Legalise the herb

[Lou Girardin]

Well, prohibition and heavy enforcement has certainly stopped drug use.
Hasn't it?
And those 'killer' party drugs have killed plenty.
At least 5 people.
How many thousands use them every weekend?

[Drunken Monkey]

You still havn't explained why we should legalise one drug just because another is legal.

Now you're the one that can't read. Precedent. Legal precedent. P-R-E-C-E-D-E-N-T. I covered it twice, for slow learners like yourself.

I get right sick of your holier-than-the-rest-of-us attitude, Jackoff. Every bloody subject that comes up you spout off about how much fucken better than everyone else you are (and how you're too bloody good to ride with the rest of us). Get over yourself.

Here's food for thought: After lowering myself to your level and making a cheap crack at your mum, I thought I'd get slammed by the other users...I've had nothing but support all afternoon. Having trouble keeping friends?

[James Deuce]

"In Xanadu did Kublai Khan a stately pleasure-dome decree..."

my thousandth post... and I was saving it for Zed... Damn!

Talk about premature expostulation...

Lol congrats, and nicely done

[scumdog]

I guess my opinions are tarnished with negative experiences when dealing with heavy smokers combined with the unknown if they legalised smoking, the old "pandoras box" thing

[spudchucka]

In the first few years of my marriage I knocked round with a large variety of people. Surfers, students, activivists of various persuasion etc. We had some surfer friends who lived in a house near the beach. This was a mixied group of two surfie students and if memory recall correctly four working surfers. They were a bunch of guys who had a common interest and lived down by the beach. On this particular Friday night one of the surfers decided to by himself a new board for his bithday. As a practical joke a couple of them nicked his brand new board from his car. Our birthday surfer thinking that his board had been stolen notified the police, who turned up at his address late in the evening to make further enquires. (this was at time when the police had the time and resources for this) In the course of their enquiries into the stolen surfboard one of the policeman noticed some plants growing in the garden. Well the guy who planted them owned up now here's the 'funny' part the student who had the flat in his name was also charged and convicted. This guy had nothing to do with the growing of the plants or the practical joke but as a result of the current laws on this drug his future carreer was ruined.

Guys you can talk about the why's and the whynot's untill the cow comes home. It is all irrelevent. The law is there for the protection of society and members of. This guy harmed no one, robbed no one, killed no one, but as the law now stands he has a record as a criminal. JUST BLOODY WRONG.

Skyryder

.

You are talking about an incident that occured in NSW and I don't know their laws in relation to drugs. However from my time living in QLD, (6 years) I was well aware that if a flatmate was into drugs and got busted / raided at the flat then my arse was on the line too. I made bloody well sure that I never flatted with druggies.

Its unfortunate for that guy and to a certain extent I feel sorry for someone in his position but it is up to the individual to be aware of ALL the risks associated with drug offending, direct and indirect. I'm sure the guy knew that the plants were growing on his property, (he was the leasee wasn't he) and did nothing to stop the offending.

Folks interested in this debate might want to make themselves aware of Section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

12.Use of premises or vehicle—

(1)Every person commits an offence against this Act who knowingly permits any premises or [any vessel, aircraft, hovercraft, motor vehicle, or other mode of conveyance] to be used for the purpose of the commission of an offence against this Act.

(2)Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term—

(a)Not exceeding 10 years where a Class A controlled drug was the controlled drug or one of the controlled drugs in relation to which the offence was committed:

(b)Not exceeding 7 years where paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply but a Class B controlled drug was the controlled drug or one of the controlled drugs in relation to which the offence was committed:

(c)Not exceeding 3 years in any other case.

(3)Notwithstanding anything in section 7 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, where any person is summarily convicted of an offence against this section the [District Court] may sentence him—

(a)To imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to both where he could have been sentenced under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section if he had been convicted on indictment:

(b)To imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to both where he could have been sentenced under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section if he had been convicted on indictment:

(c)To imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding $500 or to both in any other case.

So under this section the guy you mention could be charged in NZ for knowingly allowing cannabis plants to be grown on his property.

[spudchucka]

Of course for the police the drug laws are very convenient and arguments about the dangers or otherwise of smoking pot are probably quite irrelevant...

Can you please explain further what exactly you mean by that.

[spudchucka]

Here's food for thought: After lowering myself to your level and making a cheap crack at your mum, I thought I'd get slammed by the other users...I've had nothing but support all afternoon. Having trouble keeping friends?

Personally I thought that particular wisecrack was too gross and uncalled for to respond to for fear of an otherwise reasonable discussion getting totally out of hand.

[MikeL]

Can you please explain further what exactly you mean by that.

Certainly. In the first place, it's a bit like enforcing speed limits. Because use of marijuana is so widespread and all this illegal activity is occurring frequently, it gives the police a lot of discretionary power (to increase or decrease the enforcement level) that may be used for various purposes.
Secondly, because people who commit more serious crime are often drug users as well (whether the drug use is directly relevant to a particular criminal act or not), the discovery of an illegal substance on someone's person or property can provide a convenient reason for detention in the absence of evidence of the more serious crime.

