• UK parliament will hold a debate on cannabis legalisation on 12 October in response to e-petition
    86 replies, posted
[url]http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2015/8-sept-committee-decisions/[/url] [quote]The Petitions Committee today made its first decisions relating to petitions, including scheduling two debates. [B][U]Petition debates[/U][/B] [U][url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104334]To debate a vote of no confidence in Health Secretary the Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt[/url][/U] The Committee decided to schedule a debate in Westminster Hall on the motion “That this House has considered the e-petition relating to contracts and conditions in the NHS” on Monday 14 September at 4.30pm. The Chair of the Committee, Helen Jones MP, will lead the debate. The Committee also noted that there was a similar petition with a significant number of signatures hosted on the Change.org site. The Committee would take steps to inform people who signed that petition about the actions it had taken. [U][url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104349]Make the production, sale and use of cannabis legal[/url][/U] The Committee decided to schedule a debate in Westminster Hall on the motion “That this House has considered the e-petition relating to making the production, sale and use of cannabis legal” on Monday 12 October. Paul Flynn MP, a member of the Committee, will lead the debate. [B][U]Other decisions on petitions over 100,000[/U][/B] [U][url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/105991]Accept more asylum seekers and increase support for refugee migrants in the UK[/url][/U] The House of Commons has already had several opportunities to consider this issue. The Prime Minister made a statement on Monday 7 September and was questioned by MPs about it. On Tuesday 8 September there was an emergency debate on the refugee crisis in Europe. It has been announced that there will be a further debate on this subject on Wednesday 9 September. The petition has been “tagged” on the House of Commons order paper as being relevant to today’s debate. The Committee decided that, since this issue has already been debated extensively in the House of Commons, the time was not right for another debate on the same issue. The Committee would take steps to ensure that people who had signed relevant petitions on petition.parliament.uk, as well as people who had signed petitions on other sites, were informed about the debates that were already taking place. [U][url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/105446]Benjamin Netanyahu to be arrested for war crimes when he arrives in London[/url][/U] The Committee noted that the request made by the petition was something that the UK Government said it was not able to do under UK and international law. The Committee agreed that, as this was not something the UK Government could do, it would not take any further action on the petition. It would still be open to MPs who wanted a debate on this issue to find other opportunities, such as an application to the Backbench Business Committee.[/quote]
I bet the same thing will happen as last time
Almost feel like this is just a formality, I'll be surprised if they u-turn on their first response to the petition.
All we know right now is that the debate will be led by Paul Flynn MP, a [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/284901.stm]long-time supporter of relaxing cannabis laws[/url]
Everyone will sit down, someone stands up and holds up a piece of paper with "cannebis iz bad" written on it. Cue applause and the end of the debate.
Hope for the best, expect the worst. Hopefully this Paul Flynn chappie will help it get at least some traction, and cite that booze, tobacco and coffee have been permitted for ages.
Apparently the debate will be livestreamed on [url=http://parliamentlive.tv/]parliamentlive.tv[/url], a website that I didn't even know existed
Seriously though, if they say no to legalisation someone needs to bring up the option of decriminalisation or lowering the class, we have to get something out of this or we will be stuck in the same fucking loop since 2005
Corbyn will be Labour leader at that point. do you think that will have an impact on this debate compared to previous ones? does he have a position on this?
[QUOTE=smurfy;48640136]Apparently the debate will be livestreamed on [url=http://parliamentlive.tv/]parliamentlive.tv[/url], a website that I didn't even know existed[/QUOTE] That's actually really cool.
[QUOTE=smurfy;48640136]Apparently the debate will be livestreamed on [URL="http://parliamentlive.tv/"]parliamentlive.tv[/URL], a website that I didn't even know existed[/QUOTE] Old (mostly) white men discussing weed? That could give birth to some quality YTP material.
Well, at least I'm happy the petition system is working. Now we wait. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("ban evasion alt of Buck." - Orkel))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=ironman17;48640113]Hope for the best, expect the worst. Hopefully this Paul Flynn chappie will help it get at least some traction, and cite that booze, tobacco and coffee have been permitted for ages.[/QUOTE] Your're saying that bad things are legal, so more bad things should be legal as a result. Okay then.
[QUOTE=Lium;48641755]Your're saying that bad things are legal, so more bad things should be legal as a result. Okay then.[/QUOTE] How is ingestion of cannabis a bad thing in normal adults? It enhances ones quality of life. It can be ingested without smoking.. in edible or vapour form for example.
[QUOTE=Lium;48641755]Your're saying that bad things are legal, so more bad things should be legal as a result. Okay then.[/QUOTE] Well either both cannabis and alcohol should be legal or they both should be illegal.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;48652016]Well either both cannabis and alcohol should be legal or they both should be illegal.[/QUOTE] And in the end it's easier to permit than to prohibit (though which is better varies on a case by case basis, of course). I mean, look at America's miserable attempt to ban alcohol back in the Interbellum period. 13 years they fought to keep booze out of their country, and they failed miserably. If the government won't allow it, people will likely find other avenues to get it, for better or for worse.
I always found it funny how big of an issue this seemed to be... on both sides, sometimes the hyperbole reaches a point where the extreme one side is saying [I]"Cannabis will either kill you or make you into a serial killer."[/I] and on the other side you get the [I]"The government is literally fucking retarded and unfit to exist in modern society if cannabis isn't legalised and cannabis is good for you!"[/I] Ok I am overstating the extremes of both sides a little but my point is that there seems to be a lot of hoo-hah over this and I've never gotten a properly straight answer out of anyone so I'll ask this. What's the big deal with Cannabis? Why is it either "So dangerous it must be made illegal"? Why is there a big move to get it made legal otherwise? Enlighten me, I wish to know why there seems to be a lot of fuss over the situation.
