Out of Joint - 20 Years Campaigning for Cannabis

https://read.amazon.co.uk/kp/embed?asin=B007ESZZXI&preview=newtab&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_p_kb_dp&reshareId=Z11H6C7RWS8FMZRH6FBJ&reshareChannel=system  

 

 

COMPETITION - WIN A BOOK

COMPETITION WIN A BOOK - closes December 31st 2018.

 

1) simply: POST (IN COMMENTS on the post (on ABeFree Publishing Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/abfreepublishing/ ) a picture of yourself holding a copy of any of my books,

2) invite all your FB friends to LIKE and share your photo

3) hope that your pic gets more likes than anyone else.

The pic with the MOST LIKES on this page will win a copy of any of my books -in the event of a tie, everyone with the same number of Likes on their pic will win any of my books.

You can find my books on Amazon and kindle or here

The law, cannabis, medicines and our Rights -get the debate on track

Almost all the debate I am seeing is about whether cannabis helps people or drives them psychotic or makes them ill, or both, which are medical issues. Little mention of my or your human rights, which I never asked for but was "given". The law is not actually about drugs or plants or medicines, it is about what some people can or cannot do with them - possession, production, supply.

If we have a right to a private life then that must include the right to grow or possess or even share with willing people, unless it threatens PUBLIC health, public order, or the rights of others.

Issues such as whether somebody else is cured of illness or has their pains or tremors eased, or suffers from psychosis or even dies of cancer, has nothing whatsoever to do with possession, production or sharing in PRIVATE. What difference it makes to driving or singing skills, is not the issue when it comes to private life.

Limits or otherwise on strength, claims that childrenmay  use cannabis or that some people later take drugs, is not the issue when it comes to Private Life.

Billy Caldwell, Alfie and other children, in fact, don't get me wrong, but their survival has nothing to do with what we do in our private lives.

I say that because the law targets our private lives; people get busted in their homes even though they pose no threat or do no harm

IT SEEMS TO ME obvious that those that get benefit from the cannabis plant or its products that are otherwise inhumanely suffering or risking life itself, should be protected by the Government, not punished by it, and should have that medication available in a pure and safe form.

But that is a health issue, Of course they have the right to live a healthy life. Yet it is a different issue, and many of the politicians are talking about allowing pharmaceutical grade cannabis or its products including oils, on prescription. Well we know how much is already being grown ready for that profitable situation to become acceptable to the public, after the years of lies, by GW Pharmaceuticals and British Sugar and who owns shared in those?

When somebody says that cannabis use heals or harms, saves lives or ruins them, leads to drug use or not, whether safer than aspirin or alcohol or sugar - I have to ask

WHO SHOULD WE ARREST?

Those that cannabis consumption helps or those that cannabis harms?

Those that later take drugs or those that do not?

Those that eat sugar or those that do not?

Those that harm others, or those that do not?

The Government has responded to the petition – “Legalise cannabis for medical and recreational use.”

So the government still stubbornly insists that the cannabis plant itself has no medicinal value, hence classifying those kind souls and profiteers alike that manage to extract edicinal compounds from a plant with no mdeicinal value as MIRACLE WORKERS. 

The only way to get a government to legalise is to persuade Labour to adopt the policy NOW so that when elected, they may make a move - and THAT IS UP TO YOU - write now to Jeremy Corbyn 

Dear alun buffry, The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Legalise cannabis for medical and recreational use.”.

