If there is no intention to sell, how can a cannabis crop be worth money?

Time after time I read that some person has grown a crop of cannabis - sometimes matured, sometimes not - for his or her own use, with no allegation of intent to sell, then read that it is estimated to be of some financial value.How can a crop be worth money if there is no intent to sell?The article below is yet another example of how the press wrongly deal with reports of court cases against personal cannabis crop cultivation."Ramsell was growing the drug for his own use.."

"I am satisfied this was a personal use crop and not a crop for supply. But even those who produce cannabis for their own use can expect a custodial sentence."

"The cannabis would have been for his own use, it was a first crop and would never have been for commercial sale."

Yet the Tanworth Herald reports also:Prosecuting Pat Sullivan said the crop would have produced just over one kilo of cannabis that would have fetched £6,300 if sold on the streets.

How can it have been worth £6300 if sold if there was no intent to sell - what relevance is the estimated value?Why don't they tell us something that is far more relevant - the cost of the arrest and court case - the money that the taxpayers will be covering arresting a man that appears to have done no harm or had no intent to harm anyone with his indoor crop of cannabis?Add together cases such as this, it amounts to billions each year - now THAT is of public concern, that is hurting us the taxpayers - all in the name of stopping people from growing one particular plant for their own use.This must stop.  They tell us we are in financial crisis yet they unnecessarily and unjustly perpetuate a prohibition that soaks up our tax money as a sponge in water.

Tanworth Herald, December 8 2011

Addict who grew cannabis tampered with test samples
http://www.thisistamworth.co.uk/Addict-grew-cannabis-tampered-test-samples/story-14080141-detail/story.html

 AN "ENTRENCHED" drug addict caught growing cannabis at his Tamworth flat has been jailed for eight months by a judge.

Police found 34 plants under cultivation in a sophisticated hydroponic system at Lee Ramsell's home, Stafford Crown Court heard.

Prosecuting Pat Sullivan said the crop would have produced just over one kilo of cannabis that would have fetched £6,300 if sold on the streets.

Ramsell was growing the drug for his own use.

Judge Simon Tonking had given him a chance to go on a drug rehabilitation programme, adjourning his case on condition he stopped taking cannabis.

But the judge was told that Ramsell had tampered with his samples to produce negative results for the drug testers.

Ramsell, aged 31, of Juniper, Amington, admitted a charge of cultivating cannabis.

Judge Tonking told him: "I am sentencing you for producing cannabis. It came to light because you volunteered information about it when you were under arrest in relation to a different matter.

"The police went to your home and found a hydroponic set up growing 34 plants. I am satisfied this was a personal use crop and not a crop for supply. But even those who produce cannabis for their own use can expect a custodial sentence.

"You are an entrenched drug abuser and it is difficult for people like you to get off drugs. Despite the opportunity I gave you, you are still taking cannabis. I am not going to increase the sentence because you tried to dupe those testing you.

"Although you have been found suitable for a drug rehabilitation order, if you are going to produce false samples to IDAS (the drug advisory service) there's the chance you are going to do the same to the drug rehabilitation team."

Daniel Oscroft, defending, said it had to be accepted that the test samples provided by Ramsell were false. He had tampered with them out of a fear of being sent straight to custody.

The cannabis would have been for his own use, it was a first crop and would never have been for commercial sale.

Man caught growing cannabis has ‘no intention of stopping’

How can this man be blamed? What harm has he done is he doing to anyone (except the loss of profit to the pharmaceutical companies that would be selling him the NHS, costly, more dangerous and less effective medication that he may well have already tried. How can there be any Justice in punishing him and what justification was there for interfering with his Human Right to a Private Life etc in the first place. Human Rights law specified that there needs to be justification to interfere with our Rights even if the law is being broken, and that justification must be that there is a threat to public health, public order, national security or the Rights of others. I would like to read the police court's justification. They will, no doubt, say that they are just implementing the law, but that is not justification

Hawick News, December 7 2011

http://www.hawick-news.co.uk/news/local-headlines/man_caught_growing_cannabis_has_no_intention_of_stopping_1_1993536

Man caught growing cannabis has ‘no intention of stopping’

A MAN caught growing cannabis claimed the illegal drug helped alleviate a medical condition.
Mark Makin said he had no intention of stopping using the class B drug, and producing it himself meant he didn’t have to buy it on the street.
Makin, 43, of Dovemount Place, admitted having cannabis and producing the drug at his home on September 2.
“His medical condition is relieved by taking cannabis,” explained defence solicitor Matt Patrick, “and that was the motivation behind him growing these plants.
“It also meant he was not having to move in circles he would have had to, to obtain it on the street,” he added.
Sheriff Donald Corke fined Makin, a sales assistant, £120, warning him his activity was illegal and would be closely monitored by police.
“I know that you feel fully justified in doing this, but it is illegal, and I have to uphold the law,” he told the accused.
“Because you have indicated you don’t intend to stop, you should be aware that the police will be keeping a close eye on you,” he added.

The cannabis is not worth anything financially unless the intent was to sell it.

Cultivation of cannabis for own use is victimless.

To justify interfering with the Human Right to a private life, that is, the police raid and arrest, the authorities need to show that it was in order to protect public health, public order, national security or the Rights of others.

I don't see how they can do that - even based upon their claim that smoking cannabis is harmful -- after all, we know passive smoking of cannabis is a risk to the health of others and that is allowed in one's own home (I am not saying that is should not be) and in the open air.

Problem is the whole Government and most of the Criminal Justice System is corrupt

Cannabis smoker jailed after weed worth £3k found at his home

The Sentinel, December 6 2011

A CANNABIS smoker who grew the drug at his home just months after receiving a caution for the same offence has been jailed for eight months.
Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court yesterday heard Michael Goodwin, aged 32, received a police caution last December for growing cannabis.

1. ​

But at 3.50pm on September 3 a police officer smelt the class B drug as he walked along Orion Street in Smallthorne.
"He knocked on the door and the defendant answered," said prosecutor Fiona Cortese.
"There was an overwhelming smell of cannabis. The house was searched and the defendant was asked is he had any cannabis. He said 'Yes, upstairs'."
The court heard in the front bedroom there were cannabis plants and heat lamps. In total there was 3,030 grams of wet cannabis and 836 grams of dried cannabis valued at between £2,360 and £3,585.
Goodwin told police he had been growing the plants for about six weeks. He said he had smoked cannabis since he was aged 15 and would have smoked the drug himself. He added the cannabis would have lasted him between eight and 12 months.
The defendant, now of Ashman Street, Smallthorne, pleaded guilty to producing cannabis on the basis it was for his own personal use.
Stuart Muldoon, mitigating, asked Judge Mark Eades to consider suspending any prison sentence.
Mr Muldoon said Goodwin did not try to hide anything from the police and made full and frank admissions in his interview.
He added that the defendant has now completely stopped smoking cannabis.
Judge Eades said it was a serious aggravating feature that Goodwin produced the drug so soon after being handed the police caution.
He told the defendant: "On December 9 last year you were cautioned for using a residential property to cultivate 14 large and 25 small cannabis plants for your personal use.
"I do not know why the police chose to caution you. The guideline case indicates nine to 18 months in prison for a first time offender.
"One would have hoped the police would have pointed out to you what the going rate was, that for a first offender it usually leads to immediate imprisonment.
"Your reaction was cavalier in the extreme.
"Within eight months you had bought fresh equipment and set up a production plant in a different address."

Goodwin will serve up to half his sentence with the rest on licence.

Home Affairs Committee launches new inquiry into Drugs

Call for written evidence
DRUGS

The Committee will undertake a comprehensive review of drugs policy in the new year. The Committee will examine the effectiveness of the Government’s 2010 drugs strategy and the UK Government’s contribution to global efforts to reduce the supply and demand of illicit drugs. Specifically, the Committee will consider:

