OMFG its nearly motherfucking legal

[Whos Carl]

Hash everyone heard the best news in the Uk its pretty much fucking legal now. I read it in the paper this morning at work and was so fucking happy..


Everyone in the UK better be toking now woooooooooooooooooooo

[Make it Hempen]

haha did it get decriminalized or something? I hope America takes the hint. Hmmph.

- Kate

[vipper of vip]

which paper did you read it in?

[Psycho4Bud]

Can ya post the article...or give us the name of the paper? Thanks!! :thumbsup:

[Whos Carl]

Front page of the Daily Mail I am not bullshitting look at the news at cannabis.com homepage says your allowed 500 joints on you and wont get arrested.

[Whos Carl]

Heres a link

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/01/ndrug01.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/01/ixportal.html

[Euphoric]

dont move so much when you type carl :cursing:

(note: this was written before dude put up a link. TRICKSY

[Whos Carl]

I cant believe I am the 1st to mention it, since it was on the front page of The Daily Mail

Another link

http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread21344.shtml

The Best website in the world wouldnt lie would it.

[yAwn]

You're getting it way wrong, man.. I mean shit, the first line reads;

"Anyone caught carrying up to 500 cannabis joints is likely to escape trafficking charges".

Did you read that? First of all it says is likely to, which doesn't mean they necessarily will. Secondly, it only says they may escape trafficking charges.

I watched the guy who's basically in charge of this stuff on TV today. Basically there is no legal definition of intent to supply in British law. This new set of laws will change that. From now on if anybody is caught with less than these amounts they MIGHT only get charged with possession, but they COULD still get charged with intent to supply. If you're caught with more than this amount then you will DEFINATELY be charged with intent to supply.

Think about what the title of your thread says and think about the truth of what's actually happening, and you might even learn something about yourself, I dunno...

[Whos Carl]

If your using it for personal use which most people do then your fine.

[mrdevious]

so what are you talking about? it's not pretty much legal, you just won't get charged with intent to distribute, it still says nothing about changes in charges of posession.


and the cannabis.com headline doesn't really make sense as far as I can see:

"Drug users caught with enough cannabis to make more than 500 joints will be able to claim that it is for personal use".... so what you can posess infinite amounts? and then it goes off on how they're making the laws stricter... :confused:

[Nochowderforyou]

That doesn't mean it's legal man, not one bit.

That just means you won't get charged, but the authorities will still take away your pot...2 joints or 200 joints. It's to keep harmless marijuana smokers out of overcrowded prisons and to put the real criminals behind bars...but yes, it is def. a step forward.

[yAwn]

No. If get caught with under these proposed amounts then yes, it will be considered as for your personal use, but all that means is that you won't be charged with intent to supply.

[yAwn]

This guy just answered all your questions... Lol


You're getting it way wrong, man.. I mean shit, the first line reads;

"Anyone caught carrying up to 500 cannabis joints is likely to escape trafficking charges".

Did you read that? First of all it says is likely to, which doesn't mean they necessarily will. Secondly, it only says they may escape trafficking charges.

I watched the guy who's basically in charge of this stuff on TV today. Basically there is no legal definition of intent to supply in British law. This new set of laws will change that. From now on if anybody is caught with less than these amounts they MIGHT only get charged with possession, but they COULD still get charged with intent to supply. If you're caught with more than this amount then you will DEFINATELY be charged with intent to supply.

Think about what the title of your thread says and think about the truth of what's actually happening, and you might even learn something about yourself, I dunno...

[Euphoric]

its a step in the right direction nonetheless :dance:

[Whos Carl]

The Daily Mail article says that if you have 17oz then you wont get it taken off you but if they can prove that you are dealing then your still screwed. I am not a dealer so I am laughing.

Stop being negative a few months ago they were all for regrading to Class B so this must be a step in the right direction.

[yAwn]

Euphoric, I fucking love you, man.

[xNoa]

first thing that stuck out to me reading the article "Anyone caught with any amount of the drug will face arrest under the new strategy. "

this is a step backward not foward, currently if u get caught with personal amounts then ur almost certainly let off (and that personal amount can stretch relatively far)

[yAwn]

Thank you, xNoa! This isn't a step forward at all. It's just more regulation.

