Legal Medicinal Cannabis In Britain
In The Pink
Last week Jim Starr flew into Bristol Airport from Amsterdam carrying 80 grammes of herbal cannabis as prescribed for him by a Dutch doctor. That’s just under three ounces of dried flower heads. He was carrying it in a parcel about the size of a telephone directory.
There was no one at customs, even though Jim went through the red channel and had telephoned ahead to advise the airport that he was bringing the cannabis in. He waited, even looked around for someone, anyone, but there was no one to be seen at all. He wanted to declare what he had with him. He’s never wanted to break the law. He knew that he was risking confiscation of the cannabis, possibly even arrest but the coast wasn’t just clear, it was deserted. The authorities had evidently decided that in their “war on drugs”, this time, discretion was definitely the better part of valour. They were in full scale retreat.
Jim had confirmed to the airport that he had the necessary paperwork to prove it was prescribed medicinal cannabis. His doctor had told him that he was protected under Article 75 of the Schengen Agreement which states “persons may carry the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances that are necessary for their medical treatment provided that, at any check, they produce a certificate issued or authenticated by a competent authority”
Prescription
Of course, even then, it didn’t stop the journey being a nerve wracking and tense experience. Now, safely at home in Dorchester with his family, Jim understands from the Home Office that he is entitled to bring in the cannabis as prescribed for him by his Dutch doctor. He can bring in up to three month’s supply at a time if he carries it on his person. Otherwise he has to apply for an import licence and have it shipped to a UK pharmacist.
Jim is 36 and is married to Emma, with whom he has two children. Originally from Birmingham, he was a very active man in full time employment until in 1999 he was diagnosed with a degenerative disease of the spine. In 2003 he was involved in a road accident and suffered terrible spinal injuries. His life seemed hopeless. The cocktail of powerful drugs he was prescribed, including morphine, were debilitating in themselves. He couldn’t face a future in which he was turned into a zombie, unable to enjoy any sort of decent life with his wife and children. He admits frankly that he was suicidal.
One day in 2004, Jim was upstairs in bed in so much pain and despair that he could barely move. A friend called round to see him and offered him a joint. Half an hour later Jim made it downstairs for the first time in three weeks. Suddenly he had hope and the possibility of a future with his family.
Life since then has been a constant game of cat and mouse with the police and drug dealers. Apart from risking arrest and even prison, Jim has also been in danger of being robbed or ripped off by dealers. He’s never wanted to break the law. He told his doctor the relief that cannabis provided and as soon as Sativex became available, even before it was officially licensed, his doctor prescribed it for him. Unfortunately, the very next day she rang to say that because of licensing and regulation problems she wouldn’t be able to prescribe it again. In fact, Jim did manage to get another prescription for Sativex but again it was withdrawn, this time because his health authority refused to fund it.
Jim has been an active campaigner for the legalisation of cannabis ever since. He has organised a series of marches, protests and petitions in Dorchester, Weymouth and even Downing Street. Over the last seven years, three MPs, Oliver Letwin, Jim Knight and Richard Drax, have written various letters in support of him. He is a distinctive figure in his wheelchair with his dyed beard which has earned him the nickname “Pinky”. Perhaps he has been a little too high profile for the Dorset police who he accuses of persecuting him. Unable to obtain Sativex or afford the prices and risks of dealers, Jim enlisted the help of a friend to grow his own medicine. Inevitably, in May 2009 the police arrived and Jim was arrested.
Campaigning
In August this year at Dorchester Crown Court Jim was given a two year conditional discharge for growing cannabis. He is now pursuing a complaint against the police alleging brutal treatment during his arrest. Other complications, allegedly at the police’s behest, have led to the DVLA revoking his driving licence although he has never been arrested, charged, convicted or even stopped on suspicion of driving under the influence.
Jim has become an avid recorder of everything. He uses mobile phones, video cameras and audio recorders to retain evidence of every contact with the authorities. He has a video recording of an officer saying to his wife “Look luvvy, whatever he grows up there from now on is up to him. We promise it don’t bother us”. Foolishly, he took the officer at his word. Three weeks after receiving his conditional discharge the police arrived again.
There was no provision for transporting him to the police station in his wheelchair. The officers were warned not to lift him by his arms because of his spinal condition. They wrenched him out of his chair by gripping his shoulders and underpants causing anal bleeding due to an existing condition. He was refused a doctor at the station. There was no provision for disabled people, even for his special toilet needs. He was refused access to any of his prescribed medication or even his specialist anti pressure sore mattresses.
The following day he attended hospital and was diagnosed with torn shoulder muscles. In fact, his spinal column is so delicate that any movement could potentially paralyse him. This is the basis of all his high profile campaigning and must be well known to the police. Jim now faces another charge of cultivating cannabis and a possible prison sentence.
With Mr Nice
The trip to Holland was a last resort, only made possible by the generosity of a friend. The Dutch doctor was horrified at the range of highly toxic prescription medicines given to Jim and prescribed two grammes per day of medicinal herbal cannabis. He told Jim that he shouldn’t be using Sativex as the alcohol in its solution was like pouring petrol on a fire, given his medical conditions.
So at last, Jim seems to have the medicine he needs. He will have to continue to rely on the generosity of friends to pay for it. He is applying for a Home Office licence for the cannabis to be imported to a local pharmacist who can then dispense it to him. He will continue to campaign for the right to grow his own for free. The costs of cultivation at home are minimal compared to the rigmarole of importing from Holland or the massive “Big Pharma” cost of Sativex.
Jim is not the first person to get the medicine they need in this way but he is the first to go public about it. Many tens of thousands may now wish to follow his example. Most European countries and 15 US states already regulate the provision of medicinal cannabis. Surely it is time for the government to consider reform of what looks increasingly like an absurd and cruel law.
Peter Reynolds 
I’ll bet Jims arse was cracking walnuts coming back into the country.
Credit where its due. Took balls did that.
Great article Peter.
CannaZine
October 1, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Great piece Peter, one in which I will use again if I may.
It’s quite amusing though, when this news broke, a forum friend got on the case straight away with a view to him doing this, suffice to say, either they’re inundated or they’re plugging the loopholes because they presented a very long and inconclusive procedure to go through, even saying “The chances are slim”.
Jason (HomeGrown Outlaw)
October 1, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Yep, good write up and well done Pinky.
Derek
October 1, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Good job. I really wish him sucess with his current endeavours.
Michael
October 1, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Absolutely Brilliant! Well done, Pinky!
I’ve been discussing for about a week now that we may be able to expect a government announcement on decriminalisation very soon!
I hope so. We have all been waiting and campaigning for a long time!
It would be even better if we could go one further and legalise before California!
Jayelle Farmer
October 1, 2010 at 8:27 pm
[…] admin wrote an interesting post today Here’s a quick excerpt Last week Jim Starr flew into Bristol Airport from Amsterdam carrying 80 grammes of herbal cannabis as prescribed for him by a Dutch doctor. That’s just under three ounces of dried flower heads. He was carrying it in a parcel about the … […]
Legal Medicinal Cannabis In Britain « Peter Reynolds | Marijuana Blog
October 1, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Indeed! Well done Pinky, hats off to you, great work my friend!
Jason (HomeGrown Outlaw)
October 1, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Jim “Pioneer” Starr
daniel campos
October 1, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Well done Pinky, the world needs more people like yourself. Keep up the good work 🙂
Stan
October 2, 2010 at 7:36 am
legalise cannabis
Architect
October 2, 2010 at 11:40 am
I’ve been asked to clarify whether this method of obtaining legal medicinal cannabis applies throughout Europe.
I’m not a lawyer. I believe that this information is correct but don’t blame me if James Brokenshire decides he’s going to ride roughshod over justice!
All I know is that (with due respect to my friends with genuine illness), if I could develop the right aches and pains, I’d be straight over to Holland!
As I understand it, Ireland is now the only EU country where this wouldn’t work. However, that won’t last long. The reason that the procedure set out in my article works is because of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area#EU_member_states_with_opt-outs
So, the only remaining problem is actually enabling UK doctors to prescribe medicinal herbal cannabis and developing a local supply chain. It seems to me that as we’re all part of the EU this is going to be impossible to stop.
I think that the breakthrough I’ve been campaigning for since the late 1970s has finally happened!
Peter Reynolds
October 2, 2010 at 12:00 pm
[…] how Jim “Pinky” Starr has managed to obtain legal medicinal cannabis in Britain. See here. I’ve been asked to clarify whether the method set out in my article applies throughout […]
Cannabis Law Breakthrough « Peter Reynolds
October 2, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Pinky, you are an inspiration and a true pioneer of freedom.
Leander C Clifton
October 2, 2010 at 1:31 pm
What is clear is that it is the profound lack of empathy that the Institutions of Power operate under that is at the base of the abuse that Jim Starr and many others have experienced.
There can be NO rationalisation or justification for such abuse.
It is time to name the game, so to speak.
Power devoid of empathy, playing mind games to retain it’s position, is cruel, un-natural and toxic.
Well done Jim Starr and may you find support to not merely continue your struggle, but also to live a good life as a parent and member of the community.
corneilius
October 2, 2010 at 4:37 pm
The Home Office are keeping very quiet on this, besides the letter that they sent to Pinky, in response to his questions. They know that Pinky is a well known campaigner in the UK. For Customs to be so conspicuous by their absence at Bristol airport, after being informed by Pinky of his intended arrival, carrying cannabis, just had to have come down from the Home Office, IMO.
I think that where Pinky has led the way, many are sure to follow. More the better!
Jayelle Farmer
October 3, 2010 at 1:10 am
I hope that splff he’s smoking isn’t a tobacco joint, from what I know of Pinky it could well be. If he gets in the media showing off by smoking his meds mixed with tobacco he will seriously damage the hugely valuable thing he has done.
Derek
October 3, 2010 at 8:35 am
I’m from the States, and I’m just speechless…it seriously irks me to see this kind of injustice going on, with similar actions probably going on over here as well.
healthnewsforyou
October 3, 2010 at 11:50 am
See you in birmingham, nov 6th
Grafton Palmer
October 3, 2010 at 12:01 pm
[…] Medical Cannabis 🙂 https://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2…is-in-britain/ Good old pinky at it again Last week Jim Starr flew into Bristol Airport from Amsterdam […]
UK Medical Cannabis :)
October 3, 2010 at 12:07 pm
The Dutch doctor has been rather selective in quoting the Schengen Agreement. What it ACTUALLY says is:
“As regards the movement of travellers to the territories of the Contracting Parties or their movement within these territories, persons may carry the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances that are necessary for their medical treatment provided that, at any check, they produce a certificate issued or authenticated by a competent authority of their State of residence.”
There is no competent authority in the UK able to make such an authorisation.
Equally, rules as extant in the Netherlands are specifically countered in the UK by Article 76 which states that:
“The Contracting Parties shall, where necessary, and in accordance with their medical, ethical and practical usage, adopt appropriate measures for the control of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which in the territory of one or more Contracting Parties are subject to more rigorous controls than in their own territory, so as not to jeopardise the effectiveness of such controls.”
Charlie
October 4, 2010 at 9:04 am
Thanks for your contribution Charlie. I decided how much of the Schengen Agreement to quote in my article. What it “ACTUALLY” says is exactly as I quoted it, exactly as you have repeated it. I don’t suppose the doctor “quoted” any of it to Jim. He just told him he is protected by it. He also mentioned article 23 of the Geneva Convention which, apparently, binds the signatories to permit transport of medicines across borders even outside periods of war.
The entire Schengen Agreement is here
I can’t agree with your assertion that: “There is no competent authority in the UK able to make such an authorisation.” Subsections 2 and 3 of article 75 state:
So it’s entirely down to each “contracting party” to determine the “competent authorities” concerned. Self-evidently, I suggest, such competent authorities are prescribing doctors. This is certainly supported by correspondence with the Home Office, the text of which I reproduce below:
REPLY
This week the Home Office is going to be inundated with further letters and emails asking for confirmation of the same thing.
Charlie, may I ask what is your perspective on this? Do you have some special knowledge or experience? Do you have some alternative means of people obtaining the medicine they need legally? Are you for or against the medicinal use of cannabis?
Peter Reynolds
October 4, 2010 at 10:45 am
The reading of the quote “competent authority” rather depends on the use of ‘they’ and ‘their’ in the same sentence. Grammatically, (and I believe in law), unless ‘their’ is qualified, it refers back to the ‘they’ earlier in the sentence – and ‘they’ in this case is plainly the person who is proposing to use the cannabis not the prescriber of the cannabis. So then it is the residence of the recipient of the medicine rather than the prescriber that determines legality.
Regardless of the contents of your communication from the Home Office, I believe that if tested in law, my reading as above could be used to bring a prosecution against the person importing the medicine.
It is important to be aware of this reading, especially in the light of the second part that I quoted – Article 76 states that the rigorous controls of one state may not be jeopardised by the measures of another state. Thus it rather depends on the interpretation of the above and the political will to challenge it in the country of residence of the importer/patient.
As for my perspective. I wanted to point out a possible take on the reading of the legal basis for this piece. I wouldn’t wish law-abiding people who are genuinely seeking to alleviate pain in a legal way to believe that the battle was quite as won as the internet exuberance surrounding this implies that it is.
Given that hemp as medicine is commonly cited in Anglo Saxon Leechdoms, I find it hard to understand why I can’t grow the stuff in my English herb garden.
My mother suffers from glaucoma.
I am interested in the law, politics and medical herbalism but I am not a lawyer, politician or practising medical herbalist.
I believe that prohibition and control are not the same thing.
Charlie
October 4, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Charlie – I’d really like to know how a prosecution could successfully be brought against a person “regardless” of the person in question holding that letter from The Home Office.
That personally addressed correspondence from The Home Office, received by someone and relied upon (as it must be able to be relied upon), makes that person’s bringing the prescription drugs legal. The Home Office advice fully negates the possibility of the person having any credible mental element to breaking any law. There could be no illegality.
There could be no chance of such a person breaking the law without the advice being revised by such an official body. Such bodies would not include the police for the reason that the police have no powers to make or revoke special exceptions (except not to prosecute, and perhaps, excepting temporary revocation of an exception for a matter of hours or a day, e.g. if the holder seemed troublesome).
—
Of course, a court action might be initiated – the police and prosecutors know this very well, especially the weak ones who feel under great pressure to prosecute anyone and quickly (and this is not infrequently seen).
But there is no chance of a successful prosecution against someone holding that letter.
G.M.C.
May 1, 2011 at 3:22 pm
You should update yourself GMC on later events: https://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/second-update-on-legal-medicinal-cannabis-in-britain/
Peter Reynolds
May 1, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Thank you Charlie. I think you and I sing from the same hymn sheet.
I think it’s highly likely someone will get arrested as a result of this but I also think it’s a genuine loophole which is going to be very difficult to block. Everything in European law militates towards commonality and equality.
For instance, I should be able to get a licence to grow cannabis commercially in the UK for supply to GW and/or pharmacies throughout the EU in those countries (most of them) where doctors are able to prescribe medicinal cannabis.
Going even further, I don’t see why a UK doctor can’t prescribe medicinal cannabis now under the same terms that doctors can, for instance, now prescribe Sativex for a condition other than MS spasticity (which is the only condition it’s presently licensed for).
As I said elsewhere, I think we are at the point in the Dambusters film where, at last, the first cracks in the dam wall have started. Soon a massive torrent of unstoppable force is going to break through.
Peter Reynolds
October 4, 2010 at 5:19 pm
I agree with you that here is case law in the making. But it’s not made yet.
I am anxious not exactly to pour cold water on it but to advise people who are getting very happily gung ho about this to be very very wary. It has not yet been tested in law and I can see a case against.
If I can see it so can others.
I don’t want anyone who is vulnerable jumping on a presumption that isn’t tested by someone with solid legal backing and big shoulders.
Charlie
October 4, 2010 at 5:43 pm
The Home Office has in fact confirmed this arragement
http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=470
But the point Cahrlie raises is a valid point, there is a clear conflict here between the prohibition laws and what’s allowed by the Schengen agreement. It’s a very interesting situation.
My big concern is that if the prohibition laws win out, then the medical cannabis system in Holland will be put under pressure and probably scrpped. That would be a disaster for all concerned.
One way to make that happen is to show someone smoking their meds mixed with tobacco – hardly a method any doctor could approve of and which would be used as “proof” that this arrangment is being used by “drug abusers”.
All this really does need to be handled very carefully.
Derek
October 4, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Thank you Derek. You’re 100% right on your last point but I can’t see the Dutch system being threatened. Holland is far too sensible a nation to allow British prohibitionists’ hysteria to impact on it.
Also, remember, Britain, France and Germany are now in a minority in Europe in not having regulated medicinal cannabis.
Peter Reynolds
October 4, 2010 at 1:24 pm
The Federal Republic of Germany have, since November 2008, a regulated system of delivery of medicinal cannabis.
