UK Durham Police wont prosecute cannabis offences.

a reply to: crazyewok

Pray that happens. Only good things can result if it does. Again, Portugal.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok

Pray that happens. Only good things can result if it does. Again, Portugal.

Our government is desperate to save money.

Well cutting the war on drugs and then taxing the hell out of them will save a few billion.

a reply to: crazyewok

Just a quick question.

You're OK with the cops deciding which laws they will, or will not, enforce. So which laws won't you be OK with such selective enforcement?

Seriously, it's not the cops jobs, or prosecutors for that matter, to decide which laws they'll enforce on any given day.

As for cannabis? I don't care, one way or another if someone wants to live their days jonesing for another doob. Your lives.

I have an issue with law enforcement deciding which laws they'll enforce. Law enforcement... Not law selection.

Don't like the laws? Fine. Get 'em changed.

a reply to: crazyewok

It'll do more than that. It'll turn your economy around, cut down on the incarceration rate (which means more money saved), AND it will reduce overall drug usage.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: crazyewok

Just a quick question.

You're OK with the cops deciding which laws they will, or will not, enforce. So which laws won't you be OK with such selective enforcement?

Seriously, it's not the cops jobs, or prosecutors for that matter, to decide which laws they'll enforce on any given day.

As for cannabis? I don't care, one way or another if someone wants to live their days jonesing for another doob. Your lives.

I have an issue with law enforcement deciding which laws they'll enforce. Law enforcement... Not law selection.

Don't like the laws? Fine. Get 'em changed.

The cops here just have common sense.

They know the cannabis laws are BS they know its a waste of time.

They are getting hit by budget cuts at the moment left right and center. Fact is they don't have the time a resources to be anal over the law and would rather focus on REAL crime than waste the limited resource they have on a stupid plant.

Fact is most of us Brits would rather them send the time getting the violent criminals off the street than focus on victimless "crime" and let more serous issue slide.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok

It'll do more than that. It'll turn your economy around, cut down on the incarceration rate (which means more money saved), AND it will reduce overall drug usage.

To be fair our economy has turned around as its the fasted growing in the western world.

But this would add to the growth we are seeing.

a reply to: crazyewok

Well it'll be even BETTER.

a reply to: crazyewok

My thoughts:

- Its a bad time to try to start up a business on the illicit side of the industry. I feel sorry for people dumb enough to do so and get caught, only to have their crime turned into a non crime in a couple of years. I wonder if there will be amnesty for pot offenses? If they were felony level...what will that mean for background checks? How many Americans (or, in the UK, your analog to felons) will be made 'non felon" in the process? And how will that effect things like voting?

- A year plus down the road, and I am still shocked at the cajones that Colorado showed.

- When you see "for the children", you should hear, "there's a sucker born every minute". Appeals to hearts and minds by politicians are a huge flashing red light screaming "DANGER".

- I am shocked that more US officers aren't declining to enforce pot laws. I employ officers for off shift security work. One thing I hear from every single one of them (when we make small talk) is that they aren't even feeling it anymore. One said something like, "What...i should risk getting shot in the gut just because some young punk was seen buying pot?" The local DA is kind of feeling the same way, only using pot arrests when it will achieve an ulterior motive (like getting a real asshole off the street before he causes bigger problems). Otherwise, they just plead them out, collect the fines, and call it a day.

a reply to: crazyewok

well, 2.7% growth isn't anything to scoff at...

5.2% is almost twice as hot. Now if we could only find a way to get rid of all that dead weight weighing our great Republic down.

But since the comment related to economic growth in Colorado....it looks like their approach isn't hurting them at all

a reply to: crazyewok

Devon & Cornwall Constabulary have pretty much ignored 'reasonable' personal possession for years, they just won't formally announce it.
Smoking near kids or schools, play parks and other obvious places then they will be interested.
Smoking at home, an adult party, or whatever, not interested. Less than a few plants at home, not interested.

A couple of decades ago they would at worst take personal amounts off you and issue a police caution, say after a search for some other reason, but only really if you were being a prick.
These days it will be mostly ignored IF it's just a personal possession thing affecting nobody else, and unrelated to whatever reason they happen to be talking to you.

Heck we have so few police here compared to citizens, especially in the tourist season our police ignore lots of minor offences:
Devon and Cornwall Police

Across Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in 2014 the Force received around 1,600 reports where a customer had left without paying for fuel from a garage forecourt. These are not offences of fraud or theft. In many cases they are a mistake on the part of the individual who, when advised of their mistake, returns to make payment for their fuel. In fraud or theft cases, there are indications of intent such as the use of false number plates.

