Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Hide your drugs before kicking off a blue

johnboy 4 April 2011 45

A 43-year-old Kambah man will be summonsed to appear in the ACT Magistrates Court on a drug-related charge after police located a large cannabis plant at his home last Friday (April 1).

About 1.00pm police attended the man’s residence after receiving a call about a neighbourhood dispute. Inside his house police located a large cannabis plant growing in a rear room.

Police seized the plant as well as a small amount of loose cannabis.

The 43-year-old man is expected to be charged with manufacture/culture an illicit drug and will be summonsed to appear in court at a later date.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
45 Responses to Hide your drugs before kicking off a blue
Filter
Order
earthrepair earthrepair 12:18 pm 18 Apr 11

Ok Tooks; let’s sum up then.

You have become hopelessly confused seems. At least you can’t blame cannabis for it?
On discretion which is where the matter started just check what I actually wrote.
Obviously the Police don’t challenge the law as such.

Lord Scarman stated that:
…the exercise of discretion lies at the heart of the policing function. It is undeniable that
there is only one law for all: and it is right that this should be so. But it is equally well
recognised that successful policing depends on the exercise of discretion on how the law is
enforced. …Discretion is the art of suiting action to particular circumstances.
Discretion is a central and important feature of every decision made by a police officer to charge a
person. Members must consider issues such as fairness, justice, accountability, consistency and
wider community interests and expectations when deciding whether or not to prefer a charge
(Taylor, 1999)

Ie. There is a discretion not to charge – which I suggest is the appropriate action given that medicinal cannabis to registered users will, I believe, be available in Australia in the not too distant future, as is happening in the land of the FDA.
Yes, I have seen this discretion operating effectively, in contrast to your “black and white ” view and rigid interpretation which thankfully the police do not follow.

If you want to avoid confusion then don’t state as you did>
“Marinol, has been available to the public since 1985.”

N.B. Any suggestion for the police to deliberately clog up the courts would be dumb. Police rely on good relations with the community. See above “wider community interests”.

You will persist in talking about smoking. Why tell me about your idiot friend who liked to “smoke quite a bit”? No doubt he mixed in tobacco as well; a nice carcinogenic mix no doubt?
Where you and the stoners line up is in your obsession with sprouting (sic) on about smoking.

Never once have I said smoking anything is therapeutic, in fact the opposite.
There are alternatives to marinol, which I am glad you acknowledge is not available here, such as tincture, tea, comestibles and oil which are useful/therapeutic, according to millions around the world. Check the above utube link, at the start of our illuminating discusion. Also check the pharmacology if you think something synthetic is by it’s nature better than the original.

Tooks Tooks 8:17 am 18 Apr 11

Tooks last time I checked the FDA was an American authority?

So? You’re the one implying the synthetic drug was less effective than the plant.

Ours is called the TGA and marinol is not available here seems, from their web site.

Again, I brought up marinol because you implied it was less effective than the plant, which is why I added that paragraph. I never suggested marinol was available here. Once again, a case of poor comprehension on your part.

Is this another case of more misinformation you are propagating ( I won’t use “sprouting” – you are not creative enough for that) or perhaps you can enlighten us where it can be sourced here?

You are a dope (pun intended) I never said it was available here. See my above points on why I mentioned it in the first place. BTW, I never used the word sprouting and I’d suggest you don’t either if you can’t spell it or use it correctly.

In any event you are happy for people to have so called synthetic cannabis but not the plant. Makes no sense what you are saying. At least you are consistent in that.

Nope, you are wrong again (at least you are consistent) – never said that. What I did say is this:

“I’m dubious about its effects as medicine, doesn’t mean I don’t think people should be allowed to use it.”

The fact you want to spend this much time and effort arguing with someone who in essence agrees with you (about the need for drug law reform) demonstrates a mental impairment which should warrant a disabled sticker being permanently affixed to your forehead. You say the laws should be challenged by police not enforcing them, but that is highly flawed. In reality, the best way to challenge the system would be for police to rigorously enforce the laws, clogging up the Court system and filling the AMC. This would bring the issues to light and probably force change of some kind. [Disclaimer: No, earthrepair, I’m not suggesting this should happen. Just pointing out the flaw in your argument].

