cannabis legalisation! brain damage=lies!

cannabis should be legalized and regulated just like alcohol. People have changed and times have changed. ive wrote in to the govermant many of times about this problem the UK has, and im sure many people have. but all them times writing not once did i get anything back. i think the government is a disgrace for putting inncoent people in cells and giving out criminal records for smoking a plant that was here before any of us. they should be more concerned with the real criminals out there.

Brain damage


there is no proof of brain damage. do some real research. in the early 1900s. might have been 1930s. they conducted an experiment with monkeys. they put gas masks on monkeys for really long periods of time and pumped cannabis smoke into there bodies. while they where doing this no oxygen was being allowed into there system. so when they took the masks of and examined the monkeys they realised they had lost brain cells. and that is where the pheory comes from. but… when your body has a sufficent lack of oxygen brain cells start to die. which is what happend. and also they whre pumped with an exccesive amount of smoke that a human wouldnt even be able to consume. also cannabis does very small damage on the lungs. possibly none when. this is only when smoked in pure form. there has even been research that cannabis helps clean the lungs of flem. cannabis does not have the same cancer striken chemicals as ciggeretes. and also cannabis is not phisically addivtive like alcohol. alcohol is one of the worst addictions there are. and most harmful drugs.
 so please do some research first. legitamte research. not all these lies by the goverment and FRANK!

sorry guys a bit rushed

Why is this idea important?

cannabis should be legalized and regulated just like alcohol. People have changed and times have changed. ive wrote in to the govermant many of times about this problem the UK has, and im sure many people have. but all them times writing not once did i get anything back. i think the government is a disgrace for putting inncoent people in cells and giving out criminal records for smoking a plant that was here before any of us. they should be more concerned with the real criminals out there.

Brain damage


there is no proof of brain damage. do some real research. in the early 1900s. might have been 1930s. they conducted an experiment with monkeys. they put gas masks on monkeys for really long periods of time and pumped cannabis smoke into there bodies. while they where doing this no oxygen was being allowed into there system. so when they took the masks of and examined the monkeys they realised they had lost brain cells. and that is where the pheory comes from. but… when your body has a sufficent lack of oxygen brain cells start to die. which is what happend. and also they whre pumped with an exccesive amount of smoke that a human wouldnt even be able to consume. also cannabis does very small damage on the lungs. possibly none when. this is only when smoked in pure form. there has even been research that cannabis helps clean the lungs of flem. cannabis does not have the same cancer striken chemicals as ciggeretes. and also cannabis is not phisically addivtive like alcohol. alcohol is one of the worst addictions there are. and most harmful drugs.
 so please do some research first. legitamte research. not all these lies by the goverment and FRANK!

sorry guys a bit rushed

keep the smoking ban

if you are trying to say that by the way give the land lord or land lady to say what happens in there pub .

you are not doing this .

the reason is you are given this back to the public who will over take what there think this will change there mind not the land lord or lady 

we made the act so stick to it this one makes it not just better for none smokers to back to the pub but for people who do smoke as well the pubs smell a lot better we are coming out of the dark age and moving forward .

there will always be them for it and them not for it there is nothing like going to your hospital and seeing smokers all over place like be for now it is a none smoke free zone lets for get about what was and move forward .

keep the ban in our pub's    

Why is this idea important?

if you are trying to say that by the way give the land lord or land lady to say what happens in there pub .

you are not doing this .

the reason is you are given this back to the public who will over take what there think this will change there mind not the land lord or lady 

we made the act so stick to it this one makes it not just better for none smokers to back to the pub but for people who do smoke as well the pubs smell a lot better we are coming out of the dark age and moving forward .

there will always be them for it and them not for it there is nothing like going to your hospital and seeing smokers all over place like be for now it is a none smoke free zone lets for get about what was and move forward .

keep the ban in our pub's    

Abolish the compulsary smoking ban for certain businesses such as pubs and allow businesses to decide whether to allow it or not.

Certain businesses should be exempt from the compulsary smoking ban in public places. Before this law was introduced; restaurants and other similar businesses did the ethical thing and produce both smoking and non smoking areas indoors.

I think this law should be modified on an ethical intelligent basis. Another words I think the smoking ban should be kept in place for certain public places like public transport, schools and hospitals. However other non vital public businesses where people have a choice to go like pubs should have the choice.

The arguement that it "protects the employee" is invalid because this law does not protect employees in the film industry because they are exempt from this law.

Maybe a clause could be put in, that if you allow smoking then you must have an adequet extractor fan.

Why is this idea important?

Certain businesses should be exempt from the compulsary smoking ban in public places. Before this law was introduced; restaurants and other similar businesses did the ethical thing and produce both smoking and non smoking areas indoors.

I think this law should be modified on an ethical intelligent basis. Another words I think the smoking ban should be kept in place for certain public places like public transport, schools and hospitals. However other non vital public businesses where people have a choice to go like pubs should have the choice.

