Caught with 18 ounces of weed

Chuck Stone

Randy Anders wrote: »

My mate got caught with 12 grands worth of grass and this is exactly what his solicitor(who is very well known) told him to do. He ended up getting 5 months in jail, 3 of which were suspended

Maurice 'Maury' Levy (Lawyer): You are feeding off the violence and the despair of the drug trade. You are stealing from those who themselves are stealing the lifeblood from our city. You are a parasite who leeches off the culture of drugs...

Omar Little: Just like you, man.

Maurice 'Maury' Levy: Excuse me? What?

Omar Little: I got the shotgun. You got the briefcase. It's all in the game though, right?

The Wire.

mattjack

Randy Anders wrote: »

My mate got caught with 12 grands worth of grass and this is exactly what his solicitor(who is very well known) told him to do. He ended up getting 5 months in jail, 3 of which were suspended

This was the very best case scenario, he was originally told by another solicitor to expect an 18month sentence

Just goes to show how the courts can be manipulated in your favour. If you have to lie to save your ass, you do it

Can you just turn up and book yourself into rehab , some private clinics like the Rutland centre charge around about 11 thousand for treatment.I'd imagine public treatment has waiting times .

FreudianSlippers

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Prohibition of cannabis, along with other illegal drugs, would make a up a considerable percentage of the work these people do. Let's say enforcing the prohibition illegal drugs costs €500 million - well that €500 m worth of incentive to not relax the laws on drugs.

Go ahead and tease that out further. You'll find it's nonsense. If you mean we are wasting money prosecuting minor possession of cannabis, I won't disagree - but it does not mean the list of people you claim are "making money" from the illegality are actually doing so. They would still be employed and doing the same jobs.

Abuse of drugs and use of drugs are two different issues. The point stands.

They are not, any use of drugs can be seen as an abuse of them.

Are you accusing me of being involved with criminal activity or is this a poor attempt at humour?

Clearly you are not seeing the logical error you have made:

As it stands possession is illegal. If personal consumption amounts were illegal you claim it is not enough.
My question was why would personal possession amounts not be sufficient unless you/one wished to kick off (which means start or begin, BTW) a large scale manufacturing or distribution system.

Would it be criminal activity if it was illegal EDIT: sorry that should say Legal. Would starting a manufacturing/distribution system be "criminal activity" if cannabis was completely legalised? Perhaps I'm out of the criminal law game too long, but last time I checked doing something that isn't illegal is not "criminal activity" but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that one.

AFAIK there hasn't been one recorded death from overdosing on weed. The illegality of weed is very harmful. Far more harmful that the drug itself.

Overdose does not mean death, classic error. The negative impacts of excessive long-term THC consumption are lesser than those of cigarettes and alcohol, but are significant nonetheless. (link posted earlier with sources)

Above and beyond all this it's immoral to criminalize people because of a lifestyle choice.

This is pure nonsense. There is nothing immoral about making things/acts/etc illegal.
Are you saying paedophiles are just living out a lifestyle choice and it's immoral to criminalise it?
How about rapists?
Where do you draw the line on drugs? Legalise all drugs? Is there governmental control on the quality of drugs?

Drug prohibition is a fantastic farce.

I wholeheartedly agree. Let's decriminalise and regulate cannabis for personal use.

FreudianSlippers

charlemont wrote: »

The only person that's being ridiculous here is yourself, Nit picking at my posts because you can't agree with them, As for getting an infraction for that post just shows you up for what you obviously are. If you cant discuss without issuing infractions then what I said about you is clearly correct..

Can't handle how some of us see the illegality of cannabis for what it really is, But sure don't let the truth get in the way..

As I stated in the reason you have been infracted for this post as well: As in all fora on boards, questioning moderator direction (i.e. support your claim), personal attacks (calling people dictators) and questioning infractions on thread (see this post) are against the rules.

