Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing
and places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more
carefully which case deserve jail time.

Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or
cultivating small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was
growing one or two plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons
are full, and they're having to let people out.

If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case
that the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on
growing cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:56:25 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing and
> places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more carefully
> which case deserve jail time.
> 
> Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
> custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or cultivating
> small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was growing one or two
> plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons are full, and they're
> having to let people out.

Very few people are jailed for possession alone or growing a couple of
plants (but the numbers aren't zero, ISTR 3 per week on average).

> If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case that
> the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on growing
> cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

They had marihuana tax stamps in the USA before it was declared public
enemy number one.

I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.

I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.

Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

> I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
> sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
> which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.
>
> I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
> million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
> should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.
>
> Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

Sometimes fate is queer, with it's twists and turns.

It would be richly ironic, if, having spent BILLIONS in the past 30+
years, the UK government was coerced into relaxing it's stance because
of penny-pinching in the prison system.

Now the issue of prison places has become a public debating point,
then in the absence of new prison places[1] the Daily Mail brigade are
facing a dilemma. Much as they may hate tokers and toking, they are
being forced into a position of deciding whether to carry on jailing
criminals with no victims at the risk of letting real criminals - who
abuse, maim, rob and kill - go free.

[1] The knee jerk reaction is "build more prisons". However, the
reason the government hasn't is that prisons are bloody expensive. The
UK is already short on qualified prison staff, who would staff the new
ones. Then there's the delicate issue of planning. No matter how much
the middle clases bleat about building more prisons, strangely there's
always a reason why it shouldn't be near them. Add to that the
political fallout from not building hospitals, but building prisons,
then you have a potent "do sod all" cocktail.

Also, prison building appears to be like road building. No matter how
much you build, it's never enough.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:56:25 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing and
> places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more carefully
> which case deserve jail time.
> 
> Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
> custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or cultivating
> small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was growing one or two
> plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons are full, and they're
> having to let people out.

Very few people are jailed for possession alone or growing a couple of
plants (but the numbers aren't zero, ISTR 3 per week on average).

> If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case that
> the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on growing
> cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

They had marihuana tax stamps in the USA before it was declared public
enemy number one.

I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.

I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.

Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

> I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
> sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
> which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.
>
> I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
> million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
> should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.
>
> Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

Sometimes fate is queer, with it's twists and turns.

It would be richly ironic, if, having spent BILLIONS in the past 30+
years, the UK government was coerced into relaxing it's stance because
of penny-pinching in the prison system.

Now the issue of prison places has become a public debating point,
then in the absence of new prison places[1] the Daily Mail brigade are
facing a dilemma. Much as they may hate tokers and toking, they are
being forced into a position of deciding whether to carry on jailing
criminals with no victims at the risk of letting real criminals - who
abuse, maim, rob and kill - go free.

[1] The knee jerk reaction is "build more prisons". However, the
reason the government hasn't is that prisons are bloody expensive. The
UK is already short on qualified prison staff, who would staff the new
ones. Then there's the delicate issue of planning. No matter how much
the middle clases bleat about building more prisons, strangely there's
always a reason why it shouldn't be near them. Add to that the
political fallout from not building hospitals, but building prisons,
then you have a potent "do sod all" cocktail.

Also, prison building appears to be like road building. No matter how
much you build, it's never enough.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:56:25 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing and
> places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more carefully
> which case deserve jail time.
> 
> Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
> custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or cultivating
> small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was growing one or two
> plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons are full, and they're
> having to let people out.

Very few people are jailed for possession alone or growing a couple of
plants (but the numbers aren't zero, ISTR 3 per week on average).

> If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case that
> the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on growing
> cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

They had marihuana tax stamps in the USA before it was declared public
enemy number one.

I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.

I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.

Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

> I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
> sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
> which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.
>
> I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
> million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
> should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.
>
> Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

Sometimes fate is queer, with it's twists and turns.

It would be richly ironic, if, having spent BILLIONS in the past 30+
years, the UK government was coerced into relaxing it's stance because
of penny-pinching in the prison system.

Now the issue of prison places has become a public debating point,
then in the absence of new prison places[1] the Daily Mail brigade are
facing a dilemma. Much as they may hate tokers and toking, they are
being forced into a position of deciding whether to carry on jailing
criminals with no victims at the risk of letting real criminals - who
abuse, maim, rob and kill - go free.