I remember a friend of mine who used to smoke quite a bit when he was younger. He’d impart his wisdom on various topics in a way he thought was deep, insightful and highly intellectual. Unfortunately, the reality was he was speaking nonsense (despite his impressive vocabulary), but I never had the heart to tell him, so I’d just nod politely and let him gibber. Unfortunately for you, I can no longer be bothered listening to you gibber.

I’ll let you have the last say on this thread (don’t spend too much time though, because I won’t be reading it) and maybe we’ll one day cross swords on another thread. Until then, choof on maaaan 🙂

earthrepair earthrepair 2:44 pm 17 Apr 11

Tooks last time I checked the FDA was an American authority? Ours is called the TGA and marinol is not available here seems, from their web site. Is this another case of more misinformation you are propagating ( I won’t use “sprouting” – you are not creative enough for that) or perhaps you can enlighten us where it can be sourced here?

In any event you are happy for people to have so called synthetic cannabis but not the plant. Makes no sense what you are saying. At least you are consistent in that.

You are going on about smoking cannabis, bongs etc.; as if that ever could be truly therapeutic. People should have that right if they wish, but it might surprise you to note there are other ways of ingesting cannabis which are far more effective without the hazards associated with smoking.

fgzk fgzk 11:40 am 17 Apr 11

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

Davo111 said :

earthrepair said :

Thirdly, “may” be a gateway to harder drugs.

Does that mean that if I start of on Cordial then I will go onto light beer then onto full strength beer then onto spirits etc etc etc ……?

Yes, red cordial only.

earthrepair said :

The reason it is not in a document is that we don’t have a Bill Of Rights. My point is that it should be a right we all have to grow any plant for our own use.

No we are not talking about drugs on the Rosa Parks bus we are simply stating your argument logically would call for her arrest which most decent people would see as unethical. I can see it must hard for you to follow the analogy.

What am I to do, give you names of people who have avoided being busted for cannabis offences. Yes there are many, but it is a pointless argument as it cannot be proved by statement of this kind.
It is called police discretion and it shows the police are brighter than you thankfully. The rule of law relies on common sense in how the police apply the law. They want to promote good relations in the community whereas your outdated (childish as you say) unsupported (I believe) views generally do the opposite.

It just shows how out of touch you are in that you do not recognize the therapeutic benefits of cannabis, with I am sure many more uses in research stage. Millions of people say they benefit from it but no we are to listen to your ill informed opinion? {Quote Marinol was less effective than the steroid megestrol..}
Marinol is not cannabis, wake up, it is a synthetic. It is like saying a synthetic essence, say vanilla, is the same as the vanilla plant.

Behind a facade of initially trying to appear progressive on cannabis reform you have degenerated into what I suspected all along which is that you have no desire at all to make cannabis medicinally available for sufferers or in fact to make any changes.

If you think spending millions of dollars policing cannabis not to mention court costs and prison costs is a good use of public money then you are really deluded. I advise you to look around the world at evidence where the war on drugs has been lost and to educate yourself further on the issue.

What else do you have earthrepair. This is old ground. You claim that Tooks “is out of touch”.

Police show discretion when they want too. Being nice to police helps.

If there is a buck in it, like you claim, then existing drug companies and their massive resources will make it happen regardless of what you or I think. Discussion should move on to what we expect of the drug companies. Regardless, if you want pot now, its easy to get.

Policing would seem to be more concerned about a small group of illicit drug users, who are committing a large amount of property crime and other oddities. They soak up the budget. So far the vast majority of illegal drug users don’t attract police attention for their drug use. Bring on the new road rules.

I

Tooks Tooks 10:35 am 17 Apr 11

The reason it is not in a document is that we don’t have a Bill Of Rights. My point is that it should be a right we all have to grow any plant for our own use.

Your opinion. We have the Human Rights Act. Why isn’t it in there I wonder.

