Pot heads make a mockery of lenient cannabis laws in NSW

[Tsigle]

People in NSW do. I wish the laws there were as good as SA. Though the country can always do better.

[ConvexConepiece]

Uhh guys the laws in SA are not much different than other states.

 

The 1 or 3 plant 'rule' is a myth. Any plants in or outdoor will result in more than an on the spot fine.

 

To buy lights you need ID.

 

It's funny but qld becoming one the easiest going states for growing.

[Tsigle]

I'm saying for the maximum amount you would get a fine for is much higher than other states, also it's decriminalized. I'd rather pay a fine.

[KAiNStA]

i have friends that grow in NSW. they have been caught with 3 or more plants and they have only been confiscated and fined. maybe it just depends on the fuzz? obviously if they have proof youve been dealing your gonna be in the shit. Also im out in the country so maybe theres a little more leniency?

[Tsigle]

Maybe. I think it has something to do with how close your house is to the studio where they film sunrise?

[Dags Gone Wild]

Uhh guys the laws in SA are not much different than other states.

 

The 1 or 3 plant 'rule' is a myth. Any plants in or outdoor will result in more than an on the spot fine.

 

To buy lights you need ID.

 

It's funny but qld becoming one the easiest going states for growing.

 

SA penalties are here:

 

http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch10s07s05.php

 

$300 fine for one plant, unless they can 'prove' intent to supply.

 

Even if you can prove personal use only, the penalty for 2 - 5 plants is $1,000. The page is unclear, but a lawyer friend says 5 plants is in the lesser category than for 6 - 10 plants.

 

The maximum penalty for supplying a child (presumably <18)is life imprisonment. Don't give anyone young-looking in SA so much as a low-tar cigarette without checking their proof of age first. Entrapment has been used for under-age cigarette sales before now.

 

Not that anyone ever asks me for anything - I dress like a hobo by choice, and people steer clear in case I'm dangerously unhinged.

 

Twenty years ago IIRC, it was a $150 on the spot fine for up to nine plants, but some whack job got a seat campaigning on getting tough on cannabis, and simultaneously, the Rann government ran out of constructive policy and began anti-crime campaigns such as things to dob your neighbour in for - drawn curtains, blinds or blacked out windows, or frequent visitors. I thought of more suspicious behaviours that should be reported.

 

Dressin' stupid.

Spoutin' book-learning like it ever put meat on a man's plate.

Actin' all socialist-like.

Weird music at all hours.

Lookin' at yer funny.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Dags Gone Wild

[ConvexConepiece]

SA penalties are here:

 

http://www.lawhandbo.../ch10s07s05.php

 

$300 fine for one plant, unless they can 'prove' intent to supply.

 

 

Alright i'll bite...

 

Where a person commits a ‘simple’ cannabis offence the police have discretion to issue a Cannabis Expiation Notice. This requires payment of an ‘on the spot’ fine and allows an individual to avoid prosecution in court.

A prosecution in court for a 'simple cannabis offences' can only be commenced after the person has been given an expiation notice [Controlled Substances Act 1984 s 45A(2)].

If a person has no drugs, or only a small amount, but there is evidence that the person has sold or supplied drugs (even sharing with a friend), the person will face a more serious charge and will have to appear in court.

 

 

I'd like to see 'simple' cannabis offence defined - however I bet me left testicle that cultivation of even 1 outdoor plant is more than a 'simple' cannabis offense.

 

While 1 plant MAY be up to the officers discretion, chances are they won't leave with only issuing that $300 fine. Definitely shouldn't be saying on public forum hey, only 1 outdoor they WONT charge you. Fk me...

 

Next time try reading the actual drugs act - then you'll see it's got your balls clamped much tighter than you thought.

 

 

i have friends that grow in NSW. they have been caught with 3 or more plants and they have only been confiscated and fined. maybe it just depends on the fuzz? obviously if they have proof youve been dealing your gonna be in the shit. Also im out in the country so maybe theres a little more leniency?

