Cannabis law change. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

missturbation -> Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 5:52:59 AM)

Cannabis has now become a class B drug in the UK, it used to be a class c.
 
quote:

Magistrates welcomed the reclassification but said planned fines for possessing small amounts undermined the more serious classification.
They said it sent the signal cannabis is not as bad as other Class B drugs.
Plans to introduce a "three strikes" system for cannabis possession start with a warning, then an £80 spot fine for a second offence. Scotland and Northern Ireland have opted out of this penalties arrangement for England and Wales, retaining the former system for class B drugs. Only when a third offence is committed, will the person be liable to arrest and prosecution.

Currently, police can only warn or prosecute people caught in possession of cannabis.
The maximum prison term for possessing cannabis rises from two to five years with its reclassification.


Taken from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7850342.stm


Seems kinda goofy to me [8|]



colouredin -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 5:55:13 AM)

Ohh so its suddenly bad again? [8|]

Wont make much differance to be honest, the declassification didnt mean suddenly everyone was smoking it, its pointless.



missturbation -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 6:03:14 AM)

I agree it won't make a jot of difference.
 
My confusion is though that if cannabis is bad enough to be reclassified as a class b drug then shouldn't the penalties be that of a class b drug?
By introducing this three step plan they are saying it's class b but not as bad as a class b. The mind boggles !!



colouredin -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 6:04:02 AM)

Maybe it was just a slow day at the office



Aneirin -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 10:47:11 AM)

Maybe it is just about control, those that classify want to be seen to be doing something, but in reality they are just clueless as to what. Perhaps yet another example of lack of definition, the British wavy line of control.



missturbation -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 11:02:41 AM)

i just think that if cannabis is a class b drug then the penalties of being caught with it should be those of any other class b drug.
If not make it a class c drug again. [:D]



FRSguy -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 11:22:09 AM)

Geeeeezzzz.... I thought you guys were lightning up on that crap.  Why is it you have to follow closer to the U.S. system when the U.S is constantly being blasted by the U.N. and the international red cross.... I mean guys... come on. Whats next your going to make it a ten year sentence and make them sleep on concrete floors and live off balognie sandwitches??? They will never lighten up in the U.S. without any kind of model to follow.



aravain -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 12:42:28 PM)

*sings* It's... reefer madness, reefer madness...



Vendaval -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 3:04:32 PM)

Perhaps this is a way to increase revenue by having more people arrested and posting bail?  But if they are in prison for 5 rather than 2 years then they are not working and yer tax payers are paying for their room and board.  Seems like a dumb idea all around to me.



philosophy -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 3:42:29 PM)

FR

..the problem is that the legal system is predicated on harm. So, a less harmful drug is class C, a more harmful one class A. A few years back, wise lawmakers downgraded the canabis products then available to class C. Since then though the rise of hydroponic skunk has changed the rules somewhat. Skunk has a much higher chance of triggering the organic psychosis that grass can occasionaly set off. Really, a much MUCH higher chance. The UK authorities really ought to reclassify skunk as higher than class C.....their failure is in not drawing a legal distinction between skunk and original grass.
Now, don't get me wrong, i'm an adocate of legalisation....but this new approach from the UK government is consistent, given their legal framework and assumptions.



Vendaval -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 3:47:30 PM)

Ah hah...thank you for the explanation to someone not familiar with the UK legal system, phil.



philosophy -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 3:49:26 PM)

Anytime........although if it's anything to do with tort law you're on your own.......[:D]



Vendaval -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 4:00:32 PM)

Torts and tarts and judges with 18th Century wigs?  Whigs and Tories?  [:D]



philosophy -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 4:01:31 PM)

Don't forget the Chief Whip.......



Vendaval -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 4:03:27 PM)

Is that what they have underneath those ridiculous long robes?  [sm=sm.gif]
 
Sotto voce, "Meet me in my chambers".



slaveboyforyou -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 4:03:57 PM)

So what is the penalty for simple possession now that cannabis has been rescheduled?  When they say cannabis, is that solely marijuana or does it include hash too? 



philosophy -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 4:07:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

Is that what they have underneath those ridiculous long robes?  [sm=sm.gif]
 
Sotto voce, "Meet me in my chambers".


...always wondered what they used that Bar for.....[:D]



Crush -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 4:07:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: aravain

*sings* It's... reefer madness, reefer madness...


I'm going to ask you a straightforward question: isn't it true that you have, perhaps unwillingly, acquired a certain habit through association with certain undesirable people?
- Doc Carol

Tell your children! 

-
“Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.”[image]http://thinkexist.com/i/sq/as0.gif[/image] William F. Buckley, Jr. quotes (American Writer, b.1925)



Aneirin -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 4:52:59 PM)

I really bet the government wished it had control of it and there tax it, dangerous though it may be. But smoking tobacco is dangerous according to they, they tax it and tax it heavily, methinks wonders what will fill the hole left by tobacco when the governmet achieves it's goal of wiping tobacco consumption off our land



UncleNasty -> RE: Cannabis law change. (1/27/2009 5:30:02 PM)

With the worsening economic debacle they have to find new and reliable sources of revenue. Fleecing people for doing something relatively harmless is a good way to do it.

Uncle Nasty



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0390625