• The extent to which the Government’s 2010 drug strategy is a ‘fiscally responsible policy with strategies grounded in science, health, security and human rights’ in line with the recent recommendation by the Global Commission on Drug Policy
• The criteria used by the Government to measure the efficacy of its drug policies
• The independence and quality of expert advice which is being given to the government
• Whether drug-related policing and expenditure is likely to decrease in line with police budgets and what impact this may have
• The cost effectiveness of different policies to reduce drug usage
• The extent to which public health considerations should play a leading role in developing drugs policy
• The relationship between drug and alcohol abuse
• The comparative harm and cost of legal and illegal drugs
• The impact of the transfer of functions of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse to Public Health England and how this will affect the provision of treatment
• The availability of ‘legal highs’ and the challenges associated with adapting the legal framework to deal with new substances
• The links between drugs, organised crime and terrorism
• Whether the UK is supporting its global partners effectively and what changes may occur with the introduction of the national crime agency
• Whether detailed consideration ought to be given to alternative ways of tackling the drugs dilemma, as recommended by the Select Committee in 2002 (The Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working?, HC 318, 2001–02) and the Justice Committee’s 2010 Report on justice reinvestment (Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment, HC 94, 2009–10).”

Organisations and individuals interested in making written submissions are invited to do so by Tuesday 10 January 2012. Submissions should be no longer than 2,500 words. Further advice on making a submission can be found below.
Oral evidence sessions will be held in early 2012: further announcements will be made in due course.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
Written evidence should if possible be in Word or rich text format—not PDF format—and sent by e-mail. The use of colour and expensive-to-print material, e.g. photographs, should be avoided. The body of the e-mail must include a contact name, telephone number and postal address. The e-mail should also make clear who the submission is from.
Submissions must address the terms of reference. They should be in the format of a self-contained memorandum. Paragraphs should be numbered for ease of reference, and the document must include an executive summary. Further guidance on the submission of evidence.
Submissions should be original work, not previously published or circulated elsewhere, though previously published work can be referred to in a submission and submitted as supplementary material. Once submitted, your submission becomes the property of the Committee and no public use should be made of it unless you have first obtained permission from the Clerk of the Committee.
Please bear in mind that the Committee is not able to investigate individual cases.
The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to publish the written evidence it receives, either by printing the evidence, publishing it on the internet or making it publicly available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure; the Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.
For data protection purposes, it would be helpful if individuals wishing to submit written evidence send their contact details in a covering letter or e-mail. You should be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The remit of the Home Affairs Committee is to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news/drugs-call-for-ev/

Bristol drug user grew cannabis to avoid dealers' attacks: Bristol Post, Nov 12 2011

“I have to ask what harm this guy did to anyone or their property, apart from creating a smell?

How much did it cost to take this man to court and at the end of the day, what will he do now - probably buy dubious quality cannabis at inflated prices from drug dealers.

And the taxpayer of course, pays the price.

Human Rights law guarantees every person in the UK the Right to a Private Life. In other words, we can do what we want in our Private dwellings, provided, as stated in the Act, that we do not pose a threat to public health, public order, national security or the Rights of others. I don't see how this man did that.

It is his Rights that have been offended - by police - and it is us that have to pay. Meanwhile, serious crime continues throughout Britain and the rest of the land.”

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bristol-drug-user-grew-cannabis-avoid-dealers/story-13828663-detail/story.html

 Bristol drug user grew cannabis to avoid dealers' attacks: Bristol Post, Nov 12 2011

A POLISH cannabis user who claimed he grew his own drugs to avoid being assaulted by dealers in St Paul's has avoided jail.
Adam Wawrzymak, 27, who also said he had not realised it was illegal to grow drugs for personal use, was found with 35 plants in his Lawrence Hill flat.
 One set of 17 plants was said to have a street value of more than £2,700 a judge at Bristol Crown Court heard yesterday.
Robert Reid, prosecuting, said police made the discovery on August 17 after investigating an open door which led to four flats.
He said: "They noticed a distinct cannabis smell emanating from the top-floor flat."
Wawrzymak opened the door and police found two sets of plants, one set which had been harvested and were drying out and a second set of 18 plants growing in the bedroom.
On arrest Wawrzymak, who works for a wine company, said he had a habit which involved him spending £200 a week on drugs but that after being attacked on a number of occasions in St Paul's and Easton he decided to grow his own crop.
Mr Reid added: "He said he never sold it but it was useful because it helped him to sleep and to control his appetite. He said it was legal in Czechoslovakia, where he has some connection, and he didn't realise it was illegal in the UK."
Rodney Wilson, defending, said Wawrzymak had been smoking cannabis for 15 years. He said that his rent of £200 a month and his earnings of up to £325 a week led to him having "a considerable amount of money to waste on cannabis".
He said previous acts of violence from drug dealers in St Paul's and Easton, coupled with the cost of his habit, had caused him to try growing his own drugs.
He said: "It was the first time he had grown the drugs and he had no idea how much he would yield.
"There was no evidence of any drug trafficking paraphernalia.
"He has no intention of cultivating cannabis again. He is not someone who goes out looking to commit offences but he has a drug problem."
Judge Michael Harington said Wawrzymak, who has been in the UK for six years, was before the court with two offences – the possession and production of cannabis.
He said: "I hope this experience has brought home to you the misconception that this is not a serious offence.
"My view is that the offence is so serious that neither fine nor a community order alone will suffice.
"I am sentencing you to 16 weeks' prison, suspended for 12 months."
He also added that he must undertake 100 hours of unpaid community work and pay costs of £250.

