Drug busts!

[ducatilover]

FFS. A dozen big paint buckets and a 5 or 10 metre length of 4 metre wide clear 250 micron polythene draped and pegged over a 10mm rope strung between a couple of trees. Pinch the ends together and you're under way. How hard or expensive is that?

Thank you muchly great idea, the cows might eat it all though

Try growing indoors ... a lot of the commercial growers ( gangs ) have a great deal of success in this.

I'll look in to this too

[mashman]

Try growing indoors ... a lot of the commercial growers ( gangs ) have a great deal of success in this.

... I'm gonna need a bigger house and an off grid power supply. I grew a tomato plant and some broccoli hydroponically in my bedroom and even built a cheap grow lamp (was cool but not powerful enough). The Broccoli attracted some form of larvae so got kicked out. The tom plant was feckin superb although the missus drew the line at my grand plan ... can't say I blame her either, ya'd be needin a pee all night. Either way I need more space.

[FJRider]

... I'm gonna need a bigger house and an off grid power supply.

Grow an Orchid or two for the missus ... and she wont mind the power bill ...

[avgas]

grab a LAW DICTIONARY, (that's the thick book by what they wrote "the law") and look up the word COMMON
legal precedent is called CASE law.

I don't think very many people on her know the difference between ""common"" law and ""corporate"" law.
It would be interesting to see how many do.
The maharajah laws are under the corporate banner .

Got a bit curious about this - as I imagined giant companies of dope smoking legal types. With massive buildings and the like.
So I thought I better look it up. So looking up on the shelf of structural supporting objects that some refer to as "books", while I couldn't find said law dictionary.......its probably with that brittanicca set that dissappeared in the 90's. I did find "Priciples of Law for NZ Biz Students" by Hubbard, Thomas and Varn. Probably not the best book for the jobs.......but after a quick look though it (with these comments in the back of my mind) and I seem to have some questions.

Seems that Common law, is based of past case law. But VERY old case law - as its effectively passed from the days of old and updated accordingly. In NZ's case the common law is based on cases over the last few hundred years in Europe.
So case law now = common law in future. The only exception of this has been "the kings orders".

As for it being corporate law. Not sure how - The misuse of drugs ACT was enforced by Parliament. Making it Criminal Law. (http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/project/re...drugs-act-1975). In fact I don't see it anywhere in companies act, financial transaction reporting act.........in any of the business acts. There is a mention of it in OSH act, but only that you should send them home.
Not that the government can change any law it wishes, and even override other laws. Its the glory of Parliamentary law.

Now not saying I am some kind of Law guru - or even that this was the right book for the task. But fail to see how the argument that its corporate law is correct. Happy to be shown how it fits corporate law.
The argument is pretty invalid stating that its not in Common Law, there is lots that not in there. But that doesn't make items that aren't common law legal.

Perhaps there is a lawyer-type on here who could explain how dope smoking falls under corporate law, or how something not being under common law means its "not as illegal".
Once again I don't care who smokes, I used too. And I do think the law is silly. But I also respect that it is the law. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. The law is just another compromise, and any smart person will tell you a compromise is whenever both parties lose something.
We lost the right to smoke dope, they lost the right to tax us for it.

[avgas]

I'll look in to this too

most SWITCHED ON GARDNERs do

[ducatilover]

most SWITCHED ON GARDNERs do

Don't associate me with those soggy brained idiots.
I'm mad without the drugs (I have certificates to prove it)

[Subike]

Got a bit curious about this - as I imagined giant companies of dope smoking legal types. With massive buildings and the like.
So I thought I better look it up. So looking up on the shelf of structural supporting objects that some refer to as "books", while I couldn't find said law dictionary.......its probably with that brittanicca set that dissappeared in the 90's. I did find "Priciples of Law for NZ Biz Students" by Hubbard, Thomas and Varn. Probably not the best book for the jobs.......but after a quick look though it (with these comments in the back of my mind) and I seem to have some questions.

Seems that Common law, is based of past case law. But VERY old case law - as its effectively passed from the days of old and updated accordingly. In NZ's case the common law is based on cases over the last few hundred years in Europe.
So case law now = common law in future. The only exception of this has been "the kings orders".