[1] The knee jerk reaction is "build more prisons". However, the
reason the government hasn't is that prisons are bloody expensive. The
UK is already short on qualified prison staff, who would staff the new
ones. Then there's the delicate issue of planning. No matter how much
the middle clases bleat about building more prisons, strangely there's
always a reason why it shouldn't be near them. Add to that the
political fallout from not building hospitals, but building prisons,
then you have a potent "do sod all" cocktail.

Also, prison building appears to be like road building. No matter how
much you build, it's never enough.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:56:25 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing and
> places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more carefully
> which case deserve jail time.
> 
> Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
> custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or cultivating
> small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was growing one or two
> plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons are full, and they're
> having to let people out.

Very few people are jailed for possession alone or growing a couple of
plants (but the numbers aren't zero, ISTR 3 per week on average).

> If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case that
> the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on growing
> cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

They had marihuana tax stamps in the USA before it was declared public
enemy number one.

I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.

I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.

Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

> I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
> sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
> which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.
>
> I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
> million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
> should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.
>
> Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

Sometimes fate is queer, with it's twists and turns.

It would be richly ironic, if, having spent BILLIONS in the past 30+
years, the UK government was coerced into relaxing it's stance because
of penny-pinching in the prison system.

Now the issue of prison places has become a public debating point,
then in the absence of new prison places[1] the Daily Mail brigade are
facing a dilemma. Much as they may hate tokers and toking, they are
being forced into a position of deciding whether to carry on jailing
criminals with no victims at the risk of letting real criminals - who
abuse, maim, rob and kill - go free.

[1] The knee jerk reaction is "build more prisons". However, the
reason the government hasn't is that prisons are bloody expensive. The
UK is already short on qualified prison staff, who would staff the new
ones. Then there's the delicate issue of planning. No matter how much
the middle clases bleat about building more prisons, strangely there's
always a reason why it shouldn't be near them. Add to that the
political fallout from not building hospitals, but building prisons,
then you have a potent "do sod all" cocktail.

Also, prison building appears to be like road building. No matter how
much you build, it's never enough.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:56:25 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing and
> places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more carefully
> which case deserve jail time.
> 
> Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
> custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or cultivating
> small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was growing one or two
> plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons are full, and they're
> having to let people out.

Very few people are jailed for possession alone or growing a couple of
plants (but the numbers aren't zero, ISTR 3 per week on average).

> If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case that
> the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on growing
> cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

They had marihuana tax stamps in the USA before it was declared public
enemy number one.

I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.

I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.

Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

> I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
> sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
> which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.
>
> I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
> million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
> should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.
>
> Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

Sometimes fate is queer, with it's twists and turns.

It would be richly ironic, if, having spent BILLIONS in the past 30+
years, the UK government was coerced into relaxing it's stance because
of penny-pinching in the prison system.

Now the issue of prison places has become a public debating point,
then in the absence of new prison places[1] the Daily Mail brigade are
facing a dilemma. Much as they may hate tokers and toking, they are
being forced into a position of deciding whether to carry on jailing
criminals with no victims at the risk of letting real criminals - who
abuse, maim, rob and kill - go free.

[1] The knee jerk reaction is "build more prisons". However, the
reason the government hasn't is that prisons are bloody expensive. The
UK is already short on qualified prison staff, who would staff the new
ones. Then there's the delicate issue of planning. No matter how much
the middle clases bleat about building more prisons, strangely there's
always a reason why it shouldn't be near them. Add to that the
political fallout from not building hospitals, but building prisons,
then you have a potent "do sod all" cocktail.

Also, prison building appears to be like road building. No matter how
much you build, it's never enough.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:56:25 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing and
> places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more carefully
> which case deserve jail time.
> 
> Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
> custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or cultivating
> small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was growing one or two
> plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons are full, and they're
> having to let people out.

Very few people are jailed for possession alone or growing a couple of
plants (but the numbers aren't zero, ISTR 3 per week on average).

> If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case that
> the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on growing
> cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

They had marihuana tax stamps in the USA before it was declared public
enemy number one.

I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.

I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.

Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

> I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
> sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
> which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.
>
> I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
> million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
> should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.
>
> Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

Sometimes fate is queer, with it's twists and turns.

