• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: Tronica

Ben Cousins only getting an $800 fine for having 3.5grams of meth.

justsayknow said:
I reckon that his stuff probably wouldnt have been searched if he wasnt a celebrity drug user. They would have profiled him for sure. And as if the meth was for anything other than personal use. But now he has a record as well as an even further tarnished reputation.
Click to expand...
My understanding - from the media reports around the time he was busted - is that somebody informed on him.
I dont want to speculate on who it might've been, but there is a theory that it was somebody close to him.

Pretty sure that detectives flew from perth to search him in esperance (they had "specific intelligence") which i dont put down to the celebrity thing at all. Pretty much anyone could have snitches in their life - even ones that think theyre doing the right thing by the addict.
Pretty bloody stupid, but it just goes to show how well trained by the "drug war" propaganda some people are.
The second search (where the cops found cannabis) might have been status-related, but we dont have all thw facts on the matter, so i wouldnt want to assume...but i think he's done fairly well to have such a notorious reputation for drugs for so long and only get a drug conviction now.
For the sake of his health and his family i hope he can beat his addiction and get some peace from all the forces of prohibition (ie police, media etc)
I hate football/ers and think ben cousins is a bloody twit, but i still think he is a victim in all of this. Makes me sick how the media treat him, they want him to fuck up; it sells papers.
 
spacejunk said:
what's with this thread? only $800?
i'm no fan of this pseudo-gangsta footy wanker - but since when is $800 for possession some kind of outrage?
he's been hounded by cops and media, harassed at his home and everywhere he goes - and yes he could afford a good lawyer - so the charges were (rightfully) downgraded from possession with intend to simple possession. my (very poorly informed) understanding is that he was close to the limit for trafficking, but by no means drastically above it.

is this a thing, where people get sentenced and there is some automatic reaction people have that it was too lenient? like some dog-whistle of outrage?
you hear a lot of this crap on talkback radio and the like, but come on - he's a drug user, just like a lot of us here.
he's got issues with addiction - just like a lot of us here.
i don't think people should be charged for possessing drugs for their own personal use, and frankly i was disgusted that the wa police minister expressed his disappointment at the sentence, saying words to the effect of "jail might've straightened him out". bullshit. jail doesn't straighten people out, it locks them up with people of all criminal persuasions and forces them to toughen up to survive.

if there was any evidence that he was taking drugs to sell in rehab, then he should've been charged accordingly, but he's just a dickhead with a drug problem who gets too much attention for it. the media loves it, pushes and pushes to the point that he's stupid enough to smuggle an 8 ball of meth into a rehab stint.
who knows what he was thinking?
whatever he was up to, he's been through enough legal crap and bad publicity - i'm not sticking up for the guy, but he needs to be left alone so he can decide for himself that he has to get better.

bluelight is the last place i expected to see some thread bemoaning the (apparent) leniency of a drugs charge.
Click to expand...

Perfectly said
 
To be fair I can sort of see why some people think he got off light, I am pretty sure 3.5 grams of ice is enough to be deemed a traffickable amount in most states and territories, not 100% on the laws in WA but I know in several other places the limit is 2 grams. I am really not sure if I were caught with the same quantity (it would also be my first conviction for anything) that I would get off that light but I can only really speculate I suppose. It has to be said though, this wouldn't be the first time a celebrity got off light for drugs (assuming he did infact get off relatively lightly), that judge off of 'Dancing With The Stars' springs to mind. I don't think anyone of us here wants to see people done over for small time drug offenses but I can understand why people take a dim view of what they percieve as celebrities getting better treatment than they would should they be caught in the same predicament.

All that said, in this case I do feel as though the penalty wasn't unfairly lenient, I mean like others have pointed out he has had his name dragged through the mud and lost a lucrative career because of the stigma's around illicit drug use and that is a lot worse than if the fine was ten times higher. I also think its unlikely the drugs were to be sold and not used by him personally. Also losing an 8ball is quite a hit to the wallet before the fine even comes into it, I mean Ben Cousins should be able to afford it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if he is pretty pennyless after years of cocaine and meth abuse.
 
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/630894-Ben-Cousins-only-getting-an-800-fine-for-ha

Interesting reading the stories surrounding ol Benny boy.... I know the facts surrounding that First day way back when in the city when he got sprung. (I wasn't present myself)... that day he was done there'd been a big set up to nab him and a couple of others for dealing/possession. (this is when the famous such is life tattoo appeared) Media helped tip off but they were being followed by unmarked cars etc. what mr footy got caught with was nothing compared to what he had and he got away with it...but others didn't. Definitely a case of celebrity in small town Perth but I have to admit the story behind the whole thing has been completely played down by news etc. he most definitely hasnt ever parted with what he had, it's all for his use. btw that particular day from your perthnow link... Did u notice in the photo that familiar locked jaw?? Such a shame - kids idolize the guy and he does this and gets a picture in the paper and a fine...
 
A few misinformed opinions on here.

In WA, possession of more than 2 grams of methylamphetamine means under law that you are presumed to have it with the intent to sell or supply unless the contrary is proved - by the accused. So the onus shifts to the accused to prove the entire amount was for personal use.

Cousins was initially charged with possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply - as he had over 4 grams this had to be dealt with in the District Court where the maximum penalty is 25 years.

The reality is, no charge of possession with intent was ever going to be proved against Cousins. He has the money and the well publicised drug addiction to make that amount clearly for his personal use. There was no other evidence such as scales, drug bags, phone messages, cutting agents etc which might point to him having those drugs with the intent to sell or supply them. Given the amount was fairly modest and given his means and addiction, if the DPP took that case to trial Cousins would easily prove (on the balance of probabilities) that he had it for his own personal use, and thereby be convicted of simple possession.

The charge was downgraded to simple possession, where the maximum penalty is 2 years, and he was dealt with in the Magistrates Court. Almost NO ONE is jailed for simple possession. It simply doesn't happen, especially for a first offender. However, where I think the Magistrate did the wrong thing is that in between a fine and suspended sentences/jail sentences are community orders where the accused can be ordered to undertake drug counselling and do community work etc. A fine meant nothing to Cousins and given his well publicised issues, I would have made him subject to one of these orders because if he breaches them then he can be re-sentenced. Given the amount he was in possession of, which is still a significant amount for a simple possession charge, a more serious penalty than a fine was warranted.
 
I was just looking at the DPP public records for Methamphetamine convictions. The smallest quantity I could find that someone was imprisoned for was 6.6g, the guy got 3yrs but this was deemed to be intent to sell or supply rather than possesion. It's scary how much difference a couple of grams and lack of a good lawyer can make. This guy was on holidays and reckoned it was all for personal use there was no evidence of dealing but the weight alone was enough to put him inside.
 
Must agree wit CrayZ ?? come on surely no one believes he would go to alll the bother of trying to smuggle an 8 ball to sell when you have money like that.
 
Monstersquad said:
Okay, i was wrong to say he might have been selling it... everyone chill lol.
my main point is that he only got an $800 fine for having 3.5 grams. What kind of ludicrous shit is this? Anyone else would be banged up for that.
Click to expand...
Not true at all where do you come up with these bullshit statements. For a first or second offence and fairly small quantity 3.5g is not that much and a good criminal lawyer I feel that the sentance was probably fair and you or me would recieve the same treatment that Ben Cousins
 
even though i think its unfair for a person to be charged for personal use, i find it even more unfair that our so called 'blind justice' can deliver a jail sentence for one person and a fine to another. If he was willing to put down roughly double the fine to buy the drugs, how will this sentence seriously prevent him from risking something similar in the future.
 
^ i'm not necessarily addressing your hypothetical question (or sticking up for ben cousins) but his car was pulled over (right in front of his house) a few days after the bust in esperance. it was here that they found him with the cannabis and pipe. does this 'prevent him from risking something similar in the future'?
the cops made it clear, in their actions and statements to the media, that cousins and the people around him were being 'monitored'.

whether or not this was taken into account in the judge's sentence i'm not sure, but i don't think his public profile has benefitted him in comparison to your average joe blow facing the courts for similar charges. there are quite a few things taken into account, from prior convictions, amount in possession and circumstances of the 'crime'.
sure it's unfair that people cop different sentences for roughy the same offence, but the law is a pretty complicated thing. all the more reason to put all the resources you can in getting good legal representation if it happens to be you in hot water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top