Opinion, Poetry, News, Books, Letters, Photos
Monday, 3 May 2021
PIGS, The Enemies of Legalisation
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.
Wednesday, 14 May 2014
My Facebook Groups and Pages: Ancient Egypt, Cannabis, Justice, Rights
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/encod
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
Friday, 28 October 2011
DECRIMINALISATION AND PARTIAL / MEDICAL LEGALISATION.
So-called "legal drugs" such as alcohol and tobacco are only really" legal" in a limited way.
It is also important to realise that it is not the drugs themselves, but the act of possession, production and supply of some drugs that is illegal for some people!
The use of some drugs is allowed in certain situations such as at home or in licensed premises, and can be banned from public or private places. Alcohol and tobacco can only be sold legally from licensed premises. Law limits home production. This is why we do not advocate treating cannabis as we do alcohol and tobacco. Cannabis is a completely different type of substance. It is not a toxin and one cannot overdose.
The controls applied to alcohol and tobacco are not needed for cannabis.
Although wishing to see cannabis available on prescription for ill people, I do not wish to see this as the only available source of cannabis.
For a start, such a situation may well encourage vast numbers of people to visit their doctor who does not normally often or never sees them. Legalising cannabis possession and supply in this way would increase the number of ‘sick’ people in the country, statistically, which may reflect poorly on the move. Some substances only available on prescription are illegal to possess unless obtained by prescription. Such substances are not fully legal; they are not free.
Drugs such as aspirin, which is highly dangerous, are available in a variety of outlets. Other dangerous substances are available from the corner shop (glue), garage (oils), and over the counter at chemists (cough mixture). There is no reason to limit the outlets of cannabis at all.
From The Report of the FCDA, Europe:
" The proposal of some people for 'partial' exemption from the Prohibition in order to make cannabis limitedly available only as a curative medicament, ostensibly has its origin in the emotional response of sympathetic human beings to the needs of the seriously ill or moribund patients. 'Partial' legalisation, however, on evaluation, is an impulsive idea - the reaction of the heart, not the head - and implausible on the very health grounds on which it purports to be based. To try to 'legalise' cannabis for but one of the two groups of people (that is for the already-sick) is inimically discriminatory, as it leaves the other group, who comprise the huge majority, condemned to inevitable worsening of their good health, as described, until they too fall prey to disease and early death. Those catastrophic results to health now widespread in populations, produced directly by the Prohibition of Preventative Cannabis, would be mitigated or avoided entirely by the Preventative protection of a Relegalised cultivation, trade and general availability. Complete Relegalisation of Cannabis provides the healthy population with the pleasant and safe relaxant to use both as Preventative Medicine and to reduce consumption of the malady-causing alcohol and tobacco. At the same time, relegalisation makes cannabis available to patients and the medical profession, as curative medicine of recommendation and advice, if not prescription. Thus, the aims of the 'partial' legalisation lobby are simultaneously achieved, without ignoring the equally deserving needs of those of the population whose health requirement for cannabis is as prophylaxis, or to replace partially or totally, noxious alcohol and tobacco. Certainly cannabis is effective therapeutically and curatively in a wide variety of illnesses and disorders, and if cannabis had always remained available as a recreational substance of legal choice, those cancers which are tobacco-induced could in a great many, theoretically even all, cases have been completely avoided, i.e. prevented. Those individual men and women, the Prohibitionists, who are responsible for the instigation and perpetuation of the fraudulent Prohibition, are instrumental in and culpable for premature deaths. Indeed, studies into these artificial products, i.e. 'concentrates'/THC, including sections of LaGuardia research, record diametrically oppose results from those clinical studies into natural cannabis. For example, doses of lab-THC can cause nausea and headache, two of the many adverse conditions for which the resinous herb in its natural form is renowned as cure."
Later
"Herbal cannabis in natural forms would yield little profit to the pharmaceutical corporations, whilst eliminating some, perhaps in the longer term much more, of the use of their patent drugs."
Later
"Another ludicrous prevarication proposed by pharmaceutical representatives is the irrelevant argument that each of the many, mostly commonly occurring, chemical constituents in the natural herb, be isolated and tested for their potentials before legally re-allowing cannabis for 'medical' or 'general' use, if at all."
Personally I think decriminalisation of cannabis possession without any change in law regarding production - both at home for personal use and commercially - and supply (both for free and commercially) would be a risky move.
Decriminalisation of personal possession would of course ease the burden and cost of the police, stop the arrest of innocent people and could be seen as a step in the right direction, but only if followed by other easing of the law against cultivation and supply.
It could open the doorway for many more street dealers carrying small packs of cannabis of dubious quality to supply the increase in people no longer deterred from buying, by the law.
It would do nothing to promote consumer and quality protection or enable tax on profits, point-of-sale advice and information, or discourage young people.
It would be little more than sweeping the real dirt of prohibition under the carpet.
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
No support for argument to legalise drugs in UK
"The cumulative effects of prohibition and interdiction combined with education and treatment during 100 years of international drug control have had an impact in stemming the drug problem. Control is working and we do not know how much worse it would become without it."