What am I to do, give you names of people who have avoided being busted for cannabis offences. Yes there are many, but it is a pointless argument as it cannot be proved by statement of this kind.

Yes it is pointless, so why did you bring it up in the first place?

It is called police discretion and it shows the police are brighter than you thankfully.

I must admit, that is funny for a reason you’ll probably remain ignorant of. It’s also funny because you still don’t understand how discretion works.

The rule of law relies on common sense in how the police apply the law.

Thank god you’re not a cop then. Or would the public support police who pick and choose what laws they enforced based solely on their personal opinions?

They want to promote good relations in the community whereas your outdated (childish as you say) unsupported (I believe) views generally do the opposite.

You really have no idea about law enforcement, do you?

It just shows how out of touch you are in that you do not recognize the therapeutic benefits of cannabis, with I am sure many more uses in research stage.

Quote where I said there are no therapeutic benefits (tip – don’t bother looking because you won’t find it). I do question whether it is more effective than other medicine though.

Millions of people say they benefit from it but no we are to listen to your ill informed opinion? {Quote Marinol was less effective than the steroid megestrol..}

Ill informed? You wrote the book on that.

Where’s your source for the millions of people saying they benefit from it? I can cite numerous sources doubting the effectiveness of cannabis as medicine when compared to more conventional meds.

Marinol is not cannabis, wake up, it is a synthetic. It is like saying a synthetic essence, say vanilla, is the same as the vanilla plant.

Thanks for the lesson champ. I know what Marinol is. So what you’re saying is a synthetic THC drug is not as effective as smoking the real stuff? Gotcha.

Marinol, has been available to the public since 1985. The Food and Drug Administration has determined that Marinol is safe, effective, and has therapeutic benefits for use as a treatment for nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy, and as a treatment of weight loss in patients with AIDS. However, it does not produce the harmful health effects associated with smoking marijuana.

Behind a facade of initially trying to appear progressive on cannabis reform you have degenerated into what I suspected all along which is that you have no desire at all to make cannabis medicinally available for sufferers or in fact to make any changes.

I have no need to lie about my opinion, imbecile. If I didn’t support legislation change, then that’s what I’d be saying. The fact I don’t think the drug is harmless and I’m dubious about its effects as medicine, doesn’t mean I don’t think people should be allowed to use it. Realistically, there’s not much preventing an ill person from smoking all the cannabis they want anyway (in the privacy of their own home).

If you think spending millions of dollars policing cannabis not to mention court costs and prison costs is a good use of public money then you are really deluded …

Wow, you’re really struggling now when you’re putting words I never said or even hinted at into my mouth.

I advise you to look around the world at evidence where the war on drugs has been lost and to educate yourself further on the issue.

See above. It’s quite pathetic that your entire argument revolves around calling me a liar. So I gather you support the legalisation of all illicit drugs then?

With ill-informed, bong toting muppets like you around spouting ignorant bollocks instead of useful arguments, I have no doubt the status quo will remain for the foreseeable future. Stop posting while under the influence or you may become a poster child for anti-cannabis campaigners.

earthrepair earthrepair 9:45 pm 16 Apr 11

The reason it is not in a document is that we don’t have a Bill Of Rights. My point is that it should be a right we all have to grow any plant for our own use.

No we are not talking about drugs on the Rosa Parks bus we are simply stating your argument logically would call for her arrest which most decent people would see as unethical. I can see it must hard for you to follow the analogy.

What am I to do, give you names of people who have avoided being busted for cannabis offences. Yes there are many, but it is a pointless argument as it cannot be proved by statement of this kind.
It is called police discretion and it shows the police are brighter than you thankfully. The rule of law relies on common sense in how the police apply the law. They want to promote good relations in the community whereas your outdated (childish as you say) unsupported (I believe) views generally do the opposite.

It just shows how out of touch you are in that you do not recognize the therapeutic benefits of cannabis, with I am sure many more uses in research stage. Millions of people say they benefit from it but no we are to listen to your ill informed opinion? {Quote Marinol was less effective than the steroid megestrol..}
Marinol is not cannabis, wake up, it is a synthetic. It is like saying a synthetic essence, say vanilla, is the same as the vanilla plant.

