Repeal or amend the smoking ban

This must be the most socially divisive legislation ever enacted by a British Government. I find it ironic that the first government to enact such legislation in my lifetime was Nazi Germany, and the present German courts have declared a ban in small bars unconstitutional. Pubs in this country are closing at the rate of 40 a week, something must be done to rectify this appalling situation. 

Why is this idea important?

This must be the most socially divisive legislation ever enacted by a British Government. I find it ironic that the first government to enact such legislation in my lifetime was Nazi Germany, and the present German courts have declared a ban in small bars unconstitutional. Pubs in this country are closing at the rate of 40 a week, something must be done to rectify this appalling situation. 

Repeal ban on smoking in pubs

If someone is a guest in my house and asks permission to smoke, then it is my right as a host to grant that permission or not.  The same should apply to the landlord of a pub or manager of a restaurant.  Smoking is not itself illegal and whether it is allowed in pubs should not be a government decision, but that of the management of the premises.

Pubs, in country areas especially, are closing at an increasing rate since the smoking ban came in.  Prior to the ban, many people claimed not to go into pubs because of the smokey atmosphere but in my experience most of them still do not do so.  Many villages are in danger of losing their heart as a result of the loss of primary school, village shop/post office, church and pub.  Often the loss of the pub is the last straw which kills the village.

As fewer people smoke, there will be a commercial imperative on pubs to be fully or partly non-smoking until eventually there will be only one pub in any area which caters for smokers, or perhaps one area within the pub.  We may then exercise our right as to whether we go to the smoker bar or the non-smoker.

I write as one who was a heavy smoker for many years but have now been a non-smoker for about 25 years.  I do not think I have the right to deny others the right to smoke just because I no longer do so myself. 

Why is this idea important?

If someone is a guest in my house and asks permission to smoke, then it is my right as a host to grant that permission or not.  The same should apply to the landlord of a pub or manager of a restaurant.  Smoking is not itself illegal and whether it is allowed in pubs should not be a government decision, but that of the management of the premises.

Pubs, in country areas especially, are closing at an increasing rate since the smoking ban came in.  Prior to the ban, many people claimed not to go into pubs because of the smokey atmosphere but in my experience most of them still do not do so.  Many villages are in danger of losing their heart as a result of the loss of primary school, village shop/post office, church and pub.  Often the loss of the pub is the last straw which kills the village.

As fewer people smoke, there will be a commercial imperative on pubs to be fully or partly non-smoking until eventually there will be only one pub in any area which caters for smokers, or perhaps one area within the pub.  We may then exercise our right as to whether we go to the smoker bar or the non-smoker.

I write as one who was a heavy smoker for many years but have now been a non-smoker for about 25 years.  I do not think I have the right to deny others the right to smoke just because I no longer do so myself. 

Cancel the blanket no smoking laws

The No Smoking laws as they stand can be counter business in leisure locations. I am thinking of pubs, bars and restaurants in particular. Market forces should decide whether a pub, or such establishmant, allows smoking or not. If a non-smoker wishes to drink or eat in a non-smoking environment then he/she is free to patronise such an establishment – the reverse is also true. How many pubs are very much down on turnover through this ban? We know that they are going out of business at an unprecedented rate for one reason or another and the non-smoking laws do not help.

Furthermore – the law that a self employed person cannot smoke in their own vehicle is ridiculous – nearly as silly as that same self employed person, working from a home office, not being able to smoke there either.

Why is this idea important?

The No Smoking laws as they stand can be counter business in leisure locations. I am thinking of pubs, bars and restaurants in particular. Market forces should decide whether a pub, or such establishmant, allows smoking or not. If a non-smoker wishes to drink or eat in a non-smoking environment then he/she is free to patronise such an establishment – the reverse is also true. How many pubs are very much down on turnover through this ban? We know that they are going out of business at an unprecedented rate for one reason or another and the non-smoking laws do not help.

Furthermore – the law that a self employed person cannot smoke in their own vehicle is ridiculous – nearly as silly as that same self employed person, working from a home office, not being able to smoke there either.

Cannabis and the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
 

 

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
 

Why is this idea important?

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
 

 

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
 

Amend smoking ban – to only cover true public spaces

The present smoking ban makes smoking in many private properties illegal.  It does these by defining these private properties as public.   Just because a member of the public may be allowed access to these properties does not make them public.

 

Instead the law should ban smoking in true public places including all government (local and national) offices and maybe even parks (of at least a certain space)

Why is this idea important?

The present smoking ban makes smoking in many private properties illegal.  It does these by defining these private properties as public.   Just because a member of the public may be allowed access to these properties does not make them public.

