200hrs community service for 1/5 of a gram of Pot

ComfortKid

crazygeryy wrote:

correct me if im wrong but arent wine and cigarettes legal?smoking drugs is not legal , its against the law and isnt she as a parent supposed to set an example for her kids? the kid sees its mom smoking drugs,hey my mom does it why not me and ends up going to schood stoned and eventually starts to try harder drugs all by the age of 16. thanks mom.

Wow. So parents that smoke cannabis openly do it front of there kids?

drunkmonkey

crazygeryy wrote: »

no idea what that has to do with anything.

Because you sound like you just walked out of the 6th class drugs awareness program run by the local Gardaí before you go to big boys school full of booze, pot and boobs.

Mesrine65

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Because you sound like you just walked out of the 6th class drugs awareness program run by the local Gardaí before you go to big boys school full of booze, pot and boobs.

What? :eek:

They didn't have that when I went to school :eek: :mad:

major bill

crazygeryy wrote: »

no idea what that has to do with anything.

Shes smoking a joint not doing heroin in front of the kids, very dramatic post

Boom_Bap

MOD
There's been talk on this thread about pricing and requesting PMs if there are cheaper places to purchase.
No more of this. This is a discussion on an individual that was found in possession and scentenced. It's not about the price around the country.

Muahahaha

JJJJNR wrote: »

rumour has it the "garlic" importer, was ahem.. a bit of a pablo.

jaysis I doubt that rumour is true. Unless he was so good at it that the cops gave up and said to Customs 'here would you check his VAT records' :pac:

crazygeryy

look my views are maybe a bit staunch but i have my opinion.ive lost a relative to drugs and i dont agree with them in any shape or form.i think they ruin lives and i dont give a **** if its in a man cave or not.
and to say that kids dont see or know what your smoking is just a pile of rubbish.

NomadicGray

crazygeryy wrote: »

correct me if im wrong but arent wine and cigarettes legal?smoking drugs is not legal , its against the law and isnt she as a parent supposed to set an example for her kids?
the kid sees its mom smoking drugs,hey my mom does it why not me and ends up going to schood stoned and eventually starts to try harder drugs all by the age of 16.
thanks mom.

So when it gets decriminalised will you be actively trying to get the decision reversed or carry on being a slave to the lawmakers

Mesrine65

crazygeryy wrote: »

look my views are maybe a bit staunch but i have my opinion.ive lost a relative to drugs and i dont agree with them in any shape or form.i think they ruin lives and i dont give a **** if its in a man cave or not.
and to say that kids dont see or know what your smoking is just a pile of rubbish.

My brother died a heroin addict as did countless childhood friends so I also have lost people I care for to drugs.

Hard drugs do ruin lives, I agree, but my kids are intelligent enough to know the difference between hard drugs & cannabis because I've never made it taboo & encourage my kids to ask me questions about anything without judgement.

They also respect the boundaries of my man-cave as it is also my home micro-brewery/workshop/personal space where I can indulge myself at my leisure.

Sorry for your loss.

DamagedTrax

crazygeryy wrote: »

look my views are maybe a bit staunch but i have my opinion.ive lost a relative to drugs and i dont agree with them in any shape or form.i think they ruin lives and i dont give a **** if its in a man cave or not.

Thats terrbible for anyone to die from drugs but there is approx 1 death worldwide attributed to cannabis. involving it in a discussion about drugs that can/do kill is pointless.

and to say that kids dont see or know what your smoking is just a pile of rubbish.

I agree with this. I dont smoke around my kid, he's 14 and would know damn well what i was up to.

asherbassad

crazygeryy wrote: »

she ll be very slow to do it again.
job done.
and her poor children and family my arse,does she think of the children when shes stoned off her knockers?

FYI, a woman who has a bottle of wine in her house and has a glass after she's puts the kids to bed is not "locked out of her head, passed out face down".

Likewise, a woman who has a bit of weed in her house or in her jacket and has a drag or two to relax and listen to some tunes for an hour after the kids have been put to bed is not "stoned off her knockers"

DamagedTrax

asherbassad wrote: »

Likewise, a woman who has a bit of weed in her house or in her jacket and has a drag or two to relax and listen to some tunes for an hour after the kids have been put to bed is not "stoned off her knockers"

My missus was 'stoned off her knockers' last night. She made a great dinner and then we watched some stand-up comedy and a good documentary on the Eriksson twins..

meeeeh

I actually think the punishment is too much but if it was up to me I would double any intended punishment for anyone who felt the need to inform the court that they are a parent. I would also halve any damages for broken limbs/minor car accident to those that claim they have psychological issues because of it.

I know the punishment is excessive but in 90% of situations you have to be serious moron to get caught with such a small quantity.

DamagedTrax

meeeeh wrote: »

I actually think the punishment is too much but if it was up to me I would double any intended punishment for anyone who felt the need to inform the court that they are a parent.

Being a parent is an important mitigating factor in sentencing. It would be a fool that didnt mention it in a court room.

One eyed Jack

NomadicGray wrote: »

So when IF it gets decriminalised will you be actively trying to get the decision reversed or carry on being a slave to the lawmakers

FYP there horse.

This thread isn't about decriminalising cannabis or any of the rest of that nonsense, it's about a woman who was convicted of breaking the law as it stands now.

All too often in After Hours there's a general outcry when Judges hand down what appears to be all too lenient sentencing, and people crying that the law in this country is a joke, and women get more lenient sentences than men for the same crimes and all the rest of it and the law is still a joke.

Here's a case where a woman is sentenced to 200 hours community service for breaking the law, and people are crying that the law is still a joke?

Some people will find anything to bitch about. Seriously, this isn't Saudi Arabia or Thailand or wherever else. She goofed, she got punished, she'll get over it and carry on with her life and in a few weeks it'll all be forgotten about.

Bit of a non-story here OP.

One eyed Jack

DamagedTrax wrote: »

Being a parent is an important mitigating factor in sentencing. It would be a fool that didnt mention it in a court room.

It shouldn't be. If it's to be considered an important mitigating factor in sentencing, then it should also be considered just as important a prohibitive factor in risking breaking the law. If a person is willing to risk breaking the law, then the Courts shouldn't be obliged to take into account in sentencing, the fact that the person is a parent.

mad muffin

Zaidan? Doesn't sound Irish.

DamagedTrax

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It shouldn't be. If it's to be considered an important mitigating factor in sentencing, then it should also be considered just as important a prohibitive factor in risking breaking the law. If a person is willing to risk breaking the law, then the Courts shouldn't be obliged to take into account in sentencing, the fact that the person is a parent.

Thankfully justice takes the person's situation into account (most of the time).

If a woman got caught stealing to feed her family, she can hardly be sentenced the same way as somebody caught stealing for personal gain.

meeeeh

DamagedTrax wrote: »

Thankfully justice takes the person's situation into account (most of the time).

If a woman got caught stealing to feed her family, she can hardly be sentenced the same way as somebody caught stealing for personal gain.

Ah to use your analogy, she was just fending for her family.

DamagedTrax

meeeeh wrote: »

Ah to use your analogy, she was just fending for her family.

i'll simplify it for you.

A judge will look at a situation before sentencing because when there are kids involved, the sentence has to be adjusted to take the children into account. If not, the judge would essentially be sentencing the children for the mothers mistake.

And we're talking about 3 euros worth of weed here, not murder.

One eyed Jack

DamagedTrax wrote: »

Thankfully justice takes the person's situation into account (most of the time).

If a woman got caught stealing to feed her family, she can hardly be sentenced the same way as somebody caught stealing for personal gain.

Robin Hood would have loved your medieval idea of justice.

It's a shame for her that the woman didn't take her own situation into account before she thought to break the law. She wouldn't have appeared in court at all if she hadn't chosen to break the law.

Again, 200 hours community service and some public embarrassment, maybe it might serve to have her take her responsibility towards her child more seriously, rather than risking breaking the law for her own personal gain (I don't think you're trying to suggest she was buying pot for the kid, right? :pac:).

circadian

crazygeryy wrote: »

correct me if im wrong but arent wine and cigarettes legal?smoking drugs is not legal , its against the law and isnt she as a parent supposed to set an example for her kids?
the kid sees its mom smoking drugs,hey my mom does it why not me and ends up going to schood stoned and eventually starts to try harder drugs all by the age of 16.
thanks mom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKID2LRzIdY

One eyed Jack

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i'll simplify it for you.

A judge will look at a situation before sentencing because when there are kids involved, the sentence has to be adjusted to take the children into account. If not, the judge would essentially be sentencing the children for the mothers mistake.

And we're talking about 3 euros worth of weed here, not murder.

The way some people are going on about 200 hours community service, one would think murder is exactly what we're talking about. Even the OP tried to draw comparisons with Saudi Arabia ffs :rolleyes:

DamagedTrax

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The way some people are going on about 200 hours community service, one would think murder is exactly what we're talking about. Even the OP tried to draw comparisons with Saudi Arabia ffs :rolleyes:

Its still 200 hours too many.

Like i said in an earlier post, are we to follow laws blindly even if we perceive them to be wrong?

What i know to be right or wrong in a given situation, supercedes any law that i know of.

meeeeh

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i'll simplify it for you.

A judge will look at a situation before sentencing because when there are kids involved, the sentence has to be adjusted to take the children into account. If not, the judge would essentially be sentencing the children for the mothers mistake.

And we're talking about 3 euros worth of weed here, not murder.

Do you really think I don't get that. But no need to drag feeding the family into it. The excuse is mostly used by those who are guilty of proper crimes and don't fancy spending too much or any time in prison.

I am not saying that happened this time but it is popular excuse for any scum that find themselves in court and more children they are able to produce the better it is.

One eyed Jack

DamagedTrax wrote: »

Its still 200 hours too many.

0 hours? No consequences? I'm wondering here then because I don't want to put words in your mouth, but given what's only being reported in the media of this particular case, what consequences would you have preferred? Because there has to be consequences when a person breaks the law, otherwise it is indeed, an ass.

Like i said in an earlier post, are we to follow laws blindly even if we perceive them to be wrong?

This woman could hardly claim to have been ignorant of the law, and so she wasn't doing anything blindly. The law appliers to everyone equally, so if you have a problem with it, campaign to have the law changed. Nobody should be entitled to break the law or ignore it just because they don't agree with it. That is wrong, and the law includes consequences imposed upon people who break the law.

What i know to be right or wrong in a given situation, supercedes any law that i know of.

What you consider, as an individual, to be 'right' or 'wrong', is completely irrelevant, notwithstanding the fact that no, your opinion doesn't supercede the law, ever, that you know of or otherwise.

Your ignorance isn't going to be considered a mitigating circumstance if you break the law.

DamagedTrax

meeeeh wrote: »

Do you really think I don't get that. But no need to drag feeding the family into it. The excuse is mostly used by those who are guilty of proper crimes and don't fancy spending too much or any time in prison.

I am not saying that happened this time but it is popular excuse for any scum that find themselves in court and more children they are able to produce the better it is.

you said that it shouldnt be allowed, i pointed out why it 100% needs to be allowed. Im not sure how the analogy matters? Its the same in every case, the home situation gets looked at.

Now if you want to disallow it on the basis of social situation, thats an argument you'll need to have with someone else.

DamagedTrax

One eyed Jack wrote: »

0 hours? No consequences? I'm wondering here then because I don't want to put words in your mouth, but given what's only being reported in the media of this particular case, what consequences would you have preferred? Because there has to be consequences when a person breaks the law, otherwise it is indeed, an ass.

I would have preffered no consequences for the girl.

This woman could hardly claim to have been ignorant of the law, and so she wasn't doing anything blindly. The law appliers to everyone equally, so if you have a problem with it, campaign to have the law changed. Nobody should be entitled to break the law or ignore it just because they don't agree with it. That is wrong, and the law includes consequences imposed upon people who break the law.

We are currently campaigning heavily to have the law changed to stop ridiculousness like this case.

What you consider, as an individual, to be 'right' or 'wrong', is completely irrelevant, notwithstanding the fact that no, your opinion doesn't supercede the law, ever, that you know of or otherwise.

Your ignorance isn't going to be considered a mitigating circumstance if you break the law.

Actually, what i consider to be wrong or right is 100% relevent to how i perceive the law.

If i disagree with a law, i wont respect it. But given what i consider right or wrong i doubt i'll ever find myself in trouble with the cops because of it.

You may take it by the letter, i choose not to. I doubt either of us are criminals.

Mickeroo

crazygeryy wrote: »

correct me if im wrong but arent wine and cigarettes legal?smoking drugs is not legal , its against the law and isnt she as a parent supposed to set an example for her kids?
the kid sees its mom drinking wine,hey my mom does it why not me and ends up going to schood drunk and eventually starts to try stronger drinks all by the age of 16.
thanks mom.

I figured your only issue with it was the illegality rather than anything substantial alright. Same lack of logic could be applied to any recreational substance legal or illegal.

mynameis905

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Robin Hood would have loved your medieval idea of justice.

There's nothing medieval about a judge considering the defendant's circumstances when deciding on sentencing, especially for a victimless crime like this.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again, 200 hours community service and some public embarrassment, maybe it might serve to have her take her responsibility towards her child more seriously, rather than risking breaking the law for her own personal gain

Matters of legality aside, there is nothing inherently wrong or irresponsible with recreational drug taking. The vast majority of people take mind altering substances on a daily basis, whether it be caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, cannabis etc. Are you suggesting that parents who have the odd drink are also not taking responsibility for their children?