HIDDEN BY THE SMOKE - a song by Alun Buffry

LYRICS

Medical Cannabis in the UK: Legalisation, Unequal Access and Human Rights, an article by Lydia Kitchen

 

Medical Cannabis in the UK: Legalisation, Unequal Access and Human Rights

Lydia Kitchen

Drug Science

Wednesday 05 Aug 2026

Lydia Kitchen is a PhD candidate in Law at the University of Leicester. Her research examines human rights, healthcare decision-making and structural inequality, with a particular interest in drug policy and access to treatment.

Since 2018, cannabis-based products for medicinal use have been available on prescription in the UK. However, NHS access remains exceptionally limited. NHS figures reported to Parliament show that fewer than five patients have received prescriptions for unlicensed products, while more than 1.4 million people are estimated to use cannabis for medical purposes. Private clinics are the main lawful route outside the NHS, but many cannot afford the ongoing costs. People outside the prescription system may still rely on cannabis to manage their health and risk criminalisation.

My recent article in Amicus Curiae, Barriers to Medical Cannabis in the UK: Human Rights Implications of Criminalization and Inequitable Access, examines the gap between legal recognition and practical access from a human rights perspective. It considers whether criminalisation can be justified when people use cannabis therapeutically but cannot obtain a prescription. The central issue is who the system protects and who it leaves exposed to criminalisation. Income, disability and gender can shape access to a prescription, while racial inequalities in drug law enforcement affect who bears the consequences of remaining outside it. A legal distinction shaped by these inequalities becomes increasingly difficult to justify.


Legalisation Without Meaningful Access

In 2018, the law changed to allow specialist doctors to prescribe cannabis-based products for medicinal use. This created a lawful route to treatment, although access remains tightly restricted. A small number of licensed cannabis-based medicines are available through the NHS for certain forms of severe epilepsy, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis. Private treatment largely involves unlicensed products, including cannabis flower and oils, which are closer to the forms commonly used outside the prescription system. They can be prescribed lawfully, but NHS access is almost non-existent because NICE guidance shapes NHS prescribing and does not recommend them for routine use.

NICE follows established evidence standards that place substantial weight on randomised controlled trials. These remain important, but cannabis can be difficult to assess through this model. Unlike single-compound medicines, cannabis-based products contain varying combinations of active compounds and may affect patients differently, while psychoactive effects can reveal whether participants received the active treatment. Real-world evidence can therefore complement clinical trials. Drug Science’s Project Twenty21 collected longitudinal data from more than 4,500 patients prescribed cannabis for a range of conditions, yet evidence of this kind still carries less weight in NICE guidance.

A 2019 NHS England review identified gaps in specialist education, governance processes, funding and supply as barriers to NHS prescribing. Private clinics remain the main lawful route to unlicensed products, but access requires specialist assessment, medical records, a diagnosis and evidence that conventional treatments have been tried. This can be especially restrictive for conditions such as endometriosis, which takes an average of nine years and four months to diagnose in the UK. Patients may therefore manage symptoms for years before meeting these requirements.

For those who qualify and can sustain the costs, a prescription provides lawful access and protection from possession offences. Without one, possession remains an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Therapeutic use alone is not a defence, so two people may use cannabis for similar health reasons while only the prescribed patient is protected from criminal sanction.


How Limited Access Deepens Inequality

Limited access does not affect everyone in the same way. Private prescriptions can cost hundreds of pounds each month once medication, consultations and clinic charges are included. For people whose health affects their ability to work or creates additional costs, private treatment may be particularly difficult to sustain. Those needing ongoing treatment may therefore be among the least able to pay for lawful access.

Outside the prescription system, criminalisation compounds that disadvantage. A conviction can affect employment, housing and social inclusion. There is also the immediate stress of relying on something illegal to manage a health condition. Patients prescribed cannabis have reported that, despite legal protection, prohibition still produces stigma and anxiety around using medication in public.

These harms are not distributed equally. Research in England and Wales has consistently documented that Black people are disproportionately stopped and searched, prosecuted and convicted for drug offences, including cannabis possession. The ability to pay privately therefore shapes access to legal protection within an already unequal enforcement system.

People with disabilities and chronic illnesses may face lower incomes and additional costs. Those growing cannabis for medical reasons have described how failures in conventional care, criminalisation and reliance on illicit markets can overlap. Women face related barriers because endometriosis and fibromyalgia disproportionately affect them, while diagnosis can take years and effective treatments remain limited. If lawful access depends on diagnosis and previous treatment, existing healthcare inequalities can influence who receives legal protection.

Intersectionality helps explain how income, race, gender and disability can interact so that one person faces several barriers at once, affecting both access to a prescription and exposure to criminalisation. Equality cannot be understood simply as applying the same criminal law to everyone. A rule may appear neutral while placing a heavier burden on groups already disadvantaged. Where lawful protection is unequally accessible, treating everyone outside the prescription system in the same way can reinforce those inequalities.


Autonomy, Equality and Criminalisation

Restricted access and continued criminalisation raise questions about autonomy and equality under the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the Convention does not create a specific right to medical cannabis or guarantee access to a chosen treatment, the current framework must still comply with the rights it protects.

