Teen with no priors gets 4 month suspended sentence for selling cannabis

Strumms

Hoboo wrote: »

The minute someone mentions the word "gateway" when discussing cannabis, I close the door and tiptoe away. Ignorant nonsense.

You can tiptoe away and talk to anybody such as anybody involved in numerous public health bodies throughout the world, medical people, psychologists, experts on addiction and so on who will maintain that cannabis is or can be a gateway drug, because it isn’t ‘always’ doesn’t mean it isn’t of the capacity to be because it does and is. You can enlighten each and every expert as to your views and qualifications that lead you to disregard expert opinion.

Expert opinions of qualified people such as Robert L Du Pont...the President of Institute for Behavior and Health and the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/26/is-marijuana-a-gateway-drug/marijuana-has-proven-to-be-a-gateway-drug

tjhook

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Ah. So it's ok to break some laws but not others? Kinda of contradicrs your 'ah, he broke the law' line.

No, I didn't say it's ok to break some laws and not others. If you are going to break laws, you have to accept that if caught you'll have to take your medicine. I was voicing my assumption that the poster I was quoting is willing to take their punishment if caught.

Edit: Did you take that from "Most likely the laws you break aren't considered quite as serious as to block you from travelling to other countries if convicted"? There's a big spectrum between a breach of law being "ok" and being serious enough to block you entering other countries.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

tjhook wrote: »

No, I didn't say it's ok to break some laws and not others. If you are going to break laws, you have to accept that if caught you'll have to take your medicine. I was voicing my assumption that the poster I was quoting is willing to take their punishment if caught.

The problem here is that said medicine is unproportionate to crime committed.

If you speed at 80km through a 50km zone, I'd argue that you're actions put others more at risk than that of selling cannabis, and yet if someone got three months in jail for it, I'd be very surprised if people were shrugging and
saying, "hey - he knew the law when he broke it"

tjhook

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The problem here is that said medicine is unproportionate to crime committed.

If you speed at 80km through a 50km zone, I'd argue that you're actions put others more at risk than that of selling cannabis, and yet if someone got three months in jail for it, I'd be very surprised if people were shrugging and
saying, "hey - he knew the law when he broke it"

Well he got a suspended sentence. No time served. A punishment could hardly be lighter. If there's something unproportionate it's what people will think of him when they know he was a drug dealer. That's not a problem with the sentence. Your complaint should be with organisations and countries like the USA who view drug dealing in a very dim light.

Truthvader

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The problem here is that said medicine is unproportionate to crime committed.

If you speed at 80km through a 50km zone, I'd argue that you're actions put others more at risk than that of selling cannabis, and yet if someone got three months in jail for it, I'd be very surprised if people were shrugging and
saying, "hey - he knew the law when he broke it"

"disproportionate"

joeguevara

There are a few items that seem to have been glossed over. Firstly no previous convictions does not mean that this is the first time that he has been in court or caught breaking the law, as this could have been dealt with by the poor box. Secondly, it is stated that he is getting anger management counselling and directed to stay away from his old haunts. Why would this have been mentioned if he wasn't either violent or couldn't control his rage. Thirdly, 'he hopes to receive his safe pass soon and begin work soon;. More than 18 months since the original incident, he hasn't bothered even to do a one day programme.

Wanderer78

joeguevara wrote: »

There are a few items that seem to have been glossed over. Firstly no previous convictions does not mean that this is the first time that he has been in court or caught breaking the law, as this could have been dealt with by the poor box. Secondly, it is stated that he is getting anger management counselling and directed to stay away from his old haunts. Why would this have been mentioned if he wasn't either violent or couldn't control his rage. Thirdly, 'he hopes to receive his safe pass soon and begin work soon;. More than 18 months since the original incident, he hasn't bothered even to do a one day programme.

sounds like anger management isnt going deep enough, he should be forwarded to further counselling

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

tjhook wrote: »

Well he got a suspended sentence. No time served. A punishment could hardly be lighter. If there's something unproportionate it's what people will think of him when they know he was a drug dealer. That's not a problem with the sentence. Your complaint should be with organisations and countries like the USA who view drug dealing in a very dim light.

My complaint is with idiots who think that because a drug is illegal it must therefore be dangerous and people who take it or deal it are scumbags (not saying this was you, just to clarify) wihtout even trying to do any basic research.