 

 

Great first post Seriously pull yer heads out ya asses and stop spreading mis/outdated/bullshitlucky information.

Edited July 11, 2011 by ConvexConepiece

[Dags Gone Wild]

Alright i'll bite...

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to see 'simple' cannabis offence defined - however I bet me left testicle that cultivation of even 1 outdoor plant is more than a 'simple' cannabis offense.

 

While 1 plant MAY be up to the officers discretion, chances are they won't leave with only issuing that $300 fine. Definitely shouldn't be saying on public forum hey, only 1 outdoor they WONT charge you. Fk me...

 

Next time try reading the actual drugs act - then you'll see it's got your balls clamped much tighter than you thought.

 

 

 

 

Great first post Seriously pull yer heads out ya asses and stop spreading mis/outdated/bullshitlucky information.

 

 

What can I say. If I were in a position of needing legal advice, I'd consult the Legal Services Commission of South Australia, and my lawyer mate currently defending drugs charges among other things, before I ask a stranger on a forum.

 

I'm sure the terms and conditions of this forum include a disclaimer against taking anything here as legitimate legal advice, and if anyone were dumb enough to think that, they're going to get done over by just about everything they ever encounter in life anyway.

 

All I did was post the SA Government digest of how our laws work, and I don't see a conspiracy to deceive or entrap readers in there.

 

The exclusions for an expiable offence are -

 

having hydroponic equipment on the premises deemed intent to supply, even if you have no plants. seeds or vegetative matter.

 

having cannabis in regularly-sized packages, zip-lok bags scales, incriminating documentation and some similar incriminating qualifiers.

 

failing to pay the fine in the prescribed time limit

 

The Social Security Act is full of the qualifier "or for any other reason", as a catch-all, and I wouldn't be surprised if there is one in this act, so even if everything else says it's a ticket offence, they can nail someone when they decide they need to 'slow them down'.

 

The page makes those exceptions pretty explicit, so most people would be able to see what things to avoid if they desire no more than an expiation notice.

 

So no, you can't count on a fine only, and no, I don't recall claiming, or posting anything that did claim, such a guarantee.

 

All I did was correct what was claimed to be the scheduled expiation fee for one plant in South Australia. Conspiracy theories aside, it can't be denied that the scheduled fee is what the SA Government have published it to be.

 

Well, theoretically it can be denied, but doing so isn't a game-changing strategy.

 

Think about it - if the law turned out to be different from what the SA government had published it to be, cases would be getting thrown out of court by the dozen because of government malfeasance. It hasn't happened. It's not happening. It won't ever happen.

 

It's a total red herring to bring up that downstream from what the legislation is, police or prosecutors might strive to prove more serious offences, because the fact that that takes place doesn't alter what is set down in the legislation.

 

All I can do is quote the SA govt on their own legislation to prove what that legislation is.

 

Have you proof that the legislation is other than what the SA government claims it to be?

 

 

 

EDIT - I forgot that smoking in public voids the option of a fine, and some offers to share will get spun into supply charges.

 

Nothing I've said isn't there in the page for anyone to read.

 

You can download the Controlled Substances Act 1984 and Controlled Substances Regulations.

 

Act 33K, 33LA and 45A legislate the number of plants, invalidating equipment and "simple cannabis offences" respectively.

 

Regs Section 7, Schedules 3.2 and 5 specify that the prescribed number of plants is five, that 10 plants are deemed a trafficable number, and what the penalties are for offences under the act respectively.

 

It's not a hard act to follow.

 

No wonder the SA Law Commission got their facts right when they interpreted the Act and Regs.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Dags Gone Wild

[ConvexConepiece]

I'm sure the terms and conditions of this forum include a disclaimer against taking anything here as legitimate legal advice, and if anyone were dumb enough to think that, they're going to get done over by just about everything they ever encounter in life anyway.

