something politicians find hard to grasp about drugs

Whether something is branded illegal or legal has no effect on supply and demand nor any effect on whether people choose to take it. Drugs as harmless as cannabis are branded illegal for some reason, this to me shows that politicians know little about the drug and therefore why would I listen to their opinions on other drugs? Look at methadrone, before the media went crazy and hyped up the british public (which isn’t hard to do, most people will believe anything their precious daily mail says) I hadn’t even heard of it and minimal people were using it but as soon as the papers gave people the idea to use it low and behold everyone’s on it, the pub across the road from where I live is full of people ‘dronin’ off their face, before the methadrone ban it was full of people consuming alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. This is just one example of many how the ban hammer doesn’t work. You can’t wave a magic wand and it all goes away. The biggest risk for a heroin user is drug dealers, dirty needles and contaminated heroin not the substance itself. The same goes for most drugs branded illegal, the biggest risk for the consumer is the black market. More harm than good amounts from prohibition. Anyone who wishes to use any illegal drug can do so, prohibition doesn’t halt them in the slightest. There is nothing wrong with taking drugs every single one of has done so at one point or another whether it be alcohol, paracetamol, or crack cocaine. I can assure everyone on the planet people are not going to stop taking them and why should they? as long as not one other person is negatively effected by it. Its very simple either the government or respectable businesses regulate drugs or criminals will, it is a case of one or the other. These are the only two options when dealing with drugs. Drugs are THE most profitable business in the world, fact and criminals are reaping the benefits every hour of every day until this government decides to take the business out of their hands. Wouldn’t it be better for society if all addicts were registered and monitored as oppose to being left to their own devices funding the black market? Finally, who has the right to tell anyone else what they can do with their own body?

Why is this idea important?

Whether something is branded illegal or legal has no effect on supply and demand nor any effect on whether people choose to take it. Drugs as harmless as cannabis are branded illegal for some reason, this to me shows that politicians know little about the drug and therefore why would I listen to their opinions on other drugs? Look at methadrone, before the media went crazy and hyped up the british public (which isn’t hard to do, most people will believe anything their precious daily mail says) I hadn’t even heard of it and minimal people were using it but as soon as the papers gave people the idea to use it low and behold everyone’s on it, the pub across the road from where I live is full of people ‘dronin’ off their face, before the methadrone ban it was full of people consuming alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. This is just one example of many how the ban hammer doesn’t work. You can’t wave a magic wand and it all goes away. The biggest risk for a heroin user is drug dealers, dirty needles and contaminated heroin not the substance itself. The same goes for most drugs branded illegal, the biggest risk for the consumer is the black market. More harm than good amounts from prohibition. Anyone who wishes to use any illegal drug can do so, prohibition doesn’t halt them in the slightest. There is nothing wrong with taking drugs every single one of has done so at one point or another whether it be alcohol, paracetamol, or crack cocaine. I can assure everyone on the planet people are not going to stop taking them and why should they? as long as not one other person is negatively effected by it. Its very simple either the government or respectable businesses regulate drugs or criminals will, it is a case of one or the other. These are the only two options when dealing with drugs. Drugs are THE most profitable business in the world, fact and criminals are reaping the benefits every hour of every day until this government decides to take the business out of their hands. Wouldn’t it be better for society if all addicts were registered and monitored as oppose to being left to their own devices funding the black market? Finally, who has the right to tell anyone else what they can do with their own body?

Repeal of the law that prohibits sale of oral tobacco

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

Why is this idea important?

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

i dont do drugs

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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."

Smoking licenses for pubs

I know there are a lot of similar ideas to this one, but I want to make it very clear that I nor any other smokers would call for a complete repeal on the smoking ban, it has already gone to far , it is too late, in hindsight maybe we should of stood up before the ban and said "this is not right, we want equal rights" etc, anyway i digress,  My proposal is a system wear a pub owner will apply for a "smoking license" where there will be a set of regulations the pub must follow in order to attain this license, also to keep it. The license could be for either of two things or even both, A full smoke friendly premises, a non smoking premises, or a mix of the two, this would obviously include well ventilated rooms with extractor fans and other measures to prevent smoke from entering the non smoking area ( i am sure this is not beyond the technological ability of a race that sent a man to the moon lol). I am fairly sure that the only people who will object to this idea will be the Anti-smokers, having said that , lets keep this debate civil and proper. NOTE: Nick Clegg has already said that he will not be considering altering the ban, however if we are loud enough maybe we can at least trigger a debate in the commons.

