Thursday, 14 January 2021

My stance on cannabis and the law

As regards cannabis and the law:

I do not have a new stance, it is a matter of semantics.

In the "old" way I used the words, my stance has not changed - I want cannabis removed from the Misuse of Drugs Act, I still believe that the use of cannabis ought to be a matter of choice and no victim no crime. I am against licensing for personal cultivation, I support collective grows and want consumer protection for customers.

What has changed for me is that I now see the law applies to people not substances, therefore I focus on human activities.

I believe what a person does in their own homes and as part of their chosen belief should not be against any law so long as they do no harm to or put at risk other people or their Rights..

I believe that legalisation of possession is not necessary, removing the office from law is essential, hence decriminalisation of the activities of personal possession, non-profit sharing, cultivation for ow use or collectively or by a carer, should not be offences and hence my support for WTU challenge against the statutes as they are unjustifiable and the application is contrary to human rights.

Neither do I support civil punishments for the same reason. When it comes to supply, legalisation is the word, that is bringing the supply within the laws to allow consumer protection, taxation on PROFITS, accurate labelling, wights, purity, with age restrictions and that would require some sort of register or licensing of suppliers,

That is legalisation of the ACT of supply, decriminalisation of the act of possession and non-commercial cultivation. So I do not see that my stance has changed at all. I support the petition because it calls for a halt to prosecutions of cultivation in private - that does not mean that I am against collective grows or CSCs, coffeeshops or cannabis shops, social sharing or in fact that I think that possession of other "drugs" should remain offences in law.

I am not a "member" of any group except facebook groups and have not been since leaving LCA. And I don't want to be; I do not want to speak for or represent other groups: I have no faith in UKCIA, UPA, NORML UP, CISTA or CLEAR

I can assure you that it is simply the words I use and the meaning that may have changed, not my stance or opinions, and I am not asking anyone to follow me, certainly not following anyone else.. that is the trouble with words, even written words

Regarding calling for total “legalisation”, just look and see what has happened in Canada - they have certainly legalised it which means it is now in the hands of government and pharmers.

I say just leave us alone, with our choices, so long as we harm nobody, the only problem with that "illegal" and uncontrolled supply leaves it also in the hands of unscrupulous and untaxable dealers, as well as decent ones. In Spain they allow clubs, but there are still dealers on the streets because it is restricted. In Portugal they have decriminalised possession without any legal supply routes. In Holland they have tolerated supply of cannabis but not for other substances ie drugs, so there are still dealers on the streets.

In the UK it's all heading to give pharmaceutical businesses the monopoly. I hope you understand what I am saying.


1 comment:

  1. Good blog Alun. A more sensible approach is needed, I don't think we will just achieve decrim, they want to control the market. But pandoras box has been opened and she isn't going back in, now we have medical recognition, I believe full legalisation will eventually follow.