[Closed] I'm about to be screwed... the question is how hard? THC content content.

Hebden. Actually I haven't seen anyone defending driving stoned. The nearest is discussion around at what blood levels you are impaired.

Don't like jaffa cakes

Hangings too good for him.

cyclingweakly - are you actually interested in the discussion of harm reduction / healthcare based approach compared to prohibition / criminal justice approach? If so I'll take the time to type it out.

Are we really being asked to explain how an adult freely choosing to take a substance of their choice is different from non consensual sex with a minor?
Is there really a person this dumb that they need it explaining?

Nope, and if that's the end of the stick you've got, then there's only one dumb person here, and he's holding a stick by the wrong end!

The comparison was not the far-reaching ramifications of the crime; merely pointing out that in law, they are both crimes. A peadophile and a dope smoker have both broken the law.

I was using the example of 2 contrasting crimes to highlight how fickle some people are in that they think they should be allowed to pick and choose what laws they obey based on nothing more than their own moral values.

And worse than that, that they use their "moral values" as justification and even a reason that the law should be changed!

I am pointing out that peadophiles think what they do is OK, and in many cases they feel that they're being persecuted in the same way that homosexuals were persecuted in the not too distant past. They justify their actions and don't necessarily feel morally outraged by their own actions. So should we just change those laws because a bunch of peadophiles feel morally allowed to do as they please?

No, they shouldn't. The laws are there to protect the vulnerable and uphold standards in society. And that goes for drug laws as well as sexual consent laws!

cyclingweakly - are you actually interested in the discussion of harm reduction / healthcare based approach compared to prohibition / criminal justice approach?

No, not in the slightest. It has no bearing on whether or not the OP is a criminal.

It has no bearing on whether or not the OP is a criminal.

We're all criminals in one way or another.

We're all criminals in one way or another.

What?? Is that one of those super-profound concepts that potheads come out with???

I think he means that we all break the law in one way or another, which isn't really helping with the point of the thread. Neither is half the shit you're writing, either.

😀

Do we? Well, I'm racking my brains and I can't think what criminal acts I commit...

What?? Is that one of those super-profound concepts that potheads come out with???

Ever played knock-down ginger?
Ever gone above the speed limit?
Ever walked a dog without a lead?
Ever been gay in the 1950s?

I think he means that we all break the law in one way or another, which isn't really helping with the point of the thread.

CW is suggesting that the law is absolute, which isn't really helping Alpin.

I'm just feeding the troll so I'll stop...

Do we? Well, I'm racking my brains and I can't think what criminal acts I commit...

If that's what you took from my post then, my good man, you have grasped the wrong end of the stick...

😉

You've made your point chap.

Ever played knock-down ginger?

Is that like ginger bashing? No... Although I could punch Ed Sheeran

Ever gone above the speed limit?

Possibly, but not deliberately or habitually. And that's not a criminal act.

Ever walked a dog without a lead?

I don't have a lead... Or a dog.

Ever been gay in the 1950s?

Ah, the golden age of homosexuality... The joy of bumlove combined with that frisson of excitement that you were going to get fingered by the filth... But no, I haven't.

Breaking the speed limit is a criminal act and is implicated in far more RTCs than drugs.

Tsk tsk. You killer you.

No it isn't, if you settle by fixed penalty it isn't considered a criminal offence.

Wrong. It is still a criminal offence just one you do not have to disclose under most circumstances.

But it's still breaking a law otherwise there would be no penalty, surely.

Wrong again my friend, if you contest it and are found guilty, you will have a criminal conviction. If you accept a fixed penalty, there is no criminal conviction and you don't have a criminal record. You get 3 or 6 points and a fine.

But it's still breaking a law otherwise there would be no penalty, surely.

Yes it is. But I don't deliberately or habitually break the speed limit. Which is why I answered the way I did.

There are two types of law. Civil and criminal. Road traffic acts are part of criminal law.

There are two types of law. Civil and criminal. Road traffic acts are part of criminal law.

I'm guessing you're not a lawyer TJ...

I don't have a lead... Or a dog.

Which is why I answered the way I did.

Yes, I can read. But you're being very manipulative in your answers so as to absolve yourself of any deliberate breach of the law rather than just admitting that we all are fallible.

