Brunstrom on drugs

Author
Discussion

Peter Ward

2,097 posts

255 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
I wasn't agreeing or otherwise with his views on drugs. Simply trying to compare them with his views on speeding. Both are illegal but he seems much happier supporting one activity than the other. It seems odd to me for a policeman to take such an unbalanced stance in public, when he's paid to uphold all laws not just the ones he likes.

And sorry I didn't reply months ago, but at least I took the trouble to find this thread rather than start a new one!

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
He's at it again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3460485.stm

It would be very interesting to put the dichotomy of his two standpoints to him and see how he reconciles them.

WildCat

8,369 posts

242 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
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



Alcohol is legally available - and look at the crimes committed whilst under the influence? Add drugs into the equation...? These people would not just take speed - they WOULD speed - VERY DANGEROUSLY! But - heck - more revenue...!!!


Germany, Holland and Switzerland have drop-in centres. They still o/d in the galleries. Only difference is team of doctors try to save their lives there instead!

Available on prescription? Hmmm! What about the craving once you've used your allowance? You would kill your granny for a fix!

Too simplistic! But more muddled thinking from this questionable cop! IMHO! But then - taking cops off the trail of drug barons would free them up to catch the really bad guys - the ones who overtake tractors!

Plotloss

67,280 posts

269 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
Yeah and 80 odd years of prohibition has worked so well lets try for another 80 odd.

ATG

20,482 posts

271 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
Brunstrom doesn't justify either his view on drugs or on speeding as "it's the law, it must be enforced". He seems to believe that speeding is a major cause of injury and fatalities, and that current policy on drugs doesn't work well and causes a lot of harm. I think the evidence is not compelling for the first idea, and overwhelmingly in favour of the second. No dichotomy here, he is wrong on one point and right on the other.

WildCat

8,369 posts

242 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
ATG said:
Brunstrom doesn't justify either his view on drugs or on speeding as "it's the law, it must be enforced". He seems to believe that speeding is a major cause of injury and fatalities, and that current policy on drugs doesn't work well and causes a lot of harm. I think the evidence is not compelling for the first idea, and overwhelmingly in favour of the second. No dichotomy here, he is wrong on one point and right on the other.

icamm

2,153 posts

259 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
I happen to agree with Bruntersturmfurher on this issue BUT I can only hope it is the one that will cause all his other views to be discredited.

Why? Because the majority of our "leaders" have no idea of the realities if you look at the fuss they have made of re-grading canabis.

knowley

145 posts

277 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
Is taking Heroin safe then?

I always understood it to be one of the the most dangerous and addictive illegal drugs.... even more addictive than speeding.

Maybe Brunstrom is thinking that if heroin is legalised then he won't have to try catch the addicts who burgle/mug/etc to pay for their habits. He must be hoping they will be able to get it off the government on pescription, of course all of it will be paid for by hardworking motorists who don't do drugs.

>> Edited by knowley on Thursday 5th February 14:03

Mojocvh

16,837 posts

261 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
Clumsy attempt to regain some credability, good idea about drugs (bet it wasn't his in the first place)but from the wrong person.

MoJo.

icamm

2,153 posts

259 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
knowley said:
Is taking Heroin safe then?

I always understood it to be one of the the most dangerous and addictive illegal drugs.... even more addictive than speeding.
No it isn't but neither is alcohol or tabacco.

However, it is made more dangerous by the criminals mixing it with highly toxic substances to make more money and prohibition doesn't work. It just fuels crime and the big criminal gangs make massive profits.

WildCat

8,369 posts

242 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
WildCat said:

ATG said:
Brunstrom doesn't justify either his view on drugs or on speeding as "it's the law, it must be enforced". He seems to believe that speeding is a major cause of injury and fatalities, and that current policy on drugs doesn't work well and causes a lot of harm. I think the evidence is not compelling for the first idea, and overwhelmingly in favour of the second. No dichotomy here, he is wrong on one point and right on the other.



Ach! Do not know vot 'appened there!

Heard him on lunchtime news - saying that we should all pay towards it being on prescription for those who want to abuse their bodies! Why the should we taxpayers have to do that? As said in last post, they would want more to feed the habit! Once they had the legal fix, they would do anything ANYTHING! for the next one, and the next..next...!

But "current policy is not working and causes a lot of harm!" Yes - it causes death! Wrecks lives! Wrecks the life of the user, his family and any victims of his drug induced state of mind!

"The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour!"

"Agree with Brunstersturmfurher on this one!" (Mojocvh)


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Predominantly medico clan - married to doc. (Am Translator specialising in Medico/Pharmacueticals - work for large pharmaceutical co! -) One of the cousin medics specialises in nervous disorders/diseases - most of which brought on by addiction, and the A&E one could give some highly well-balanced arguments against - based on what they see each day!.

Could if I wanted launch into diatribe over this - give a step by step graphic and highly colourful description of what happens short and long term to your body and mind when taking hard and soft drugs! Except that could run into pages - and we ain't got the time! You would not like to hear it anyway!

Know of 14 year old in Germany who threw himself off top of large building in drug-induced trance! Seen junkies at first hand! Legalise this stuff? Is he mad?

Brainstorm claims he is "about saving lives" yet advocates legalising something which can cause more death and destruction on the roads as people would drive under the influence! If they take chances with drink .. so they will with this! More so!

It is really about him not being @ssed to do the job we are all paying for him to do! Suggest he gets off his butt and goes visiting the grieving families of dead and dying junkies, dead junkies' victims. Then go chase real villains who peddle this stuff.