Behind a facade of initially trying to appear progressive on cannabis reform you have degenerated into what I suspected all along which is that you have no desire at all to make cannabis medicinally available for sufferers or in fact to make any changes.

If you think spending millions of dollars policing cannabis not to mention court costs and prison costs is a good use of public money then you are really deluded. I advise you to look around the world at evidence where the war on drugs has been lost and to educate yourself further on the issue.

Rawhide Kid Part3 Rawhide Kid Part3 5:49 pm 16 Apr 11

Davo111 said :

earthrepair said :

Thirdly, “may” be a gateway to harder drugs.

Does that mean that if I start of on Cordial then I will go onto light beer then onto full strength beer then onto spirits etc etc etc ……?

Tooks Tooks 3:16 pm 16 Apr 11

The answers to your questions have been in above posts.

You answered none of my questions from my last post. All you’ve done is re-hash (ha) your tired argument that police shouldn’t enforce cannabis laws because, well, you don’t like those laws, therefore they are unjust. Outstanding logic there.

The police every day exercise discretion in how to apply the law. This can involve bringing charges or not doing so.

Yes, as I’ve already explained to you when I told you about other methods of dealing with crimes. Methods you described as absurd earlier on. So what you’re suggesting is police ignore it and do nothing, because that’s how you challenge the current laws, right?

It is not as you suggest the smoking granny but real people with pain and suffering who ask to exercise their basic human right be allowed to grow their own medicinal cannabis, and in some circumstances have been harassed by police.

How many stoners do you honestly know who use it for medicinal purposes? I won’t get into the argument of medicinal marijuana other than to say there is great debate about its effectiveness versus other medicines [eg. Marinol was less effective than the steroid megestrol in helping cancer patients regain lost appetites]. You have lost the plot – it’s now a basic human right for people to grow their own cannabis? Quote the section of the human rights act which allows anyone to grow their own cannabis. BTW, police often ‘harass’ people for breaking the law – it’s what they’re paid for.

The analogy to the civil rights movement in the US is apt and I notice you have not remarked on your alter ego playing the role of the hypothetical/hypocritical bus passenger viz Rosa Parks.

That’s because it’s a retarded analogy as I’ve explained before and I won’t dignify it with an answer. If Ms Parks had been arrested for smoking bongs on the bus, that might be an apt analogy, but she wasn’t, so drop it.

My guess is that there would be thousands of Australians who have been stopped with cannabis in their pocket but have been sent on their way.

Your guess. So you have no examples. Thank you. I do give you credit for not making up an example though.

To do otherwise would by and large be a complete waste of police time.

Issuing a caution or SCON takes very little time, actually. Who are you to say what’s a waste of police time anyway? Do you represent the wider community?

And in terms of discretion yes I don’t know the specifics of the case as I was not standing there when this guy had his run in with his neighbour and unlike you I won’t jump to conclusions.

Pot. Kettle, etc etc. This isn’t jumping to conclusions? :

“Why should people be fined for growing a plant that has clear medicinal benefits. Yes, sheer stupidity. A waste of everyone’s time and no doubt the poor bastard busted will take it out on society later. Wake up people – are your cops and politicians really trying to make your lives better?”

Problem at present with the cannabis issue is that most see it as a dope smoking issue when the reality is much broader. A multi million dollar industry with healing and industrial potential is being held up by ignorance. All the information is out there but encouraging the pot smoker to mull up with his tobacco is not what it is about. Nor is it about your fascist interpretation of the law.

Childish comment. Yes, I’m a fascist because I think police should enforce drug laws.

earthrepair earthrepair 10:25 pm 15 Apr 11

The answers to your questions have been in above posts.

The police every day exercise discretion in how to apply the law. This can involve bringing charges or not doing so. Check the Scarman reference.

It is not as you suggest the smoking granny but real people with pain and suffering who ask to exercise their basic human right be allowed to grow their own medicinal cannabis, and in some circumstances have been harassed by police.

The analogy to the civil rights movement in the US is apt and I notice you have not remarked on your alter ego playing the role of the hypothetical/hypocritical bus passenger viz Rosa Parks.
My guess is that there would be thousands of Australians who have been stopped with cannabis in their pocket but have been sent on their way.
To do otherwise would by and large be a complete waste of police time.

And in terms of discretion yes I don’t know the specifics of the case as I was not standing there when this guy had his run in with his neighbour and unlike you I won’t jump to conclusions.

Problem at present with the cannabis issue is that most see it as a dope smoking issue when the reality is much broader. A multi million dollar industry with healing and industrial potential is being held up by ignorance. All the information is out there but encouraging the pot smoker to mull up with his tobacco is not what it is about. Nor is it about your fascist interpretation of the law.

Not Not 6:58 am 12 Apr 11

The love on this thread is strong!! Bless the threads that stimulate communication between citizens, regardless of their misguided and nonsensical understanding. xx

Tooks Tooks 9:18 pm 11 Apr 11

To be honest, I couldn’t be bothered reading your last post (I skimmed through it) earthrepair, and not just because you completely stuffed the formatting and failed to answer pretty much every point I made in an even remotely sensible way.

The fact you admit you think police should not enforce the law in relation to cannabis is idiotic beyond my understanding. If you honestly think that’s how law enforcement works – or should work – then you’re one cone short of a party.

I will answer the last part of the post though:

1) Cannabis laws need to be changed :
Best way to change a law is to challenge it.. You are not calling for that rather you want its enforcement.

So you’re idea of challenging the law is by not enforcing it? Do you not see the flaw in that argument?

2) Police should enforce the law as it stands :
Correct as a general statement – but they can and do exercise discretion which can involve not charging a person at all.

No, it’s correct full stop. Explain to me your understanding of police discretion, because you seem to be way out of your depth. Give me a real life example where police have taken NO action in a cannabis offence.

Which one of those opinions is particularly dumb? On another note, what do you think police should’ve done with the bloke mentioned in the OP?
N.B. Why ask me a dumb question like that. I have no idea of the specific circumstances of this case.

Hmm, then why did you write this when you didn’t know the specific circumstances of this case?:

Why should people be fined for growing a plant that has clear medicinal benefits.

So you can ask me dumb questions about an unrealistic scenario (the old pot smoking granny) with bugger all specifics, but I can’t ask you for your opinion about a real case that you’ve already commented on despite not knowing the specific circumstances?

earthrepair earthrepair 9:33 pm 10 Apr 11

If you ask Tooks whether it would be ethical/moral to charge and prosecute Rosa Parks in those days he would blurt out. Yes, because it is illegal (what she did).

Grow up. Assumptions make you look stupid and add nothing to your argument. The Rosa Parks incident happened decades before I was born and bears no resemblance to anything that would happen in 2011 in Canberra. It’s a ridiculous point.

NB. The point I was making was in those circumstances, at that time, as I said “in those days” do you support her arrest? Obviously you were not there. Jeez, powers of comprehension? Yes you have some way to go.

You are like a (hypothetical..) person sitting on the bus agreeing that Rosa Parks should have been arrested but at the same time saying you support civil rights.

Presumably if you asked him the same question but this time the victim was say a pensioner growing a plant in their living room he would say the same. Yes, because it is illegal.

Another comment making you look stupid and a good demonstration of your ignorance of policing. I love your black and white view of the world thinking police will charge for everything. Not all situations warrant the same response. I’m guessing you’re basing these assumptions on this comment I made earlier in the thread:

N.B. Why guess? Yes you are saying that a pensioner with a medical problem that may be helped with cannabis should be charged or dealt with in some other absurd way (see below). That is the basis of your argument.

It may surprise you that enforcing a law may involve charges OR caution OR drug diversion OR SCON etc.

NB. It doesn’t surprise me at all. However there is a discretion also for the police to ignore the incident as at present the logic in the law is corrupt and unworkable. The current paradigm if enforced has just criminalised the majority of Australians seems so why push for its enforcement when discretion sais they can ignore the incident too.

