment. However, with the proposition of bringing supermarket alcohol prices in line with the rest of the industry it would offer a greater level of choice.

All my idea is, is a chance to give a bit of choice back to people, there wouldn't be a requirement for every pub to take this on as a compulsory measure, indeed, if pubs felt they were better off catering to the non smoking community then there would be no requirement for it. However, many of the smaller, drinkers pubs have found serious hardship and difficulty in maintaining revenue due to the lack of choice afforded to a large percentage of customers.

Why is this idea important?

As an ex Publican I saw first hand the destruction of a once thriving industry. I lay 90% of the blame at the feet of the Smoking Ban. To this end I have a solution.

All pubs, bars, restaurants and anywhere that serves alcohol has to, by law, have a premises licence to trade alcohol. My solution to the smoking ban would be to do the same thing – licence it! The government could use it as a stick to beat the industry with in terms of tax generation, however that would be offset by the turnover that would undoubtedly be increased.

With the licensing would obviously come restrictions; pubs and restaurants with x% turnover on food (say for instance a pub with a 50/50 split on food against drink) would not be eligable for the licence. The scheme in my mind would be for the pubs with the greatest dangers – the drinkers pubs, or the pubs with kitchens too small to give a suitable food offering. Also, the requirements would have to mean that pubs taking part would have to have a set standard of air filtration and extraction, which would again mean investment. However, with the proposition of bringing supermarket alcohol prices in line with the rest of the industry it would offer a greater level of choice.

All my idea is, is a chance to give a bit of choice back to people, there wouldn't be a requirement for every pub to take this on as a compulsory measure, indeed, if pubs felt they were better off catering to the non smoking community then there would be no requirement for it. However, many of the smaller, drinkers pubs have found serious hardship and difficulty in maintaining revenue due to the lack of choice afforded to a large percentage of customers.

smoking ban repeal

the smoking ban is the worst example of peoples freedom, smoking is now being blamed for just about every illness in society, people are scared stiff to being next to a smoker, as there fear there will get cancer, it dose not entry there minds about pollution from cars, which pours out from the exhaust pipe, 100% poison, & there are millions of cars, or where there work ect, i have worked in factories all my life, & seen the pollution in factories, which nothing can be done 100%. i go to northern spain a lot & have seen how there cope with smoking in there environment, in bilbao in the top store there, in the restaurant, the have a restaurant in a restaurant for smoker, it is all glassed of, & as air vent machine not sure what, but you cannot smell smoke anywhere, it was fantastic, so if the spanish can do it why cant we, give pups & clubs a choice not a blanket ban, & why is it now that more people die of lung cancer, who have never smoked, than when most people smoked in the past, the answer is there if people care to find out about it, its in your genes, you can live your life health if you want but you will still die of whats in your genes, that's life, all theses anti smoker need to read the evidences that is out there, 

Why is this idea important?

the smoking ban is the worst example of peoples freedom, smoking is now being blamed for just about every illness in society, people are scared stiff to being next to a smoker, as there fear there will get cancer, it dose not entry there minds about pollution from cars, which pours out from the exhaust pipe, 100% poison, & there are millions of cars, or where there work ect, i have worked in factories all my life, & seen the pollution in factories, which nothing can be done 100%. i go to northern spain a lot & have seen how there cope with smoking in there environment, in bilbao in the top store there, in the restaurant, the have a restaurant in a restaurant for smoker, it is all glassed of, & as air vent machine not sure what, but you cannot smell smoke anywhere, it was fantastic, so if the spanish can do it why cant we, give pups & clubs a choice not a blanket ban, & why is it now that more people die of lung cancer, who have never smoked, than when most people smoked in the past, the answer is there if people care to find out about it, its in your genes, you can live your life health if you want but you will still die of whats in your genes, that's life, all theses anti smoker need to read the evidences that is out there, 

Repel the Smoking Ban

Bring back smoking to Pubs, Clubs, Restaurants, Airports and Aeroplanes, Offices (by all means have smoking areas)  Then Hospitals, sick people having to go outside in all weathers. What kind of society do we live in when we can't accommodate sick people with an inside room, it's surely against human rights.  It isn't very nice seeing poor smokers having to stand outside buildings to smoke when a smoking room/area would solve the problem. It doesn't stop young people smoking because putting a ban on something makes it even more desireable to them. 

Why is this idea important?

Bring back smoking to Pubs, Clubs, Restaurants, Airports and Aeroplanes, Offices (by all means have smoking areas)  Then Hospitals, sick people having to go outside in all weathers. What kind of society do we live in when we can't accommodate sick people with an inside room, it's surely against human rights.  It isn't very nice seeing poor smokers having to stand outside buildings to smoke when a smoking room/area would solve the problem. It doesn't stop young people smoking because putting a ban on something makes it even more desireable to them. 

the governement anser to cannabis users on 6/08/2010

so that's it finally we got the answer and here it is

 

Drugalysers to be issued over the next two years to detect drugs such as cocaine and cannabis

Testing kits designed to catch motorists driving while under the influence of drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, and ecstasy are to be issued to police over the next two years, the government announced today.

Ministers are due to give details of research funding to develop "drugalysers" which will be initially used in police stations, but later for roadside testing.

The plan follows a review by Sir Peter North, who in June called for tougher drug driving laws and the development of a roadside saliva test for those suspected of driving after taking drugs.

