Virgin Mobile UK - Just the worst customer service? In your opinion.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/207123929818172/

if you are thinking of taking out a contract with Virgin Mobile - DON'T.

Try Giffgaff

Medicalisation of cannabis favours pharmaceutical profiteers

So in 1971 the then government banned the use of cannabis as a medicine including tincture, on the grounds that its use could lead to use of hard drugs and an ill-informed / lie in international and UK legislation that classified the plant as having no medicinal value.

Now, some 47 years later, after causing many tens of thousands of people including children to unnecessarily suffer from dreadful ailments and injuries (and basically calling those that claimed that cannabis helped were liars), our government is acknowledging that cannabis does, in fact, have medicinal properties.

So they will allow a very strict and limited prescription system for certain cannabinoids and pharmaceutical substances such as Sativex and Bedrocan (Sativex has been allowed for some time but has been hard to get and expensive) .. whilst continuing to threaten everyone that does not fall within their definitions, with prison sentences.

So far they have failed to recognise the wide range of benefits including as a preventative medicinal substance.

So whilst this small step may appear to some as a huge step, it is a very limited step that will benefit a minority rather than a majority of those in need.

In 1971 they then argued that cannabis "misuse" could be gateway to hard drug addiction, so they closed the door.

Now they want to avoid widespread medicinal availability to prevent that same door from opening.

I say, legalise now and hold the door open. It is a fact that even under prohibition, the very large majority of cannabis consumers do not later become drug "addicts" and those that have, are actually a product of prohibition and the profiteers.

Freedom of Choice: Freedom the Farm: No Victim = No Crime 

Medical cannabis to be available on prescription in UK after being approved for use by government Cannabis-based medicines get green light as UK eases rules 

Medical cannabis in UK: What does the legalisation mean and how will it help patients?  

 Patients like me manage lifelong illness with cannabis. For us, the UK is a hostile environment 

UK Gov:  Cannabis-derived medicinal products to be made available on prescription

Cannabis: use and misuse: the false distinction

Supposedly ... cannabis was included in the Misuse of Drugs Act to try to stop or decrease the "misuse" of cannabis (as with other drugs listed) - that means the use other than as a medicine, although cannabis was also scheduled as a drug with no medicinal uses: that is all use is Misuse.

Now the scheduling and laws are being changed and cannabis, CBD, THC, will once again be recognised as a drug with medical uses.

However, cannabis will remain in the Misuse of Drugs Act, will still be classified as a drug with a potential for "misuse", that is when used "recreationally" or "religiously".

People will be arrested for growing their own (unless of course, as some people want, some people will be permitted to grow their own with doctor's permission or special exemptions.

People may still be arrested for possession without prescription.

But those in medical need, with their doctor's agreement (if they can get it) will be prescribed cannabis and cannabinoids produced by pharmaceutical companies, and their pains reduced, which of course is good.

But the false distinction between users and the matter of their Rights and Freedoms, is still being ignored.

Otherwise law-abiding people that choose to produce and possess, use, share, cannabis even in the privacy of their own homes, may still be open to ATTACK by tyrants and prohibitionists that want to ignore their Rights.

That is the majority of UK cannabis consumers and those unable to get prescriptions.

The "we want medical cannabis", playing into the hands of pharmaceutical profiteers, are taking is back to that false distinction that gives the wrong impression that the law is about drugs, when in fact it is about people, and largely ignoring the issue of Human Rights laws, which are higher laws that are meant to stop tyrannical laws such as the Misuse of Drugs Act.

From Myhat in Egypt, Through The Eyes of a God: AMENY

Each evening there were dancers and jugglers and clowns and a lot of sex as young girls and courtiers came on board from the other boats. Bertie, for sure, was having the time of his life. He spent a great deal of the time naked, with a girl or two at his side or sitting on his lap. He certainly was not shy. Ed and Ana agreed to restrict their sexual activities to the covered sleeping section allocated to them. But they did not restrict the amount of sex that they had. On those occasions, Ed carefully hung me from the wooden struts. One morning, Ameny invited the three English people to see his collection of drawings. There were sketches of pyramids and of gods and goddesses, many of the boy himself, some with his father the Pharaoh, one that the boy said was of his mother. Plenty of animals and plants.