[Euphoric]

yyyyyyyayay :dance:

[yAwn]

What's with the celebrations? :dance:

[Psycho4Bud]

From the articles link:

Under Class B, police normally only considered prosecution after four or five warnings or cautions, he said. Under Class C, arrest and prosecution was also only likely after repeated warnings, meaning little change.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/23/npot23.xml


It is a step in the right direction though!! :thumbsup:

[yAwn]

Psycho4Bud!!!!! Omg!!!! :)

[buddymyfriend]

So much confusion... :confused:

Just decriminalize already NOT legalise, we'd be taxed to fuck if it was legal! Gotta love the UK....not!

Peace

Buddy

[Psycho4Bud]

So much confusion... :confused:

Just decriminalize already NOT legalise, we'd be taxed to fuck if it was legal! Gotta love the UK....not!

Peace

Buddy

They can't tax what you grow and it would be nice not having to worry about a raid. My two cents! :twocents:

[buddymyfriend]

They can't tax what you grow and it would be nice not having to worry about a raid. My two cents! :twocents:

True, but they may not legalise homegrows. Fuck why would they when the government have potential to claim more tax from us hardworking Brits. Just look at how much tax we pay on fags and drink? Why would they legalise home grows? Never gonna happen, just my :twocents:

Peace

Buddy

[xNoa]

True, but they may not legalise homegrows. Fuck why would they when the government have potential to claim more tax from us hardworking Brits. Just look at how much tax we pay on fags and drink? Why would they legalise home grows? Never gonna happen, just my :twocents:

Peace

Buddy
um the tax wouldnt be that much(if they ever did..) remember prices are like they are now cos its illegal and ur generally paying more then gold per gram of bud, if it was legalised or decrimanlised then home grows almost certainly would(even if it wasnt official, theyre not exactly gonna do much are they..)

[Psycho4Bud]

True, but they may not legalise homegrows. Fuck why would they when the government have potential to claim more tax from us hardworking Brits. Just look at how much tax we pay on fags and drink? Why would they legalise home grows? Never gonna happen, just my :twocents:

Peace

Buddy

Fag tax?? What the hell you talkin' about? I take it that doesn't mean the same as in the states. :rasta:

[Nochowderforyou]

True, but they may not legalise homegrows. Fuck why would they when the government have potential to claim more tax from us hardworking Brits. Just look at how much tax we pay on fags and drink? Why would they legalise home grows? Never gonna happen, just my :twocents:

Peace

Buddy

Exactly, the same here in Canada.

The government boggles my mind and kind of twists it up sometimes. Here, the government jacks up the prices of cigarettes thinking that some people may quit smoking, but the funny thing is, doesn't the government add all of these additives to fags getting them addicted? Makes me think...the government runs adds about quitting smoking, yet they add all this tar and shit to get people addicted...not only that, jacking up the price of smokes knowing that people need their smoke. Ya, to get people to quit :rolleyes: Greedy mother fuckers.

If government were to legalize MJ fully, as in growing for personal use, a lot of problems would be solved. If everyone had the right to grow, lets say, 5-6 personal MJ plants for their own consumption, there would be no more dealers. Shit, everyone can grow it now, why the fuck do you need a dealer anymore, ya know? No more dealers would save lives in bad drug deals, stealing drugs from one another, and stealing things to sell for drugs, not only that...we wouldn't have to worry about theives breaking into our homes stealing peoples crops. We would be free, but that's what the government likes to do...take away our freedom and do what they say.

[robert42]

YEHHHHHHAH

[Nochowderforyou]

Fag tax?? What the hell you talkin' about? I take it that doesn't mean the same as in the states. :rasta:

Fags is another word for ciggarette. Good name for it too, you gotta be a FAG to smoke one of those FAGS you FAG.;) Ahhh, I'm just kidding.

[Euphoric]

hhhhhhhhhhaha your sig is the shit!!!!!!!!!!!11 ENJOY LOSING :o Ki MDONe

[Psycho4Bud]

Fags is another word for ciggarette. Good name for it too, you gotta be a FAG to smoke one of those FAGS you FAG.;) Ahhh, I'm just kidding.

Damn.....when you talk about smokin' fags in the states it has a whole different meaning....usually a San Francisco treat! :smokin:

Can't smoke a Marlburo but the balony pony is just alright in Cali!

[beachguy in thongs]

It's here, too.

http://www.marijuana.com/
Latest News:
Can: Free The Ganga!
GBr: Cannabis Possession limit to be 500 joints
Aus: Cannabis 'Could Reverse Psychosis
Ca: Justices to Review Medical Marijuana Firing
Can: Marijuana grower's sentence includes donation to DARE
USA: Woody Harrelson says yoga gives him a better high than...

