Comment of UK Parliament back-bench debate on Cannabis petition signed by almost 250,000 to legalise possession, cultivation and supply

 UK Parliament back-bench debate on Cannabis petition signed by almost 250,000 to legalise possession, cultivation and supply.

The petition was not able health or medical cannabis, whatever that is, it was about changing the law to legalise possession, cultivation and suppy.  It was not about drugs, it was about cannabis and the law.

There wre just about 14 MP's present.   There were twice that number of non-MP's at least, witnessing.

My own MP, Chloe Smith for Norwicc North and the Norwich South MP were absent.   Brior to the debate, I emailed Ms Smith to ask her to attend and she replied that shie would listen.

So I do hope that she listens to the recordings or reads the Hansard transcript.

Paul Flynn started the debate by saying "we" do not want cannabis legalised because it is safe, we want it legalised because it is dangerous. "we" of course does not most campaigners that I know and legalisation based on that statement will lead for sure to excessive restrictions on supply.

From what the Minister said we can expect more availability of expensive pharmaceutical cannabis medications and it would not surpirise me if some sort of ban on seeds.

Not one of the MP's present admitted to having tried cannabis - fair enough - but is it not time they started to listen to those that have, the massive majority having suffered no ill effects and actually benefitted?

It was like listening to a group of people debating whether or not Paris is a good city and whether people should be allowed to go there, when none of those debating have actually been.

My impression of the Minister was that he had been drinking alcohol, I may be wrong, that is just my impression. Cheap alcohol subsidised by the taxpayers.

My prize for best speeches goes to Peter Lilley, Norman Lamb, Caroline Lucas and Paul Flynn.

Relevant pages:

Potent Quotes
News Reports
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide

uk PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ON CANNABIS, OCTOBER 12 2015

I do hope that the MPs stick to the issue that the petition raised which is full legalisation of cannabis possession, cultivation and supply for all, not just some sort of medical restrictions or decriminalisation and not about whether or not cannabis is beneficial or harmful.

Of course it has been shown to be highly beneficial for many people, but that is a reason to make it available from doctors and pharmacies just as are opiates, not a reason to legalise for everyone.

Likewise we have to accept that cannabis may be harmful for some people, but that is not a reason to punish them or others, or to keep possession or cultivation at home as offences: if it were, then many more substances that harm many more people, such as sugar, caffeine drinks, aspirin, glues and solvents, would be illegal for everyone to possess.

The ISSUE MUST BE JUSTICE.

The issue of harm only becomes relevant for legalised commodities so that adequate and relevant controls on supply can be instated; whilst illegal for sales, no controls can be put on a substance left totally in the hands of criminal profiteers who don't even have to pay taxes.

Where is the JUSTICE in punishing victimless people for choice in their private lives, lifestyles and beliefs?

That question applies whether we talk about a beneficial or dangerous product.

Knives, for example, do untold harm, whether deliberate or accidental, even in the home, but are openly sold in shops and perfectly legal to have at home.

With knives it is what the person does with them that is the issue in law.

Neither is the government claim that cannabis is banned as a deterrent to others of any significance.

Neither is their claim that if legalised then more would use and more would suffer from cannabis (they ignore that many more would benefit)

Human Rights law both national and international, specifies criteria under which authority may interfere with private life or practice of belief: those criteria mean that law itself is not enough - which is the whole point of Human Rights to protect citizens against bad and unjust laws.

Human Rights law demands that the activity is a risk or does HARM to PUBLIC HEALTH, PUBLIC ORDER, NATIONAL SECURITY OR THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS - the Government have failed to show that in the case of possession or cultivation of the cannabis plant in one's own home for own uses.

So my message to Paul Flynn and others in this debate is PLEASE focus on JUSTICE

Correspondence with Chloe Smith MP, Norwich North, Conservative, Sept 2015 re UK cannabis debate

Dear Ms Smith,

Whatever your feelings on punishing people for growing or possessing plants in their private lives and homes, I do hope you will consider at least attending and listening at the debate on cannabis laws happening on 12th October.

As you may know well over 200,000 people have signed a petition to legalise possession, cultivation and supply of cannabis - it is a matter that affects many people in Norwich as well as the many around the country that are ciminlaised and prosecuted despite doing no harm to others.

There are several facebook pages and web sites that list the medicinal benefits ranging from relief of stress to possible cancer treatments and I cannot believe that those people are all telling porkies and defintely do not believe that they should be punished.

The proof that cannabis can provide medical relief is also available from GW Pharmaceuticals who produce a whole-plant extract in alcohol into a cannister of spray called Sativex: sadly GW charge many times the price of the contents and processing costs and hence many NHS regions are refusing to supply it, driving those in need to grow their own cannabis or risk buying possibly contaminated materials from street dealers.

Alun Buffry


REPLY:

Dear Mr Buffry,

Thank you for your email.

I will certainly listen carefully to the arguments put by the petition. I am aware that official advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs continues to confirm that cannabis presents a significant risk to public health, so I remain unconvinced that decriminalisation is the right answer.

The medicinal product derived from cannabis, Sativex, has been approved by the body responsible for ensuring the medicines available in the United Kingdom are of the correct standard and are acceptably safe. The regulator believes Sativex is a safe and effective medicine for patients with multiple sclerosis. I can't comment on its pricing.

With best wishes,

Chloe Smith
Member of Parliament for Norwich North

 Dear Ms Smith,

Thank you for your reply.   Please understand that cannabis law is an issue about whether or not people should be punished by law for growing or possessing cannabis for own use and do no harm or cause no risk to others.

That question is irrespective of any harm the user may do to themselves and therefore the risk of using cannabis, which is very obviously lower than from consuming alcohol or tobacco, is only an issue when it comes to how such substances are controlled by law.

Leaving the commericial production and supply beyond control and in the hands of criminal profiteers can only increase any risk to the consumers through adulteraion or contamination - as was seen under the prohibition of alcohol in the US.  Check out what is happening in Colorado and other US states that have legalised supply.

The law, as it stands, does far more harm than good, not least from creating criminal records for people that have no victims

regards

Alun Buffry

We need to debate use of cannabis - Bristol Post - Comment

It's been debated long enough and it's the politicians that refuse to seriously consider changing the law. 

The law MUST be changed in the interests of public health, Justice, Human Rights and the environment.  

The present law that punishes people that have done no harm and posed no threat, for the possession or cultivation of plants in their own homes for their own use - it is expensive, an utter failure at protecting people, and completely unworkable in a society where over 10% have admitted using cannabis.   

These times of prohibition will be looked at in the future i the same way we now look a alcohol prohibition in the US.  

In short, evil.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/need-debate-use-cannabis/story-20256098-detail/story.html
Bristol Post: Dec 4 2013:

Editor's comment: We need to debate use of cannabis

IT is no accident that the number of cannabis factories is on the increase. Whilst they may be illegal they are certainly lucrative. And without question they are meeting a demand.

It could be argued that the proliferation of these factories is evidence for saying the law needs to change to make the use of cannabis acceptable.

Then there is the use of cannabis to treat medical conditions.

Should we follow the United States where it is regularly prescribed?

And should we deny people with arthritis and other painful conditions the relief cannabis can deliver?
But equally we should not forget that these factories are part of a much bigger picture involving drug dealing and violent crime. It is surely no coincidence that knives were found at one of these farms.
And there is a further issue here. That is if we accept the common use of cannabis then we run the risk of more people moving on to harder drugs and everything that implies.

It is time again to have a serious debate about all these issues.

Read more: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/need-debate-use-cannabis/story-20256098-detail/story.html#ixzz2mah556R3