Just admit it and move on.

..don't forget crimes of fashion. CW, what's your view on chinos, brown shoes. brogues and tattoos?

Seriously, I'm trying to enjoy a day off in the garden sunbathing, and this thread is starting to get on my tits. Let's stop using the OP as a punchbag, eh? 🙂

But you're being very manipulative in your answers so as to absolve yourself of any breach of the law rather than just admitting that we all are fallible.

Finding yourself still doing 36mph when driving into a 30 zone could, I admit, be construed as fallibility.

Spending the larger part of your adult life seeking out illegal drug dealers, buying, hiding and consuming those drugs is NOT fallibility, it's criminality!

Just admit it and move on.

OK, I admit it... I b*mmed Ed Sheeran in 1953... It's a fair cop gov!

day off in the garden sunbathing

Baked...?

Spending the larger part of your adult life seeking out illegal drug dealers, buying, hiding and consuming those drugs is NOT fallibility, it's criminality!

Can't argue with that. Well, I could but I can't be arsed. The thread's yours.

Think I might wander outside and get a tan for a bit...

I'm totally fried.

Wheaton's Law?

Gets broken round here with impunity.

I reckon cycling weakly should nip over to Bavaria and take Alpins punishment for him. Sounds like he needs it more.

Hattersleys law?

Cyclingweakly then which part of law is it if its not criminal law? Its not civil law. Yes it is not recorded as part of a criminal record but its still a law broken and even fixed penalty notices are under criminal law.

I suggest you invoke hatterslys law.

Coles Law? It's just cabbage, but thinly sliced...

Cyclingweakly then which part of law is it if its not criminal law? Its not civil law.

Motoring offices (caveat: that are dealt with by means of fixed penalty) are considered in a different way to criminal offences. Sure they're an 'offence', but not a criminal act.

So to put it in simple terms, you can add the umbrella term "motoring convictions" to your simplistic list of "different types of law". Then you'll be a fully qualified QC. 😉

So they are a part of criminal law then?

No. In some circumstances, yes, but generally, no.

#tjagainargues#

There is no branch of law known as "motoring convictions". there are two branches of law - criminal and civil. There are many parts of criminal law for which you can be prosecuted but the prosecution is disregarded for a "criminal record" Minor motoring offences are one such. However all road traffic acts and their provisions remain part of criminal law. they are not civil law. the only other option is criminal law.

Sorry user removed - you are right. Thanks for the reminder

Really? I was just using a meme to have a cheap shot - have they let you back in then?

However all road traffic acts and their provisions remain part of criminal law. they are not civil law. the only other option is criminal law.

Well, it's quite clear that it's not as simple as that, so arguing semantics is pretty pointless.

It's also a moot point for 2 reasons. Firstly, I've not been caught committing a traffic offence, and I'm not in the habit of deliberately committing the.

Secondly, the law is very clear about how it considers those who deliberately or habitually break the laws regarding the purchase, possession and use of controlled substances.

Userremoved - I am in deep cover. don't let on. I just about blew it there

but you do admit that you're a criminal then, just one that hasn't been caught / convicted yet?

Pass me the black cap, I'll be needing it later.

but you do admit that you're a criminal then, just one that hasn't been caught / convicted yet?

No, and no. Not in fact, and not in law.

And to bring this little side-bar to a neat conclusion, this is exactly why I chose paedophilia rather than doing 35-in-a-30-zone in my original comparison. Both paedophilia and drug possession are clear cut criminal offences, under criminal law, and attract criminal convictions and criminal records.

It would have been rather foolish to compare the OP's crimes to traffic offences as they're completely different (I'm guessing at the similarities/differences under Bavarian law, so forgive me if I'm wrong).

Now do you understand?

CW - a quick precis.

You stated earlier, the law is the LAW, then weasled out of the fact that you have gone above the speed limit by saying it wasn't a criminal offence.

By your last post you have admitted that you consider drug users to be equivalent to pedophiles, but not speeders.

I'll just leave [url= http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/motoring-convictions-and-the-rehabilitation-of-offenders-act/ ]this here[/url].

A Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) can be used to deal with minor road traffic offences, but it is not a criminal conviction or a caution.

