Brunstrom on drugs
Discussion
Anyone want to read his thoughts in this handy presentation?
It's all here: www.cais.co.uk/pdf/Richard%20Brunstom%20Presentation.pdf
When I say all - I mean, look at the bottom of each page
And I'm half Welsh before anyone complains about the languages in the presentation
It's all here: www.cais.co.uk/pdf/Richard%20Brunstom%20Presentation.pdf
When I say all - I mean, look at the bottom of each page
And I'm half Welsh before anyone complains about the languages in the presentation
He was on Today a couple of days ago, described as "one of Britain's most senior police officers". He believes drug addicts should be provided with "shooting galleries" where they can inject themselves in safety with nurses etc there to look after them if they have problems. This is apparently already done in Australia and he wants to do it here too.
Leaving aside the drug policy, isn't it the case that drug-taking is illegal? Therefore anyone visiting such a place could be arrested and sentenced (and ideally helped to receive treatment rather than just punishment)? And if >50% of all crime is drug-related then it's likely that such people would be other types of criminals as well?
It seems to me that he wants to "bend" the law to support illegal activities which are known to be dangerous/fatal, while at the same time persecuting motorists for illegal activities which are harmless (31 in a 30, 75 in a 70).
Surely some mistake?
Leaving aside the drug policy, isn't it the case that drug-taking is illegal? Therefore anyone visiting such a place could be arrested and sentenced (and ideally helped to receive treatment rather than just punishment)? And if >50% of all crime is drug-related then it's likely that such people would be other types of criminals as well?
It seems to me that he wants to "bend" the law to support illegal activities which are known to be dangerous/fatal, while at the same time persecuting motorists for illegal activities which are harmless (31 in a 30, 75 in a 70).
Surely some mistake?
Peter Ward said:
He believes drug addicts should be provided with "shooting galleries" where they can inject themselves in safety with nurses etc there to look after them if they have problems.
Can I have marshalls and emergancy crews on every corner in case I get it wrong whilst satisfying my addiciton?
Interesting that he uses the old John Stuart Mill quote:
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exersised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others"
So what about the lone biker/motorist who is exceeding a speed limit on a clear road and causing no risk of 'harm to others' ?
Hypocrisy or just madness?
And why all the Welsh writing?
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exersised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others"
So what about the lone biker/motorist who is exceeding a speed limit on a clear road and causing no risk of 'harm to others' ?
Hypocrisy or just madness?
And why all the Welsh writing?
ing belive iv just said that 
His view on drugs thankfully will get him kicked out eventually. The insurance companies, Barristers, Collumbian and Afgan Drug producers would all go bust if every country adopted Brunstroms policy. More importantly all Bliars mates would be out of work so no chance of anything sensible being done.
Hello fellow gearheads. I've gotta tell ya' this is a pleasant surprise! In the U.S. it's estimated that 90% of inner city crime, around 75% of all murders and around 78% of rural crime is caused because PROHIBITION is going on again, but with drugs this time instead of alcohol. There's a lesson our leaders didn't learn from their mistakes. The 300 Billion dollar war on drugs (U.S. cost since 1967) has cost us any chance at REAL freedom as it's just an excuse the government uses to increase their powers of search and seizure far beyond what is allowed in our Constitution. It's been estimated that if the "Drug War" was a basketball game we'd be losing 99 to 2. Anything the government makes illegal sets up a black market for it where criminals flourish and officials at EVERY level are corrupted as the BIG MONEY is just too tempting. Brunstom may be an 4sshole but he's got it right on this one.
Maybe it'll set the example that "Victimless crimes" (like speeding) shouldn't be "crimes" at all. Cross your fingers. Our governments have been sending out anti-drug 
propaganda for decades and most people now believe that crap. Brunstom's report quotes truthful information. See: <a href="http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/"><a href="http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/">http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/</a></a> for more REALISTIC info.
>> Edited by Radracer on Wednesday 4th February 21:29
>> Edited by Radracer on Wednesday 4th February 21:30
>> Edited by Radracer on Wednesday 4th February 21:40
Brunstrom's suggestion has been doing the rounds since I've been in the Job. Without a shadow of a doubt, legalising drugs would solve the majority of the problems it causes. Most deaths relating to drug taking are caused by the stuff it is cut with. Make it available, on prescription if necessary, for a pittance and crime would plummet and these kids that we have to tuck into body bags would be alive.
Evidence from American GIs after the Vietnam War sugests that the addictiveness of drugs is a complex matter and the fact that it is illegal makes it more 'exciting'. Drugs ruin lives, drug laws ruin considerably more. I don't know whether legalising them would be a 'good' thing. All I do know is that it would be better than what we have now.
All it needs is for a few politicians of honour to push it and it could be in the statute books. However, it is a case of 'A few good men . . .'
Derek
Evidence from American GIs after the Vietnam War sugests that the addictiveness of drugs is a complex matter and the fact that it is illegal makes it more 'exciting'. Drugs ruin lives, drug laws ruin considerably more. I don't know whether legalising them would be a 'good' thing. All I do know is that it would be better than what we have now.
All it needs is for a few politicians of honour to push it and it could be in the statute books. However, it is a case of 'A few good men . . .'
Derek
Derek Smith said:
Brunstrom's suggestion has been doing the rounds since I've been in the Job. Without a shadow of a doubt, legalising drugs would solve the majority of the problems it causes. Most deaths relating to drug taking are caused by the stuff it is cut with. Make it available, on prescription if necessary, for a pittance and crime would plummet and these kids that we have to tuck into body bags would be alive.
Evidence from American GIs after the Vietnam War sugests that the addictiveness of drugs is a complex matter and the fact that it is illegal makes it more 'exciting'. Drugs ruin lives, drug laws ruin considerably more. I don't know whether legalising them would be a 'good' thing. All I do know is that it would be better than what we have now.
All it needs is for a few politicians of honour to push it and it could be in the statute books. However, it is a case of 'A few good men . . .'
Derek
Brilliantly refreshing. I
you squire.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff