This is breaking news at the moment, so not much detail.

One point, however:

"He said downgrading the drug had sent out the wrong signals to young
people."

Does he mean he wants cannabis use to increase? It's been falling for the
last few years.


Police reconsider cannabis stance

Senior police officers are calling for cannabis to be reclassified from a
class C to a class B drug.

The Association of Chief Police Officers had supported the downgrading of
the drug from class B to Class C three years ago.

However Tim Hollis, chairman of ACPO's drugs committee, said it was now
supporting a return to the previous position.

He said downgrading the drug had sent out the wrong signals to young
people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7103413.stm

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:02:54 +0000, Dr John Watson
 wrote:

>This is breaking news at the moment, so not much detail.
>
>One point, however:
>
>"He said downgrading the drug had sent out the wrong signals to young
>people."
>
>Does he mean he wants cannabis use to increase? It's been falling for the
>last few years.

It won't make any difference, they have no control over the situation.

They are pissing against the wind.

Anybody who wants some good quality cannabis will still be able to get
it just as easily as they always have been.

It's a pity about the criminals who sell contaminated soap bar to
kids. The prohibitionists have a lot on their conscience for allowing
this to happen.

Svenne

"Svenne"  wrote in message 
news:4ig5k397tfi32nrbm3rla5noepo0h6lqej@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:02:54 +0000, Dr John Watson
>  wrote:
>
>>This is breaking news at the moment, so not much detail.
>>
>>One point, however:
>>
>>"He said downgrading the drug had sent out the wrong signals to young
>>people."
>>
>>Does he mean he wants cannabis use to increase? It's been falling for the
>>last few years.
>
> It won't make any difference, they have no control over the situation.
>
> They are pissing against the wind.
>
> Anybody who wants some good quality cannabis will still be able to get
> it just as easily as they always have been.
>
> It's a pity about the criminals who sell contaminated soap bar to
> kids. The prohibitionists have a lot on their conscience for allowing
> this to happen.
>
> Svenne

And why would the thought of a kid buying a bag of tea-leaves, thinking it's 
illegal drugs, keep anyone awake at night?

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:46:22 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
wrote:

>
>"Svenne"  wrote in message 
>news:4ig5k397tfi32nrbm3rla5noepo0h6lqej@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:02:54 +0000, Dr John Watson
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>This is breaking news at the moment, so not much detail.
>>>
>>>One point, however:
>>>
>>>"He said downgrading the drug had sent out the wrong signals to young
>>>people."
>>>
>>>Does he mean he wants cannabis use to increase? It's been falling for the
>>>last few years.
>>
>> It won't make any difference, they have no control over the situation.
>>
>> They are pissing against the wind.
>>
>> Anybody who wants some good quality cannabis will still be able to get
>> it just as easily as they always have been.
>>
>> It's a pity about the criminals who sell contaminated soap bar to
>> kids. The prohibitionists have a lot on their conscience for allowing
>> this to happen.
>>
>> Svenne

>And why would the thought of a kid buying a bag of tea-leaves, thinking it's 
>illegal drugs, keep anyone awake at night? 

Some of the adulterated crap sold by unscrupulous dealers can be more
like toxic sludge than tea leaves.

Svenne

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:02:54 +0000, Dr John Watson
 wrote:

>This is breaking news at the moment, so not much detail.
>
>One point, however:
>
>"He said downgrading the drug had sent out the wrong signals to young
>people."

I truly despise people who say things like that - they claim to want
to educate and inform, but the language of sending the "wrong signals"
demonstrates that all they are interested in is propaganda. Once
people wouldn't have been so shy - they'd have called it propagada
openly, now, they disguise it. They assume people are too stupid to
make their own decisions, and so make their statements about cannabis
(and other drugs - and foods even) as simple as possible, to the point
where they are no longer informing, just trying to find the right form
of words to get people to act in the way they want - and if that means
wrecking families by putting people in gaol, then so be it.

pj

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:46:22 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
wrote:

>
>"Svenne"  wrote in message 
>news:4ig5k397tfi32nrbm3rla5noepo0h6lqej@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:02:54 +0000, Dr John Watson
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>This is breaking news at the moment, so not much detail.
>>>
>>>One point, however:
>>>
>>>"He said downgrading the drug had sent out the wrong signals to young
>>>people."
>>>
>>>Does he mean he wants cannabis use to increase? It's been falling for the
>>>last few years.
>>
>> It won't make any difference, they have no control over the situation.
>>
>> They are pissing against the wind.
>>
>> Anybody who wants some good quality cannabis will still be able to get
>> it just as easily as they always have been.
>>
>> It's a pity about the criminals who sell contaminated soap bar to
>> kids. The prohibitionists have a lot on their conscience for allowing
>> this to happen.
>>
>> Svenne
>
>And why would the thought of a kid buying a bag of tea-leaves, thinking it's 
>illegal drugs, keep anyone awake at night? 