You will note that Chuck Stone (who happens to disagree with me on this issue) and all of the other posters on this thread have received no infractions because they have not resorted to name-calling, have not questioned the directions I have made for the discussion (i.e. to support your claim; rather than just issuing a vague comment).

If you feel that you can come up with a logical and valid point that is not vague and unsubstantiated by either external evidence or clear logic of your own opinion then I suggest you re-evaluate your posting style and technique in this forum.

FreudianSlippers

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Is it really so hard to grasp that prohibition takes money from the tax-paying public and places it in the wages and fees of Gardai and legal people?

Obviously it is that hard to grasp. I've said it needs to be explained now multiple times, so explain it. This is the last warning regarding vague and unexplained statements.

Chuck Stone

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

They are not, any use of drugs can be seen as an abuse of them.

This is nothing more than foolish clutching at straws. You equate having two glasses of wine with a meal once a week drug abuse? Cop on.

My question was why would personal possession amounts not be sufficient unless you/one wished to kick off (which means start or begin, BTW) a large scale manufacturing or distribution system.

Slippery. I'd hazard a guess people would grow their own so large scale cultivation would not be an issue.

This is pure nonsense. There is nothing immoral about making things/acts/etc illegal.
Are you saying paedophiles are just living out a lifestyle choice and it's immoral to criminalise it?
How about rapists?

It's apt that 'this is pure nonsense' prefixes the gibberish written underneath it.

This an oft trotted out strawman by the ill-informed. Rape and sexual abuse by their very definition are crimes against unwilling individuals.

Drug use (not abuse) is a lifestyle choice.

Equating rape and sexual abuse of children with drug use betrays the level of thought you have put into the issue i.e. very little.

Where do you draw the line on drugs? Legalise all drugs? Is there governmental control on the quality of drugs?

Legalise the whole lot would be my stance. Starting with weed and working up to the most addictive. Money currently spent on criminalising drug use and importation could be directed into treatment programs and harm prevention campaigns.

I wholeheartedly agree. Let's decriminalise and regulate cannabis for personal use.

Tell me. How the hell do you propose to regulate something Granny can grow down the back garden in a small poly tunnel?

You really haven't given this much thought have you?

BunShopVoyeur

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Obviously it is that hard to grasp. I've said it needs to be explained now multiple times, so explain it. This is the last warning regarding vague and unexplained statements.

So you're going to ban him for disagreeing with you?

MagicSean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Slippery. I'd hazard a guess people would grow their own so large scale cultivation would not be an issue.

If that were true there would be no such thing as fruit and veg stores.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Legalise the whole lot would be my stance. Starting with weed and working up to the most addictive. Money currently spent on criminalising drug use and importation could be directed into treatment programs and harm prevention campaigns.

And do you think that will reduce the crime rate? You don't think heroin adicts will still rob whatever they can. Or will people off their head on coke suddenly stop being violent?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Tell me. How the hell do you propose to regulate something Granny can grow down the back garden in a small poly tunnel?

You really haven't given this much thought have you?

It's very simple. Legalise posession up to a certain quantity.

FreudianSlippers

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

So you're going to ban him for disagreeing with you?

That is clearly not what I said. I have no problem with disagreeing with someone on this or any other forum, but the rule I'm here to implement is that if you make a vague statement it needs to be explained. He/she has said 3 times that the Gardaí and "lawyers" make money personally off of the illegality of cannabis. I have told him/her on each occasion that this claim needs to be explained or substantiated.

You will see, that I have not threatened a ban to anyone for disagreeing with me. I have said that I will not be giving out any more warnings for making vague and unexplained statements on this thread.

I think I have also given more than sufficient warnings about backseat moderation and questioning moderator decisions on thread too.

Chuck Stone

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Obviously it is that hard to grasp. I've said it needs to be explained now multiple times, so explain it. This is the last warning regarding vague and unexplained statements.

The U.S. federal government spent over $15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $500 per second.

http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

It's axiomatic that the $15 Billion dollars is used to pay for prisons, prosecutions in the courts, enforced drug treatment, drug squad police etc.

As I said earlier in the thread that's $15 Billion worth of incentive to keep the farce going.

But what of the "personal interest" some have in maintaining the status quo? According to Sen. Boucher, she came to oppose reforming Connecticut's marijuana laws after talking with (wait for it):
"a variety of people who work in drug treatment facilities, medical centers and police departments—'people that have to deal with the after-effects' of the drug."
In other words, Boucher allegedly reached her anti-reform position after speaking with those who directly profit from a system that incarcerates and/or mandates treatment for those who consume marijuana. But it's those whose "personal interest" in the reform debate derives from their firsthand experience with the injustice of the criminal justice system that's supposed to shock and scandalize

http://charliedavis.blogspot.com/2011/06/profiting-from-pot-prohibition.html

FreudianSlippers

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's axiomatic that the $15 Billion dollars is used to pay for prisons, prosecutions in the courts, enforced drug treatment, drug squad police etc.

As I said earlier in the thread that's $15 Billion worth of incentive to keep the farce going.

I'm sorry, this is not the US Politics forum. You specifically said that Gardaí and "lawyers" (I'm assuming you mean solicitors and barristers and not lawyers in the US?).

Chuck Stone

MagicSean wrote: »

If that were true there would be no such thing as fruit and veg stores.

I don't smoke weed but I certainly wouldn't pay for something I could grow down the back and then dry-store for supply. I guess this is conjecture so who knows.

And do you think that will reduce the crime rate? You don't think heroin adicts will still rob whatever they can. Or will people off their head on coke suddenly stop being violent?

If it were legal and regulated it would allow for market equilibrium and hence be a lot cheaper and cleaner. That would reduce the crime rate considerably.

It's very simple. Legalise posession up to a certain quantity.

That's a total no brainer and would be a good start.

I still don't see how people are comfortable with consumption but balk at the idea of full legalisation which would remove massive profits from violent thugs.

BunShopVoyeur

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That is clearly not what I said. I have no problem with disagreeing with someone on this or any other forum, but the rule I'm here to implement is that if you make a vague statement it needs to be explained. He/she has said 3 times that the Gardaí and "lawyers" make money personally off of the illegality of cannabis. I have told him/her on each occasion that this claim needs to be explained or substantiated.

You will see, that I have not threatened a ban to anyone for disagreeing with me. I have said that I will not be giving out any more warnings for making vague and unexplained statements on this thread.

I think I have also given more than sufficient warnings about backseat moderation and questioning moderator decisions on thread too.

No problem

FreudianSlippers

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is nothing more than foolish clutching at straws. You equate having two glasses of wine with a meal once a week drug abuse? Cop on.

It would absolutely depend on the individual. Some people have more adverse reactions to certain "drugs" than others.
Alcohol has become the acceptable drug in society - it doesn't make it any less so of a drug.

IMO this is a point in your favour, so I don't see why you'd want to dispute it?

Slippery. I'd hazard a guess people would grow their own so large scale cultivation would not be an issue.

Just like people grow their own tobacco or make their own vodka?

If an amount for a personal use was made legal, then I would not disagree. Full legality would create an opening for large-scale production. Sure, some people would grow their own... but the cost benefit would be slim for some/most people engaged in recreational use.

It's apt that 'this is pure nonsense' prefixes the gibberish written underneath it.

This an oft trotted out strawman by the ill-informed. Rape and sexual abuse by their very definition are crimes against unwilling individuals.

Drug use (not abuse) is a lifestyle choice.

Equating rape and sexual abuse of children with drug use betrays the level of thought you have put into the issue i.e. very little.

OK, I'll agree to an extent (other than statutory rape)... it still doesn't change the underlying point's validity.

Legalise the whole lot would be my stance. Starting with weed and working up to the most addictive. Money currently spent on criminalising drug use and importation could be directed into treatment programs and harm prevention campaigns.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with full legalisation of marijuana, but I couldn't see the benefit of cocaine and the "harder" stuff.