Since I'm neither a police officer nor a lawyer nor a criminal I can't speak from personal experience but only theorize. If you can refute the theory, or show that what happens in practice is quite different, I'll gladly shut up.

[spudchucka]

Certainly. In the first place, it's a bit like enforcing speed limits. Because use of marijuana is so widespread and all this illegal activity is occurring frequently, it gives the police a lot of discretionary power (to increase or decrease the enforcement level) that may be used for various purposes.

I think that the police accept that there will always be cannabis in our society, they realise that it will never be wiped out. They tend to deal with each individual case of possession on its merits, some people do receive warnings and it would not benefit the police or society as a whole to prosecute every minor case of possession. Police are more interested in the big commercial operations of cannabis growing and targeting the hard drug scene, like the current focus on P.

Its true that police enforcement is often reactionary and focus will shift from problem to problem depending on which is perceived to be the more serious threat. If there are more commercial growing operations popping up then you will see more resources being targeted at that problem. Its largely about policing the risk.

Secondly, because people who commit more serious crime are often drug users as well (whether the drug use is directly relevant to a particular criminal act or not), the discovery of an illegal substance on someone's person or property can provide a convenient reason for detention in the absence of evidence of the more serious crime.

A large portion of dishonesty crime can be directly linked to drug use and is perpetrated by drug users to fund their habits. I don't know how many times I've listened to a low life defence lawyer trying to convince a Judge that their client is just a victim of thier drug addiction.

If a known criminal were found in possession of drugs they would not receive any discretion, (in all but a few cases). Don't forget that there are statutory requirements that police must observe before they can search a person, property or vehicle for drugs. They can't just search someone because they know them to be a drug user, they still need reasonable grounds to believe the person is in possession.

As far as a convenient reason to detain someone goes I would say that for a simple case of possession of cannabis the person would be arrested, processed and bailed back out to the street in no more than an hour at the most. The only reason to detain them longer would be if there were grounds for obtaining a search warrant for a property or vehicle that related to the original offence or offender.

Unreasonable or arbitrary detention is a breach of a persons bill of rights so if there are no grounds to oppose bail or otherwise legitimately hold a person in custody then they must be released on bail.

Since I'm neither a police officer nor a lawyer nor a criminal I can't speak from personal experience but only theorize. If you can refute the theory, or show that what happens in practice is quite different, I'll gladly shut up.

I hope that helps clear the matter up, if not then just say and I'll have another go at it.

[Jackrat]

Now you're the one that can't read. Precedent. Legal precedent. P-R-E-C-E-D-E-N-T. I covered it twice, for slow learners like yourself.

I get right sick of your holier-than-the-rest-of-us attitude, Jackoff. Every bloody subject that comes up you spout off about how much fucken better than everyone else you are (and how you're too bloody good to ride with the rest of us). Get over yourself.

Here's food for thought: After lowering myself to your level and making a cheap crack at your mum, I thought I'd get slammed by the other users...I've had nothing but support all afternoon. Having trouble keeping friends?

Legal precedent,Yeah right that's some thing double talking lawyers use and most of the population get sick of hearing.It's still not common sence.
My friends??actualy a fair few of them are members of this site and I've known them for 20-30 years.On that front I'm doing quite well thanks.
You don't like my attitude?? I responded to your cheap shot,if you don't like the responce don't take the shot in the first place.
Better still, just put me on your ignore list.Because the more you make it obvious you don't like my opinions the more I'll push them.
Thanks.

[Drunken Monkey]

Alright, fine - that's the way you want to call it. Try and see it from my perspective:

You're either:
a) Raising this subject merely to deliberately bait someone into some sort of fight. If this is the case, then go you. You won. Silly me. You're a winner - the bloody people's champion. Not exactly what a discussion forum is for, and you probably owe the people on this thread who were genuinely contributing to the discussion an apology.

or,

b) Genuinely wanting an open discussion. In which case, your attitude with people who disagree with you, quite frankly, sucks. Last time I checked, people didn't dismiss other's opinions outright before they're even heard in an intelligent discussion. And it's just plain bad forum etiquette to portray yourself as a know-all.

If you're happy with this, then as a peace offering, I retract my uncalled for insult. If not, well...do what whatever you want.

And if you really mean what you just said about arguing with me for the sake of arguing, don't waste your time. Go pick a fight with someone else.

PS - it's not that I don't like your opinions, I don't like the way you deal with other's opinions.

[Jackrat]

I didn't raise the sugject just to bait anybody,that was a TIC comment that at lest one other person did see.
As to the rest of what you say,,,Fair enough.

[Big Dog]

I haven't read the whole thing as I know I don't know enough to contribute anyhting of value, nor will anyone on this site be able to give a fair and accurate picture in an unbiased way (not in the tiny snippets of post that go before any way).

My only problem with Weed being illegal is this makes me feel obliged to try it. "It is so good the government thinks it is bad for me."

My only Problem with decriminalisation is it is still a no no and so it still has that naughty appeal, without the consequenses.