in this dumb country, someone possessing a bag of tea-leaves believing
it to be cannabis would be guilty of possession of cannabis.

pj
>

On Nov 21, 8:55 am, Svenne  wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:46:22 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Svenne"  wrote in message
> >news:4ig5k397tfi32nrbm3rla5noepo0h6lqej@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:02:54 +0000, Dr John Watson
> >>  wrote:
>
> >>>This is breaking news at the moment, so not much detail.
>
> >>>One point, however:
>
> >>>"He said downgrading the drug had sent out the wrong signals to young
> >>>people."
>
> >>>Does he mean he wants cannabis use to increase? It's been falling for the
> >>>last few years.
>
> >> It won't make any difference, they have no control over the situation.
>
> >> They are pissing against the wind.
>
> >> Anybody who wants some good quality cannabis will still be able to get
> >> it just as easily as they always have been.
>
> >> It's a pity about the criminals who sell contaminated soap bar to
> >> kids. The prohibitionists have a lot on their conscience for allowing
> >> this to happen.
>
> >> Svenne
> >And why would the thought of a kid buying a bag of tea-leaves, thinking it's
> >illegal drugs, keep anyone awake at night?
>
> Some of the adulterated crap sold by unscrupulous dealers can be more
> like toxic sludge than tea leaves.
>
> Svenne- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A reason to unite for one cause if the legalisation of  POT comercial
or person should be legalised CSIRO IF the labour Party declared to
put it to the people they just might stay in office for the next
election if they are not removed as the whitlam goverment was removed
( could liberals have realised the labor recognised in 1975 handing
Tital deeds back to the gurindji (from little things big things
grow)LABOR has always recognised that Aboriginal prefer pot to grog
( vaigue recollection Choice magazine? " per head of population more
Aboriginal Australians compleatly obstain from consuming Alcohol than
other minority groups and general population in the country ) Unions
know that Aboriginal people carried the settlers on their backs. And
in culture Pot always grew here.and legally the tracts of aboriginal
lands under Federal juristriction are under federal laws Is it true
that in Canberra you can posess up to 30.1gms TROY OUNCE. Prohibition
allows compleat control by the government Quite a nice little money
spinner Prohabition! and they dont have to take the blame for the
sustandard quqllity of the tainted products or share with the tobacco
companys that have all patents on mass distribution of a natural HERB
MR Dupont we all are now paying in more ways than 1 for your
cancerious polyma NYLON. just wake up and be organised to make the
changes respect our differences unite with one cause legalise legalise
legalise !!!

On 21 Nov, 00:37, pj  wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:46:22 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Svenne"  wrote in message
> >news:4ig5k397tfi32nrbm3rla5noepo0h6lqej@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:02:54 +0000, Dr John Watson
> >>  wrote:
>
> >>>This is breaking news at the moment, so not much detail.
>
> >>>One point, however:
>
> >>>"He said downgrading the drug had sent out the wrong signals to young
> >>>people."
>
> >>>Does he mean he wants cannabis use to increase? It's been falling for the
> >>>last few years.
>
> >> It won't make any difference, they have no control over the situation.
>
> >> They are pissing against the wind.
>
> >> Anybody who wants some good quality cannabis will still be able to get
> >> it just as easily as they always have been.
>
> >> It's a pity about the criminals who sell contaminated soap bar to
> >> kids. The prohibitionists have a lot on their conscience for allowing
> >> this to happen.
>
> >> Svenne
>
> >And why would the thought of a kid buying a bag of tea-leaves, thinking it's
> >illegal drugs, keep anyone awake at night?
>
> in this dumb country, someone possessing a bag of tea-leaves believing
> it to be cannabis would be guilty of possession of cannabis.

I don't think that's *exactly* right.

However, I had heard of people involved in a police sting selling what
they *believed* to be cocaine, but which was icing sugar (or some such
like), which the police had substituted.

It was held that it was their belief they were trafficking in cocaine
(and therefore intent) was genuine, the fact the powder *wasn't*
cocaine was immaterial.

How this squares with the defence of "impossible attempts" I'm not
quite sure. However it's interesting that in UK law, there are many
offences which have a supplemetary "conspiracy/attempted" offence,
which tends to carry the same penalty as the "actual" offence.

In my dusty law books, one of the basic defences was if an act was
impossible to carry out, it cannot be criminal. Therefore a burglar
who breaks into a company unaware they have cashed up, and there is no
money in the safe cannot be guilty of theft (he lacks the "actus rea"
IIRC). However he can be guilty of attempted theft, and/or conspiracy
to rob.