Article 8 protects private life, including personal autonomy, self-determination and bodily integrity. Criminal law is a serious form of state interference in decisions about managing a health condition. The risk of arrest or prosecution can affect how cannabis is obtained and used, discourage disclosure to healthcare professionals and add to the anxiety of managing a condition outside the law. However, Article 8 is not absolute. Governments may interfere with private life to protect public health, but any interference must be lawful, necessary and proportionate. The 2018 reforms make blanket criminalisation harder to justify because the law now recognises cannabis as a legitimate medical treatment. Someone outside the prescription system can still be criminalised without considering why they use cannabis or why a prescription was unavailable. Concerns about unregulated cannabis remain relevant, but they must be weighed against the harms of criminalisation and less restrictive alternatives.

Article 14 prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights, including Article 8. This includes indirect discrimination, where an apparently neutral rule has disproportionately harmful effects. A prescribed patient and someone outside the prescription system may be managing comparable health problems, yet only one is protected from criminal sanction. Access to a prescription can depend on income, diagnosis, previous treatment and the ability to navigate specialist private healthcare. These barriers interact with disability, gender and socioeconomic disadvantage, while those outside the lawful system also face racial inequalities in drug enforcement. The European Court of Human Rights gives particular weight to discrimination involving disability and health status, recognising that vulnerable groups may require stronger protection. Where access has been shaped by structural disadvantage, criminalisation cannot easily be treated as an individual choice not to comply with the law.

Governments have considerable discretion over health policy and public spending, making it difficult to argue that human rights law requires universal NHS provision. Human rights principles nevertheless strengthen the case for Parliament to reform the law. Decriminalising possession is narrower than universal NHS provision and offers the most realistic starting point for a rights-based approach.


Formal Decriminalisation and Wider Reform

Here, decriminalisation means removing possession for personal use from criminal law. It would not create a commercial market or remove controls on production and supply. Some police forces already use diversion schemes and other out-of-court responses for low-level possession. These may prevent prosecution, but the offence remains. Protection therefore depends on local practice and police discretion, creating inconsistency and legal uncertainty.

Legislative reform would provide clearer and more consistent protection. Stevens, Eastwood and Douse propose repealing sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The London Drugs Commission has recommended removing cannabis from that Act so possession would instead fall under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, where it is generally not an offence outside custodial settings.

A narrow medical exemption would risk reproducing barriers already present in the prescription system. People may use cannabis for several reasons or recognise its therapeutic value before receiving a formal diagnosis, so medical and recreational use do not always divide neatly. Requiring proof of medical need would disadvantage those whose conditions are difficult to diagnose or whose symptoms have not been taken seriously. Decriminalising possession would avoid making legal protection depend again on medical documentation and healthcare access.

Reform must also address how personal possession is distinguished from supply. Someone using cannabis regularly for a chronic condition may keep a larger quantity to reduce costs, maintain a reliable supply or limit contact with the illicit market. Fixed quantity thresholds could expose therapeutic users to supply allegations even where the cannabis is intended for personal use.

International experience highlights the importance of health and social support alongside legal reform. Portugal, for example, removed criminal penalties for possession of small quantities of drugs for personal use in 2001, alongside investment in treatment, harm reduction and prevention. In the UK, decriminalisation would not expand NHS prescribing or make private treatment affordable. Wider NHS access, better education for healthcare professionals and the police, and further research would still be needed. Reform should also consider expunging previous cannabis possession convictions to address past harms. Decriminalisation would nevertheless be an important first step, preventing people excluded from lawful medical access from also being criminally punished.


Beyond the 2018 Reforms

The 2018 reforms recognised cannabis as a legitimate medical treatment, but legal protection is limited to those able to obtain a prescription. People using cannabis for similar health reasons can therefore face starkly different legal consequences when cost, delayed diagnosis or other healthcare barriers prevent access. The central problem is the relationship between restricted access and continued criminalisation. Decisions about managing illness engage autonomy, while unequal access and enforcement place a heavier burden on those already disadvantaged. Where people unable to obtain lawful treatment remain exposed to criminal sanction, the current framework does not provide equal protection in any meaningful sense.

Decriminalising possession for personal use would remove one of the clearest harms of the current system. Wider reform is still needed to improve NHS access and affordability, support further research and build public and professional understanding. The 2018 reforms should be judged by the protection they provide in practice. Access and criminal justice policy must be addressed together so that people are not punished because lawful treatment was beyond their reach.

Governmental Controls Can Be Mental

 Every Government in the world, every ruler, king, Pharaoh etc, has been about control, rules and laws, sometimes one rule for the elite and one rule for the others, but even the elite have needed controlling in order for those governments with their various levels of tyranny, to work. Even Human Rights laws have been imposed upon us, in the name of limiting unjust laws and tyranny, but still we are all subject to controls, usually said to be in the public interest or health, hygiene, safety - we accept things like wearing seat belts, where we can park our cars, buying TV licenses, not possessing certain substances, paying out taxes - now they have stretched here as previously in other regimes, to banning mass gatherings, public protests and lockdowns. 

We accept the need for a passport if we want to go abroad - and strangely that the passport asks that citizens be allowed to pass unhindered but we are still subjected to searches of bags and person, questions, need for visas.

Make no mistake, government control is not new - and to me it seems obvious that with population crisis, environmental crisis, let alone viruses, most governments will wish to impose more controls on us to protect themselves and the wealthy. The Ten Commandments has become the ten thousand commandments - they rule by divide and conquer, alienation from our fellow human beings, greed, ignorance and fear.

