SHAME on Lib Dems and Green Party, SHAME on UK MP's

SHAME on Green Party and Lib Dems for not making their support for this Bill known by turning up outside parliament: it won't be long now before they start trying once again to win our votes with their promises. I also think it a shame that the words for medical reasons are used at all, as everyone ought to have their Rights recognised and equal when it comes to cannabis use at home, without having to consult doctors or publicly declare their state on health. I w as also disappointing that so few MP's bothered to go into the Chamber and show support - cowards indeed - and yet not one spoke against the reading; well done Paul Flynn.

First steps taken in legalisation of cannabis  

 MPs join high 'tea party' in fresh bid to legalise cannabis 

 Campaigners hold 'cannabis tea party' yards from Westminster amid calls to legalise class B drug 

 MPs join medical marijuana protest outside Parliament, with activists smoking joints and demanding legalisation 

 These protesters are going to have a 'cannabis tea party' outside Parliament 

 Watton mother Callie Blackwell will campaign at Parliament to legalise cannabis after she gave it to her ill son 

United Patients Alliance (UPA)

My message to Paul Flynn MP after his call for cannabis in parliament protests

I would like to thank you for calling for people to come to Parliament and smoke cannabis, but there are a couple of points that I would like to raise. 
Firstly: will you be joining the protest, not by consuming cannabis (the law is not about consumption per se), but by OPENLY possessing cannabis in an amount that a consumer may have such as 7 to 10 grams, maybe some hash and some oil? 
 Are you aware of the value of cannabis as a preventative measure? 
Are you planning some sort of fund to pay fines and compensation to protesters that get arrested or have their cannabis confiscated? 
What about repeat offenders, those that ay defy a court order banning them from Parliament? 
If poeple are locked up, what support will you be able to give?
The law, which does not distinguish between consumers (medical, religious or others), should be fought without such distinctions so that law applies equally to all adults subect to "no victim or threat) and consistent with Human Rights law. It must not become a medicinal cannabis usesr event only.

Paul Flynn MP wants people to smoke cannabis in Parliament

What Mr Flynn has failed to recognise is that cannabis "disobedience" events such as Smokey Bears Picnics have been happening in the UK since the 1960's and achieved nothing.

Also if people are arrested and fined is he going to help pay the fines? I ask as he is in law inciting the action.

And how often should people protest in that way - to make it effective people may have to defy bans and risk prison.

YET I do congratulate Paul Flynn for his efforts.

I hope that one day Human Rights and equal law for all will come in to the capaign - Right to a Private Life (which includes growing and possessing plants provided there is no risk or harm to others), Right to one's own chosen BELIEF and PRACTICE (alone or with others) of those beliefs - as demanded in Human Rights law.

Although more people may have more sympathy for those that are ill and use cannabis to their benefit than those that are not maybe so ill, the fact is that the law fails to distinguish as it should not distinguish between WHY people use (although judges may be more lenient with the ill or injured) - it should distinguish purely on the issue of what harm done to who?

Also cannabis is extremely valuable as A PREVENTATIVE MEDICINE and in that sense all use is therapeutic.

NO Victim NO CRIME

THE PROHIBITION OF CANNABIS CULTIVATION AND POSSESSION IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY 'SMOKE WEED IN PARLY' Labour MP says protesters should smoke cannabis in Parliament to shock officials into making it legal

Labour MP urges people to smoke cannabis at Parliament (Paul Flynn)

 UK will NOT legalize cannabis, government declares - despite surge in medical marijuana laws across the world 

 Tory ministers branded 'cowards' on drugs policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevant pages:

Potent Quotes
News Reports
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide

uk PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ON CANNABIS, OCTOBER 12 2015

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

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

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

The ISSUE MUST BE JUSTICE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Ms Smith,

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

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

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

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

Alun Buffry


REPLY:

Dear Mr Buffry,

Thank you for your email.

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

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

With best wishes,

Chloe Smith
Member of Parliament for Norwich North

 Dear Ms Smith,

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

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

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

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

regards

Alun Buffry