Misuse of Drugs act and Medicinal cannabis

drunkmonkey

Not sure if the private members bill passed though the Dail tonight but it looks like there going to hit a roadblock somewhere in the next few months possibly February.

How can they have a legal situation where it's legal from the doctor if prescribed but still completely illegal to have it for enjoyment.

I don't see how they can legally have it both illegal and legal at the same time.

StupidLikeAFox

I know nothing about it, bit they may restrict it to cannabis based medicinal products, pills etc

lifeandtimes

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Not sure if the private members bill passed though the Dail tonight but it looks like there going to hit a roadblock somewhere in the next few months possibly February.

How can they have a legal situation where it's legal from the doctor if prescribed but still completely illegal to have it for enjoyment.

I don't see how they can legally have it both illegal and legal at the same time.

Or like in America people are provided with a card to state they are legally allowed use it for medicinal purposes(same as a disabled parking spot,you cant use it but someone with a disabled card can),also they won't be buying it off a dealer,they will collect either pills as some has said or pre rolled cigarettes or have it implanted in food or oils which ever the patient needs....so if they are stopped they will need to produce or it may be for home use only...it's all still up in the air

coylemj

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Not sure if the private members bill passed though the Dail tonight but it looks like there going to hit a roadblock somewhere in the next few months possibly February.

How can they have a legal situation where it's legal from the doctor if prescribed but still completely illegal to have it for enjoyment.

I don't see how they can legally have it both illegal and legal at the same time.

Minister for Health was on the radio today and according to him, the bill as introduced would remove cannabis from the Misuse of Drugs Act thereby removing all restrictions on it's use - this is what happens when amateurs try to write legislation. But in fairness, the motivation behind the bill is good and all government bills get written by the parliamentary draughtsmen in the AG's office, all of whom are qualified lawyers so it's probably not a fair comparison.

The Govt supports the bill 'in principle' but it will be seriously amended before it gets anywhere near becoming law

drunkmonkey

coylemj wrote: »

Minister for Health was on the radio today and according to him, the bill as introduced would remove cannabis from the Misuse of Drugs Act thereby removing all restrictions on it's use - this is what happens when amateurs try to write legislation. Govt supports the bill 'in principle' but it will be seriously amended before it gets anywhere near becoming law

How do you amend it to keep everyone happy. I don't see how it can work to have 2 laws around it that are workable.

Pat Mustard

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I don't see how they can legally have it both illegal and legal at the same time.

In this country, a motorist needs a licence to drive a car in a public place.

If Albert drives a car in a public place without a licence, he commits the offence of driving without a licence.

If Barry drives a car in a public place with a licence, he does not commit that offence.

Would you say that driving a car in a public place is 'both illegal and legal' at the same time'?

Peregrinus

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Not sure if the private members bill passed though the Dail tonight but it looks like there going to hit a roadblock somewhere in the next few months possibly February.

How can they have a legal situation where it's legal from the doctor if prescribed but still completely illegal to have it for enjoyment.

I don't see how they can legally have it both illegal and legal at the same time.

I'm not seeing your problem. It's legal to have it it this circumstance, and not legal to have it in that circumstance.

We have that all the time. It's bog-standard stuff. As Pat point out, legal to drive if you have a licence; not legal to drive if you don't. Legal to be on the premises if you're over eighteen; not legal if you aren't. Legal to perform surgery if you're a registered medical pracitioner; not legal if you aren't. Legal to keep a television set if you have a TV licence; not legal if you don't.

Legal to possess cannabis if you have been prescribed it for medical reasons; not legal if you haven't. I can see why you might not like the policy, but I don't see any technical or practical objection.

ohnonotgmail

You also need to take into account that it will probably not be cannabis in its natural form that will be legalised. More likely something derived from an active ingredient.

Mellor

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Not sure if the private members bill passed though the Dail tonight but it looks like there going to hit a roadblock somewhere in the next few months possibly February.

How can they have a legal situation where it's legal from the doctor if prescribed but still completely illegal to have it for enjoyment.

I don't see how they can legally have it both illegal and legal at the same time.

A doctor can currently prescribe a whole host of drugs that would it be illegal otherwise.

Peregrinus

Mellor wrote: »

A doctor can currently prescribe a whole host of drugs that would it be illegal otherwise.

Slight distinction. It's mostly not illegal to possess or take a prescription drug without the requisite subscription; it's just illegal to sell or supply it. So if they search my car and find, say, prescription-only drugs for high blood pressure, I am not at risk of prosecution if I fail to produce a prescription.

Mellor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Slight distinction. It's mostly not illegal to possess or take a prescription drug without the requisite subscription; it's just illegal to sell or supply it. So if they search my car and find, say, prescription-only drugs for high blood pressure, I am not at risk of prosecution if I fail to produce a prescription.

Mostly sure. I never said all prescription drugs were illegal. Im referring to schedule 2 drugs.
For example, strong opiates like fentanyl, morphing. Or even heroin which can be perscribed as a pain medication (under its technical name). Even cocaine has legitimate medical uses.

drunkmonkey

You've Timmy and Billy sitting on a wall, Garda walks by and smells some pot, Billy's got a pot pass from the Doctor, Timmys got the pot though and is arrested, house searched, kids taken off him and put into care, looses his Job and can't seek work outside of the country as he won't get in anywhere with a drugs conviction.

All this gets to Timmy and he gets pounding headaches and doctor prescribes him some cannibas.

I can't be the only one seeing the ridiculous situation that will arise if we keep our current medival law for the Healthy people and one law for the sick. It's complete messing.

Pat Mustard

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I can't be the only one seeing the ridiculous situation that will arise if we keep our current medival law for the Healthy people and one law for the sick. It's complete messing.

This isn't a legal point. This a political statement of your own views.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You've Timmy and Billy sitting on a wall, Garda walks by and smells some pot, Billy's got a pot pass from the Doctor, Timmys got the pot though and is arrested, house searched, kids taken off him and put into care, looses his Job and can't seek work outside of the country as he won't get in anywhere with a drugs conviction.

It's pretty common for the Probation Act to be applied for a first offence for possession of cannabis, with a contribution of perhaps €250 or so, to one of several named charities

Furthermore, the guards search Timmy's house in your scenario. And if so, did they get a search warrant to do that while Timmy was sitting on the wall?

Although it happens that visas may be refused, I know several people who have travelled abroad, who had previous convictions for possession of cannabis and otherwise.

And kids taken off him and put into care and he loses his job, eh? What a cruel world in which we live, where such awful and unlikely events occur to people.

Just high drama all around, isn't it?

Peregrinus

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You've Timmy and Billy sitting on a wall, Garda walks by and smells some pot, Billy's got a pot pass from the Doctor, Timmys got the pot though and is arrested, house searched, kids taken off him and put into care, looses his Job and can't seek work outside of the country as he won't get in anywhere with a drugs conviction.

I think you have a somewhat unrealistic view of the penalties for possession of cannabis.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I can't be the only one seeing the ridiculous situation that will arise if we keep our current medival law for the Healthy people and one law for the sick. It's complete messing.

It's completely standard. As Mellor points out, that's been the law as regards the possession of opiates and opiate derivatives for many decades now, and society hasn't disintegrated as a result.

As has been pointed out several times in the thread, you may not like the policy of criminalising cannabis possession for non-medical purposes. But it's a perfectly workable policy, and follows a well-trodden path.

hullaballoo

I heard they chop off your head and boil it in oil if you're caught with a joint.

Johnboy1951

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I know nothing about it, bit they may restrict it to cannabis based medicinal products, pills etc

I hope not ...... there has not been sufficient research to determine all the active parts of the plant or how those parts interact with each other.

Allowing the natural plant use would ensure that no, possibly beneficial, part was omitted.

If the final legislation is framed that only specific 'pills' are allowed then the patients will be short-changed.

Mellor

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

If the final legislation is framed that only specific 'pills' are allowed then the patients will be short-changed.

The bill that's been drafted uses the phrase "cannabis and cannabis products".

Johnboy1951

Mellor wrote: »

The bill that's been drafted uses the phrase "cannabis and cannabis products".

I am unsure what that might mean legally.

Is the whole plant covered by the word 'cannabis'?

Mellor

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I am unsure what that might mean legally.

Is the whole plant covered by the word 'cannabis'?

As opposed to what?
Pills, extracts, oils etc would be covered by products.


Edit:

cannabis” means a plant of the cannabis genus, which is used to produce hemp fibre as well as products containing some chemical components of medicinal value;
“cannabis-based product” means a product which contains any quantity of cannabis;

From the legal definition idioms. Cannabis refers to the natural plant.

drunkmonkey

Aren't we back to Timmys plant is legal and Billy's isn't if the plant is allowed under legislation.

It's been explained how it can remain legal and illegal.
My question was how is that any way workable unless we colour medicinal cannibas like we do with diesel.
How is a Garda going to have a clue where it came from and if it does turn out to be medicinal has billy commited any crime.

It's just sounds like a mindfiend for enforcement to have a 2 tier approach.

Peregrinus

You keep ignoring the fact that has been pointed out many times already; this system has been in place for years for other drugs, and it works just fine.

There's no need to colour medicinal cannabis, any more than we colour medicinal opiates. There will not different kinds of cannabis, some legal and some not; there will be different people, some permitted to possess cannabis (or cannabis in certain forms) and others not.

drunkmonkey

That's the bit I'm having issue with, one person is allowed and it's illegal for the next.

One chaps pot is legal, tax is paid, government makes money.

The other guys still got to visit a drug dealer and risk a run in with the law. Drug dealers still end up making money and if the Medicinal price is above to street price, were really going to end up with a half baked law that continues to benifit the underworld.

The criminal aspect has to be removed for everybody, it can't remain under the justice system.

ohnonotgmail

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That's the bit I'm having issue with, one person is allowed and it's illegal for the next.

One chaps pot is legal, tax is paid, government makes money.

The other guys still got to visit a drug dealer and risk a run in with the law. Drug dealers still end up making money and if the Medicinal price is above to street price, were really going to end up with a half baked law that continues to benifit the underworld.

The criminal aspect has to be removed for everybody, it can't remain under the justice system.

one person has a prescription, the other does not. It really is that simple.

Pat Mustard

OP

If you like, I can move your thread to Politics Cafe.

At this stage, the link with Legal Discussion seems tenuous.

drunkmonkey

Probably started off on the High side as you said Pat, bin it altogether if you want, don't think my original angle was on target.

Carawaystick

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Aren't we back to Timmys plant is legal and Billy's isn't if the plant is allowed under legislation.

It's been explained how it can remain legal and illegal.
My question was how is that any way workable unless we colour medicinal cannibas like we do with diesel.
How is a Garda going to have a clue where it came from and if it does turn out to be medicinal has billy commited any crime.

It's just sounds like a mindfiend for enforcement to have a 2 tier approach.

But at the minute it's totally legal to posses and supply seeds for cannabis plants.
It's also legal to posses Magic mushrooms under certain circumstances

RayCun

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

one person has a prescription, the other does not. It really is that simple.

And, as someone pointed out above, there are already drugs that can only be purchased on prescription.
What will happen is that if someone is found with a small amount of cannabis there won't be a problem, just like if someone is found with a small amount of a prescription drug. If someone is found with a large amount they will be done for intent to supply, just like if they were found with a large amount of prescription drugs.

Mellor

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Aren't we back to Timmys plant is legal and Billy's isn't if the plant is allowed under legislation.

The plant isn't illegal. Possession of the plant is illegal.
If passed, that will become possession of the plant without prescription is illegal. I've no idea how you can't understand that. It's the case right not for many many drugs.

How is a Garda going to have a clue where it came from and if it does turn out to be medicinal has billy commited any crime.

If Billy has a no prescription he has committed a crime, even in medicinal in source.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That's the bit I'm having issue with, one person is allowed and it's illegal for the next.