 

Instead the law should ban smoking in true public places including all government (local and national) offices and maybe even parks (of at least a certain space)

marjuana

here are some ideas for you from nicolas rayner;
i wrote before saying i would like to work with you.
some extra ideas, please re-address the claims to
sanity with cannabis campaign from the republic of
consha, we have a stable connection with mental
health teams that well considered cannabis use
with a sensible dose can help releave all tensions
and signs of schitzophremic suffering as it acutally
perfectly ups the users experience of what maybe
the story telling prinicples of internal storytelling;
life can be disorderly and users find that smoking
increaces wonder to creative practicalities
of doing things that are interesting.

by de criminilising cannabis you may allow the innocent
smokers their freedom to grow and use cannabis as a healing
herb and not an illegal drug. its clarity of percept mystical
apparance can bring enlightment.

it could also be sensible to sell, as like in america cannabis
from a chemist, at £20 for 3 grammes street level your bound
to make society a great deal of money providing a new stability
to our economy that will revitalise the face of britian, its what
keeping us all pinned in economic depression when it coulld be bought
to be de criminalised and sold, as per se with all other drugs;
we are calling for you to legalise all drugs for psychic and
celebration use; this will mean perfecting the prescription
of street drugs at sensible doses where we know what has gone
directly into the tablet, as an ex-drug user and current
mental health patient i recoginise that some of my experiences
were poisoned by pollutant chemicals not for human consumption,
because we don't know what we're selling. as a former youth worker
and producer of raya and the causeffect gig in ludlow spoke person
and co-ordinator of the faith council of the republic of consha.
we could be a european revolution if we are careful with how we
prescribe a dose within a 24hr period, with actual information
from the actual street.

essentially we are interested in opening a consha centre where
people can take all natural plants and or extracts for consumption
for help in recovery of relaxation; mind exploration or artistic
creatve endeavour. a place where festival is the focus;
we have spoken about having some land at an
site where the republic of consha may be able to have some
land for a community. and possible trial for such a centre.

please feel free to consult me for any advice on these matters.
hope we can work close together in the near future.

plus new peoples bank to be tax free haven yet you have no interest,
you have to have jobs but can get bonds in exchange for practical ideas.
couldn't we use the bank so that the interest goes toward public funds
INSTEAD of taxes – sure we would all then support paying off national dept,
why not end war here and now, forge relations for rebuilding afganistan
with nato and or the un forged with uk and us troops – we cannot promote the
use of music enough to stimulise culture, please encourage it the new labour
did a dire job and killed it off, you seem more vibrant.

nicholas rayner.

Why is this idea important?

here are some ideas for you from nicolas rayner;
i wrote before saying i would like to work with you.
some extra ideas, please re-address the claims to
sanity with cannabis campaign from the republic of
consha, we have a stable connection with mental
health teams that well considered cannabis use
with a sensible dose can help releave all tensions
and signs of schitzophremic suffering as it acutally
perfectly ups the users experience of what maybe
the story telling prinicples of internal storytelling;
life can be disorderly and users find that smoking
increaces wonder to creative practicalities
of doing things that are interesting.

by de criminilising cannabis you may allow the innocent
smokers their freedom to grow and use cannabis as a healing
herb and not an illegal drug. its clarity of percept mystical
apparance can bring enlightment.

it could also be sensible to sell, as like in america cannabis
from a chemist, at £20 for 3 grammes street level your bound
to make society a great deal of money providing a new stability
to our economy that will revitalise the face of britian, its what
keeping us all pinned in economic depression when it coulld be bought
to be de criminalised and sold, as per se with all other drugs;
we are calling for you to legalise all drugs for psychic and
celebration use; this will mean perfecting the prescription
of street drugs at sensible doses where we know what has gone
directly into the tablet, as an ex-drug user and current
mental health patient i recoginise that some of my experiences
were poisoned by pollutant chemicals not for human consumption,
because we don't know what we're selling. as a former youth worker
and producer of raya and the causeffect gig in ludlow spoke person
and co-ordinator of the faith council of the republic of consha.
we could be a european revolution if we are careful with how we
prescribe a dose within a 24hr period, with actual information
from the actual street.

essentially we are interested in opening a consha centre where
people can take all natural plants and or extracts for consumption
for help in recovery of relaxation; mind exploration or artistic
creatve endeavour. a place where festival is the focus;
we have spoken about having some land at an
site where the republic of consha may be able to have some
land for a community. and possible trial for such a centre.

please feel free to consult me for any advice on these matters.
hope we can work close together in the near future.

plus new peoples bank to be tax free haven yet you have no interest,
you have to have jobs but can get bonds in exchange for practical ideas.
couldn't we use the bank so that the interest goes toward public funds
INSTEAD of taxes – sure we would all then support paying off national dept,
why not end war here and now, forge relations for rebuilding afganistan
with nato and or the un forged with uk and us troops – we cannot promote the
use of music enough to stimulise culture, please encourage it the new labour
did a dire job and killed it off, you seem more vibrant.

nicholas rayner.

