nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Blind man asks to be charged with cannabis possession to challenge law

frag420

I really hope he gets his day in court...........

Hopefully he get more suport for this cause too..........

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/blind-man-asks-to-be-charged-with-cannabis-possession-to-challenge-law-1.1666863

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

seamus

Interesting.

I presume he has more to back up his challenge than, "I believe the law is wrong"?

frag420

seamus wrote: »

Interesting.

I presume he has more to back up his challenge than, "I believe the law is wrong"?

What I find is that many people feel that smoking a joint is wrong because the law says so!! Many people are ignorant to the benefits of weed in its many forms.

I believe the law is wrong as it is based on percieved harm reduction to society. Then by that logic there are many things that should be illegal, kitkats, McDonalds, Vodka etc...........they all cause harm in one form or another!!

jimgoose

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

What's the cost to the state?

He's planning on challenging the law using free legal aid. If he doesn't succeed he's charged with possessing cannabis, which if it's first offence is likely to be a small fine.

humanji

frag420 wrote: »

What I find is that many people feel that smoking a joint is wrong because the law says so!! Many people are ignorant to the benefits of weed in its many forms.

I believe the law is wrong as it is based on harm percieved reduction to society. Then by that logic there are many things that should be illegal, kitkats, McDonalds, Vodka etc...........they all cause harm in one form or another!!

You're 100% right. We should keep cannabis illegal and make all those things illegal too.

ScumLord

Duracell Bunny wrote: »

What's the cost to the state?

What's that got to do with it?

frag420

humanji wrote: »

You're 100% right. We should keep cannabis illegal and make all those things illegal too.

I never said that. I just was stating that this is many peoples logic as to why we should keep weed illegal.

I believe in acceptable risk, educate people on the risks involved in consuming certain substances and if they still want to consume then let them.

Just to be clear, I am all for legalising weed.

seamus

frag420 wrote: »

What I find is that many people feel that smoking a joint is wrong because the law says so!! Many people are ignorant to the benefits of weed in its many forms.

That's cool, but that's not my point.

My point is that you need grounds on which to challenge a law. Whether that be because it's in contravention of your rights, contravenes the constitution, etc.

"I would like to do something, but the law won't let me", doesn't really qualify on its own as grounds to challenge it.

homeless student

If I was thinking of robbing a bank, I don't think id ask this guy to drive the get away car, and not because he cant see. thats really stupid getting a criminal record over some protest that will not work, if weed ever becomes legal here it will be in about 4014.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

ScumLord wrote: »

What's that got to do with it?

It just rankles with me that someone can take a legal challenge like this, potentially rack up a huge bill and then stroll off into the sunset if it all goes t*ts up.

J_E

seamus wrote: »

That's cool, but that's not my point.

My point is that you need grounds on which to challenge a law. Whether that be because it's in contravention of your rights, contravenes the constitution, etc.

"I would like to do something, but the law won't let me", doesn't really qualify on its own as grounds to challenge it.

I would guess he'd mention his glaucoma and how his previous medication was not at all effective.

I'm not sure he has a good enough case here. Seems a little irrational and possibly will not end well for him. Lots of respect for trying something different though.

Anita B Jaynow

Maybe they'll see the error of their ways now!.

frag420

seamus wrote: »

That's cool, but that's not my point.

My point is that you need grounds on which to challenge a law. Whether that be because it's in contravention of your rights, contravenes the constitution, etc.

"I would like to do something, but the law won't let me", doesn't really qualify on its own as grounds to challenge it.

The grounds on which he is challenging the law is outlined in the article. HE states that by smoking weed it eleviates pain, physical pain. He states that it takes up to six months to come of the painkillers that were given to him. Do you think its right to give someone a criminal record because they dont want to suffer? WHo is he hurting?? And dont start with gangs killing each other etc as that is a consequence of prohibition!!

Just because the law is there does not make it right or just. What if nobody challenged the status quo and we all accepted things like sheep...................no wait a second, we do!!

More power to him!!

ScumLord

Duracell Bunny wrote: »

It just rankles with me that someone can take a legal challenge like this, potentially rack up a huge bill and then stroll off into the sunset if it all goes t*ts up.

Does it not rankle you more that you would need to be rich to make such a challenge without legal aid? The law shouldn't be the plaything of the rich and kept completely alien to the average person due to money.

The law is something that affects everyone's lives and everyone should have the right to challenge and have it changed. The fact the system of law costs so much is the laws problem.

Lyaiera

Good for him. Even if his challenge doesn't work civil disobedience as a form of protest has been around for ages.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

If this fella was a doctor or a scientist with years of research in the field and was challenging the law, and funding it himself, or with a consortium or whatever, I'd say best of luck pal hope it works out for you.

But someone having a go because a joint works for him, using a state funded legal team, with little or no personal consequences, in the worst recession in living memory, shouldn't be entertained.

humanji

frag420 wrote: »

I never said that. I just was stating that this is many peoples logic as to why we should keep weed illegal.

I believe in acceptable risk, educate people on the risks involved in consuming certain substances and if they still want to consume then let them.

Just to be clear, I am all for legalising weed.

I'm only joking. I'm all for legalisation as well, it's just that the argument that other things are more dangerous has always struck me as funny.

homeless student wrote: »

If I was thinking of robbing a bank, I don't think id ask this guy to drive the get away car, and not because he cant see. thats really stupid getting a criminal record over some protest that will not work, if weed ever becomes legal here it will be in about 4014.

If it's something they believe in, then it makes perfect sense. He wants the government to be seen jailing a blind man rather than dealing with what he's campaigning for, and so he'll become a martyr of sorts. It's the same with the old woman in jail for running onto Shannon airport. They don't care about going to jail. In fact they need to, in order to make themselves appear as victims, and so will win over the public.

frag420

Duracell Bunny wrote: »

If this fella was a doctor or a scientist with years of research in the field and was challenging the law, and funding it himself, or with a consortium or whatever, I'd say best of luck pal hope it works out for you.

But some stoner from Dundalk having a go because a joint works for him, using a state funded legal team, with little or no personal consequences, in the worst recession in living memory, can go f*ck himself!

With that attitude perhaps you may consider taking your own advice!!

mikom

Duracell Bunny wrote: »

It just rankles with me that someone can take a legal challenge like this, potentially rack up a huge bill and then stroll off into the sunset if it all goes t*ts up.

Yeah, like that lady who was questioning the assisted suicide law....... and those bitches of women wanting the vote........... the queers who wanted to put a stop to being criminalised......... etc.... etc..

Care to hazard a guess at all the police and court time that is taken up with the processing of ten spots?

ScumLord

Duracell Bunny wrote: »

If this fella was a doctor or a scientist with years of research in the field and was challenging the law, and funding it himself, or with a consortium or whatever, I'd say best of luck pal hope it works out for you.

So you do agree only rich people have the right to challenge laws? I'm sure living through the experience of having two eyes removed means he's probably well educated on his condition and any possible cure that could have maybe saved his eyesight.

But some stoner from Dundalk having a go because a joint works for him, using a state funded legal team, with little or no personal consequences, in the worst recession in living memory, can go f*ck himself!

You're argument must be really shaky if you've already resorted to insults. There are consequences for him, he will more than likely end up with a criminal conviction. He will lose this case, I'm sure he knows it. This is all about the state sending a blind man to prison because he uses cannabis medically, he's going to ensure everyone in the country see's the state doing it.

Fair play to him, it's good to see someone willing to stand up for what's right.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

ScumLord wrote: »

Does it not rankle you more that you would need to be rich to make such a challenge without legal aid? The law shouldn't be the plaything of the rich and kept completely alien to the average person due to money.

The law is something that affects everyone's lives and everyone should have the right to challenge and have it changed. The fact the system of law costs so much is the laws problem.

But where does it end? If you don't want to abide by any law then all you do is get arrested, get charged and take your state funded legal challenge as far as you can get it.

I would be more understanding if the guy in question had years of study under his belt, rather than saying "works for me"

frag420

There are countless studies that will back up his claims and I have no doubt with the right people behind him they wil be used if only to highlight the rediculous law that we have about weed!!