BUT we are human and we are here to enjoy our lives as best we can - so we don't want to be sent to prison and each ha to decide which rules that we see as justifiable and will obey, and which not and whether or not we will risk what freedom we have left.

I am not one to tell others what to do or be told what to do, although I will listen to advice and do expect people in my house to behave in a certain way or leave.

The Fight for Rights and Freedom of Choice by Phil Monk and We The Undersigned

 

 Available on Amazon

ISBN 978 18384401 1 4

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

 

STATEMENT

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

ARTICLE 8:

Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

ARTICLE 9:

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

UNLESS it can be shown that the possession or cultivation of cannabis for own use or the consumption and / or sharing of cannabis alone or with others, poses a risk to “public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”, then any interference by any authority with the Rights under Article 8 and 9 IS CONTRARY TO Human Rights Act 1998, and CONSTITUTES AN OFFENCE IN LAW.

 

Rejected Petition: Remove cannabis and cannabis products from the Misuse of Drugs Act.

 Remove cannabis and cannabis products from the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Change policy to bring an immediate halt to the raiding of the private property and the arrest and prosecution of citizens for the possession, cultivation and supply of cannabis until and after cannabis is removed from the Misuse of Drugs Act.

More details

The application of the Misuse of Drugs Act against people for victimless cannabis activities is contrary to common justice and Human Rights Laws. There should be commercial outlets where adults can safely purchase, consume and socially share cannabis with consumer protection, hygiene, quality control and tax on profits. See more: http://www.ccguide.org/challengeintro.php
https://ccguide.org/safety.php
https://ccguide.org/potent.php
https://www.safeaccessnow.org/cannabis_safety

===============

 9 February 2021
From HOC Petitions Committee

Dear Alun Buffry,

Sorry, we can’t accept your petition – “Remove cannabis and cannabis products from the Misuse of Drugs Act.”.

There’s already a petition about this issue. We cannot accept a new petition when we already have one about a very similar issue.

You are more likely to get action on this issue if you sign and share a single petition.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/551846

Click this link to see your rejected petition:
View your rejected petition

We only reject petitions that don’t meet the petition standards:
https://petition.parliament.uk/help#standards

=====================

 9 February 2021: Appeal

To: HOC Petitions Committee <petitionscommittee@parliament.uk>
Subject: Appeal against rejection of petition

I would like to appeal the rejection of my petition  “Remove cannabis and cannabis products from the Misuse of Drugs Act.”
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/570910

which has been rejected on the grounds that there is a similar petition, namely "Legalise medical and recreational cannabis in the UK"
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/551846

You have said "There’s already a petition about this issue. We cannot accept a new petition when we already have one about a very similar issue."

First the petition to legalise cannabis is impossible to fulfil, as cannabis is a substance and cannot be legal or illegal: it is the human activities that are limited by statute.  My petition is about human rights and human activities, not drugs.

Secondly even legalisation of cannabis activities is not the same as the removal of cannabis from the Misuse of Drugs Act

Alun Buffry, petition author

======================== 

9 February 20211

From 
HOC Petitions Committee

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your email. I have logged this as an appeal.

We aim to consider all complaints about moderation decisions within 7 days, and will notify petitioners if it is likely to take significantly longer than this.

All complaints about moderation decisions will be considered by one or more team member not involved in the original moderation decision. These will normally be trained moderators who are part of the Petitions Committee team.

Once we have considered your complaint, we are unable to enter into further correspondence unless there is new information that wish to raise with us about the decision.  Any further consideration will be undertaken by the Clerk of the Committee and, when appropriate, with the Chair and Members of the Committee.

If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact with me.

Kind regards

Sabbir Ahmad
The Petitions Team
UK Government and Parliament
petitionscommittee@parliament.uk
House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA
=================================

10 February 2021

From 
HOC Petitions Committee

Dear Alun

Thank you for your email.

This has been escalated to me as one of the officials who considers appeals, and I have looked at your petition, the moderation decision and your subsequent appeal about the decision of our moderators.

While I understand that you have couched your request in different terms to the petition we have open on this subject, we do not accept multiple petitions that in effect make the same request - in this case decriminalising/legalising the use of cannabis. I take your point that the wording of the open petition is to legalise medical and recreational cannabis, rather than associated activities, but we believe it is sufficiently clear from the text of the petition what it wants to achieve.

If there is a specific outcome that you want to achieve that is different to this, we could accept a petition requesting a different outcome, provided it was clear what that outcome was and that is was clearly distinct from decriminalising/legalising the use of cannabis. If you would like help to draft a new petition that is sufficiently different to the existing petition we could accept it we would be happy to do this, if you can let us know what outcome you would like to achieve.

Kind regards
Ed


Ed Faulkner
Second Clerk
Petitions Committee

==========================

10 February 2021

To HOC Petitions Committee

 Thank you Ed, for your comment and offer of help:

What I want the government to do is to immediately change the way the 
law is applied and stop the authorities from raiding people's private 
property when they suspect possession, cultivation and sharing of 
cannabis UNLESS they can show that there is a risk to public health or 
the Rights of others as demanded by Human Rights law criteria for 
interfering with a persons Right to a Private Life and Right to Choose 
and practice their own beliefs, alone or with others

although I see this as a first step I believe it is an essential change 
in policy, not law, to bring the application of the MODA in line with 
Human Rights and common justice.