He called for screening devices to be available in police stations within two years to test for drugs including amphetamines, methadone, ecstasy, cocaine, cannabis and heroin.

The testing kits will mean that police officers no longer have to wait for permission from a doctor before a blood test can be taken to be used as evidence in court.

The road safety minister, Mike Penning, said: "This equipment will make it easier for the police to prosecute the irresponsible minority who put the lives of the law-abiding majority at risk.

"We are taking urgent steps to make drug screening technology available as soon as possible."

The Home Office expects to issue manufacturers with a final draft specification by the end of September.

Along with the Department for Transport and the Technology Strategy Board, it also announced a £300,000 investment for further research into drug-testing technology.

The aim is to develop equipment that can test for a wider range of drugs and is suitable for roadside testing.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Motorists who drive while under the influence of drugs are a menace to the roads and we have already given the police powers to test drivers for signs of impairment.

"We also want them to be able to test drivers for drugs in their system. By the end of September we aim to have issued a final draft specification for a testing device, setting out the drugs we want to detect. As soon as manufacturers have produced devices that satisfy our specification, we will approve them for police to use."

Research shows that 10% of drivers aged between 18 and 29 have admitted driving after taking illegal drugs.

So far, no device that meets the Home Office and Department for Transport's requirements has been identified.

source http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-testing-kits-drivers-drugs

Why is this idea important?

so that's it finally we got the answer and here it is

 

Drugalysers to be issued over the next two years to detect drugs such as cocaine and cannabis

Testing kits designed to catch motorists driving while under the influence of drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, and ecstasy are to be issued to police over the next two years, the government announced today.

Ministers are due to give details of research funding to develop "drugalysers" which will be initially used in police stations, but later for roadside testing.

The plan follows a review by Sir Peter North, who in June called for tougher drug driving laws and the development of a roadside saliva test for those suspected of driving after taking drugs.

He called for screening devices to be available in police stations within two years to test for drugs including amphetamines, methadone, ecstasy, cocaine, cannabis and heroin.

The testing kits will mean that police officers no longer have to wait for permission from a doctor before a blood test can be taken to be used as evidence in court.

The road safety minister, Mike Penning, said: "This equipment will make it easier for the police to prosecute the irresponsible minority who put the lives of the law-abiding majority at risk.

"We are taking urgent steps to make drug screening technology available as soon as possible."

The Home Office expects to issue manufacturers with a final draft specification by the end of September.

Along with the Department for Transport and the Technology Strategy Board, it also announced a £300,000 investment for further research into drug-testing technology.

The aim is to develop equipment that can test for a wider range of drugs and is suitable for roadside testing.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Motorists who drive while under the influence of drugs are a menace to the roads and we have already given the police powers to test drivers for signs of impairment.

"We also want them to be able to test drivers for drugs in their system. By the end of September we aim to have issued a final draft specification for a testing device, setting out the drugs we want to detect. As soon as manufacturers have produced devices that satisfy our specification, we will approve them for police to use."

Research shows that 10% of drivers aged between 18 and 29 have admitted driving after taking illegal drugs.

So far, no device that meets the Home Office and Department for Transport's requirements has been identified.

source http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-testing-kits-drivers-drugs

A better compramise on the smoking ban.

 




I think the smoking ban rules should be relaxed, firstly even smokey France had smoking legalisation long before we did in the early '90s than made it the law for restaurants to have smoking areas, that is something we should have done a long time ago instead of the one extreme to the other law that came in. I can see the argument that pubs are not health farms and that it’s the sort of place you don’t have to go into so therefore it should be up to the people whether or not to go in there, but I can see the need to protect the workers so a complete removal of the ban is not in the greater interest, however I think a relaxation of the law should be in the greater interest. Firstly the ban should be repealed in outdoor places where it is virtually unenforceable, like remote railway stations, at the moment a person standing away from everybody else at the end of a railway platform is breaking the law the same way someone standing amongst everybody else is. Maybe if the law allowed for parts of the platform to allow smoking more people would just go there instead of smoking anywhere. Also the ridiculous law requiring no smoking signs in obvious places needs to go; churches, gyms, hospitals and schools don’t need them they never had them before the ban or they may have been small in inconspicuous, because it was too obvious. Are we supposed these places are the exception to the ban if there’s no sign?

I also think increasing how enclosed smoking areas are allowed to be should be increased to more then 50% as it’s a place specifically for smokers to go, maybe allowing for indoor smoking rooms with legislation similar to that of the ones allowed in France would be a good idea. I also think there should be an exemption for Shisha bars.

Why is this idea important?

 




I think the smoking ban rules should be relaxed, firstly even smokey France had smoking legalisation long before we did in the early '90s than made it the law for restaurants to have smoking areas, that is something we should have done a long time ago instead of the one extreme to the other law that came in. I can see the argument that pubs are not health farms and that it’s the sort of place you don’t have to go into so therefore it should be up to the people whether or not to go in there, but I can see the need to protect the workers so a complete removal of the ban is not in the greater interest, however I think a relaxation of the law should be in the greater interest. Firstly the ban should be repealed in outdoor places where it is virtually unenforceable, like remote railway stations, at the moment a person standing away from everybody else at the end of a railway platform is breaking the law the same way someone standing amongst everybody else is. Maybe if the law allowed for parts of the platform to allow smoking more people would just go there instead of smoking anywhere. Also the ridiculous law requiring no smoking signs in obvious places needs to go; churches, gyms, hospitals and schools don’t need them they never had them before the ban or they may have been small in inconspicuous, because it was too obvious. Are we supposed these places are the exception to the ban if there’s no sign?

