GBR : Cannabis Community Inspired by House Speaker's Defeat

[Pompo]

Cannabis Community Inspired by House Speaker's Defeat
The UK cannabis community is feeling a little more positive regarding the legal status of cannabis today, after a pretty redhead named Heather Brooke took on the "old boys network" of Parliament, and won the right to demand a full disclosure regarding a £12 million per year housing perk which MP's from both sides of the house, were keen to keep quiet.

5/22/08|Canna Zine|

For over 3 years Ms Brooke and her 'righto-know' freedom of information organisation have fought a David & Goliath-esque battle against "the establishment", which was fronted by House of Commons Speaker Michael Martin, who is expected to launch an appeal against Ms Brooke's victory.


Ms Heather Brooke kicked parliament's ass with an
argument based around honesty and fair-play - commodities not
usually associated with politics, as the cannabis debate
illustrates all to clearly. Photo courtesy of Canna Zine

Miss Brooke said: "This ruling makes clear that in a democracy it is the people who are the masters and politicians must be directly accountable to them.

"What's disappointing is that it took three years of concerted effort to counter the relentless opposition from the House of Commons Commission and Speaker Michael Martin, who used taxpayers' money throughout to block the very information needed for an informed electorate.

She continued by saying, "By their secrecy, these officials have severely damaged public trust in Parliament."

And we agree with her.


House Speaker Michael Martin squandered
almost a quarter of a million pounds of tax-payers money
on trying to keep this "perk-of-the-job" quiet.

The fact is, Conservative leader David Cameron, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, and current encumbent Gordon Brown, all have a vested interest (to the tune of £21,000 each) in keeping this information quiet. But Heather Brooke and her group was having none of it.

But what does all this have to with the cannabis community in the UK?

For decades, the community which uses cannabis regularly, responsible 30-something and 40-something adults who choose to consume cannabis over alcohol, have known what experts from all around the world know currently.

Yes cannabis comes with a risk, but so does peanuts, alcohol and tobacco, all of which can be purchased at the local convenience store on every UK street corner. Its this 'double standard' which the cannabis community struggles most with.

If we choose to rank drugs using the antiquated ABC system, then tobacco and alcohol MUST be included in this scheduling system for it to retain any shred of credibility. Or else the entire system on which a nations drug policies are built, is less than worthless.

Alcohol will kill 700,000 in the Uk in 2008. We already know this, and we also know it will hospitalise a good many more.

Many of these hospitalised will be underage drinkers.

Tobacco has been subjected to stringent international advertising bans as a result of its links with cancer and as such there are fewer people than ever before taking up the demon weed, showing this particular tactic as a relative success story in combating tobacco use.

Even cannabis consumers are turning their backs wholesale on tobacco, as the technology to consume cannabis with zero - thats right, zero poisonous emissions gathers strength.

But the alcohol lobby is a strong and persistent foe to have, and no government in their right mind is going to go against the strongest political lobby group which exists currently.

Not even the World Health organisation will take them on, or so it would appear.

The 'WHO' is facing pressure to take a tough stance on alcohol consumption at its annual assembly in Geneva this week amid fears alcohol industry lobby groups will water down any proposals with their high-profile, highly funded campaigning.

"We're not particularly hopeful," said Frank Soodeen, head of public affairs for the UK-based group Alcohol Concern.

"There's no doubting the tremendous lobbying power of the drinks industry," he said.

Which is a good point and one worth loitering on for a moment.

The alcohol lobby pours millions of pounds annually into the UK economy, and not just in taxes. Money spent on shin-digs which brings rich & famous celebrities in touch with fund-raising politicians.

There can be no doubting one of the industries which will be hit hardest when cannabis is eventually decriminalised, is the drinks industry, and its with this in mind the government has allowed 24 hour licensing to remain, whilst wishing to crack down harder on cannabis and its users.

A drugs charity recently accused the Labour government of having a "cosy relationship" with the drinks industry, so its not hard to see why the cannabis situation is as it is today.

But the law is not yet changed. There's still time to mount a serious campaign to rescind the Home Secretary's decision on cannabis, and more.

All of the medical evidence exists currently, to debunk every single argument the government used to change a law no-one wanted changed. There are doctors, psychiatrists, even former United States 'Surgeon Generals' who agree that the pro's of cannabis use in medical practice far outweight the cons.

There are US Senators, Congressmen and women, who have built their entire campaigns for office around the marijuana debate and thats before we even mention the US presidential candidates, each of which realised a long time ago, the importance of the cannabis vote.

Its worth mentioning too, that each of the prominent democratic candidates for the office of President of the United States, have a not-so-secret past of drugs use, and rather than try to sweep this under the table, they've actually used the facts to good effect throughout their campaigns, showing a level of honesty which is 10 years ahead of British politics.

Its time we caught up.

Join us and help stop this law being changed, and in doing so lets force a debate on the medical merits of cannabis. Lets fact it, there are plenty.

----------

[Buzzby]

Alcohol will kill 700,000 in the UK in 2008. We already know this, and we also know it will hospitalise a good many more.

Wow! The estimates for alcohol fatalities in the US that I've seen vary from 46,000 to 150,000. The US has a population of 303,000,000. The UK has only 61,000,000. 700,000 represents more than 1% of the population dying annually from alcohol. Does that even seem possible?

The US death rate from all causes is 0.8%. The UK death rate from all causes is 1.0% Does that mean that everyone who dies in the UK dies from too much drinking?