That is simply direct post from Groningen, NL, to the patient’s pharmacy, just over the border. Germany, I would add, followed Austria (Aug 2008) in doing so.
A simple visit to the site of the manufaturer will clarify this fact.
PS: this country is called Netherlands, and the manufacturer is located not in North-, or South-Holland, but in Groningen Province up-north [the province’s name means literally “Green Pastures”].
Trio,
noel mccullagh ma
PPS: other countries in Europe that import the pharmaceutical product from the Netherlands: Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Switzerland, …
mcula
October 10, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Is there any first hand information on this issue, or anything printed in a reliable newspaper?
Last year I asked the Swedish Medical Products Agency (MPA) about the Schengen agreement, and Swedish law, concerning bringing in medicinal cannabis or cannabis pharmaceuticals.
They stated in a letter – addressed to myself – that according to Swedish law I was allowed to bring back pharmaceuticals containing cannabis, for my own medical use, with a dosage lasting no longer than 30 days.
So I went to Germany, was prescribed Dronabinol (synthetic THC oil) and returned to Sweden. Upon re-entry I was interrogated by the Swedish customs office, and then later also the Swedish police, and am now under suspicion for possession of a narcotic substance.
That’s why I’m not so sure about the story above. If true it could effect my situation and many others that I know of.
Joakim
October 4, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Nice at long last..
projectsheffield
October 10, 2010 at 6:13 am
Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, den 10-10 2010
Dear Peter,
The Home Office need not clarify anything relating to this matter, what is here quoted as the Schengen Implementing Convention (SIC).
The Convention only applies, in terms of transporting medicines across international borders, for those persons who are prescribed medicines by their GP in their ‘country of domicile residence’.
For (some of) your readers, that is the UK. For others, the Netherlands. For others, France .. etc.
The document that is required by such persons crossing international borders into a second country (all EU member states are signatories since 01 Dec, 2009) and who are in possession of medicines containing narcotic substances is:
“SCH/Com-ex (94) 28 rev.”
For medicines dispensed in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the relevant “competent authority” is the Inspecie voor de Gezondheid, Staatstoezicht op de Volksgezondheid. The document must be requested from the head office in The Hague, and is returned with the Royal Seal, the State Seal, upon it. That takes 4-6 weeks for administration, authentication and legalisation.
A doctor’s prescription does not qualify for this purpose. That’s just laughable, considering the relevant Schengen Implementing Convention document (now called the Lisbon Medical Certificate since the entering into force of that EU Treaty on Dec 2009) is drawn up in three languages: the national language of the patient, English and French.
This matter I have discussed at length in the European Parliament, the day that the said Lisbon Treaty entered into effect.
Only one of the four Euro-Parliamentarians actually realised that (Mr Jahr MEP), the others did not.
You can watch the proceedings here: (although they are a year old now almost):
Right to Freedom-of-Movement in the EU, regardless of medical condition, physical- or cognitive-handicap: EuroParl Dec.1 2009
On 14 Dec 2009 the UK Home Office confirmed that the Schengen Implementing Convention articles are valid for the UK, something that was already in legal effect since 01 01 2005.
Since their invitation to come and visit the UK with my medicines, I’ve not had any success in successfully attaining any invite to the Great country.
Best wishes to all,
Noel McCullagh
http://bit.ly/UK_HOME-OFFICE_to_MCULA_14-12-2009
[the adresséé]
PS: It is purported on the wikipedia site cited above by you that the UK are members of this part of the Treaty, but that the Irish Republic are not. This is a downright lie, as the SIC was subsumed into the Treaty of Lisbon, effective since Dec 01, 2009.
In my own personal case (I’ve been not permitted to visit Ireland where my parents live since being diagnosed with MS) the Commission have indicated this month that they are going to take action against the Republic of Ireland on that very matter.
And – another thing – if anyone reading this is responsible for undoing all of the hard (editing) work done to update the wiki page you referenced (Paul) … they this little handicapped alien blind boy would very much appreciate that they undid their recent editing. Please; it is not helping.
TY Noel McCullagh
mcula
October 10, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Fantastic contribution Noel. Thank you. I have heard a little of your story. Where is the best place to read the “authorised” version?
Peter Reynolds
October 10, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Hello Peter,
Thank you, and I found your article fantastic too, needless to add.
You ask after the relevant document: (SCH/Com-ex (94) 28 rev.) Translated from 1990s Euro-speak into the English language, this literally means:
~ Schengen /Committee executive (1994) Decision 28, “revised”.
Below is a ling to an Example Copy (Voorbeeld) of a Lisbon Medical Certificate (formerly Schengen til 01 Dec 2009) as was originally stipulated in the “Acquis” (or “rule book” in French) and which was entitled:
‘ The Decision of the Executive Committee of 22 December 1994 on the certificate provided for in Article 75 to carry narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (SCH/Com-ex (94) 28 rev.) ‘
This one linked is an example as issued by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Healthcare Inspectorate (The Hague), to Netherlands residents travelling to Spain, for ten (10) days’ holidays.
In this case, it concerns parents bringing their child (9 years old) prescribed the pharmacy medicine “Ritalin”.
Page two contains the list of the (Numbered) titles in English and in French, whereas Page 1 is drawn up in onze taal (meaning: our language).
Click to access Voorbeeld%20Schengen%20reisverklaring%202010_21817.pdf
All of the so-called “Competent Authorities” are listed in the original 1995 decision on the type and format of the Medical Declaration, in ANNEX II.
You may read the text of the original decision at this location. Although the UK were not at that time members to Schengen, the fact that English was already the lingua franca here on the mainland meant that the secondary languages on the reverse side would be in English and French.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:41994D0028:EN:HTML
–
You will notice that all of the listed “competent authorities” are the Health Ministries of each member-state. The United Kingdom are the only member state to ascribe this (medical) function to a government ministry that is not the Ministry of Health/Santé/Gezondheit &c.
This action (placing patients’ matters with a Policing Force) was questioned by some Honourable Members of the UK House of Lords at Westminster in 2000, which you may peruse in the United Kingdom’s FIFTH REPORT, Hansard, House of Lords at Westminster, Permanent Committee on European Union, at the following address(es) (date: 2000 {!}).
Except to my letter of 28 Sept. 2009 to the Rt Hon Law Lords at Westminister, which led to the granting of access to the UK on 14 Dec 2009, following a lengthy appeals procedure that took much from me in the way of my bodily health and wellbeing:
” My Lords ….etz enz…
….This precise matter, i.e. the applicability of Schengen article 75 in the UK, was addressed
in 31 January 2000 by the Home Office in a letter from Barbara Roche, MP, [ANNEX 4]
Minister of State at the Home Office, to Lord Tordoff, Chairman of the Select Committee
on the European Union.
MINISTER: DIRECT APPLICABILITY OF THE ACQUIS
Publication of the Schengen acquis in the Official Journal did not take place on entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty because the acquis had not at that stage been translated into all Community languages. The full acquis will be published in the Official Journal as soon as the translation process has been completed, which is expected to be in April.
As the Committee has noted, Article 8(4) of the draft Decision provides for Article 75 of the Schengen Convention together with Decision SCH/Com-ex (94) 28 rev to be directly applicable in the United Kingdom. However, these provisions of the acquis will not enter into force for the United Kingdom on adoption of the draft Decision. In accordance with Article 8(1) of the draft Decision, the acquis will be put into effect for the United Kingdom on a date to be decided by the Council following the adoption by the UK Government of the legislation necessary to implement the acquis in the United Kingdom. Until this date, no question of direct applicability can arise. Given the need to adopt primary legislation to implement certain parts of the acquis, there is likely to be a gap of some months before the Council decides to put the acquis into effect for the United Kingdom. It is therefore highly likely that the acquis will have been published in the Official Journal before Article 75 and Decision SCH/Com-ex (94) 28 rev become directly applicable in the United Kingdom.
HOME OFFICE 31 January 2000″
[link] http://bit.ly/9avxu ” “”
-ENDS-
Noel:
“YES Minister”… “a likely gap of some months”; certainly indeed..!
BARBARA ROCHE: “It is therefore highly likely that the acquis will have been published in the Official Journal before Article 75 and Decision SCH/Com-ex (94) 28 rev become directly applicable in the United Kingdom.”
How about 10 years’ delay; Barbera?
–
–
So, following the many, many years that I ‘did legal battle’ with the United Kingdom authorities (3 years of it) regarding this issue, the formal grant and acknowledgement to enter HRM Realm came the day before my birthday, arriving on the morning itself, which brought a big smile to my face.
And now that HRM authorities are aware that I may at any time indeed be within HRM Realm, without them being aware, and being (as I am now finally) exempt from all and any prosecution of whatsoever nature as a visiting tourists from HKM Beatrix I’s Kingdom of the Netherlands, it becomes a question of the legitimacy of the Common Laws of the British Rolls at the Lords’ (now the UK Supreme Court) of the issue of a discriminatory action against one of HRM citizens.
For instance, given that mcula has it fixed to enter the UK at any time (on the authority of his own Ministry of Health) and therefore, given that mcula ‘could potentially’ be walking around Whitehall with his medicines at any given time; it becomes something of the laws on discrimination for a UK citizen to protest before the Rt Hon Law Lords that they are being treated unfairly by the law….when they are themselves in possession of legitimately obtained medicines that are identical (literally, and more importantly toxicologically identical)
ref: http://bit.ly/HEALTH_MINISTRY_toxicological_Specifications_Bedrocan-Bedrobinol-Bediol –
Under that scenario, one which btw I have taken the liberty to make known to HRM Authorities long, long ago already, the relevant laws that come into force are the “UNITED NATIONS Economic and Social Council + Distr. GENERAL , 1234th Meeting, 15 April 2003
CND Res.46/6. Provisions regarding travellers under medical treatment with drugs containing
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances under international control”.
The Law Lords in your great country are aware, that once it is done legally (i.e. once the intent to enter the UK Realm and jurisdiction by a person is realised) that it thereafter (under the quirky British Common Laws, unique in Europe as you are all very much aware) becomes a matter of discrimination … i.e. that one of you (meaning the subjects of HRM) would be prosecuted while I(or another of HKM Bea’s subjects) would not be.
That is the greatness of the British Legal Tradition. Things cannot be simply “changed” just-like-that. There needs always to be an (irreproachable in torts) so-called “precedent”. We do not have that here unfortunately, all of Europe being in the Codus Civile (from the Fronch Tyrany).
Who, needless to say, was vanquished by an Irishman, of all people. He wore Wellington; and his best pal was born in the same little village in the West of Ireland as I.
noel
PS: Looking back at that article (linked below) I really must say, they are some shower of fu__ers.
The Irish.
The real truth about them is that, when I asked the embassy (theirs) here in the Hague what the procedures were, the chap on the other end of the line suddenly demanded to know all manner of things from me, ‘or else it’s no’, he said.
He had no right to do that. I am not a patient in their backwater bogwater, so therefore, the official on the line ought to have just told me the procedures, or that he hadn’t a damn clue.
As it turns out, the United Nations wrote to me in 2009 and informed me what “they thought” the Irish procedures were: namely exactly as the Irish ministry told them in 2005. And which are online at the UN website:
Click to access Ireland-ORIGINAL.pdf
In 2010 I requested from the Irish Embassy all of their email communications regarding my person under the Freedom of Information Act (which is an Act in their foreigner legislation). As it turns out, none of the Embassy staff (of the Irish identity) are capable of speaking or reading Dutch Danish nor German. So that they are illiterates. In the first email the guy in the Hague wrote to his pals back in Dublin, it is clear that he conceived that my medicine was just me saying “I think this is good for me” and that I was buying it in a coffee house.
Illiterate so. That is why I was banned from that place. Even if you think about it: in which manner of fifedom maintains that visiting Tourists may only be under prescription medicines that “the Central State Authority” of the holiday destination may pass a decree upon… before A) the person even enters the country and B) any real information in documentation form is sought “before” the said decision is taken.
And then to leave it like that for the first five years of the mans new life as someone living every day with a severe brain disease. And just ‘do nothing’.
They even ignore the European Parliament, did you know that? The European Parliament special committee is waiting now for over 6 months to the most recent letter sent to these Irish, on 16 March 2010.
Even the Dutch ministry are getting very p____ off with this Paddy carryon. The Irish A) refusing to deal with me and B) refusing to reply to the European Commission and the European Parliament … ? As you can see from the Dutch Inspector of Health actually “using” the Schengen Police and Security co-operation channels to contact his colleagues in Dublin.
When he did that, he EU Police & Security colleagues wrote back, via the Schengen Police communications channels, and told him:
No, we are not members of the Schengen Cooperation, but the rules for coming to ireland with banned substances are filed with the United Nations in VIENNA” … and they gave a short description of the rules are I already linked above on the United Nations INCB site above.
That, and the fact that the Shire is the No.1 manufacturer of chemicals for injection into People with multiple sclerosis in the world, all by USA chemical giants that pay only 12.5% Corporate tax when they are registered in that little island of piracy. Think about it… Tys and Avonr_x are both manufactured in the shIre, one with 1 billion in sales and the other with 2 billion in sales.
Work out the corporation tax on that! In the UK the Corp tax would be 35%.
That’s why all the JanCee companies are located in your little brother and neighbour: and where I was “excreted” into the world.
It always amazes me, that the country that is now the only place in the Union that “still says NO!” to the protestant medicines…. is not waffling on about being the “science innovation & research” nation that will bring cannabis to the European Masses…
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0910/1224278568389.html
Note that only the Roman Catholic countries in the EU are mentioned, none of the protestant ones. Funny it surely is, given that the Kingdom of Spain and the Italian Republic both import from this Kingdom.
But of course, this kingdom is “not mentioned”.
Thanks for the kind words. I don;t have much communication with anyone. Just too sad for that, because of all this.
I’m not asking anyone for anything. Yet still, even that is refused. How a country as broke as that one can still hold out against the international markets, and at the same time make statements as they do about the legally traded medicines here in Hare Majesteit’s Ministerie… it is beyond me.
Don’t those folk ever think of the consequences, of spitting down the throat of the one Monarch in Europe, who makes the protection of People with multiple sclerosis one of her top priorities.
http://bit.ly/HKM_Prinses_Beatrix_Fonds
It’s just: too stupid for words.
The thing that frustrates me most nowadays, is that I know once I make it to Northern Ireland, I cannot be kept from the border with the south… mostly because there is none anymore, and secondly because the mystical laws of the customary all-Ireland-ness will not allow for that; once it is visibly clear that HRM of the UK has no issue with my setting foot on HRM’s Irish kingdom. I just lack the wherewithal (after 4 years proceedings that I won at a great physical cost to my own person) to make it there. I do not like to fly, so it would have to be over land, over sea. Perhaps sail to Hull, then to Jorch, by the Old Post Highway through the Horse Fair town of Appelbij… and on to Carlyle that would be as good a route as any to take. I reckon I could cycle it easy enough.
When I set foot onto Ireland, then (Dublin Castle and their minions) then they wont be able to bring a stop to me : not with the people watching.
I could easily cycle from the North down to where mum and dad live. That would be great.
lots of love to all , sorry that this is a long message, but I do get lonely now and then and I miss my mum a-lot.
Noel
mcula
October 10, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Thank you Noel. I think I shall have to write a short “update” article to clarify all this.
It seems to me that the most significant thing you have revealed is that Schengen or not, the UN binds Ireland and UK to allow travellers to carry their medicines. Am I correct?
All sorts of possibilities flow from this. The absurdity of UK law is exposed making it pointless and open to challenge – by appeal on conviction if nothing else.
Extraordinary.
I would very much like to speak to you on the telephone when convenient. Please feel free to email me direct if you wish to: peter@peter-reynolds.co.uk
Peter Reynolds
October 10, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Noel, for those who do not know your story I am including this link to an article in the Irish Independent:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/exiled-ms-patient-risks-arrest-1861406.html
Peter Reynolds
October 10, 2010 at 4:34 pm
“The Convention only applies, in terms of transporting medicines across international borders, for those persons who are prescribed medicines by their GP in their ‘country of domicile residence’.”
Which specifically rules out ‘medicine tourism’ under the Convention by those whose country of residence is the UK.
So if you live in the Netherlands you can bring your medicine in to the UK, but you may not travel to the Netherlands to obtain the medicine and then travel bcak to the UK with it.
Charlie
October 11, 2010 at 2:06 pm
I noted that qualification too but I see nothing in Schengen that actually states that.
Peter Reynolds
October 11, 2010 at 2:27 pm
It is crystal clear.
At 11 mins 25 secs on the following video (provided by Noel McCullagh as above), a European Commission Advocate makes an unambiguous statement in the European Parliament that article 75 of the Schengen Agreement is “binding” on the UK.
Peter Reynolds
October 10, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Yes Thank you, and in answer: the law is what the tort makes it, on the tort is required pressure.
The pressure, is the natural motion on the peoples.
Do not suppose that the UN laws are “all infinite & infallible” : they are not~! For example, the Kingdom of Belgium informed the UN International Narcotics Control Board (the organ responsible for the enforcement of the Single Convention on Narcotic drugs, Psychotropic substances & starter materials (precursors)across the globe) of the procedure, under the heading “Documentation required” (i.e. issued/endorsed by medical practitioner or authorized health authority), the following:
(a) Valid medical prescription
SOURCE: International Narcotics Control Board
Click to access Belgium-ENG.pdf
The problem with this is that, well, patients die. That is (at least in the sha-Irish tradition “wait long enough and they’ll either die-off or commit suicide”.
The figures are there to prove this “crazyman polity” of the shIrish. The facts speak for themselves.
The Belgians, being part of the Schengen (and in which country I dare say the damn village of Schengen is located, ought to have known better on the 20th of June, 2007; being already at that late stage for no less than 12 years (at that stage), and as a legal sovereign state, a contracting-party to the relevant Schengen Medical Certificate for twelve whole years.
Even the United Kingdom, were not aware… that they ought to have admitted me from the day I was prescribed the medicines, being members of the Schengen Police and Security Co-operation since 01, 01, 2005?
And that eagerness “to just say no” (to the foreigner mongol-hordes) stems from foreigner islander officials placing their ignorant & utterly illiterate (in our language and medical discipline) noses into affairs about which they know little, and can understand even less.
As I said, once the realisation of a person (a mainlander who travels legitimately in possession of a given, standardised medical product of the EU “VAT REGION”, someone ‘protected by the relevant laws and international agreements that HRM of the United Kingdom has heretofore ascribed to”, “enters” the UK jurisdiction … legally and protected by all limitations of the Torts of UK law, the Law of the Commonwealth of Nations of the World is based upon, then: as I said: there enters into the debate a totally new scenario based on the Common Laws, and the laws relating to discrimination.
Discrimination against their own people, that is, tribe. For look carefully at your pass the port paperwork and bewijs … it says, on the front page,
European Communities.
(issued by)
the UK Tribe.
There is no such thing as a UK passport anymore, in that sense. And in the same sense, the UK law will not abide by the blatant discrimination of one of HRM own subjects, against those rights of another citizen of the European Communities entering HRM Realm legitimately from the Kingdom of Orange.
That is called discrimination, especially when the relevant medicines being referred to, are toxicologically identical. As is, as mentioned, the citizenry of the two persons: both citizens of the European Communities, now, since the enactment of ‘THE REFORM TREATY’, … both equally citizens of Our Common Union…..North Sea or no.
We are one now; & so it should be. There’s a storm coming.
Don’t know about you lot. But this little boy was born inside the borders of the European Communities (albeit at that time a warzone, the only one),
and it intends, moreover, to die in the service of exactly that.
Albeit one without the needless, relentless, cyclical violence of the generational blood-clan hatreds,
and their at-hand associates: the Spillers of human blood.
Good night; and sleep tight.
~):(~
mcula
October 10, 2010 at 10:57 pm
I’m impressed by your comments Mcula. Thanks a lot!!
😀
daniel carter
October 11, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Britain aint a Schengen country as far as borders are concerned???
Lee
October 26, 2010 at 9:02 pm
I don’t understand your question Lee. Article 75 of the Schengen Agreement is binding on the UK.
https://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/update-on-legal-medicinal-cannabis-in-britain/
Peter Reynolds
October 27, 2010 at 11:37 am
Hi Lee,
IT’s not about being a Schengen country or not, and neither is it about borders. It’s about: Police and Security Cooperation in the Union under the Treaty of Amsterdam 1999. Here’s a visual:
(TITLE III: Chapter 1 Police Cooperation… Ch.2: Mutual assistance in criminal matters, Ch.3: Application of the Non bis in idem principle, Ch.4: Extradition , Ch.5: Transfer of the execution of criminal judgments, “Ch.6: Narcotic drugs” and Ch.7: Irish and ammunition.
–
People being permitted to travel for 30 days (max.) on holidays while remaining on the prescription medicines they are normally prescribed at home in their home country is “Schengen Acquis on Police & Security Co-operation”.
The relevant article that the UK of GB & NI are contracting parties to are articles 75:
http://www.spjelkavik.priv.no/henning/ifi/schengen/body3.html#chapter%206
Borders is a different thing altogether; part of the Schengen Area. That’s not what’s being written about here.
The UK of GB&NI requested to join the Schengen acquis Police & Security Co-operation in 2000 [Council Decision 2000/365/EC]. By Dec. 22 2004 the Home Office had implemented all the necessary pieces of legislation to make that happen and the final Decision of the European Union Council was taken on that date regarding the UK.
SOURCE:
2004/926/EC: Council Decision of 22 December 2004 on the putting into effect of parts of the
Schengen acquis by the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland |Done at Brussels
22 December 2004.| [Official Journal L 395 , 31/12/2004 P. 0070 – 0078]
LOCATION: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004D0926:EN:HTML
–
This still doesn’t mean what Mr Pink says it
does. Like everybody else who is completely
new to this, he’s got it completely arse
ways.
If Mr Pink wanted to go on holidays with
Methadone, from the UK for example, he’d
need the Home Office to complete a Schengen
Medical Declaration for him to do so…
UK Methadone contains supervised narcotic
drugs, and therefore Article 75 applies.
If someone here, who lives in the Kingdom
of the Netherlands, wishes to go for a holiday
to the United Kingdom and they are prescribed
Bedrocan [ http://www.bedrocan.nl ] here where
they live 365 days/year, then they would goto
the Dutch Health Inspectorate to obtain the
necessary Schengen Medical Declaration to
do that.
IT certainly does not help legitimate travellers
when things (and basic information) is skewed
and screwed up so much, twisted completely around
and then trampled upon.
I’ve known that the United Kingdom were contracting
parties to the Schengen Police & Security
Co-operation articles for years… and can
prove it since this week two years ago in fact.
http://bit.ly/aq5T1k (Second Paragraph, line 2).
And the European Commissioner doesn’t put things
on paper for no small reason.
Back then, in 2008, I had hoped to travel to
the UK … perhaps do an interview with the BBC
in Whitecity in London. They said my accent was
very Irish sounding. I guess something things
with English will never change.
They weren’t interested, BBC despite that since then
I’ve been freely able to enter the UK with my
prescription medicines (Bedrocan) ever since
then (2008).
Amazing that they are all over the attempts by
a Briton to skew and confuse the regulations
entirely. Guess he has a Great British accent.
Best, Noel
mcula on Twitter
mcula
October 27, 2010 at 8:30 am
OK, I have a suspicious mind perhaps and maybe what I’m about to say is a figment of my imagination, we’ll see – probably fairly shortly.
I was one of the first people to congratulate Mr Pink in these comments, maybe I shouldn’t have been quite so quick. I’m begining to think maybe I smell a big juicey rat, I’m not qute sure where it is yet but I’m pretty positive it’s not Peter or this blog.
What is happening is a massive problem is unfolding for the UK drug laws as regards medical cannabis in that people from abroad seem to have the right to bring their prescribed medicine into the country and use it. This is in and of itself a big problem, for example the law states the owner or manager of a property is breaking the law if he or she allows cannabis to be used on that property. Cannabis, they tell us is ALWAYS illegal. Except now it isn’t for a few people.
The easy way to deal with that is to create a diversion, to get everyone who might want to make some noise to make a lot of noise about something that isn’t true so that they can be slapped down, leaving the real issue unnoticed.
So we get Mr Pink and perhaps others leading campaigers down a dead end and defelcting attention.
Ever been had?
Derek
October 27, 2010 at 11:16 am
Derek!
It’s called paranoia.
Peter Reynolds
October 27, 2010 at 11:33 am
Maybe.
Derek
October 27, 2010 at 11:50 am
Amazing post! As a Crohn’s sufferer who has resorted to similar methods, this is a godsend. Quick! Before the loophole closes!
hst2
October 27, 2010 at 12:45 pm
[…] […]
So England isn't part of Europe? - BreedBay
November 2, 2010 at 10:50 am
Good one….. by high time that medical users aren’t stigmatised as being drug addicts for self medicating with canabis…. I would love to know your Amsterdam Dr, so that I too may go see if he is willing to help me too.
andy
November 2, 2010 at 3:26 pm
the question is not the wording of the documents.. but ‘did you, the soul that you are, ever agree to the documents?’.
for 99.9% of people the answer is no.
nick lankester
November 4, 2010 at 2:42 am
Closer to home is your answer:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/licensing/personal/
“If you are travelling for less than three months and you are carrying less than three month supply, you will not need a personal import or export licence to enter or leave the United Kingdom.