My only problem with legalisation is it is too general. If it is for medicinal purposes vend it from a pharmacy (controlled substance still), if it is to be treated as alcohol surely it will only be legit to sell it from licensed premisis - wait on didn't we just make smoking in bars and restaraunts illegal?
It is not as simple as now its legal, it would require an entire new infrastucture of laws.

On the Pro side I have never seen one person smoke so much that they required hospital or morgue treatment.

Having said all of that My personal opinion is that while it is not for me (tried it, found it an incredible waste of other peoples dope, I can't see the point in paying to be stupider for a while), if it is someone elses bag I won't hold it against them. I may however reserve the right not to spend time with that person when they are stoned if I don't like their behaviour stoned.

I hate smelling like it.
I hate how the smell clings to leather for weeks.
I hate people using it at my house to the point of asking people to leave if they want it.
I dislike SOME people stoned.
I hate the feeling of being stoned.

However SOME people are more interesting stoned.
Some people can relax without getting as violent as they do on alcohol.

I don't think I will ever knowingly partake of the weed or any other illegal substance ever again, but if my children feel compelled to try a drug I would prefer they try weed than coke.

[Drunken Monkey]

Cool - as I am keen to continue a healthy discussion

I actually do agree with you somewhat about legal precedent being some form of 'law boys society' legalese, but whether one likes it or not, that is how our legal system works. Unfortunately common sense can't be quantifiably measured - you can't really 'police' common sense. Indeed if everyone had a healthy amount of common sense, then we wouldn't need to control substances as people wouldn't abuse them (amongst other things)! Hence, a law is put forward, with varying degrees of thought and research (or lack of). Sometimes they just don't work and a case or cases are ruled on in a particular way = that becomes the precedent. Alcohol is a somewhat controlled substance, hence case studies form alcohol laws can be used as legal precedent.

[Skyryder]

You are talking about an incident that occured in NSW and I don't know their laws in relation to drugs. However from my time living in QLD, (6 years) I was well aware that if a flatmate was into drugs and got busted / raided at the flat then my arse was on the line too. I made bloody well sure that I never flatted with druggies.

Its unfortunate for that guy and to a certain extent I feel sorry for someone in his position but it is up to the individual to be aware of ALL the risks associated with drug offending, direct and indirect. I'm sure the guy knew that the plants were growing on his property, (he was the leasee wasn't he) and did nothing to stop the offending.

No, this was in Kiwi land and in Christchurch. Not to sure of all the details other than those that I posted. Been a long time since I have seen these people and we have all moved onto other things etc. Spud the point I am making, no two points
1 the sentence and subsequent events after the conviction far exceeded the offence. This was at the time of the Mr Asia case and the media promulgations of politicians, social workers and other ill informed people; smoke a joint and you'll be shooting smack etc.
The other point
2 the law is to serve and protect. There are no ifs and buts about this. It is there for the community’s protection as well as the individuals and in the case I mentioned it failed this individual (the commuinty was not being harmed in any way) and to this day is continuing to fail unless the Police exercise their discretionary powers. Under current law in respect to the use or possession of Marijuana, on the whim, of a warranted officer, the Justice system will 'kick into gear,' and if convicted the defendant will be a criminal, along with rapists, burglars, killers, child molesters, etc. The word whim I do not use lightly. I have known people who for no other reason have been busted for posseion simply because of ‘attitude.’ And believe me I walked into a bust one day and I saw more ‘attitude’ from the police.

My position on this is simple. No citizen, of any society that proclaims the values and virtues of the Western democracies, should be convicted of any criminal offence where no other member has been harmed in any way whatsoever. The laws on possession and use of Marijuana fail; in this respect.

Skyryder



1914: Congress passes the Harrison Narcotics Act, its first attempt to control recreational use of drugs.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...arrisonact.htm

February 1917: Henry Timken, the wealthy industrialist who invented the roller bearing, meets with inventor George Schlichten to discuss his brilliant yet simple new machine, the "decorticator." Motivated by his desire to halt the destruction of forests for wood pulp, Schlichten spent 18 years and $400,000 developing the decorticator. The decorticator was capable of stripping the fiber from any plant, leaving behind pulp -- making it the perfect tool to revolutionize the hemp fiber/paper industry in much the same way that Eli Lilly's cotton gin revolutionized the cotton industry during the 1820's. After meeting with Schlichten, Timken views the decorticator as a revolutionary discovery that would improve conditions for mankind (with healthy profits for investors), and he promptly offers Schlichten 100 acres of fertile farmland to grow hemp for the purposes of testing the new machine. At anemic 1917 hemp production levels, Schlichten estimated that the decorticator could produce 50,000 tons of paper for $25 per ton -- 50% less than the cost of newsprint.

1937:
The year the federal government outlawed cannabis.
DuPont patents petrochemical manufacturing processes for making plastics, as well as pollution-heavy sulfate/sulfite processes for producing wood pulp. For the next 50 years, these processes are responsible for 80% of DuPont's industrial output.

Yep it took a long time but the laws on Marijuana were promulgated so that DuPont could destroy a competive process.

For further reading on this subject go to
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0897/timeline.htm

Other interesting info on this
http://www.ccguide.org.uk/opinions.html

http://www.ccguide.org.uk/contrary.html


Skyryder