%age Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 As announced on Manx Radio this morning, the police happened on some people in a cannabis smoke filled room. The case will go to court end of March and will be dealt with by High Bailiff Michael Moyle. Lately, all the drug cases have been handled by 2nd Deemster David Charles Doyle, but these have been to do with cocaine and what have you. It is very easy for that deemster to severely 'spank some bottoms' by imposing huge sentences. So, I suppose this teaches the drug fraternity a lesson not to fuck with the Isle of Man eh.. It also makes that judiciary popular with the conservative likes of the tweed skirted WI etc. When it comes to a group of lads spliffing away quietly, harming no body, it becomes a little more difficult to try and become a popular figure of Society by 'taking no nonsense'. Fair do, smerking cannabisis is against the law, but I do wonder why the High Bailiff has been given this one to deal with. Come on Isle of Man, if you are so intent on whiplashing buggering the druggies, let's see what you can muster with this one. Not a lot I would respectfully suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 The case was in court yeasterday and was adjourned for sentence the charges were simple possession and allowing his room to be used, the lad admitted I was in court for another matter The amount was miniscule The demster deals with importation, production and supply in large amounts The summary courts deal with small amounts, including the harder drugs Where it goes depends on sentencing ability of the Court for the final offence or if the offence can only be dealt with by a Deemster. High Bailiff has limited sentencing powers Nothing new, nothing sinister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 Cheers for that John. My point was that the Deemster seems to absolutely relish the spank 'em hard cases. Ok perhaps it can be argued this is for good reason. The sentences are often akin and beyond to say murder or rape etc. cases sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Cheers for that John. My point was that the Deemster seems to absolutely relish the spank 'em hard cases. Ok perhaps it can be argued this is for good reason. The sentences are often akin and beyond to say murder or rape etc. cases sometimes. Seems the polis were looking for a missing person and smelled the smoke (sounds like a new odourless weed might be a good seller!!!). As John said - in the great scheme of things this was a minor offence and will be handled by the lower Court. I think it was adjourned for a community service report which give a little hint as to what Mr Moyle is considering. A spot of dog egg cleaning for someone by the sounds of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Don't they need a search warrant then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Absolutely disgusting. These people should be out on the streets brawling drunkenly, glassing people, puking and shouting and commiting mindless acts of vandalism till four in the morning. Instead what are they doing? Sitting quietly in a room with a few spliffs. I hope they receive at least ten years each!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 When it comes to a group of lads spliffing away quietly, harming no body With all due respect (and as someone who used to advocate the legalisation of cannabis) I know of a group of 'lads' who now spend almost every day 'spliffing away quietly, harming nobody.' One of them has become so paranoid that he rarely even ventures out of his bedroom, let alone his house. Another has taken to dealing to pay for his weed and is gradually getting into debt with some seriously unpleasant people. A third has changed from being a likeable youngster to being someone who flies into uncontrollable rages with little or no incitement. All of them have dropped out of education and have probably become unemployable. None of which, of course, has anything to do with their drug-taking habits. Oh, no... perish the thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 With all due respect (and as someone who used to advocate the legalisation of cannabis) I know of a group of 'lads' who now spend almost every day 'spliffing away quietly, harming nobody.'One of them has become so paranoid that he rarely even ventures out of his bedroom, let alone his house. Another has taken to dealing to pay for his weed and is gradually getting into debt with some seriously unpleasant people. A third has changed from being a likeable youngster to being someone who flies into uncontrollable rages with little or no incitement. All of them have dropped out of education and have probably become unemployable. None of which, of course, has anything to do with their drug-taking habits. Oh, no... perish the thought! Well if you don't agree with it you should shop them to the police, if as you say you know them. Teach them a lesson and feel good about your moral stance - you'll be helping them out surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Well if you don't agree with it you should shop them to the police, if as you say you know them. Teach them a lesson and feel good about your moral stance - you'll be helping them out surely. The police are already aware of what they're doing but, because they are still 'minors,' and because they are careful never to have more than a minimal amount (for personal use) about them, there is little they can do except for the occasional 'slap on the wrist.' Until you've worked with kids like this, you can have no real idea about how much damage a 'soft' drug such as cannabis can do to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 The police are already aware of what they're doing but, because they are still 'minors,' and because they are careful never to have more than a minimal amount (for personal use) about them, there is little they can do except for the occasional 'slap on the wrist.'Until you've worked with kids like this, you can have no real idea about how much damage a 'soft' drug such as cannabis can do to them. And there's the whole supply chain issue, the consumers have created a demand, and there are other victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Don't they need a search warrant then? No. Just reasonable grounds that a crime is being committed in the property. Besides which I should imagine PC Plod just knocked on the door... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Don't they need a search warrant then? No. Just reasonable grounds that a crime is being committed in the property. Besides which I should imagine PC Plod just knocked on the door... Indeed, the radio report said that is just what they did! When the door was opened they were confronted with a wall of smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Well if you don't agree with it you should shop them to the police, if as you say you know them. Teach them a lesson and feel good about your moral stance - you'll be helping them out surely. If Lonan3 has any morals he would recognise that the government has no place telling others whether they can or cannot smoke cannbis. Shopping them to the police doesn't teach the right lessons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sausage Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 And I know people who have become unsociable, paranoid, violent, unable to work etc etc etc due to abuse of alcohol, however they do not risk the further barrier of criminalisation for the posesssion of a four pack of lager. Drugs in any form, if not taken in moderation can lead to some of the problems listed. However what gives government the right to say 'well its okay to take that drug but if you take that one we will lock you up' is beyond me. Doesnt work, never has and only leads to more risk of crime, injury or death by keeping it underground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Well if you don't agree with it you should shop them to the police, if as you say you know them. Teach them a lesson and feel good about your moral stance - you'll be helping them out surely. If Lonan3 has any morals he would recognise that the government has no place telling others whether they can or cannot smoke cannbis. Shopping them to the police doesn't teach the right lessons. 1. I do not share your ridiculously childish theories about governments (most grown-ups who live in the real world rather than the cloistered and protected arena of universities would feel the same) 2. My comments were about personal knowledge of the severe harm that cannabis has done to certain young people. 3. At no time did I ever suggest that I have 'shopped' anyone. I said that the police are 'aware' of what the young people are doing - but that was not any of my doing. If you cannot read properly - or understand what is written - I would suggest that you give up your studies immediately and try to survive without having everything paid for on your behalf. 4. An unreserved apology would be appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.