Change the criteria of the smoking ban in pubs

Amend the smoking ban either a) to allowing smoking in one bar of a pub (perhaps with an air extraction system to protect the staff) provided the pub has more than one bar.

or b) to allowing the pub to provide a better shelter outside.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the smoking ban either a) to allowing smoking in one bar of a pub (perhaps with an air extraction system to protect the staff) provided the pub has more than one bar.

or b) to allowing the pub to provide a better shelter outside.

Smoking ban Public Houses

With the current trend of numerous public houses having to close weekly, the impact this has on Government taxation revenues, why has the smoking ban to apply to ALL Public Houses. Smokers pay more tax than non smokers and much of the income derived from the sale of cigarettes and alcohol goes into the National Health Service.

Why, initially at least, after the ban on smoking in public places was introduced, were the Houses of Parliament allowed a smoking room when normal smokers were refused this simple right?

Would it not make sense to allow a brewery or licensee the option, provided no food is sold within the premises, nor children served there, to allow smoking within such licenced premises. These could be clearly indentified with health warnings thus non smokers could make an informed decision as to whether to enter or not.

If anyone has been to Spain, France, Portugal etc recently it seems that they have a far more relaxed attitude to this whole matter. As a smoker I would urge the Government to consider this whole issue and review a possible small amendment to a law restricting a freedom this country had enjoyed for hundreds of years.

Even the Queen sent cigarettes to our troops in the trenches in the 1914 – 18 conflict, surely allowing such a small freedom to those who choose to smoke whilst continuing to protect children and non smokers is hardly likely to cause riots in the street!

 

Why is this idea important?

With the current trend of numerous public houses having to close weekly, the impact this has on Government taxation revenues, why has the smoking ban to apply to ALL Public Houses. Smokers pay more tax than non smokers and much of the income derived from the sale of cigarettes and alcohol goes into the National Health Service.

Why, initially at least, after the ban on smoking in public places was introduced, were the Houses of Parliament allowed a smoking room when normal smokers were refused this simple right?

Would it not make sense to allow a brewery or licensee the option, provided no food is sold within the premises, nor children served there, to allow smoking within such licenced premises. These could be clearly indentified with health warnings thus non smokers could make an informed decision as to whether to enter or not.

If anyone has been to Spain, France, Portugal etc recently it seems that they have a far more relaxed attitude to this whole matter. As a smoker I would urge the Government to consider this whole issue and review a possible small amendment to a law restricting a freedom this country had enjoyed for hundreds of years.

Even the Queen sent cigarettes to our troops in the trenches in the 1914 – 18 conflict, surely allowing such a small freedom to those who choose to smoke whilst continuing to protect children and non smokers is hardly likely to cause riots in the street!

 

smoking ban

to bring in seperate areas within air conditioned pubs to allow smokers back into pub society. the smoking ban affects a large minority of customers who also tend to be pub characters at the heart of pub society. or allow more substantinal provision for shelter and protection from the elements for outside smoking. stop making life hard for a large minority of pub goers. 

Why is this idea important?

to bring in seperate areas within air conditioned pubs to allow smokers back into pub society. the smoking ban affects a large minority of customers who also tend to be pub characters at the heart of pub society. or allow more substantinal provision for shelter and protection from the elements for outside smoking. stop making life hard for a large minority of pub goers. 

some flexibility in smoking laws

The laws are too draconian here.  Be more reasonable.  If a restaurant or pub is spacious and well-aired, allow a separate room to be available for smokers. 

This would also help the catering industry and pubs increase their business.  

Why is this idea important?

The laws are too draconian here.  Be more reasonable.  If a restaurant or pub is spacious and well-aired, allow a separate room to be available for smokers. 

This would also help the catering industry and pubs increase their business.  

Modify the smoking ban in pubs

The blanket smoking ban should be modified.  Basically, even as a smoker, I agree that smoking should be banned from work places, public transport, and other areas where there are non-smokers especially children.

However, I think that pub owners and landlords should be able to choose whether or not their adult establishment should be smoking or non-smoking.  For example, a 'child-friendly' pub or a pub that serves cooked food should be non-smoking, but old-fashioned pubs which are for adults only and do not serve food should be allowed to choose.  Bar staff as well would be able to choose whether they want to work in a smokefree environment or not – remember, we do not need Nanny-Dearest to make these choices for us.

