Petition Negotiate with EU to end the 90 day limit on staying in Schengen area countries

 

Negotiate with EU to end the 90 day limit on staying in Schengen area countries

We want the government to negotiate with EU to end the 90 day limit on staying in Schengen area countries without a visa. We think this rule detrimentally affects many people as well as and the relationship between UK and EU

.https://petition.parliamen no not.uk/petitions/702491

I could have been hanged

IN 1992, along with five others, I was convicted of conspiracy to import and conspiracy to supply cannabis, despite lack of evidence or witnesses. Whilst serving my time (which you can read about in my book "Time For Cannabis"), I met several dozen other people serving time for similar offences - from one to twelve years.

Had we been in Singapore, Indonesia, China, Malaysia or any one of several other countries, we would almost certainly have been HUNG BY THE NECK UNTIL DEAD.

 

Unbelievably such barbaric punishment continues, for a plant that benefits so many and potentially so many more people as well as the planet itself if used to replace polluting fuels, plastics and addictive and poisonous drugs.

 

THIS MUST BE STOPPED.

PLEASE ADD YOUR NAME AND SHARE THE LINK AT
https://petitions.eko.org/petitions/stop-capital-punishment-for-cannabis-trafficking  

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0993210767/ref=nosim?tag=webbooks05

 

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

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

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