I also think increasing how enclosed smoking areas are allowed to be should be increased to more then 50% as it’s a place specifically for smokers to go, maybe allowing for indoor smoking rooms with legislation similar to that of the ones allowed in France would be a good idea. I also think there should be an exemption for Shisha bars.

i dont do drugs

alcohol and tobacco are two of the most dangerous drugs available not only to the user but also on society. If you use either, you ARE a drug user. A tobacco addiction puts a heroin one to shame. So you can stop looking down on people who’s drugs of choice happen to be illegal because the drugs your using are far more dangerous than almost all the illegal ones. So you can quit the “I’ve never taken a drug in my life” because you have

Why is this idea important?

alcohol and tobacco are two of the most dangerous drugs available not only to the user but also on society. If you use either, you ARE a drug user. A tobacco addiction puts a heroin one to shame. So you can stop looking down on people who’s drugs of choice happen to be illegal because the drugs your using are far more dangerous than almost all the illegal ones. So you can quit the “I’ve never taken a drug in my life” because you have

Smoking should be allowed to any citizen of age

SMOKING SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ANY CITIZEN IN THE UK.    MY

OPINION IS THE GOVERMENT GOING OVERBOARD ON UK CITIZENS, WE ARE ADULT ENOUGH TO KNOW IF IT IS GOOD OR BAD FOR US.
RESTAURANTS , CLUBS, HOTELS, ETC.. NON SMOKING WHY?? WE AS HUMANS HAVE OUR ON CHOICE IN WHAT WE DO, NOT BEING ORDERED ON WHAT THEY OBLIGE US TO DO.
20YRS AGO EVERY PERSON ,SMOKING EVERYWHER, HAPPY COUNTRY, NOW SETTING RULES WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT WE CAN NOT DO IS RIDECULIOUSE
ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO HAVE RESTURANTS/COFFEE SHOPS ECT… HAS TAKEN BUSINESS DRASTICLLEY DOWN IN THER BUSINESS, WHICH MY OPINIUM DISCRASFULL.
I HAVE STOPPED GOING OUT FOR A NICE MEAL DUE TO THIS, AND I PROMISE MILLIONS MORE ARE DOING THE SAME.
THIS LAW SHOULD BE REVERSED

Why is this idea important?

SMOKING SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ANY CITIZEN IN THE UK.    MY

OPINION IS THE GOVERMENT GOING OVERBOARD ON UK CITIZENS, WE ARE ADULT ENOUGH TO KNOW IF IT IS GOOD OR BAD FOR US.
RESTAURANTS , CLUBS, HOTELS, ETC.. NON SMOKING WHY?? WE AS HUMANS HAVE OUR ON CHOICE IN WHAT WE DO, NOT BEING ORDERED ON WHAT THEY OBLIGE US TO DO.
20YRS AGO EVERY PERSON ,SMOKING EVERYWHER, HAPPY COUNTRY, NOW SETTING RULES WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT WE CAN NOT DO IS RIDECULIOUSE
ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO HAVE RESTURANTS/COFFEE SHOPS ECT… HAS TAKEN BUSINESS DRASTICLLEY DOWN IN THER BUSINESS, WHICH MY OPINIUM DISCRASFULL.
I HAVE STOPPED GOING OUT FOR A NICE MEAL DUE TO THIS, AND I PROMISE MILLIONS MORE ARE DOING THE SAME.
THIS LAW SHOULD BE REVERSED

repeal the smoking ban

I believe that the main reason so many pubs and clubs have closed is the smoking ban and not the price of drinks. Thousands of smokers had their social lives ruined with the ban because for a smoker a drink without a cigarette is like an unsalted meal – bland and not worth the bother. I appreciate that some non-smokers find cigarette smoke unpleasant but a way can be found to keep all of us happy, Landlords could choose whether to run a smoking pub, a non-smoking pub or a pub which caters for both with designated areas for each. If this even-handed approach had been adopted from the outset we would not have seen so many people made miserable by taking away one of their main pleasures in life. Neither would there have been the closure of so many great traditional pubs which had been the mainstay of their local communities.

The type of smoker who has stayed away from the pubs since the ban is more often than not a hard-working taxpayer whose only vice is having a drink in one hand and a cigarette (or pipe or cigar) in the other – not a drug-raddled lunatic. We have lost so many of our beloved traditions in this country and I believe this ban is a step too close to a Big Brother society which hopefully no right-minded person wants.

Lastly, it has been a great relief to have the opportunity to voice the feelings of an ordinary person and believe it will be listened to. I think this sort of platform is a good way for the powers-that-be ascertain the feelings of the man-in the street.

Many thanks – and hopefully see you in the pub before very long!

 

Why is this idea important?

I believe that the main reason so many pubs and clubs have closed is the smoking ban and not the price of drinks. Thousands of smokers had their social lives ruined with the ban because for a smoker a drink without a cigarette is like an unsalted meal – bland and not worth the bother. I appreciate that some non-smokers find cigarette smoke unpleasant but a way can be found to keep all of us happy, Landlords could choose whether to run a smoking pub, a non-smoking pub or a pub which caters for both with designated areas for each. If this even-handed approach had been adopted from the outset we would not have seen so many people made miserable by taking away one of their main pleasures in life. Neither would there have been the closure of so many great traditional pubs which had been the mainstay of their local communities.