The arguement that it "protects the employee" is invalid because this law does not protect employees in the film industry because they are exempt from this law.

Maybe a clause could be put in, that if you allow smoking then you must have an adequet extractor fan.

Publish A List Of All Stupid Legislation Introduced By The Last Administration

It seems to me that the majority of the people posting on this website are, like me, angry and frustrated at all the civil liberties that have been eroded by 13 years of Labour mis-management and loony ideology, and are impatient for change, even though the coalition, to their credit, do seem to be moving quickly.

 But the number of posts on this website is huge already. For the first time in years, people are actually being asked what they feel, and are making their voices heard, loud and clear. But consequently, really good and important ideas (and I've seen lots on here so far) risk becoming lost in the maze.

So, why not publish a list of all the daft legislation, useless quangos, etc., submitted within a given time  (there has to be a cut-off time) then let the contributors here prioritise them?

Why is this idea important?

It seems to me that the majority of the people posting on this website are, like me, angry and frustrated at all the civil liberties that have been eroded by 13 years of Labour mis-management and loony ideology, and are impatient for change, even though the coalition, to their credit, do seem to be moving quickly.

 But the number of posts on this website is huge already. For the first time in years, people are actually being asked what they feel, and are making their voices heard, loud and clear. But consequently, really good and important ideas (and I've seen lots on here so far) risk becoming lost in the maze.

So, why not publish a list of all the daft legislation, useless quangos, etc., submitted within a given time  (there has to be a cut-off time) then let the contributors here prioritise them?

Let the pub/cafe owners decide

If the owners of pubs and cafes etc were allowed to set their own smoking rules then those that don't like them can vote with their feet. Smoking is not illegal, it raises millions for the government, prisoners are allowed to smoke as are our elected MPs – yes, same ones who voted the law in. Do as I say not as I do???

Why is this idea important?

If the owners of pubs and cafes etc were allowed to set their own smoking rules then those that don't like them can vote with their feet. Smoking is not illegal, it raises millions for the government, prisoners are allowed to smoke as are our elected MPs – yes, same ones who voted the law in. Do as I say not as I do???

Anti-Smoking Legislation

I notice from the video on the home page that The Deputy Prime Minister listed repealing the anti smoking legislation as an idea already put forward that would NOT be taken up.

However, I have to ask WHY ?

This legislation is unpopular almost universaly with all smokers and is harming the entertainment industry not to mention the fact that die-hard smokers such as myself and my husband have not visited a pub, club, bar or restaurant since the ban was introduced.

Plus as the proprietors of a small business we need more staff but cannot employ anyone due to this legislation as we insist on maintaining our right to smoke in our office and vehicle. We will NOT employ anyone if that would mean that we would have to stop smoking in our working enviroment.

Furthermore, the ban has made us both more defiant. we have pledged NOT to quit smoking as we feel that this legislation is an unjust infringement of our civil rights. We even refuse to allow non-snokers in the car and display signs in every room of our home that enforce the right of visitors to light up at will.

We actively defy this legislation and encourage others to do the same. It is bullying the public and takes away the rights that you claim you want to restore.

Why is this idea important?

I notice from the video on the home page that The Deputy Prime Minister listed repealing the anti smoking legislation as an idea already put forward that would NOT be taken up.

However, I have to ask WHY ?

This legislation is unpopular almost universaly with all smokers and is harming the entertainment industry not to mention the fact that die-hard smokers such as myself and my husband have not visited a pub, club, bar or restaurant since the ban was introduced.

Plus as the proprietors of a small business we need more staff but cannot employ anyone due to this legislation as we insist on maintaining our right to smoke in our office and vehicle. We will NOT employ anyone if that would mean that we would have to stop smoking in our working enviroment.

Furthermore, the ban has made us both more defiant. we have pledged NOT to quit smoking as we feel that this legislation is an unjust infringement of our civil rights. We even refuse to allow non-snokers in the car and display signs in every room of our home that enforce the right of visitors to light up at will.

We actively defy this legislation and encourage others to do the same. It is bullying the public and takes away the rights that you claim you want to restore.

Smoking Ban in Public Houses (From a NON-Smoker)

I have to say, when witnessing the number of pubs and clubs that are closing down now, that this stupid ban was the death knell for many of them.

I should say at the outset that I do not smoke – gave up quite a few years ago – I am not in the licensed trade and have no connection with the tobacco industry. I am a joiner who is currently working part time and looking for full time employment. However, I really feel for the groups of smokers huddled in doorways and outdoor shelters around pubs – especially in the winter. Of course – many smokers don't, now, even bother to go to the pub – they stay at home.

My wife and I were in Spain recently and noticed such a difference in attitudes – far more relaxed about the whole thing (yes, I do realise that other factors, such as the weather, play a part also.)

I'm not advocating the allowing of smoking in all public houses – but that those who wish to allow it provide a seperate, well ventilated room in which smokers can indulge, and that those pubs must advertise smoking/ non-smoking  outside the premises. At least that way, people have the real choice.