As for it being corporate law. Not sure how - The misuse of drugs ACT was enforced by Parliament. Making it Criminal Law. (http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/project/re...drugs-act-1975). In fact I don't see it anywhere in companies act, financial transaction reporting act.........in any of the business acts. There is a mention of it in OSH act, but only that you should send them home.
Not that the government can change any law it wishes, and even override other laws. Its the glory of Parliamentary law.

Now not saying I am some kind of Law guru - or even that this was the right book for the task. But fail to see how the argument that its corporate law is correct. Happy to be shown how it fits corporate law.
The argument is pretty invalid stating that its not in Common Law, there is lots that not in there. But that doesn't make items that aren't common law legal.

Perhaps there is a lawyer-type on here who could explain how dope smoking falls under corporate law, or how something not being under common law means its "not as illegal".
Once again I don't care who smokes, I used too. And I do think the law is silly. But I also respect that it is the law. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. The law is just another compromise, and any smart person will tell you a compromise is whenever both parties lose something.
We lost the right to smoke dope, they lost the right to tax us for it.

the government is a corporation
you become a subject of the government when your parents sign you over to them they day they get your birth certificate.( subject could also loosely be called slave)
What?
If you do not have a birth certificate, or citizenship, you have no right to the protection of the government( the corporation) or it laws,
You are not entitled to the benefits of that corporation without the birth cert, or citizenship papers, but you can get a visa, that allows you the rights to these laws while visiting the country for a specific time,...

[mashman]

Grow an Orchid or two for the missus ... and she wont mind the power bill ...

heh heh heh... maybe just go straight for the triffids

[Akzle]

Great, ANOTHER pointless KB rant thread to ignore, classic KB fare...

then... why didn't you ignore it??

Drugs are a convenient flag for the coppers,...use the drugs laws as a convenient"please kick me"sign tatooed on the ass of every stupid criminal out there.

this is probably the most sensible argument put forward from that camp yet. well and good. unfortunately the higher crimes (ones that might actually require real work, and protect civvvies, burglary, ie) don't carry higher penalties. unfortunately also, the cannabis cases clog up the system, cost a fuckload of money and rarely result in any change to the criminality of those involved.

correct me if I am wrong, but
was it not the American cotton farmers, ...

that may be so, and there has been much speculation on the causes. personally, and it could well be tied in, i think it was racially motivated policy, the dark folk smoked hooch (whitey skolled booze and did dumb shit), and obviously you needed a reason to whomp your dark folk after slavery was tut-tutted, (in the grand old divided states of embarrassment) and it carried on 'round the world...
it was used for centuries as tincture/medication, by nuns and all (they were the ones who originally bought it to NZ, as medication, in the late 19th century)
and acre for acre it's about 10x as profitable as corn. also, last time i read i think it was some 30% of america's GDP. america's a funny case, though, because it'd banned by federal law, yet their government spends $$ on genetically modifying some of the best grass on that side of the world (afghany's will trump it anyday... their's is some POTENT shit - guess you need it when you're jockeying your camels in and out the caves trying to avoid the occupation of yank forces.)

Very true, I could get tips from one of these fellows on baccy growing?
I'm keen to give it a go (baccy, not whacky)

i can provide seeds, indeed will, for free. (PM your addy or PO box or come for a ride and get some)

originally grown up home (whangarei) then sent to family in wgtn, then to akl, and again back up home.. so fairly well acclimatised.

"Priciples of Law for NZ Biz Students" by Hubbard, Thomas and Varn. Probably not the best book for the jobs.......but after a quick look though it (with these comments in the back of my mind) and I seem to have some questions.

Seems that Common law, is based of past case law. But VERY old case law - as its effectively passed from the days of old and updated accordingly. In NZ's case the common law is based on cases over the last few hundred years in Europe.

if "the system" worked, this would be the case. if the governments, as they were intended wrote the will of the people into legislation, then every case would reflect the common. as it is, we have a government dictating down to us, passing legislation opposed by 86%,
"law" is no longer for every man, "law" is some hundreds of thousands of pages of legalese.
so here's from bouvier's law dictionary (can't find my blacks!!)

COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal
consent and immemorial practice of the people.

so.. since 86% of people practice hitting their kids, and have for time immemorial, should it not be LAW, just so?
since people have been drunk in public, driven vehicles over the speed limit, and have for time immemorial, should it not be LAW?

LAW. In its most general and comprehensive sense, law signifies a rule of action; and this term is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action;
whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational.
2. Law is generally divided into four principle classes, namely;
Natural law, the law of nations, public law, and private or civil law. When
considered in relation to its origin, it is statute law or common law. When
examined as to its different systems it is divided into civil law, common
law, canon law. When applied to objects, it is civil, criminal, or penal. It
is also divided into natural law and positive law. Into written law, lex
scripta; and unwritten law, lex non scripta. Into law merchant, martial law,
municipal law, and foreign law. When considered as to their duration, laws
are immutable and arbitrary or positive; when as their effect, they are
prospective and retrospective. These will be separately considered.

LAW, ARBITRARY. An arbitrary law is one made by the legislator simply
because he wills it, and is not founded in the nature of things; such law,
for example, as the tariff law, which may be high or low. This term is used
in opposition to immutable.

LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority
from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has
never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is
the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law.

((hey FJ - eat a dick)) googled yourself a law dictionary yet?

So case law now = common law in future. The only exception of this has been "the kings orders".

the "kings orders" = royal decree. (arbitrary law) the kings order's were perfectly valid under the system of monarchy, however, since the Magna Carta (great charter of human rights etc) they have been null and void. The Magna carta was a turning point in legislature, given that it was forced upon the then-king (sometime early 13th century i believe) BY THE PEOPLE. they stood up and said "we're sick of your shit, here's what's happening or we're gonna burn you out of this castle" and so it was. (about time for another one eh?)
And where the american government was formed constitutionally, (the constitution was their people's "great charter") they are lumped with it. the fact that the govt has gone fucking haywire and sold themselves to world banks et al, well. another matter.
the NZ government WAS NOT constitutionally formed. they have de-facto status/sovereignty, on account of no-one (except the treaty signatories) actually agreed to it initially. it continues this status because people keep turning up to the elections and encouraging the bastards.

As for it being corporate law. Not sure how - The misuse of drugs ACT was enforced by Parliament. Making it Criminal Law.

i believe the word you mean is ENACTED not enforced.
and that DOES NOT make it criminal law. criminal law requires a crime. a crime requires an injured party.
listen to the dotcom crap for the words they use "he has been injurious to our brand/ company" etc
-how the fuck can someone injure something that exists only on paper?? at any rate, any case tried, or man accused, is generally done in a CIVIL situation. fines, infringements etc. all CIVIL matters, as no-one has been injured. (if you ever get to court for a "crime", ask for the injured party to come forward, a man has a right to face his accuser)

Now not saying I am some kind of Law guru - or even that this was the right book for the task. But fail to see how the argument that its corporate law is correct. Happy to be shown how it fits corporate law.

this was fair answered by the other guy who knows what he's talking about. however, my 0.02c:

i would use the word commercial law, not corporate. however, for commerce to occur, you need corporations. i've explained this elsewhere and it was ticked off by that other guy, your NAME (capitus diminutio) is NOT you as you stand (a man.)
your NAME represents a CORPORATE FICTION (look up the interpretation act definition of "person") (come on FJ, whats'it say?)
you'll find that your NAME/=the PERSON ,is the corporation, which is dealing in commerce (by it's very nature) and thus can be charged with full commercial liability. if you accept that you ARE that NAME, you accept the rights/duties/responsibilities of that corporation. one of those duties is to bend over and take it like a bitch in their court.
the corporation/NAME is under their jurisdiction, the man is not.

Perhaps there is a lawyer-type on here who could explain how dope smoking falls under corporate law, or how something not being under common law means its "not as illegal".

as above. common law would dictate that people can buy/sell/smoke/grow/trade as much dope/opium/meth/ketamine/MDMA/DMT/cattle/tobacco etc etc as they like.
because that's what common people have been doing for fucken ages, (well before the legislation, in fact)
if the man accepts responsibility for the corporation, formed under the government's legislation, he accepts the rights, duties, et al.

you don't need to be a lawyer type. you need a good lot of free time, plenty of coffee (a few joints doesn't hurt), a law dicitonary (sorry FJ, google doesn't cut it) and enough bandwidth to troll legislation.govt.nz and decipher the bullshit.

