Legal aspect of growing plants

SubBusted

Why is it illegal here to grow cannabis but legal to grow other plants/mushrooms that can genuinely kill e.g. deadly nightshade/deathcap?

DublinWriter

Because that's the legislation.

Markcheese

Why would you recreationally take deadly mushrooms.... ?? Levels of abuse maybe ??

Procrastastudy

There are various sources of Law OP. Mainly Constitutional, Common Law (judge made) and legislation. Legislation is like a busybody with nothe better to do. In fact its worse its lots of busy bodies trying to keep people happy to get votes to stay in power. Hence we end up with legislation that no one really wants and serves very little useful purpose.

Now not all legislation is bad - just the bits that make no sense but we plough on with becuase it's been twisted into a vote getter like the 'war on drugs'.

In short if you stoner hippies went out and voted may be you could grow what you wanted.

Peregrinus

Deadly nightshade is an indigenous plant and grows wild; in fact it's quite common. It's a deeply, deeply unpleasant drug to take for recreational purposes, and in fact is very rarely abused in this way. Even more rarely is it cultivated for this purpose. Hence, there is no "mischief" which requires criminal legislation.

You can fairly ask whether the cultivation of cannabis for use as a recreational drug is a "mischief" that needs to be controlled or criminalised by legislation, but the fact that an entirely different plant which isn't cultivated for this purpose is not banned is not a terribly strong argument.

krd

Procrastastudy wrote: »

In short if you stoner hippies went out and voted may be you could grow what you wanted.

Yeah, they never get off their fat stoned arses.....

But does voting do anything?

20 years ago the people voted in the X case referendum, and still there hasn't been legislation passed.

CIARAN_BOYLE

krd wrote: »

Yeah, they never get off their fat stoned arses.....

But does voting do anything?

20 years ago the people voted in the X case referendum, and still there hasn't been legislation passed.

bunreacht na eireann wrote:

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.
This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

What laws do you want passed on either of those subsections passed 20 years ago related to the x case

Anyway OP the law sometimes is the law and has to be dealt with as is rather than as desired

krd

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

What laws do you want passed on either of those subsections passed 20 years ago related to the x case

40.3.3° reads:
The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.


Now, when this referendum was held, the anti-democratic bollockies, tried their best to have it worded in such away that there could be no chance of abortion under any option. The sneaky lack of clarity, bearing all the hallmark of the potbellied pub/farm/and auctioneering business owning hob goblins who run Ireland.

The article can be interpreted two ways.

One; If the life of the mother is threatened by her pregnancy, the life of the unborn fetus is given equal primacy. In that instance, no direct intervention can be made to terminate the pregnancy. And literally, holy god has to decide. This is the interpretation the bollockies like. And this is the interpretation Savita Halappanavar got. The doctors stood round her while she was in agony, where her child was going to die - and said "This is Ireland, we're a Catholic country...We have to wait for holy god to decide....We'll give you some holy water if you like"

Two; The most logical interpretation of article. If the life of the woman is threatened by her pregnancy, even though the fetus has "equal" primacy, then a termination should be provided on demand - the fetus cannot survive if the mother is dead. And if it's only the health and not the life of the woman, if they both have equal primacy how can it be possible that the fetus life should take primacy over the woman's health. Of course this is the interpretation the bollockies do not want - it cuts holy god out of the decision making process. That's why they were so sneaky in the wording. Equal my arse.

The law that needs to be passed is to legalise ABORTION ON DEMAND. Which would have saved the life of Savita Halappanavar. And the decision should be the woman's absolute right - and not have some parish priest make it for her "Ah we'll hang on...see what holy god will do.....and sure if you die, you'll be going straight up to heaven, so you'll be grand.....Would you like some holy water?"

Anyway OP the law sometimes is the law and has to be dealt with as is rather than as desired

The logic of an illiberal dictatorship, and not of a liberal democracy.

In reality, we don't have democracy. We have a national school.

SubBusted

Would you feck off with that right to life stuff. This thread is about plants not unborn babies. Anyone in Ireland can legally grow belladonna and make a cup of tea from the leaves. The drinker will probably drop dead within a few hours. Same with eating certain mushrooms - no cure, kidneys destroyed and more than likely death. Yet some hippie grows a few cannabis plants in his garden and he gets arrested and it's in the papers.

Procrastastudy

SubBusted wrote: »

Would you feck off with that right to life stuff. This thread is about plants not unborn babies. Anyone in Ireand can legally grow belladonna and make a cup of tea from the leaves. The drinker will probably drop dead within a few hours. Same with eating certain mushrooms - no cure, kidneys destroyed and more than likely death. Yet some hippie grows a few cannabis plants in his garden and he gets arrested and it's in the papers.

+1 on the right to life stuff but OP you are surely not this naive.

Cannabis is a controlled substance, I've yet to hear of trafficking in belladonna. You could stab yourself with a knife - are you suggesting we ban knives?

Your argument seems to be it does no more harm than other things so why not allow it. Well personally I agree with you - I'd decriminalise possession of every drug tomorrow. I'd see cannabis, ecstasy and LSD sold in chemists and taxed. However that's not the only point of view. I think you'd be better off having a google and then starting a thread in the Humanities forum in all honesty.

SubBusted

I want to get a legal opinion please. What about the Noxious Weeds Act, 1936?
3.—Where any noxious weeds are growing on any land the responsible person in respect of such land or if there are two or more such persons, each of them severally, shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

Is that all Irish law has?

Procrastastudy

SubBusted wrote: »

I want to get a legal opinion please. What about the Noxious Weeds Act, 1936?
3.—Where any noxious weeds are growing on any land the responsible person in respect of such land or if there are two or more such persons, each of them severally, shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

Is that all Irish law has?

You'd have to look at amendment to that - I suppose it could still be IR£20 but a I doubt it.

ResearchWill

Procrastastudy wrote: »

You'd have to look at amendment to that - I suppose it could still be IR£20 but a I doubt it.

Yup amended by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1984 and the Fines Act 2010.

Pat Mustard

The legislation directory, entry number 38, doesn't mention an amendment to section 3 of the Noxious Weeds Act 1936.

ResearchWill

The Mustard wrote: »

The legislation directory, entry number 38, doesn't mention an amendment to section 3 of the Noxious Weeds Act 1936.

Oops I did not read correctly thought it was section 3 Misue of drugs Act 1977 ( should read before posting), but in that case it would be covered by the fins Act 2010.

It's a class D fine

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0008/sec0007.html#sec7

“class D fine” means a fine not exceeding €1,000;

Pat Mustard

So, in answer to SubBusted's question, apart from Misuse of Drugs Act offences, that Noxious Weeds Act offence still carries a penalty, being the euro equivalent of £20.

ResearchWill

The Mustard wrote: »

So, in answer to SubBusted's question, apart from Misuse of Drugs Act offences, that Noxious Weeds Act offence still carries a penalty, being the euro equivalent of £20.

No it now carries a fine that is class D fine so €1000, that Act amended all previous fines by classing fines from A to E depending on the original or amended fine and when enacted.

7.— (1) Where an enactment enacted on or after the commencement date provides that a person who commits an offence under that or any other enactment shall be liable, upon summary conviction, to a class D fine, the reference to class D fine shall be construed as a reference to class D fine within the meaning of this Part.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), where an enactment enacted during a period specified in column (2) of the Table opposite a particular reference number specified in column (1) of the Table provides that a person who commits an offence under the enactment shall be liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding an amount that falls within the range of amounts specified in column (3) of the Table opposite the same reference number, a person who commits that offence after the commencement date shall, upon summary conviction, not be liable to that fine, but shall instead be liable to a class D fine.

(3) Where an enactment enacted before the commencement date provides that a person who commits an offence under the enactment shall be liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding an amount that—

(a) was provided for by virtue of a subsequent enactment enacted during a period specified in column (2) of the Table opposite a particular reference number specified in column (1) of the Table, and

(b) falls within the range of amounts specified in column (3) of the Table opposite the same reference number,

a person who commits that offence after the commencement date shall, upon summary conviction, not be liable to that fine but shall instead be liable to a class D fine.


Reference Number

(1)

Period

(2)

Range of amounts

(3)

1.

1 January 1997 to day immediately before commencement date

Not greater than €1,000 but greater than €500

2.

1 January 1990 to 31 December 1996

Not greater than €692 but greater than €346

3.

1 January 1980 to 31 December 1989

Not greater than €582 but greater than €291

4.

1 January 1975 to 31 December 1979

Not greater than €242 but greater than €121

5.

1 January 1965 to 31 December 1974

Not greater than €123 but greater than €61

6.

1 January 1945 to 31 December 1964

Not greater than €59 but greater than €29

7.

1 January 1915 to 31 December 1944

Not greater than €32 but greater than €16

8.

Period ending on 31 December 1914

Not greater than €25 but greater than €6

Pat Mustard

I was talking about noxious weeds.

For example, if ragwort grows on my land, I am liable for a £20 fine under the Noxious Weeds Act 1936.

I am not liable to a fine under the Misuse of Drugs Act legislation.

Correct me if I am wrong here.

ResearchWill

The Mustard wrote: »

I was talking about noxious weeds.

For example, if ragwort grows on my land, I am liable for a £20 fine under the Noxious Weeds Act 1936.

I am not liable to a fine under the Misuse of Drugs Act legislation.

Correct me if I am wrong here.

As I said I misread the original post when I quoted the 1984 Act. So lets just ignore that post my bad.

The Nocious Weeds Act 1936 had a fine of £20 under section 3. Since the Fines Act 2010 came in we now have to look at that. As the NWA 1936 was never amended we just need to find what fine now applies, a fine of £20 in 1936 is now a class D fine that is a fine of upto €1000.

Pat Mustard

ResearchWill wrote: »

As I said I misread the original post when I quoted the 1984 Act. So lets just ignore that post my bad.

The Nocious Weeds Act 1936 had a fine of £20 under section 3. Since the Fines Act 2010 came in we now have to look at that. As the NWA 1936 was never amended we just need to find what fine now applies, a fine of £20 in 1936 is now a class D fine that is a fine of upto €1000.

It was I who misunderstood you. Apologies, you are right. Up to €1,000.00 fine.