Why is this idea important?

I have to say, when witnessing the number of pubs and clubs that are closing down now, that this stupid ban was the death knell for many of them.

I should say at the outset that I do not smoke – gave up quite a few years ago – I am not in the licensed trade and have no connection with the tobacco industry. I am a joiner who is currently working part time and looking for full time employment. However, I really feel for the groups of smokers huddled in doorways and outdoor shelters around pubs – especially in the winter. Of course – many smokers don't, now, even bother to go to the pub – they stay at home.

My wife and I were in Spain recently and noticed such a difference in attitudes – far more relaxed about the whole thing (yes, I do realise that other factors, such as the weather, play a part also.)

I'm not advocating the allowing of smoking in all public houses – but that those who wish to allow it provide a seperate, well ventilated room in which smokers can indulge, and that those pubs must advertise smoking/ non-smoking  outside the premises. At least that way, people have the real choice.

Smoking Ban

The smoking ban has damaged the pub / club industry.I think unless a pub/club serves food then the ban should be lifted and left to the discretion of the landlord.Where food is served maybe a smoking area could be made available.

Most landlords (that still have Pubs) have had to spend thousands of pounds fitting smoking shelters and heating them against our harsh winters.Surely a landlord should be able to make the decison as to wether he/she feels that their pub should be smoking or non-smoking,does his/her pub need a dedicated smoking area,should they continue to ban it in their pub or should they spend a few hundred pound installing air purifiers to combat the smoke issue.

The atmosphere in pubs/clubs has been damaged,most of the non smokers now feel like leppers because they are left sitting on their own while us smokers go for fag.A lot of non smokers actually come outside to join us when we go for fag because they dont want to be left alone.Where is the common sense in this ban. 

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban has damaged the pub / club industry.I think unless a pub/club serves food then the ban should be lifted and left to the discretion of the landlord.Where food is served maybe a smoking area could be made available.

Most landlords (that still have Pubs) have had to spend thousands of pounds fitting smoking shelters and heating them against our harsh winters.Surely a landlord should be able to make the decison as to wether he/she feels that their pub should be smoking or non-smoking,does his/her pub need a dedicated smoking area,should they continue to ban it in their pub or should they spend a few hundred pound installing air purifiers to combat the smoke issue.

The atmosphere in pubs/clubs has been damaged,most of the non smokers now feel like leppers because they are left sitting on their own while us smokers go for fag.A lot of non smokers actually come outside to join us when we go for fag because they dont want to be left alone.Where is the common sense in this ban. 

smoking

the ban should be lifted where it is wanted.  I went to an italian restaraunt this year for a special ocasion a place I love, we all smoke therefore the evening was cut short because we had to go outside to smoke, The evening was spoiled, we would have loved to have spent another few hours chewing the cud, more drinks and a few more cigs but no we were in fact forced to go home and end a great evening abruptly.  Not only did we miss out but so did the vendor as we did not spend any more money!!

 

Why not have smoking and non smoking venues we can then all please ourselves wher to go, The smoking ban prevents me from going out anymore!!

 

Ijuust smoke more indoors and it has notpreventing me from smoking just socialising. Thanks for that

Why is this idea important?

the ban should be lifted where it is wanted.  I went to an italian restaraunt this year for a special ocasion a place I love, we all smoke therefore the evening was cut short because we had to go outside to smoke, The evening was spoiled, we would have loved to have spent another few hours chewing the cud, more drinks and a few more cigs but no we were in fact forced to go home and end a great evening abruptly.  Not only did we miss out but so did the vendor as we did not spend any more money!!

 

Why not have smoking and non smoking venues we can then all please ourselves wher to go, The smoking ban prevents me from going out anymore!!

 

Ijuust smoke more indoors and it has notpreventing me from smoking just socialising. Thanks for that

Smokefree legislation should apply to all of a business’s premises.

As well as overwhelming public health reasons, smokefree is also about public utility and the local environment. Many families no longer frequent what once were pleasant pub beer gardens due to the concentrated amount of people smoking in the vicinity . Large amounts of cigarrette butts on the ground or in the grass or under tables or overrflowing from ash trays just tends to put families off and is bad for the environment.  Many families also do not want to expose their impressionable children to an area where more people are smoking than not; they also do not feel they can have a pleasant meal or drink outside. A cultural change will come about if smoking is banned on all pub premises. More families and non-smokers (the majority of the population) will give their trade which will help towards the decline in pubs. It needs to be all or nothing and a level playing field for all businesses.

Why is this idea important?

As well as overwhelming public health reasons, smokefree is also about public utility and the local environment. Many families no longer frequent what once were pleasant pub beer gardens due to the concentrated amount of people smoking in the vicinity . Large amounts of cigarrette butts on the ground or in the grass or under tables or overrflowing from ash trays just tends to put families off and is bad for the environment.  Many families also do not want to expose their impressionable children to an area where more people are smoking than not; they also do not feel they can have a pleasant meal or drink outside. A cultural change will come about if smoking is banned on all pub premises. More families and non-smokers (the majority of the population) will give their trade which will help towards the decline in pubs. It needs to be all or nothing and a level playing field for all businesses.