We advise you to obtain a letter from your prescribing doctor or drug worker, which should confirm your name, travel itinerary, names of prescribed controlled drugs, dosages and total amounts of each to be carried.”
Brian Putman
November 4, 2010 at 7:50 pm
I know the Home Office website inside out Brian. I’m in a continuing dialogue with the Drug Licensing department as they duck and dive and try to do everything they can to prevent anyone having legal cannabis.
Their latest position is that it is legal for a Dutch citizen to bring medicinal cannabis in but not a British citizen. That is obviously unsustainable under EU law but it may require judicial review or some poor sod appealing to the Supreme Court before it is confirmed.
I’m waiting for a further response at present but the harsh reality is when you have a minister with his back to the wall, all he has to do is refuse to answer you and there’s not much you can do about it.
Does anyone know a lawyer who will work with me on this pro bono?
Stay tuned for further updates.
Peter Reynolds
November 4, 2010 at 8:09 pm
there is no way any legal sanction would be enforceable but, as you say, some poor sod will have to do the court time. Instructions may have issued to border control as they do not want this to come to a head just yet, maybe they were hoping for a positive result in California? Maybe I am getting a bit conspritorial?
Brian Putman
November 4, 2010 at 8:20 pm
[…] 1. Legal Medicinal Cannabis In Britain […]
SECOND UPDATE On Legal Medicinal Cannabis In Britain « Peter Reynolds
November 6, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Thank you for your e-mail of 04/11/2010 enquiring about the importation and possession of herbal cannabis in the UK prescribed abroad.
I am aware that this issue has arisen in the context of the UK’s obligations under Article 75 of the Schengen Agreement which took effect in 2005. This provision allows for the free movement of travellers within the Schengen member states with their prescribed narcotic and psychotropic substances that are necessary for their medical treatment provided they have a certificate – “a Schengen certificate” – issued or authenticated by a competent authority of their state of residence.
Pursuant to Article 75, the UK recognises that a patient who is resident in another member state can travel to the UK with their narcotic and psychotropic medication, provided that they are resident in a country where that drug is legally prescribed; it has been prescribed by their doctor; it is for necessary medical treatment for a maximum of 30 days and is for personal use only; and they have the appropriate certification from their relevant health authority. Of course, this is a reciprocal arrangement enabling UK residents to travel with their personal medication. The Department of Health is the UK’s competent authority.
In respect of herbal cannabis I understand that health authorities in The Netherlands and Belgium allow herbal cannabis products to be prescribed by doctors and dispensed to patients for a number of indications. In the limited circumstances described above, a Dutch or Belgian resident will be allowed to travel to the UK with herbal cannabis products prescribed in these countries.
However, a UK resident cannot rely on the Schengen Agreement to bring prescribed herbal cannabis into the UK from The Netherlands or Belgium. This activity would be in breach of UK law, amounting to the unlawful importation and possession of a controlled drug, and the UK resident would be liable to arrest and prosecution under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Government is committed to maintaining UK drugs laws and is seeking assurance from European authorities that checks in this system, including the checks that member states make before issuing a Schengen certificate to an applicant, are as robust as possible.
In the UK, cannabis is controlled as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and is listed in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 as the UK does not recognise that it has a medicinal use. The Government recognises that there are people with chronic pain and debilitating illnesses who are looking to alleviate their symptoms and who may not find adequate relief from existing medication. For them, the UK does recognise the medicinal value of a cannabis-based medicine ‘Sativex’, which based on an assessment of its safety and efficacy by the UK regulatory authorities, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, has recently been granted a Marketing Authorisation.
However, the Government has no intention of altering our position on cannabis in its raw form. Cannabis is a drug that has a number of acute and chronic health effects and prolonged use can induce dependence. Most cannabis is smoked and smoking, in any form, is dangerous. Even the occasional use of the drug can pose significant dangers for people with mental health problems, such as schizophrenia, and particular efforts need to be made to encourage abstinence in such individuals.
Yours sincerely
Matt Donovan
Drug Strategy Unit
Brian Putman
November 8, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Dear Mr Donovan,
Thank you for your reply to my enquiry regarding medical cannabis and its prescription, importation and subsequent use in the UK, under prescription from a Dutch doctor. I note the contents of your reply and can follow the logic therein…to a point. To summarise the situation as your letter suggests: two people, suffering from the same condition can go to the same doctor, receive the same prescription, collect their prescription from the same dispensary, catch the same transport from Holland to the UK and from there the equal treatment under the law diverges. If one of these people is from Holland and one is from the UK, the Dutchman can import and then smoke his medical cannabis in the street or in front of a police station and face no sanction. The Englishman would face sanctions for the importation and consumption of the same medicine. You are essentially discriminating under the law based on nationality.
May I refer you to case 2005/C132/14 in the European Court of Justice, Dany Bidar v London Borough of Ealing, Secretary of State for Education and Skills, with reference to Article 12 of the EC Treaty. In this case the ECJ ruled that granting maintenance assistance on condition that students are settled in the country is incompatible with the Community Law, because it implies discrimination on grounds of nationality. Above this is Article 21 of The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which states:
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
2. Within the scope of application of the Treaty establishing the European Community and of the Treaty on European Union, and without prejudice to the special provisions of those Treaties, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.
Both of these as legal authorities suggest that the explanation you provided is not legally valid as discrimination on the grounds of nationality is deemed incompatible by case law and treaty.
Please would you look again at your position and reply with reference to the above authorities?
Yours sincerely,
Brian Putman
Brian Putman
November 10, 2010 at 4:38 pm
[…] Includes the well named Dr Willy Notcutt. More info about this ongoing situation here. […]
Inside Out London – BBC Cannabis Documentary | Dope Smoker
November 13, 2010 at 10:20 am
[…] you haven’t been watching the developments over at peterreynolds.wordpress.com then you probably […]
Medical Cannabis in the UK – the European back door | Dope Smoker
November 15, 2010 at 8:47 pm
GO PINKY!!!…huge props to you for having the courage!!!…guys like you are leading the way!!!
itinkso
November 23, 2010 at 12:52 am
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=video&cd=3&ved=0CEgQtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southparkstudios.com%2Fepisodes%2F267110&ei=NgXsTO_eMp2AhAfc2ODMDA&usg=AFQjCNFtr_JmuDBeoUHeHmpN7iDpPU7Jjw
Brian Putman
November 23, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Article 75 Schengen:
As regards the movement of travellers to the territory of the Contracting Parties or within such territory, individuals may carry narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in connection with medical treatment, provided they produce at any check a certificate issued or authenticated by a competent authority of the State of residence.
Brian Putman
December 1, 2010 at 12:02 pm
I am eager to underscore Derek’s point about the photo showing Jim with a joint– which in EU context might appear to be endorsing the prevalent habit of mixing with tobacco. If Jim were shown with a vapouriser or a one-hitter there would be less danger of misunderstanding (especially by minors already vulnerable to the deluge of sneaky advertising from the $igarette industry).
Since Jim, God willing, is going to continue as a conspicuous leading figure in my cause, I am concerned that photos of him will also indicate that our good herb has helped him control his weight (diet/exercise ratio). Control– and management and conservation– is a keyword to prohibitionists, and any way, either personal or technical, of demonstrating control (especially over dosage, as with a single toke utensil) will compel their respect.
tokerdesigner
December 3, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Thanks for your comment.
I understand your point but remember, Jim isn’t some PR chap running a campaign. He’s his own man.
Peter Reynolds
December 3, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Thank you for your e-mail of 16/11/2010.
I refer you to the basis on which Article 75 of the Schengen Agreement operates, as set out in my letter of 8 November 2010.
We do not agree that we are discriminating on grounds of nationality.
Instead, an explicit distinction on grounds of residency is inherent in Article 75(1) of the Schengen Agreement, which applies to certain persons who produce a certificate “issued or authenticated by a competent authority of their State of residence”.
In other words, the potential consequences which you seek to highlight do not arise from any decision of the UK Government as to how it gives effect to Article 75, but from the fact that Article 75, by its nature, confers rights on people by reference to their country of residence.
Pah! SO it is legal for the Dutch to bring it here, but not for us…that sounds like discrimination to me! Might just write directly to the home secretary instead!
Brian Putman
December 7, 2010 at 10:45 pm
I asssume that’s a reply from our friends at Marsham Street?
It’s quite correct of course and so are you. The law now requires clarification, most probably by a judge, possibly even the Supreme Court.