DECRIMINALISATION AND PARTIAL / MEDICAL LEGALISATION.

So-called "legal drugs" such as alcohol and tobacco are only really" legal" in a limited way.

It is also important to realise that it is not the drugs themselves, but the act of possession, production and supply of some drugs that is illegal for some people!

The use of some drugs is allowed in certain situations such as at home or in licensed premises, and can be banned from public or private places. Alcohol and tobacco can only be sold legally from licensed premises. Law limits home production. This is why we do not advocate treating cannabis as we do alcohol and tobacco. Cannabis is a completely different type of substance. It is not a toxin and one cannot overdose.
The controls applied to alcohol and tobacco are not needed for cannabis.

Although wishing to see cannabis available on prescription for ill people, I do not wish to see this as the only available source of cannabis.

For a start, such a situation may well encourage vast numbers of people to visit their doctor who does not normally often or never sees them. Legalising cannabis possession and supply in this way would increase the number of ‘sick’ people in the country, statistically, which may reflect poorly on the move. Some substances only available on prescription are illegal to possess unless obtained by prescription. Such substances are not fully legal; they are not free.

Drugs such as aspirin, which is highly dangerous, are available in a variety of outlets. Other dangerous substances are available from the corner shop (glue), garage (oils), and over the counter at chemists (cough mixture). There is no reason to limit the outlets of cannabis at all.

From The Report of the FCDA, Europe:
" The proposal of some people for 'partial' exemption from the Prohibition in order to make cannabis limitedly available only as a curative medicament, ostensibly has its origin in the emotional response of sympathetic human beings to the needs of the seriously ill or moribund patients. 'Partial' legalisation, however, on evaluation, is an impulsive idea - the reaction of the heart, not the head - and implausible on the very health grounds on which it purports to be based. To try to 'legalise' cannabis for but one of the two groups of people (that is for the already-sick) is inimically discriminatory, as it leaves the other group, who comprise the huge majority, condemned to inevitable worsening of their good health, as described, until they too fall prey to disease and early death. Those catastrophic results to health now widespread in populations, produced directly by the Prohibition of Preventative Cannabis, would be mitigated or avoided entirely by the Preventative protection of a Relegalised cultivation, trade and general availability. Complete Relegalisation of Cannabis provides the healthy population with the pleasant and safe relaxant to use both as Preventative Medicine and to reduce consumption of the malady-causing alcohol and tobacco. At the same time, relegalisation makes cannabis available to patients and the medical profession, as curative medicine of recommendation and advice, if not prescription. Thus, the aims of the 'partial' legalisation lobby are simultaneously achieved, without ignoring the equally deserving needs of those of the population whose health requirement for cannabis is as prophylaxis, or to replace partially or totally, noxious alcohol and tobacco. Certainly cannabis is effective therapeutically and curatively in a wide variety of illnesses and disorders, and if cannabis had always remained available as a recreational substance of legal choice, those cancers which are tobacco-induced could in a great many, theoretically even all, cases have been completely avoided, i.e. prevented. Those individual men and women, the Prohibitionists, who are responsible for the instigation and perpetuation of the fraudulent Prohibition, are instrumental in and culpable for premature deaths. Indeed, studies into these artificial products, i.e. 'concentrates'/THC, including sections of LaGuardia research, record diametrically oppose results from those clinical studies into natural cannabis. For example, doses of lab-THC can cause nausea and headache, two of the many adverse conditions for which the resinous herb in its natural form is renowned as cure."