That the Health Act 2006 should be amended so as to forbid smoking in cars.

It is obvious, as has been seen by the survey conducted by The British Lung Foundation via Mumsnet (86% in favour),  that the only way to stop people smoking in cars when kids (under 18 years old) are present, is to forbid smoking in cars altogether. It really is very important, just like the ban on the use of mobiles when driving and the ban on eating while driving is important. But more so, because not only do drivers have to take their hands of the steering wheel when they are smoking, and have to peer through smoke filled windscreens (Courtesy of BRAKE, who said so), they also have to deal with unruly kids and teenagers. But most of all, of course, THESE PEOPLE ARE KILLING THEIR OWN KIDS! There is no such thing as safe exposure to second hand tobacco smoke.  But this also applies to any person in a car, whether that person is a kid or not.

Why is this idea important?

It is obvious, as has been seen by the survey conducted by The British Lung Foundation via Mumsnet (86% in favour),  that the only way to stop people smoking in cars when kids (under 18 years old) are present, is to forbid smoking in cars altogether. It really is very important, just like the ban on the use of mobiles when driving and the ban on eating while driving is important. But more so, because not only do drivers have to take their hands of the steering wheel when they are smoking, and have to peer through smoke filled windscreens (Courtesy of BRAKE, who said so), they also have to deal with unruly kids and teenagers. But most of all, of course, THESE PEOPLE ARE KILLING THEIR OWN KIDS! There is no such thing as safe exposure to second hand tobacco smoke.  But this also applies to any person in a car, whether that person is a kid or not.

Repeal all funding to ‘charities’ who lobby (ASH in particular)

Before it's suggested that this idea would be better placed on the spending challenge website, I believe it's essential that it's debated openly on this site – as it relates specifically to democracy and freedom.

 

To quote the website: Rules in society create good law and order. But too many nannying, unnecessary rules restrict freedom and make criminals out of ordinary people.

 

I'd therefore suggest that this idea sits best on this forum, as funding groups with public money, who then lobby politicians is restricting freedoms and making criminals of ordinary people.

Both areas that this site is specifically set up to combat.

 

Additionally, providing funding to these kind of groups is undemocratic – they aren't elected, and serve their own mandate. (ASH receives funding from the Department of Health).

 

To quote from an article written by them: It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we "knew" we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side.

 

The full article can be read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

 

Not content with admitted confidence tricks, they also try to create the impression that any suggestion of compromise with the current smoking ban is being orchestrated by the tobacco industry – thus trying to undermine the legitimate debate and voice of smokers everywhere. See http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820 and another idea on this site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/time-to-review-the-libel-laws

 

I therefore submit that this idea fits perfectly with 'freedom' in a democratic country, as any unelected group having political sway should be closely examined.

Why is this idea important?

Before it's suggested that this idea would be better placed on the spending challenge website, I believe it's essential that it's debated openly on this site – as it relates specifically to democracy and freedom.

 

To quote the website: Rules in society create good law and order. But too many nannying, unnecessary rules restrict freedom and make criminals out of ordinary people.

 

I'd therefore suggest that this idea sits best on this forum, as funding groups with public money, who then lobby politicians is restricting freedoms and making criminals of ordinary people.

Both areas that this site is specifically set up to combat.

 

Additionally, providing funding to these kind of groups is undemocratic – they aren't elected, and serve their own mandate. (ASH receives funding from the Department of Health).

 

To quote from an article written by them: It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we "knew" we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side.

 

The full article can be read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

 

Not content with admitted confidence tricks, they also try to create the impression that any suggestion of compromise with the current smoking ban is being orchestrated by the tobacco industry – thus trying to undermine the legitimate debate and voice of smokers everywhere. See http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820 and another idea on this site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/time-to-review-the-libel-laws

 

I therefore submit that this idea fits perfectly with 'freedom' in a democratic country, as any unelected group having political sway should be closely examined.

The Traditional British Pub is Threatened by the Smoking Ban

        

          The smoking ban has resulted in the loss of civil liberties and threatens the existence of the traditional British pub.

          It is widely accepted that Britainsiconic traditional pubs are in grave danger.  They still are an expected feature of the British way of life for visiting tourists and are often the only public places to socialise for many villages and communities. They may be out of fashion now – but once they are gone they will not return.

         The smoking ban has had a major part to play in their decline. Traditional pub goers contained well above the average proportion of smokers.  Many of them have been forced to abandon pubs – in favour of drinking at home.  The idea that this slack would be taken up by an increase in non-smokers has proved dreadfully wrong.  The huge numbers of pub closures bears this out.

         At a glance it may seem that there are still many traditional pubs left.  However, many of them have severely curtailed opening hours and many others have simply become restaurants. The traditional pub was based around a seating arrangement that allowed part of the premises to be a place to drink, chat and have a fag. If someone asks you if you have booked a table, when you enter, or if all the seating is formal dining seating – you are in a restaurant. 

        The smoking ban should be repealed and pubs, clubs, etc. should be given back the right to choose what they offer. Without this I feel that the traditional pub will cease to exist within the next few years. 

         This is clearly a case of the majority dictating to a sizeable minorities civil rights. It would have been perfectly easy to allow pubs and clubs to choose what service they offered and it would have saved thousands of jobs. A society that cannot tolerate minority interests is not a free society. Is that the sort of country we have become?

Why is this idea important?

        

          The smoking ban has resulted in the loss of civil liberties and threatens the existence of the traditional British pub.

          It is widely accepted that Britainsiconic traditional pubs are in grave danger.  They still are an expected feature of the British way of life for visiting tourists and are often the only public places to socialise for many villages and communities. They may be out of fashion now – but once they are gone they will not return.

         The smoking ban has had a major part to play in their decline. Traditional pub goers contained well above the average proportion of smokers.  Many of them have been forced to abandon pubs – in favour of drinking at home.  The idea that this slack would be taken up by an increase in non-smokers has proved dreadfully wrong.  The huge numbers of pub closures bears this out.

         At a glance it may seem that there are still many traditional pubs left.  However, many of them have severely curtailed opening hours and many others have simply become restaurants. The traditional pub was based around a seating arrangement that allowed part of the premises to be a place to drink, chat and have a fag. If someone asks you if you have booked a table, when you enter, or if all the seating is formal dining seating – you are in a restaurant. 

        The smoking ban should be repealed and pubs, clubs, etc. should be given back the right to choose what they offer. Without this I feel that the traditional pub will cease to exist within the next few years. 

         This is clearly a case of the majority dictating to a sizeable minorities civil rights. It would have been perfectly easy to allow pubs and clubs to choose what service they offered and it would have saved thousands of jobs. A society that cannot tolerate minority interests is not a free society. Is that the sort of country we have become?

The Smoking Ban is Killing the Traditional British Pub

 




          The smoking ban has resulted in the loss of civil liberties and threatens the existence of the traditional British pub.

          It is widely accepted that Britains iconic traditional pubs are in grave danger.  They still are an expected feature of the British way of life for visiting tourists and are often the only public places to socialise for many villages and communities. They may be out of fashion now – but once they are gone they will not return.

         The smoking ban has had a major part to play in their decline. Traditional pub goers contained well above the average proportion of smokers.  Many of them have been forced to abandon pubs – in favour of drinking at home.  The idea that this slack would be taken up by an increase in non-smokers has proved dreadfully wrong.  The huge numbers of pub closures bears this out.

         At a glance it may seem that there are still many traditional pubs left.  However, many of them have severely curtailed opening hours and many others have simply become restaurants. The traditional pub was based around a seating arrangement that allowed part of the premises to be a place to drink, chat and have a fag. If someone asks you if you have booked a table, when you enter, or if all the seating is formal dining seating – you are in a restaurant.   

        The smoking ban should be repealed and pubs, clubs, etc. should be given back the right to choose what they offer. Without this I feel that the traditional pub will cease to exist within the next few years. 

         This is clearly a case of the majority dictating to a sizeable minorities civil rights. It would have been perfectly easy to allow pubs and clubs to choose what service they offered and it would have saved thousands of jobs. A society that cannot tolerate minority interests is not a free society. Is that the sort of country we have become? 

        

Why is this idea important?

 




          The smoking ban has resulted in the loss of civil liberties and threatens the existence of the traditional British pub.

          It is widely accepted that Britains iconic traditional pubs are in grave danger.  They still are an expected feature of the British way of life for visiting tourists and are often the only public places to socialise for many villages and communities. They may be out of fashion now – but once they are gone they will not return.

         The smoking ban has had a major part to play in their decline. Traditional pub goers contained well above the average proportion of smokers.  Many of them have been forced to abandon pubs – in favour of drinking at home.  The idea that this slack would be taken up by an increase in non-smokers has proved dreadfully wrong.  The huge numbers of pub closures bears this out.

         At a glance it may seem that there are still many traditional pubs left.  However, many of them have severely curtailed opening hours and many others have simply become restaurants. The traditional pub was based around a seating arrangement that allowed part of the premises to be a place to drink, chat and have a fag. If someone asks you if you have booked a table, when you enter, or if all the seating is formal dining seating – you are in a restaurant.   

        The smoking ban should be repealed and pubs, clubs, etc. should be given back the right to choose what they offer. Without this I feel that the traditional pub will cease to exist within the next few years. 

         This is clearly a case of the majority dictating to a sizeable minorities civil rights. It would have been perfectly easy to allow pubs and clubs to choose what service they offered and it would have saved thousands of jobs. A society that cannot tolerate minority interests is not a free society. Is that the sort of country we have become? 