The type of smoker who has stayed away from the pubs since the ban is more often than not a hard-working taxpayer whose only vice is having a drink in one hand and a cigarette (or pipe or cigar) in the other – not a drug-raddled lunatic. We have lost so many of our beloved traditions in this country and I believe this ban is a step too close to a Big Brother society which hopefully no right-minded person wants.

Lastly, it has been a great relief to have the opportunity to voice the feelings of an ordinary person and believe it will be listened to. I think this sort of platform is a good way for the powers-that-be ascertain the feelings of the man-in the street.

Many thanks – and hopefully see you in the pub before very long!

 

Repeal smoking ban in pubs, bingo halls and restaurants

Prisoners are allowed to smoke – why not the general public? Pubs would stop closing by the dozen every week, bingo halls would open again, and trade would pick up in restaurants. Let people choose where they wish to work, they might be smokers who want to work in a smoke filled environment. Private rooms for smoking should be allowed in hotels or wherever people congregate. The government should not decide where you can smoke and where you can't unless there is a critical danger to the public i.e. a petrol station. There are few freedoms left and the Smoking ban is a very recent and unneccessary law.

Why is this idea important?

Prisoners are allowed to smoke – why not the general public? Pubs would stop closing by the dozen every week, bingo halls would open again, and trade would pick up in restaurants. Let people choose where they wish to work, they might be smokers who want to work in a smoke filled environment. Private rooms for smoking should be allowed in hotels or wherever people congregate. The government should not decide where you can smoke and where you can't unless there is a critical danger to the public i.e. a petrol station. There are few freedoms left and the Smoking ban is a very recent and unneccessary law.

Why do we so wilfully cover up the failure of the war on drugs?

The vulnerable are left unprotected by our attitudes to substance abuse, argues a leading documentary maker

Asuccess rate of 1%. In what area of public life would we accept that? Last year, Professor Neil McKeganey of the University of Glasgow, one of the most respected academics in Britain, established that the authorities seize just 1% of the heroin that enters Scotland in any one year. He sees no reason to think this would be any different for the nation as a whole.

Where were the headlines? Surely the press, obsessed by crime and drug-fuelled violence, would have it splashed across the front page. Not a peep. Why not?

If heroin gets in, we can only suppose cocaine and other drugs are smuggled in equally successfully. Gordon Meldrum, of the Scottish branch of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, tasked with coordinating our battle against drugs smuggling, shrugs: "1% or 10% – it is not good enough." He claims that a breakthrough in targeting top smugglers is around the corner, but when asked if there is any chance of achieving the 60-70% target the United Nations estimates would be required to change fundamentally the market in illegal drugs, he simply shakes his head.

I have been making a documentary series, Our Drugs War. They are not my first films on drugs. But even I was stunned by McKeganey's 1% figure – and the lack of response. I quoted it in interviews with senior police officers, drugs advisers and politicians; few expressed surprise, few felt that current policies were remotely adequate. Most questioned whether the Home Office was the best place to make drugs policy; surely it is an issue for health. But these public figures would only express their worries away from the camera.

I would ask why they were so concerned about opening up the debate. The response was almost comic in its predictability: "The Daily Mail." Anyone who steps out of line on policy gets shot down fast. Just ask Professor David Nutt, one of the world leaders on the effects of drugs on the brain and the now ex-chairman of the government's advisory committee on the misuse of drugs. The home secretary summarily sacked him for stepping out of line.

Drugs policies have little to do with science, health risk or harm. They have been hijacked by the emotive rhetoric of moralists.

This fear of the Daily Mail is a dishonest excuse – the truth is that there is a collective lack of will to address one of our major social problems. We bury our heads and pretend that banning drugs equals regulation. Quite the reverse; driving drugs underground leaves them unregulated and consumers unprotected. Just what is in the drugs they buy, what dose is safe, what are the side effects? And not just "old" drugs such as cocaine. There's the astonishing market in synthetic drugs which has grown up largely since the banning of ecstasy – operating in grey areas of legality and fuelling weekend parties up and down the country.

As Nutt's replacement as government advisor, Les Iversen, has found, ban one and another appears. Last year mephedrone was the craze, got banned and has been replaced by naphyrone. Ban… ban… ban… As John Arthur, head of the Edinburgh drugs charity Crew, says: "It seems to make sense to ban, but it does not work. It makes things worse. It criminalises everything."

This summer the nation's kids are out on the round of music festivals where alcohol is sold more cheaply than water and tobacco companies can be sponsors. Yet to get their fix they will either end up breaking the law, buying dodgy stuff from dealers in toilets, or they will swallow many pills before the festival to avoid security checks.

The only way to control and channel this demand is to tell the truth. If a drug really kills, tell us. If it is really dangerous, tell us. But equally, be honest when it is not. Regulate supply via prescription or chemists.

Look at the impact of tobacco education. In my lifetime we have moved away from a society where we smoked in trains, planes and pubs. We have easily accepted that we cannot smoke in any of them. We have been persuaded that tobacco really kills. Yet those who choose to go on smoking are free to do so. Because they want to.

Why should other drugs be so different? Some poor souls will end up as addicts – that is inevitable. But it should be treated as an illness, not a crime. Addictions of all types are usually a product of self-medication to avoid facing the world and we should do everything to help.