[avgas]

criminal law requires a crime. a crime requires an injured party.
listen to the dotcom crap for the words they use "he has been injurious to our brand/ company" etc
-how the fuck can someone injure something that exists only on paper?? at any rate, any case tried, or man accused, is generally done in a CIVIL situation. fines, infringements etc. all CIVIL matters, as no-one has been injured. (if you ever get to court for a "crime", ask for the injured party to come forward, a man has a right to face his accuser)

Will re-look into the rest of this post later, suffering from man-flu.
But Possession is a crime. It does not injured party - in fact a good 50% of the law is based around potential to injure.
Don't believe me, grab a big knife and dance around town. You could be a butcher in a butchery, but it won't matter a damn as you have caused "Potential to cause harm" which is enough.
Get in your car - high as a kite and drive below the speed limit. Don't be surprised if your picked up within 5 minutes. The cops won't know the fact that your high as a kite..........they will be pulling you over due to the fact that you are showing signs that you could cause harm.

I personally believe that MJ on its own is not dangerous, but I also understand the lack of self control of some people. Sometimes its good to give the cops a reason to save the rest of us.
I think some cops also hold this mentality. Speeding, drugs, firearms etc are simply an excuse for these guys to nab someone who could harm others.
In these situations the accuser is represented by the police. But they are representing the people. For right or wrong this is the way it is done.
Don't like it - convince the rest of NZ that it needs to change. That's how it got there in the first place. Don't forget that a court of law, was established by the people, for the people. If you want that gone, you have to remove it the same way.

Just forget, sometimes the police joined the force - not to enforce the laws, but to save peoples lives. And many do it on a daily basis. Sometimes that means taking not so nice people off the streets...........who just happen to also have drugs. But you and I know that if you don't put yourself on their radar - they leave you alone.
Just like everything else in life.

[Akzle]

...But Possession is a crime.

... you could cause harm.

...a court of law, was established by the people, for the people.

1) no it isn't. it's an infringement of legislation. /civil offence.

2) i could do as much harm with a ball point pen (it's why they chain them down at the bank y'know)

3) not it wasn't. a "court of law" is a disputes resolution arena. notably, today's courts are based on a) admiralty law (where the captain of the ship (judge) rules on matters his crew bring before him and dishes out whips/rations/duties accordingly) and/or b) administration of corporate trust accounts.

[avgas]

1) no it isn't. it's an infringement of legislation. /civil offence.

Then why are you arguing for decriminalization?

[Drew]

Then why are you arguing for decriminalization?

Oooohhhhh, a possible crack (I'm not reading through pages of green text to see if he actually has used that term, or said legalise). Quick people, get a wedge in there to keep it open before it closes.

[SMOKEU]

Very true, I could get tips from one of these fellows on baccy growing?
I'm keen to give it a go (baccy, not whacky)

Start NOW as our growing season is short. Sprinkle some tobacco seeds on top of potting mix in small pots (don't cover the seeds with soil) and grow them in a sunny windowsill for the next 2 months. Then, plant them outdoors in the ground in an area with full sun, and water them regularly. Chop the suckers off as soon as they appear. You want the plants about 1m apart from one another. Don't try to grow too many plants in a small area.

When sprinkling the seeds, sprinkle them VERY lightly as even half a teaspoon of seeds will be enough for several hundred plants.

[Akzle]

Then why are you arguing for decriminalization?

who is?
i don't give a FF what their rules are. i'm'a do my own thang.

and FWIW i would argue for full scale "legalisation" of pretty much every drug.
who's going to bother associating with teh gangs if they can buy good heroin at the corner dairy? at a stated dose, regulated price and consistent known quality?

and why oh why, do doctors get to prescribe pretty much the same drugs in the name of medicine? is it so terrible that people should use them for recreation?