I find that quite astounding - I guess if you think that criminalising some 10% of the population that choose to use controlled drugs DESPITE the ban - punishing people that use those drugs even if they have done no harm to others - banning them from future careers, certain countries, even household insurance - splitting families by putting users in prison - whilist celebrating with a glass or two - that shows the present policy is working.
OF course we don't know what would have happened in the UK had those drugs not been banned, had purity and strength been ascertained, had there been credible advice at point of supply (through doctors and chemists in most cases), had the users not been forced into the world of crime and offered one drug after another by unscrupulous greedy dealers that are interested only in money - and we don't know whether we would be better off without millions of criminalised citizens and misguided youth ...
... but we can look to The Netherlands to see that the policy of tolerance towards "Coffeeshop" cannabis suppliers has resulted in less problems from cannabis use and a far lower rate of new addicts to hard drugs - as well as less problems with alcohol - and THAT including the so-called cannabis-tourists attracted to the country because they don't feel safe growing a few plants in their own homes.
THAT is why the recommendations to take a new approach is so brave and refreshing - and far from their being lack of support for the proposals, there is much, especially when it comes to "legalising" cannabis - bringing it within the law and controlling the supply.
To suggest prohibition works here is plain nonsense, it works no better than the prohibition of alcohol in the USA which was disastrous.
I know I am one of many that urge the Government to consider a new approach - not to increase availability or use, but to reduce harm - the harm caused by profit-motivated dealers that sell contaminated rugs of unknown strength to anyone with a ten pound note - the harm caused by misuse of the drugs themselves- we all want to see the harm caused by drugs reduced but the present policy is failing to do that - ask anyone that works with drug users that have suffered - did the law actually help and is it worth the billions spent annually on fighting drugs?
in reply to:
No support for argument to legalise drugs in UK
Published on 8 Jun 2011
The Report by The Global Commission on Drug Policy has received much media attention.
Sadly this grossly inaccurate document is certain to appeal to those who hope for a simple way of addressing a massive social problem.
The report is one of a series of misinformed initiatives to legalise drugs because the so-called war on drugs is thought by some to have failed. Simplistic statements combined with deliberate misrepresentations by those who wish to legalise drugs for their own purposes add to public confusion and misunderstanding.
The report wishes to address “common misconceptions” about drug policies but is guilty of perpetuating them. The majority of people in the UK do not wish to see drugs legalised and only 6% of the global population between the ages of 15-64 use drugs. Some of those who have supported legalisation have done so because they assert this would “take the profit out of crime” thus putting criminals out of business would ensure “a supply of pure substances that could be taxed” which would diminish public health problems and prevent prisons being packed with recreational drug users. Perhaps it is not widely known that there is a global movement to overturn the United Nations conventions driven by people who see huge profits in marketing addictive substances.
No consideration is given to the fact that there is a thriving black market in the legal drugs of alcohol and tobacco and no awareness of the huge administrative burden that would be created by setting up a Government department to tax and administer drugs if legalisation occurred. There was no awareness of the devious ways in which drug traffickers would circumvent the legislation, they would not suddenly become good citizens; no acknowledgement that people would find ways of avoiding taxes and no thought given to the increase in addiction/dependency and mental illness that would follow such an ill-advised move. The tax burden would rocket and short of the Government distributing free drugs, those who commit crime now to obtain drugs would continue to do so if they became legal.
It is unclear which drugs the legalisers are referring to and to whom they should become available. Do they wish to legalise crack and will all people, regardless of age and mental condition, be able to buy it? Doctors would be reluctant to prescribe. The implication that cannabis is a benign substance is dangerous and inaccurate.
The cumulative effects of prohibition and interdiction combined with education and treatment during 100 years of international drug control have had an impact in stemming the drug problem. Control is working and we do not know how much worse it would become without it. Legalisation would convince people that legal activity cannot be harmful; it increases the availability of drugs and their consequences and removes social sanctions normally supported by the legal system.
All drugs, including those on prescription, can be dangerous if taken without medical advice; new research is informing us about the dangers associated with misuse. Instead of calling for legalisation, the compassionate and sensible approach should be that we do everything possible to reduce addiction and drug abuse.
Sadly this report, supported by people who seem not to have done any research into the subject, alleged that successes in places like Portugal and Canada are justification for their recommendations when the reverse is true. No mention is made of the fact that after over 30 years of toleration the government of the Netherlands has recognised the error, actively seeking to abolish the cannabis cafes and has moved to prevent access to them by foreigners.
The policy must be “first do no harm” and Sweden is an excellent role model. The UK Government has no intention of legalising drugs but the damage done by the publication of reports such as this should not be underestimated.
Ian Oliver is a former chief constable of Grampian Police, and now a consultant with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. His book, Drug Affliction, is published by Robert Gordon University.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/no-support-for-argument-to-legalise-drugs-in-uk-1.1105678?55735
