Drug Discussion (Split from Stokes Thread)

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Exhibit A is your system at play. You fool.

My system is to treat criminals like criminals. Shoot the bad ones and lock up the rest.

 

[YinnarTiger]

Should have Duterted him.

Duterting should only be applied to people of middle eastern appearance driving semi-automatic assault cars around town and yelling Allahu Akbar.

 

[Rosy]

Interesting. So you know definitively that everyone who faces court charged with possession in Australia escapes conviction?

Where did I say that? Rhetorical question...I didn't say that at all. :

I've asked several times how many personal users get criminal records and got no answers. I wouldn't have a clue. I haven't heard of any. I know of some who've been given a rap over the knuckles though.

 

[Ian4]

I've asked several times how many personal users get criminal records and got no answers. I wouldn't have a clue. I haven't heard of any. I know of some who've been given a rap over the knuckles though.

it depends on how much people are carrying. if its not a "commercial quantity," people usually get put on a drug diversion program. but the term "commercial quantity" varies form state to state.

 

[Rosy]

it depends on how much people are carrying. if its not a "commercial quantity," people usually get put on a drug diversion program. but the term "commercial quantity" varies form state to state.

Yep that's what I thought. Similar to the oft referred to Portugal really.

 

[AngryAnt]

Where did I say that? Rhetorical question...I didn't say that at all. :

I've asked several times how many personal users get criminal records and got no answers. I wouldn't have a clue. I haven't heard of any. I know of some who've been given a rap over the knuckles though.

Here you go - these are NSW local court figures for 2014, so treat as indicative for Victoria/Australia.

So after being found GUILTY of possession, 400 of 418 had a conviction recorded.

In Victoria, I could only find out of date stats - but in 2006-2008

While recording a conviction is mandatory for people sentenced
to a custodial order, a magistrate may use discretion when
deciding whether to record a conviction for people who
receive a non-custodial order.15 Of the people sentenced for
possession of a drug of dependence in 2006–07 and 2007–08,
a conviction was recorded for 81.8% of the 159 people who
received a community-based order, 79.9% of the 1,471 people
who received a fine and 12.3% of the 632 who received an
adjourned undertaking. Overall, 63.4% of people sentenced had
a conviction recorded in 2006–07 and 2007–08.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Sentencing%20Outcomes%20for%20Possession%20of%20Drugs%20in%20the%20Magistrates%20Court%20of%20Victoria.pdf

I'd wager a lot comes down to how good your lawyer is, and if you have a lawyer. Vince C probably could afford a good one.

 

[Rosy]

........
So after being found GUILTY of possession, 400 of 418 had a conviction recorded.

........

You can have a no conviction recorded for a fine can't you? I'm not sure about your claims.

 

[Rosy]

Police indicated the lowlife who ploughed into people in the city today has a history of drug abuse.

 

[Rosy]

Cant believe some of the crap ive read on this thread.

Yep craigybabes the mind boggles. Thank goodness it won't happen. :blah

 

[YinnarTiger]

You can have a no conviction recorded for a fine can't you? I'm not sure about your claims.

Is that table from a false source? It states pretty clearly 46 were found guilty and had no conviction recorded.

 

[Rosy]

Is that table from a false source? It states pretty clearly 46 were found guilty and had no conviction recorded.

Dunno. My understanding is you can apply to have no conviction recorded. The table doesn't mention quantity of drugs involved either does it?

 

[YinnarTiger]

Dunno. My understanding is you can apply to have no conviction recorded. The table doesn't mention quantity of drugs involved either does it?

By definition, the offence relates to small quantities.

 

[Rosy]

By definition, the offence relates to small quantities.

Thanks. Where can I read the definition regarding this and what is considered to be small quantities?

 

[AngryAnt]

Is that table from a false source? It states pretty clearly 46 were found guilty and had no conviction recorded.

Here's the source, my bad I didn't include it earlier. http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CCS-Annual/ccs2014.pdf

But anyway, read the header of the table again. The total set is all people found GUILTY in the NSW local courts in finalised cases for drug offences. Those ACQUITTED are not represented here.

Look at the 4th line from the bottom - "Possession of illicit drugs". All 418 were found guilty, as per the header of the table. If they weren't found guilty, it would be pretty hard to be convicted right?

Of those 418, 18 had no conviction recorded. All the rest had convictions recorded, but may have got a custodial sentence, periodic detention fine, etc etc. It's possible that some may have had a fine/no conviction, not sure. Would have to go and look at the notes to the tables.

But the point is, 400 people were convicted and as a result have a criminal record, if they didn't already have one.

You can have a no conviction recorded for a fine can't you? I'm not sure about your claims.

Yes you can, and of the 18 who had no conviction recorded, some of these may have been fined as well. But others may have been fined and also convicted.

Dunno. My understanding is you can apply to have no conviction recorded. The table doesn't mention quantity of drugs involved either does it?

No it doesn't, and I fail to see the relevance. You've been asserting that many users you know have never been convicted, and asked me to show the stats on convictions for possession. Done for both NSW and Victoria.

So it turns out the majority of people found guilty of simple possession of illicit drugs are convicted of a crime.

 

[YinnarTiger]

Of those 418, 18 had no conviction recorded. All the rest had convictions recorded, but may have got a custodial sentence, periodic detention fine, etc etc. It's possible that some may have had a fine/no conviction, not sure. Would have to go and look at the notes to the tables.

Also 28 got a bond without conviction.

 

[AngryAnt]

Also 28 got a bond without conviction.

No, I read that as "bond with supervision". You still have a conviction, but it's one way of avoiding a custodial sentence.

Anyway, Rosy's belief that most people avoid conviction for possession is shot to pieces.

 

[Rosy]

.......
Anyway, Rosy's belief that most people avoid conviction for possession is shot to pieces.

Crap. That doesn't give any stats for those who were caught in possession who went to court or were warned or who were sent home to their parents ot who had their drugs confiscated and were told to lift their act.. It also doesn't give figures for amount possessed...well maybe it does...still waiting to read the "definition" Yinnar referred to.

 

[YinnarTiger]

Thanks. Where can I read the definition regarding this and what is considered to be small quantities?

There are different definitions according to what drug. Here are the cannabis figures:


small quantity – up to 50 grams
traffickable quantity – 250 grams or over, or 10 plants
commercial quantity – 25 kilograms or over, or 100 plants
large commercial quantity – 250 kilograms or more, or 1000 plants

https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/criminal-offences/drug-possession

Larger quantities would attract alternate charges like those listed in the table antman quoted.

 

[YinnarTiger]

No, I read that as "bond with supervision". You still have a conviction, but it's one way of avoiding a custodial sentence.

Anyway, Rosy's belief that most people avoid conviction for possession is shot to pieces.

Not really relevant to this discussion, but "bond with supervision" is column 7, I was referring to column 11.

 

[Ian4]

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-15/drug-professor-nicole-lee-says-ice-epidemic-not-true/8272742?pfmredir=sm&sf56364215=1&smid=Page

'Ice epidemic' media coverage creating unnecessary fear, drug expert says
ABC Adelaide – Brett Williamson, Wed Feb 15 14:39:46 EST 2017

"There is no ice epidemic, that is absolutely clear."

Dr Nicole Lee wants to challenge the media's coverage of the drug's use in Australia, and said "unduly negative images" had created unnecessary fear.

"That fear creates stigma," Dr Lee, an adjunct associate professor at Curtin University's National Drug Research Institute and director of 360Edge, told ABC Adelaide's Mornings program.

"One of the problems in the reporting [on ice] at the moment is it is really focused on the really negative outcomes.

"Twenty-five per cent of people who use methamphetamines fairly regularly will experience some type of aggressive or psychotic symptoms.

"That means 75 per cent of people who use it don't experience that.

"We miss that bigger context when we are just focusing on the very pointy end."

Dr Lee said fears of an instant addiction to the drug were also misleading, with only 15 per cent of users at risk of dependency.

She said 75 per cent of people who were using ice used less than once per month.

"If you are using more than once a week, you are heading for trouble."

Dr Lee said branding the usage of ice in Australia as an epidemic was simply untrue.

"What the community, the government and the media are responding to is a shift in the way that people have been using methamphetamine."

She said ice was simply a stronger version of the street drug speed which had been used in the country for decades.

An increase of problems related to ice was noticed between 2010 and 2013, she added.

"What we saw was people who used to primarily use speed switching to ice.

"We haven't seen an increase in the number of people using, but we have seen an increase in the number of people using having problems."

Dr Lee said that although figures of 5 per cent of the population had used being publicised, her research revealed 1 per cent had used the drug in the past year.

"It is a small proportion of people and it has not been increasing — in fact it has been decreasing in the last 15 years."

Dr Lee said the problem was not a huge increase in people using the drug but an increase of users experiencing issues.

Generating fear not solving the problem

Dr Lee said commercials and programs which created fear around the drug only compounded the problems.

"Fear messages don't work and the people at the highest risk of using just switch off when we show them scary things.

"Sometimes those scare tactics and media campaigns can actually increase young people's interest in using."

She said regional communities confronted with higher usage of ice were also prone to higher overall drug use.

"That is a problem of regionality rather than of ice, with a whole range of potential reasons for that."

A lack of rehabilitation services compounded the problems and its prevalence, she said.

just to throw my 2c in, I wonder if some have turned from speed to ice between 2010-2013 because the lack of availability in speed and the increase in availability in ice? similar to what happened in the late noughties when the lack of quality ecstasy turned people from ecstasy to ice? Personally I've found it near impossible to get my hands on speed in recent years.