Why is this idea important?

The blanket smoking ban should be modified.  Basically, even as a smoker, I agree that smoking should be banned from work places, public transport, and other areas where there are non-smokers especially children.

However, I think that pub owners and landlords should be able to choose whether or not their adult establishment should be smoking or non-smoking.  For example, a 'child-friendly' pub or a pub that serves cooked food should be non-smoking, but old-fashioned pubs which are for adults only and do not serve food should be allowed to choose.  Bar staff as well would be able to choose whether they want to work in a smokefree environment or not – remember, we do not need Nanny-Dearest to make these choices for us.

Amend the HEALTH ACT 2006 in order to restore freedom from health inequalities (in respect of the smoking ban)

Prior to the Health Act 2006, everyone knew where they stood – that is, ordinary persons who were not wealthy could rely upon the National Health Service to cure their health problems, if possible. Wealthy persons had access to Private Medicine and could therefore take advantage of the latest advances in medicine, even though these advances may not be effective. Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 singled out certain people who, from a Health point of view, needed to be given privileged status. The persons that I refer to are that class of people commonly referred to as non-smokers. These people  received special treatment from a health point of view, and therefore a health inequality was created by the Health Act 2006 in that non-smokers (or indeed, smokers) who go into a public enclosed place are especially privileged, as  compared to people who do not go into similar public places. This is wrong. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 should have included ALL the circumstances where people suffer from Health Inequalities. These people include anyone who walks down a street and is subjected to the Health inequality of car exhaust ‘smoke’, or any similar circumstance.

Why is this idea important?

Prior to the Health Act 2006, everyone knew where they stood – that is, ordinary persons who were not wealthy could rely upon the National Health Service to cure their health problems, if possible. Wealthy persons had access to Private Medicine and could therefore take advantage of the latest advances in medicine, even though these advances may not be effective. Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 singled out certain people who, from a Health point of view, needed to be given privileged status. The persons that I refer to are that class of people commonly referred to as non-smokers. These people  received special treatment from a health point of view, and therefore a health inequality was created by the Health Act 2006 in that non-smokers (or indeed, smokers) who go into a public enclosed place are especially privileged, as  compared to people who do not go into similar public places. This is wrong. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 should have included ALL the circumstances where people suffer from Health Inequalities. These people include anyone who walks down a street and is subjected to the Health inequality of car exhaust ‘smoke’, or any similar circumstance.

Redefine our type of government.

Our government is called a democracy. The labour party proved and so far the Con/Lib have re-inforced the fact that we do not live in a democracy but a five year dictatorship. This website proves that if it is not on their agenda, then it is wiped off. Immigration, the smoking ban, capital punishement, foreign aid. Things that the people want and comment about are ignored or removed. The political ELITE have their own agenda which we the voting public will never be privy to. Is it the well paid job in Europe after parliament, a few well paid directorships after parliament, their place in history? Who knows the reasons behind their decisions, we never will. 

Why is this idea important?

Our government is called a democracy. The labour party proved and so far the Con/Lib have re-inforced the fact that we do not live in a democracy but a five year dictatorship. This website proves that if it is not on their agenda, then it is wiped off. Immigration, the smoking ban, capital punishement, foreign aid. Things that the people want and comment about are ignored or removed. The political ELITE have their own agenda which we the voting public will never be privy to. Is it the well paid job in Europe after parliament, a few well paid directorships after parliament, their place in history? Who knows the reasons behind their decisions, we never will. 

The Truth about Cannabis

 

Quite frankly, i'm shocked with society, the way people are forced to be materialistic and promote the destruction of the planet all for this precious 'profit'. I'm not a naturist but as Joe Rogan said, 'If an alien looked at earth and saw western civilization from space, it would look identical to a living organism infected with cancer.' Industrialization is like any other substance, best in moderation. 

Although, not all is bad, there is such a plant which has unprecedented potential. From clothing to food, Medicine to bio-fuel or simply using it for recreational purposes. Cannabis is quite literally a fuel for life. Furthermore there is a clear difference between harmful drugs such as Coke Heroin and Alcohol compared to cannabis which is harmful drugs have to be refined. Alcohol must go through a distillery similar to Coke and heroin. 

It is easy to see the effects of harmful drugs on society, Look at the rates of drink driving and assault motivated purely by alcoholic rage. I agree that most alcohol consumers are kind, but so are the majority of coke users, they just don't tell you they use the substance. 

