Under Human Rights law it is not legal to differentiate in the way authority treats people due to their property
so in acting, for example, on whether or not, under the present Misuse
of Drugs Act, they issue a license for the safe cultivation of
cannabis, the Home Office cannot legally treat people differently
simply because they have different property and that would presumably
include company directors and employees of say GW Pharmaceuticals.
Yet the owners of GW are given license to cultivate
large crops of cannabis and extract the active chemicals into alcohol,
for sale as a medication (Sativex) and at high price and profits, yet a
person that does not have any ownership in the company will not be
issued a license. That seems to me another discrepency between how
the Home Office acts and Human Rights law.