Czech republic decriminalizes drugs

SLUSK

The Czech republic has now done the same as Portugal and decriminalizes small amounts of drug possession. The law will take effect 1st January 2010.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/special/czech_republic_decriminalization_amounts

I think this is good, now drug addicts can seek help with their addiction without running the risk of getting thrown in jail simply for abusing illegal drugs.

What do you guys think?

drunkmonkey

I think i've just found a new holiday destination, Hurray for 2010:)

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

The Czech republic has now done the same as Portugal and decriminalizes small amounts of drug possession. The law will take effect 1st January 2010.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/special/czech_republic_decriminalization_amounts

I think this is good, now drug addicts can seek help with their addiction without running the risk of getting thrown in jail simply for abusing illegal drugs.

What do you guys think?

I think its asinine to hold that reasoning up as a rationale.

You can have 5 Marijuana plants or 15 grams, for instance. Or 2 grams of Crystal Meth.

Explain to me how under the old law a drug addict could not seek help without being thrown in Jail? Did Cops used to throw people in jail for seeking help with a drug addiction?

drunkmonkey

Overheal wrote: »

asinine

sounds lethal, any good?

henryporter

5 plants?:D Forget the holiday, time to emigrate!!

SLUSK

Overheal wrote: »

I think its asinine to hold that reasoning up as a rationale.

You can have 5 Marijuana plants or 15 grams, for instance. Or 2 grams of Crystal Meth.

Explain to me how under the old law a drug addict could not seek help without being thrown in Jail? Did Cops used to throw people in jail for seeking help with a drug addiction?

Because if you seek treatment, they would probably report you to the police, the police come to the guy's home, find some drugs, beat him up and then arrest him. Then you get thrown in jail and run the risk of getting gang raped.

dsmythy

SLUSK wrote: »

Because if you seek treatment, they would probably report you to the police, the police come to the guy's home, find some drugs, beat him up and then arrest him. Then you get thrown in jail and run the risk of getting gang raped.

And credibility gone.......

Overheal

dsmythy wrote: »

And credibility gone.......

What you have to understand is SLUSK is incredibly mistrusting and damning of Policing in society. I cant fathom what experience taught him this but I've had my share of run-ins with the law (including doing 110mph in a 70.. and he thought I was doing 120) and can safely say I was never tazed or abused. Though that was quite an expensive ticket. That Seargant got a polite handshake from me in court when the sentencing was reduced to 87. Nice lad.

Because if you seek treatment, they would probably report you to the police, the police come to the guy's home, find some drugs, beat him up and then arrest him. Then you get thrown in jail and run the risk of getting gang raped.

For your sake, I hope that was a joke. Addicts can already approach organizations and hospitals for addiction problems (see: Methadone) very often without prosecution. Especially considering when you rush yourself into ER with withdrawal symptoms, its because theres nothing in your apartment to arrest you for :rolleyes:

aurelius79

Overheal wrote: »

What you have to understand is SLUSK is incredibly mistrusting and damning of Policing in society. I cant fathom what experience taught him this but I've had my share of run-ins with the law (including doing 110mph in a 70.. and he thought I was doing 120) and can safely say I was never tazed or abused. Though that was quite an expensive ticket. That Seargant got a polite handshake from me in court when the sentencing was reduced to 87. Nice lad.

Good thing you didn't attend the peaceful Reclaim the Streets demo back in '06 then.

Overheal

Interesting and earmarked. But a bit of a hyperbole for the given scenario of a drug addict on the wrong side of the law reaching out for help.

Is there a history of repeat judicial abuses against recovering drug addicts?

aurelius79

Overheal wrote: »

Interesting and earmarked. But a bit of a hyperbole for the given scenario of a drug addict on the wrong side of the law reaching out for help.

Is there a history of repeat judicial abuses against recovering drug addicts?