In my opinion, It should be a crime to illegalize any natural substance due to its presence being proof that its existence is harmonious and most likely beneficial to our ecosystem. 

In conclusion, Please do whatever you can to help legalize Cannabis, too many innocent lives are ruined by the countries stern anti-cannbis laws and whos ambitions are crushed by the people who promised better chances. No Victim No Crime.

P.S. Please visit http://www.phoenixtears.ca/article/resources/links/granny-s-list/grannys-list.html It lists all of the scientific studies into the effects of Cannabis. 

P.P.S Im very proud of that source, there is so much evidence it is ludicrous to doubt the medical benefits of Cannabis anymore,

Why is this idea important?

 

Quite frankly, i'm shocked with society, the way people are forced to be materialistic and promote the destruction of the planet all for this precious 'profit'. I'm not a naturist but as Joe Rogan said, 'If an alien looked at earth and saw western civilization from space, it would look identical to a living organism infected with cancer.' Industrialization is like any other substance, best in moderation. 

Although, not all is bad, there is such a plant which has unprecedented potential. From clothing to food, Medicine to bio-fuel or simply using it for recreational purposes. Cannabis is quite literally a fuel for life. Furthermore there is a clear difference between harmful drugs such as Coke Heroin and Alcohol compared to cannabis which is harmful drugs have to be refined. Alcohol must go through a distillery similar to Coke and heroin. 

It is easy to see the effects of harmful drugs on society, Look at the rates of drink driving and assault motivated purely by alcoholic rage. I agree that most alcohol consumers are kind, but so are the majority of coke users, they just don't tell you they use the substance. 

In my opinion, It should be a crime to illegalize any natural substance due to its presence being proof that its existence is harmonious and most likely beneficial to our ecosystem. 

In conclusion, Please do whatever you can to help legalize Cannabis, too many innocent lives are ruined by the countries stern anti-cannbis laws and whos ambitions are crushed by the people who promised better chances. No Victim No Crime.

P.S. Please visit http://www.phoenixtears.ca/article/resources/links/granny-s-list/grannys-list.html It lists all of the scientific studies into the effects of Cannabis. 

P.P.S Im very proud of that source, there is so much evidence it is ludicrous to doubt the medical benefits of Cannabis anymore,

Drug Laws

The probation and drug laws in Britain today are to protect our young and our society from the misuses of drugs. We must ask our self why is it then that in the last 80years of probation the age of drug users had gone down, number of user up, the number of dealers up and number of deaths up.

If we look closer it seems probation has the opposite affect it creates an international illegal industry worth billions which helps fund organized crime and terrorism along with the incarceration millions of their own citizens for simple possession.

I believe in adopting a new way to regulate, tax and control drugs we can allow people who choose to do an alternative drug to tobacco or alcohol can do so safely in the privacy of their own home or licensed premises, we stop the illegal drug trade, we can help stop the spread of diseases, we can stop the selling of these drugs to our young, we can also product a new industry and a greener economy with the production of hemp.

Nowadays it’s easier for the children of this country to get illegal drugs than alcohol and tobacco. WHY?

Because there regulated in a licensed premises which will not sell to under 18year olds and will ask for proof of id.

Why is this idea important?

The probation and drug laws in Britain today are to protect our young and our society from the misuses of drugs. We must ask our self why is it then that in the last 80years of probation the age of drug users had gone down, number of user up, the number of dealers up and number of deaths up.

If we look closer it seems probation has the opposite affect it creates an international illegal industry worth billions which helps fund organized crime and terrorism along with the incarceration millions of their own citizens for simple possession.

I believe in adopting a new way to regulate, tax and control drugs we can allow people who choose to do an alternative drug to tobacco or alcohol can do so safely in the privacy of their own home or licensed premises, we stop the illegal drug trade, we can help stop the spread of diseases, we can stop the selling of these drugs to our young, we can also product a new industry and a greener economy with the production of hemp.

Nowadays it’s easier for the children of this country to get illegal drugs than alcohol and tobacco. WHY?

Because there regulated in a licensed premises which will not sell to under 18year olds and will ask for proof of id.

Drug Laws

 The probation and drug laws in Britain today are to protect our young and our society from the misuses of drugs. We must ask our self why is it then that in the last 80years of probation the age of drug users had gone down, number of user up, the number of dealers up and number of deaths up.

If we look closer it seems probation has the opposite affect it creates an international illegal industry worth billions which helps fund organized crime and terrorism along with the incarceration millions of their own citizens for simple possession.

