It is interesting to note the qualifications of those who have been elected to represent our best interests in Parliament. It is especially interesting for those who have taken a firm stance against the decriminalization or legalization of cannabis, despite the groundswell of support for such moves not only in Britain, but across the US and Canada, and EU countries the likes of France, Poland, Spain, to name just three. It might be noted, that in Portugal, it is a Constitutional right to grow cannabis in one's home, and has been for years.
Take one of the most outspoken opponents to any move towards legalization of cannabis in Britain, Home Secretary Theresa May. She is the daughter of a Church of England Minister, which might be a clue to her reticence concerning drugs in general. Before her election to political office, she achieved a BA in Geography from Oxford in 1977, and went on to work for the Bank of England, and from 1985 to 1997 was a financial consultant and senior adviser in International Affairs for the Association for Payment Clearing Services. From there, she dipped into politics as a Councillor for a London Borough, and stood twice for the Labour Party unsuccessfully, before becoming a Conservative and taking a seat in the Commons for the constituency of Maidenhead.
Now, this lady has no pharmaceutical background. She has chosen to ignore the plethora of reports which have been published of late touting the efficacy of cannabis for too many conditions to be listed here. She has also chosen to ignore historical evidence supporting the same. Yet, she has announced she will fight any move to legitimize cannabis or it's derivatives.
It would seem that her attitude, as might be said for most who stand in the path of legislation aimed at removing the stigma attached to cannabis, is based on nothing more than inherited antipathy. There is no other conclusion that can reasonably be supposed.
It is long past time that those we elect represent the will of the people who cast their vote to give them a seat in Parliament. It is incumbent upon them to research this issue, to understand the pro's and the con's, before announcing their opposition to a change in legislation.
It is not acceptable that gut reactions determine the Law.
It is not acceptable that misinformation be disseminated.
It is not acceptable that those who could benefit for legalization of cannabis be deprived of it's medicinal properties.
It is simply not acceptable.
Take one of the most outspoken opponents to any move towards legalization of cannabis in Britain, Home Secretary Theresa May. She is the daughter of a Church of England Minister, which might be a clue to her reticence concerning drugs in general. Before her election to political office, she achieved a BA in Geography from Oxford in 1977, and went on to work for the Bank of England, and from 1985 to 1997 was a financial consultant and senior adviser in International Affairs for the Association for Payment Clearing Services. From there, she dipped into politics as a Councillor for a London Borough, and stood twice for the Labour Party unsuccessfully, before becoming a Conservative and taking a seat in the Commons for the constituency of Maidenhead.
Now, this lady has no pharmaceutical background. She has chosen to ignore the plethora of reports which have been published of late touting the efficacy of cannabis for too many conditions to be listed here. She has also chosen to ignore historical evidence supporting the same. Yet, she has announced she will fight any move to legitimize cannabis or it's derivatives.
It would seem that her attitude, as might be said for most who stand in the path of legislation aimed at removing the stigma attached to cannabis, is based on nothing more than inherited antipathy. There is no other conclusion that can reasonably be supposed.
It is long past time that those we elect represent the will of the people who cast their vote to give them a seat in Parliament. It is incumbent upon them to research this issue, to understand the pro's and the con's, before announcing their opposition to a change in legislation.
It is not acceptable that gut reactions determine the Law.
It is not acceptable that misinformation be disseminated.
It is not acceptable that those who could benefit for legalization of cannabis be deprived of it's medicinal properties.
It is simply not acceptable.
No comments:
Post a Comment