However, if you are given an FPN for a road traffic offence in Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and your licence is endorsed, then (in line with s. 58 of that Act) the [u]endorsement is treated as having been given by a court following conviction of the offence[/u] and is subject to a 5 year rehabilitation period, from the date the FPN was issued.

A full list of the offences covered by this are available [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/schedule/2 ]here[/url]. Examples include:
1) Exceeding the speed limit

To be honest mate, we might understand but i think we just mostly want you to step banging on about it.

I need to chill out... Maybe it's time for a nice relaxing ride home in the sun with a joint. What a mice country i live in. Alps, you should totes visit. No hills here though :/

So once again. The law is the law, it's a criminal law not a civil one, (whether you have to take a conviction for it or not is irrelevant, that's merely a technicality so that courts don't get clogged up by speeding fines), and you admit to breaking it (irrelevant whether that's by accident or design)

So, you have committed a criminal act, ergo you're a crim. Like the rest of us.

Off to choky with us all. Last one here let the hamsters out.

To go back a bit towards the OP I found this when looking for any information on whether driving and cannabis is an issue in the Netherlands. some interesting reading.

https://injepijournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-014-0026-z

One thing struck me - it seemed to state impairmanet lasted for 2 hours but levels above the legal limits often for a lot longer. I only had a quick glance thru it tho

You stated earlier, the law is the LAW, then weasled out of the fact that you have gone above the speed limit by saying it wasn't a criminal offence.

I compared 2 CRIMINAL offences. I deliberately didn't include traffic offences as they ARE considered differently under UK law. I ddi this to highlight the ridiculous disparity of opinions about which laws STW users feel it's acceptable to break.

You're using a different kind of conviction to try and rebut my assertion that, in law, paedophilia and cannabis possession are both criminal acts.

You're also, for some reason that I'm struggling fathom, trying to convince me and other users that I have broken the speed limit.
You have no evidence to support this (do you even know if I drive?).

As I have clearly stated, I don't deliberately speed, and I'm not aware of any other laws that I break.

The OP on the other hand, openly, habitually and knowingly breaks the law very deliberately, and on a very regular basis.

The reason for pointing that out is that we can't really trust anything he says, and neither will a court, as he's proven himself to be dishonest.

Is "LAW" too complicated for you to get your drug-addled brain around? [b]There's no grey area when it comes to law: you either broke the law or you didn't.[/b]

this is exactly why I chose paedophilia rather than doing 35-in-a-30-zone in my original comparison. Both paedophilia and drug possession are clear cut criminal offences, under criminal law, and attract criminal convictions and criminal records.

Firstly, I've not been [b]caught[/b] committing a traffic offence, and I'm not in the habit of [b]deliberately[/b] committing the.

So, to summarize; casual drug users are peados & traffic laws don't count as long as you didn't mean it and/or don't do it often?

Alpin, I seriously hope everything works out - shitty set of circumstances & one I hope the authorities see sense on (no weakly, not the firing squad).

i'll just leave this here...
[img] [/img]

Does this help?

ou're using a different kind of conviction to try and rebut my assertion that, in law, paedophilia and cannabis possession are both criminal acts.

From GOV.uk:

Penalty notices for disorder
Penalty notices for disorder are given for offences like:

shoplifting
possessing cannabis
being drunk and disorderly in public
You can only get a penalty notice if you’re 18 or over.

You’ll be asked to sign the penalty notice ticket. You won’t get a criminal conviction if you pay the penalty.

Just so we've got some facts, cannabis possession can be and often is dealt with without criminal conviction by way of a fixed penalty.

... in the UK.

I compared 2 CRIMINAL offences. I deliberately didn't include traffic offences as they ARE considered differently under UK law. I ddi this to highlight the ridiculous disparity of opinions about which laws STW users feel it's acceptable to break.

Some laws are wrong. I prefer to use my judgement about what I think is right and wrong. Laws are a useful thing to control society but morals and common sense are equally useful. Laws are good to follow if you have none of the above so maybe it's best if cycling weakly sticks to obeying every law ever written to be on the safe side and stay holier than thou. BTW before he says it...I'm not a stoner i don't personally like the stuff.

Not been checking much.......has it been a good day for the sanctimonious on here today ?

What's happening......have we stopped for a well deserved fag break ?

[img] [/img]

Pretty much Ernie. A few of us had some reasonable discussions around side issue related to the OP but on the whole you are right. We even got a stoner / peado comparison 🙂

well done CW, you killed this thread stone dead.

What's happening......have we stopped for a well deserved fag break ?

Something like that 8)

[img] [/img]

stoner / peado comparison

I don't know what Stoner has done to deserve this...
Bit unfair, IMO.

I often jump red lights, too....

I have to admit, this thread has given me more smiles than expected.

Saw the lawyer today.

The Polizist (copper),despite us having a super rapport (he happened to be a scout leader and had been to Chelmsford (my mother's home town!)several times and i told him which pubs to visit (the Wheatsheaf in Writtle!) and which fish'n'chip shop to visit) was talking shite with regards to me being banned from driving in Germany for the rest of my days. They are not allowed to treat me differently to any German (yay EU!). He reckons I'll be over the limit of 4ng,but there is still a chance I'll get lucky.

I'm going to voluntarily go to "counciling" which will involve psychotherapy and drug testing (either hair or piss samples for 3 months) (assuming the Behörden (officials) want me to prove that i am dealing with my situation) which should work iny favour because it shows I am dealing with my situation/issues. Just got to remember to say that I suffered some sort of trauma which lead to me smoking and not because I like being stoned. That would continue for three months or more until the authorities are satisfied that I'm clean and do not pose a risk. 🙄
Likely to cost over a grand.

I'll still likely get stung with a hefty fine and receive a month or longer ban. I'll still likely be stopped at every opportunity. #moremoneymorestress

Have already considered changing my name by deed poll and getting a new number plate for the van.

This could be a new beginning.....

Still have to wait for a few weeks till the results of the blood test come through. And the is still the chance that the test results are too low to be worth pursuing.

Sounds like you're in line for a dose of nazi reconditioning ffs. 20 hours you are safe to drive and Germany has bigger problems than you. Crazy world, Ire Ites.

Have already considered changing my name by deed poll and getting a new number plate for the van.

What are you ....... some sort of gangster?

Come to think of it, it's the sort of thing a pedophile would do.

So it turns out that cyclingweakly was right after all.

I don't know what Stoner has done to deserve this...

Not that Stoner. 😀

Sounds like your taking this as an opportunity as well as a warning, good for you.

Change name and number plates? You know the police will just update their records.

Eventually.

cyclingweakly - Member

this is exactly why I chose paedophilia

For most people it's more an affliction than a lifestyle choice tbh

🙂

This could be a new beginning.....

One would hope so, and I'd wish you the best of look beating your drug problem, but...

Just got to remember to say that I suffered some sort of trauma which lead to me smoking and not because I like being stoned.

...it sounds like you're prepared to mislead the authorities - possibly under oath - in order to minimise the consequences of your actions and probably continue as you have done for most of your adult life.

Maybe - and here's a radical idea - you stop using illegal drugs and allow your judgment to return to a more accurate level naturally?

best of look

I had a feeling you're from the northern realms.

Change name and number plates? You know the police will just update their records.

Eventually.

Boom:

[img] [/img]

On a side note - having flicked through most of this thread with mild dismay at certain backwards, anti-commonsense views - are people actually that worried about potential driving impairment from having a sneaky banger a full day before driving a car, which by all accounts seems to be negligible at the actual "dosage" specified by the OP? Especially when it seems that someone (outside Scotland 😉 ) can be RAF* & have enough residual alcohol in their system from the previous evening's pimms fuelled rampage to be quantifiably impaired whilst still being technically under the permissable legal alcohol limit to drive... I know who i'd rather share the roads with.

*rough as f...

Yes... Change name via deed poll. Doubt the UK authorities are going to inform every country of every name change.

Deregister here in Germany.

Go to the UK and change name. Get new passport and driving licence.

Come back to Germany and re-register.

As far as the Germans are concerned alpin has left Germany and a new guy has turned up. My picture isn't anywhere on file (yet).

With a new licence the Polizei would check the name on their computer and not find anything.