Government responded:
This Government has no plans to legalise cannabis. Raw cannabis is not recognised in the UK as having any medicinal benefit.
There is clear scientific and medical evidence that cannabis is a harmful drug which can damage people’s mental and physical health, and harms individuals and communities. The evidence from the Government’s independent experts, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), is that the use of cannabis is a ‘significant public health issue and can unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society’.
The decriminalisation of drugs in the UK would not eliminate the crime committed by the illicit trade nor would it address the harms associated with drug dependence and the misery this can cause to families and society. Decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis would send the wrong message to the vast majority of people who do not take drugs, especially young and vulnerable people, with the potential grave risk of increased misuse of drugs.
When a police officer finds someone in possession of drugs, it is an operational matter as to the appropriate response. We have confidence in our police officers to assess as appropriate any enforcement action, where there is a public order or protection or local drug issue that needs addressing, rather than seek them out for drug possession offences. It is not always appropriate or conducive to the public good to arrest every person they find with a small amount of cannabis and although the police can charge individuals with a criminal offence, they can also issue a warning or an on-the-spot fine of £90 if an individual is found with cannabis.
It is important that medicines are thoroughly tested to ensure they meet rigorous standards before being placed on the market, so that doctors and patients are sure of their efficacy, quality and safety. There is a clear regime in place administered by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (‘MHRA’) to enable medicines (including controlled drugs such as cannabis) to be developed, licensed and made available for medicinal use to patients in the UK. For example, the cannabis-based medicine ‘Sativex’ has been granted Marketing Authorisation in the UK by the MHRA for the treatment of spasticity due to multiple sclerosis. Sativex was tested for its safety, efficacy and quality before receiving Marketing Authorisation approval for this application.
The MHRA is open to considering marketing authorisation approval applications for other medicinal cannabis products should a product be developed by a manufacturer. As happened in the case of Sativex, the Home Office will consider issuing a licence to enable trials of any new medicine, providing it complies with the appropriate ethical approvals.
We continue to monitor international developments on the evidence base around cannabis. The World Health Organisation’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence has committed to reviewing the scheduling of cannabis under the UN’s 1961 Convention. This is due to consider the therapeutic use as well as dependence and the potential to abuse constituent parts of cannabis.
Home Office
Click this link to view the response online:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200021…
The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.
The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament

Letter to Jeremy Corbyn and Labour: How to Win the next general election

Dear Mr Corbyn,

I would very much appreciate if you could read this brief document that was written over a decade ago but still applies today.  The response we received from Carolyne Flynn at the time acknowledged our arguments but said that Labour would not change the law on cannabis because they thought it would lead to increased use and harm, despite the evidence, even then, that it is only a small percentage and number of consumers that experience harm and the vast majority that experience benefits (thus concluding that the vast majority of users would also benefit).

In addition to the points made in "The Challenge", there would be a huge saving in policing costs, a  saving on NHS costs as so many people claim that cannabis enables them to stop using many expensive prescription medicines, an increase in general revenue through taxation on profits, consumer protection and removing control of supply away from criminal gangs and multi-drug dealers.

I sincerely believe that IF the Labour Party were to discuss the legalisation of cannabis at the next conference and include it in the next election manifesto, Labour would win that election - you would certainly gain my vote and those of many people that I know- we find it difficult or impossible tovote for Labour as a party that supports the prohibition of cannabis.

LINKED from this page is "The Challenge" document along with pages of letters to and from the Home Office.

I do hope that you can find the time to read it and reply.

http://www.ccguide.org/challenge/web/index.php?r=petition

Alun Buffry, Norwich North
======

Reply received - do you think they read beyond the first mention of cannabis?

Dear Alun,

Thank you for your email. I appreciate you took the time to get in touch with us regarding the medical use of marijuana.

Please be assured that your comments have been passed on.

The Labour Party will ensure that all NHS patients get fast access to the most effective new drugs and treatments.

We will also insist on value-for-money agreements with pharmaceutical companies.

Thank you for getting in touch

Best wishes,

Jake

Membership Services and Correspondence

The Labour Party

In the name of Justice and equal Rights for all - stop the prosecutions for cannabis.

You know, if they legalised cannabis for all adults, there would be no need to campaign for medical access. depend on ailment and the doctor's opinions (now all doctors in The Netherlands will prescribe Bedrocan cannabis and when they do, it costs more than from the coffeeshop and choice is limited). So we would still have to campaign for everyone else.

What about the children?

Well they would not of course be able to buy if they are not old enough assuming an age restriction, but parents can buy for the older teenagers just as they can legally buy and supply alcohol for them. (the child's age after which parents can legally supply alcohol tothem is 5)

As for medicine for the young - just like other medicines that will be possible of prescription from a doctor.

Once outlets for adults and home growing are legalised, pharmacies and health / herb shops will also be able to supply.

It will save on police and court time, raise taxes on profits, enable hygienic production, packaging and supply with indications of strain and strength, enable credible information and advice at point-of-sale, separate supply from hard drugs, enable consumer protection, increase employment and of course vastly improve access for cannabis as a medicine, relaxant, sacrament ... it will realise our Human Rights and introduce a Just regime for cannabis.

If we all joined together and campaign for everyone, I think we would make more progress over the next few years.

Of course some people will pessimistically speculate "the government won't do that" - well they certainly won't for much longer if people do not unite and put on the pressure!!

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

What does it mean that cannabis is illegal?

What does it mean that cannabis is illegal? 

First it must be stressed that it is not cannabis itself that is illegal or punished by law.

It means that people can be punished for possession or cultivation even if they have done no harm or posed no threat.

It means that people that could benefit from medicinal uses are denied the right to grow for themselves, forced to either go to drug dealers or take pharmaceutical pills that are often pricey, with possibly serious side-effects, and often highly dangerous in themselves.

It means that police and courts have to spend their time prosecuting people that are more often-than-not otherwise law-abiding citizens.

It means that whilst pharmaceutical companies make massive profits the taxpayers foot the bill.

It means that whilst those denied the benefits of the plant are punished, those minority of users that suffer often hide away for fear of punishment.

It means that people of all ages are exposed to hard drugs and crime through street dealers - and it is quite obvious after so many years of prohibition that cannot be stopped.

My question is: if one comes across a person suffering from mental health abnormalities after consuming cannabis, would one call a policeman or a doctor?

That is what prohibition is about and that is why I favour repeal of the repressive drugs laws to take control out of the hands of criminals and to respect Human Rights.

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

Catch 22 - Marijuana is too risky for legalization?

"Marijuana is too risky for legalization" ?

So what about banning alcohol?  That would carry so much risk, based upon what we saw happen when it was prohibited to produce or sell, that it would be out of the question for most Governments.

Strange we would then seem to be stuck in Catch 22-type scenario.

We can clearly see the harm done by alcohol prohibition and we can clearly see the harm that happens under cannabis prohibition, yet we are too afraid to move - or rather the politicians are.

Truth is of course, the law is about people, not alcohol or drugs - it is about what some people are allowed to do with some drugs.

IT OUGHT to be about what harm people do to others - if there is no harm then they should not only be left alone regarding police action against them I would say they deserve the protection of law whether it is alcohol or cannabis that they choose to take.

WE need to question whether prohibition actually worked / works now.  Obviously not.

We need to question the harm that comes from prohibition itself:

it exposes users to bad quality, other drugs offered by street dealers.

it punishes people even though they have harmed nobody.  It results in criminal records, loss of jobs, loss of careers, travel restrictions, often unable to but insurance, sometimes prison resulting in family difficulties even loss of family or home.  It forces victimless "criminals" to live amongst "real" criminals.

don't forget here I am talking about growing or possessing a plant for own use - hardly comparable to heavy crime - disproportionate punishments.

if we could weigh the harm done by cannabis users against the harm done by prohibition itself, we would logically be forced to change the law on cannabis.

it will take  a brave politician to try that - and we seem top be lacking in them!

it has noting to do with morals or even common sense - it is about Justice

it prevents those in medical need from accessing quality controlled pure cannabis unless they risk prison by growing their own.

Marijuana is too risky for legalization
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20121021/OPINION03/710219953
Herald.net, October 21 2012 By Bill Dickinson

Initiative 502 causes more harm than good. It promotes "legalization" of marijuana (cannabis). "Legalization" fosters a perception that cannabis is harmless and less risky. This will be associated with more people trying and using cannabis, both adults and teens. Marijuana is neither safe nor harmless. There are more than 400 compounds in the cannabis plant and 60 or more cannabinoids (the active substances in the marijuana plant). Only a few of these substances have been studied.

Smoking marijuana produces harmful substances similar to those produced when tobacco is smoked. Smoking causes lung problems similar to tobacco. Cannabis causes a decrease in short-term memory, attention, learning, and concentration. This causes problems in school, at work and with driving. For some users, the psychological effects are even more troubling. Anxiety and paranoia can be crippling. Studies with schizophrenics have shown that cannabis use made their schizophrenia worse.

Teenage brains are the most affected. The earlier that cannabis is used, the more effects are seen. Sophisticated imaging studies known as PET scans show that cannabis delays the maturation process of the brain. A New Zealand study of 1,000 teens over a 25-year period showed that teens who regularly used marijuana had lowered IQ scores, 8 IQ points on average, that persisted into their 30s. An 8-IQ point reduction is very significant. The delay in maturation of the brain and lowered intelligence plus the declines in attention, concentration, memory, and learning show up as school, work, and driving problems. Currently one-third of high school students are using cannabis. Why would society foster "legalization"? This sends the wrong message. Youth perceive this as less risk of cannabis problems. Less risk translates into more use. This will affect more teens.

Proponents of this initiative say that some of the taxes raised by sales of this drug will pay for the increased education and treatment needed. I am against creating more teens and adults who need treatment. Also, this initiative does not guarantee that funding for treatment will be available after two years. After a period of two years, the Legislature will be able to redirect any and all taxes collected to other priorities if they so choose. Treatment for teens who use cannabis should be universal since the use of cannabis is very damaging to their development and success in society.

