Scots Weed Cafe

so a legal cannibis cafe is opened in scotland and police stand outside and arrest people for possesion :lol:








THREE people were arrested for drugs offences yesterday on the opening day of the first cannabis cafe in Scotland.

The arrest of two men and a woman for possession of cannabis at the Purple Haze Cafe coincided with the reclassification of the drug, from Class B to Class C.

It is understood that Paul Stewart, 37, the owner of the cafe in Leith, Edinburgh, was one of the three arrested.

The cafe allows cannabis users to come in off the streets and use the drug. It does not sell cannabis. Pro-cannabis campaigners - backed by the Scottish Cannabis Coffeeshop Movement - want to highlight what they say is a confusing legal situation surrounding the possession and use of the drug.

Police stood outside the cafe entrance as supporters filtered in to register as members.

Before his arrest Mr Stewart said: "In the rest of the UK, the presumption of arrest has been taken away, but that presumption still remains in Scotland." Socialist MSP Tommy Sheridan registered at the cafe, calling it a "safe controlled environment for those who wish to consume cannabis".

In London, Met Deputy Commissioner Ian Blair backed the reclassification. Policing of possession of small amounts of cannabis had become "increasingly pointless".

He added: "It was grossly inefficient for officers to spend hours processing individuals for possession of cannabis in amounts about which neither the courts nor therefore the CPS (prosecutors) were prepared to take any action."


source

so a legal cannibis cafe is opened

I would most surprised if the police have the resources to have half a dozen policemen standing outside the Purplehaze Cafe every day. I suspect they felt they had to be seen to be "alert" to the situation on the opening day. Apparently a surprising (or perhaps not so surprising) number of people queued up join the club in freezing conditions. :blink:

When was cannabis made legal in Scotland.

I was not informed of this, who made the decision.

by all accounts it's legal to open and run a canibis cafe as long as you don't sell any or allow people to bring any in :lol: kind of like the porn laws used to be in the UK. It was legal to own the odd blue film and watch it in your own home but it was illegal to sell or buy it in the uk and it was illegal to order it through mail order because it was illegal to send obscene material through the post... :blink: :blink: i think things are different now :lol:

This is misinformed pish.

oh sorry i forgot you are an expert on just about everything :lol:

I read a while back that in Amsterdam they weren't gonna let people smoke down in those coffee shops cause of all the second hand smoke dangers used to rationalize not to allowing tobacco smoking indoors in public places.

There are plenty of places like this in Britain already, they just don't give themselves obvious names like the Purple Haze Cafe... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@31 January 2004 - 04:58
oh sorry i forgot you are an expert on just about everything :lol:

---

Not everything, but as near it as to make little difference.

Incidentally possession and or supply of cannabis is illegal in Scotland. It is therefore understandable why the Police would detain people in relation to it.

It is unlikely that they would have arrested people at that stage, given that arrest has an entirely different meaning in Scotland than it does in the rest of the UK. casting doubt on the accuracy of the the article.

The Scottish legal system is entirely separate from the rest of the UK and has been since the Act of Union. In addition Law and Order is a devolved issue. So the policies and opinions of the English Police or CPS are on no import. He would be as well saying that a Spokesman for the NYPD thought the actions harsh.

One would have expected the author to have known these very basic things.

It was misinformed, misleading pish

I may open one across the river from Coldstream and another just before Gretna.

But the 1st will be just north of Berwick, as the Northumbrian Police definitly appear to be turning a blind eye......

The only other major road into Scotland is too far from Jedbrough to make it a worthwhile proposition ;)


However, prostitution is illegal in Scotland as well as England...as an example.

Yet the parlours of Edinburgh and Glasgow advertise openly (they cant in England). Just because something is illegal doesnt mean the police will necessarily take action.

That would be a matter of policy by the Chief Constable of the force area, hence me using the term "policies and opinions".