Obviously this whole charade would come crashing down if I were to be stopped by the same coppers again...

The lawyer was impressed but said for such a small offence he's not sure if it is worth the effort and whether I could live with the worry of being caught out....

The Polizist (copper),despite us having a super rapport (he happened to be a scout leader and had been to Chelmsford (my mother's home town!)several times and i told him which pubs to visit (the Wheatsheaf in Writtle!) and which fish'n'chip shop to visit) was talking shite with regards to me being banned from driving in Germany for the rest of my days.

All coppers are bastards. Never forget that.

For most people it's more an affliction than a lifestyle choice tbh

😆

Perhaps it's starting to dawn on people that one of the reasons cannabis remains illegal is that there are no reliable tests for intoxication; it's effects can't be accurately gauged or timescaled; and the longterm cumulative effects aren't understood.

The effects of alcohol can be reasonably accurately scaled based on blood volume/content, and this can be measured *fairly* accurately using a breath test at the road side.

The laws that Alpin has fallen foul of are there to protect you, me, your families, kids, wives etc from whacked-out potheads driving round in a drug-induced daze!

I want to know CW's IP
He's clearly communicating from another planet and it'll save me a fortune in electricity if i just call SETI, say I've found the little men and that they're not green 😛

The laws that Alpin has fallen foul of are there to protect you, me, your families, kids, wives etc from whacked-out potheads driving round in a drug-induced daze!

You need to put down your Daily Mail and go and ride your bike for a bit.

You need to chill.

Have already considered changing my name by deed poll and getting a new number plate for the van

Cyclingweakly also argues and trolls weakly

The laws that Alpin has fallen foul of are there to protect you, me, your families, kids, wives etc from whacked-out potheads driving round in a drug-induced daze!

as for tests as there are states and countries with decriminalised pot laws they do have roadside test to measure current levels. to not know this highlights, like we did not knwo, your ignorance

I dont want stoned drivers on the roads but I dont want to ban drivers wh do smoke but are not stoned

if his was really the case it would test for current level of stonedness not historical use of cannabis
We dont ban drivers who drink we ban drivers who are over a certain limit AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME

Junkyard, I'm really struggling with you... You love to wade in and shout your mouth off when you've really not read or understood the post. It's quite difficult not to get exasperated and resort pointing out how intellectually ill-equipped you are. I know that would be rude and disrespectful, so I'll try not to do it.

Let me try and spell this out for you in simple terms. As I said, alcohol can be accurately measured using a simple roadside test. Cannabis can't.

Alcohol's effects can be fairly accurately scaled against the volume of alcohol in ones blood. Cannabis can't.

The long term cumulative effects of cannabis use can't be accurately measured or understood. They vary from person to person, so a step-scale measuring system, like that used with alcohol, can't be used.

Soooo... Whilst Alpin might bemoan the fact that he feels the potential punishment doesn't fit his particular crime (because, y'know, he's like, a totally cool user man, can spoke loads and ride like totally rad man, like waaaaay better than all his mates, bro) the law had quite rightly decided to use a benchmark that is the lowest possible blood content that might potentially affect someone's driving.

They've also put measures in place to make it illegal to buy, possess or use cannabis, in order that people might be dissuaded from using them and then operating heavy machinery.

Do you follow?

You love to wade in and shout your mouth off

As I said, alcohol can be accurately measured using a simple roadside test. Cannabis can't.

http://www.forsterdean.co.uk/road-side-drug-testing/

as polite as i can be you dont know what you are talking about and your attempts to suggest others are ignorant just make you look like an unpleasant person rather than just a stupid person

Do you want more links or do you want to wallow in your own self righteous ignorance?

Alcohol's effects can be fairly accurately scaled against the volume of alcohol in ones blood. Cannabis can't.

The long term cumulative effects of cannabis use can't be accurately measured or understood. They vary from person to person, so a step-scale measuring system, like that used with alcohol, can't be use

Your views are not factually correct, your self confidence is like that of a coke head, and your stupidity seems to be only matched by your arrogance
No more feeding as you are either thick as very dense or trolling
I dont know which of these i pity more..ok its the later as the former would not be your fault the later would be a choice due to your own psychological needs...perhaps drugs would help fill that void?