It would be richly ironic, if, having spent BILLIONS in the past 30+
years, the UK government was coerced into relaxing it's stance because
of penny-pinching in the prison system.

Now the issue of prison places has become a public debating point,
then in the absence of new prison places[1] the Daily Mail brigade are
facing a dilemma. Much as they may hate tokers and toking, they are
being forced into a position of deciding whether to carry on jailing
criminals with no victims at the risk of letting real criminals - who
abuse, maim, rob and kill - go free.

[1] The knee jerk reaction is "build more prisons". However, the
reason the government hasn't is that prisons are bloody expensive. The
UK is already short on qualified prison staff, who would staff the new
ones. Then there's the delicate issue of planning. No matter how much
the middle clases bleat about building more prisons, strangely there's
always a reason why it shouldn't be near them. Add to that the
political fallout from not building hospitals, but building prisons,
then you have a potent "do sod all" cocktail.

Also, prison building appears to be like road building. No matter how
much you build, it's never enough.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:56:25 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing and
> places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more carefully
> which case deserve jail time.
> 
> Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
> custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or cultivating
> small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was growing one or two
> plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons are full, and they're
> having to let people out.

Very few people are jailed for possession alone or growing a couple of
plants (but the numbers aren't zero, ISTR 3 per week on average).

> If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case that
> the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on growing
> cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

They had marihuana tax stamps in the USA before it was declared public
enemy number one.

I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.

I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.

Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

> I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
> sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
> which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.
>
> I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
> million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
> should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.
>
> Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

Sometimes fate is queer, with it's twists and turns.

It would be richly ironic, if, having spent BILLIONS in the past 30+
years, the UK government was coerced into relaxing it's stance because
of penny-pinching in the prison system.

Now the issue of prison places has become a public debating point,
then in the absence of new prison places[1] the Daily Mail brigade are
facing a dilemma. Much as they may hate tokers and toking, they are
being forced into a position of deciding whether to carry on jailing
criminals with no victims at the risk of letting real criminals - who
abuse, maim, rob and kill - go free.

[1] The knee jerk reaction is "build more prisons". However, the
reason the government hasn't is that prisons are bloody expensive. The
UK is already short on qualified prison staff, who would staff the new
ones. Then there's the delicate issue of planning. No matter how much
the middle clases bleat about building more prisons, strangely there's
always a reason why it shouldn't be near them. Add to that the
political fallout from not building hospitals, but building prisons,
then you have a potent "do sod all" cocktail.

Also, prison building appears to be like road building. No matter how
much you build, it's never enough.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:56:25 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing and
> places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more carefully
> which case deserve jail time.
> 
> Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
> custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or cultivating
> small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was growing one or two
> plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons are full, and they're
> having to let people out.

Very few people are jailed for possession alone or growing a couple of
plants (but the numbers aren't zero, ISTR 3 per week on average).

> If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case that
> the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on growing
> cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

They had marihuana tax stamps in the USA before it was declared public
enemy number one.

I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.

I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.

Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

> I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
> sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
> which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.
>
> I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
> million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
> should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.
>
> Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

Sometimes fate is queer, with it's twists and turns.

It would be richly ironic, if, having spent BILLIONS in the past 30+
years, the UK government was coerced into relaxing it's stance because
of penny-pinching in the prison system.

Now the issue of prison places has become a public debating point,
then in the absence of new prison places[1] the Daily Mail brigade are
facing a dilemma. Much as they may hate tokers and toking, they are
being forced into a position of deciding whether to carry on jailing
criminals with no victims at the risk of letting real criminals - who
abuse, maim, rob and kill - go free.

[1] The knee jerk reaction is "build more prisons". However, the
reason the government hasn't is that prisons are bloody expensive. The
UK is already short on qualified prison staff, who would staff the new
ones. Then there's the delicate issue of planning. No matter how much
the middle clases bleat about building more prisons, strangely there's
always a reason why it shouldn't be near them. Add to that the
political fallout from not building hospitals, but building prisons,
then you have a potent "do sod all" cocktail.

Also, prison building appears to be like road building. No matter how
much you build, it's never enough.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:56:25 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing and
> places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more carefully
> which case deserve jail time.
> 
> Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
> custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or cultivating
> small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was growing one or two
> plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons are full, and they're
> having to let people out.

Very few people are jailed for possession alone or growing a couple of
plants (but the numbers aren't zero, ISTR 3 per week on average).