One chaps pot is legal, tax is paid, government makes money.

Timmy has a full licence, Billy doesn't.
Timmy drives his car on the roads, pays his tax.
If Billy drives his card, or even if he drives Timmy's with tax paid, he is breaking the law.

Or would you argue that everyone should be allowed to drive the same.

The other guys still got to visit a drug dealer and risk a run in with the law. Drug dealers still end up making money and if the Medicinal price is above to street price, were really going to end up with a half baked law that continues to benifit the underworld.

The law has nothing to do with preventing drug dealers from making money.

The criminal aspect has to be removed for everybody, it can't remain under the justice system.

It's the same for everybody. Everyone needs a prescription.
Nothing you've said suggests it's not a perfectly reason law under the justice system.

drunkmonkey

Mellor wrote: »

The plant isn't illegal. Possession of the plant is illegal.
If passed, that will become possession of the plant without prescription is illegal. I've no idea how you can't understand that. It's the case right not for many many drugs.

I understand it, I just don't get how it's workable. It's not at the present, we have a situation at the moment where people are selling prescription drugs to buy illegal drugs. Now your giving "patients" a highly valuable quick selling drug to sell. It's absolute lunacy.

If Billy has a no prescription he has committed a crime, even in medicinal in source.

Poor Billy

Timmy has a full licence, Billy doesn't.
Timmy drives his car on the roads, pays his tax.
If Billy drives his card, or even if he drives Timmy's with tax paid, he is breaking the law.

Or would you argue that everyone should be allowed to drive the same.

Billy is a liability and could kill somebody, he should be off the road.

The law has nothing to do with preventing drug dealers from making money.

Completely disagree with you on that one. The law we have is a licence to print money.

It's the same for everybody. Everyone needs a prescription.
Nothing you've said suggests it's not a perfectly reason law under the justice system.

I'm saying the Justice system is no place for drugs policy. This law will challenge that perception. I don't think we can apply the same laws to pot as other drugs or offences. The misuse of drugs act and cannabis are incompatible.

.

Mellor

I understand it, I just don't get how it's workable. It's not at the present, we have a situation at the moment where people are selling prescription drugs to buy illegal drugs.

It works perfectly fine with current drugs. For example opiates are prescription drugs. There's no criminal empire build on selling prescription opium.

Now your giving "patients" a highly valuable quick selling drug to sell. It's absolute lunacy.

They aren't given them. They have to buy them. If they buy drugs to €20 and sell them for €20. How much money have they made?

Prices aren't known, but legally availably cannabis will impact the street value I'd imagine.

Billy is a liability and could kill somebody, he should be off the road.

What happened to the same law for everyone?

Completely disagree with you on that one. The law we have is a licence to print money.

You can disagree all you want. You are wrong. The bill is proposed under medical reasons. This is a fact. It's not some new tactic in the war on drugs.

I'm not sure what mean by licence to print money. How is that supposed to work.

I'm saying the Justice system is no place for drugs policy. This law will challenge that perception. I don't think we can apply the same laws to pot as other drugs or offences.
The misuse of drugs act and cannabis are incompatible.

The justice system is no place for drug policy? What?? It's the only place for it tbh. Where else should we regulate misuse of drugs?
We aren't applying the same laws to pot as other drugs. We are proposing that medical use of cannabis is allowed and regulated. Other drugs aren't included.
How is the misuse of drugs act incompatible with cannabis. The drugs act will be updated to reflect medicinal use if the law is passed.

Recreational use is still illegal. If you are trying to say that recreational use should be legal. Then just say that.
You are not making a very convincing point suggesting that medicinal use is unworkable. It's not a new idea worldwide.

L1011

Mellor wrote: »

Even cocaine has legitimate medical uses.

The safe in the RVH hospital pharmacy that either does or did (the medicinal uses for it are dwindling) has at least three CCTV cameras pointed at it. Its also in the deepest basement in the building. Rather disconcerting when you're there to do work on something else!