Legalisation Through Education
Friday, 28 February 2014
Monday, 17 February 2014
Alun Buffry' Blog: Drug Addiction is a problem for doctors not police...
Alun Buffry' Blog: Drug Addiction is a problem for doctors not police...: Addiction to anything is a serious health problem, yet so many people are addicted or habitualised to so many things, from shopping and gambling through heroin and prescribed medication like methodone.
What they started on is not the issue - helping them to cope or overcome the addiction is a medical issue.
The problem is that the law unfairly and unjustly threatens to punish people addiction to some things / substances, but not others - even though they have not actually harmed anyone or committed other offences (if they have, then the law will deal with them)
For example: a heroin addict can be sent to prison or fined for simple possession for own use - an alcoholic can not be. Why - if neither has done harm, surely they ought to be treated the same way and offered help, not courtrooms.
That threat of arrest is why so many addicts to drugs which are illegal to possess, where the only supply is criminalised, must feel deterred from seeking help earlier before all the other problems and associated crime become part of their lives too.
It is time the Government tried a new approach other than prohibition that is clearly failing and also brings its own problems (like £18 Billion bill annually to the taxpayers".
It is time the Government treated users of all drugs, the same. There is no logical reason why some drugs should be totally banned yet available on the street, whereas others that are equally or more dangerous like alcohol is controlled.
What they started on is not the issue - helping them to cope or overcome the addiction is a medical issue.
The problem is that the law unfairly and unjustly threatens to punish people addiction to some things / substances, but not others - even though they have not actually harmed anyone or committed other offences (if they have, then the law will deal with them)
For example: a heroin addict can be sent to prison or fined for simple possession for own use - an alcoholic can not be. Why - if neither has done harm, surely they ought to be treated the same way and offered help, not courtrooms.
That threat of arrest is why so many addicts to drugs which are illegal to possess, where the only supply is criminalised, must feel deterred from seeking help earlier before all the other problems and associated crime become part of their lives too.
It is time the Government tried a new approach other than prohibition that is clearly failing and also brings its own problems (like £18 Billion bill annually to the taxpayers".
It is time the Government treated users of all drugs, the same. There is no logical reason why some drugs should be totally banned yet available on the street, whereas others that are equally or more dangerous like alcohol is controlled.
Alun Buffry' Blog: Licences to grow cannabis in the UK for personal u...
Alun Buffry' Blog: Licences to grow cannabis in the UK for personal u...: In a reply to a letter from Des Humphrey, Sylvia.Williams (Sylvia.Williams@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk ) of the Home Office Drugs Licensing and Compliance Unit, Drugs Alcohol and Partnership Directorate, says
"The Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 2001 also restricts the licit use of cannabis to possession for research or “other special purposes”. Home Office policy with regard to “other special purposes” in this case is to permit cultivation of cannabis plants with a low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content for the production of hemp fibre for industrial purposes or the obtaining of seeds which are then, for example, pressed for their oil. For both of these uses, there needs to be a defined commercial end use. The Home Office only licences plants grown for these purposes from EU approved seed types with a THC content not exceeding 0.2%.
"Controlled drug Licences can be issued to individuals or companies; Cannabis cultivation licenses are no exception."
She goes on to say:
"On the basis of the information you give it is highly unlikely that a domestic premises undertaking the activity you propose would be considered suitable for licensing."
A footnote adds: "The opinions expressed in this message are personal and are in no way an official view of the Home Office; neither should they be considered to be an indication of Home Office Policy."On consideration of that reply, my comment is:
they insinuate that licenses are only given for cultivation on low THC hemp for seed for oil or for fibre BUT
as well as it being possible also within the present law to allow the cultivation of the same plant for other uses such as fuel ....
they make no mention that they ALSO allow cultivation of high-level THC / CBD cannabis by the likes of GW and I suspect several universities
So they have ruled and specified that licenses have been given and can be given to those, but try to put you off applying, saying simply "it is highly unlikely that a domestic premises undertaking the activity you propose would be considered suitable for licensing. "
They also say "The opinions expressed in this message are personal and are in no way an official view of the Home Office; neither should they be considered to be an indication of Home Office Policy."
In other words, it is just an opinion and does not necessarily hone office policy - they are simply telling you not to waste your time - i would say go ahead and apply (of course)
The Home Office decision should be based upon questioning the APPLICATION of law. THEY decide when not to apply the law, that is, when to license (To allow what is otherwise prohibited)
And the PURPOSE of the law must be considered when looking at how and when it is applied
They must obviously think it wrong to apply the ban on cases that they give licenses to.
My CASE for you is that it is wrong to apply the law for small-scale cultivation for person beneficial use. - the law cannot have been made for that purpose - therefor they OUGHT to grant licences.
"The Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 2001 also restricts the licit use of cannabis to possession for research or “other special purposes”. Home Office policy with regard to “other special purposes” in this case is to permit cultivation of cannabis plants with a low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content for the production of hemp fibre for industrial purposes or the obtaining of seeds which are then, for example, pressed for their oil. For both of these uses, there needs to be a defined commercial end use. The Home Office only licences plants grown for these purposes from EU approved seed types with a THC content not exceeding 0.2%.
"Controlled drug Licences can be issued to individuals or companies; Cannabis cultivation licenses are no exception."
She goes on to say:
"On the basis of the information you give it is highly unlikely that a domestic premises undertaking the activity you propose would be considered suitable for licensing."
A footnote adds: "The opinions expressed in this message are personal and are in no way an official view of the Home Office; neither should they be considered to be an indication of Home Office Policy."On consideration of that reply, my comment is:
they insinuate that licenses are only given for cultivation on low THC hemp for seed for oil or for fibre BUT
as well as it being possible also within the present law to allow the cultivation of the same plant for other uses such as fuel ....
they make no mention that they ALSO allow cultivation of high-level THC / CBD cannabis by the likes of GW and I suspect several universities
So they have ruled and specified that licenses have been given and can be given to those, but try to put you off applying, saying simply "it is highly unlikely that a domestic premises undertaking the activity you propose would be considered suitable for licensing. "
They also say "The opinions expressed in this message are personal and are in no way an official view of the Home Office; neither should they be considered to be an indication of Home Office Policy."
In other words, it is just an opinion and does not necessarily hone office policy - they are simply telling you not to waste your time - i would say go ahead and apply (of course)
The Home Office decision should be based upon questioning the APPLICATION of law. THEY decide when not to apply the law, that is, when to license (To allow what is otherwise prohibited)
And the PURPOSE of the law must be considered when looking at how and when it is applied
They must obviously think it wrong to apply the ban on cases that they give licenses to.
My CASE for you is that it is wrong to apply the law for small-scale cultivation for person beneficial use. - the law cannot have been made for that purpose - therefor they OUGHT to grant licences.
Friday, 7 February 2014
Saturday, 1 February 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)