Great idea send them off for drug diversion when the reason they are taking cannabis could be to avoid a cocktail of nasty pharmaceuticals. Sorry SCON is apparently not available as it’s indoors. Caution; well it’s a black mark against them for doing no harm ie. Punish a person for doing something that harms nobody and does not support a black market. Smart.

Thankfully Tooks there are people around prepared to stand up to injustice or you might not be in a position today to even voice your dumb opinion.

Your ignorance is astounding. If you are going to reply, at least work on your comprehension skills. It’s embarrassing you’ve managed to base an entire argument on a misunderstanding of “police have to enforce it” (the law).

N.B. No you are the one supporting the unsupportable with deficient logic. You are right to be embarrassed.

Dumb opinion? Well let’s see, my opinions on this topic can be summarised as follows:
1) Cannabis laws need to be changed : Best way to change a law is to challenge it.. You are not calling for that rather you want its enforcement.
2) Police should enforce the law as it stands : Correct as a general statement – but they can and do exercise discretion which can involve not charging a person at all.

Which one of those opinions is particularly dumb? On another note, what do you think police should’ve done with the bloke mentioned in the OP?

N.B. Why ask me a dumb question like that. I have no idea of the specific circumstances of this case.

Tooks Tooks 1:43 pm 10 Apr 11

fgzk said :

Tooks “What a shame none of the cannabis users have the motivation to get off their arses and try to make a change.”

I think its more about patients then motivation. Its a good time to have a meaningful discussion about illegal drugs. Change needs to come first with the legal drugs. One example : How we market tobacco is changing. Next alcohol needs to change along the same lines. (As if) Then it might be possible to have a framework that allows some of the illegal drugs to be controlled in the legal market place. No advertising, restricted places of sale and plain packaging.

There are plenty of opportunities to find a system of laws and services to reduce the problems with alcohol. Then maybe, some of these lessons can be used for the drugs that are now illegal. Alice Springs would be a good place to start.

Till then, getting baked and chillin is easy, just don’t get caught.

You and I don’t often see eye to eye, but I agree with pretty much everything you just wrote.

Tooks Tooks 9:10 am 10 Apr 11

If you ask Tooks whether it would be ethical/moral to charge and prosecute Rosa Parks in those days he would blurt out. Yes, because it is illegal (what she did).

Grow up. Assumptions make you look stupid and add nothing to your argument. The Rosa Parks incident happened decades before I was born and bears no resemblance to anything that would happen in 2011 in Canberra. It’s a ridiculous point.

Presumably if you asked him the same question but this time the victim was say a pensioner growing a plant in their living room he would say the same. Yes, because it is illegal.

Another comment making you look stupid and a good demonstration of your ignorance of policing. I love your black and white view of the world thinking police will charge for everything. Not all situations warrant the same response. I’m guessing you’re basing these assumptions on this comment I made earlier in the thread:

“While it is illegal, police have to enforce it”

It may surprise you that enforcing a law may involve charges OR caution OR drug diversion OR SCON etc.

Thankfully Tooks there are people around prepared to stand up to injustice or you might not be in a position today to even voice your dumb opinion.

Your ignorance is astounding. If you are going to reply, at least work on your comprehension skills. It’s embarrassing you’ve managed to base an entire argument on a misunderstanding of “police have to enforce it” (the law).

Dumb opinion? Well let’s see, my opinions on this topic can be summarised as follows:

1) Cannabis laws need to be changed
2) Police should enforce the law as it stands

Which one of those opinions are particularly dumb? On another note, what do you think police should’ve done with the bloke mentioned in the OP?

fgzk fgzk 8:35 am 10 Apr 11

Tooks “What a shame none of the cannabis users have the motivation to get off their arses and try to make a change.”

I think its more about patients then motivation. Its a good time to have a meaningful discussion about illegal drugs. Change needs to come first with the legal drugs. One example : How we market tobacco is changing. Next alcohol needs to change along the same lines. (As if) Then it might be possible to have a framework that allows some of the illegal drugs to be controlled in the legal market place. No advertising, restricted places of sale and plain packaging.

