"Injunction" on my car :(

Status
Not open for further replies.
thecremeegg said:
And we wonder why the rest of the internet hates the OCUK forums.....he let his mates smoke weed in his car, big deal, he hasn't committed an offence, they have.
Click to expand...
Lum said:
Wow, 8 pages and no-one has bothered to mention that the law on weed (and for some odd reason it's only the law on weed) holds the owner liable to prosecution if they knowingly allow someone else to smoke weed on their premisis.
Click to expand...

Oops.
 
Cuchulain said:
And anyone with an ounce of sense would realise that they'd end up in some kind of strife if they were stopped, irrespective of who broke the law
Click to expand...
So we have not only lost the presumption of innocence, but we have guilt by association?! The driver should be completely free from any undue hassle IMO.
 
To those who say 'its only a bit of weed' is completely irrelevant its still ILLEGAL no matter what your personal views on it are :confused:

I happen to work in an industry where if you are found to have any trace of any non prescription drugs in your system you are dismissed there and then. So i wouldn't let any 'mates' spark up a joint in my car as it could be my job on the line.
 
sovietspybob said:
To those who say 'its only a bit of weed' is completely irrelevant its still ILLEGAL no matter what your personal views on it are :confused:
Click to expand...
Legality isn't the be-all and end-all of an issue. Let's take the case of Alan Turing, who was chemically castrated by the government, fully in accordance with the law, for being homosexual. What he did was still illegal, but was the response of the law correct? I think today we can say "no".

The law is meant to protect, not persecute.
 
Last edited:
The case of Alan Turing is particularly horrible, especially if you read about what that process actually involves (just cutting his balls off would have been less traumatic), and even more so when you realise that without him we would probably have lost WW2 but the mistake you are making is to judge 1950s law by 2010s standards and morals.

I wish your comment about what the law was meant to do was correct, but the reality is that it's meant to enforce the morals, standards and predjudices of the majority of the population. You just need to look at the amount of cack handed legislation Blair and Brown have brought in to appease certain interest groups to see that.
 
It wasn't a mistake to judge 1950s law by 2010s standards and morals; it was wholly my intention to do so. People often imagine that law = right, and it doesn't. How the law evolves to completely contradict itself shows that. In another 50 years some incredibly handsome young chap could be posting on a discussion forum about how 50 years ago people were prosecuted for cannabis use, and how today in 2060 that it is completely unreasonable.

I think you are right, in that the sorry reality is that the law is used to enforce the morals, standards and predjudices of the majority of the population, but I really don't think it should be that way. I endorse the breaking of the law when it is doing so.

I don't feel the law has the right to stop me smoking cannabis safely any more than I have the right to make Tony Blair give me a blow job.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;16376599 said:
Errr it kinda is if we are discussing whether it was right for the police to take an interest?!
Click to expand...
The discussion has moved on somewhat from whether it was within the remit of the police to stop him. Of course it being illegal gives the police more or less all they need.
[TW]Fox;16376599 said:
Do you think the law has a right to stop you from doing cocaine?
Click to expand...
No.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom