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


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

NEWS: SMH - 9/01/07 'Man caught with cannabis plant in court'

lil angel15

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
7,828
Man caught with cannabis plant in court
Tuesday Jan 9 15:32 AEDT

A man caught bringing a cannabis plant into a Brisbane court says he will fight drug charges as part of his long-running campaign to have marijuana legalised.

Peter Till, 39, of Nimbin in northern NSW, appeared in the Brisbane Magistrates Court charged with possessing a dangerous drug.

Security officers said they seized the 50cm-tall cannabis plant at a screening machine in the Brisbane Magistrates Court's entry foyer on Monday.

Mr Till said the plant was "evidence" for a court appearance.

After the plant was seized, he still faced court on drug charges stemming from his arrest in October last year for smoking a cannabis cigarette in the city's Queen Street Mall.

Despite pleading not guilty, the magistrate found otherwise and fined him $600.

Police then took him into custody before he appeared in court on Tuesday.

He was bailed and is due to face court again on April 10.

Outside court, Till said he had been fined at least 15 times over drug-related offences in Queensland and NSW courts during the past few years.

However, he prided himself on not paying one fine, saying the authorities should legalise cannabis for a raft of reasons, mainly medicinal.

He denied he was asking for trouble bringing the plant into the court.

"I don't give a rats, I believe in it, I know it helps me, right?

"And I can tell you now I believe in it so much if I have to go to jail for it then so be it, I go to jail for it.

"... I know it works I have a quality of life and they're trying to take my quality of life away from me, right?"

SMH
 
This guy is just one of many redneck tossers that give pot a bad name. Actions like smoking in the Queen Street mall and bringing a plant into court aren't doing anything for the legalisation or public acceptance of the plant.

I wonder if this bloke is one of the many who has his 10 year old kids selling his wares on the main street of Nimbin?
 
im very curious as to the thoughts that went into that mans head right before he decided it was a GOOD idea to take pot into court.
 
Nimbin..... yeeeaah, my Nimbin... *chuckles* Full frontal was funny ;)
 
I think some of you are missing the point. This activist feels strongly enough about the legal state of cannabis to openly challenge the system- well aware and accepting there could be serious personal repercussions. Do you think if he'd held up a sign to legalise cannabis that his story would have been as media worthy or stimulated as much discussion?

Over the years I've known a few activists with similar attitudes. One or two were a bit rattly in the spare change department, but others were totally together, absolutely committed to changing public perception of the drug and willing to do what ever it took to change it's legal status..

I was quite active during my mid-late teens in NZ, attending marches and meetings of NORML and before that those of the infamous NZ Marijuana party (see photo below - I'm in there somewhere). At 18 I smoked a joint on the steps of our local Police station while standing with a mate, his parents and an older, very straight policeman who'd just handed in his resignation due to unjust (pot) laws. That was an amazing day.

These days, being older and hopefully somewhat wiser, I am not one to advocate such a radical approach, although I accept completely that while current misinformation on cannabis is spewed out by the media and ideological politicians, there will always be a place for such people.

I don't hear anyone putting the same shit on those advocating pill testing, particularly those who actively do the testing, yet both testing and the above situation involve openly handling illicit drugs and so both effectively break local laws.

It could well be argued that the ultimate harm reduction associated with cannabis use would come as a result of abolishing prohibition.
 

Attachments

  • Nambassa.jpg
    Nambassa.jpg
    50 KB · Views: 157
phase_dancer, during my high school years I took part in smoke-ins and supported NORML. At the time I believed that this was the right thing to do.

Soon after high school I was arrested two times, both for smoking caps (the hash oil caps that you can get in NZ). Both times I was in front of a judge and both times I was let off through the diversion scheme. This normally means you get a small fine that you pay to charity and you don't get convicted.

The only reason I was caught in the first place was that I was being fairly open about my drug use and doing it in public places. I was also caught a few times smoking buds in public, however the cops just took my stuff and my name and told me not to do it again.

What I learnt from all of this was that the cops and even the courts don't really give a toss about weed. The only time they really have a problem is if you are openly flouting their laws on the streets in front of everyone. If you keep your pot use fairly private then you generally don't have a problem.

Pot isn't something that needs to be scientifically checked or chemically tested like pills. Users are more than capable of working out if what they are buying is "pot or not". It's different with pills because no one can tell what's in them just by looking. Pills are also a lot more dangerous then your average bud.

I think if all these activists just shut the fuck up and kept their use to themselves then the media would have nothing to talk about, the cops would turn a blind eye and no one would care. When people like this bloke do dumb things then non smokers and busy bodies have something to talk about. Sweet old Betty from number 9 will be on the phone to John Laws whinging about how pot makes you stupid, aggresive and a dole bludger. Thats not what we want.

I know plenty of people that smoke pot. None of them have any trouble with the law because we keep it fairly private. Cops don't care if you smoke, they do care if you smoke in public in front of kids and nigels. It's the same as with underage drinking. We all did it, our kids will do it, and their kids will do it. As long as its done in privacy and with supervision no one will care.
 
Firstly let me say that I agree that smoking - whatever type of smoking - should be banned in confined public places and anywhere around children, but this is not really the argument here.

...What I learnt from all of this was that the cops and even the courts don't really give a toss about weed. The only time they really have a problem is if you are openly flouting their laws on the streets in front of everyone. If you keep your pot use fairly private then you generally don't have a problem.


...I think if all these activists just shut the fuck up and kept their use to themselves then the media would have nothing to talk about, the cops would turn a blind eye and no one would care. When people like this bloke do dumb things then non smokers and busy bodies have something to talk about. Sweet old Betty from number 9 will be on the phone to John Laws whinging about how pot makes you stupid, aggresive and a dole bludger. Thats not what we want.

I know plenty of people that smoke pot. None of them have any trouble with the law because we keep it fairly private. Cops don't care if you smoke, they do care if you smoke in public in front of kids and nigels. It's the same as with underage drinking. We all did it, our kids will do it, and their kids will do it. As long as its done in privacy and with supervision no one will care.


Certainly from a normalised perspective (no pun intended), that's fast becoming common practice, and legally speaking it's certainly a safer approach. However, a more conscienscious objector may see the need for a more radical approach, realising that without continual public debate/ discussion - which isn't happening at present - it's the only way of maintaining the attention of the wider public.

Of course, a large proportion of drug users who agree their drugs should be legalised lack both the conviction and motivation to actively protest these laws, laws which we all know are widely flouted. It's understandable, considering the present alienation shown towards users, but what also needs to be realised, is that in essence, this fear invoked complacence plays directly into the hands of the prohibitionists.

The "do drugs secretly and tell know one" philosphy is something we saw all too much of during past decades. A very big worry to me is that there is a re-emergence of this trend. It has potential to affect survey participation, and that means demographics remain less representative of the greater population i.e. inaccurate.

I certainly don't believe we must strive to avoid the "Betty's of no 9" from commenting on Laws like programs. Discussion, opinions etc in any form are welcome whether or not there's room given for alternative opinions. Most people I know over 40 don't give Laws's show an ounce of credibility for this very reason - lack of balance, ignorant participants etc. The thing is, numbers do count, so the more every day people that reveal themselves as users, the better chance of properly informing the likes of Betty. That's because informing these people can equate to changing their opinions. The alternative is more of what we had during the 80s and past decades i.e. a more networked but more clandestine drug scene which equated to a less sociologically integrated scene.

On the subject of the Diversion System; while diversion can be effective in preventing some from getting a criminal record, this is only part of it's recognised purpose. The other and often under stated reason is to reduce the likelihood of user re-offending.

However, while it is easy to assess the success of the scheme in the first instance, there have been no studies to date that have adequately assessed the rate of re-offending, which as said, is considered a major reason for having a diversion system in the first place.

So lets imagine a way is found that can determine re-offending, and lets also assume that the number of re-offenders is high. Does that then imply the current system is inneffective? If so, what course of action needs to be taken? Perhaps authorities would throw their hands in the air and give up - legalise marijuana - an unlikely senario to say the least. The alternative course of action would probably lie in the other direction; make penalties tougher, introduce probationary periods or some compliance regulation such as drug tests.

Regardless of the outcomes of such a study, assessment of this system should be considered important to everyone, if only to highlight the ineffectiveness of the current diversion based system.


Pot isn't something that needs to be scientifically checked or chemically tested like pills. Users are more than capable of working out if what they are buying is "pot or not". It's different with pills because no one can tell what's in them just by looking. Pills are also a lot more dangerous then your average bud.

You missed my point on this one, although I will say that around the area I grew up in, it was once quite common for poor quality pot to be laced with various drugs, particularly horse tranquillizer (possibly ketamine), and less commonly, heroin. While the practice is virtually non-existent today, it's nevertheless always a possibility. But I digress...

My point in comparing the actions of the guy in the story to on-site pill testing was that exchanging/ handling drugs in a public place, for whatever the reasons, violates local laws. I'm certainly not arguing against the need for pill testing - heaven forbid - I'm simply demonstrating that radical steps are sometimes considered by some activists - either brave or foolish enough, depending upon your view - as the only way of gaining attention, particularly in regards to social and health impacts (or lack of) stemming from marijuana use. If every pot smoker or person believing pot laws should change, stood up, a relative risk factor could be accurately applied and reform then be based upon evidence rather than the present religious or moral based arguments.
 
Im pretty sure if I was walking through the mall with a beer id probably get fined too...

There's a time and a place
 
^ As others have said, that is besides the point. The man was bringing the plant into a public space to specifically make a point about a relevant legal issue. Admittedly, there have been a less inflammatory way of articulating his point, however i don't think you can compare this man's stance with just so happening to walk down the mall with a beer!

As the man said, he is not particularly concerned about the inevitable sentence he will receive because of such action, so i fail to see what makes this man stupid. He was fully aware of the repercussions of such action, but obviously still wanted to take it in order to make a point.

I say hats off to him, at least for making a stance. It is far too easy, and naive, to write such a person off as some Nimbin, redneck scum :\
 
I like the fact that he stands up for what he believes in and there was once a time when I believed that grass should be legalised but NOT anymore.

When I was a kid it was fairly harmless.

NOT anymore.

The stuff that the kids use nowadays is extremely potent and is doing serious harm to far to many of our youth.

Personally I rate it as getting right up there in terms of its danger potential........taking into account the fact its used heaps more than most other drugs and also the fact that everyone seems to consider it harmless..........BULLCRAP...........maybe once but not anymore.

Nowadays if put to a vote then I would vote NO to legalisation of grass.

However there are quite a few other drugs I would vote Yes to such as mdma.
 
Splatt said:
MDMA has deaths in its history, Pot does not.


I am not going to get into a protracted argument about it because it would be fruitless as you have probably made up your mind however a quick search of the net revealed this...........

http://www.drugwatch.org/CEDARS/MarDeaths2002e.pdf

The number of Mdma deaths.........and the same goes for grass, is so miniscule (comparative to the number of users) that it isnt IMO a factor for determining legalisation.

I have first hand experience of what grass has done to a number of friends and acquaintences and I base my decisions on what I see in real life.......... not the bullcrap propaganda that various self interest groups will portray.

If grass was the same now as it was in the 60s and 70s then I would have no problems agreeing it should be legalised............but as I said before............NOT anymore.........
 
phase_dancer said:
I was quite active during my mid-late teens in NZ, attending marches and meetings of NORML and before that those of the infamous NZ Marijuana party (see photo below - I'm in there somewhere). At 18 I smoked a joint on the steps of our local Police station while standing with a mate, his parents and an older, very straight policeman who'd just handed in his resignation due to unjust (pot) laws. That was an amazing day.

Could you not have chosen a, ah, less shit drug to seek legalisation?

The focus forever seems to be on cannabis as the presently-illicit drug that is most deserving of legal status, but when the effects are as thoroughly lame as stupefaction and munchies, is it really worth the effort, y or are there no other more worthy contenders?
 
chopped_chimp said:
I wonder if this bloke is one of the many who has his 10 year old kids selling his wares on the main street of Nimbin?

Chopped Chimp - How many people do you know in Nimbin. I know lots and plenty who have teenage kids, none of whom get their kids to sell their weed in town. Anyone who knows the town know the kids that sell dope in the lane get supplys from various growers and add a surcharge to make some dollars.

As for pot needing testing, something PD didn't mention but IS common practice is hydro growers using flea bombs to get rid of spidermites during the flowering cycle. This stuff WILL give you cancer. No two ways about it. Think about it, you've got potenially 60k worth of heads 2 weeks into flower, get a mite explosion, what do you do (thinking as the average bigger than personal use hydro grower) ... use hardcore chems to erradicate the mites. Anyone who thinks this is not common practise has no knowledge of the buisiness. Pot just aint pot anymore. Sure if you have access to quality outdoor organic herb no problems but what about the cities, 95% of the herb is hydro, not dried properly and covered in pesticides. All because of prohibition.

Cheers to the brave man from Nimbin, who i actually know and no, he's no redneck. Put your brain in gear before spurting out uniformed garbage. YOU are as bad if not worse than John Laws, as you should know better.

I might seem to be a new poster here, but i'm not.. just a new username due to some heat i felt a while back. I lived in the Rainbow region for many years and i hate too see such uninformed crap posted by people who know FA
 
Top