Later
"Herbal cannabis in natural forms would yield little profit to the pharmaceutical corporations, whilst eliminating some, perhaps in the longer term much more, of the use of their patent drugs."

Later
"Another ludicrous prevarication proposed by pharmaceutical representatives is the irrelevant argument that each of the many, mostly commonly occurring, chemical constituents in the natural herb, be isolated and tested for their potentials before legally re-allowing cannabis for 'medical' or 'general' use, if at all."

Personally I think decriminalisation of cannabis possession without any change in law regarding production - both at home for personal use and commercially - and supply (both for free and commercially) would be a risky move.

Decriminalisation of personal possession would of course ease the burden and cost of the police, stop the arrest of innocent people and could be seen as a step in the right direction, but only if followed by other easing of the law against cultivation and supply.

It could open the doorway for many more street dealers carrying small packs of cannabis of dubious quality to supply the increase in people no longer deterred from buying, by the law.

It would do nothing to promote consumer and quality protection or enable tax on profits, point-of-sale advice and information, or discourage young people.

It would be little more than sweeping the real dirt of prohibition under the carpet.

So it appears that Maastricht are giving preference to "Germany and Belgium who are the majority of foreign customers."

Recently the Human Rights Court ruled that cities can restrict the sale of cannabis to Dutch-only because cannabis is still "illegal" to supply in The Netherlands.

Now they are taking the idea step further and banning all tourists from Coffeeshop except those from Germany and Belgium. 



City authorities say the influx of tourists buying soft drugs is threatening public order and causing major traffic problems.  So, it seems that the problems with public order and traffic are being caused by people that are not Dutch, German or Belgian.

Sounds pretty dumb to me.

Maastricht bans cannabis coffee-shop tourists

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15134669

 

A ban on some foreign tourists has come into force in the cannabis-selling coffee shops of the Dutch border city of Maastricht.

City authorities say the influx of tourists buying soft drugs is threatening public order and causing major traffic problems.

Coffee shop owners say the ban won't work and will hit the local economy.
However, the ban does not apply to visitors from Germany and Belgium who are the majority of foreign customers.

The move comes ahead of a proposed nationwide crackdown being discussed in the Dutch parliament.

The BBC's Anna Holligan says the ban is being seen as a test case that could be implemented in other Dutch towns and cities.

There are about 700 coffee shops in the Netherlands. The cultivation and sale of soft drugs through them is decriminalised although not legal.

An estimated 6,000 people visit Maastricht's coffee shops every day - most making the quick trip across the border from Belgium and Germany.

But from Saturday, anyone who doesn't hold a Dutch, Belgian or German passport will be told to leave.

Hi-tech security scanners have been set up to check passports and ID cards, and police will carry out random checks.

City authorities say drug tourists pose a threat to public order.

'Revenue lost'

But critics of the policy say the ban contravenes EU policies of equality and the freedom of movement.

Marc Josemans, chairman of the Association of Official Coffee Shops Maastricht (VOCM), said the ban would do more harm than good.

"All these clients who are banned from the Dutch coffee shops... have to return to the illegal circuit in their own country, therefore it will become a bigger problem and cause more criminality in those countries," he told Reuters.

VOCM says visitors attracted by the coffee shops also spend an estimated 140m euros (£120m) elsewhere in the city every year.

Correspondents say the Dutch justice ministry wants coffee shops to operate like members' only clubs, serving only local residents.

The European Court of Justice ruled last December that Dutch authorities could bar foreigners from cannabis-selling coffee shops because they were combating drug tourism.

Facts about pain and cannabis

‘Christine’ says arthritis is not an excuse to take illegal drugs, and ‘it’s a known fact that cannabis leads to paranoia’ (LT, September 2).

Firstly, it is not an ‘illegal drug’, it is the possession, cultivation and supply that is illegal.

There is a big distinction there: the law is aimed at people, not substances.

Secondly, paranoia is a mental health problem experienced by some people and whilst cannabis may worsen it for some, it eases it for others – there is plenty of information online to confirm that.

