If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Cannabis Granny Part 2
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Remeber this woman ? Well having escpaed jail for using cannabis to relieve her pains. 
Her landlord/ local council now wants to evict her and make her homeless as she has refused to stop using cannabis in her property.
The 68 year old has said if need be she will live in a tent which a friend has given her on the field infront of her house.
What should we do about this situation? She is technically breaking the law, however its surely more of a 'moral wrong' evicting a 68 year old lady for something which seems so trivial.
Any thoughts ?
:thumb:
Her landlord/ local council now wants to evict her and make her homeless as she has refused to stop using cannabis in her property.
The 68 year old has said if need be she will live in a tent which a friend has given her on the field infront of her house.
What should we do about this situation? She is technically breaking the law, however its surely more of a 'moral wrong' evicting a 68 year old lady for something which seems so trivial.
Any thoughts ?
:thumb:
0
Comments
The laws and arse and all that/.
Growing and using cannabis is what she has done wrong according to the law. However I think now she is looking at eviction things have gone to far.
I can think of far worse drug users who should be evicted. Just drive round any rough area in a big city and you will find far more suitable candidates.
Grwoning cannbabis isn't wrong but it's aginst the law.
Just because it;s againt the law doesn;t men it's wrong, it; just means your breakign some stpudid rules.
Hopefully the twat that tipped off the police someday gets what they deserve.
Dis, didn't you say the exact same thing in another thread?
probably. if its for personal use/medical condition.
not as if shes in a beemer dealin to students making a killing.
I wouldn't care, tbh.
If it was a 20 year old male, or female for that matter, chances are it would be for supply and not just medicinal relief.
Either way, I think evicting the woman is going a bit too far. But, if she's a tenant it'll be written into her tenancy agreement, and I expect the council don't want the lack of action to be used as an excuse by other tenants.
I think the council should think carefully before taking it any further.
Sadly there are cases not that different from this every day, people who are doing very little harm to themselves and no social harm are having their lives ruined for no good reason.
In this case and in every case where someone is growing cannabis for personal consumption the state should do nothing. Growing for profit without a licence should attract heavy fines.
2 problems with that. Firstly, it's common sense, so don't expect it to happen. Secondly, the phrase "it's medicinal, or i'm growing it for personal use" will become commonplace and will make prosecution of the real dealers impossible.
Of course, I dont expect changes soon, but they will come - the law is too expensive to run indefinitely.
How do the Police know the difference now between personal supply and 'with intent' - its obvious enough, a bloke with 100 plants and stolen electric is a dealer, a bloke with 5 plants on his window isnt.
:yes: And age has nothing to do with it, tbh.
Totally agreed.
Why is growing cannabis against the law anyway?
Hmm, you've asked a real question there. There are several factors, very few of which are to do with public health and concern for users.
Harry Ansligner (sp?) has a lot of answer for, he pushed the UN to include cannabis in the UN treaties, making it impossible for countries to fully legalise. But it goes back further than that, the first users in most Western countries were normally non-whites, so there was quite a bit of racism in it - especially in the US with Mexican users.
In reality its illegal now because its been illegal a long time and thats the way it is, there really isnt any other reason.
No, you are to a lesser or greater extent funding very nasty people, which of course is a product of the law but it doesnt make it right.
The latter was recently upgraded to class-A. That a person would be imprisoned for several years for choosing to pick up some fungus and eat them for recreational purposes is such a fucking absurdity it is beyond human comprehension.
Of course, but how many users are there like that in the UK?
In my experience most users just dont like to think about where their money is going.
The governments should realise they will never, ever win the war on drugs or stop people from choosing to take recreational substances. They should also realise that it is morally wrong and unjustifiable to tell people what they can or cannot do with their bodies.
A fairly poor get out if you ask me, the government isnt to blame for someone buying cocaine even though they know it funds mass murder. They are to blame for it funding murder but they certainly dont make people buy it.
If you knew that the TV you bought or the fruit you got at a certain supermarket funded the sort of people your cocaine money funds you'd never buy it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6474053.stm
Interesting to see that alcohol is the fourth most damaging drug there is, well ahead of several class-A drugs. And that doesn't even count the social damage alcohol fuels, which would surely make it the most harmful drug known to the human race.
Yet you don't hear anti-drug campaigners or the government making pledges to ban such evil, damaging drug. Funny that...
But then governments made it illegal, and the crime and illegal trade appeared.
They created the mess. They should solve it. They have no right to tell people not to take drugs and then try to put the blame associated with drug dealing on users.
No problems at all except of course pushing hundreds of tons of opium on China and causing probably the Worlds first wide scale drug problem.
So because its the governments fault its illegal you're happy about cocaine funding going to FARC and right wing paramilitaries?
There are several issues I have with that, solvents should definitely be above cannabis - solvents can kill you easily, cannabis cant. Plus ketamine and amphetamines should be swapped round. But it does show that once you include alcohol and tobacco into the equasion then things dont look all that dangerous in comparison.
Cocaine should also be legalised but via prescriptions, at least this way it would stop coke users spending countless amounts of money every month to fund Colombian paramillitary groups and a constant war that rages in that country, in which ultimately the innocents suffer.
Yesterday you seemed happy in the knowledge that tobacco funding went to known killers. You were openly endorsing it.
Was that because it was a different substance, or a different group of killers ? Maybe there`s another reason ?
Except of course I said nothing of the sort, feel free to quote me on this and point out where I openly endorsed killers.
What I was pointing out was that very high taxes on tobacco have a knock on effect on smuggling, which in turn gifts a multi-million pound trade to criminals. The taxes need to be a balance between detering use and not encoraging too much smuggling, I was arguing that we are getting that balance wrong.
The only one is the Greens, which I think wants cannabis legal. The Lib Dems say we should 'look into the law' but never really say what they mean.
The reason they dont do anything is that the general public dont matter, only voters in marginals matter - so if they want a drug war, we all get it.