Quote:

SECTION VI GENERAL CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

67. The evidence before us shows that:

An increasing number of people, mainly young, in all classes of society are experimenting with this drug, and substantial numbers use it regularly for social pleasure.

There is no evidence that this activity is causing violent crime or aggression, anti-social behaviour, or is producing in otherwise normal people conditions of dependence or psychosis, requiring medical treatment.

The experience of many other countries is that once it is established cannabis-smoking tends to spread. In some parts of Western society where interest in mood-altering drugs is growing, there are indications that it may become a functional equivalent of alcohol.

In spite of the threat of severe penalties and considerable effort at enforcement the use of cannabis in the United Kingdom does not appear to be diminishing. There is a body of opinion that criticises the present legislative treatment of cannabis on the grounds that it exaggerates the dangers of the drug, and needlessly interferes with civil liberty.

UnQuote

"Cannabis first became illegal in the UK, and most of the rest of the world, on 28th September 1928 when the 1925 Dangerous Drugs Act came into force. There were no British domestic reasons, no lobbying for or against prohibition, and no Parliamentary debates."

The Question that cannabis campaigners are still asking after more than 40 years of campaigning:

New drugs chief Les Iversen said cannabis 'safer'. 13 January 2010

Les Iversen has replaced David Nutt, who was sacked last October after saying cannabis was less harmful than alcohol and nicotine, and arguing that penalties against the herb had been upgraded to Class B for political reasons, as the UK government's chief drug adviser.

"Why cannabis doesn't kill" by Les Iversen, 6th May 2003.

Quote by Les Iversen, from above article:

"When I read last week that as many as 30,000 deaths a year in Britain could be caused by smoking cannabis, I reacted in a most uncustomary way for a mild-mannered scientist. I was infuriated. As someone acknowledged throughout the world as a specialist in how drugs affect the brain, I know a great deal about cannabis, and I know that the facts are not there to stand up such an outrageous statement. The main problem is that cannabis has been classified incorrectly for nearly 50 years as being an extremely dangerous drug, but it doesn't fit that level of hazard."

Comment:

This article was written for the London Evening Standard by Les Iversen, the current (2011) UK government's chief drug adviser, on 6th May 2003. Can you believe that Les Iversen said this seven years ago and that cannabis is still illegal in the UK???? After the sacking of Professor David Nutt, why did UK government appoint Iversen to this office, knowing that he has similar, favourable views, towards cannabis? And that being the case, why hasn't Les Iversen been more vocal in his position to petition the government to legalise cannabis use by a regulated system?

By the appointment of Les Iversen to the office of chief drug adviser, the UK government has lost all argument credibility on keeping cannabis classified within the Misuse of Drugs Act.

What are you waiting for, Mr. Les Iversen? You know that cannabis is not dangerous - UK GOV: LEGALISE CANNABIS USE !!!


ALLOW EVERY ADULT THE RIGHT TO USE CANNABIS SHOULD THEY WISH TO DO SO AND ISSUE INDIVIDUALS GROWERS LICENSES IN THE UK TO THOSE WANT THE LEGAL RIGHT TO GROW THEIR OWN CANNABIS PLANTS.

UK citizens are receiving criminal records for cannabis convictions. The career prospects of young people are being blighted by cannabis convictions. It is a pathetic argument to say that people should stop using cannabis. This criminalising misery is being propagated generation after generation - and is thus being passed on to our children and our grandchildren.

On all of the above basis, the continued prosecution of people for cannabis law offences ought to be enough evidence to initiate a Public Enquiry into the Prohibition of cannabis in the UK.



Please contact your local MP and ask them what their position is on the legislation of cannabis use. If you are a cannabis user and/or strongly believe that cannabis should be regulated for adult use, then please do not vote for any political candidate who aims to maintain cannabis prohibition. To do so is to help to condemn cannabis users to a miserable future of having criminal convictions, receiving fines and/or being sent to prison. Cannabis use is an issue of civil rights and nothing else. Fight for these rights - and never give up the fight - nobody will give them to us unless we FIGHT HARD.

Cannabis does not need to be compared to anything else. It stands alone as a non-dangerous drug, a medicinal healer and is used as a pleasant recreational activity. NOBODY HAS EVER DIED FROM CANNABIS USE. The moment we go into comparisons with other drugs, the safety attributes of cannabis are lost in argument. Politicians know this and keep cannabis in the MoDA because campaigners have been ineffectual, over the past 40 some years, in sticking to the civil rights argument. If you were cannabis, wouldn't you be sick and tired of being compared to alcohol and the rest?



The USA plays a very big part in ending global prohibition and we need to give our support to all initiatives there.




Learn about cannabis use and share your knowledge with family, work contacts and other people. Having the right attitude and approach is essential for us to get the message across without a hostile reaction - we are educators on cannabis and campaigners for the individual's legal right to use cannabis.
Comment on every mainstream news article on the internet that you come across. Sign up for a log-in on all mainstream newspapers, create an email folder to keep them all in and make a point of sharing the truth about cannabis prohibition. Newspaper editors pay attention to the number of comments on articles and facto them as "trending topics" so our participation in adding comments is ESSENTIAL to changing mainstream opinion.