Alun Buffry

======================
10 February 2021
From HOC Petitions Committee

Good afternoon Alun

Thanks for getting back to me.

I completely understand your objections to current legislation – and its enforcement – and desire for these to change, but the outcome you have requested does seem to be the same as that which would be achieved by the existing petition we have on this issue. I would therefore encourage you to sign and promote this petition, as a single petition on an issue is more likely to secure the support necessary to become entitled to a Government response or debate.

 When this petition closes – on 28 March – we could accept a new petition on this issue, so you might like to start a new petition then.

 Best wishes

Ed

==============
10 February 2021
To HOC Petitions Committee

I will certainly do all that, but I have to say that I disagree a - change in policy on how a law is applied is not the same as a change in law

CANNABIS AND THE MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT

Cannabis and the Misuse of Drugs Act

The inclusion of cannabis in the Misuse of Drugs Act raises several questions:

First consider cannabis itself.

Cannabis itself is neither legal nor illegal. It is human activities that are prohibited, limited or licensed, not the substance itself. That is the possession, cultivation and supply, by certain people. Universities, pharmaceutical companies, research establishment and indeed some farmers are permitted under license to cultivate cannabis for specific reasons; police, forensic scientists, court officials and other authorities are permitted to possess in or pass it to others (supply) as part of their jobs.

Legislation was created by Parliament and can be changed by Parliament. Its application is a matter of policy and is often left to the discretion of the police which varies around the country. Prosecution is at the discretion of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Courts. The matter of “guilt”in the trial of supposed or alleged offender is a matter for magistrates, juries and judges

Cannabis is a natural plant, not a substance manufactured rf synthesized in a laboratory or even a kitchen, like most substances included in the Misuse of Drugs Act. It grows naturally, with or without help from humans (cultivation) – it will grow almost anywhere. It exists in nature and existed before human beings. It is not a narcotic, a stimulant (although it may increase drowsiness or stimulate, depending on the circumstances) or cause hallucinations (different to illusions) . It is non-lethal – that is there is no amount possible to consume that will cause death. It is far safer than most plants that grow in our parks and gardens or even in the wild.

Let is consider the term “misuse”. It is different from “muse” and “abuse”.

misuse

verb

1. use (something) in the wrong way or for the wrong purpose.

   "he was found guilty of misusing public funds"

   Similar:

   put to wrong use, misapply, misemploy,
   
   

Noun

1. the wrong or improper use of something.

   EG: "drugs of such potency that their misuse can have dire consequences"
   
   

So we may ask: what is the “purpose” of cannabis? With most manufactured substances and articles that would mean why was it made? With plants we must ask why did nature or God produce it and for what reason does man cultivate or possess it. Of course the first question is largely a matter of philosophy or beliefs. The second question is a matter for the person (or persons) cultivating, possessing and using the plant.

Cannabis has been around humans and used by humans for many thousands of years. It was once a common plant used by almost everyone, commonly called, in English, Hemp..

In the work Culpeper’s Complete Herbal of 1652, it was written:

HEMP

This is so well known to every good housewife in the country, that I shall not need to write any description of it.

Time. It is sown in the very end of March, or beginning of April, and is ripe in August or September.

Government and virtues. It is a plant of Saturn, and good for something else, you see, than to make halters only. The seed of Hemp consumes wind, and by too much use thereof disperses it so much that it dries up the natural seed for procreation; yet, being boiled in milk and taken, helps such as have a hot dry cough. The Dutch make an emulsion out of the seed, and give it with good success to those that have the jaundice, especially in the beginning of the disease, if there be no ague accompanying it, for it opens obstructions of the gall, and causes digestion of choler. The emulsion or decoction of the seed stays lasks and continual fluxes, eases the cholic, and allays the troublesome humours in the bowels, and stays bleeding at the mouth, nose, or other places, some of the leaves, being fried with the blood of them that bleed, and so given them to eat. It is held very good to kill the worms in men or beasts; and the juice dropped into the ears kills worms in them; and draws forth earwigs, or other living creatures gotten into them. The decoction of the root allays inflammations of the head, or any other parts: the herb itself, or the distilled water thereof doth the like. The decoction of the root eases the pains of the gout, the hard humours of knots in the joints, the pains and shrinking of the sinews, and the pains of the hips. The fresh juice mixed with a little oil and butter, is good for any place that hath been burnt with fire, being thereto applied.

Nowadays, around the world, cannabis is widely accepted to have many medicinal uses; that is cannabis with or without large THC: CBD ratios. Those medicinal uses include the amelioration of many aches and pains caused by mild or serious illnesses and injuries, reduction or cessation of muscular spasms and epileptic fits, reduction of intraocular pressures that cause glaucoma, easing breathing in asthma sufferers, aiding sleep and boosting appetite, counteracting the negative effects of chemotherapy and not least reduction of stress, one of the biggest causes of illness, absenteeism, violence and premature death. It is used to treat mental health problems such as depression, anxiety and psychosis (especially CBD extracts). Cannabis is also claimed, with mounting evidence, to cure cancers and tumours. Cannabis is widely used to boost inspiration and creativity by artists and musicians; to enable and improve socialisation. It is used simply for fun, recreation or to created good feelings and moods.