[Goldfinch]

What the hell, will someone just clarify what the hell that article meant? I mean one things is the class 1/16 enough to make "four "quite strong" cannabis cigarettes" WTF?? what the hell what utter crap, what the hell is happening to the UK!!! Will someone explain what that said in laymanâ??s terms for me please as my mind may not bend that far into the parallel universe in which our politicians live in!

[Nochowderforyou]

I don't know. My feeble Canadian mind has a hard time understanding Brits. "Mai I freshen ya drink governa?"<-----bad impression of British people

[Nochowderforyou]

hhhhhhhhhhaha your sig is the shit!!!!!!!!!!!11 ENJOY LOSING :o Ki MDONe

:thumbsup:

Thanks... :rasta:

[beachguy in thongs]

This will explain it.

Cannabis Possession Limit To Be 500 Joints
Richard Ford and Stewart Tendler | The Times | 12/01/2005

DRUG users caught with enough cannabis to make more than 500 joints will be able to claim that it is for personal use under Home Office plans published yesterday.

Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, is planning to set a threshold for the amount of drugs a person can possess without being charged for dealing.

The move was announced as police in Brixton, South London, were preparing to take a tougher approach on cannabis because drug dealing has increased since the area was used to test a more liberal attitude towards people caught with cannabis. Anyone caught with any amount of the drug will face arrest under the new strategy.

Threshold limits proposed by the Home Secretary will provide guidance to police and the Crown Prosecution Service on whether to prosecute for dealing or possession. A letter from the Home Office said that it was minded to set the thresholds at levels already being operated in Nottingham. The personal use threshold for cannabis would be 4 ounces, enough to roll more than 500 joints.

(BuzzNote: This seemed odd to me at first. You can't roll a joint from 0.2 grams of weed. Then I realized that hash is the dominant form of cannabis in the UK. A fifth of a gram of hash mixed with tobacco will make a joint.)

The letter said: â??Being in possession of a lower-than-prescribed amount of a controlled drug will not prevent prosecution for the offence of intent to supply if other evidence demonstrates that the defendant had the necessary intent, for example the possession of dealing paraphernalia.â?�

The Association of Chief Police Officers has avoided setting a threshold because it said that it could lead to dealers carrying amounts just below the threshold. A Home Office spokesman said: â??This is to clarify the point at which the quantity of drugs in a personâ??s possession becomes above and beyond that reasonably held for personal use, and so help the courts to differentiate between possession and intent to supply.â?�

Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: â??The Government was given ample warning during the passage of the Drugs Bill that this idea would backfire. Set the limit too low, and you treat all users as dealers. Set it too high, and many dealers will argue that the drugs were for personal useâ?�.

Cheryl Gillan, the Conservative home affairs spokesman, said that setting out thresholds would help dealers to know what they could get away with.

The move was announced before the introduction of powers today under which there will be more drug testing of people arrested for offences such as burglary, robbery and theft. An estimated 250,000 people each year will be tested for drugs when they are arrested.

Anyone who tests positive will be forced to attend a drug assessment to help them into treatment, even if they are not eventually charged. A person who fails to undergo a drug assessment faces a fine of up to £2,500 or up to three months in prison.

Another power coming into force today will allow courts to refuse bail to an alleged offender unless he or she agrees to a drug assessment. Paul Goggins, a Home Office Minister, said: â??Testing on arrest and compulsory assessment will help to identify more drug misusing offenders within the criminal justice system . . . and so make communities safer.â?�

[somebody someone]

wow this actually really sucks

[buddymyfriend]

Damn.....when you talk about smokin' fags in the states it has a whole different meaning....usually a San Francisco treat! :smokin:

Can't smoke a Marlburo but the balony pony is just alright in Cali!

Lol, sorry bro we call cigarettes fags here. Sorry for the confusion!

Peace

Buddy

[st0n3r]

so some1 just explain 2 me in human terms......not a copy + paste thing.........if we have 4 Oz or less on us, we cant face prosecution?? meaning we get let of lightly?

[buddymyfriend]

so some1 just explain 2 me in human terms......not a copy + paste thing.........if we have 4 Oz or less on us, we cant face prosecution?? meaning we get let of lightly?

The chance of being charged with trafficking are now less and you could still be charged with possesion.