Peter Reynolds
December 8, 2010 at 12:12 am
Hello,
While I’m glad that the Home Office are able to clarify the articles for UK citizens, it’s really not any encouragement that statements are made on this blog continually that only those of Dutch nationality are enabled to take holidays to the UK (in the parameters laid down in the articles on Schengen Police & Security Co-operation in the EU.
It’s unfortunate. It’s racist. It’s not acceptable.
Time and time again, the Home Office refer to ‘residents’ who are ‘undergoing treatment’ in their domicile EU/EEA member-state [ Domicile means, “where they live”, day-to-day. ]
In the sense of Bedrocan, patients could be from Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, Switzerland. But the UK folk (and their BBC louts) only victimise the Netherlands & its people on this issue?
Moreover, those persons undergoing medical treatment are doing it right now : and UK residents are not, right now.
So what’s the difference precisely (for you) when those people are afforded an opportunity to take a holiday. Too large a grudge … for you UK citizenry?
Brian, you state that it’s legal for “the Dutch” [???] to “bring it here”. … can you please name one such individual?
– http://bit.ly/hAXO0b ….you’ll need that kind of hard, factual, actual information for your upcoming legal action (of begrudgery). Cart before the horse is it?
It all certainly suggests to me that the sole focus for many across the water is not “people” , not “best medical practice”, nor “treatment” : but commercial & whatever &c; ( alongside an apparent desire to badger officials working at the Home Office with regard to their duties in terms of the scope of the EU Schengen Police & Co-operation issues.
As the Home Office Matt Donovan stated already, the relevant body in the UK for the matters cited in your request to them (Brian) is “the Health Department”. The Home Office (law enforcement officers) are there to cooperate with the law enforcement agencies situated in the other states that are contracting parties to the Schengen acquis on Police & Security Cooperation. That would be the states in which those persons, undergoing medical treatment on an on-going basis, reside.
In that fashion of Police Co-operation (on narcotics) means, that the exemptions in the law existing in the member-states of residency of those individuals undergoing medical treatment, is “extended” for the purposes of their desire under accepted international law, to exercise their freedom of movement. That is, the exemptions existing in their home states is extended transnationally in the EU & cooperating Schengen states, for 30 days maximum. The procedure, moreover, involves a stack of paperwork and documentation, which all translates for the individual patient into lots of administrational work. Not withstanding this, and the fact that all the documents are passed under the State Seal, like the UK Royal Seal, and notwithstanding that it is valid in all the 27 EU states and the other Schengen states (Iceland Switzerland Norway), I’ve still not succeeded in managing to convey the news to the (illiterate, beggar) Irish state officials. Still though, it helps (in communication and such things) to be able to actually be present inside the country to communicate with those (Irish) officials. When you are not, and everything goes via telephone and email, it’s not easy. Not in the least especially because, of the seven Irish officials stationed in the Hague, not one can read, write or speak Dutch German or Danish. When I asked in Feb 2010 (the first face-to-face meeting given to me in four years’ of asking about taking a holiday for Christmas to see my parents) why weren’t the documents from my physicians and the state pharmacists into your British language (so these people could actually make some sense of them) , I was informed, : “ this is the Netherlands, translation is very expensive Mr McCullagh”.
Funny…. I am a qualified interpreter and translator… had I known they were illiterate I would have done that myself five years ago when this banishment of ape-ignorance commenced.
When I say “lots of administrational work” … how many boxes do you think five years’ work would fill? As if being diagnosed as living with multiple sclerosis, and having to make life adjustments to accommodate for that, is not already enough? I thought apes walk on four legs.
Yeah well, that medical treatment in other member states of the EU, that all happens independently of the medical treatment of UK citizens : again, as M. Donovan stated in his email to you, that is something you and others ought to take up with your UK Health Department.
—
On another note, and in connection with the disgraceful batch of urban-legends portrayed in the BBC documentary Inside-Out of c.Oct 30, the government here (who recently debated this disgraceful broadcast of lies and half-truths and which was produced by persons who are illiterate, in our language) have recently decided to put a stop to visiting UK tourists coming here to indulge themselves in drugs while on their holidays.
Accordingly, a resolution was drawn-up last week to return the illegal coffee-house industry back to the purpose it was originally legislated for: our citizens. How’s that for a good old dose of reciprocal discrimination?
–
From Jan 01, 2011, all persons entering coffee-houses shall be enabled to purchase the illegal wares (which have nothing to do with medical treatment, as the BBC idiots cited) only on the production of a “Locals’ ID-card” (rough translation).
~):(~
mcula
December 8, 2010 at 10:12 am
What exactly is your point Noel, other than just to throw abuse in your inimitable style at just about everyone?
What is your point?
Peter Reynolds
December 8, 2010 at 11:25 am
The Dutch, mean Dutchmen, people from Holland, and Belgium, and Switzerland etc. I concentrated on ‘Dutch’ as that is where the doctor who said he would do me a prescription was. The issue at hand is why are EU citizens, ‘the Dutch’ allowed to bring their medicie here and smoke it, when we cannot bring the same medicine, prescribed by the same doctor. And no, the relevent authority is not the Department of Health, Cannabis is illegal here so it is not in their power to prescribe. Try again!
Brian Putman
December 8, 2010 at 11:39 am
What is my point? Perhaps it’s obvious to others? 🙂
In 2009, one year & 1 weeks ago to this day, I said (on the issue of the Schengen acquis on Police & Security Co-operation in the European Union):
“{…} I thank you for your time here today and bid you all a safe journey home to your family and loved ones,
wherever in the Union that may be.”
Ref: http://www.vimeo.com/8217543
You scold me for my words 🙂 are they so painful to you?
Try exile. And without answers, pappy grey.
The UK is not a member of “the Schengen”; but EU patients are permitted within the law to visit there (on short-term basis)? Because of something called …. “The European Union”?
The Ireland Republic isn’t a member of “the Schengen”; … and EU patients, surely they (just like the U.K.) are permitted by the law to visit there (on a short-term basis)? Isn’t that … the European Union?
Like: as you say ….. Dutch people, German people, Swiss people, Italian people …. Finish people…. to go on holidays (bring a smile to their malady-lives) to (for instance)…. attend family weddings, family baptisms, … family funerals, like, of their family‘n stuff ? 🙂
—
Don’t look at me. I’m still waiting for any answers. It’s not my fault that I’ve been put in a situation where I’m waiting for answers, from a folk whose knuckles drag along the ground as they hobble from place to place. But that’s the way of things.
What were you doing in July and August 2006? April 2007? February 2008? January 2009? December 2010?
The minister for security in this Kingdom recently told the eight o’clock news that the Kingdom of the Netherlands “had had enough” of “English drugs-tourists”.
Especially given the “new heights” that they’ve taken to by misrepresenting the “medical” provision for the making available of “that substance” in this country’s and peoples’ general medical-practice.
There’s maintained (improperly) by the initial postings of this blog, that the Schengen acquis on Police & Security Co-operation maintains a right, any right, for a UK tourist to obtain here a prescription for “the medicines”. It’s also maintained that “a prescription” from “a (resident-)Dutch practitioner” extends rights to such UK Drugs-Tourists (to quote the minister here) to thereafter return to their country of residence with “the medicine” in their possession…. and to (portend) that this is in any way legal.
In the interview, he shrugged-off the suggestion that “the English” had made “an international laughing stock” of our nation’s general medical-practice.
For starters: what are the procedures for follow-ups? For your medical treatment, over there in (English-speaking) United Kingdom?
What are the procedures for periodical examination by the nurse and/or (neurology/psychiatry) nurse and/or specialist …. to examine the applicability of the “medicines” the individual patient, in your case? Do you speak German, Dutch? That is the language of most of the “medical experts” in any of the countries where “the medicine” is part of general practice.
Thankfully, it’s was also recently repeated here that there are no such provisions for the application in question, in general medical practice, that is, for the prescription of “the medicine” to UK-resident persons. So… that leaves only one question: … “who” and “where” are the experts that are going to provide follow-up medical treatment in your (transnational and bootlegging) medical case?
When I see this kind of suggestion, it translates to me as: “there are no provisions, in this patient’s case, for any manner of follow-ups with regard to the prescription and the medical treatment”.
Why is that? Because there is “no concept” of the application of “the medicine” in medical practice in your language/country/ member-state.
This (to me) only serves to make a (further) mockery of the illegal actions, that is, the importation into the UK (without licence and without any valid application of the cited legal clauses and protections) of a dubiously-obtained medical prescription in a foreign country by a UK resident.
