Furthermore PC, if smaddy high pon suppmn den dem is to be treated as a mental case and not a criminal case. No sensible smaddy no si mad man and go pick fight wid him. Therefore, the police shudda know betta. Also, mi understand sey one very important part a di video disappear and mek everybody a ask wha did ahappen during dat time dat dem no want wi fi si.

None a di police never in a no danger-man a rush after yu is not danger for yu can damn well run. A so di law sey-not so Flayva? As yu sey PC all when di man under control dem still a lick him and poke him in a vengeful way and when it was not necessary and dat amount to excessive force no matter how yu slice it.


Re Buju-Ms RR and Dine, to make good sense prevail in this case is not to vary the law. To make good sense prevail in this case is to give consideration to the fact that the man uses this item for religious reasons and even for his occupational enhancements. He is not selling or distributing it. It was found as a plant in his yard. Also, as it stands now a conviction can have adverse effect on his career-do we want to railroad people's career over an issue that does not harm anybody else? To make good sense prevail therefore, is to decriminalise the charge and there are various means by which that can be done.

Also RR, when a law is under reconsideration and its likely outcome is pretty much set, accused is entitled to the benefit of the new law. Look at it this way, Buju's lawyers can drag out the case until the new law comes into effect and then the charge could become "moot".

If I am not mistaken, it is already law that it is not criminal to possess personal amounts of weed.