'SKUNK or DRUNK'
TWO FINGERS TO PROHIBITION.
Feel free to be ''informative and educational''...however, I must point out that this website is not ''concerned with intent to supply cannabis''..it's about ENDING PROHIBITION...so, in other words, if you're here to try and score then go back home and start growing your own, for your personal use.
''WHY ARE WE LEGALLY PROTECTED TO USE ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, CAFFEINE ETC, REGARDLESS OF HARM, BUT NOT CANNABIS ?''
The Human Rights Act.
The Human Rights Act is one of the most significant pieces of constitutional legislation enacted in the United Kingdom. It is a key part of the Government’s programme to encourage a modern civic society where the rights and responsibilities of our citizens are clearly recognised and properly balanced.
Its effect is to allow people to claim their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights in UK courts and tribunals, instead of having to go to the European Court in Strasbourg. The Act underpins this by requiring all public authorities in the UK to act compatibly with the Convention rights. This places new responsibilities on all of us who work in public authorities, which includes central government, the courts, the police, local government and many bodies who carry out functions which the Government would otherwise have to undertake.
What the Act does
The Government’s broad aim in introducing the Act is to help create a society in which people’s rights and responsibilities are properly balanced and where an awareness of the Convention rights permeates our government and legal systems at all levels.
The Human Rights Act incorporates provisions from the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
When the Human Rights Act came into effect on 2 October 2000, the Convention rights are enforceable in the UK courts.
The Act:
- makes it unlawful for a public authority to act incompatibly with the Convention rights and allows for a case to be brought in a UK court or tribunal against the authority if it does so. However, a public authority will not have acted unlawfully under the Act if as the result of a provision of primary legislation it could not have acted differently.
- requires all legislation to be interpreted and given effect as far as possible compatibly with the Convention rights. Where it is not possible to do so, a court may
1.) quash or disapply subordinate legislation or;
2.) if it is a higher court, make a declaration of incompatibility for primary legislation. This triggers a new power that allows a Minister to make a remedial order to amend the legislation to bring it into line with the Convention rights.
3.) requires UK courts and tribunals to take account of Strasbourg case-law (i.e the case-law of the Court and the Commission in Strasbourg, and the Committee of Ministers). They will also be bound to develop the common law compatibly with the Convention rights.
Now all public bodies, including the courts and agencies such as the police, local authorities, hospitals and prisons and other bodies carrying out public functions must act in accordance with the Convention rights when making decisions which affect you. If they interfere with these rights, they will have to be able to justify that interference in accordance with the new law.
Guidance
• The Ministry of Justice Human Rights Division provides a range of guidance explaining the Human Rights Act and aimed at a variety of audiences.
• Responsibility for the Human rights Act transferred from the Home Office to the Ministry of Justice in May 2001.
The Ministry of Justice web site contains full guidance on the Act, and information on other related matters as well as downloadable advice and guidance material.
U.K. GOVERNMENT ANTI - DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION.
http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/brc/publications/antidisentry.html
"While acknowledging the progress made in tackling discrimination over the last 20 years or more, we recognise that much discrimination still occurs, direct and indirect, intended and unintended. Discrimination causes real suffering to many individuals and, weakens the cohesiveness of our society, increases social exclusion and denies society the talents of individuals who are discriminated against.
We believe that a commitment to diversity and equal opportunities is successful to a modern, pluralistic and civilised society, and that there is an urgent need to address the continuing discrimination that many citizens experience.
--------------------------------------------------------
'' Nobody could 'legalise' drugs, drugs are objects that cannot be illegal. What is illegal are human activities pertaining to them. It is vital that we understand that even the law does not suggest that drugs are legal or illegal - they are controlled. The word 'controlled' does not equate to prohibtion, but rather implies what we want, regulation proportionately imposed to achieve the amelioration of social harmfulness caused by the misuse of drugs. This can only be done if we recognise that peaceful use of controlled drugs is possible and indeed commonplace.'' - Darryl Bickler. MONUMENTAL NEWS - CASEY HARDISON HAS SECURRED A DECISION FROM THE ICO TO ORDER THE HOME OFFICE TO REVEAL THE SUPRESSED DRAFT CONSULTATION DOCUMENT OF 19/01/2006 CONCERNING THE INTENDED REVIEW OF THE DRUG CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.
''THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE GOVT. TO INTERFERE WITH MY RESPONSIBLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF (POTENTIALLY VERY HARMFUL) ALCOHOL, AT HOME IN PRIVATE. THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEED, EQUALLY, TO INTERFERE WITH MY PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF CANNABIS, EITHER.
THAT'S DISCRIMINATION...AND THAT'S UNLAWFUL. WHY DO I RECEIVE THE QUEEN'S MEDAL FOR INDUSTRY FOR ONE AND IMPRISONMENT FOR THE OTHER ?''
Apparently we have won already, only it hasn't been realised yet. This is not about breaking any laws. It is simply about understanding the application of existing ones. There is no legitimate reason to prevent you growing and consuming your own Cannabis.
"You have committed a crime against yourself," highlights the absurd level the justice system has reached - in fact so far it has screwed itself.
Prof. Nutt has merely given Cannabis [users] the credibility so long denied by successive Govt. lies.
Essentially the State can no longer "necessitate interference in your private home life." In other words, your home is your island and provided there is no [criminal] ''bridge'' connecting you with anyone else - ie. no public interest.-
( within your own home who is "private" and who is "public?") - there can therefore be no reason to "necessitate" prosecution.
Remember.. You are not guilty, unless you think you are a criminal !! It is not possible to ''commit a crime against yourself.''
Cannabis is now on the same level as ''home-brew'' (though infinitely safer) - in fact, why not do so just to make the point. There is no legal restriction in sharing/giving your homebrew to your friends.
In the meantime everything will be done to open Coffeeshops in the U.K.
_______________________________________________________________________
Dutch scientists also exposed several "myths"
about cannabis and found:
- No evidence that it led to a decline in mental health
- Nothing to suggest it was addictive. In fact 90% of those who had tried the drug had since quit
- Even heavy smoking of cannabis does not impair the function or capacity of the lungs.
____http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/58013.stm____________________________________