Facts don't really matter to an addict who is afraid of the possibility of prosecution. I can imagine that any addict who has registered their personal information with a methadone clinic is also known to the Gardai. There is a possibility that when the Gardai need to arrest a dealer they will come knocking on the door of the addict looking for information with threats of incarceration. This is how drug enforcement works.

simplistic

Overheal wrote: »

What you have to understand is SLUSK is incredibly mistrusting and damning of Policing in society. I cant fathom what experience taught him this but I've had my share of run-ins with the law (including doing 110mph in a 70.. and he thought I was doing 120) and can safely say I was never tazed or abused. Though that was quite an expensive ticket. That Seargant got a polite handshake from me in court when the sentencing was reduced to 87. Nice lad.For your sake, I hope that was a joke. Addicts can already approach organizations and hospitals for addiction problems (see: Methadone) very often without prosecution. Especially considering when you rush yourself into ER with withdrawal symptoms, its because theres nothing in your apartment to arrest you for :rolleyes:

Really Man have you no pride ? How did you just enjoy being robbed?

On the drugs , the very fact that anybody believes that you can solve problems by threating people with violence just shows the disgusting nature of the people with power in countries. Any member that of the judicial system that threatens or uses violence against a peaceful drug user is by far a bigger criminal. The crimes that the judical system in Ireland commit against the peaceful people living here is a disgrace.

Overheal

simplistic wrote: »

Really Man have you no pride ? How did you just enjoy being robbed?

Considering the velocity of the Jeep Grand Cherokee in Question and the broken agreement between myself my foot and the speed limit notice, I was not robbed. Actually if you follow the letter of the law, I should have been jailed also.

aurelius79 wrote: »

Facts don't really matter to an addict who is afraid of the possibility of prosecution. I can imagine that any addict who has registered their personal information with a methadone clinic is also known to the Gardai. There is a possibility that when the Gardai need to arrest a dealer they will come knocking on the door of the addict looking for information with threats of incarceration. This is how drug enforcement works.

Please find out.

aurelius79

Overheal wrote: »

Please find out.

aurelius79 wrote: »

Facts don't really matter to an addict who is afraid of the possibility of prosecution.

That's why I started that post with that sentence. The police use little fish to catch big fish, this is nothing new. Decriminalizing would mean the Gardai would have to do some actual police work instead of just dragging in addicts and threatening them with incarceration if they don't give up their dealer.

johnnyskeleton

SLUSK wrote: »

The Czech republic has now done the same as Portugal and decriminalizes small amounts of drug possession. The law will take effect 1st January 2010.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/special/czech_republic_decriminalization_amounts

I think this is good, now drug addicts can seek help with their addiction without running the risk of getting thrown in jail simply for abusing illegal drugs.

What do you guys think?

1.5g of Heroin is a bit much.

Also, how do the addicts get their lawful hits? Will they be dispensed in pharmacies or is this just a simple measure to cut the police workload?

aurelius79

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

1.5g of Heroin is a bit much.

Also, how do the addicts get their lawful hits? Will they be dispensed in pharmacies or is this just a simple measure to cut the police workload?

It's decriminalized, not legalized. It's still illegal but will not be punishable with incarceration. Sentences will be fines, community service, treatment, etc. if they even decide to prosecute in the first place.

johnnyskeleton

aurelius79 wrote: »

It's decriminalized, not legalized. It's still illegal but will not be punishable with incarceration. Sentences will be fines, community service, treatment, etc. if they even decide to prosecute in the first place.

Decriminalised=legalised. If something is not prohibited by law then it is legal. If something is prohibited by law then it is illegal.

The article does not say that they have reduced the penalties so that there is no prison sentence. It says that it will no longer be a criminal offence. Therefore no prosecutions, no fines and no community service. Unless the article is wrong or I misread it, you cannot be criminally punished in the Czech Republic for possessing drugs below the stated quantities.

dsmythy

aurelius79 wrote: »

Good thing you didn't attend the peaceful Reclaim the Streets demo back in '06 then.

Get off the road when you're told and there's no problem.

Overheal

dsmythy wrote: »

Get off the road when you're told and there's no problem.

It doesnt end well for Tree-Huggers either. Best place to protest is on the steps of a parliament building but again you cant block TDs from enetering and leaving the building by body-blocking them without expecting a police reaction. Similarly when you grind Dublin into gridlock the **** will hit the fan =/ granted the point of Protest is to disrupt and attract attention but it does require more care.

aurelius79

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Decriminalised=legalised. If something is not prohibited by law then it is legal. If something is prohibited by law then it is illegal.

Ok, a criminal offense, which can be divided into classes depending on severity(assault, theft, murder, etc.), results in an arrest, prosecution, conviction, and sentence.

When a criminal offense is "decriminalized", it is reduced in severity and may be classed as a civil infraction(speeding/parking tickets, disturbing the peace, etc.). This means that the offense is still illegal, but can be dealt with by a simple warning, a fine, penalty points, etc.

Decriminalizing the use of drugs frees up the police force, the courts and jail systems. Think about the money being spent to prosecute simple possession charges, when it could be used to fund treatment and counseling.

aurelius79

Overheal wrote: »

It doesnt end well for Tree-Huggers either. Best place to protest is on the steps of a parliament building but again you cant block TDs from enetering and leaving the building by body-blocking them without expecting a police reaction. Similarly when you grind Dublin into gridlock the **** will hit the fan =/ granted the point of Protest is to disrupt and attract attention but it does require more care.

It was a street party one day out of the year. Reclaim the Streets was advertised long before the event and the Gardai were aware of it. They could have done other things but instead they decided to beat the demonstrators out of the way. Even the Orangemen got to march down O'Connell St. but we all remember how that ended don't we?

Here's another proud moment from our beloved Gardai.

Overheal

Okay I am interested in the history lesson but - totally off topic

Please retain these next time we have a protest related thread


Back on topic When have the Gards (or lets shoot for any first world police force) tracked down, beaten, arrested, and seen to the prison gang rape of people going into rehab for drug use? Or of harrassing them or illegally searching their homes? On the other hand, what court has authorized Search Warrants for the homes of rehab patients because they have gone to rehab?

johnnyskeleton

aurelius79 wrote: »

When a criminal offense is "decriminalized", it is reduced in severity and may be classed as a civil infraction(speeding/parking tickets, disturbing the peace, etc.). This means that the offense is still illegal, but can be dealt with by a simple warning, a fine, penalty points, etc.

If such a distinction does exist (and it doesn't exist in Ireland; to be given penalty points or a fine (as distinct from an administrative charge) you must be found guilty of a criminal offence. There is not such thing as a civil offence in Ireland anyway, although I'm not sure about the Czech Republic), it does not appear to be what has happened in the Czech Republic based on the article above and this one. There is no suggestion that non criminal fines exist in Czech Republic or that the possession of drugs under the amounts will result in such a fine.

aurelius79 wrote: »

Decriminalizing the use of drugs frees up the police force, the courts and jail systems. Think about the money being spent to prosecute simple possession charges, when it could be used to fund treatment and counseling.

Why are you saying this to me? I'm not arguing for or against decriminalisation (in fact I made the above point above in asking whether it was simply a way to reduce the police workload) but rather disputing that decriminalisation means that something is still illegal but just doesn't result in a sanction of imprisonment.

aurelius79

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If such a distinction does exist (and it doesn't exist in Ireland; to be given penalty points or a fine (as distinct from an administrative charge) you must be found guilty of a criminal offence. There is not such thing as a civil offence in Ireland anyway, although I'm not sure about the Czech Republic), it does not appear to be what has happened in the Czech Republic based on the article above and this one. There is no suggestion that non criminal fines exist in Czech Republic or that the possession of drugs under the amounts will result in such a fine.

There are actually such things as civil (district/circuit) and criminal courts in Ireland. Civil court deals with small crimes, criminal court obviously deals with more serious crimes. Decriminalization will move possession charges out of criminal courts and into civil courts.

http://www.lawlibrary.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=13

Overheal

aurelius79 wrote: »

There are actually such things as civil (district/circuit) and criminal courts in Ireland. Civil court deals with small crimes, criminal court obviously deals with more serious crimes. Decriminalization will move possession charges out of criminal courts and into civil courts.

http://www.lawlibrary.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=13

Criminal is usually any felony isnt it? Civil court is when you want your ex boyfriend to pay back the 3 grand you loaned him etc. Im not a lawyer.

johnnyskeleton

aurelius79 wrote: »

There are actually such things as civil (district/circuit) and criminal courts in Ireland. Civil court deals with small crimes, criminal court obviously deals with more serious crimes. Decriminalization will move possession charges out of criminal courts and into civil courts.

http://www.lawlibrary.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=13

I'm afraid you have misunderstood - that diagram states that the district court deals with civil claims up to €6,350 and criminal summary matters. The district court in Ireland deals with most of the summary criminal cases in Ireland (i.e. other than the SCC). Small crimes (i.e. summary offences) are dealt with the district court but are still crimes. More serious crimes (indictable offences not tried by the SCC and not murder, rape, genocide, treason, piracy and commercial offences) are dealt with in the Circuit Court.

In Ireland there is no distinction between the district court's civil jurisdiction and it's criminal jurisdiction. Equally in the circuit court, you could well have a criminal trial and several civil matters listed for the same day.

But this is just skirting around the issue. If the state is going to impose a penalty for wrongdoing, whether it be a fine, community service or even the probation of offenders act, it is a criminal matter. The courts do not have jurisdiction (other than in exceptional cirucmstances) to punish someone for a civil matter.

Civil courts in Ireland do not deal with small crimes; all criminal matters are dealt with by criminal courts.

Overheal wrote: »

Criminal is usually any felony isnt it? Civil court is when you want your ex boyfriend to pay back the 3 grand you loaned him etc. Im not a lawyer.

More or less, but the felony/misdemeanor distinction in Ireland has been removed, and even minor offences e.g. breaking a red light are criminal offences. Civil law deals with compensating someone who has been wronged by another private party or by the state acting in a private capacity.

Mahatma coat

OK so heres where the problem seems to lie withthis sort of thing


this is from Dictionary. com

its the accepted 'English Language' definition of the word, its pretty straightforward and is the definition most of us think of
Decriminalise == Make Legal

de⋅crim⋅i⋅nal⋅ize
  /diˈkrɪmənlˌaɪz/ [dee-krim-uh-nl-ahyz]

–verb (used with object), -ized, -iz⋅ing.
to eliminate criminal penalties for or remove legal restrictions against: to decriminalize marijuana.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

this one is in 'Legalese'
spot the difference

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: de·crim·i·nal·ize
Pronunciation: dE-'kri-m&n-&l-"Iz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: -ized; -iz·ing
: to remove or reduce the criminal classification or status of —de·crim·i·nal·iza·tion /dE-"kri-m&n-&l-&-'zA-sh&n/ noun


Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

so in english it means
its not illegal

in Legalese it means, depends on the level of representation you can afford

FlutterinBantam

SLUSK wrote: »

The Czech republic has now done the same as Portugal and decriminalizes small amounts of drug possession. The law will take effect 1st January 2010.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/special/czech_republic_decriminalization_amounts

I think this is good, now drug addicts can seek help with their addiction without running the risk of getting thrown in jail simply for abusing illegal drugs.

What do you guys think?

I would have no problem with that provided addicts pay for their own rehab.

Otherwise throw them in jail.

I certainly wouldn't want MY taxes funding those people.

Victor

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I would have no problem with that provided addicts pay for their own rehab.

Otherwise throw them in jail.

I certainly wouldn't want MY taxes funding those people.