I-502 also has severe legal consequences for youth (under age 21) who are tested and found to have cannabis in their system when driving. A positive test means an automatic conviction without any possible defense or mitigation. This harms people under age 21 while not providing any treatment options to help them stop marijuana use.

Marijuana is addictive to 9 percent to 10 percent of users. Proponents of "legalization" argue that this is no big deal. Tell that to the people who are dependent. I am able to get people off of cocaine and heroin, but they are not able to stop using cannabis. The more people who use cannabis, the more people who will need treatment. For the last 30 years, people have been hybridizing the cannabis plant to make the cannabinoids stronger. Most of this has been focused on what was thought as the most "high" producing cannabinoid, d-9 THC (delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol, or often just called THC). The amount of THC in the cannabis plant was 0.5 to 2 percent 20 to 30 years ago. Now it is common to find cannabis with 4 percent to 6 percent THC and some strains can have 10 percent to 20 percent. People who used cannabis many years ago remember a substance with fewer effects. They may be inclined to think "what's the big deal." The cannabis sold today is rocket fuel compared to the cannabis found years ago. The effects, especially the negative effects, are much more profound. I-502 does not state what THC or other cannabinoid percentages may be acceptable.

I-502 only tests for THC. The other cannabinoids and their variants go undetected. Any drug tests for marijuana and cannabis abuse must detect all of the cannabinoid substances.

I-502 sets up the framework for an extensive growing, processing, and retail distribution system for marijuana throughout the state. This has not been tried on a small scale. The proposed initiative does not have enough monitoring and enforcement for this huge system. This is alarming as the state of Washington has had problems monitoring and enforcing the current "medical marijuana" laws. How are we to believe that the state can monitor this larger and more extensive system? The proponents believe that taxation of the system would bring in many millions of dollars. Initially this would be used for the first two years to help with public health problems, the general fund, drug prevention and treatment, education, and research. The funding is only guaranteed for two years. After this, the Legislature can put more or all of the taxation into the general fund if they desire and eliminate funding for public health, education, and treatment.

This initiative states that making a legal means to grow, process, and sell cannabis will put the illegal market out of business. Unfortunately this is not true. The illegal market is very sophisticated and well established. It will be able to undercut the legal market prices and will be able to infiltrate some of the legal operations. The illicit market will vary its price to compete with retail outlets that are being taxed. I believe the illicit market will have no trouble setting prices that are below the retail outlets.

Advertisements to vote yes for this initiative say it is time for a conversation. This proposal is not about a conversation. It is about full legalization and the establishment of cannabis growing, processing, and retail sales in your neighborhoods. And finally, I-502 is about a direct confrontation with the U.S, (federal) government which has been clear that marijuana is illegal. That also does not sound like a conversation.

Reject legalization. Decriminalization has worked in other states. Decriminalization addresses legal concerns without the harmful and risky position of legalization. Decriminalization does not set up an immense marijuana growing, processing, and retail sales system fostered by the state of Washington as does I-502. Decriminalization does not foster increased use by teens and adults. I-502 will increase the number of adults and teens using marijuana. Decriminalization does not set us on a collision course with the Federal government as I-502 does.

Reject I-502 because it trades more use of marijuana by adults and teens leading to more physical, psychological and social problems in exchange for a huge growing, processing and distribution system of marijuana fostered by Washington state with the promise of tax money to solve our budget woes. This is shameful.

Bill Dickinson is an addiction medicine physician in Everett.

Would you call in a panel of experts and then simply ignore what they say? Cannabis and Drugs.

Today the press is full of the UK Drug Policy Commission (UKDPC) conclusion that the Government's attempts at reducing drug use and drug harm has failed - and the Government's simply insisted its approach to tackling drugs is the right one. 'Drug usage is at it lowest level since records began,' a spokeswoman said.

About 42,000 people in England and Wales are sentenced each year for the possession of drugs, with 160,000 people given cannabis cautions, according to the commission.

The penalties for drug misuse should be relaxed so that possession of small amounts would no longer be a criminal offence, the government has been urged.

The recommendation comes in a report from the UK Drug Policy Commission, which undertook six years of research.

Its detailed report concludes the UK is wasting much of the £3bn it spends each year on tackling illicit drugs.

In fact - ask your MP - it is now considerably more than that every year and the majority of arrests are still for cannabis.

The report, called A Fresh Approach to Drugs, says the annual estimated cost to England and Wales of class A drug use is £15bn.