There are plenty of opportunities to find a system of laws and services to reduce the problems with alcohol. Then maybe, some of these lessons can be used for the drugs that are now illegal. Alice Springs would be a good place to start.

Till then, getting baked and chillin is easy, just don’t get caught.

earthrepair earthrepair 8:49 pm 09 Apr 11

If you ask Tooks whether it would be ethical/moral to charge and prosecute Rosa Parks in those days he would blurt out. Yes, because it is illegal (what she did).
Presumably if you asked him the same question but this time the victim was say a pensioner growing a plant in their living room he would say the same. Yes, because it is illegal.
Thankfully Tooks there are people around prepared to stand up to injustice or you might not be in a position today to even voice your dumb opinion.

Also you missed the point I was talking generally about police discretion, not the Kambah case; in response to your broken record ” yes..because it is illegal”.

Tooks Tooks 5:36 pm 09 Apr 11

Jethro said :

Tooks said :

Jethro said :

Tooks said :

earthrepair said :

Why should people be fined for growing a plant that has clear medicinal benefits.
Yes, sheer stupidity. A waste of everyone’s time and no doubt the poor bastard busted will take it out on society later. Wake up people – are your cops and politicians really trying to make your lives better?

Because it’s illegal. This argument comes up every time someone is busted with cannabis and I feel like a broken record but – it is illegal.

What a circular argument. The reason people should be punished for doing X is because X is illegal. Would that be the case in any circumstance?

It’s a pretty simple concept really. Break the law, pay the consequences.

So, you would have supported Rosa Parks being punished for sitting down on the bus, simply because that was the law? Why can’t people question the wisdom of punishing people for breaking a law that shouldn’t exist?

When did I ever say people can’t question the law?

Everyone is well aware that cannabis is illegal though, and while that is the case, you risk getting sprung and paying the consequences. Do I agree with the current drug laws? No, I don’t. On the other side of the coin, do I agree that law enforcement (police, customs et al) should be bagged for enforcing the laws? No, I don’t and I think it’s a childish attitude to take.

Tooks Tooks 4:47 pm 09 Apr 11

You support the status quo by default because you want others, if any, to do something about it.

What a load of crap. I’ve indicated many times that the cannabis laws need to be updated/changed etc. Explain how that supports the status quo.

I will quote you chapter and verse if you like but you are wrong. The police have considerable discretion whether to charge a person or not, in fact it is at the heart of good policing.

You have no practical knowledge of police discretion and if you think good policing is turning a blind eye to blatant incidents like this (and if you knew more about the incident, you might change your view about discretion), then you have no idea what you’re on about.

Jethro Jethro 2:41 pm 09 Apr 11

Tooks said :

Jethro said :

Tooks said :

earthrepair said :

Why should people be fined for growing a plant that has clear medicinal benefits.
Yes, sheer stupidity. A waste of everyone’s time and no doubt the poor bastard busted will take it out on society later. Wake up people – are your cops and politicians really trying to make your lives better?

Because it’s illegal. This argument comes up every time someone is busted with cannabis and I feel like a broken record but – it is illegal.

What a circular argument. The reason people should be punished for doing X is because X is illegal. Would that be the case in any circumstance?

It’s a pretty simple concept really. Break the law, pay the consequences.

So, you would have supported Rosa Parks being punished for sitting down on the bus, simply because that was the law? Why can’t people question the wisdom of punishing people for breaking a law that shouldn’t exist?

earthrepair earthrepair 11:50 am 09 Apr 11

Tooks
The Tokes (sic) was a joke..

You support the status quo by default because you want others, if any, to do something about it.

Re : your broken record, take it off the turntable and toss it into the rubbish.
I will quote you chapter and verse if you like but you are wrong. The police have considerable discretion whether to charge a person or not, in fact it is at the heart of good policing.

Just google Lord Scarman and discretion etc.; or perhaps you know better?

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2020 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | riotact.com.cn | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site