What? They'll have to mug people to fund rehab?

johnnyskeleton

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK so heres where the problem seems to lie withthis sort of thing


this is from Dictionary. com

its the accepted 'English Language' definition of the word, its pretty straightforward and is the definition most of us think of
Decriminalise == Make Legal




this one is in 'Legalese'
spot the difference


so in english it means
its not illegal

The crucial point is though that the articles suggest that in the Czech Republic it is no longer a criminal offence and therefore perfectly legal to possess quantities of drugs below that amount.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

in Legalese it means, depends on the level of representation you can afford

aurelius79

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The crucial point is though that the articles suggest that in the Czech Republic it is no longer a criminal offence and therefore perfectly legal to possess quantities of drugs below that amount.

I think you're missing the point though. This only pertains to the possession of small quantities of drugs. Distribution and sales are still illegal. Possession of quantities over the set limit is still illegal. Therefore, drugs are still illegal. You won't see coffee shops opening up around Prague like you see in Amsterdam.

This legislation mainly deals with small cannabis and mushroom growers. It was passed to reduce the workload on law enforcement agencies and the courts and to reduce prison populations. The sale of even small amounts of cannabis is still illegal. There was no point in decriminalizing other drugs because the only means of obtaining them is through illegal transactions.

While this is a step in the right direction, it is still not enough. I don't think manufactured drugs (cocaine, heroin, amphetamines) should be legalized or decriminalized whatsoever, but herbal drugs (cannabis, mushrooms, salvia, etc.) should be legalized outright.

Overheal

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK so heres where the problem seems to lie withthis sort of thing

this is from Dictionary. com

its the accepted 'English Language' definition of the word, its pretty straightforward and is the definition most of us think of
Decriminalise == Make Legal

this one is in 'Legalese'
spot the difference

so in english it means
its not illegal

in Legalese it means, depends on the level of representation you can afford

Legalization would seem to me to mean the substance can be carried in any quantities, transported commercially, etc. etc.

Whereas decriminalizing small amounts protects light users from prosecution. SLUSK is right in saying it will make addicts feel safer and more open though. And it may lead to drug sources quicker. I just dont agree at the amount of police brutality or prison rape suggested I'm sure it will be the mandate of clinics and authorities to try and get recovering addicts to turn in their suppliers but I doubt they will coerce them forcibly to do so. Especially considering the difference between turning in your pot-friend and turning in your heroine supplier: one loses you a buddy the other one will get you shot.

Instead of trying to hide a coke addiction from family members say, it will slip from the tongue easier, enter normal conversation. People will be more forthcoming for help or assistance, etc.

But I definitely doubt it will result in home searches of light users for any reason without due cause. It would be understandable if you were a suspect dealer, always seen on street corners with a couple of grams that cant be done in for, etc. etc.

Mario007

This is bullcrap, i watch the czech news everyday and read the czech newspapers online but never once was decriminilization of drugs mentioned. plus i also read and watch slovakian television and newspapers and they love to point out something outrageous and weird that the czech government does(and vice versa) and they did not mention anything about it either

johnnyskeleton

aurelius79 wrote: »

I think you're missing the point though. This only pertains to the possession of small quantities of drugs. Distribution and sales are still illegal. Possession of quantities over the set limit is still illegal.

How am I missing the point, that's exactly what I said? It is now legal (according the the article) to possess quantities of drugs below the said limits.

aurelius79 wrote: »

This legislation mainly deals with small cannabis and mushroom growers. It was passed to reduce the workload on law enforcement agencies and the courts and to reduce prison populations. The sale of even small amounts of cannabis is still illegal. There was no point in decriminalizing other drugs because the only means of obtaining them is through illegal transactions.

Where are you getting this from? I asked earlier whether this was the reason or not; there could be other reasons.

CFlower

There has been a propoganda push for drug law liberalisation over the last year. I looked into it and found that it was being heavily promoted by Soros Foundation-funded websites and by intel assets like Mischa Glenny. Then I looked for information/research on how things are going in Portugal and found that the research - even the so-called "UN research" is similarly funded.

The CIA and British intelligence are complicit/involved in massive amounts of drug running out of Afghanistan and Columbia - Tom Carew and General Gul of the ISI, Sibel Edmonds and many others confirm this.

Massive world recession on, so getting us all stoned instead of angry seems like a good plan, I suppose.