Ludo*1 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Link. The judge's comments in this court article in Dundee are misguided and embarrassing. I've never smoked or taken cannabis before but fs. The quicker it is legalised the better in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted July 29, 2014 Author Share Posted July 29, 2014 Cardinal Richelieu, on 29 Jul 2014 - 07:44, said: Knew 2. Got them both wrong... but then completely guessed 7 correctly anyway. I'm off to buy a lotto ticket. Have you been smoking it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardinal Richelieu Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Have you been smoking it? Bah. You posted that before I could delete my message. And now I can't even put it back making me look like a double turnip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurph Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 f**k 'em and their law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Law in fascism shocker. Meanwhile, further up the subforum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 "Do some wider research on the subject instead of just the articles that suit you" is probably my favourite part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForzaDundee Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Weed is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Tbf, it seems to be that the threat of jail is down to cultivating an illegal drug, not his love for smoking it. Just seems that if he doesn't 'denounce his love' then he'll probably keep on growing the stuff and continue breaking a serious law, hence why the judge is willing to be more lenient with the sentence if he gives it up (i.e. also stops growing)? "Do some wider research on the subject instead of just the articles that suit you" is probably my favourite part. Wouldn't surprise me if that's a quote lifted straight from P&B General Nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Tbf, it seems to be that the threat of jail is down to cultivating an illegal drug, not his love for smoking it. Just seems that if he doesn't 'denounce his love' then he'll probably keep on growing the stuff and continue breaking a serious law, hence why the judge is willing to be more lenient with the sentence if he gives it up (i.e. also stops growing)? Wouldn't surprise me if that's a quote lifted straight from P&B General Nonsense. Surely it's better all round if he grows his own than gives money to gangsters, for which he'd get off with a caution? Insane law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 He broke the law and presumably has shown no signs that he regrets it or believes he's done anything wrong. By not 'renouncing' his love of cannabis it implies he is a risk of commuting the same, or a similar, crime again. I see nothing wrong with the judge's position here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Surely it's better all round if he grows his own than gives money to gangsters, for which he'd get off with a caution? Insane law. Maybe, but then you're starting to go down the whole "if we serve under-agers in pubs then it'll keep them off the Buckfast and smashing up the bus shelters" argument. /spoilert] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Maybe, but then you're starting to go down the whole "if we serve under-agers in pubs then it'll keep them off the Buckfast and smashing up the bus shelters" argument. No I'm not. Adults growing weed for their own consumption do no harm to anybody. There's no logical reason to ban it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 He broke the law and presumably has shown no signs that he regrets it or believes he's done anything wrong. By not 'renouncing' his love of cannabis it implies he is a risk of commuting the same, or a similar, crime again. I see nothing wrong with the judge's position here. Apart from her position that cannabis is melting this guys brain and prevents him from thinking properly, then telling the guy to research the subject a bit more. The guy is breaking the law, aye, the point is the law is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Apart from her position that cannabis is melting this guys brain and prevents him from thinking properly, then telling the guy to research the subject a bit more. The guy is breaking the law, aye, the point is the law is stupid. Whether you think the law is stupid or not is irrelevant, we still have to follow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 No I'm not. Adults growing weed for their own consumption do no harm to anybody. There's no logical reason to ban it. We don't know enough about the guy, if he's sat on his arse getting handout's from the State getting ripped all day then he can get to feck ! If he's got a job and is self sufficient then I don't have a problem with it. I've never tried it myself but I've got plenty mates who have and do and I've got no issue with it. At the end of the day it is illegal, which is a bit different to whether it should be legal or not. If someone comes up in front of a judge being completely unrepentant then the Judge has got to take a dim view of it, he's not even trying to play the game of pretending to be sorry. The law's a wee bit blind in that respect and the Judge can't really turn round and say "No bother mate, its only a bit of blow, we all do it, off you go". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 We don't know enough about the guy, if he's sat on his arse getting handout's from the State getting ripped all day then he can get to feck ! Aye, because it would be much better if he was out robbing to give money to gangsters than keeping a flower box going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Whether you think the law is stupid or not is irrelevant, we still have to follow it. I fully understand and accept that, haven't said otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Aye, because it would be much better if he was out robbing to give money to gangsters than keeping a flower box going. Yes, that's the message we should be pushing isn't it ? If you don't want to work but want to take illegal drugs don't worry about it, if you promise not to go on the rob we'll just give you the money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estragon Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Whether you think the law is stupid or not is irrelevant, we still have to follow it. Flawed. If this were the case we'd still be burning witches. It's the duty of every society to reflect itself in legislation as it evolves - not just blindly follow what's gone before. I don't particularly like weed, I find it pretty antisocial and it doesn't really suit me so as a result I don't smoke it (anymore) - but there has been a groundswell of opinion, internationally, supporting its legalisation that has largely been ignored in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.