Because I want to get high like twice a month, Im an adult and know quite well what the effects on me are without the government babysitting me, and Id like to do that without fear of jail or a criminal record, or having to go into a dodgy estate to pick up off a chav with a knife. For other people with cancer or Chrons disease or many other diseases, its an effective and cheap method of dealing with pain, but they cant get it prescribed because "reasons". And these reasons go back decades to when it was banned due to basically racism.
I'm glad it's being debated as it actually forces communication rather than "waa waa we can't hear you drugs are bad mmkay". Fingers crossed we can get the ex-drugs guy to contribute some information, he suggested most drugs be legalised and got kicked out. Because if you disagree with the advisor, they are wrong.
[QUOTE=ironman17;48652228]And in the end it's easier to permit than to prohibit (though which is better varies on a case by case basis, of course). I mean, look at America's miserable attempt to ban alcohol back in the Interbellum period. 13 years they fought to keep booze out of their country, and they failed miserably. If the government won't allow it, people will likely find other avenues to get it, for better or for worse.[/QUOTE] I don't get why people think the government owns a country, they work FOR the people by representing their opinion. If they go against the will of the public they need to get booted out of power, simple as that. It doesn't matter if the government thinks a substance is bad for the public, if the citizens think it should be legalized they have no choice since they represent them. Goddam whos dumb idea was it that the government knows what should be legal or not like they know better. There needs to be a coup in britain.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;48654138]There needs to be a coup in britain.[/QUOTE] That would be an extraordinarily shit idea.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48654162]That would be an extraordinarily shit idea.[/QUOTE] You're right, someone should start a referendum in parliment "should we execute impeached politicians that are found incompitent by a public vote?" Like how the chinese execute corrupt officials. Wouldn't that be easier.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48654162]That would be an extraordinarily shit idea.[/QUOTE] And just over a bit of silly baccy no less... I mean sure, this government is pretty stupid sometimes and you wonder how half of them make it though the private schools they get sent into, but I don't think that being all stuffy over some drugs is any reason to get up in arms. However if they DARE go though with those anti-porn or that DAMNED snoopers charter laws I am going to go get my hands on the nearest rife or shotgun, and I am pretty against gun ownership in this country, and redecorate the houses of parliament using a lovely new pattern called "Riot-worn"
[QUOTE=thisguy123;48654232] However if they DARE go though with those anti-porn or that DAMNED snoopers charter laws I am going to go get my hands on the nearest rife or shotgun, and I am pretty against gun ownership in this country, and redecorate the houses of parliament using a lovely new pattern called "Riot-worn"[/QUOTE] This is a really good way to go about getting a knock at your door
[QUOTE=thisguy123;48654232]And just over a bit of silly baccy no less... I mean sure, this government is pretty stupid sometimes and you wonder how half of them make it though the private schools they get sent into, but I don't think that being all stuffy over some drugs is any reason to get up in arms. However if they DARE go though with those anti-porn or that DAMNED snoopers charter laws [B]I am going to go get my hands on the nearest rife or shotgun, and I am pretty against gun ownership in this country, and redecorate the houses of parliament using a lovely new pattern called "Riot-worn"[/B][/QUOTE] lol Good luck with that. First off, finding a rifle or shotgun in modern England seems like it'll be an adventure in of its self. Then secondly people don't need to die or even be threatened with violence by a firearm just because they hate porn and want to see if you're looking at it online.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;48654194]You're right, someone should start a referendum in parliment "should we execute impeached politicians that are found incompitent by a public vote?" Like how the chinese execute corrupt officials. Wouldn't that be easier.[/QUOTE] Only problem is that capital punishment has been abolished here.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48654310]Only problem is that capital punishment has been abolished here.[/QUOTE] Someone should start a referendum in parliament. :v:
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48654310]Only problem is that capital punishment has been abolished here.[/QUOTE] Then declare them terrorists instead of executing them. Hehe
[QUOTE=thisguy123;48653230]I always found it funny how big of an issue this seemed to be... on both sides, sometimes the hyperbole reaches a point where the extreme one side is saying [I]"Cannabis will either kill you or make you into a serial killer."[/I] and on the other side you get the [I]"The government is literally fucking retarded and unfit to exist in modern society if cannabis isn't legalised and cannabis is good for you!"[/I] Ok I am overstating the extremes of both sides a little but my point is that there seems to be a lot of hoo-hah over this and I've never gotten a properly straight answer out of anyone so I'll ask this. What's the big deal with Cannabis? Why is it either "So dangerous it must be made illegal"? Why is there a big move to get it made legal otherwise? Enlighten me, I wish to know why there seems to be a lot of fuss over the situation.[/QUOTE] It's a huge crime over here in America to own Cannabis. People who possess or own Cannabis can get some pretty major sentence for what could be considered a relatively harmless drug. Naturally some people people overreact to this and take it as if it's a god drug, and that anyone who questions it is an idiot or a conservative. This being an international forum largely populated by Europeans and Americans, some of that arguably extreme position rubs off on some, even if those people live in a country where Marijuana is mostly decriminalized or where people just don't care too much about it.
[QUOTE=Complifused;48654265]This is a really good way to go about getting a knock at your door[/QUOTE] What with the sort of Information GCHQ supposedly has on people if I haven't gotten one yet I'm not getting one for that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.