I believe in adopting a new way to regulate, tax and control drugs we can allow people who choose to do an alternative drug to tobacco or alcohol can do so safely in the privacy of their own home or licensed premises, we stop the illegal drug trade, we can help stop the spread of diseases, we can stop the selling of these drugs to our young, we can also product a new industry and a greener economy with the production of hemp.

Nowadays it’s easier for the children of this country to get illegal drugs than alcohol and tobacco. WHY?

Because there regulated in a licensed premises which will not sell to under 18year olds and will ask for proof of id.

Why is this idea important?

 The probation and drug laws in Britain today are to protect our young and our society from the misuses of drugs. We must ask our self why is it then that in the last 80years of probation the age of drug users had gone down, number of user up, the number of dealers up and number of deaths up.

If we look closer it seems probation has the opposite affect it creates an international illegal industry worth billions which helps fund organized crime and terrorism along with the incarceration millions of their own citizens for simple possession.

I believe in adopting a new way to regulate, tax and control drugs we can allow people who choose to do an alternative drug to tobacco or alcohol can do so safely in the privacy of their own home or licensed premises, we stop the illegal drug trade, we can help stop the spread of diseases, we can stop the selling of these drugs to our young, we can also product a new industry and a greener economy with the production of hemp.

Nowadays it’s easier for the children of this country to get illegal drugs than alcohol and tobacco. WHY?

Because there regulated in a licensed premises which will not sell to under 18year olds and will ask for proof of id.

Lobby Groups With Power Are Killing Democracy

SOURCE:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-demand-an-increase-in-the-minimum-price-of-alcohol-1861401.html

The drinks industry depends for its profits on people drinking harmfully or hazardously who between them consume three-quarters of all the alcohol sold in Britain, a committee of MPs will say today. Accusing ministers of a "failure of will" over controlling the industry, they will point out that if people drank responsibly, within the limits advised by medical organisations, sales of alcohol would plummet by 40 per cent.

But health warnings about the dangers of excessive drinking are drowned out by an industry that peddles myths to promote its sales, according to the MPs. In a scathing analysis of the stranglehold which the drinks industry has over the Government and the nation, the all-party Commons health select committee will accuse ministers of cosying up to the firms that dominate the market.

It calls for tough measures to curb alcohol consumption, including a minimum price of at least 40p per unit compared with supermarket prices that are as low as 10p a unit, a rise in duty, independent regulation of alcohol promotion and mandatory labelling.

The idea of a minimum price, aimed principally at supermarket promotions where beer can cost less than water, was first raised by the Government's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson last year but was immediately rejected by Gordon Brown because, he claimed, it would penalise moderate drinkers.

The health committee will flatly reject this argument as a myth fostered by the alcohol lobby, saying that at 40p a unit it would cost a moderate drinker consuming the average six units weekly (three pints of ordinary bitter) 11p more a week than at present. A woman drinking 15 units a week, equivalent to one and a quarter bottles of wine, could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6.

Kevin Barron, chairman of the committee said: "The facts about alcohol are shocking. Successive governments have failed to tackle the problem and it is now time for bold government. Even small reductions in the number of people using alcohol could save the NHS millions. What is required is fundamental cultural change. Only this way are we likely to reduce the dangerous numbers of young people drinking their lives away."

One in 10 of the population consumes almost half (44 per cent) of all the alcohol drunk. Consumption has soared in recent decades and three times as much is now drunk per head as in the middle of the last century. Alcohol is estimated to cause 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year.

 

It is calculated that a minimum price of 50p a unit would save more than 3,000 lives a year. But the response of successive governments had "ranged from the non-existent to the ineffectual", the committee will say.

Simon Litherland, managing director of Diageo GB, the world's largest beer, wine and spirits firm, said: "This report represents yet another attempt by aggressive sections of the health lobby to hijack alcohol policy-making."

Public health minister Gillian Merron said: "Alcohol is an increasing challenge to people's health – we are working hard to reverse the trend and are constantly seeking better ways to tackle it."

Why is this idea important?

SOURCE:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-demand-an-increase-in-the-minimum-price-of-alcohol-1861401.html

The drinks industry depends for its profits on people drinking harmfully or hazardously who between them consume three-quarters of all the alcohol sold in Britain, a committee of MPs will say today. Accusing ministers of a "failure of will" over controlling the industry, they will point out that if people drank responsibly, within the limits advised by medical organisations, sales of alcohol would plummet by 40 per cent.

But health warnings about the dangers of excessive drinking are drowned out by an industry that peddles myths to promote its sales, according to the MPs. In a scathing analysis of the stranglehold which the drinks industry has over the Government and the nation, the all-party Commons health select committee will accuse ministers of cosying up to the firms that dominate the market.

