Now you have cottoned on…you’ve dropped the attempt to prove me wrong regarding decriminalisation and adopted “illegal” instead…after your misunderstanding of very basic law.
decriminalisation is one step nearer to legalisation
Just because some Police ‘turn a blind eye’ to a person smoking ‘dope’ does mean that Cannabis has been legalised or decriminalised.
Cannabis is still illegal, no matter how much or little you have in your possession, Cannabis is a Class B drug.
The maximum penalty for possession of cannabis is five years imprisonment.
A magistrates’ court can also impose a fine of up to £2,500.
If you required Pot for medical reasons, you’d be okay in Prison. it freely available there, slap yer money on the counter and Pots your Uncle.
My brother-in-law seems able to get it too - tax free!
Decriminalisation does not mean that people can use drugs with impunity. Instead it means that possessing small amounts no longer lands the perpetrator with a criminal record or a jail sentence.
Police dont turn a blind eye to it…they now have the discretion on how to deal with it…can they give a street caution to a burglar or a vandal or the perpetrator of an assault etc? No they cant.
Do the above offences carry a 3 strike rule? No.
As for maximum sentences…they’re merely guidlines…never would they be enforced for possession if a small amount of weed.
As I said…there’s no one in prison for smoking cannabis.
If youd seen the recent police documentaries youd see drivers pulled up and cars searched…the cannabis confiscated and a street caution given.
would they be doing this for any other crime committed?
“Police can issue a warning or an on-the-spot fine of £90 if you’re found with cannabis”.
So, unless this UK Government site is dated, possession is ‘illegal’.
If not, how can one be fined for an act which is not an offence ?
We need to do the same as Holland, legalise and supply it through highly regulated outlets, cafe’s et al.
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.