An estimated 3 to 5million people in the UK use cannabis, many to ease dreadful pains and suffering that prescribed medication does not touch. They are not all paranoid, by far.

Furthermore, cannabis as plant material is now available on prescription, through doctors, pharmacists and clinics, in The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Canada and many US states.

Pain is no excuse to break the law – but it is a justifiable reason and anybody who suffers or is watching somebody suffer ought to understand that.

People who possess or grow cannabis in their own homes for their own use and do no harm to others ought not to be punished.

That is where the law is at fault.

Alun Buffry, Norwich.


Source: Lancashire Evening Telegraph
Web: http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/9255809.Facts_about_pain_and_cannabis/
Ref: http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/9230722.Pain_no_excuse_to_break_law/
Contact:: lt_letters@nqnw.co.uk

Valid medical use for cannabis

Evening News, Norwich

Tuesday 20 Sep 2011
In reply to my previous letter published in the Evening News on Sept 8 ("Ease up on cannabis laws") Mr E Staniland suggested that "he fails to mention the damage done to young people who use cannabis from an early age. (Evening News, Sept 12, "Drug can lead to a living hell")

Yes, I have worked a "mental hospital" as he calls them and yes there are patients there that have used cannabis at an early age, usually having come from broken homes and having also used alcohol and other substances.
But that is no reason to punish them - or the people that use it with no ill effect or even those that use it to ease pains.
In fact, whole cannabis plant extract is now available on prescription through many health authorities in the form of a spray called Sativex.
Furthermore, the plant itself is available on prescription in The Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Israel,Canada and other countries, without problem; also in the US through clinics.
Dr Willy Nottcutt and many other doctors and users will testify to the efficacy of this remarkable plant.
This bad law punishes people who have done no harm to others.
----------------------------------------------

please respond to:  EveningNewsLetters@archant.co.uk

http://www.ccguide.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=16533

see original letter and replies here
http://www.ccguide.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=16510  Ease Up On Cannabis Laws
http://www.ccguide.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=16523   Drug can lead to a living hell

UK Judge Wants to Imprison Medicinal Cannabis Growers

SHEFFIELD’S top judge Alan Goldsack must be a very sad man.  He has threatened that anyone in South Yorkshire caught growing cannabis would be sent to prison immediately, and has started to carry out his threat.   Will he be sending people in wheelchairs to prison?

The Judge said " “Six out of the 14 cases on my list this morning involve producing cannabis on various scales.”

Well, Alan, that's your job to deal with the people that the police arrest and if they arrested fewer, you would see different people before you.  It sounds to me that you are complaining because they have all been up in court on the day day.  It is not the "fault" of one grower that gets caught that other growers that are caught appear before you on the same day - why should they be punished more heavily for that?

Rather than looking at statistics, ought you not be looking at the question of Justice?  You should be asking whether these people have done any harm or posed any threat to Public Health, Public Order, National Security or the Rights of Others - as demanded by Human Rights Law.

According to both national and international Human Rights Law there are strict criteria demanded before any authority can interfere with one's Private Life or Belief system - and if the activity is limited to ones Private Life and not involving others, that criteria is not fulfilled and the invasion (raid) by police may itself  be unlawful.

Surely the Judges should ask themselves whether the police raid and arrest were lawful or not before even looking at the case.

No victim, no harm, then how can this be a crime.  The fact that it may be against the law to cultivate cannabis  is NOT enough to justify the interference with one's life.

Worse still this judge is fully aware that the "punishment" dished out does not stop at the prison gates.

Judge Goldsack said " “A criminal conviction and jail is potentially going to ruin your life.
“It will potentially mean you lose your job and, if you are the breadwinner, that will impact on your family.
“You will find it difficult in future when you come out of prison to find a job because you have got a criminal record, particularly in the current economic climate, and there is a stigma that will remain with you for the rest of your life.”

So, Judge, by sending people to prison you are punishing them for the rest of their lives.  That cannot be right!

Britain, like many countries, has huge numbers of ill or injured people who cannot get any prescribed medication to ease their suffering sufficiently so have resorted to growing cannabis which they will say is more efficient with less risk of unpleasant side-effects.