For a matter like this, it is likely that ACPO(S) would have discussed policy and agreed what line to take. It is likely that they were simply making the point that the re-classification from B to C did not alter the fact that the offences themselves were extant. They were also making the point that to flaunt (or inded flout) the law is such a flagrant manner was stupid.

I fully expect them to take the position that user quantities will not be treated in a criminal manner. Customs have been doing this for many years, for first offences. User quantity of dope = fine. Do it again and there will be more severe penalties.

J'Pol

Agree with that.

As I understand it, the Purplehaze Cafe is a members only club where a "blind eye" will turned to people who partake in the weed. However, it is no smoking club so it looks like Alice's Restaurant style brownies will be the order of the day.

I believe the Edinburgh constabulary simply wanted to remind people that class C is still illegal even if the penalties are minor.

After the initial fuss I think the Cafe will lose its news worthiness and the Edinburgh patrons will largely be left in peace. I would much rather our finest spent more time chasing up the underage drinking brats who made off with my car ariel. But that is perhaps simply me having a somewhat skewed perspective due to personal interest. :rolleyes:

jpol.
read the article... it actually highlights the stupidity of the whole difference. How is it misinformed? it reported the fact that a cafe opened (this is indeed legal as long as nobody actually uses any drugs on the premisses, one could legally open a brothel as long as there were no prostitutes and no sex took place ) it reported the fact that the owner was one of those arrested and it reported his statement about the differences. It reported that there is a campaign.

It REPORTED something that happened. It didn't say cannibis has been made legal.....just how was it misinformed pish?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@31 January 2004 - 16:46
How is it misinformed? it reported the fact that a cafe opened (this is indeed legal as long as nobody actually uses any drugs on the premisses, one could legally open a brothel as long as there were no prostitutes and no sex took place)

---

Do you really expect me to reply to this in any meaningful way. It is simply preposterous.

Your position is that cafés, are legal as long as no-one takes drugs and brothels are legal, as long as there are no prostitutes and no sex.

If this is the case, then the café is just another café and the brothel is in fact a convent.

What on earth are you talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@31 January 2004 - 16:46

As I understand it, the Purplehaze Cafe is a members only club where a "blind eye" will turned to people who partake in the weed. However, it is no smoking club so it looks like Alice's Restaurant style brownies will be the order of the day.

---

Unless the people will be bringing their own brownies, the club will be selling them one supposes. In which case they will be knowingly concerned in the supply of a proscribed substance. It would hardly be surprising for the Police to act, particularly if it was being rubbed in their faces.

Or is it just a place where people can bring their own brownies to eat. In which case, so what. There are probably hundreds of them, I am sure the cognoscenti know which establishments do not object to people eating their own cakes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+31 January 2004 - 18:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 31 January 2004 - 18:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@31 January 2004 - 16:46
How is it misinformed? it reported the fact that a cafe opened (this is indeed legal as long as nobody actually uses any drugs on the premisses, one could legally open a brothel as long as there were no prostitutes and no sex took place)

---

Do you really expect me to reply to this in any meaningful way. It is simply preposterous.

Your position is that cafés, are legal as long as no-one takes drugs and brothels are legal, as long as there are no prostitutes and no sex.

If this is the case, then the café is just another café and the brothel is in fact a convent.

What on earth are you talking about. [/b][/quote]
that&#39;s the whole point of the stupidity...... he was able to open this cafe and have members register....he broke no laws even though the company policy was to allow people to smoke and in fact it was to encourage it...it was only once the police found drugs that they could make arrests....are you just not understanding the whole ironic nature of the post?
The whole point of opening the establishment was to highlight the confusion in the law as it stands.
Sometimes the hampster falls asleep in the wheel <_<

What confusion in the law ?

As I understand it, it is BYOB. :rolleyes:

I don&#39;t believe the club proposes to sell much of anything other than tea and coffee and a pleasant place to meet. As I said, I think that, unless it becomes a focal point for real criminals, it will only periodically appear on police radar.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@31 January 2004 - 23:32
As I understand it, it is BYOB. :rolleyes:

I don&#39;t believe the club proposes to sell much of anything other than tea and coffee and a pleasant place to meet. As I said, I think that, unless it becomes a focal point for real criminals, it will only periodically appear on police radar.

