Quote:MPs will be forced to debate the legalisation of marijuana in the House of Commons after an e-petition has been signed by over 100,000 people in the UK.

The official petition, created by James Richard Owen, calls for the legalisation of the production, sale and use of cannabis, and has gained more than 120,000 signatures in the four days since it was created.

The statement on the petition reads:

Legalising cannabis could bring in £900m in taxes every year, save £400m on policing cannabis and create over 10,000 new jobs.

Because the petition, launched on Tuesday morning, has reached more than 100,000 signatures, ministers must now consider debating the issue in the Commons.

This news comes just days after the Durham police commissioner effectively decriminalised cannabis in the region, in the wake of increasingly scarce police resources.

The potential debate in parliament has been welcomed and celebrated by drug reform campaigners, although the mood of the Conservatives is likely to be less receptive given that one of the first actions of the new government was to introduce a bill that would automatically ban any new “psychoactive substance”.

But could those Tory plans now go up in smoke after the popularity of this petition? Only time will tell…

(07-25-2015, 10:51 PM)roger_smith Wrote: holy fuck, online petitions mean something in the UK?

(07-25-2015, 11:01 PM)Lux Wrote: Unilad are an unreliable source. Don't listen to them.

In regards to this, this will be a backbench MP bringing this in to discussion. This means NOTHING. If, and that's if, it's a backbench MP's turn to present legislation, it will take many months for the green and white papers to be drafted, then around 6 more months to go through the stages of The Commons. If the commons agree and pass the legislation, it goes up to The Lords. The Lords can delay proposed legislation for up to one year, and scrutinise it, and send it back to The Commons.

Parliamentary law making in the UK is a very lengthy process. And unless The Privy Council feel like forcing a law on legalising cannabis through, it won't happen within the next 3 years (as I foreshadow).

(07-25-2015, 11:01 PM)Lux Wrote: Unilad are an unreliable source. Don't listen to them.

In regards to this, this will be a backbench MP bringing this in to discussion. This means NOTHING. If, and that's if, it's a backbench MP's turn to present legislation, it will take many months for the green and white papers to be drafted, then around 6 more months to go through the stages of The Commons. If the commons agree and pass the legislation, it goes up to The Lords. The Lords can delay proposed legislation for up to one year, and scrutinise it, and send it back to The Commons.

Parliamentary law making in the UK is a very lengthy process. And unless The Privy Council feel like forcing a law on legalising cannabis through, it won't happen within the next 3 years (as I foreshadow).

(07-25-2015, 11:36 PM)Six Wrote: ...

That confuses the hell out of me. How do you get anything done?

(07-26-2015, 12:23 AM)Adorapuff Wrote: Nothing's going to happen with this, and everyone knows it. Especially since they just passed an act basically making any legal high illegal.

(07-26-2015, 12:54 AM)Eclipse Wrote: The Psychoactive Substances Bill was never passed.

(07-26-2015, 12:54 AM)Eclipse Wrote: Regardless of the source, there has indeed been a petition that attained 100,000 signatures, even though that means fuck all. As I said, the government are pretty good at making us feel like we have power.

(07-26-2015, 12:59 AM)Six Wrote: Ok, the wording of that seems poor enough, wouldn't ban the use of things like ADHD meds, anti-depressants, etc?

I didn't see anything in their exempted psychoactives about prescribed medication.

Quote:exclude legitimate substances, such as food, alcohol, tobacco, nicotine, caffeine and medical products, from the scope of the offence, as well as controlled drugs, which will continue to be regulated by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Quote:make it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, import or export psychoactive substances; that is, any substance intended for human consumption that is capable of producing a psychoactive effect. The maximum sentence will be 7 years’ imprisonment

(07-26-2015, 01:00 AM)Fire Wrote: So do you mind explaining to me since there is all of these different levels of authority there is the Queen really the top of it all?.

How much power does she actually have.

Spoiler:

*Bows down, all hail the queen* lol