Yates, Garrett and ACT
Image via Wikipedia
Neville Yates was jailed for possession (cultivating for his own use). He was 'narced' on by a paid informer. It was his ninth conviction (proving if nothing else he had convictions). His defence, that cannabis was safer than his medical alternatives was voided by the Judge. The Judge 'politicised' that which was non-political. He sentenced Neville to 60% increase in his sentence (3 -> 5 months) purportedly for allowing the use of the court as a forum the pro cannabis agenda (also reported by the PRESS during the case, but no evidence was presented that supported the Judges view).
Politics never came into it... until his Member of Parliament, appeared in his defence (how often has that ever happened). He had two senior doctors, one an expert in Sativex modality, a professor of pain and the surgeon who removed his leg standing by. If drug policy is about 'health' and best practice, do not expect to see it in a court of law. It was Neville's second visit to jail for the same offence of self supply. (home detention was not possible as that was the scene of the crime)
The question for ACT and anyone else is 'and did it stop him smoking pot?, if not what purpose did it serve? what were the unintended consequences and who benefits?.'
Another friend was sentenced to 18 months for 'not being in possesion' and was raped, twice. Nothing was ever the same again.
Prohibition and all that it represents is contrary to the principles of the Association of Citizens and Taxpayers. And that says very little for Mr Garrett or ACT.