In the Netherlands, Italy, German and other countries, cannabis plant material is available of prescription.  Not so in the UK.   The Schengen Agreement even allows people living in countries where cannabis is prescribed to them, to bring their medicinal cannabis with them; but if one lives in the UK and go and get prescribed cannabis abroad then one cannot bring it back to the UK legally.  That cannot be right!

In Canada, the High Court forced the Government to grow cannabis to meet the needs of the sick.  Not so in the UK.

One the contrary, here in Britain, our Government allows the Pharmaceutical companies to grow cannabis and to extract all the chemicals to make a spray containing alcohol.  "GW Pharmaceuticals" sell this whole-plant extract at extortionate prices, to the NHS.  It is called "Sativex" and in truth it is nothing more than cannabsi in alcohol with peppermint flavouring.

Yet anyone preferring to grow their own cannabis, saving the NHS money, doing no harm, easing their sysmtoms, will now be sent to prison.

Soon prisons will become hospitals - they will have to deal with people with serious ailments and injuries and pains - from Multiple Sclerosis to Epilepsy, Rheumatoid Arthritis to cancer.

We, the taxpayers, count the cost of these unjustifiable arrests, court cases, prison terms and pills.

We, the taxpayer, pay your wages Judge Goldsack, and we are not happy!

Judge vows to put anyone growing cannabis immediately behind bars : The Star, Sept 15 2011

SHEFFIELD’S top judge has issued a stark warning to anyone caught growing cannabis in South Yorkshire - immediate prison awaits.
The judge said the number of cases of production of the Class B drug was on the rise, and he was dealing with three or four at court every single day.
Many defendants were unaware they would be jailed immediately, he said - even if it was their first court appearance, they had no previous convictions, and they were growing the drug for their own use.
Judge Goldsack told one defendant: “Six out of the 14 cases on my list this morning involve producing cannabis on various scales.”
And he added a guideline case at the Court of Appeal earlier this year ruled sentences for cannabis-growing “should be higher than they had been”, and should “always result in immediate imprisonment unless there are exceptional circumstances”.
“The Court of Appeal - putting it in simple language - has said the courts have got to get tougher on this,” he said.
“Cannabis is a dangerous drug and those who bring it into existence must be punished.”
Among those jailed at Sheffield Crown Court were:
- Property developer Matthew Whitehead, aged 43, of Wightwizzle, Bradfield, Sheffield. He was jailed for three years and nine months after £94,000 worth of skunk cannabis was found in the garage loft space of the £1 million listed barn he was renovating in Cawthorne, Barnsley.
- Kevin Slater, 43, of Coltfield, Birdwell, Barnsley, who was given three years for producing cannabis, and possessing a Class C drug and cocaine with intent to supply both. His cannabis plants were found in the loft during a police raid on a property in Wisewood.
- Stuart Brown, 40, of Hay Green Lane, Birdwell, Barnsley, jailed for six months for producing eight cannabis plants with a street value of £9,140. His mother, who is suffering from a tumour in her eye and was accompanied by his elderly father, wept in the public gallery as he was sent down. The court heard Brown had lost his job at Mercedes Benz because of the court proceedings.
- Delroy Behan, 25, of Wellington Street, Goldthorpe, Barnsley, jailed for six months for cannabis production. Police found growing paraphernalia in the attic of the home he shared with partner Lisa Parton, 35, and seized five plants worth £9,070. Parton narrowly escaped custody after admitting allowing her home to be used for the production of cannabis. She was given a 26-week jail term suspended for a year and ordered to carry out 100 hours of unpaid work.
Detective Superintendent Richard Fewkes, in charge of South Yorkshire Police’s drugs strategy, said over the last five years officers in the county had seized cannabis with a street value of over £40 million.
He said the rise in production could be linked to the downgrading of cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug five years ago.
Warning others not to get involved in the drug’s production, he said: “A criminal conviction and jail is potentially going to ruin your life.
“It will potentially mean you lose your job and, if you are the breadwinner, that will impact on your family.
“You will find it difficult in future when you come out of prison to find a job because you have got a criminal record, particularly in the current economic climate, and there is a stigma that will remain with you for the rest of your life.”
He added: “It’s very difficult to hide the fact you are cultivating cannabis, even on a small scale. We undertake targeted operations but we are often alerted by members of the public. Neighbours might smell it or visitors might become suspicious.”