News (Media Awareness Project) - UK: PUB LTE: Time for Drug Rethink |
Title: | UK: PUB LTE: Time for Drug Rethink |
Published On: | 2003-11-05 |
Source: | Essex Evening Gazette (UK) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-19 06:26:42 |
TIME FOR DRUG RETHINK
WITHOUT knowing all the facts it is difficult to comment on court reports
published in the media. Take for example; "Cannabis: man fined" (Gazette
October 31).
The reported said the defendant pleaded guilty to "possession" of
135mgs of cannabis with an alleged UKP 5 street value. (Five pounds
for 135mg? That makes it UKP 37/gram, UKP 1000/oz - unlikely! It's
worth more like UKP 0.69, giving UKP 5/gram.)
Notwithstanding that, let me say up front, I do not condone this
crime. The defendant is clearly a danger to society. And, his
antisocial behaviour will most certainly had an derogatory effect on
his neighbours quality of life!
So, in principle, I support the police for arresting him and referring
the offence to the Criminal Prosecution Service [CPS]. Why? Because
possession of cannabis is a crime and it's the policeman's job, to
detect crime and bring the criminal to justice.
My gripe is with the CPS: What overriding factor[s] prompted them to
bringing this case forward? What useful purpose did it serve? Who did
it benefit?
One final point - does anyone know how will the police deal with cases
like this after reclassification on January?
Time for justification!
Don Barnard
WITHOUT knowing all the facts it is difficult to comment on court reports
published in the media. Take for example; "Cannabis: man fined" (Gazette
October 31).
The reported said the defendant pleaded guilty to "possession" of
135mgs of cannabis with an alleged UKP 5 street value. (Five pounds
for 135mg? That makes it UKP 37/gram, UKP 1000/oz - unlikely! It's
worth more like UKP 0.69, giving UKP 5/gram.)
Notwithstanding that, let me say up front, I do not condone this
crime. The defendant is clearly a danger to society. And, his
antisocial behaviour will most certainly had an derogatory effect on
his neighbours quality of life!
So, in principle, I support the police for arresting him and referring
the offence to the Criminal Prosecution Service [CPS]. Why? Because
possession of cannabis is a crime and it's the policeman's job, to
detect crime and bring the criminal to justice.
My gripe is with the CPS: What overriding factor[s] prompted them to
bringing this case forward? What useful purpose did it serve? Who did
it benefit?
One final point - does anyone know how will the police deal with cases
like this after reclassification on January?
Time for justification!
Don Barnard
Member Comments |
No member comments available...