Tell me. How the hell do you propose to regulate something Granny can grow down the back garden in a small poly tunnel?

Again, small scale personal use legalisation vs large scale full legality.

You really haven't given this much thought have you?

I don't see how you're in an informed position to say that. I've given it a lot of thought in my involvement with libertarian organisations in the US.
It's through my research and understanding that I see it's not a clear issue with a simple solution.

Chuck Stone

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm sorry, this is not the US Politics forum. You specifically said that Gardaí and "lawyers" (I'm assuming you mean solicitors and barristers and not lawyers in the US?).

It's difficult to get stats on the cost of drug prohibition in Ireland. I've used the costs of the drug war in the US to make a point.

The same thing on a smaller scale happens in Ireland.

I feel like you're badgering me and nit-picking unnecessarily. I'm requesting that a neutral moderator be brought into this debate.

MagicSean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't smoke weed but I certainly wouldn't pay for something I could grow down the back and then dry-store for supply. I guess this is conjecture so who knows.

People use to say the same about bottled water

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If it were legal and regulated it would allow for market equilibrium and hence be a lot cheaper and cleaner. That would reduce the crime rate considerably.

You are assuming that a heroin user could be employable and be able to work to buy their drugs.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That's a total no brainer and would be a good start.

I still don't see how people are comfortable with consumption but balk at the idea of full legalisation which would remove massive profits from violent thugs.

For the same reason you have prescription drugs. Quality control for one thing. The other being restriction on who it is sold too.

Chuck Stone

MagicSean wrote: »

People use to say the same about bottled water

Well I guess people would have the choice of purchase or self grow. If weed got taxed to death people would probably grow their own.

You are assuming that a heroin user could be employable and be able to work to buy their drugs.

If it was cheap, decriminalized and people had access to rehab services then it would probably lead to far more people who use being able to lead productive lives.

For the same reason you have prescription drugs. Quality control for one thing.

Legalisation =/= free for all. Of course there would be standards to be adhered to and reputations to uphold.

The other being restriction on who it is sold too.

Like under 18's? What do you mean?

FreudianSlippers

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's difficult to get stats on the cost of drug prohibition in Ireland. I've used the costs of the drug war in the US to make a point.

The same thing on a smaller scale happens in Ireland.

I feel like you're badgering me and nit-picking unnecessarily. I'm requesting that a neutral moderator be brought into this debate.

I'm not nit-picking. I think you'll find that our spending on "drug enforcement" is nothing like that of the US. For a start we have COMPLETELY different issues in relation to smuggling, production and types of drugs. There is a meth epidemic in the US and they are bordered by two relatively large drug-producing nations.

I specifically want to know how a Garda and a "lawyer" are personally profiting off of this. You know one solicitor, but can you tar all "lawyers" with that brush?

Request away for a "neutral" moderator. CMods are listed on the Legal Discussion main page.

oeb

Just to back up what the likes of Chuck said.

A buddy of mine was caught with what was valued at something like 13k worth of plants growing in a converted grow room in his house. He booked himself into rehab, and stayed very very clean (regular drug tests are of course part of the whole treatment, so he completely gave up smoking). He received a 3 year suspended sentence. Other than that, the circumstances were similar, clean record etc.

Depending on the judge that you get (obviously), it will stand in very good stead that he took the initiative to get himself cleaned up and sorted. Has he been unemployed for long? Tell him to do his best to get a job, even if it's cleaning toilets, this also shows that he is making a positive effort with his life. He is not "lying" if he claims that he has a drug problem and got caught up with the wrong crowd (As suggested by other posters in this thread), it's clearly the truth. (I really can't see how anyone without a drug problem and the wrong kind of friends could ever find themselves walking down the street with a half kilo of cannabis for a measly couple of hundred euro).

The justification of the current legal status of cannabis aside (Which, let me emphasise, I am very strongly against), the fact of the matter is that it is illegal, and he knew this when he agreed to hold it for someone. Best of luck to your brother and the rest of your family. It's going to be a tough time, but it's not the end of the world.

Randy Anders

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I specifically want to know how a Garda and a "lawyer" are personally profiting off of this. You know one solicitor, but can you tar all "lawyers" with that brush?

In fairness, there is no denying that solicitors make personal profits from the illigality of cannabis. Just attend court any day and the week and keep an out for freelancing solicitors, they are everywhere and they do make money from the state, through legal aid fees, and private clients

mattjack

oeb wrote: »

Just to back up what the likes of Chuck said.

A buddy of mine was caught with what was valued at something like 13k worth of plants growing in a converted grow room in his house. He booked himself into rehab, and stayed very very clean (regular drug tests are of course part of the whole treatment, so he completely gave up smoking). He received a 3 year suspended sentence. Other than that, the circumstances were similar, clean record etc.

Depending on the judge that you get (obviously), it will stand in very good stead that he took the initiative to get himself cleaned up and sorted. Has he been unemployed for long? Tell him to do his best to get a job, even if it's cleaning toilets, this also shows that he is making a positive effort with his life. He is not "lying" if he claims that he has a drug problem and got caught up with the wrong crowd (As suggested by other posters in this thread), it's clearly the truth. (I really can't see how anyone without a drug problem and the wrong kind of friends could ever find themselves walking down the street with a half kilo of cannabis for a measly couple of hundred euro).

The justification of the current legal status of cannabis aside (Which, let me emphasise, I am very strongly against), the fact of the matter is that it is illegal, and he knew this when he agreed to hold it for someone. Best of luck to your brother and the rest of your family. It's going to be a tough time, but it's not the end of the world.

Did he book himself in saying he had an addiction ?

FreudianSlippers

Randy Anders wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I specifically want to know how a Garda and a "lawyer" are personally profiting off of this. You know one solicitor, but can you tar all "lawyers" with that brush?

In fairness, there is no denying that solicitors make personal profits from the illigality of cannabis. Just attend court any day and the week and keep an out for freelancing solicitors, they are everywhere and they do make money from the state, through legal aid fees, and private clients

While I'm sure and not disagreeing that a small number of solicitors may specialise in these offences, is it safe to say all "lawyers" are making money off of this system?

Legal aid is pretty small too.

JohnnyTodd

I got caught with 500 Esctasy pills back in my student days in DCU. No record, was just selling it to make a few quid over xmas.

Judge gave me a 100 euro fine. Based on that surely you'll get off with a warning?

Chuck Stone

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just like people grow their own tobacco or make their own vodka?

I don't think we have the climate for tobacco. There's a long tradition of poteen making and if these forums are anything to go by home-brewing is becoming ever more popular.

Full legality would create an opening for large-scale production.

Even if this were true so what?

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with full legalisation of marijuana, but I couldn't see the benefit of cocaine and the "harder" stuff.

That's classism . Why can't the upper classes have their fun too?

I've given it a lot of thought in my involvement with libertarian organisations in the US.

I'll be honest with you - I've had better debates in other boards forums about this issue than we're having here with a lot less threatening of the ban-hammer.

It's through my research and understanding that I see it's not a clear issue with a simple solution.

It certainly is not - on that we're agreed.

I just believe we need to try alternatives that don't immorally punish peaceful people for victimless crimes and allow violent thugs to make vast profits.

Randy Anders

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

While I'm sure and not disagreeing that a small number of solicitors may specialise in these offences, is it safe to say all "lawyers" are making money off of this system?

Legal aid is pretty small too.

Why are you plugging on with this ''lawyer'' talk, it's an easy mistake to mix up that word with solicitor and doesn't add any weight to your argument

No, not all solicitors make money off drug charges, but a lot do. Legal aid may be a relativly small charge but they are still benefiting from the outdated laws that are in place. There is also good money to be made through the representation of private clients who are able to afford large sums of money

Chuck Stone

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

While I'm sure and not disagreeing that a small number of solicitors may specialise in these offences, is it safe to say all "lawyers" are making money off of this system?