The Force will no longer be deploying officers to attend these reports and make contact with the member of the public on behalf of the garage, unless there is evidence of linked offending or vulnerability.

a reply to: crazyewok

That's all very well and good to have common sense. All too often it's in very short supply. Don't get me wrong, I don't care one way or another about cannabis per say. I've no opinion one way or t'other.

It's the selective enforcement of statute law that bothers me. Which other laws are selectively enforced, or will be, that won't be so "benign"?

Just sayin'.

a reply to: grainofsand

Its the same here in medway to be honest.


There is a local wood were a lot of stoners meet and the police dont touch them. Everyone know they are there as you can smell it but the late teens there are not hurting anyone and keep out of trouble so no one cares locals or police.

Now the drunk chavs trashing up the local high street the police are very interested in as they cause a lot of trouble.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: crazyewok

That's all very well and good to have common sense. All too often it's in very short supply. Don't get me wrong, I don't care one way or another about cannabis per say. I've no opinion one way or t'other.

It's the selective enforcement of statute law that bothers me. Which other laws are selectively enforced, or will be, that won't be so "benign"?

Just sayin'.

Its simple budget though.

There just not enough money in the pot for police to enforce everything. They have to prioritize now.

a reply to: crazyewok

That, I understand.

I'm just seeing a precedence that I don't much care for, that's all.

...and I suppose better this one, then some others I could think of.

a reply to: crazyewok

In my experience police have always used discretion when making a 'low level' crime decision to send a case to the Crown Prosecution Service. How much will it all cost, how strong is their chance of beyond reasonable doubt, is it in the public interest to prosecute, is the suspect a prick, is an informal or formal caution better, all sorts of reasons.

I've been released with 'no further action' a few times because the police knew I could easily show reasonable doubt in court. All very mutually friendly with the arresting and interview officers, it's all a game most of the time.
Being friendly and calm always makes the difference, they're mostly just decent folk who just want an easy shift like anyone else.

The force will continue to tackle large-scale cannabis farms and other serious issues relating to the drug but it will offer anybody caught in possession or growing small amounts the opportunity to avoid criminal prosecution altogether. Read more: metro.co.uk...

Just wanted to point out that one of the options he has presented is to caution offenders. A caution still counts as a criminal conviction and shows up on your criminal record, it just doesn't go to court because you're effectively admitting guilt and agreeing to let the police deal with it.

People keep forgetting that about cautions and it's not uncommon for the police to offer one in situations that they know wouldn't result in a conviction otherwise. Lots of people now have a criminal record for something that the CPS probably wouldn't have taken to court in the first place.

Still, however they're handling it, I'm a big believer in the idea that people shouldn't be penalised for something they do in the privacy of their own home, provided that doesn't unreasonably interfere with, or create an unreasonable risk to, the peace and safety of anyone else.

originally posted by: EvillerBob
Just wanted to point out that one of the options he has presented is to caution offenders. A caution still counts as a criminal conviction and shows up on your criminal record, it just doesn't go to court because you're effectively admitting guilt and agreeing to let the police deal with it.

Agreed.
I've politely declined a couple of cautions in the past when I know I had a strong case likely to show reasonable doubt in court.
I even volunteered that I would not accept a caution because it is an admission of guilt before the option came up. Then suggested to the interviewing officers that the Crown Prosecution Service will probably not chase the case because I can clearly show reasonable doubt. Left the station with 'no further action' instead.

I would only ever consider a caution if I felt the police had a better chance of proving my guilt than I do of showing reasonable doubt and winning a 'not guilty' in court.

originally posted by: crazyewok

Apparently its a "deadly drug" responsible for rising mental health problems and deaths

For people with existing mental health conditions it can certainly cause massive problems in some (note some, not all) cases.

Rather than say that it causes MHD, I would say that I believe many of those "new" cases actually involved pre-existing but previously undiagnosed Mental Health Disorders.

Plus there are other difficulties with cannabis and how the body processes it (especially for regular users) that can have a significant impact on MH conditions.

Wouldn't touch the stuff myself, but then again I don't drink alcohol either. Not from any kind of moral high ground, I just hate the idea of not feeling completely in control of myself.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: crazyewok

That, I understand.

I'm just seeing a precedence that I don't much care for, that's all.

...and I suppose better this one, then some others I could think of.

The legal system already incorporates an element of discretion - is it in the public interest to pursue a prosecution? While that discretion actually rests with the CPS (the body who decide whether to pursue a prosecution) I have no issue with it devolving to the police in matters like this.

Now, something just happened that made Durham rocket up in my estimation. I was searching for a linkable copy of Peel's Principles, which I think are one of the best statements of ideal policing ever. One of the first links to come up was to a copy held on the Durham Constabulary website.

It's a link to a PDF so I'll replicate it below to save the bother of opening a PDF: www.durham.police.uk...

To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Awesome, I live in county Durham.I guess it's time to build a little greenhouse.