It calls for tough measures to curb alcohol consumption, including a minimum price of at least 40p per unit compared with supermarket prices that are as low as 10p a unit, a rise in duty, independent regulation of alcohol promotion and mandatory labelling.

The idea of a minimum price, aimed principally at supermarket promotions where beer can cost less than water, was first raised by the Government's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson last year but was immediately rejected by Gordon Brown because, he claimed, it would penalise moderate drinkers.

The health committee will flatly reject this argument as a myth fostered by the alcohol lobby, saying that at 40p a unit it would cost a moderate drinker consuming the average six units weekly (three pints of ordinary bitter) 11p more a week than at present. A woman drinking 15 units a week, equivalent to one and a quarter bottles of wine, could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6.

Kevin Barron, chairman of the committee said: "The facts about alcohol are shocking. Successive governments have failed to tackle the problem and it is now time for bold government. Even small reductions in the number of people using alcohol could save the NHS millions. What is required is fundamental cultural change. Only this way are we likely to reduce the dangerous numbers of young people drinking their lives away."

One in 10 of the population consumes almost half (44 per cent) of all the alcohol drunk. Consumption has soared in recent decades and three times as much is now drunk per head as in the middle of the last century. Alcohol is estimated to cause 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year.

 

It is calculated that a minimum price of 50p a unit would save more than 3,000 lives a year. But the response of successive governments had "ranged from the non-existent to the ineffectual", the committee will say.

Simon Litherland, managing director of Diageo GB, the world's largest beer, wine and spirits firm, said: "This report represents yet another attempt by aggressive sections of the health lobby to hijack alcohol policy-making."

Public health minister Gillian Merron said: "Alcohol is an increasing challenge to people's health – we are working hard to reverse the trend and are constantly seeking better ways to tackle it."

would you consider legalising all drugs?

the main reason for this is we've been trying for decades to stamp drugs out but we've never been able to do it.  We must, as a nation spend millions trying to combat this scurge and yet it continues.  I believe that when you make something like drugs illegal, it makes a certain percentage want them even more.  When drugs are illegal they are going to be controlled by a black, unregulated market. Further to this, the people that sell drugs have no compassion for the people they are infecting.

 

If you legalise them, you can control the price and the quality of the drugs and make sure that people don't inject themselves with rat poison.  Also in doing so the subject becomes a proper topic of conversation that people can talk openly and freely about and so proper information can get out into the population similar to the way that smoking and alcoho has. There are a huge percentage of individuals who take drugs week in week out and tehy just grow out of it but then you get the impressionabel ones whi ahve to go to unscrupulous dealers who take it all too far. Make it legal, get people talking abuot it, tax it, give the peopel what they want and they'll not want it any more!

Why is this idea important?

the main reason for this is we've been trying for decades to stamp drugs out but we've never been able to do it.  We must, as a nation spend millions trying to combat this scurge and yet it continues.  I believe that when you make something like drugs illegal, it makes a certain percentage want them even more.  When drugs are illegal they are going to be controlled by a black, unregulated market. Further to this, the people that sell drugs have no compassion for the people they are infecting.

 

If you legalise them, you can control the price and the quality of the drugs and make sure that people don't inject themselves with rat poison.  Also in doing so the subject becomes a proper topic of conversation that people can talk openly and freely about and so proper information can get out into the population similar to the way that smoking and alcoho has. There are a huge percentage of individuals who take drugs week in week out and tehy just grow out of it but then you get the impressionabel ones whi ahve to go to unscrupulous dealers who take it all too far. Make it legal, get people talking abuot it, tax it, give the peopel what they want and they'll not want it any more!

Cannabis yet again.

It really is time to repeal the unjust classification of cannabis, there are far to many users of it in Britain today who are not in any other way shape or form criminals, the problem for them is that in order to purchase a substance far less harmful than both nicotine and alcohol they are forced to deal with those that are truly on the wrong side of the law. The vast majority of people involved in its use would gladly pay tax if it was available legally.

Now this is not a new idea, and will probably be repeated many times during this dicussion, and then shouted down again by the minority who are against it (the same minority who are usually badly informed and by far louder than the silent Majority).

There is a wonderful article available in the archives at www.independent.co.uk by Johann Hari which explains all of the problems caused by prohibition of something that citizens dont want prohibited and I would advise anyone interested to seek it out.

There is an issue with health issues associated with it of course, but no more than smoking the legally available Nicotine products, and with no addictive properties if consumed with non-tobacco methods, of which there are many available. Studies show that memory can be affected in young animals when tested, but when tested on adult animals those problems do not arise, which again is a reason to get it legalised and regulated to keep it away from children.