Why is this idea important?

I know there are a lot of similar ideas to this one, but I want to make it very clear that I nor any other smokers would call for a complete repeal on the smoking ban, it has already gone to far , it is too late, in hindsight maybe we should of stood up before the ban and said "this is not right, we want equal rights" etc, anyway i digress,  My proposal is a system wear a pub owner will apply for a "smoking license" where there will be a set of regulations the pub must follow in order to attain this license, also to keep it. The license could be for either of two things or even both, A full smoke friendly premises, a non smoking premises, or a mix of the two, this would obviously include well ventilated rooms with extractor fans and other measures to prevent smoke from entering the non smoking area ( i am sure this is not beyond the technological ability of a race that sent a man to the moon lol). I am fairly sure that the only people who will object to this idea will be the Anti-smokers, having said that , lets keep this debate civil and proper. NOTE: Nick Clegg has already said that he will not be considering altering the ban, however if we are loud enough maybe we can at least trigger a debate in the commons.

Do NOT decriminalize cannabis…

…LEGALIZE it.

It is important people undrestund the difference between legalizing and decriminalizing.

Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal.

Legalization is a process often applied to what are regarded, by those working towards legalization, as victimless crimes, of which one example is the consumption of illegal drugs .

Legalization should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations.

Why is this idea important?

…LEGALIZE it.

It is important people undrestund the difference between legalizing and decriminalizing.

Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal.

Legalization is a process often applied to what are regarded, by those working towards legalization, as victimless crimes, of which one example is the consumption of illegal drugs .

Legalization should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations.

Basic Human Rights for Smokers

The smoking ban has taken away the basic human rights of a huge percentage of adults in the UK.

The smoking ban was brought in on the false premise that it was to protect the workers in places such as pubs, clubs and restaurants from the "dangers" of second-hand smoke.

The "dangers" of second-hand smoke have never been scientifically proven.

The law was proposed by the Labour Government of the day in their manifesto as being a partial ban, only operational in places where food was being served. It was then changed without public consolation or any evidence from experts in the field to include all indoor public places.

Even the wording is wrong. A public place is exactly that, and does not mean a "private" place, such as a private member's club, which as we all now know, is also included in the ban.

People who wish to smoke should be entitled to the same basic human rights as those who do not wish to smoke. In other words, smokers should be entitled to separate venues, in which they can smoke, where the owner and staff agree to this.

In our country, and especially under a Conservative Government, the basic human rights of all groups and all people should be considered. Approximately 25% of the population of the UK smoke, to ignore them is to take away their basic human rights.

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban has taken away the basic human rights of a huge percentage of adults in the UK.

The smoking ban was brought in on the false premise that it was to protect the workers in places such as pubs, clubs and restaurants from the "dangers" of second-hand smoke.

The "dangers" of second-hand smoke have never been scientifically proven.

The law was proposed by the Labour Government of the day in their manifesto as being a partial ban, only operational in places where food was being served. It was then changed without public consolation or any evidence from experts in the field to include all indoor public places.

Even the wording is wrong. A public place is exactly that, and does not mean a "private" place, such as a private member's club, which as we all now know, is also included in the ban.

People who wish to smoke should be entitled to the same basic human rights as those who do not wish to smoke. In other words, smokers should be entitled to separate venues, in which they can smoke, where the owner and staff agree to this.

In our country, and especially under a Conservative Government, the basic human rights of all groups and all people should be considered. Approximately 25% of the population of the UK smoke, to ignore them is to take away their basic human rights.

Issue a Card for Benefits (no Cash)

The government could do a deal with a major credit card company to supply all benefit claiments with a card. This card could be set to not allow purchases of alcohol or tobacco (or any other goods deemed unsuitable). The acceptance of the cards could be limited to specific companies that have tendered for the supply of benefit goods.

  The right to accept benefit cards could be put out to tender ( as all other Government supply contracts are) and a selection of National and local stores become approved suppliers in a framework agreement. The contracts would be huge and a real discount could be negotiated from the retail prices in the stores.

Why is this idea important?

The government could do a deal with a major credit card company to supply all benefit claiments with a card. This card could be set to not allow purchases of alcohol or tobacco (or any other goods deemed unsuitable). The acceptance of the cards could be limited to specific companies that have tendered for the supply of benefit goods.

  The right to accept benefit cards could be put out to tender ( as all other Government supply contracts are) and a selection of National and local stores become approved suppliers in a framework agreement. The contracts would be huge and a real discount could be negotiated from the retail prices in the stores.

Legalise Sale of Snus in the UK

Snus is a tobacco product available in Sweden, where it has a long tradion of use, but it is not legal to sell it in th UK. Snus is proven to be a healthier option than smoking.

Why is this idea important?

Snus is a tobacco product available in Sweden, where it has a long tradion of use, but it is not legal to sell it in th UK. Snus is proven to be a healthier option than smoking.

Realign tobacco and alcohol prices and taxes to match Europe and prevent smuggling

This is not a change to the laws as such, but a change to policy that will make the incentive to break laws disappear.

If we realign tobacco and alcohol prices and taxes to match France and the rest of Europe, then overnight the massive illegal smuggling of cheap cigarettes and alcohol will disappear.

We have lots of UK customs officials ceasing hundreds of millions of pounds worth of contraband tobacco and alcohol ever year. The alcohol is converted into aeroplane fuel and the glass is crushed and recycled. The cigarettes are destroyed. We have huge warehouses to store the seized material and the cost of administering all this runs into billions.

The UK customs staff that work on this should be redeployed as Immigration officials and Security officials. It is important that we deal with Security and Immigration, – By comparison customs should be scaled down a great deal – The only aspects of customs that should be emphasised are illegal importation of rare and protected species, weapons etc.

Why is this idea important?

This is not a change to the laws as such, but a change to policy that will make the incentive to break laws disappear.

If we realign tobacco and alcohol prices and taxes to match France and the rest of Europe, then overnight the massive illegal smuggling of cheap cigarettes and alcohol will disappear.

We have lots of UK customs officials ceasing hundreds of millions of pounds worth of contraband tobacco and alcohol ever year. The alcohol is converted into aeroplane fuel and the glass is crushed and recycled. The cigarettes are destroyed. We have huge warehouses to store the seized material and the cost of administering all this runs into billions.

The UK customs staff that work on this should be redeployed as Immigration officials and Security officials. It is important that we deal with Security and Immigration, – By comparison customs should be scaled down a great deal – The only aspects of customs that should be emphasised are illegal importation of rare and protected species, weapons etc.

How to generate massive tax revenues while significantly reducing crime and its associated cost?

Let me be clear. This isn’t a revolutionary idea – or even unique. It’s a simple, effective approach that will deliver results. If our Government want raise significant tax revenues, while at the same time reducing monetary and social costs, then it’s time for a fresh approach to drugs policy.

I agree that proscribed drugs can be harmful and that they can even kill you. I agree that some poor souls don’t have a sufficient mental constitution, and have the propensity to ‘loose’ their minds thru experimenting with potentially harmful substances. I’m sure a few folk reading this could cite one or two casualties they’ve known, or even heard of, over the years who are good examples of how drugs ‘can’ mess you up.  (Note: Don’t include media hype here as we all know they’re prone to BS)

But here’s the thing. So many everyday items, household good and social institutions all have the capacity to harm or even kill. It’s a fact that swimming pools are more dangerous to kids than guns but we don’t ban them. In the UK more than 1000 people die every year from falling down stairs, while according to the Office of National Statistics only 897 people died from heroin and methadone in 2008 – isn’t this a lethal substance?. Ironically a much larger percentage of people suffer a fatal acute reaction to peanuts than to MDMA, the active ingredient in Ecstasy, which is a Class A banned substance. Who would consider banning peanuts? Mind you that’s another post perhaps…

I agree that even one person dying is tragic – particularly for the family – but it’s time to get real. Deaths from illicit drugs pale into statistical insignificance compared to alcohol and, of course, tobacco. But we don’t ban them do we? No we apply the only viable strategy, which is to license, regulate and tax these industries. So why don’t we do the same with ‘drugs’ then?

Let me say once again – I’m not advocating drug use of any kind. I whole heartedly believe that ‘recreational’ drugs can be deleterious, especially to young impressionable minds. I would prefer that everyone didn’t need a chemical fix for a bad day or even a bad life. But who’s kidding who here. Millions reach for a cigarette, or a glass of wine, or even slice of cake when their shadow calls.  Unless you’re an enlightened being – and I’m sure you believe you are – I’m afraid you’re with the rest of us aspirers, each with our own ‘drug’ of choice, even if you’re too out of focus to realise.

I wrote to Michael Howard (Home Secretary of the day in 1994 explaining why his policy and ‘war of drugs’ could never work and would therefore end in failure. I could have written it verbatim today and it still would be current and spot on. It’s time for positive action not yesterday’s rhetoric. I think the great Einstein perfectly sums up our counter-productive drug policies when he said, “any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction”.

Let’s hope Dave and Nick has what it takes.

Why is this idea important?

Let me be clear. This isn’t a revolutionary idea – or even unique. It’s a simple, effective approach that will deliver results. If our Government want raise significant tax revenues, while at the same time reducing monetary and social costs, then it’s time for a fresh approach to drugs policy.

I agree that proscribed drugs can be harmful and that they can even kill you. I agree that some poor souls don’t have a sufficient mental constitution, and have the propensity to ‘loose’ their minds thru experimenting with potentially harmful substances. I’m sure a few folk reading this could cite one or two casualties they’ve known, or even heard of, over the years who are good examples of how drugs ‘can’ mess you up.  (Note: Don’t include media hype here as we all know they’re prone to BS)

But here’s the thing. So many everyday items, household good and social institutions all have the capacity to harm or even kill. It’s a fact that swimming pools are more dangerous to kids than guns but we don’t ban them. In the UK more than 1000 people die every year from falling down stairs, while according to the Office of National Statistics only 897 people died from heroin and methadone in 2008 – isn’t this a lethal substance?. Ironically a much larger percentage of people suffer a fatal acute reaction to peanuts than to MDMA, the active ingredient in Ecstasy, which is a Class A banned substance. Who would consider banning peanuts? Mind you that’s another post perhaps…

I agree that even one person dying is tragic – particularly for the family – but it’s time to get real. Deaths from illicit drugs pale into statistical insignificance compared to alcohol and, of course, tobacco. But we don’t ban them do we? No we apply the only viable strategy, which is to license, regulate and tax these industries. So why don’t we do the same with ‘drugs’ then?

Let me say once again – I’m not advocating drug use of any kind. I whole heartedly believe that ‘recreational’ drugs can be deleterious, especially to young impressionable minds. I would prefer that everyone didn’t need a chemical fix for a bad day or even a bad life. But who’s kidding who here. Millions reach for a cigarette, or a glass of wine, or even slice of cake when their shadow calls.  Unless you’re an enlightened being – and I’m sure you believe you are – I’m afraid you’re with the rest of us aspirers, each with our own ‘drug’ of choice, even if you’re too out of focus to realise.

I wrote to Michael Howard (Home Secretary of the day in 1994 explaining why his policy and ‘war of drugs’ could never work and would therefore end in failure. I could have written it verbatim today and it still would be current and spot on. It’s time for positive action not yesterday’s rhetoric. I think the great Einstein perfectly sums up our counter-productive drug policies when he said, “any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction”.

Let’s hope Dave and Nick has what it takes.

LIFT SMOKING BAN IN PUBS & CLUBS at management’s discretion

Let publicans decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments. Let CIU Clubs decide whether to lift the ban in their establishments. Give Pubs & Clubs, Bingo Halls, Betting Shops and other adult establishments the power to decide whether they want to lift the ban in adult over 18 establishments. Get rid of Nanny State Politics. Let the people decide.

Why is this idea important?

Let publicans decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments. Let CIU Clubs decide whether to lift the ban in their establishments. Give Pubs & Clubs, Bingo Halls, Betting Shops and other adult establishments the power to decide whether they want to lift the ban in adult over 18 establishments. Get rid of Nanny State Politics. Let the people decide.

The smoking ban removes Civil Liberties

The smoking ban needs to be repealed. It has removed the civil liberites of smokers who are members of our society like everyone else. Not only has the smoking ban made me feel like a second class citizen despite being an active participant in society but it is putting pubs out of business (and forcing those remaining to invite in childen to make money despite objections from customers) but it makes entering and leaving buildings unpleasant for non-smokers.

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban needs to be repealed. It has removed the civil liberites of smokers who are members of our society like everyone else. Not only has the smoking ban made me feel like a second class citizen despite being an active participant in society but it is putting pubs out of business (and forcing those remaining to invite in childen to make money despite objections from customers) but it makes entering and leaving buildings unpleasant for non-smokers.

Stop people smoking

More needs to be done to stop people from smoking. It has long been proved that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer and other health problems, not just for smokers but for those around them who are unwilling passive smokers.

With the very good smoking ban in place in buildings and enclosed areas, we now have a problem with people smoking outside these buildings, which encroaches on my civil liberties, by forcing me to momentarily become a passive smoker — worse still if it is at a bus stop when I am waiting for a bus and cannot get away from it.

And the existing ban needs to be enforced — too many smokers are flouting the law by smoking in train stations and bus shelters and nothing is done about it.

The more extreme forms of smoking like drugs, must also be outright banned and the ban enforced.

Smoking should not be allowed outside building entrances or at any bus stops.

Why is this idea important?

More needs to be done to stop people from smoking. It has long been proved that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer and other health problems, not just for smokers but for those around them who are unwilling passive smokers.

With the very good smoking ban in place in buildings and enclosed areas, we now have a problem with people smoking outside these buildings, which encroaches on my civil liberties, by forcing me to momentarily become a passive smoker — worse still if it is at a bus stop when I am waiting for a bus and cannot get away from it.

And the existing ban needs to be enforced — too many smokers are flouting the law by smoking in train stations and bus shelters and nothing is done about it.

The more extreme forms of smoking like drugs, must also be outright banned and the ban enforced.

Smoking should not be allowed outside building entrances or at any bus stops.

Smoking Ban modification

I believe that the total smoking ban is wrong and unjust.. . Why not allow pups or clubs to have a room or bar set aside for smokers. This would allow nonsmokers or smokers to chose where they would prefer to drink. It appears to me, that the only reason for a complete ban, was for the socalled nany state inposing the goverments will on everybody else.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that the total smoking ban is wrong and unjust.. . Why not allow pups or clubs to have a room or bar set aside for smokers. This would allow nonsmokers or smokers to chose where they would prefer to drink. It appears to me, that the only reason for a complete ban, was for the socalled nany state inposing the goverments will on everybody else.

Decriminalise most recreational drugs in favour of regulation.

Prohibition demonstrably does not work and the cost to this country is great both in terms of law enforcement and social damage.

Alcohol and tobacco are more damaging to the health and society than many illicit drugs yet they pay for themselves because they are regulated and taxed; tobacco tax generates 10 times the amount it costs the NHS during these hard economic times it is no time to cut one's nose off to spite one's face.

Heroine should be provided to existing registered addicts at cost, which will be substantially cheaper than "street" cost. This will significantly reduce their motivation to commit crime to fuel their habit and will remove the incentive from dealers to create more addicts, what's the point if they just go and get it from the authorities. It will also guarentee proper dosing and purity which will substantially reduce the health issues of this drug.

Ecstacy and cannabis plus a few others should be sold and their supply regulated and taxed just like alcohol. Although I will not argue these drugs are harmless, they most certainly are not I will say they are substantially less harmful than alcohol with cannabis being no more harmful than tobacco mainly because it is smoked. The tax generated will help fund the NHS and if the tobacco and alcohol markets are anything to go by this should fund it to excess. 

Cocaine or similar stimulants should be made available too because there is a demand and most of the damage is again associated with the fact it is prohibited. It must be remembed that the same stimulants were provided to fighter pilots during world war II to help them perform better.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Prohibition demonstrably does not work and the cost to this country is great both in terms of law enforcement and social damage.

Alcohol and tobacco are more damaging to the health and society than many illicit drugs yet they pay for themselves because they are regulated and taxed; tobacco tax generates 10 times the amount it costs the NHS during these hard economic times it is no time to cut one's nose off to spite one's face.

Heroine should be provided to existing registered addicts at cost, which will be substantially cheaper than "street" cost. This will significantly reduce their motivation to commit crime to fuel their habit and will remove the incentive from dealers to create more addicts, what's the point if they just go and get it from the authorities. It will also guarentee proper dosing and purity which will substantially reduce the health issues of this drug.

Ecstacy and cannabis plus a few others should be sold and their supply regulated and taxed just like alcohol. Although I will not argue these drugs are harmless, they most certainly are not I will say they are substantially less harmful than alcohol with cannabis being no more harmful than tobacco mainly because it is smoked. The tax generated will help fund the NHS and if the tobacco and alcohol markets are anything to go by this should fund it to excess. 

Cocaine or similar stimulants should be made available too because there is a demand and most of the damage is again associated with the fact it is prohibited. It must be remembed that the same stimulants were provided to fighter pilots during world war II to help them perform better.

 

 

Tobacco law

Prevent shops from displaying cigarettes and change packaging to plain packaging. Allow pharmaceutical companies market freedom to develop new and more effective NRT products and market these and make them cheaper. Extend smokefree legislation to cover all public outside areas including doorways, bus stops, parks. Ban smoking in cars in the same way mobile phone use is banned.

Why is this idea important?

Prevent shops from displaying cigarettes and change packaging to plain packaging. Allow pharmaceutical companies market freedom to develop new and more effective NRT products and market these and make them cheaper. Extend smokefree legislation to cover all public outside areas including doorways, bus stops, parks. Ban smoking in cars in the same way mobile phone use is banned.

Relax restrictions on personal use tobaco from Europe

I am a smoker and travel to Belgium every 6 months to buy my tobaco at 1/3rd. the price of UK every time I do this I have to suffer interogation from HMC&E and made to feel like a criminal.

There is no problem with French border control on leaving the UK and entering France so why should there be a problem on re-entering my own Country. I am white, British and 66 years old. I have worked (without benefits) all my life without interuption and paid all taxes.

My Idea:

If taxes on tobaco were reduced in the UK to be more in line with the rest of Europe then there would be no need for me to purchase abroad. The UK would then benefit from my spending and there would be no reason for people to purchase abroad. The VAT rate in Belgium is 21% and yet tobaco is 1/3rd. cheaper than UK. Let there be a level playing field.

Why is this idea important?

I am a smoker and travel to Belgium every 6 months to buy my tobaco at 1/3rd. the price of UK every time I do this I have to suffer interogation from HMC&E and made to feel like a criminal.

There is no problem with French border control on leaving the UK and entering France so why should there be a problem on re-entering my own Country. I am white, British and 66 years old. I have worked (without benefits) all my life without interuption and paid all taxes.

My Idea:

If taxes on tobaco were reduced in the UK to be more in line with the rest of Europe then there would be no need for me to purchase abroad. The UK would then benefit from my spending and there would be no reason for people to purchase abroad. The VAT rate in Belgium is 21% and yet tobaco is 1/3rd. cheaper than UK. Let there be a level playing field.

Restriction on sale of tobacco and alcohol products only to non-welfare recipients

Restrict sale of tobacco (cigarettes) and alcohol to those who can prove they are not in receipt of welfare payments such as job seekers allowance, disability living allowance, etc.

Proof could be provided by a register related to an ID card of sorts (eg driving licence), or providing proof of income such as a pay slip during sale of such goods. Alternatively an NI number could be given, to be checked against payment of tax.

Alternatively, those who have not paying tax and in receipt of welfare should have their next payment reduced in line with their purchase of cigarettes or alcohol.

Why is this idea important?

Restrict sale of tobacco (cigarettes) and alcohol to those who can prove they are not in receipt of welfare payments such as job seekers allowance, disability living allowance, etc.

Proof could be provided by a register related to an ID card of sorts (eg driving licence), or providing proof of income such as a pay slip during sale of such goods. Alternatively an NI number could be given, to be checked against payment of tax.

Alternatively, those who have not paying tax and in receipt of welfare should have their next payment reduced in line with their purchase of cigarettes or alcohol.

‘Ban Smoking in all public outdoor eating areas and outside Pub entrances’

Why can I not enjoy an al fresco meal at a restaurant with outdoor seating without been subjected to cigarette smoke from nearby tables? I choose to eat outside where available due to fresh air and smoking should not be allowed in these areas. This is law in Australia and is welcomed and the norm.

Smoking should also not be tolerated in pub entrances and exits and I would suggest a boundary imposed of say 20 metres for smoking to be prohibited.

Smoke in your own homes, do not subject others to your smoke (including your own children!) and let us non-smokers enjoy our rights and our fresh air!

Why is this idea important?

Why can I not enjoy an al fresco meal at a restaurant with outdoor seating without been subjected to cigarette smoke from nearby tables? I choose to eat outside where available due to fresh air and smoking should not be allowed in these areas. This is law in Australia and is welcomed and the norm.

Smoking should also not be tolerated in pub entrances and exits and I would suggest a boundary imposed of say 20 metres for smoking to be prohibited.

Smoke in your own homes, do not subject others to your smoke (including your own children!) and let us non-smokers enjoy our rights and our fresh air!

An amendment to the smoking ban

The smoking ban must be amended to allow everyone a choice.

Pub,s cafe,s hotel,s bingo hall,s should be allowed to state whether they want to have smoking allowed or not, which should be clearly displayed at the entrance. It should also be illegal NOT to have a smoking room indoors at every airport . This would undoubtably relieve the stress of flying for many people while at the same time not affecting the many who choose not to smoke  I can understand the need for some places to be smokefree for people who have certain medical conditions, but the present  law goes completely over the top. The only way this country is going to be truly open for business is to amend this draconian ban and allow the British people to use it,s amenities for social occasions and once again for holidays. Incidentally it will also send a clear message to the rest of the world that it is once again a pleasant place to visit and they will be made  most welcome  and appreciated.                                       

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban must be amended to allow everyone a choice.

Pub,s cafe,s hotel,s bingo hall,s should be allowed to state whether they want to have smoking allowed or not, which should be clearly displayed at the entrance. It should also be illegal NOT to have a smoking room indoors at every airport . This would undoubtably relieve the stress of flying for many people while at the same time not affecting the many who choose not to smoke  I can understand the need for some places to be smokefree for people who have certain medical conditions, but the present  law goes completely over the top. The only way this country is going to be truly open for business is to amend this draconian ban and allow the British people to use it,s amenities for social occasions and once again for holidays. Incidentally it will also send a clear message to the rest of the world that it is once again a pleasant place to visit and they will be made  most welcome  and appreciated.                                       

 

 

Cut all Public Funding to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)

Action and Smoking on Health (ASH) is one of the most powerful charities in the land, lobbying MPs and powerful Medical groups to adopt their position.  However, ASH is heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry (who manufacture nicotene replacement products),  and State funding.  Whether this funding be direct or channelled via the NHS or other charities such as Cancer Research UK and the BHF, the end result is that most of its multi-million pound budget comes from the taxpayer.  In reality, last year, this charity only received £11000 in voluntary donations from the public and its Scottish branch only had 0.2% of its funding come from voluntary donation.

 

Given the disproportionate level of power this organisation wields and given our straitened economic times, all State funding to this organisation should be withdrawn.  It should either represent its true popularity with the public by attempting to survive on public donations or it should be wholly funded by the pharmaceutical industry so that everyone is clear on its background and agenda.  When the Leader of this organisation brags in a national newspaper about performing "a confidence trick" on Parliament with regard to the Smoking Ban, the legitimacy of taxpayers' money being used to fund them needs to be addressed.

 

Why is this idea important?

Action and Smoking on Health (ASH) is one of the most powerful charities in the land, lobbying MPs and powerful Medical groups to adopt their position.  However, ASH is heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry (who manufacture nicotene replacement products),  and State funding.  Whether this funding be direct or channelled via the NHS or other charities such as Cancer Research UK and the BHF, the end result is that most of its multi-million pound budget comes from the taxpayer.  In reality, last year, this charity only received £11000 in voluntary donations from the public and its Scottish branch only had 0.2% of its funding come from voluntary donation.

 

Given the disproportionate level of power this organisation wields and given our straitened economic times, all State funding to this organisation should be withdrawn.  It should either represent its true popularity with the public by attempting to survive on public donations or it should be wholly funded by the pharmaceutical industry so that everyone is clear on its background and agenda.  When the Leader of this organisation brags in a national newspaper about performing "a confidence trick" on Parliament with regard to the Smoking Ban, the legitimacy of taxpayers' money being used to fund them needs to be addressed.