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

ScumLord wrote: »

You're argument must be really shaky if you've already resorted to insults.

Post edited.

drunkmonkey

Duracell Bunny wrote: »

But where does it end?

It ends when a person has the right to use a plant they can grow at home that can give them pleasure or help relieve/cure an illness.
The law is an arse at the moment, it's more concerned with lining the pockets of judges and garda.

mikom

Duracell Bunny wrote: »

Post edited.

But where does this editing end?

[Deleted User]

Duracell Bunny wrote: »

If this fella was a doctor or a scientist with years of research in the field and was challenging the law, and funding it himself, or with a consortium or whatever, I'd say best of luck pal hope it works out for you.

But some stoner from Dundalk having a go because a joint works for him, using a state funded legal team, with little or no personal consequences, in the worst recession in living memory, can go f*ck himself!

The man wants to challenge the law, let him challenge the law. His background and life choices shouldn't come into it. Your issue seems to be the way he's using free legal aid. Plenty of other people use free legal aid for far worse causes imo.
This man has a point after all, hence why the drug has been legalised in many places across the world. I don't use it myself but if it's been used to treat certain medical problems then it should be legal for therapeutic use like in many places.

mikom

Deleted User wrote: »

This man has a point after all, hence why the drug has been legalised in many places across the world. I don't use it myself but if it's been used to treat certain medical problems then it should be legal for therapeutic use like in many places.

Many places like...........

The US.
17 states and the nation's capital allowing the use of medical marijuana with a doctor's note
A further 13 states have decriminalised the drug allowing those caught in possession to be hit with a relatively paltry fine instead of becoming another inmate in the already overcrowded prison system.
Colorado and Washington have voted to make cannabis legal for anyone 21 or older.

When asked if he believes marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, Obama said it is less damaging "in terms of its impact on the individual consumer."
In August, the Obama administration announced it would not stop Washington and Colorado from legalizing recreational marijuana use, marking a major step away from the administration's war on drugs.
"We should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing," he said.
“It's important for it to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished," he said.

Uruguay
Cannabis legalised in Uruguay.
A report last week in El Observador newspaper claimed foreign companies in countries where cultivation for medicinal use is legal – like Israel – had contacted officials about buying Uruguayan cannabis.
Julio Bango, a politician in President José Mujica’s ruling coalition who helped draft the bill, told beyondbrics that private laboratories in Holland and Canada had sent out feelers.
Legalisation activists that backed the law are now also lobbying for a cannabis research industry with a mix of foreign investment and local knowledge.

Belgium.
For adults over the age of 18, in Belgium, consumption in one's home and possession of quantities of up to 3 grams or one female plant is legal and tolerated.

Switzerland
Cannabis is decriminalized for possession, sale or transport is Illegal but cultivation is legal in a private property only.

Spain
Growing the plant on private property for personal use, and consumption by adults in a private space is legal.

Portugal
In 2001, Portugal became the first country in the world to decriminalize the use of all drugs, and started treating drug users as sick people, instead of criminals, although you can be arrested or assigned mandatory rehab if caught several times in possession.

Peru
Possession of under 8 grams is considered personal use and it is legal and not punished.

Netherlands
Cannabis products are only sold openly in certain local "coffeeshops", other types of sales and possession are not permitted, although the general legal approach toward cannabis was before de facto decriminalization.

Argentina
Legal for personal use in small amounts and for consumption in private locations

drunkmonkey

If he had a prostitute on his arm when he walked in this would be a amazing story.

What kind of judge could deny a blind man either pleasures?

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

I'm not against legalization of cannabis, either for medicinal or recreational use. I do think people should be free to choose.

I just think if there's to be a proper challenge to the law then you need the right experts to give their evidence, based on years of study and experience, and not be letting anybody walk in off the street and giving it a bash.

[Deleted User]

mikom wrote: »

Many places like...........

Thank you.

Even I didn't know it was that widespread, chances of our nanny state even entertaining the idea are slim because we're already 50 odd years behind everyone else anyway.