 

Actually we more or less rely on mods & users with a brain to keep this forum clean of misinformation. That doesn't just go for legal info, it goes for growing practices too. From molasses to bleach there are idiots out there, but I still don't want to see them caught because they read something on this online forum.

 

All I did was post the SA Government digest of how our laws work, and I don't see a conspiracy to deceive or entrap readers in there.

 

So no, you can't count on a fine only, and no, I don't recall claiming, or posting anything that did claim, such a guarantee.

 

Great - that's what I hoped you included in your first post instead of, and I quote, "$300 fine for one plant, unless they can 'prove' intent to supply." - which i'm afraid should have had the 'you can't rely on it... but could just be a $300 fine' attached to it.

 

Think about it - if the law turned out to be different from what the SA government had published it to be, cases would be getting thrown out of court by the dozen because of government malfeasance. It hasn't happened. It's not happening. It won't ever happen.

 

Ah cases are thrown out of court every day for exactly this.

 

Have you proof that the legislation is other than what the SA government claims it to be?

 

Yes, when I lived down there 4yrs ago I came across at least one person I can remember being busted for 1 outdoor plant. As in being taken to court. It might have been because they trumped up supply charges cause he was sharing with a mate, didn't go into specifics, but yes 1 medium size outdoorie took him to court. That's all the proof I need to know that even trying to quote this '1 plant rule' on online forums is just wishful and ignorant thinking.

Edited July 12, 2011 by ConvexConepiece

[Dags Gone Wild]

Actually we more or less rely on mods & users with a brain to keep this forum clean of misinformation. That doesn't just go for legal info, it goes for growing practices too. From molasses to bleach there are idiots out there, but I still don't want to see them caught because they read something on this online forum.

 

 

 

Great - that's what I hoped you included in your first post instead of, and I quote, "$300 fine for one plant, unless they can 'prove' intent to supply." - which i'm afraid should have had the 'you can't rely on it... but could just be a $300 fine' attached to it.

 

 

 

Ah cases are thrown out of court every day for exactly this.

 

 

 

Yes, when I lived down there 4yrs ago I came across at least one person I can remember being busted for 1 outdoor plant. As in being taken to court. It might have been because they trumped up supply charges cause he was sharing with a mate, didn't go into specifics, but yes 1 medium size outdoorie took him to court. That's all the proof I need to know that even trying to quote this '1 plant rule' on online forums is just wishful and ignorant thinking.

 

RE the scheduled fee being $300. It's not random. If there are no disqualifying factors that's the fee.

 

If you ask me what the fine is for blowing 0.1 in a breathalyser, and I say "$300", do you really expect me to add "unless you are drunk, or leaving the scene of an accident, or are unlicensed, or the car is unregistered..." and many other things that will compound a simple speeding fine?

 

Next time I'll be sure to say "for as little as $300!"

 

It really depends on when it happened, as the regulations have been amended every few years for a couple of decades.

 

AFAIR, hydro equipment only became illegal about two years ago, although my memory has gaps. There could be any number of things of which one of them compounded the offence of a single plant to something more serious.

 

Or it could be nothing more than a bad tempered officer 'discovering' something that compounds the offence.

 

You will never be able to criticise me for guaranteeing that any given officer will respect the letter and spirit of the law at all times if it's not in their nature.

 

Is anyone who doesn't realise that capable of reading this forum and understanding any of it?

 

So when I quote the SA Law Commission lawyers, and a practicing SA defence lawyer - who for some reason gives me free legal advice about entirely hypothetical scenarios - then both the agency responsible for providing legal aid, and the guy drawing a salary based on his accredited understanding of the same laws, have all been expressing ignorant and wishful thinking, and nobody has called their bluff in all this time?

 

That is a most unusual claim to make. If it were true, it would be so pervasively Kafkaesque that I'm sure I'd never be able to track down the proof.

 

But the knowledge of that which I couldn't prove, and therefore couldn't speak, would stalk my thoughts and haunt my dreams, so I'm going to pretend no such wholesale counterfeiting of justice is happpening.