Treatment is much, much cheaper than putting people through the justice system and maybe locking them up in prison – where they will come across more drugs, of course. In this age of cuts, huge savings could be made at every stage of the drugs story.

Then there is the wider context and cost – be it in Latin America, Mexico or now Afghanistan. I went to Kabul, where the west finances both sides of the conflict. On one side, soldiers die and our tax money is spent to uphold a government riddled with drug-related corruption. On the other, the huge profits from an illegal heroin trade supply over 60% of the Taliban's finance.

Drugs money in one form or another makes up almost half of Afghanistan's GDP. These vast sums are generated solely because heroin is illegal.

On the frontline our policy has been equally confused. Some years British troops in Afghanistan are ordered to eliminate poppy production; other years eradication is deemed counterproductive because it will alienate the farmers we need on our side.

General Stanley McChrystal, before he was replaced, was for leaving most farmers in peace, while the Kabul government, presumably operating on last year's plans, sent teams down to Helmand on a determined drive to eradicate.

The counter-narcotics minister in Kabul shrewdly observes that if we ever stop it here, heroin will simply be grown somewhere else – the profits are too attractive.

Regulating drugs sensibly is not a magic solution. I make no bones about the dangers of drugs, be they heroin or the industrial cleaner, GBL [gamma butyrolactone]. People will continue to die each year.

I do not wish to undervalue the real emotion of each family, but we have to start being brave enough to acknowledge the level of failure of present strategies. Drugs are not a problem of morality and crime but of health.

One per cent. As a New York congressman said to me: "The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and get the same results. It's true for the addict, it's true for the addicted society, it's true for our using a criminal justice model to solve a medical problem."

Angus Macqueen is a film-maker. His three-part Our Drugs War starts tomorrow at 8pm on Channel 4

Why is this idea important?

The vulnerable are left unprotected by our attitudes to substance abuse, argues a leading documentary maker

Asuccess rate of 1%. In what area of public life would we accept that? Last year, Professor Neil McKeganey of the University of Glasgow, one of the most respected academics in Britain, established that the authorities seize just 1% of the heroin that enters Scotland in any one year. He sees no reason to think this would be any different for the nation as a whole.

Where were the headlines? Surely the press, obsessed by crime and drug-fuelled violence, would have it splashed across the front page. Not a peep. Why not?

If heroin gets in, we can only suppose cocaine and other drugs are smuggled in equally successfully. Gordon Meldrum, of the Scottish branch of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, tasked with coordinating our battle against drugs smuggling, shrugs: "1% or 10% – it is not good enough." He claims that a breakthrough in targeting top smugglers is around the corner, but when asked if there is any chance of achieving the 60-70% target the United Nations estimates would be required to change fundamentally the market in illegal drugs, he simply shakes his head.

I have been making a documentary series, Our Drugs War. They are not my first films on drugs. But even I was stunned by McKeganey's 1% figure – and the lack of response. I quoted it in interviews with senior police officers, drugs advisers and politicians; few expressed surprise, few felt that current policies were remotely adequate. Most questioned whether the Home Office was the best place to make drugs policy; surely it is an issue for health. But these public figures would only express their worries away from the camera.

I would ask why they were so concerned about opening up the debate. The response was almost comic in its predictability: "The Daily Mail." Anyone who steps out of line on policy gets shot down fast. Just ask Professor David Nutt, one of the world leaders on the effects of drugs on the brain and the now ex-chairman of the government's advisory committee on the misuse of drugs. The home secretary summarily sacked him for stepping out of line.

Drugs policies have little to do with science, health risk or harm. They have been hijacked by the emotive rhetoric of moralists.

This fear of the Daily Mail is a dishonest excuse – the truth is that there is a collective lack of will to address one of our major social problems. We bury our heads and pretend that banning drugs equals regulation. Quite the reverse; driving drugs underground leaves them unregulated and consumers unprotected. Just what is in the drugs they buy, what dose is safe, what are the side effects? And not just "old" drugs such as cocaine. There's the astonishing market in synthetic drugs which has grown up largely since the banning of ecstasy – operating in grey areas of legality and fuelling weekend parties up and down the country.

As Nutt's replacement as government advisor, Les Iversen, has found, ban one and another appears. Last year mephedrone was the craze, got banned and has been replaced by naphyrone. Ban… ban… ban… As John Arthur, head of the Edinburgh drugs charity Crew, says: "It seems to make sense to ban, but it does not work. It makes things worse. It criminalises everything."

This summer the nation's kids are out on the round of music festivals where alcohol is sold more cheaply than water and tobacco companies can be sponsors. Yet to get their fix they will either end up breaking the law, buying dodgy stuff from dealers in toilets, or they will swallow many pills before the festival to avoid security checks.

The only way to control and channel this demand is to tell the truth. If a drug really kills, tell us. If it is really dangerous, tell us. But equally, be honest when it is not. Regulate supply via prescription or chemists.

Look at the impact of tobacco education. In my lifetime we have moved away from a society where we smoked in trains, planes and pubs. We have easily accepted that we cannot smoke in any of them. We have been persuaded that tobacco really kills. Yet those who choose to go on smoking are free to do so. Because they want to.