---

Now that makes sense, as does the posturing of L&B.

I dont get it, why dont they just legalize it and tax it..

Quote:

---

Originally posted by junkyardking@1 February 2004 - 00:58
I dont get it, why dont they just legalize it and tax it..

---

I believe that one day it will happen. It is not as benign as people choose to believe, however in many ways it is no worse than tobacco and alcohol.

I think the real reason is that there is a large part of the electorate who would disapprove of such a move. Hence the current strategy.

Reduce from Class B to C.

Stop prosecuting people for personal use.

De-criminalize.

Legalise.

It will only work if it is done in steps.

Arseholes forcing the Police&#39;s hand by flaunting the laws and forcing them to act help no-one. Most of all the supporters of legalization.

I am not personally a fan of legalising it, however I have no problem with those who wish it done. I find the whole argument that it is no worse than other things little more than sophistry.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@30 January 2004 - 20:02
The cafe allows cannabis users to come in off the streets and use the drug. It does not sell cannabis. Pro-cannabis campaigners - backed by the Scottish Cannabis Coffeeshop Movement - want to highlight what they say is a confusing legal situation surrounding the possession and use of the drug.

---

that confusion...as stated in the artical which was in one on the UKs leading newspapers (albeit a tabloid)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc+1 February 2004 - 01:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 1 February 2004 - 01:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@30 January 2004 - 20:02
The cafe allows cannabis users to come in off the streets and use the drug. It does not sell cannabis. Pro-cannabis campaigners - backed by the Scottish Cannabis Coffeeshop Movement - want to highlight what they say is a confusing legal situation surrounding the possession and use of the drug.

---

that confusion...as stated in the artical which was in one on the UKs leading newspapers (albeit a tabloid) [/b][/quote]
It was in the Mirror for feck&#39;s sake. It was not reporting, it was a story in a comic.

There is no confusion with regard to the status of cannabis. It is perfectly clear and has been discussed above. The possession or supply is illegal - no question, no confusion.

There is however confusion in the reporters mind as to the workings of Scots Law.

I can assure you that they are unlikely to have arrested these people. They are more likely to have detained them under the Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland) Act.

Arrest means something entirely different, as I said earlier. The mere fact that the writing was so shoddy reflects badly on the author and as such his / her work. If someone gets the basics wrong, I seriously doubt the veracity of their "facts"

source2

source (SCOTLAND TODAY)

arrests (scotman.com news)

Thanks, you save me the bother of making my own points.

I post these quotes from the sources you found.


SCOTLAND’S first cannabis cafe faces being closed down after its landlord threatened to take legal action to stop the city venue being used for drug taking.

The businessman who owns the Purple Haze cafe in Leith has told cafe operator Paul Stewart he will be evicted unless he stops his controversial project.



The property operated as a cafe for 12 years, until the current tenant, Paul Stewart, took over the lease two years ago.

"Cannabis is illegal and Mr Frame does not condone the use of the drug or the actions that have been taken by his tenant.

"Mr Frame has advised Paul Stewart that he is in breach of his lease and if he continues to do so, Mr Frame will take legal action.

"Mr Frame is co-operating fully with Lothian and Borders Police and a copy of the letter issued to Paul Stewart by his solicitors has been forwarded to them."




Meanwhile, Lothian and Borders Police today insisted it is "business as usual" for the force.

A spokeswoman said: "The possession and supply of cannabis is illegal. It is also illegal for the occupier or any person concerned in the management of the premises to knowingly allow any person to smoke or supply cannabis."



The opening of the cafe followed a declaration in the Scottish Parliament by Jack McConnell, that the downgrading of cannabis would have little effect on how police deal with users and dealers.

At First Minister’s Questions, Mr McConnell attacked the SSP’s "shameful" drugs policy, condemning "those who intend to interpret the law for their own ends".