        

MP’s should have to do the same as the rest of us

Reading through some idas on this site I've found two areas where MP's are treated differently to the rest of us.

1.  MP's don't have to have CRB checks even if their work brings them in contact with children.

2. MP's can choose to smoke inside Westminster licensed bars because of its 'palace' designation.

Are there any more examples of the civil liberties of MP's being more respected than the civil liberties of the rest of the population and where they are deemed above the law.

I think if we have to do it MP's have to do it too.

 

Why is this idea important?

Reading through some idas on this site I've found two areas where MP's are treated differently to the rest of us.

1.  MP's don't have to have CRB checks even if their work brings them in contact with children.

2. MP's can choose to smoke inside Westminster licensed bars because of its 'palace' designation.

Are there any more examples of the civil liberties of MP's being more respected than the civil liberties of the rest of the population and where they are deemed above the law.

I think if we have to do it MP's have to do it too.

 

Pros and Cons; decriminalising Cannabis.

We do need to begin by admitting what is overlooked; this country is signed up to a UN resolution that treats Cannabis as a narcotic substance alongside all the rest. So the idea that it can just be legalised is a bit of a red herring.

The decrim option would be the one any government would act upon – if only to avoid UN sanctions. Oh yes, that's the alternative. It also gives that government the option of – still – arresting people for any level of possession. So that's a win for the government.

Negatives to retaining Illegality

  • Police, courts and prisons have lots of work. We might have to make some of the people in these services redundant in the event of decrim, with the concomittant enormous payouts for redundancy.
  • Organised crime continue to make huge profits from illegality, while only the smallest fish get caught and punished. NORML (North American Organisation for the Repeal of Marijuana Legislation) estimated in the mid-90's that just the weekend market for Cannabis in the UK was worth £2-3 billion a year. Now, that has to be worth, conservatively, £3-4 billion a year. All going to organised crime gangs, and mostly, no doubt, leaving the country.
  • Continuing treatment of otherwise law-abiding citizens as a criminal element. This also plays into the hands of the Police, Courts and Prisons. I would like to know what percentage of prison inmates are there due to Cannabis convictions.
  • Third world farmers denied a real cash crop in favour of those that make little or no profit. Most farmers out in South America and Africa use cash profits to send their kids to school, so this illegality also contributes towards keeping them uneducated and in a very difficult position as regards lifting themselves out of poverty.
  • No controls over quality of "product" reaching users; note recent stories of Skunk being adulterated with ground glass. This appears to be quite acceptable to governments.
  • No tax revenue, even though this would largely not be possible under a decrim system; how do you tax what is borderline illegal?

Positives to retaining Illegality

  • It keeps the incidence of mental illness the same as it has always been, apparently, although the evidence to suggest that Cannabis in any form is detrimental to health is debatable and often countered by evidence to suggest that it's many chemical compounds can be beneficial to health.
  • General health (smoking anything is the single worse thing you can do for your health, I believe it's generally agreed) consistency.

OK, I'm sure I haven't covered all the bases there, but it's a big fuzzy picture. Now what of the positives to decrim, since we are not permitted to fully legalise?

Negatives to Decrim

  • Smoking is very bad for your health!
  • Possible greater incidence of mental health problems, although anecdotal evidence suggests that even after the introduction of much stronger hybridised versions of the original plant, incidence of mental health problems has remained constant, thereby logically arguing that decrim would make no difference.

There must be some others, but that's all I can think of.

Positives to Decrim

  • Take profits out of the hands of organised crime gangs – passes it on to those 3rd world farmers, giving them the means to work and educate themselves out of poverty.
  • Allows for quality control systems.
  • Ends criminalisation of thousands of people every year, with the side effects dampened or removed completely; if you work in education particularly, but also in a number of other fields, you lose your job and get a criminal record for no apparent justifiable reason – which also means you probably lose your home and in these days of Social Service interference at almost every level, probably your kids too. They don't need much excuse, let's face it.
  • Removes an immeasurable amount of stress from many thousands who use Cannabis, but are constantly looking over their shoulders. If you really want to know why Cannabis makes its users paranoid, it's not the drug does that; it's the stupid law that doesn't allow people to put into their own bodies what they want to.
  • For those wishing to grow their own at home, or those wishing to grow for commercial purposes, the Fire Service could come and issue Certificates of Safety on growlight setups – as opposed to the present, where those self-same criminal gangs will illegally tap into electrical supplies, Heath-Robinson rig up unsafe lighting systems and just grow it anyway. It's illegal, what's the big deal in stealing electricity on top?
  • Sufferers from Cancer, AIDS, Glaucoma and certain forms of depression – again, amongst a number of other illnesses – would at least not have to approach the criminal gangs – as they have to at the moment – and be charged a fortune for a consistent supply. It would also permit much greater medical research into the positive health benefits of Cannabis.
  • Industrial uses; Hemp has been used for thousands of years for a multitude of industrial and consumer products. It is said to produce better grade bioethanol than any other plant. Hemp seed makes highly nutritious feedcake for farm animals. Hemp oil has, again, anecdotal evidence for having extreme anti-cancer properties. It makes excellent quality paper and the kind of denim jeans that you can leave to your grandchildren. The US Department of Agriculture made a conscious decision during WW2 to permit the large-scale cultivation of Hemp in order to provide these and other items, not least of which is hemp rope, from where the UK county of Hampshire gets its name. It is part of our History and part of our victory over the Axis powers. This is another aspect of Cannabis that is denied and, Stalin-like, expunged from History.
  • Finally, how many jobs could be created? And of course, following on from that, how much money could the government rake in just by charging a nominal fee for a licence to grow, or distribute, or sell, or import, never mind the tax lost by not being permitted to legalise completely?