Why should other drugs be so different? Some poor souls will end up as addicts – that is inevitable. But it should be treated as an illness, not a crime. Addictions of all types are usually a product of self-medication to avoid facing the world and we should do everything to help.

Treatment is much, much cheaper than putting people through the justice system and maybe locking them up in prison – where they will come across more drugs, of course. In this age of cuts, huge savings could be made at every stage of the drugs story.

Then there is the wider context and cost – be it in Latin America, Mexico or now Afghanistan. I went to Kabul, where the west finances both sides of the conflict. On one side, soldiers die and our tax money is spent to uphold a government riddled with drug-related corruption. On the other, the huge profits from an illegal heroin trade supply over 60% of the Taliban's finance.

Drugs money in one form or another makes up almost half of Afghanistan's GDP. These vast sums are generated solely because heroin is illegal.

On the frontline our policy has been equally confused. Some years British troops in Afghanistan are ordered to eliminate poppy production; other years eradication is deemed counterproductive because it will alienate the farmers we need on our side.

General Stanley McChrystal, before he was replaced, was for leaving most farmers in peace, while the Kabul government, presumably operating on last year's plans, sent teams down to Helmand on a determined drive to eradicate.

The counter-narcotics minister in Kabul shrewdly observes that if we ever stop it here, heroin will simply be grown somewhere else – the profits are too attractive.

Regulating drugs sensibly is not a magic solution. I make no bones about the dangers of drugs, be they heroin or the industrial cleaner, GBL [gamma butyrolactone]. People will continue to die each year.

I do not wish to undervalue the real emotion of each family, but we have to start being brave enough to acknowledge the level of failure of present strategies. Drugs are not a problem of morality and crime but of health.

One per cent. As a New York congressman said to me: "The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and get the same results. It's true for the addict, it's true for the addicted society, it's true for our using a criminal justice model to solve a medical problem."

Angus Macqueen is a film-maker. His three-part Our Drugs War starts tomorrow at 8pm on Channel 4

Cannabis offers financial first aid to GW Farmer AND David Cameron

Since the Conservatives came to power breakfast has become a favourite time of the day for a lot of people who get their newspapers delivered from the local newsagents, as they scan the headlines in search of what new diplomatic row Cameron has caused with his big mouth.

Cameron and The 'Cornflake Cough'
Diplomatic gaffes; once the sole domain of the Duke of Edinburgh have become front-page fodder since someone showed the tory leader how it was all part of the job to travel the world as the official representative of GB PLC.

The Natives are Revolting
Although no one mentioned it was as a 'diplomatic representative' that he travelled at the public's expense, and not as some opinionated lager lout who looks dead set on upsetting the locals.

Image
Cannabis labelled as 'Sativex'? Ahhh…thats ok then.
And upset them he has, in a travel diary which has already led to 'burning effergies' of Cameron laying on the streets of Pakistan.

Which is impressive no matter how you look at it, when you remember he has been in power only a couple of months and one can only speculate where it will all end with 'Union Jack Cameron' at the helm.

Cannabis Seeds '3 for 2' while stocks last. feminised-seeds.eu

Perhaps unsurprisingly the Daily Mail continues to pay a level of respect to Cameron, which Gordon Brown simply never had offered to him by any of the press. Meaning their entire output has changed direction from being anti-government, to full on political lobbyist, and its not only Cameron who enjoys such luxury.

What a difference a year makes
Cannabis has also 'changed sides' in the eyes of the Daily Mail.

2008 and 2009 saw the headlines screaming "Mental Health", "Cannabis Psychosis" and other such utter clap-trap.

While the rest of the world started to get a grip on the whole cannabis issue, the United Kingdom, led in no small part by the output of the Daily Mail and others of its ilk, harked back to the 50's to rekindle a negative publicity campaign it once waged against homosexuality (Google search 'Peter Wildeblood' – Wildeblood, ironically, was employed as a Daily Mail writer at the time of his imprisonment for being gay).

The new campaign was successful. The current labour government led by Gordon Brown capitulated to the pressure applied by the Daily Mail and changed a law which simply didn't need changing.

Criminalising and alienating a large percentage of the British population who like to smoke a joint instead of drinking alcohol.

Cannabis was made a class B drug, police ramped up their actions against spotty little oiks found carrying a tenners worth of weed, and no sooner was the law changed making possession a more serious offence, they created another law putting the now class B drug cannabis, on a par with jaywalking, or littering.

How does THAT work?

According to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith if a person was found in possession of cannabis for a first time, the weed was to be confiscated, and the person found in possession was given a 'street warning'.

Same again if that person was caught for a second time. A court case would only ensue if the perp was caught a third time, in the same policing area.

A most confused way of dealing with a prickly issue, by wrapping it tighter in beaurocratic red tape.

The Daily Mail was full of its own success. Cannabis was branded as 'lethal'. Brown even said as much in a TV interview and the substance was cast off into the anals of history as a bad deal. Or so we thought.

Today, the 360' turnaround is complete as the Daily Mail talks for the first time, about the 'healing qualities' of cannabis in a blatant 'old boys club' advertisment which reads as follows;

Cannabis to work wonders for GW

About 100,000 people in Britain suffer from multiple sclerosis, many of them middle-aged women. For years, many have been breaking the law by seeking pain relief through smoking cannabis.

They may no longer need to. GW Pharmaceuticals has spent years working on ways to use the healing properties of the cannabis plant in a legal way and in June its cannabis-based drug, Sativex, was approved for sale here. Last week, Spain approved the drug as well and other countries on the Continent are expected to follow.