He told MSPs: "I want to make clear today that reclassification is not the same as decriminalisation. The use and sale of cannabis both remain illegal in Scotland.

"I do not anticipate that cannabis reclassification will have any significant implications for policing in Scotland."

I&#39;m really enjoying this pissing contest only because nothing else is going on here, any more. If you guys stop, I might find myself watching golf or God forbid, going out for a few. I don&#39;t really like people, but sometimes I do find it amusing to watch them in the wild.

I am certainly cross with Lamsey, I have been paying him 50 pounds per month as per the forum subscription fee. Maybe if I send him an extra 100 pounds he can upgrade me to the kazaa-lite-gold forums.

jpol i have not been saying that weed has been legalised &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; nor did the original story&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
if the weed cafe itself was illegal wouldn&#39;t the police have "detained him and shoved a haggis up his ass or whatever your point was"? NO they didn&#39;t, they Arrested (and i am quoting from a scotish news source here, 3 people for drug offenses (this may or may not have been cannibis)
THE LANDLORD is saying he might evict but the police can&#39;t do anything unless they find drugs
quote where i said cannibis is legalised please and quote where the original report said it was...because i have read it several times and i can&#39;t see that.
you justified the illigitimacy of the story by saying the reporter got it wrong because he said the men were "arrested" and because of your technicality of phrase you suggest that the whole story was a lie...well the SCOTISH NEWS said they were "arrested" and i will go by their version rather than yours...call me old fashioned but i don&#39;t really think that every media reporter is making this story up.
Now i realise you could just be on a winding up session but i am beginning to see a point made by Billy Dean a while back when he said your sig should be pedantic pedantic pedantic

Firstly

The first four words of your opening post were "A legal Cannabis Café ...."

Cannabis is not legal, therefore there can be no such thing. A café which turns a blind eye to cannabis use is not a legal cannabis café.

Secondly

The difference between the actual meaning of words is not being pedantic, it is being accurate. Sadly few people use the word pedantic properly, the irony of which is not lost on me.

Thirdly

I described your source as misinformed pish and I stand by this. The fact that it was a Scottish comic does nothing to dissuade me from this position. I really don&#39;t see why you keep defending it.

Fourthly

I did not say it was made up, I said it was misinformed. I have no doubt that the events took place. I simply question the written account.

Go with whatever version you wish, it matters not one jot to me. After all the British media reports everything accurately and without fear or favour.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@1 February 2004 - 11:29
Firstly

The first four words of your opening post were "A legal Cannabis Café ...."

---

yes and that was the whole point CAFE..the police couldn&#39;t do anything to stop the CAFE opening even with its intent...so the CAFE was legal NOT CANNIBIS. if i had said so cannibis is leagal then you could have had a point but the whole irony of the post was that the cafe was open for it&#39;s intended purpose and the police couldn&#39;t intervene as no laws had been broken until someone actually used cannibis or had it on their person.
you have failed to read the post properly
even "comics" can contain facts
perhaps you are suffering the ravages of age and you get confused and easily misled, Altziemers tests might be needed.
please find me a "quality" paper&#39;s report that states different facts...actually don&#39;t do that as life&#39;s too short for me to be bothered with confused elderly people other than to help them across the road safely.
you have completely misunderstood the whole point of the post or you have chosen to do it deliberatly, whichever it is i don&#39;t care

You may feel I have mis-read the material, I however do not. I feel I understand perfectly well what it meant, I just happen to disagree with it.

You accept the article as it stands and think it is worthwhile, I think it is misinformed pish. I think it misleads the reader and suggests certain things to be the case which are not.

I am happy to agree to disagree on this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@1 February 2004 - 10:33
I&#39;m really enjoying this pissing contest only because nothing else is going on here, any more. If you guys stop, I might find myself watching golf or God forbid, going out for a few. I don&#39;t really like people, but sometimes I do find it amusing to watch them in the wild.

---

l was gonna say l&#39;m getting a feeling of dèja vu here, but l think l&#39;ve said that before. :lol: