Is This Right?

[agchristie]

As tobacco smokers face hefty price rises and facing further restrictions on where they can smoke, small scale cannabis users are not to be pursued says the Durham PCC...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cannabis-growers-should-not-face-prosecution-says-police-chief-who-has-stopped-targeting-smallscale-producers-10405887.html

[woofgang]

Two different things here. One is one man's opinion on what he should do with the resources under his control, the other is the law of the land.

[agchristie]

I am s non smoker and I realise the police need to make savings but this seems rather perverse to me.

What about the phrase 'mighty oaks from acorns' too?

[woofgang]

quoi?

[agchristie]

Woofgang, to clarify, that was my phrase. Small scale users could turn to harder drugs and be a supplier in the future if he/she feels that the law are turning a blind eye....

[Old_Geezer]

Never believed that argument held much water. Hard drug users are almost inevitably going to have tried softer drugs previously, but to conclude use of softer drugs leads to use of harder is pure speculation. I see no evidence of that. One takes what one chooses.

As for pursuing soft drug use. It doesn't seem a good use of legal resource to me. And I'd agree isn't really comparable to laws trying to make the environment a better place for us all to be in.

[EDDIE51]

I would be in favour of decriminalizing cannabis use. (not legalising there is a huge difference) if use is decriminalised you can concentrate on stopping the importers and suppliers. Legalising it would just mean it was sold by huge international companies as tobacco is. No supply so no users.

[agchristie]

I often hear from smokers that they feel that they are made out to be criminals! In public, I often smell the horrible waft of cannabis.

Social Housing Landlords are expected to act on any drug use as a breach of tenancy. What if they didn't bother as they also have bigger issues to deal with? In high rise flats drug use makes lives a misery as the smell gets everywhere from communal areas, lifts and other tenant's flats.

[-Talbot-]

It's about all the negativity surrounding cannabis because I think it is a lovely plant.

Coppers have been turning a blind eye to a personal growth for many years now, this is nothing new.

[ummmm]

I don't believe that cannabis leads to harder drugs. If someone wants to get wasted on hard drugs, they will, regardless of whether they've smoked cannabis or not.

They people I know that take hard drugs have issues they are running away from.

[Togo]

Years ago Peter Tosh sang about this subject on a song called Bush Doctor.
Go listen. Just off to make a nice chocolate cake .[*_*]

[Old_Geezer]

It is a different problem if someone is making a communal residential area nasty to live in. But casual use of soft drugs, responsibly cleared up, should not cause that; and should be low priority for police and landlords alike.

[Gromit]

Two entirely different things that are not comparable.

The cannabis smokers face the same restrictions on WHERE they can smoke as normal smokers. I have no idea of the price of the green bush cannabis, but I imagine it will be more expensive than regular cigarettes. Perhaps they should put the same duty on the cannabis.

[ToraToraTora]

well the smoking restrictions do apply to smoking dope don't they?

[youngmafbog]

If the Government had any sense it would legalize cannabis and prostitution, just think of the revenues it would generate. Would also clear the street of undesirables and eliminate the 'will move to hard drugs' from the equation.

[New Judge]

Indeed they do, 3Ts. But there's a little more to it than that.

“The cannabis smokers face the same restrictions on WHERE they can smoke as normal smokers.”

That’s not quite correct. The “No Smoking” legislation (which was introduced in 2007 and prevents you smoking a cigarette in the pub) applies to all substances. Here’s an extract from the legislation:

…“smoking” refers to smoking tobacco or anything which contains tobacco, or smoking any other substance, and

(b) smoking includes being in possession of lit tobacco or of anything lit which contains tobacco, or being in possession of any other lit substance in a form in which it could be smoked.

So, you are not permitted to light up your tobacco in the pub but you can legitimately go outside for a drag.

Similarly, under the above law, you are not permitted to light up your cannabis in the pub. However possession of a controlled drug (of which cannabis is class ‘B’) is an offence under the misuse of drugs act 1971 and carries a maximum of five years’ custody (for class B). So not only can you not light up in the pub but you also risk prosecution if you have cannabis in your possession (whether being smoked or not) anywhere else– including your own home. So there certainly are more restrictions on where cannabis can be smoked than those on tobacco.

The fact is that police in many areas have decided not to bother with offenders who have committed an offence which carries a maximum 5 year jail term. Quite who gave them the authority to pick and choose which offences they would arbitrarily rule effectively as being outside their jurisdiction is a little unclear and perhaps that needs looking into.

[EDDIE51]

I have been told that people use cannabis as it is cheaper than tobacco or alcohol!

[DaisyNonna]

No

[EDDIE51]

I know a few 'users' and they all say it is cheaper to get 'stoned' than it is to get drunk.

[venator]

The sooner we legalise it the better. It's less harmful than tobacco or alcohol.

The sale of Cameron Gold would raise billions in tax, and would stop users from seeking out dealers who push other drugs.

I've never used Cannabis or tobacco, but owe my extraordinary good health to regular doses of good Scottish malt!