Midas Extra, the online subscription service for Financial Mail readers, recommended GW in April 2009, when Sativex was still in trials and the shares were 80p. Today they are 109p but there is still mileage in the stock.

Doctors often take time to understand and recommend products when they first come to market.

But sales should soon start to grow, particularly as MS sufferers are so keen to gain relief legally.

GW is also working with Japanese drugs giant Otsuka, researching ways in which the cannabis plant can help cancer patients. Otsuka recently extended their joint venture for another three years, during which time it will provide £8 million to fund GW's research.

Midas verdict: GW is already making money and profits for the year to September are expected to more than double from £1.2million to £2.7million.

Investors who bought at 80p may choose to sell half their shares but they should keep the rest.

There is also scope for new investors at the shares' current levels.

Traded on: Aim Ticker: GWP Contact: 01980 557000 or gwpharm.com

The Daily Mail

So there we have it. Proof if it were ever needed, that a drug is only lethal until the Conservatives work out how they can make money from it.

Its little wonder then, that the entire UK population completely ignores any news or politicking to do with cannabis. Or that more people than ever are growing their own cannabis in a bid to slow the side-effects of getting old.

Adults can only be lied to for so long.

 

http://pr.cannazine.co.uk/201008011301/green/eco-news/cannabis-offers-financial-first-aid-to-gw-farmer-and-david-cameron.html

 

Why is this idea important?

Since the Conservatives came to power breakfast has become a favourite time of the day for a lot of people who get their newspapers delivered from the local newsagents, as they scan the headlines in search of what new diplomatic row Cameron has caused with his big mouth.

Cameron and The 'Cornflake Cough'
Diplomatic gaffes; once the sole domain of the Duke of Edinburgh have become front-page fodder since someone showed the tory leader how it was all part of the job to travel the world as the official representative of GB PLC.

The Natives are Revolting
Although no one mentioned it was as a 'diplomatic representative' that he travelled at the public's expense, and not as some opinionated lager lout who looks dead set on upsetting the locals.

Image
Cannabis labelled as 'Sativex'? Ahhh…thats ok then.
And upset them he has, in a travel diary which has already led to 'burning effergies' of Cameron laying on the streets of Pakistan.

Which is impressive no matter how you look at it, when you remember he has been in power only a couple of months and one can only speculate where it will all end with 'Union Jack Cameron' at the helm.

Cannabis Seeds '3 for 2' while stocks last. feminised-seeds.eu

Perhaps unsurprisingly the Daily Mail continues to pay a level of respect to Cameron, which Gordon Brown simply never had offered to him by any of the press. Meaning their entire output has changed direction from being anti-government, to full on political lobbyist, and its not only Cameron who enjoys such luxury.

What a difference a year makes
Cannabis has also 'changed sides' in the eyes of the Daily Mail.

2008 and 2009 saw the headlines screaming "Mental Health", "Cannabis Psychosis" and other such utter clap-trap.

While the rest of the world started to get a grip on the whole cannabis issue, the United Kingdom, led in no small part by the output of the Daily Mail and others of its ilk, harked back to the 50's to rekindle a negative publicity campaign it once waged against homosexuality (Google search 'Peter Wildeblood' – Wildeblood, ironically, was employed as a Daily Mail writer at the time of his imprisonment for being gay).

The new campaign was successful. The current labour government led by Gordon Brown capitulated to the pressure applied by the Daily Mail and changed a law which simply didn't need changing.

Criminalising and alienating a large percentage of the British population who like to smoke a joint instead of drinking alcohol.

Cannabis was made a class B drug, police ramped up their actions against spotty little oiks found carrying a tenners worth of weed, and no sooner was the law changed making possession a more serious offence, they created another law putting the now class B drug cannabis, on a par with jaywalking, or littering.

How does THAT work?

According to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith if a person was found in possession of cannabis for a first time, the weed was to be confiscated, and the person found in possession was given a 'street warning'.

Same again if that person was caught for a second time. A court case would only ensue if the perp was caught a third time, in the same policing area.

A most confused way of dealing with a prickly issue, by wrapping it tighter in beaurocratic red tape.

The Daily Mail was full of its own success. Cannabis was branded as 'lethal'. Brown even said as much in a TV interview and the substance was cast off into the anals of history as a bad deal. Or so we thought.

Today, the 360' turnaround is complete as the Daily Mail talks for the first time, about the 'healing qualities' of cannabis in a blatant 'old boys club' advertisment which reads as follows;

Cannabis to work wonders for GW

About 100,000 people in Britain suffer from multiple sclerosis, many of them middle-aged women. For years, many have been breaking the law by seeking pain relief through smoking cannabis.

They may no longer need to. GW Pharmaceuticals has spent years working on ways to use the healing properties of the cannabis plant in a legal way and in June its cannabis-based drug, Sativex, was approved for sale here. Last week, Spain approved the drug as well and other countries on the Continent are expected to follow.

Midas Extra, the online subscription service for Financial Mail readers, recommended GW in April 2009, when Sativex was still in trials and the shares were 80p. Today they are 109p but there is still mileage in the stock.

Doctors often take time to understand and recommend products when they first come to market.

But sales should soon start to grow, particularly as MS sufferers are so keen to gain relief legally.