To Ed's surprise, he found himself looking at drawings of planes, helicopters and what looked like astronauts with spaceships, even cars with wheels. He had seen no vehicles with wheels at all, during his visits to this time. He spoke to Ana and Bertie later about those drawings and they agreed that certainly this could be seen as a corruption of the time-line. Somebody from the future had been here and left those drawings. Ed wondered if it may have been Abamira's uncle Mustafa, who was not to be seen here and whom, in the future, was supposed to be in Cairo. A few days later, I had the biggest surprise of life time since I first met Ed.

Suddenly, after playing hoops, Ameny asked Ed if he could try me on and if it would be agreeable with Ed to make a similar hat for himself, in the colours white and red, signifying Upper and Lower Egypt. Ed knew that the white crown of Upper Egypt was officially known as the Hedjet, whilst the Red Crown of Lower Egypt was called the Deshret. After Egypt had been unified, the double crown, red and white, was called the Pschent. That was several hundred years before Ameny and the double crown would be worn by him when he became Pharaoh, as it was by his father Senwosret.

THROUGH THE EYES OF A GOD Ed was not in the habit of letting others wear me, although I had been on Ana's head and a few others over the years. He could hardly say no to a boy god who was his host, so he took me off, bowed and presented me to Ameny. What a revelation!

The boy totally believed that he was of divine birth, that he was a god and that he was all powerful. Only his own father was above him in rank. I realised that that Ameny regarded everyone else as inferior, including Ed and Ana, other members of his own family and court, including the many Priests that he regarded with suspicion and as struggling to gain position in his eyes. He had little genuine respect or care for anyone, not even his own family and, as Ameny knew his successors had done, was quite prepared to destroy people's lives and use people for his own purposes. Ameny knew that one day he may have to dispose of his father. He felt that when he openly worshipped the gods, he was worshipping only what he was. Ana's name meant Goddess. Ameny knew that Ed and Ana came to him from a very far away and mysterious place, a place where huge birds carried people through the skies and people communicated through the air even showing pictures through their mysterious boxes powered by an unseen energy called electricity which was, he had concluded, a great gift from the gods. Ameny saw himself as indestructible: he could do whatever he wanted to or with whoever he wanted, except he could not fly. The head of Ameny was nothing like the head of Ed, or Ana, or any other head that I been upon. The world view was so different that I became almost lost in it.

TAKEN FROM Myhat in Egypt Through the Eyes of a God ISBN 978-0-9932107-7-8

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?

Corrupt UK Government to restrict cannabis production to the elite

Despite recent news that the UK Home Office minister has used his 'extraordinary powers" to allow Bill Caldwell to be given cannabis oil to stop his epileptic fits and possible save his life ...

Despite that many thousands of people are claiming medicinal benefits through their use of cannabis bought or grown illegally ..

Despite the fact that many other countries have made "medicinal" cannabis available ...

Despite the fact that not one person has died from cannabis use per se...

Despite public opinion ..

Despite the fact that cannabis itself is still scheduled as a substance with no medicinal applications and yet THC and CBD have medicinal uses, and that British Sugar Cooporation produces and exports more "medical grade" cannabis than almost every other country ...  NOTE the ex-drug minister Victoria Atkin's husband is a major shreholder)

Despite the fact that GW Pharamceuticals have been granted licence to produce the whole-plant extract Sativex which they sell at grossly inflated prices (even compared with street prices) NOTE Theresa May's husband is a major shareholder)

UK: Theresa May personally promised my epileptic son cannabis oil - and he's still waiting 3 months later
UK: Cannabis debate: I appealed to the prime minister 

 UK: William Hague calls for Theresa May to legalise cannabis 

 UK: Lord Hague says government should 'be bold' and legalise cannabis 

 UK: Government will have blood on its hands if medicinal cannabis is not prescribed, says father of ill child 

 UK: Cannabis war 'comprehensively lost', says William Hague 

 UK: Theresa May REFUSES to back Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt on changing the law on medical cannabis after epileptic boy Billy Caldwell's case 

 UK: Tonia Antoniazzi MP: My constituents need to have access to medicinal cannabis 

 UK: Jeremy Hunt shows support for changing law over medical cannabis oil use 

 UK: Review needed on medicinal cannabis cases, says May 

 UK: Cannabis oil: cabinet appears divided as Hunt calls for review 

 UK: Middlesbrough MP 'wonders if cannabis could have helped son' 

 UK: Cannabis oil row: Billy Caldwell discharged from hospital 

 UK: Cannabis oil row prompts legalisation call 

 UK: Cannabis oil: My daughter could die tomorrow 

 UK: Billy Caldwell: Senior MP urges reform over medical cannabis 

 UK: Home Office grants licence for epileptic boy's medicinal cannabis oil 

 Cannabis oil returned to UK boy Billy Caldwell after hospitalization 

 UK: Home Office returns cannabis oil for boy's epilepsy treatment 

 UK: Billy Caldwell 'will have medical cannabis returned' after being confiscated by Home Office 

 UK: Epileptic boy Billy Caldwell has 'life-threatening' seizures' after cannabis confiscated 

 UK: 'Dying' Billy Caldwell rushed to hospital 

 UK: Medical cannabis and the challenge for regulation of medicines 

 UK: You've signed my boy's death warrant, says cannabis row mother 

 UK: Mum defiant as son's cannabis medication is seized at airport 

 UK: Mother of severely autistic boy has 'life-saving' cannabis oil confiscated at Heathrow 

 UK: Why we must legalise cannabis now for the sake of public health 

 UK: Legalising cannabis could earn Treasury 3.5 billion pounds 

 22 European Countries and Their Cannabis Laws

 New UN report reveals UK is world’s biggest producer of medical cannabis

 Where Is Marijuana Legal? Peru The Latest Country To Legalize

 Britain is largest exporter of legal cannabis in the world despite ban

Alfie Dingley: Mum criticises decision to deny cannabis treatment for son with severe epilepsy

 

Billy Caldwell, the use of cannabis as a medicine: Letter to Chloe Smith MP Norwich North

Dear Ms Smith,

I am personally disgusted with the way this Government is behaving over the issue of cannabis as a medciine.  In particular the announcement that Bill Caldwell is not to be allowed to be given cannabis oil by his mother, when it is apparent that it is keeping him alive.

Withdrawing life-saving medicine is the same as withdrawing food or water, and if the result is death, it is surely murder.

Cannabis is scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act as aplant drug with no medicinal uses.

So it seems strange, especially as Mrs May's husband is an investor in GW Pharmaceuticals, the company that miraculously extracts Sativex, a whole-plant extract in alcohol, from the plant to sell at greatly inflated prices and with limited availabilty.

Even more strange the Victoria Atkins MP's husband is a major investor in British Sugar Corperation, which apparently exports millions of pounds of cannabis 'for medicinal use'.

Whilst these men and others make massive profits from cannabis, individuals in the UK are still subject to arrest for growing even just a few plants at home for own use.

The UK seems very much behind so many countries in the world today that allow various forms of cannabis on prescription?

WHY is that?  Is it in any way connected to the personal investments of those two men and others?

Alun Buffry, Norwich North

Is cannabis a drug?