The commission called for parliament to 'revisit the level of penalties applied to all drug offences and particularly those concerned with production and supply. However, it stopped short of calling for the decriminalisation or legalisation of most drugs.

Commission chairwoman Dame Ruth Runciman said: 'We spend billions of pounds every year without being sure of what difference much of it makes.'

The Home Office says drug use is falling and it does not plan to alter its approach.

So, OK, so the Government is going to insist that their present approach is the correct one, despite the cost to the taxpayer and despite the fact that it is obviously not working.  Of course we need to arrest those that harm others or their property, or pose a risk, but the use of a drug, whether possession and sale is allowed or banned, in itself harms nobody except possibly the user.

And of course addiction creates problems for families and communities, as does fund-raising crime.

The Government's approach to SOME drugs is different to others; for example, alcohol is well known to cause illness, violence, vandalism and absenteeism, is SOME people - those responsible for the violence, vandalsim etc, are punished by the courts - those that get sick are helped by the medical profession (if they seek it).

Yet with "drugs" (plants" like cannabis, and "drugs" like heroin and cocaine, ALL USERS are arrested and punished, if caught, with anything from a warning to a court appearance, a fine to prison - even those that use cannabis to their medical benefit

Who pays for the police and courts - we do - the taxpayers - whilst those that make the law get paid a fortune to arrange for panels of experts that will not be listened to unless they support present policy - remember Prof David Nutt, the head of the Government's previous ACMD (Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs) who was sacked after he stuck by his panel's conclusion that policy was failing and that cannabis ought to be downgraded to class C again - Nutt was simply sacked.

Meanwhile, most of the press, stuck in prohibition, continue to write bad reports about bad consequences of drug use - seldom covering claims from those that drugs have helped, in particular cannabis, referring to growers as some sort of social menace even if they are growing only for their own medicinal use.

Where are the reports of the countless lives ruined by drug prohibition laws,  those with criminal records yet no victims - banned from some overseas travel, some jobs, some insurance policies - and for what?

For nothing more harmful and dangerous than would be opening a bottle of beer or wine at home and often less dangerous than drinking a bottle of whiskey - something that many of our MP's are probably good at, considering so many subsidised bars in the House of Commons.

Come on Britain - lead the way to a common sense approach to drugs and take control - stop punishing victimless users and start protecting consumers through properly regulated outlets for adults with accurate and credible advice, tax on profits, and separation from the world of crime

Drugs Experts Call For Major Policy Review
http://www.ccguide.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=18172

Decriminalise drug use, say experts after six-year study 
http://www.ccguide.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=18173

Cannabis 'no worse than junk food', says report 
http://www.ccguide.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=18174

Possessing small amount of drugs 'should not be crime' 
http://www.ccguide.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=18175

UKDPC Urges Decriminalization of Drug Use 
http://www.ccguide.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=18177

Britain's £3bn war on drugs 'waste of time and harms lives' says watchdog 
http://www.ccguide.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=18178

Light drug users 'should not get criminal records' 
http://www.ccguide.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=18179

Concerns over online drugs poll - comment

"legalising cannabis" is about law and Justice - we must ask first whether the possession or small scale cultivation of cannabis poses any threat or does any harm to others - in itself - not speculate. For instance, when it comes to unsafely driving whilst under the influence then that would come under driving laws just as over-the-limit drinking does: alcohol is not banned despite accidents, fights, destruction of property etc - and anyone proved guilty of that can be dealt with by the authorities irrespective of whether they are sober, drunk or high on pot. It would not be seen as just by many people to punish everyone that drinks alcohol because of what a minority of others do.

Likewise with illness: cannabis is actually far less risk to health than aspirin, tobacco, alcohol and it is surely not Just to punish users because they or others get ill?

Cannabis, like alcohol, is widely used in the UK - by millions - and those unable or unwilling to grow their own are exposed to drug dealers and crime - lack of information, availability of other drugs, contaminated cannabis that poses health risks of its own.

Imagine if the only source of alcohol was illegal dealers or manufacturers, that criminals control the supply! Oh yes, they tried that in the US and had to legalise alcohol again.

And the cost to the taxpayer of chasing over 3 million regular users, thousands of growers and dealers, only to find that however many or fined or locked up, there is more and more cannabis on the streets.

Then there is the ridiculous situation where people like Winston Matthews in Surrey are imprisoned for growing cannabis to ease the terrible pains of illness or injury - nobody else involved.