I can’t explain why, but those are (apparently) the facts of the matter. It’s a lie, and the answer to the BBC Upside-Down documentary is already printed here, and authored by Matt Donovan, UK Home Office, London City, England, UK.
UK resident citizens pretending to be relying on the Schengen acquis on Police & Security Co-operation is a “smoke screen” : because (as the UK Home Office correctly state) there is no connection between unwelcome “UK Drugs-Tourists” (citation from the Dutch minister) and a patient undergoing (experimental) pharmaceutical — and backup medical treatment in association with the aforementioned — in “the medicine” here in our member-state, and sovereign kingdom (and in our language by our practitioners to our resident persons).
Please remember, “the medicine” is only available on the Single-Market as a V.A.T. product since 2005. And also, that all (or most) of the medical treatments for chronic, (that means incurable) maladies are ‘experimental’ in nature — when examined in the individuals’ treatment for the individuals’ malady. Especially so, when even the cause of the malady remains (still) a mystery. Some treatments kill, others don’t. The option is there for all patients: which medical treatment. It’s a medical question, (so to answer your question Brian, patients here in countries where “the medicine” is normal application … they do not rely on their Police for their medical treatment in their home member-states, but instead, on the Health Department). It’s, after all, a question of medical practice. I thought that would have been obvious. You are someone with a medical condition, aren’t you?
The idea that this would all even take place (i.e. that ‘UK Drugs-Tourists’ & their national TV-networks would come here to make a mockery of EU law, and of our Minister for Health) in a situation where the patient in question cannot (even) understand the wording of the prescription …. it’s just laughable. Only, the joke here lies more on the ministry of health… and I very much doubt that that action, and the ensuing laughter and mockery, impressed them in ‘any way’.
Ideas and fantasies that the Drugs-Tourists falsely claim extend rights to them (personally) to illegally import into their member-state of residence by mis-representing (whilst under a smoke screen of untruths regarding legitimate travellers) leans towards the unforgivable. Especially when the finger is pointed at the Kingdom of the Netherland s authorities at the European Council, as a result of the wild and ludicrous shenanigans aforesaid.
Your, that is, your foreigner, English-speaking ministers of health & whatever, state (in the press) that they are obtaining their “experts’ advice” with regard to the administration of “the medicine” in general practice. If you don’t mind me asking, English-speakers, …. given that “the medicine” is not (federally or nationally) available in general practice in your (English-speaking) neighbouring twin-statlets and Kingdoms … perhaps someone (anyone?) could inform …… just who are these “experts”?
The English-speaking ones…? Who practice medicine, in English-speaking countries? Either of them?
Do they speak Dutch? Do they speak German? Finnish? Italian? Spanish?
Think about that. Where is such “expert” advice coming from, or more importantly, from whom is it sought?
Folk here ask a lot of questions, as though I have any of the answers. What do I know? Other than that this is (yet again) going to be a Happy Christmas, in exile? I suppose, it wouldn’t be so bad, if it were legal. But it isn’t, and precisely why it isn’t is being mis-represented by the recent attempts at misconveying the Schengen acquis on Police & Security Co-operation in the European Union by you, Peter, in your writings here. As well as the various escapades outlined herein.
This blog asserts certain things (illegitimately) regarding the rights of travellers (legitimate ones, that is) under the Schengen acquis on Police & Security Co-operation in the European Union. It does so (where that concerns UK-residents) in a wrongful fashion by citing various untruths about the law and the protection of the law.
Thereby, it manufactures untruths about the ‘real’ and ‘relevant’ rights, which are enshrined in-law and repeatedly explained to you (UK residents) by your (UK) relevant authority on authentication of such rights in your member-state: the Home Office.
Do you understand the English language? Not all here do. Then again, this is a foreign country!
What am I Peter? Am I Irish? Is my mother, and my father? When was the last time you met your Mum? Do you listen to the advice of your G.P.? As in, “your” G.P., the one who lives near you in your country? The one who speaks your language, fluently?
How’s your father keeping? Is he doing well? Y’know, after the operation’n all? And your mother… how is she after that run-in last year?
Is she recovering well?
Do you experience “human” feelings? Like, those that all the other humans do? You act like the Home Office have done you a ‘great wrong’…. May I ask an important question?
What are they taking from you?
What are they denying you, that you previously had?
What legal rights … have they stripped from you without as much as a “how do you do”….?
Where is the “great loss” from the Home Offices’ personnel in their writings to you regarding your shambolic and disdainful mis-portrayal of your (member-states) citizens’ rights (and described here on this blog post)?
Where is the damage? What is being withheld, from you (in terms of the Schengen acquis on Police & Security Co-operation in the European Union)?
What rights, in the law (of your resident state in the European Union), are being withheld, denied, …. without any reason?
The Home Office …. actually reply…. to your emails… ! Surely you realise the value in that service? They take time out, to write back to you. .. !!! A godsend! Surely you can see that? Even though you are constantly making a mockery of the EU regulations …. … — they actually write back and explain the provisions to you .. again, and again? That counts for something, surely? Especially when they are correct?
Whereas patients who are making legitimate use of the same regulations in the British Isles country (that is, the one — your closest neighbour — which is on “financial life-support” from the UK peoples) are not “even” being replied to in their (many) correspondences? Or should I say, “any of” their correspondence?
And who knows, y’now? Maybe your b***s**t charade of the EU laws, and particular the Treaty of Amsterdam, in your BBC Inside-Out “documentary” … and the details revealed on this website, are/is the reason9s) that the Health Ministry in this Kingdom, situated in the Hague, are now refusing to issue Article 75 EU Medical Certificates to Netherlands-resident patients expressing a desire to travel to the United Kingdom on a holiday … ?
Ever thought about the consequences? Peter?
Remember, that is a pre-requisite for any patient from this member-state to travel to your member-state of the European Union. The Hague is citing Article 76 as the “sudden” change in their policy :that’s their right … thank you very much.
This all means (for me) that your UK b***s**te Upside-Down BBC production, which was steeped in (English-speakers’) “urban myths” (and information obtained from USA websites) linked to the City of Amsterdam (which is already at odds with The Hague over general politics, ours that is) : the door to the UK is now “shut”.
A nice memory, that was : potential travel open to the U.K. (IT lasted, for me, from 14 December 2009 – until the parliamentary week following the BBC Inside-Out lies and mistruths broadcast.
Thanks People of the UK! You are the best ….! Thank you all!
(PS: the Hague don’t want you people coming over here to Amsterdam to the coffeehouses anymore … so get the message~! ). This is NOT your country!~ And certainly not one for your BBC a-hole illiterati to come over here telling lies to the UK people on TV about how medical treatment operates here!
A total sham! That’s all that can be said about the BBC London Inside-Out mis-representation of 30 Oct 2010.
On a related note: Ryanair flights round-trip to Ireland (the free southern-republic part) are going at EUR-36 from here nearby.
–
Don’t look at me: I live in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It’s yous that are paying for Irish now. How much is it again?
Eight Billion? And you can’t even travel there if you are a patient? From the U.K., and into the Free Republic? Because they are (the only) cuntry that are not members of EU cooperation on Police and Security in the EU?
EU Cooperation? Isn’t that something to do with the EU Central Bank?
Is Ireland part of the European Union? I can’t remember… [are they?] ….?
Who was that great English comedian again? The guy on TV, during the eighties? He used to lounge about with wads of cash saying: “Uuuu Aahhhh- Loadza Money!! Yeahhhhhh….” 🙂 Cake “and” eat it! 🙂
“(Yes my S)ireland” : EU, or not EU? That’$ the real que$tion… one UK households that are bailing out the toxic Irish debt-sludge ought to be really asking themselves.
Does that make any more sense? Because, if answers are what you’re looking for, maybe better not to seek them from someone struggling in life, living with a serious neurological illness?
Someone who’s become used to there not being any available, from anyone, this past five years?
~):(~
PS: … “to prescribe” Brian? There’s only three prescriptions here that one speaks of legally, and none of those are for “cannabis” …
Perhaps you mean one of these?
– Bedrocan®
– Bedrobinol®
– Bediol®
… ? those are pharmaceutical VAT products (in the Single Market BTW); for use in medical practice…?
And they are not “smoked”.
“Cannabis”, as you describe it, is an illegal drug here as well as in your member state. Didn’t you know that?
I think that’s important to point out, so that we’re not writing here about two totally different things… 🙂
mcula
December 8, 2010 at 8:42 pm
[…] […]
David Nutt's Blog: Evidence not Exaggeration - BreedBay
December 13, 2010 at 4:33 pm