IS CANNABIS A DRUG? - A DISCUSSION

WHETHER OR NOT CANNABIS IS A DRUG POSSESSION, CULTIVATION ANS SUPPLY OUGHT BE LEGALISED.
When we talk about cannabis we are not talking about what is not cannabis
Spain: 'Cannabis is not a drug': Spain's anti-drug czar:30 Sept 2013
Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the cannabis plant and its derivatives which contain THC are classified as a Class B Drug and prohibited. Some parts of the plant, such as seeds, roots and stalks, do not fall within the Act. On the question of leaves, forensic scientists look for the presence of THC and other active cannabinoids, and if found, the substance falls within the Act. Some argue that cannabis is a drug in any case, as it can be used as a constituent in a medicine. Others argue that parts of the cannabis plant cannot correctly, semantically be called a drug at all, especially as it is neither physically addictive nor toxic in any conceivably consumable amount. The correct meaning of the word 'drug' as applied to cannabis continues to be debated; nevertheless, in British law, cannabis is a drug. 

Safety

Cannabis has been described as one of the safest therapeutic substances known to man, and safer than most common vegetables - DEA Judge Young, 1988. Others describe cannabis as "remakably safe, but not completely harmless" - Prof. Lester Grinspoon MD1997). Some even claim that cannabis is completely harmless and beneficial to man. Yet other scientists have inferred health risks involved the smoking of cannabis, mostly based upon the results of experimentation with THC extracts and synthetic THC carried out on mice, rats and monkeys. It is generally accepted that cannabis is safer than alcohol and tobacco. The question of the risk element attached to the use of cannabis will continue to be a matter for the experts, but irrespective of the answer there exists no just reason to punish cannabis users or those who grow it. 

Campaigners, scientists and doctors cannot agree. Cannabis has been used for centuries, both medicinally and for the high, as well as for rope etc, long before the days of drugs and synthetics. Much of the discussion is based on dictionary definitions which change with time. Tell a Rastafarian that his sacrament is a drug and you will be in trouble! Look at a bale of hemp fibre, hemp seed oil soap, paper, cloth or seedcake - they are all pure cannabis - and then tell me it is a drug.

CANNABIS IS NOT A DRUG.

Drugs are associated with addiction, habit and problems. Cannabis is associated with none of these. "Cannabis is not dope, it's everything from rope to hope!"

The following article is an extract from The Report of the FCDA Europe
Although on average approximately 75 people per annum in the U.S. are revealed by post mortem (autopsy) examination to have cannabis in their system at the time of their death, their deaths were induced by causes not associated with cannabis. In all the long history of its use of which the record dates back approximately 5,000 years, cannabis has never been cause to a single fatality. Medical records and study of worldwide pertinent writings over the millennia show that at no time has any person died from the ingestion of any amount of cannabis, ever.
Cannabis is a NON-TOXIC substance. One hundred per cent of the scores of studies by American universities and research facilities show that toxicity does not exist in cannabis. (U.C.L.A, Harvard, Temple, etc.)
All the in-depth medico-scientific clinical studies conducted (for example, US-Jamaican, US-Costa Rican, LaGuardia, etc) have revealed that cannabis contains no addictive properties in any part of the plant or its smoke, so, unlike and in contrast to tobacco, alcohol, and all the legal or illegal 'recreational' substances cannabis is both non-habit-forming and non-toxic. Therefore cannabis is uniquely safe. In this Report, let it be unequivocal and clearly understood that the use of "safe" in the context of cannabis use, by definition means,: "free of danger, risk or injury".

Cannabis Is Not A Drug: Accurate Language.

From all the medico-scientific aspects, harmless cannabis is not only wrongly defined as a "drug" in any meaningful (semantic) definition of the word but also, by definition and empirical reality, wrongly proscribed as a "drug" (or other substance) under legislation regulations.
Although dictionaries vary slightly in their definitions of "drug", virtually all refer to, and rely for definition on, a drug's habit-forming, addictive properties. Webster's New World Dictionary, for example, defines "drug" as: "a narcotic, hallucinogen, especially one that is habit-forming." As is confirmed by the aforementioned medico-scientific research, cannabis contains no habit-forming properties in the plant itself or its smoke. Evident from the most fundamental and widely inferred meaning, by definition based on empirical fact, cannabis is not a drug.

The word 'drug' derives from Old Dutch meaning dried herbs, as used in food, for healing and in the dyeing of textiles. There was no connotation of addiction. (viz: the Wealth of Nations, 1776, Adam Smith; Book One, Chapter One). In the twentieth Century, that meaning has been transformed by the specious pseudo-philosophy of Prohibition.

The invalidity of linking cannabis with "drugs" is further confirmed by the U.S. government's Bureau of Mortality Statistics. The table, below, demonstrates in the most obvious manner that cannabis by any meaningful definition, traditional or modern, is not a drug and cannabis cannot (correctly) be categorised or referred to as a drug.

COMPARISON OF CANNABIS TO OTHER SUBSTANCES
BY OFFICIAL MORTALITY STATISTICS
Sample year 1988. U.S. federal government Bureau of Mortality Statistics.
SUBSTANCE............................................NUMBER OF DEATHS PER ANNUM.
TOBACCO................................................................................ 340,000 to 425,000
ALCOHOL (not including 50% of all highway deaths
And 65% of all murders).......................................................150,000 +
ASPIRIN (Including deliberate overdoses) ................................................180 to 1,000 +
CAFFEINE (From stress, ulcers, triggering irregular heartbeats etc) ..................1,000 to 10,000
LEGAL DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental from legal, prescribed
Patent medicines and / or mixing with alcohol) ......14,000 to 27,000
ILLICIT DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental from all illegal drugs).........3,8000 to 5,200
THEOPHYLLINE (Prescribed asthma drug) ..........................................................50

CANNABIS

To those people in whose (financial) interests it is to perpetuate the Prohibition of Cannabis the semantically incorrect use of the word "drug" where cannabis is concerned, is a premeditated misuse of terminology. This serves strategy advantageous to Prohibitionists, and comprises a simple but effective mechanism of disinformation, by putting the harmless herb into an unjustifiable association with addictive and harmful drugs.
The reality is clear: cannabis and those pernicious substances, the drugs, are wholly unalike. As the word "drug" is wrong and inapplicable to cannabis, it is necessary to establish a correct word, veracious vocabulary, which is fitting.

From The Report of the FCDA Because cannabis has been loosely, widely and incorrectly referred to in the past as a "drug" does not mean that this basic untruth can become acceptable. On the contrary, since the introduction of Prohibition the legal situation compels veracity and clarity more than ever, for not to articulate the truth accurately involves perjury. Yet truthful language, the truth, exposes the mendacious basis to the Crime that is this Prohibition of Cannabis

The Australian Government Report says "Cannabis has been erroneously classified as a narcotic, as a sedative and as an hallucinogen. Cannabinoids represent a UNIQUE PHARMACOLOGICAL CLASS OF COMPOUNDS"

CANNABIS IS NOT A DRUG, AND NEITHER IS IT AN INTOXICANT.

According to the Oxford Pocket Dictionary to intoxicate is to make drunk, excite, elate, beyond self-control. Unlike alcohol cannabis users do not lose self-control. Massive amounts just send them to sleep.
Intoxicants are potentially toxic, that is poisonous, with a certain overdose level often dependent on the individual. There has never been a single death directly attributed to cannabis use, in 5000 years of history, with hundreds of millions of users in the world. There is NO TOXIC AMOUNT OF CANNABIS. One theory states that an amount of 2 pounds eaten in ten minutes, an impossible feat and not certain to cause death. No animal has died of an overdose of cannabis.
Many substances which are mind-altering or mood changing are not drugs : hormones, endorphins, adrenaline.
Conscious-altering substance which we consume but which are not generally regarded as drugs include sugar, caffeine and chocolate.