Cannabis is now cultivated by Pharmaceutical companies such as GW Pharmaceuticals who produce Sativex sprays supplied to sufferers of, for instance, Multiple Sclerosis: Sativex is a full cannabis extract in alcohol with an added peppermint flavour; in The Netherlands it is prescribed by doctors in herbal form, granulated and standardised and produced by Bedrocan. The supply of cannabis medicinal products on prescription was “legalised” in the UK just a couple of years ago. In fact, the UK is one of the largest exporters of cannabis for “medicinal purposes” cultivated by British Sugar Corporation (BSC). Incidentally, whilst the sick and healthy are daily raided by police and dragged through the courts, the spouses of MP’s such as Theresa May (ex-Prime Minister) and Victoria Atkins (Drugs Minister) are major investors in GW and BSC.

But the use of cannabis do not stop there. It includes its use as a sacrament in many religions and beliefs, their practices, rites and rituals, including Rastafarianism, Coptic Christianity, Hinduism and Jainism, Sufism, Buddhism and many new age religious movements.

Cannabis and Hemp (cannabis with low THC content) has many industrial uses as a source of fibre and fuel. It can be used to make fuel capable of running our homes, our cars and even our planes. It can be and is used in the production of paper, building materials such as bricks and shelving, furniture, plastics, canvas for sails and artist's paintings, clothing, oils for lubrication or for paints etc, The list is almost endless.

The seed fro m the cannabis plant is one of the most nutritious seeds on earth:

The Nutritional Contents of Cannabis Seeds and Their Health Benefits

There is no real nutritional difference between hemp seeds and cannabis seeds, even if the latter ends up growing into a plant that contains high amounts of THC.

This is because cannabinoids such as THC, the compound known for its psychoactive properties, do not exist in the seed. These compounds are only present in the stem, stalk, l eaves and flower of the plant itself.

The same applies to other cannabinoids such as the popular CBD, as well as flavonoids, terpenes, etc. This is why cannabis seeds on their own aren’t used for therapeutic purposes. But what they lack in that department, they make up for in nutritional contents and general health benefits.

The nutrition contained in a cannabis seed is quite frankly incredible. Starting with protein, cannabis seeds provide a complete source of the nutrient as they contain all nine essential amino acids. Since your body cannot produce these nine acids, it needs to obtain them from external sources. Very few plants are complete sources like cannabis seeds.

On the outer shell of a cannabis seed, you’ll find most of its firer contents. Around 35% of a cannabis seed is composed of essential fatty acids, including omega 3,6,9 and GLA.

As if that wasn’t enough, cannabis seeds also contain iron, copper, potassium, zinc, magnesium, folic acid, manganese, vitamin E and a number of B vitamins, including riboflavin, folate, thiamine and vitamin B6. Furthermore, cannabis seeds are highly digestible. You can eat them cooked, raw, shelled, unshelled… the sky’s the limit.

Taken from https://www.medsnews.com/health/nutritional-contents-of-cannabis-seeds/

This article could be expanded to many pages to show the many uses of cannabis. For further reference please see:

https://ccguide.org/uses.php
https://ccguide.org/seeduses.php
https://ccguide.org/industry.php
https://ccguide.org/forfuel.php

I think it is safe to conclude that CANNABIS HAS VERY MANY USES, both on an individual and industrial level.

So to return to the original issue: what is the “Misuse” of cannabis? How is it used for reasons other than for intentional beneficial use? What are the misuses? To get high? To feel good? To harm others?

To me it us abundantly clear that the inclusion of cannabis as a scheduled classified substance of misuse in the Misuse of Drugs Act and the prohibition that goes along with that, its origins and application, are at best erroneous and smells of corruption, infringes upon Rights to a Private Life and the Choice and Practice of Belief (and other Articles), nationally and internationally, wrongly favouring big industry over the individual, unjustifiably flying in the face of evidence and fact, and 

CANNABIS SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE ACT WITHOUT DELAY.

 

Alun Buffry - LCA Confernece 2006

Retired HR barrister Roger Warren Evans speaking about cannabis and human rights

VIDEO: Guy Coxall (Seed Our Future) - Cannamantv Episode - ''It's time to END ...

New Zealand cannabis referendum

See the dangers of a referendum under which voters are poorly informed by those with the money and power over media and after which the government says "the will of the people" (you know, just as Hitler did) instead of Governments taking responsibility to do what is legal, just and Right? 

 

The Cannabis referendum is an example; we all have equal Rights to practice our beliefs, to do what we choose in our Private Lives, so long as we pose no threat to public health, public order, national security or the Rights of others, without interference, and any government action is illegal, such as against possession, consumption or cultivation of cannabis plants.

New Zealand votes to legalise euthanasia – but not cannabis

Cannabis referendum: What now for the law and police?

 

Referendum results live: NZ votes yes on euthanasia, no on cannabis legalisation

 

Human Rights, the higher law

 I never asked for Human Rights, they were given to me even before I was born.

I only ever demanded that my Rights and the Rights of others be protected by law.

Human Rights are not subject to or limited by laws.

Laws are subject to and limited by Human Rights, the higher law.

Human Rights were written down and signed by many nations in the late 1940's in order to limit and stop tyrannical and unjustifiable laws created by Governments, in the name of the Brotherhood of Mankind.  They were incorporated into UK law as late as 1999.

Governments cannot put their own interpretations, limits or conditions upon our Rights.  In fact Human Rights put restrictions on Governments and their statutes, although there is some interpretations on how Rights can be ignored, clearly specified in the Articles, that is in the interest of Public Health, Public Order, National Security or the Rights of Others, but it the onus should always be on the authorities to prove those criteria are satisfied.

Ultimately the European Court of Human Rights has the final say on whether or not a Government or Authority has contravened Human Rights although taking a case there can be along and difficult process which can be thrown out without reason and with no Right of appeal at the administrative level before a case can even get to court.  They are the obstacle.

We all have equal Rights.

Rights are not subject to or limited by race, religion or lifestyle;  they are not only for the wealthy and powerful, they are for everyone, for all time.

Those Rights include the Right to choose and practice ones own religion or belief and the Government cannot limit that unless they can show a threat to public health, national security or the Rights of others.  Governments cannot make laws limiting that choice willy-nilly, there is no list of acceptable or unacceptable beliefs.  The practice of those beliefs can be alone or in the company of others.

Similarly, we have the Right to a Private Life and what we do in that private life cannot be limited by arbitrary or politically-motivated laws - so long as there is no threat to public health etc.

So the fact that what a person does in their Private Life or in the practice of their beliefs cannot be interfered with only because a government has made it "illegal" - it must be in the interests of law AND to prevent a risk to public health, public order, national security or the Rights of others - that is very clearly specified in the Article of Human Rights.

That cannot be stressed enough - when a Government cannot satisfy the criteria and sends its forces such as police to interfere with our given and inalienable Rights, then that Government and its forces are guilty of a crime and we are the victims. 

This should be paramount in any consideration of the application of laws, for example, in the possession, production, supply and consumption of some drugs by some people in their own homes.

Cannabis: laws, human rights, medicinal uses and malfeasance

 

1) There is strong scientific evidence that almost all pharmaceutically prescribed drugs, over-the-counter medications, alcohol, tobacco and sugar can harm people’s mental and physical health, yet they are all legally available.

2) The very same plant is grown and exported for medicinal use by British Sugar Cooporation and used to produce extracts by GW Pharmaceuticals.

 

3) The very same plant is sold to adults through private clubs and collective grows in Spain, Coffeeshops in The Netherlands, shops and dispensaries in many States of the US, shops such as in Canada and Uruguay and available through doctors in dozens of coutries worldwide. 

 

4) There is no stron evidence to suggest that cannabis is harmful to the physical or mental health of the vast majority of consumers (millions of them in the UK) or harmful to communities.

 

5) Preventing a person from access to a beneficial substance and / or punishing them because of the supposed risk to a minority of other people is contrary to common sense and common law and Justice.

 

6) Interference in the chosen practice of ones belief and invasion of a person's private life without evidence that an activity poses a risk to PUBLIC health, public order or morals, national security or the Rights of others, is contrary to the Human Rights laws.

 

7) Any person in authority that is guilty on an offence under any statute or law, irespective of whether they are "following orders" or not, is guilty of a crime by malfeasance.

 

 

Reader Letter: Isolating over 70s is age discrimination

Reader Letter: Isolating over 70s is age discrimination

PUBLISHED: 09 May 2020 Eastern Daily Press

Tim Bornett

The government is considering proposals to ask all those over 70 to self isolate irrespective of health factors. Hopefully this will not be taken on board.

By gradually easing the lockdown it will sound strange if senior citizens have increased restrictions.

Many people in their 70s and 80s are fit and active. They would wonder why, for example, an obese 40 year old and a heavy smoker may have any restriction lifted but senior citizens being asked to stay at home.

Many members of both Houses of Parliament are over 70. Many scientists are as well together with other groups who no doubt like to get out to do some exercise.

To segment the over 70s from the rest of society is age discrimination and could cause severe resentment especially if the government decides younger people could exercise at least twice a day.

I urge people who feel strongly to contact their MPs with the view for the latter to lobby the government and to express concerns over this potential age discrimination.

Cannabis presciption and court cases in the UK

Recently there have been several interesting and possibly progressive results in court regarding the acquisition of cannabis for medicinal uses since the Home Secretary changed the law to allow cannabis on prescription in 2018.

Since the law was changed, very few people in the UK and with recognised medicinal needs have been able to get prescriptions for cannabis, and when they do it is done privately and at great monthly cost.

Legal cannabis: why only 18 people have been given a prescription in the UK despite the law changing Recently, as a result of legal action in the High Courts in London, Charlotte Caldwel, the mother of epilepsy sufferer Billie Caldwel, secured a major breakthrough in her High Court battle to obtain medicinal cannabis for him on the NHS. The judge was told that a London-based paediatric neurologist is prepared to write the prescription for teenager Billy Caldwell - if his trust gives him the green light.

She wanted a declaration that a GP or clinician can lawfully write prescriptions for cannabis-based treatment under the direction of an expert in epilepsy diagnosis and management. Other experts have already provided an opinion on the benefits of the treatment for Billy. "All that's missing is the doctor to be told he can do that. That seems to be the only impediment," she said.

So it seems that despite the change in law, the issue was that doctors were unable to write the prescription.

In the meantime, Ms Caldwell had travelled abroad to get cannabis oil for his son and illegally imported it to the UK, which could have sent her to prison. Although licenses (a prescription) were legally available, she had been refused.

This reminded me of a case in Norwich back in the 1970’s.
Michael Smith wanted to sell hot dogs from a street stall and was told he would need a license. He applied and was refused. He was told that although Norwich City Council could issue licenses for street trading, they didn’t.

So Michael set up his stall and sold his hot dogs,ensuring all health and safety regulations were fulfilled.

He was arrested and taken to court.

In court he argued that he had tried to buy a license but the council did not issue them, so to be convicted of not having a license would be unjust as it would be punishing him for not doing something that it is impossible to do. He was given a one pound fine.

This was repeated several times, each time he was fined just one pound, until Norwich City Council decided to issue licenses.

At one day people had to buy a dog license to possess a dog, otherwise it was an offence because they could have bought one, but did not. The same for fishing licenses – you cannot be charged with fishing without a license if there are no licenses available, only if there is.

With TV licenses they say it is an offence to watch TV without a license (which is itself arguable) but once again it is possible to buy one so it becomes possible for it to be an offence not to buy one, if you watch TV or even own a TV in working order.

In conspiracy law, one cannot be convicted of conspiring to do something that it is impossible to do.

Many court cases about cannabis involve charges of cultivation without a license when it is a fact that licenses are issued to big companies such as British Sugar Corporation and GW Pharmaceuticals (coincidentally part-owned by prominent Conservative politicians’ husbands) but refused to individuals that apply.
Once again, how can it be an offence to not do something that it is impossible to do?

Another case that attracted attention was that of R v Lezley and Mark Gibson at Carlisle Crown Court.

In this case Lezley, who had previously been supplied on prescription with Sativex, a full-extract cannabis produced by GW Pharmaceuticals, and later it was withdrawn. She then decided it was essential to grow her own to maintain a reasonable lifestyle. Acting on “Information supplied”, the couple were raided by police and found with a few small cannabis plants and home made cannabis chocolate, arrested and taken to court. It took the CPS many months and through several court appearances which were themselves devastating to Lezley’s health, whilst she had no cannabis either.

But when Lezley was allowed a private prescription for cannabis, promising a cost of £700 a month, the CPS decided not to offer any evidence and the charges were dropped and Lezley and Mark declared not guilty.

The prosecution said the couple were now accessing a medicinal form of the drug legally and it would therefore not be in the public interest to continue the prosecution.

Prosecuting barrister Brendan Burke insisted that the couple had broken the law and warned that they would be prosecuted if they did so again.

The Gibson’s charge would have been the cultivation of cannabis without a license which they could not get. Possession of cannabis without a prescription when it had not been possible to get a prescription. Obviously to deny a seriously ill person that can show the beneficial effects of a medicinal plant that it was not legally possible to get, a license (prescription) and then punish for trying to grow their own plants would be unjust.

So long as Lezley gets her cannabis on prescription, albeit expensive and many many times more costly as growing her own) she will not be prosecuted, but if whilst on prescription she also grows her own, she may be prosecuted again.

Weighing that up: in need but unable to get a license (prescription) charges dropped; can get a license but grows ones own, court case.

It sounds more like the Mafia: now you can buy from us at greatly inflated prices we will send round the heavies to punish you if you source it cheaper.

There are a couple of other cases coming to court where people in dire need of cannabis that I they find effective against illness and are unable to get prescriptions or licenses are being dragged through the courts unjustly and it is argued that those prosecutions (in fact the arrests and charges) are unjust and what is certain is that these people and nobody else are not being helped, they are being punished for trying to stay well, even stay alive, without harming or risking others. That would only happen under tyrants.

Pensioner arrested over cannabis possession says he grew plants to 'save his life'

Michelle X convicted of growing cannabis at her home twice

When it comes to the nitty-gritty, many cases of possession or cultivation of cannabis are actually about lack of licenses or prescriptions, they are not about victims. They exist dues to political whim, not Justice and Rights – such cases defy Justice and Rights.

In many cases it is the authorities that are guilty of infringing upon our Rights and making court cases against doing something that the Government is able to allow them to do, in their private lives.

And all at public offence whilst politicians spouses make massive profits from doing the same on a massive scale.

Cannabis law is the problem, not cannabis

The UK Government continues to try to justify their stance on the possession and cultivation of cannabis in Private, for own use, claiming that it is a dangerous and harmful drug.

Harm has nothing to do with it;

We are all allowed to engage in many activities and consumer many substances that carry a risk to the individual - but what an individual does in Private Life is supposed to be protected by Human Rights laws.

The authorities have no right to step in and stop us unless there is a risk to public health or the Rights of others.

BUT it is also supposed to be the duty of government to protect people and their health

That duty does not include the Right stop one doing what one wants in one’s Private Life.

Human Rights law demands that there is a risk to public health (etc) NOT Private Health.

We are entitled to make ourselves ill by drinking too much or taking too much sugar, coffee, over-the-counter medicines, eat out houseplants (unless it's cannabis), smoke our plants s(o long a sits not cannabis,and a couple of others) ...... and the law can do nothing so long as we do not put others at risk.

It obviously has nothing to do with harm.

Leaving the supply of cannabis in the hands of dealers that may sell bad quality, unknown strength, contamination, other "drugs" certainly risks harm.

The Government realised that it had a duty to protect people that want to drink alcohol by restricting sales to "adults", ensuring quality, recording strengths and giving drinkers somewhere to go to buy and consume in safety. People can also brew their own wines and beers and the authorities can do nothing about it so long as it is not sold and causes not problems outside the premises.