Publicans are drug dealers, too - and most people who hate drug dealers deal with them all the time. Why? Because it's legal (what difference does that make?) Because it's safe (to who?)? Because it's socially acceptable (which is lazy as well as ignorant because you put your sense of morality into soeone else's hands).

Wanderer78

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

My complaint is with idiots who think that because a drug is illegal it must therefore be dangerous and people who take it or deal it are scumbags (not saying this was you, just to clarify) wihtout even trying to do any basic research.

I'd argue, by having those drugs illegal, increases the likelihood of them being dangerous, but legalising them, wouldn't fully make them safe either

Strumms

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

My complaint is with idiots who think that because a drug is illegal it must therefore be dangerous and people who take it or deal it are scumbags (not saying this was you, just to clarify) wihtout even trying to do any basic research.

Publicans are drug dealers, too - and most people who hate drug dealers deal with them all the time. Why? Because it's legal (what difference does that make?) Because it's safe (to who?)? Because it's socially acceptable (which is lazy as well as ignorant because you put your sense of morality into soeone else's hands).

It is dangerous or has the potential to be, simply because there is no regulation. No regulation of its content, no regulation of the manner and methods of its manufacture and production.

I can’t manufacture a painkiller and sell it to people online. If I wanted to manufacture a painkiller I need the go and get the go ahead of a regulator ie. The Irish Medicines Board... the product will be laboratory tested, the methods of its production audited and plenty more checks and balances.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Strumms wrote: »

It is dangerous or has the potential to be, simply because there is no regulation. No regulation of its content, no regulation of the manner and methods of its manufacture and production.

Theoretically, everything has the potential to be dangeroust.

I can’t manufacture a painkiller and sell it to people online. If I wanted to manufacture a painkiller I need the go and get the go ahead of a regulator ie. The Irish Medicines Board... the product will be laboratory tested, the methods of its production audited and plenty more checks and balances.

... and therein lies the advatages of legalising drugs.

That said, not all drugs are medicinal.

Strumms

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Theoretically, everything has the potential to be dangeroust.



... and therein lies the advatages of legalising drugs.

That said, not all drugs are medicinal.

Potential to be dangerous for sure.. but if the checks and balances can alleviate the likelihood that’s better for everybody.

There is ‘AN’ advantage for legalizing but still, in my own view the disadvantages outweigh the advantages by a long way.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Strumms wrote: »

Potential to be dangerous for sure.. but if the checks and balances can alleviate the likelihood that’s better for everybody.

There is ‘AN’ advantage for legalizing but still, in my own view the disadvantages outweigh the advantages by a long way.

Its not about advantage/disadvantage. It's about personal freedom and liberty. And as yet, no-one has actually made a valid well-researched point in favour of the idea than cannabis is dangerous to society - just a lot of moralistic finger-pointing and trolling from people who don't seem to think theres a difference between cannabis and heroin or alcohol.

Laws are not there for moralistic reasons.

Donald Trump

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Laws are not there for moralistic reasons.

Laws are there. You can petition to change them if you want.


But you can't have a society where every individual can pick and choose which laws they want to follow and which ones don't suit them.


Else you are getting in Healy-Ray "sure what harm is poor old 80 year old Joe doing in getting scuttered and driving home - it's what he has always done and it's the only thing he has" territory

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Donald Trump wrote: »

Laws are there. You can petition to change them if you want.


But you can't have a society where every individual can pick and choose which laws they want to follow and which ones don't suit them.


Else you are getting in Healy-Ray "sure what harm is poor old 80 year old Joe doing in getting scuttered and driving home - it's what he has always done and it's the only thing he has" territory

Again, this doesn't answer the question I asked: does the law protect society from a genuine danger?

If so, where is the evidence for it? If not, why does the law exist?

Need to settle that one before we can discuss changing it!

Donald Trump

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again, this doesn't answer the question I asked: does the law protect society from a genuine danger?

If so, where is the evidence for it? If not, why does the law exist?

Need to settle that one before we can discuss changing it!

100% irrelevant to this case. It is illegal. Your man knew it was illegal - in fact if it hadn't been illegal he likely wouldn't have been making money selling it and would have been selling another substance which did make money.