Finally, I wont go over all the old arguments, but I will give my view on one that always gets raised, and that is "Super Skunk", as a cannabis user I to am against this particular strain and compare it strongly to the Bathtub whisky that was popular during the Alcohol prohibition in the states. A Legal and regulated distribution would remove the popularity of this as it is only 1 of the literally thousands of strains available, its main appeal being that when forced to pay large prices for small amounts people demand more bang for their buck!.

I really do hope that this time the Goverment does not dismiss the scientific advice forcing its drug advisors to resign again, or settle for a board of yes men which will serve no benefit to a forward thinking society.

As an afterthought anyone in doubt can look at the statistics for other Eurozone countries who have taken a more mature attitude towards it, namely being Portugal and of course Holland, both of whom have a very liberal stance towards it and neither has degenerated into mass riots and streets filled with mentally ill people. Even in America who with Egypts help brought the prohibition to the UN in the first place (in a move to show political strength at home) it is now medically available in the "Entire" western half of the states with some eastern states already on board, and many more flooring motions at their state level, and some even moving to sell it to over 21s in order to regain the lost tax and remove the vast amount of cash from the hands of organised crime.

I hope my two pence worth was worth the effort and I thank anyone who took the time to read it with an open mind.

For the record.

I am in my mid 30s, have worked full time all my life, and do not have a criminal record, I also class myself entirely as a law abiding citizen.

Why is this idea important?

It really is time to repeal the unjust classification of cannabis, there are far to many users of it in Britain today who are not in any other way shape or form criminals, the problem for them is that in order to purchase a substance far less harmful than both nicotine and alcohol they are forced to deal with those that are truly on the wrong side of the law. The vast majority of people involved in its use would gladly pay tax if it was available legally.

Now this is not a new idea, and will probably be repeated many times during this dicussion, and then shouted down again by the minority who are against it (the same minority who are usually badly informed and by far louder than the silent Majority).

There is a wonderful article available in the archives at www.independent.co.uk by Johann Hari which explains all of the problems caused by prohibition of something that citizens dont want prohibited and I would advise anyone interested to seek it out.

There is an issue with health issues associated with it of course, but no more than smoking the legally available Nicotine products, and with no addictive properties if consumed with non-tobacco methods, of which there are many available. Studies show that memory can be affected in young animals when tested, but when tested on adult animals those problems do not arise, which again is a reason to get it legalised and regulated to keep it away from children.

Finally, I wont go over all the old arguments, but I will give my view on one that always gets raised, and that is "Super Skunk", as a cannabis user I to am against this particular strain and compare it strongly to the Bathtub whisky that was popular during the Alcohol prohibition in the states. A Legal and regulated distribution would remove the popularity of this as it is only 1 of the literally thousands of strains available, its main appeal being that when forced to pay large prices for small amounts people demand more bang for their buck!.

I really do hope that this time the Goverment does not dismiss the scientific advice forcing its drug advisors to resign again, or settle for a board of yes men which will serve no benefit to a forward thinking society.

As an afterthought anyone in doubt can look at the statistics for other Eurozone countries who have taken a more mature attitude towards it, namely being Portugal and of course Holland, both of whom have a very liberal stance towards it and neither has degenerated into mass riots and streets filled with mentally ill people. Even in America who with Egypts help brought the prohibition to the UN in the first place (in a move to show political strength at home) it is now medically available in the "Entire" western half of the states with some eastern states already on board, and many more flooring motions at their state level, and some even moving to sell it to over 21s in order to regain the lost tax and remove the vast amount of cash from the hands of organised crime.

I hope my two pence worth was worth the effort and I thank anyone who took the time to read it with an open mind.

For the record.

I am in my mid 30s, have worked full time all my life, and do not have a criminal record, I also class myself entirely as a law abiding citizen.

Allow smoking in one room in pubs and clubs

The current regulations have moved smokers from inside pubs and clubs to areas outside.

On many occasions they become very noisy due to the amount of alcohol consumed. They also take their drinks outside with them and stay on after the pub or club has closed.

This regulation has turned our quiet village centre into noisy no go area for the elderly and is causing late night disturbance to the local residents.

The regulation should be changed to allow one room to be set aside for smokers only.

Why is this idea important?

The current regulations have moved smokers from inside pubs and clubs to areas outside.

On many occasions they become very noisy due to the amount of alcohol consumed. They also take their drinks outside with them and stay on after the pub or club has closed.

This regulation has turned our quiet village centre into noisy no go area for the elderly and is causing late night disturbance to the local residents.

The regulation should be changed to allow one room to be set aside for smokers only.