CANNABIS IS NOT THC

THC or Tetrahydrocannabinol is one of many active ingredients in cannabis. It can also be produced synthetically. Organic cannabis contains over 1000 other substances; like any herb it is the holistic use of the whole herb or medicine which is vital. 30 or 40 cannabinoids have been identified. Any judgment of cannabis based on the supply of THC to patients is unfounded.
Cannabis contains THC but cannabis is not THC. It is incorrect methodologically to mix in extraneous, irrelevant THC findings, or data from isolated cannabinoids, and then make false claims relating to cannabis.
WHETHER OR NOT CANNABIS IS A DRUG IT OUGHT BE LEGALISED.

MOBILE PHONE contract SCAM: VIRGIN MOBILE and others

MOBILE PHONE contract SCAM: VIRGIN MOBILE and others
When you take out a contract for 24 months or whatever, with Virgin and several other companies the same, which includes buying the handset, make sure you mark ona calender the date it runs out, because THEY WILL NOT BE TELLING YOU, instead they will keep charging you the same amount after the contract expires until YOU PHONE THEM to cancel, but when you try to get the phone repaired, in this case just a new battery, you may well and probably be told that they will not fix it because the phone has been yours since the contract ran out, despite that you have payed the same amount as if buying it, for months and presumably for decades until you phone them.
With VIRGIN MOBILE we then phoned then 4 times to be told that we were "probably" entitled to a refund (in this case over £100) and 4 times told that management would call us back within 48 hours, which they failed to do.
VIRGIN and the others will then try to blame you, the customer, for not cancelling the contract. They must make millions of pounds like this, through direct debits, especially from elderly and vulnerable customers. It is nothing but a SCAM.
It was not my phone and I took up the issue with Virgin Mobile for my friend.
Now I have mentioned the case on their facebook page and have been told to engage in yet another conversation so they "can look into it". They have the case number, they have the records, they know that this is not an unusual case.
This has been going on now for over 18 months (although we have cancelled the contract, no more payments taken, but no refund.
Sadly I have to say that in our experience Virgin are best avoided, but I hear it's much the same with Vodaphone and others.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/207123929818172/

COMMON SENSE AND COMMON JUSTICE

The policy pursued at present by the Government flouts common justice and common sense.

 

Quite simply, the policy is illegal: cannabis is a safe, beneficial and natural commodity and the laws which ban it are clearly in violation of several articles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 

 

The preamble to the UN Declaration, signed by Britain in 1948, establishes these Rights for all time: they are unchangeable and universally applicable. The preamble also explains that the Declaration in spirit is a declaration of the brotherhood and equality of man. It demands that we treat each other with respect and tolerance. How does the prohibition of a beneficial plant align with this? It does not.

Clearly, there is flagrant inconsistency between cannabis prohibition and the Principles and Articles. 

 

It is a Human Right to choose and to change, to preach and to practise, one's religion or belief. To use cannabis in the belief that it is medically and spiritually beneficial is in accordance with Article 9 of the European Convention:

1. "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his or her 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, practise, 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 morale, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

 

Cannabis has been in use as a sacrament for thousands of years. Many people believe it is an essential part of their ritual. Others believe it is essential for their health. Either way, what Right has the law to stop them using cannabis? None!

The articles in both the Declaration and the Convention make quite clear the criteria by which the law can be invoked to prevent a person from exercising his or her Rights:

• to protect the Rights of others,
• to protect law and order,
• to protect national security,
• to protect public well being or morality.

Cannabis smoking does not threaten public safety or public order, health or morals, nor threaten the rights of others.

 

Clearly, on none of these grounds can the law be invoked against a cannabis user. Rather it is the prohibiting of cannabis that breaks the law.

 

The law banning cannabis effectively prevents these people from practising their beliefs. It negates a basic Human Right. It is inexcusable.

 

The enforcement of cannabis prohibition directly contravenes the following articles of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30. The prohibition of cannabis is illegal.