GW is also working with Japanese drugs giant Otsuka, researching ways in which the cannabis plant can help cancer patients. Otsuka recently extended their joint venture for another three years, during which time it will provide £8 million to fund GW's research.

Midas verdict: GW is already making money and profits for the year to September are expected to more than double from £1.2million to £2.7million.

Investors who bought at 80p may choose to sell half their shares but they should keep the rest.

There is also scope for new investors at the shares' current levels.

Traded on: Aim Ticker: GWP Contact: 01980 557000 or gwpharm.com

The Daily Mail

So there we have it. Proof if it were ever needed, that a drug is only lethal until the Conservatives work out how they can make money from it.

Its little wonder then, that the entire UK population completely ignores any news or politicking to do with cannabis. Or that more people than ever are growing their own cannabis in a bid to slow the side-effects of getting old.

Adults can only be lied to for so long.

 

http://pr.cannazine.co.uk/201008011301/green/eco-news/cannabis-offers-financial-first-aid-to-gw-farmer-and-david-cameron.html

 

re: smoking in public houses

Public Houses should be allowed to have a smoking room or there should be the freedom of each publican to decide if they want smoking in their pub. If they don't that is fair enough but then we have the choice in which Pub we go to.I was a Publican myself for more than twenty years and i think it is wicked to see what is happening to Pubs now, more and more are closing every week. It is surely up to each individual to have the choice of whether they smoke or not and we should not be dictated to by Government. All of us that smoke know the risk to our health but that is our choice to make and not the Governments.

Why is this idea important?

Public Houses should be allowed to have a smoking room or there should be the freedom of each publican to decide if they want smoking in their pub. If they don't that is fair enough but then we have the choice in which Pub we go to.I was a Publican myself for more than twenty years and i think it is wicked to see what is happening to Pubs now, more and more are closing every week. It is surely up to each individual to have the choice of whether they smoke or not and we should not be dictated to by Government. All of us that smoke know the risk to our health but that is our choice to make and not the Governments.

Smoking ban

This ban has been the most draconian, unrepresentative law in my lifetime. Despite the health arguments associated with passive smoking (though non have been conclusively proven), the ban has not been proportional to the potential risk (if any).

The freedom to smoke in a public house was a right that millions upon millions valued and since that right has been withdrawn by the government countless numbers of pubs are closing- and closing at a rapid rate.

There was no clamour for a smoking ban, it was merely a law by a government merely to exercise its power. An ingrained and communicative culture has been sabotaged by the ban. People survived before the ban and survived happily.

The law should be abrogated and abrogated NOW. It's demoralising and unfair. The Labour Party have forever lost my vote because of the ban and they will NEVER get it back.

Why is this idea important?

This ban has been the most draconian, unrepresentative law in my lifetime. Despite the health arguments associated with passive smoking (though non have been conclusively proven), the ban has not been proportional to the potential risk (if any).

The freedom to smoke in a public house was a right that millions upon millions valued and since that right has been withdrawn by the government countless numbers of pubs are closing- and closing at a rapid rate.

There was no clamour for a smoking ban, it was merely a law by a government merely to exercise its power. An ingrained and communicative culture has been sabotaged by the ban. People survived before the ban and survived happily.

The law should be abrogated and abrogated NOW. It's demoralising and unfair. The Labour Party have forever lost my vote because of the ban and they will NEVER get it back.

What is Liberty?

For me, the idea of liberty is, like for so many others, not exactly clear. We know it best when we don't have it. Maybe that is what it is, an absence:

  • No spy cameras looking over my shoulder all the time
  • No government surveillance of my correspondence via email
  • Being able to have a fag in a pub and not being considered a criminal
  • Being able to walk around and not have to present 'papers' or an ID card to the police
  • Not having  bullying government instruction over the minutiae of everyday life

My idea?

Every government minister should be compelled to read two books:

John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty' (1859). This discusses the nature of liberty and the limits of society's power over the individual.

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville; how a radical democracy, The USA,  in the 1830's  had organised itself; before it was a superpower, while it was still struggling.

We now have struggles; must we abandon liberty?

There are some bright ideas in the coalition programme promoting liberty; electoral reform being one.

The regime of austerity and cuts I abhor, this is just Tory triumphalism overcoming common sense, and will be anti libertarian when they are forced through in the teeth of energetic opposition. This will be when HMG's commitment to liberty will be tested!

ranter

Why is this idea important?

For me, the idea of liberty is, like for so many others, not exactly clear. We know it best when we don't have it. Maybe that is what it is, an absence:

  • No spy cameras looking over my shoulder all the time
  • No government surveillance of my correspondence via email
  • Being able to have a fag in a pub and not being considered a criminal
  • Being able to walk around and not have to present 'papers' or an ID card to the police
  • Not having  bullying government instruction over the minutiae of everyday life

My idea?

Every government minister should be compelled to read two books:

John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty' (1859). This discusses the nature of liberty and the limits of society's power over the individual.

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville; how a radical democracy, The USA,  in the 1830's  had organised itself; before it was a superpower, while it was still struggling.

We now have struggles; must we abandon liberty?

There are some bright ideas in the coalition programme promoting liberty; electoral reform being one.

The regime of austerity and cuts I abhor, this is just Tory triumphalism overcoming common sense, and will be anti libertarian when they are forced through in the teeth of energetic opposition. This will be when HMG's commitment to liberty will be tested!

ranter