> If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case that
> the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on growing
> cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

They had marihuana tax stamps in the USA before it was declared public
enemy number one.

I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.

I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.

Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

> I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
> sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
> which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.
>
> I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
> million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
> should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.
>
> Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

Sometimes fate is queer, with it's twists and turns.

It would be richly ironic, if, having spent BILLIONS in the past 30+
years, the UK government was coerced into relaxing it's stance because
of penny-pinching in the prison system.

Now the issue of prison places has become a public debating point,
then in the absence of new prison places[1] the Daily Mail brigade are
facing a dilemma. Much as they may hate tokers and toking, they are
being forced into a position of deciding whether to carry on jailing
criminals with no victims at the risk of letting real criminals - who
abuse, maim, rob and kill - go free.

[1] The knee jerk reaction is "build more prisons". However, the
reason the government hasn't is that prisons are bloody expensive. The
UK is already short on qualified prison staff, who would staff the new
ones. Then there's the delicate issue of planning. No matter how much
the middle clases bleat about building more prisons, strangely there's
always a reason why it shouldn't be near them. Add to that the
political fallout from not building hospitals, but building prisons,
then you have a potent "do sod all" cocktail.

Also, prison building appears to be like road building. No matter how
much you build, it's never enough.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:56:25 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing and
> places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more carefully
> which case deserve jail time.
> 
> Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
> custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or cultivating
> small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was growing one or two
> plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons are full, and they're
> having to let people out.

Very few people are jailed for possession alone or growing a couple of
plants (but the numbers aren't zero, ISTR 3 per week on average).

> If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case that
> the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on growing
> cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

They had marihuana tax stamps in the USA before it was declared public
enemy number one.

I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.

I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.

Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

> I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
> sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
> which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.
>
> I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
> million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
> should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.
>
> Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

Sometimes fate is queer, with it's twists and turns.

It would be richly ironic, if, having spent BILLIONS in the past 30+
years, the UK government was coerced into relaxing it's stance because
of penny-pinching in the prison system.

Now the issue of prison places has become a public debating point,
then in the absence of new prison places[1] the Daily Mail brigade are
facing a dilemma. Much as they may hate tokers and toking, they are
being forced into a position of deciding whether to carry on jailing
criminals with no victims at the risk of letting real criminals - who
abuse, maim, rob and kill - go free.

[1] The knee jerk reaction is "build more prisons". However, the
reason the government hasn't is that prisons are bloody expensive. The
UK is already short on qualified prison staff, who would staff the new
ones. Then there's the delicate issue of planning. No matter how much
the middle clases bleat about building more prisons, strangely there's
always a reason why it shouldn't be near them. Add to that the
political fallout from not building hospitals, but building prisons,
then you have a potent "do sod all" cocktail.

Also, prison building appears to be like road building. No matter how
much you build, it's never enough.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:56:25 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing and
> places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more carefully
> which case deserve jail time.
> 
> Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
> custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or cultivating
> small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was growing one or two
> plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons are full, and they're
> having to let people out.

Very few people are jailed for possession alone or growing a couple of
plants (but the numbers aren't zero, ISTR 3 per week on average).

> If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case that
> the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on growing
> cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

They had marihuana tax stamps in the USA before it was declared public
enemy number one.

I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.

I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.

Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

> I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
> sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
> which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.
>
> I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
> million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
> should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.
>
> Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

Sometimes fate is queer, with it's twists and turns.

It would be richly ironic, if, having spent BILLIONS in the past 30+
years, the UK government was coerced into relaxing it's stance because
of penny-pinching in the prison system.

Now the issue of prison places has become a public debating point,
then in the absence of new prison places[1] the Daily Mail brigade are
facing a dilemma. Much as they may hate tokers and toking, they are
being forced into a position of deciding whether to carry on jailing
criminals with no victims at the risk of letting real criminals - who
abuse, maim, rob and kill - go free.

[1] The knee jerk reaction is "build more prisons". However, the
reason the government hasn't is that prisons are bloody expensive. The
UK is already short on qualified prison staff, who would staff the new
ones. Then there's the delicate issue of planning. No matter how much
the middle clases bleat about building more prisons, strangely there's
always a reason why it shouldn't be near them. Add to that the
political fallout from not building hospitals, but building prisons,
then you have a potent "do sod all" cocktail.