It's too late to decide to try to change a law retroactively after someone is caught breaking it. You can't be advocating that people only have to obey laws that they themselves think are justified - that's just silly. If you really want to be able to deal cannabis yourself then do the work to get yourself ready to set up and lobby etc. to get it legalised first. Plenty of people did this out in CA in the US.



Whatever anyone says, you will move the goalposts anyway. If people point to a medical study outlining dangers of using a substance you will just go to "yeah but whadddabout drink/tobacco etc."

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Donald Trump wrote: »

100% irrelevant to this case. It is illegal. Your man knew it was illegal - in fact if it hadn't been illegal he likely wouldn't have been making money selling it and would have been selling another substance which did make money.


It's too late to decide to try to change a law retroactively after someone is caught breaking it. You can't be advocating that people only have to obey laws that they themselves think are justified - that's just silly. If you really want to be able to deal cannabis yourself then do the work to get yourself ready to set up and lobby etc. to get it legalised first. Plenty of people did this out in CA in the US.



Whatever anyone says, you will move the goalposts anyway. If people point to a medical study outlining dangers of using a substance you will just go to "yeah but whadddabout drink/tobacco etc."

I'm not disagreeing with you. I said the same thing several pages ago: the law is an ass, but it is still the law. I just feel the sentence is disproportionate.

We've moved on and I simply posed a new question that arose from this : does the specific law protect society?

Edgware

Donald Trump wrote: »

Laws are there. You can petition to change them if you want.


But you can't have a society where every individual can pick and choose which laws they want to follow and which ones don't suit them.


Else you are getting in Healy-Ray "sure what harm is poor old 80 year old Joe doing in getting scuttered and driving home - it's what he has always done and it's the only thing he has" territory

Regardless of the pros and cons of cannabis use it is illegal at present so the law is the law until we change it.

1. Where did this gent source his supply? Is there a trail all the way back to some criminal who has no compulsion in sending out young men to murder in efforts to maintain his status as the main man.

2. No priors = Never brought to court. If so there is every likelihood the gent had got the benefit of juvenile cautions

Infini

Honestly if one has a clean record, generally has kept out of trouble and has just gone through a genuine bad patch and is actually trying to sort themselves out, I would have given them probation rather than a conviction expecially if they've shown genuine remorse and have tried to clean up their act. It make's little sense to give someone like that a conviction for a non violent crime when they can be easily reformed and yet all the while when you've got those with multiple convitions and arrests just not giving a shít and plaguing society for far worse crimes in a constant state of revolving door "justice".

Edgware

Infini wrote: »

Honestly if one has a clean record, generally has kept out of trouble and has just gone through a genuine bad patch and is actually trying to sort themselves out, I would have given them probation rather than a conviction expecially if they've shown genuine remorse and have tried to clean up their act. It make's little sense to give someone like that a conviction for a non violent crime when they can be easily reformed and yet all the while when you've got those with multiple convitions and arrests just not giving a shít and plaguing society for far worse crimes in a constant state of revolving door "justice".

The case could have been put back 6 months to see if he was getting his act together.
Funny how a court appearance makes someone want to get a job and a Safe Pass cert.
I have no doubt however that he was a regular seller and working the area for some dealer and the Judge saw that as well.

riclad

I do,nt think you put anyone at risk by selling cannabis no more than you do put someone at risk by selling beer.
Cannabis is legal in many states in america .
In the time of covid sending someone to prison is literally putting their life in danger.
Cannabis is avaidable in every small town in ireland.
If 100 dealers were put in prison tomorow it would make no difference ,
other dealers would take up the slack.
if someone sells heroine or cocaine they may be putting someones life in danger.
There are many famous actors , singers who admit to using cannabis and it does,nt seem to stop them from working or put them in mortal danger.

Slowyourrole

Deleted User wrote: »

No priors meaning he's not been caught before.

Suspended sentence. FFS.

Or he has a stack of JLO's.

mynamejeff

Drug dealer gets caught in the act of selling drugs most likely to get his own bit for free , admits it and gets told you get caught again you may actually get punished.
seems very fair

whats the problem ?

Overheal

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you. I said the same thing several pages ago: the law is an ass, but it is still the law. I just feel the sentence is disproportionate.

We've moved on and I simply posed a new question that arose from this : does the specific law protect society?

intent to distribute and 4 months suspended seems reasonably proportionate to me