Legal aid is pretty small too.

You seem to be hung up on the word 'lawyers'.

If I used the wrong descriptor then it was a mistake and I withdraw it.

I'm not aware of the details of how the hierarchy of the legal apparatus is structured (thankfully I've had no contact with the criminal law apparatus of the state).

Solicitor
Barrister
Judge?

FreudianSlippers

Chuck Stone wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just like people grow their own tobacco or make their own vodka?

I don't think we have the climate for tobacco. There's a long tradition of poteen making and if these forums are anything to go by home-brewing is becoming ever more popular.

True, but it's not exactly the same... There is still the need to pop to Tesco for a bottle or a few cans right?

Full legality would create an opening for large-scale production.

Even if this were true so what?

So nothing... My point is full legality would mean more control by the government. It would not mean every person has a grow house

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with full legalisation of marijuana, but I couldn't see the benefit of cocaine and the "harder" stuff.

That's classism . Why can't the upper classes have their fun too?

I've given it a lot of thought in my involvement with libertarian organisations in the US.

I'll be honest with you - I've had better debates in other boards forums about this issue than we're having here with a lot less threatening of the ban-hammer.

I've not threatened to ban anyone. I made a simple request that vague statements be substantiated. If it isn't clear why then start a dispute resolution.

I reiterate. I'm not infecting because I disagree, I'm doing so because there are rules and they should be followed.

Saying the AGS and "lawyers" are profiting from this needs more depth than just saying that. I've made that clear; if it was explained in the first place we wouldn't have a problem.

It's through my research and understanding that I see it's not a clear issue with a simple solution.

It certainly is not - on that we're agreed.

I just believe we need to try alternatives that don't immorally punish peaceful people for victimless crimes and allow violent thugs to make vast profits.

I think you'll find we agree on some of the larger aspects, it's your logic which gets you there I disagree with.

oeb

mattjack wrote: »

Did he book himself in saying he had an addiction ?

Yes. If he does not want to pay for one of the larger clinics (Which as mentioned, can be very expensive), most areas should gave a community drug initiative, and a local chapter of narcotics anonymous. It would do him no harm to get involved with NA, and they should be able to point him in the right direction for counselling / rehab. This is the route my friend took.

FreudianSlippers

Randy Anders wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

While I'm sure and not disagreeing that a small number of solicitors may specialise in these offences, is it safe to say all "lawyers" are making money off of this system?

Legal aid is pretty small too.

Why are you plugging on with this ''lawyer'' talk, it's an easy mistake to mix up that word with solicitor and doesn't add any weight to your argument

Barristers are "lawyers" too. I'd tak great exception to someone stating that barristers or the majority of solicitors are making personal profits from the illegality of cannabis.

No, not all solicitors make money off drug charges, but a lot do. Legal aid may be a relativly small charge but they are still benefiting from the outdated laws that are in place. There is also good money to be made through the representation of private clients who are able to afford large sums of money

I would take exception with the phrase "a lot". How many? What percentage?
What courts?

There are a lot of solicitors and I can guess (as I am not one) that the vast majority have not done a cannabis possession case.

FreudianSlippers

Chuck Stone wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

While I'm sure and not disagreeing that a small number of solicitors may specialise in these offences, is it safe to say all "lawyers" are making money off of this system?

Legal aid is pretty small too.

You seem to be hung up on the word 'lawyers'.

If I used the wrong descriptor then it was a mistake and I withdraw it.

I'm not aware of the details of how the hierarchy of the legal apparatus is structured (thankfully I've had no contact with the criminal law apparatus of the state).

Solicitor
Barrister
Judge?

That's why we need clarity and detail in posts. How do judges make any money from illegality of cannabis?

I could see some barristers being involved in the bigger cases but they'd be few and far between.

I think I covered the solicitor point already