Also, prison building appears to be like road building. No matter how
much you build, it's never enough.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:56:25 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing and
> places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more carefully
> which case deserve jail time.
> 
> Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
> custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or cultivating
> small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was growing one or two
> plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons are full, and they're
> having to let people out.

Very few people are jailed for possession alone or growing a couple of
plants (but the numbers aren't zero, ISTR 3 per week on average).

> If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case that
> the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on growing
> cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

They had marihuana tax stamps in the USA before it was declared public
enemy number one.

I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.

I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.

Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

> I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
> sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
> which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.
>
> I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
> million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
> should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.
>
> Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

Sometimes fate is queer, with it's twists and turns.

It would be richly ironic, if, having spent BILLIONS in the past 30+
years, the UK government was coerced into relaxing it's stance because
of penny-pinching in the prison system.

Now the issue of prison places has become a public debating point,
then in the absence of new prison places[1] the Daily Mail brigade are
facing a dilemma. Much as they may hate tokers and toking, they are
being forced into a position of deciding whether to carry on jailing
criminals with no victims at the risk of letting real criminals - who
abuse, maim, rob and kill - go free.

[1] The knee jerk reaction is "build more prisons". However, the
reason the government hasn't is that prisons are bloody expensive. The
UK is already short on qualified prison staff, who would staff the new
ones. Then there's the delicate issue of planning. No matter how much
the middle clases bleat about building more prisons, strangely there's
always a reason why it shouldn't be near them. Add to that the
political fallout from not building hospitals, but building prisons,
then you have a potent "do sod all" cocktail.

Also, prison building appears to be like road building. No matter how
much you build, it's never enough.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:56:25 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing and
> places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more carefully
> which case deserve jail time.
> 
> Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
> custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or cultivating
> small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was growing one or two
> plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons are full, and they're
> having to let people out.

Very few people are jailed for possession alone or growing a couple of
plants (but the numbers aren't zero, ISTR 3 per week on average).

> If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case that
> the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on growing
> cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

They had marihuana tax stamps in the USA before it was declared public
enemy number one.

I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.

I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.

Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

> I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
> sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
> which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.
>
> I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
> million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
> should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.
>
> Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

Sometimes fate is queer, with it's twists and turns.

It would be richly ironic, if, having spent BILLIONS in the past 30+
years, the UK government was coerced into relaxing it's stance because
of penny-pinching in the prison system.

Now the issue of prison places has become a public debating point,
then in the absence of new prison places[1] the Daily Mail brigade are
facing a dilemma. Much as they may hate tokers and toking, they are
being forced into a position of deciding whether to carry on jailing
criminals with no victims at the risk of letting real criminals - who
abuse, maim, rob and kill - go free.

[1] The knee jerk reaction is "build more prisons". However, the
reason the government hasn't is that prisons are bloody expensive. The
UK is already short on qualified prison staff, who would staff the new
ones. Then there's the delicate issue of planning. No matter how much
the middle clases bleat about building more prisons, strangely there's
always a reason why it shouldn't be near them. Add to that the
political fallout from not building hospitals, but building prisons,
then you have a potent "do sod all" cocktail.

Also, prison building appears to be like road building. No matter how
much you build, it's never enough.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:56:25 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing and
> places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more carefully
> which case deserve jail time.
> 
> Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
> custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or cultivating
> small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was growing one or two
> plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons are full, and they're
> having to let people out.

Very few people are jailed for possession alone or growing a couple of
plants (but the numbers aren't zero, ISTR 3 per week on average).

> If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case that
> the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on growing
> cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

They had marihuana tax stamps in the USA before it was declared public
enemy number one.

I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.

I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.

Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

> I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
> sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
> which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.
>
> I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
> million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
> should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.
>
> Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

Sometimes fate is queer, with it's twists and turns.

It would be richly ironic, if, having spent BILLIONS in the past 30+
years, the UK government was coerced into relaxing it's stance because
of penny-pinching in the prison system.

Now the issue of prison places has become a public debating point,
then in the absence of new prison places[1] the Daily Mail brigade are
facing a dilemma. Much as they may hate tokers and toking, they are
being forced into a position of deciding whether to carry on jailing
criminals with no victims at the risk of letting real criminals - who
abuse, maim, rob and kill - go free.

[1] The knee jerk reaction is "build more prisons". However, the
reason the government hasn't is that prisons are bloody expensive. The
UK is already short on qualified prison staff, who would staff the new
ones. Then there's the delicate issue of planning. No matter how much
the middle clases bleat about building more prisons, strangely there's
always a reason why it shouldn't be near them. Add to that the
political fallout from not building hospitals, but building prisons,
then you have a potent "do sod all" cocktail.

Also, prison building appears to be like road building. No matter how
much you build, it's never enough.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:56:25 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing and
> places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more carefully
> which case deserve jail time.
> 
> Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
> custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or cultivating
> small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was growing one or two
> plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons are full, and they're
> having to let people out.

Very few people are jailed for possession alone or growing a couple of
plants (but the numbers aren't zero, ISTR 3 per week on average).

> If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case that
> the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on growing
> cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

They had marihuana tax stamps in the USA before it was declared public
enemy number one.

I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.

I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.

Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

> I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
> sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
> which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.
>
> I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
> million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
> should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.
>
> Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

Sometimes fate is queer, with it's twists and turns.

It would be richly ironic, if, having spent BILLIONS in the past 30+
years, the UK government was coerced into relaxing it's stance because
of penny-pinching in the prison system.

Now the issue of prison places has become a public debating point,
then in the absence of new prison places[1] the Daily Mail brigade are
facing a dilemma. Much as they may hate tokers and toking, they are
being forced into a position of deciding whether to carry on jailing
criminals with no victims at the risk of letting real criminals - who
abuse, maim, rob and kill - go free.

[1] The knee jerk reaction is "build more prisons". However, the
reason the government hasn't is that prisons are bloody expensive. The
UK is already short on qualified prison staff, who would staff the new
ones. Then there's the delicate issue of planning. No matter how much
the middle clases bleat about building more prisons, strangely there's
always a reason why it shouldn't be near them. Add to that the
political fallout from not building hospitals, but building prisons,
then you have a potent "do sod all" cocktail.

Also, prison building appears to be like road building. No matter how
much you build, it's never enough.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:56:25 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> Given the governments recent tigth spot regarding prison sentencing and
> places, it looks like they are being forced to evaluate more carefully
> which case deserve jail time.
> 
> Despite the rants of teh Daily Mail brigade, a prime candidate for non-
> custodial sentencing would be people in possession, of and/or cultivating
> small amounts of cannabis. Jailing somebody who was growing one or two
> plants will look increasingly silly, if the prisons are full, and they're
> having to let people out.

Very few people are jailed for possession alone or growing a couple of
plants (but the numbers aren't zero, ISTR 3 per week on average).

> If a custodial sentence becomes less and less likely, is there a case that
> the subsequent fines could come to be regarded as a "tax" on growing
> cannabis ... in time to be accepted and legitamized ?

They had marihuana tax stamps in the USA before it was declared public
enemy number one.

I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.

I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.

Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

> I find it incredulous that a victimless action results in criminal
> sanctions. Where is the victim? I also find it incredulous that booze,
> which qualifies as a class A drug, is legal when cannabis isn't.
>
> I can't see how a relatively innocuous pasttime enjoyed by around 3
> million people could ever be against the law. Surely the weight of numbers
> should force it to be legal, it's use is acceptable to most people.
>
> Still, I've been ranting on about that for 15 years :-).

Sometimes fate is queer, with it's twists and turns.

It would be richly ironic, if, having spent BILLIONS in the past 30+
years, the UK government was coerced into relaxing it's stance because
of penny-pinching in the prison system.

Now the issue of prison places has become a public debating point,
then in the absence of new prison places[1] the Daily Mail brigade are
facing a dilemma. Much as they may hate tokers and toking, they are
being forced into a position of deciding whether to carry on jailing
criminals with no victims at the risk of letting real criminals - who
abuse, maim, rob and kill - go free.

[1] The knee jerk reaction is "build more prisons". However, the
reason the government hasn't is that prisons are bloody expensive. The
UK is already short on qualified prison staff, who would staff the new
ones. Then there's the delicate issue of planning. No matter how much
the middle clases bleat about building more prisons, strangely there's
always a reason why it shouldn't be near them. Add to that the
political fallout from not building hospitals, but building prisons,
then you have a potent "do sod all" cocktail.

Also, prison building appears to be like road building. No matter how
much you build, it's never enough.