Consider the cost to the NHS of providing pharmaceutical drugs, often with their own risks and side-effects, to people that claim cannabis is more effective. Now Pharmacists are producing whole-cannabis extract containing about ten pounds worth which they sell at over £120 a can of spray to people in desperate need whilst they risk prison if they grow their own.

Of course there is the cost of potentially criminalising millions of our youth - for a crime without victims.

Not forgetting of course, that if it is legal to grow cannabis then it is legal to grow hemp - a valuable source of fibre, foodstuff, oils and environmentally-friendly fuels - local hemp could avoid the problem of transporting fossil fuels around the world and ease up on pollution.

And what of the negative impact: less profit for giant petrochemical and pharmaceutical companies, less work for the police and courts .. less money for drug dealers.

I voted in favour of legalising cannabis also realising that it is not cannabis that needs legalising because it is not itself illegal - it is the possession, cultivation and supply that is illegal and need legalising - the law is aimed at people, not drugs - the "war on drugs" is a war on drug-users, not substances.

I have studied the pro's and cons: I hear the cries that cannabis causes problems in a minority of users, and poses risks to others if people drive whilst high - but all those risks are made worse by the failed prohibition.

I would advise anyone seriously concerned about those risks to use the WWW and search for evidence, because there are several reports out there claiming cannabis has little detrimental effect on driving skills and poses only a small risk to a small percentage of people predisposed to certain mental health condition eg http://tinyurl.com/79zcjmj”

Leicester Mercury, March 23 21012
Concerns over online drugs poll

Regarding the online poll about the legalisation of cannabis, I was rather perturbed to see that so many seem to be in favour of a change in the law.
Admittedly the respondents are a self-selected group and not necessarily representative of the general population but their influence may be important.
In addition to the concerns about mental health, progression to other drugs, etc, I do wonder how many of those wanting to decriminalize cannabis have considered its detrimental impact on daily functioning.
Very recently, a research paper in the British Medical Journal found that cannabis use doubles the odds of having a motor vehicle crash.
So I would suggest if the rules concerning so-called "recreational" drugs are to change then it will also be necessary to consider implementing drug-driving legislation in order to keep the remainder of the community safe from the increased threat of road accidents.
Personal use of drugs has wide-reaching effects beyond those on the individual and this must not be forgotten.
Eleanor Mather, Earl Shilton.

Drugs campaigner 'grew plants for medical purposes' - Winston Matthews

Why don't police leave this man alone?

Unless he is doing harm to others or their property of somehow threatening public health or public order, then Mr Matthews is quite correct that his Human Rights are being infringed by police and courts.

It is quite clear in human Rights law that authority had no Right to interfere with the Private Life or Beliefs of a person UNLESS that person is in breach of the Rights and laws that protect public health, public order, national security or the Rights of others. It is quite clear in the Act that law alone is not enough.

So a man grows a few plants at home because it eases his medical complaint - he ought to be congratulated and encouraged for turning away from expensive pharmaceutical pills with risk of unpleasant side-effects and is in fact saving the NHS money and the taxpayers- which the police are wasting.

Drugs campaigner 'grew plants for medical purposes'

By Amy Taylor , GetSurrey
September 02, 2011

A CANNABIS campaigner who claimed he was being 'discriminated against' has admitted to growing more than 80 plants at home.
Winston Matthews, of Upfield Close, Horley, pleaded guilty at Guildford Crown Court on Wednesday (August 30) to three counts of cultivating cannabis plants, and to two of possessing the class B drug.
An outspoken member of Surrey's Legalise Cannabis Alliance (LCA), Matthews, 50, said that he uses the drug for medical purposes.
According to his defence barrister, Ben Cooper, Matthews was recently diagnosed with Hepatitis C, in addition to a number of other serious medical conditions, and creates tinctures, or alcoholic extracts, from the plants that he grows.
He was charged with growing a total of 84 plants on three separate dates between August 23 and December 16 last year, and to having 4.75g of cannabis and 7.36g of cannabis resin on his person on December 16.
Defending, Mr Cooper told Judge Peter Moss that Matthews felt "discriminated against as a medical user of cannabis", and that he had been convicted of similar matters on previous occasions.
The case was adjourned until October 14 to allow for medical reports on his condition to be drawn up before sentencing.
Releasing him on bail, Judge Moss told Matthews that he had to live at his given address and remain 'drug-free' for his appointments with the probation service.
"If what he says is right, then he is going to be doing it every day," he said, addressing his defence team.
"What concerns me is that he's probably still growing it. If the police were to go down there now there would probably be another indictment."