You may wish to check out these links:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/07/drugs-policy-legalisation-report

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne9UF-pFhJY

http://www.alternet.org/economy/146151/not_feeling_well_perhaps_you%27re_%27marijuana_deficient%27

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7495724/Biggest-cannabis-ring-left-money-to-rot.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rgDyEO_8cI&feature=related

http://www.release.org.uk/nicepeopletakedrugs/deck-of-cards/

Why is this idea important?

We do need to begin by admitting what is overlooked; this country is signed up to a UN resolution that treats Cannabis as a narcotic substance alongside all the rest. So the idea that it can just be legalised is a bit of a red herring.

The decrim option would be the one any government would act upon – if only to avoid UN sanctions. Oh yes, that's the alternative. It also gives that government the option of – still – arresting people for any level of possession. So that's a win for the government.

Negatives to retaining Illegality

  • Police, courts and prisons have lots of work. We might have to make some of the people in these services redundant in the event of decrim, with the concomittant enormous payouts for redundancy.
  • Organised crime continue to make huge profits from illegality, while only the smallest fish get caught and punished. NORML (North American Organisation for the Repeal of Marijuana Legislation) estimated in the mid-90's that just the weekend market for Cannabis in the UK was worth £2-3 billion a year. Now, that has to be worth, conservatively, £3-4 billion a year. All going to organised crime gangs, and mostly, no doubt, leaving the country.
  • Continuing treatment of otherwise law-abiding citizens as a criminal element. This also plays into the hands of the Police, Courts and Prisons. I would like to know what percentage of prison inmates are there due to Cannabis convictions.
  • Third world farmers denied a real cash crop in favour of those that make little or no profit. Most farmers out in South America and Africa use cash profits to send their kids to school, so this illegality also contributes towards keeping them uneducated and in a very difficult position as regards lifting themselves out of poverty.
  • No controls over quality of "product" reaching users; note recent stories of Skunk being adulterated with ground glass. This appears to be quite acceptable to governments.
  • No tax revenue, even though this would largely not be possible under a decrim system; how do you tax what is borderline illegal?

Positives to retaining Illegality

  • It keeps the incidence of mental illness the same as it has always been, apparently, although the evidence to suggest that Cannabis in any form is detrimental to health is debatable and often countered by evidence to suggest that it's many chemical compounds can be beneficial to health.
  • General health (smoking anything is the single worse thing you can do for your health, I believe it's generally agreed) consistency.

OK, I'm sure I haven't covered all the bases there, but it's a big fuzzy picture. Now what of the positives to decrim, since we are not permitted to fully legalise?

Negatives to Decrim

  • Smoking is very bad for your health!
  • Possible greater incidence of mental health problems, although anecdotal evidence suggests that even after the introduction of much stronger hybridised versions of the original plant, incidence of mental health problems has remained constant, thereby logically arguing that decrim would make no difference.

There must be some others, but that's all I can think of.

Positives to Decrim

  • Take profits out of the hands of organised crime gangs – passes it on to those 3rd world farmers, giving them the means to work and educate themselves out of poverty.
  • Allows for quality control systems.
  • Ends criminalisation of thousands of people every year, with the side effects dampened or removed completely; if you work in education particularly, but also in a number of other fields, you lose your job and get a criminal record for no apparent justifiable reason – which also means you probably lose your home and in these days of Social Service interference at almost every level, probably your kids too. They don't need much excuse, let's face it.
  • Removes an immeasurable amount of stress from many thousands who use Cannabis, but are constantly looking over their shoulders. If you really want to know why Cannabis makes its users paranoid, it's not the drug does that; it's the stupid law that doesn't allow people to put into their own bodies what they want to.
  • For those wishing to grow their own at home, or those wishing to grow for commercial purposes, the Fire Service could come and issue Certificates of Safety on growlight setups – as opposed to the present, where those self-same criminal gangs will illegally tap into electrical supplies, Heath-Robinson rig up unsafe lighting systems and just grow it anyway. It's illegal, what's the big deal in stealing electricity on top?
  • Sufferers from Cancer, AIDS, Glaucoma and certain forms of depression – again, amongst a number of other illnesses – would at least not have to approach the criminal gangs – as they have to at the moment – and be charged a fortune for a consistent supply. It would also permit much greater medical research into the positive health benefits of Cannabis.
  • Industrial uses; Hemp has been used for thousands of years for a multitude of industrial and consumer products. It is said to produce better grade bioethanol than any other plant. Hemp seed makes highly nutritious feedcake for farm animals. Hemp oil has, again, anecdotal evidence for having extreme anti-cancer properties. It makes excellent quality paper and the kind of denim jeans that you can leave to your grandchildren. The US Department of Agriculture made a conscious decision during WW2 to permit the large-scale cultivation of Hemp in order to provide these and other items, not least of which is hemp rope, from where the UK county of Hampshire gets its name. It is part of our History and part of our victory over the Axis powers. This is another aspect of Cannabis that is denied and, Stalin-like, expunged from History.
  • Finally, how many jobs could be created? And of course, following on from that, how much money could the government rake in just by charging a nominal fee for a licence to grow, or distribute, or sell, or import, never mind the tax lost by not being permitted to legalise completely?

