You are getting confused Pum.
No one has said the use or possession of cannabis is legal…decriminalised was the word used.
There’s a difference between make legal and decriminalised.
Decriminalisation:
“To reduce or abolish criminal penalties for”
The penalties have been reduced…drastically.
Possession used to be instant arrest and a trip to the station where you’d be charged and bailed to appear in court.
I see.
So the cops can issue an on-the-spot-fine if you re caught with a single ‘joint’ ?
A bit like a speeding ticket ?
But you don’t get carted off to the calaboose in handcuffs.
I wonder if they have the legal power to raid your home on the suspicion that you might have a bit of ‘stuff’ for ‘personal use’.
Police can give a street caution even if its a couple of bags as long as they feel/believe its for personal use.
They cannot get a warrant for a house search on such small amounts.
The site is dated August 2016 Pumice.
It lists the current laws.
The confusion about ‘decriminalisation’ has arisen because of the gradual reduction in reported arrests for cannabis possession and cultivation suggests that many forces see these crimes as low priorities.
Years of budget cuts have forced police authorities across the country to focus their limited resources on crimes deemed more important
The likelihood that someone will be targeted for their personal possession or cultivation of cannabis is dependent on the stance of the police force in their area
Matters of drug policy should not be left to be decided by the increasingly desperate economic needs of individual police forces.
What…no rebuttal?
I was enjoying it, never mind.
I think in the antipodes he’s probably still in bed. 
I meant pats.
Oh, well in that case she’s probably in bed by now. These old people can’t stand the pace, you know! 
Ummmmm … until they get into the ‘suspect’ residence, how would they know whether they’d find a few grams or a few kilos ?
Would they/could they act on the old favourite “information received” ?
If my mum was awake id ask her (retired barrister)as she explainsit in Terry language… but as she’s not here’s all you need to know.
’ The Magistrates court is likely to grant a search warrant if they (?) believe that the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that an indictable offence has been committed … ’
Fair enough.
Magistrates are more reluctant to grant warrants than they were.
Gone are the days of.“id like a warrant to search the house because I believe he has lovely wallpaper and im thinking of redecorating my flat”
They need a lot more “reasonable suspicion”
My wife’s father had authority to issue warrants to police.
Admittedly a few decades ago - but much depended on whether the officer(s) seeking the warrant was ‘on the square’ and had the right handshake.
Some of our LE can self-certify but theyre in a world of shit if they get it wrong.
“LE” ? Sorry.
Law Enforcement
Meant Pats what?
Just pointing out my reply was to you…not pumice as JBR thought.
Nothing sinister.
Righty-oh.
Hi folks this was an extremely interesting thread, my heart goes out to Robert I don’t have the experience as to how put a link up, so there is a video on you tube called the Rick Simpson story or (don’t run from the cure)hope that will be of help.