And even if everything the government says is true about risks of use, or that consumption would go up, or that we're all going bald, or that some people or children are better off without it, EVEN if the mental health service was flooded with cannabis patients, even if we all get ill ... even if it did lead some people to hard drugs and / or crime, split up families, ruin lives ... THAT IS NO REASON TO PUNISH EITHER THOSE THAT SUFFER OR THOSE THAT DON'T.

So what is the purpose of giving a person a criminal record because they chose to consume one plant product over another, if they are doing no harm?

It is important to realise that Human Rights law is a higher law than national laws and meant to stifle unacceptable and unjustifiably tyrannical laws.

It is important to distinguish between a person in possession or cultivation of cannabis alone or with others on private premises, and those people that supply others, with our without profits.

It is only on supply that the authorities step in to protect people. It is only those that risk harm to others that deserve punishment.

Dear MP, please explain my Human Rights

Dear .... MP

I have read that I have Human Rights.

In particular I am interested in my Right to a Private Life and my Right to choose and practice my own beliefs.

Could you please explain to me what that actually means in law?

Yours sincerely

Name and Address

Letter to Chloe Smith MP Norwich North - why do you not reply?

Dear Ms Smith,

I am disappointed that you never BOTHER to reply to my emails but then again maybe you don't want my vote.

When you were first elected, you told me that you did not think people should be punished for experimenting with drugs.

NOW I am asking you do you think it Just and Legal for authorities (police) to raid the PRIVATE LIVES and Homes of people who CHOOSE TO BELIEVE that cannabis consumption is beneficial in their lives and to their health, EVEN THOUGH they pose no risk to public health or the Rights of others?

Or do you think that of all the things people can chose to do in private but are not allowed to do in public, somehow growing a few plants is a risk to others?

Or do you think that Human Rights should be ignored or abolished?

Do you believe that you hold a seat in Parliament to represent your constituency, your Party or simply to improve your career and income?

I ask on behalf of many thousands of your constiuents that choose to use cannabis in private but live in fear of arrest, prosecution, loss of career and possibly freedom.

Alun Buffry

COPY SENT to Evening News, Norwich

Letter to Chole Smith MP Norwich North: the Misuse of Drugs Act is often in conflict with Human Rights laws.

Dear Chloe,

I am writing to express my continuing deep concern that the application of the Misuse of Drugs Act is often in conflict with Human Rights laws.

Human Rights guarantee every person the Right to choose their own religion or belief and to practice that belief alone or in the company of others. Human Rights law also guarantee the Right to a Private Life.

The criteria that allows authorities to interfere with those Rights is clearly stipulated in the law; that an activity is against the law is not enough along; the law also demands that such interference must be in the interests of public health or to protect public order or the Rights of others.

My question is: in what way does a person that chooses to grow and consume a plant, in this case cannabis, if they believe such consumption, alone or with others, for any reason, is beneficial or even essential to their well-being, when that person grows or consumes in PRIVATE, pose a risk to anyone?

It can hardly be called a "crime" when there is no harm or risk and no victims, yet a person can be sentenced to up to 14 years in prison for growing cannabis, even if for its their person medicinal or spiritual benefits?

In consideration of the comparison to the harms caused to individuals and communities by alcohol, it seems that the application of the laws against the possession and cultivation of cannabis need some justification as it ruins the lives and alienates so many people annually at great public expense (billions of pounds annually).

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

UK authorities smash through Human Rights to arrest Gibson couple for growing cannabis to treat MS

In January this year Carlisle police ignored the Human Right to a Private Life entering the home of Lezley and Mark Gibson to arrest them for growing their own medicine.

Lezley, who suffers terrifying symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis and finds relief from the plant, has recently been able to get it on prescription, costing her over £1000 a month as opposed to tens of pounds cost of growing her own.

This is not the first time that the couple have appeared in court on cannabis related charges. Lezley was busted in the late 1990's but found not guilty based upon the then usable defence of medical necessity. The couple also appeared in court and were given suspended prison sentences in 2007 for supplying free cannabis-laced chocolate to other MS sufferers.

This time Mark and Lezley were growing just ten plants for their own use, in private, at home.

Meanwhile the husbands of Prime Minister Theresa May and Drugs Minister Victoria Atkins continue to reap in the profits from their shares in the businesses that grow and export massive amounts of plant material for "medicinal use" whilst simultaneously the Government denies that the plant has any medicinal value and continues to authorise the arrest of thousands of people in urgent need of this natural and remarkably safe plant.

Surely the Misuse of Drugs Act was not meant to punish people for growing plants that they find beneficial.

Surely the law ought to protecting our Right to a Private Life and our Right to choose and to practice our own beliefs, so long as there is no harm to others, their Rights, or public health.

Once again, it appears that in the UK there is one law for some and another law for others. Another sad day for British Justice


Carlisle couple accused of cultivating cannabis plants at home appear in court (Mark and Lezley Gibson)

MS Sufferer Cleared Of Cannabis Charge 2000

CHOCOLATE-BAR DRUGS TRIO ESCAPE PRISON SENTENCE 2007

Farce and corruption: drugs minister Victoria Atkins MP recuses herself from drugs debate 'due to my husband's business interests'

Theresa May’s Husband Set To Profit From New Cannabis Medicine After Government Relaxes Ban

How Britain became the world's largest exporter of medical marijuana

CANNABIS and HUMAN RIGHTS