You may wish to check out these links:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/07/drugs-policy-legalisation-report

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne9UF-pFhJY

http://www.alternet.org/economy/146151/not_feeling_well_perhaps_you%27re_%27marijuana_deficient%27

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7495724/Biggest-cannabis-ring-left-money-to-rot.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rgDyEO_8cI&feature=related

http://www.release.org.uk/nicepeopletakedrugs/deck-of-cards/

Make the laws governing alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine, heroin and mdma etc consistent.

Why should one man's drug of choice be legal, whilst another man's is illegal? Restore people's right to enjoy and explore the drugs they choose. Regulate their use and trade rather than criminalise them.

Why is this idea important?

Why should one man's drug of choice be legal, whilst another man's is illegal? Restore people's right to enjoy and explore the drugs they choose. Regulate their use and trade rather than criminalise them.

Smoking Ban has not gone far enough

The smoking ban may have taken smoke out of peoples faces in many public places, however, there is still a great level of people smoking on the streets and other similar high traffic areas. I feel it should be banned in these places where people who choose not to smoke are subject to inhaling it. Civil liberties are important; for both smokers and non-smokers. Non-smokers should have the right to not have to inhale smoke anywhere, and smokers should have the right to smoke in their own homes and designated areas.

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban may have taken smoke out of peoples faces in many public places, however, there is still a great level of people smoking on the streets and other similar high traffic areas. I feel it should be banned in these places where people who choose not to smoke are subject to inhaling it. Civil liberties are important; for both smokers and non-smokers. Non-smokers should have the right to not have to inhale smoke anywhere, and smokers should have the right to smoke in their own homes and designated areas.

smoking ban

To repeal the smoking ban, to let people have a choice. The smoking ban has closed down thousands of pubs, clubs and cafes, and in so doing has lost people their homes and jobs.  In other countries the laws are not so draconian, give us back some freedom, now we don't have any.

Why is this idea important?

To repeal the smoking ban, to let people have a choice. The smoking ban has closed down thousands of pubs, clubs and cafes, and in so doing has lost people their homes and jobs.  In other countries the laws are not so draconian, give us back some freedom, now we don't have any.

Allow Designated Smoking rooms in pubs and clubs

Allow smoking in enclosed separate rooms with air extraction fitted and efficient separation from the rest of the establishment. The majority fot he establishment must still be dedicated to non smoking areas.

Why is this idea important?

Allow smoking in enclosed separate rooms with air extraction fitted and efficient separation from the rest of the establishment. The majority fot he establishment must still be dedicated to non smoking areas.

Time to review the libel laws.

On the 16th July The Chartered Institute For Environmental Health issued the following press release. "Pro-health campaign ASH has accused the tobacco industry of orchestrating pro-smoking comments on a website launched by deputy prime minister Nick Clegg in a move to get ‘unnecessary’ laws and regulations scrapped." This is patently untrue. Britain's 12 million smokers are not an adjunct to tobacco companies who are sycophantic, lick spittle lap dogs unable to express any opinion without reference to a third party.  Instead as a group deprived of the right of association, unable to enjoy a legal past time with the permission of the owner of private property, we exercised complete freewill and were only too pleased to contribute to the debate.
 

http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820

Why is this idea important?

On the 16th July The Chartered Institute For Environmental Health issued the following press release. "Pro-health campaign ASH has accused the tobacco industry of orchestrating pro-smoking comments on a website launched by deputy prime minister Nick Clegg in a move to get ‘unnecessary’ laws and regulations scrapped." This is patently untrue. Britain's 12 million smokers are not an adjunct to tobacco companies who are sycophantic, lick spittle lap dogs unable to express any opinion without reference to a third party.  Instead as a group deprived of the right of association, unable to enjoy a legal past time with the permission of the owner of private property, we exercised complete freewill and were only too pleased to contribute to the debate.
 

http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820