 

An example of this illegality in practice is the treatment meted out in our country to religious sects. Natural cannabis is one of many plants that have been used for the inducing and stimulating of religious states of mind in the individual or, ceremoniously, the group. Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Moslems, Jains, Rastafarians and many other religions have long made use of cannabis. They use it today; but usually in secrecy, for fear of arrest. Modern day New Age Travellers, the Universal Church of the Holy and Sacred Herb, The Church of the Universe, The Church of the Hemp Goddess - members of all these groups are arrested these days for smoking their sacrament. This is a direct consequence of the blanket prohibition of cannabis.

 

The affront to justice entailed in putting into practice our weird law relating to cannabis proves itself in the event, inevitably, to be at the same time an affront to sense. A blatant example: billions of pounds are spent each year providing ineffective medicines to people who claim, after all, to experience far more benefit from the smoking of cannabis. There are thousands suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, spinal injury, epilepsy, asthma, insomnia and stress-related illnesses who openly admit that they have needed to resort to cannabis to relieve their pain. And many of these, bizarrely, are taken to the courts!

 

After recommendations for an immediate change of law from the House of Lords, many doctors and many experts, and after a huge outcry from the general public, the Government has responded by allowing medical trials of organic cannabinoid extracts, declaring that if these trials are a success, then maybe in the future…!

 

In the meantime, literally millions of subjects are denied relief from pain, under threat of severe punishment. What sort of justice is that? What sort of sense?

 

We propose that the long known and many therapeutic values of cannabis be accepted immediately by the British Government and that cannabis in its natural form be made available without fear of prosecution to all whose health and well-being would benefit.

 

The legalising of cannabispossession, cultivation and supply would protect consumer's health: in effect it would act as a prophylactic against unknown and possibly noxious substances presently found in illegal cannabis on the streets of Britain.

 

Then again, how in the name of sense or of justice can one defend what our armaments, our industries, and our modes of transport do to the environment? For it is a question of justice, a matter of human rights. 

 

The environment is an essential aspect of ourselves, and we bequeath it to the future. It can be said, without exaggeration, that what we do to the world today may be unchangeable for millions of years. Nuclear waste materials have half-lives beyond the imagination. (A half-life is the time it takes a radioactively poisonous material to decay to half its potency. During the equivalent period following, it decays half again. That means that some of our waste will be dangerous for millions of years. This in the interest of fuel, of energy and of profit!)

 

The widespread cultivation of cannabis (to recapitulate) could halt and reverse much of the polluting activity that our society so stupidly and criminally engages in. Cannabis biomass could be made to provide all our fuel virtually cost-free (given that the THC-rich parts of the plant were used recreationally and medically, the remainder being a by-product). The dangerous synthetic industries could be put out of business. Large tracts of land on which other crops cannot be grown successfully could be reclaimed. The Greenhouse Effect could be hugely reduced, enabling nature to undo some of what has been done to the ozone layer. And so on…

 

We have asked why successive Governments have failed to take these facts into consideration and act upon them. We have received no satisfactory answer.

 

The Government's strategy in relation to cannabis is at once outrageous and ludicrous. Such a fuss about a plant, a remarkably safe plant! Such a pother about responsible people enjoying a 'high'!

They claim that cannabis is a dangerous drug. Claim it still, despite the evidence of their own studies!

 

Each year, for the crime of possessing this 'dangerous' substance, more and more people are arrested and taken through the courts. And the process costs the taxpayer billions of pounds.

 

But this figure - this tally - is of course dwarfed by the amount the multi-national corporations accumulate in producing synthetic alternatives to hemp.

 

Just look at the world: sick, starving, war-torn, polluted, crime-riddled and drug-addicted!

links:

Out of Joint: 20 Years of Campaigning for Cannabis
Time for Cannabis The Prison Years

Cannabis Campaigners Guide
We The Undersigned campaign
Human Rights Act