Then he should decide who is more dangerous: the just over drifter, the hazard aware driver who gets nabbed by the invisible talivan, or the doped up junky and the dealers!

Do not give me any cr@p about drug barons peddling dogdy e-tablets, unrefined smack, speed, crack etc. Or dirty needles - all of which cause deaths! Heard it all before! But this policy would not stop them either!

Available on prescription? Yeah right! But only satisfies the one craving! You would be back to these big time crooks anyway as the addict sells his soul for that one more fix!

Yet another pea brained idea for a pea brained man!

Incorrigible

13,668 posts

260 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
WildCat said:
Do not give me any cr@p about drug barons peddling dogdy e-tablets, unrefined smack, speed, crack etc. Or dirty needles - all of which cause deaths! Heard it all before! But this policy would not stop them either!
So we still see peddlers in illegal alcohol since the end of prohibition do we ??

Pure heroin is safer than street heroin, I accept that if it was legal more people MAY want to try it. But junkies are junkies whatever the law

icamm

2,153 posts

259 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
Incorrigible said:

WildCat said:
Do not give me any cr@p about drug barons peddling dogdy e-tablets, unrefined smack, speed, crack etc. Or dirty needles - all of which cause deaths! Heard it all before! But this policy would not stop them either!

So we still see peddlers in illegal alcohol since the end of prohibition do we ??
Actually we do because our duty is so high compared to France etc but that's an argument about taxation.

The main principal is that most people use legal source where possible. It would be especially true in drugs where you could be certain of the quality.

Incorrigible

13,668 posts

260 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
icamm said:
Actually we do because our duty is so high compared to France etc but that's an argument about taxation.

The main principal is that most people use legal source where possible. It would be especially true in drugs where you could be certain of the quality.
OK pedant, so I meant wholesale

At least you got the point

The problem as I see it is there are far too many people too stupid to think for themselves. Although I'm not 100% sure that legalisation is the answer for these individuals. OTOH Leaving them to the mercy of crime lords doesn't seem right either.

WildCat

8,369 posts

242 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
icamm said:

Incorrigible said:


WildCat said:
Do not give me any cr@p about drug barons peddling dogdy e-tablets, unrefined smack, speed, crack etc. Or dirty needles - all of which cause deaths! Heard it all before! But this policy would not stop them either!


So we still see peddlers in illegal alcohol since the end of prohibition do we ??

Actually we do because our duty is so high compared to France etc but that's an argument about taxation.

The main principal is that most people use legal source where possible. It would be especially true in drugs where you could be certain of the quality.


Definitely in fifth gear - full rant throttle!

Sure about the last pgh and being certain of quality? But never mind the quality of the stuff - still has same overall deadly effect whether purest or most contaminated! Could spell out everything these addicts go through from first fix to "cold turkey!"

If per one thread we are costing the NHS Milliarden by mowing down everyone in sight, how come we justify costing the NHS Milliarden by offering free or cut price prescriptions to these people. In any case, once they have had their taxpayers' fix, they will seek out their dealer for more! Even when shooting up in controlled conditions, they still manage to o/dose!

Ye Gods! We limit cancer treatments (lottery), ration other medications and operations etc per resources-so would a junky's fix rely on his postcode as well? Would one man's chemo be opportunity cost of an addict's fix? That's what it will boil down to at the end of the day!

Of course, I would like to see my dosh well spent! It would be better spent on rehab than by feeding a lethal habit!

Like I said PEA BRAINED!

That man should be kicked out of office and zilch pension!

Wonder why he is so keen on drugs anyway? Given his other ideas.......

icamm

2,153 posts

259 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
Incorrigible said:

OK pedant, so I meant wholesale

At least you got the point


As you can see from my other posts I agree with you anyway. I just didn't want one of the "against" people to point it out in some gloating manner.

icamm

2,153 posts

259 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
WC, I agree with you on the point of giving them away on presciption. If people want to destroy their bodies with drugs they should pay to do so.

The quality of the drugs WOULD be improved if legal. There would be no "cutting with drain cleaner" etc.

I, however, do believe that they should be legalised. Prohibition does not work.

I have seen, known and been friends with addicts. I know the risks and what happens. I have known people die from drugs (including legal ones).

I know legalisation is not the complete answer but I do feel it would be better than what we have.

WildCat

8,369 posts

242 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
icamm said:
WC, I agree with you on the point of giving them away on presciption. If people want to destroy their bodies with drugs they should pay to do so.

The quality of the drugs WOULD be improved if legal. There would be no "cutting with drain cleaner" etc.

I, however, do believe that they should be legalised. Prohibition does not work.

I have seen, known and been friends with addicts. I know the risks and what happens. I have known people die from drugs (including legal ones).

I know legalisation is not the complete answer but I do feel it would be better than what we have.



"They should pay to do so!"

Ach! They would still resort to crime to pay for their fix! You would still get the barons peddling the impure stuff whether doing it legally or illegally! They do not care about quality - just the money! They would still run the hookers and the rent boys, and the organised crime! You would see even more crazed behaviour on the street.

Alle Drugs are dangerous. Even the cold remedy (you could have allergy!) antibiotics, penicillin ... common allergic reaction which can kill! In fact any overdose can do this - even those so-called safe herbal ones the muesli munchers seem to go for! Have you seen the effect of over indulgence of Echinacea? Vitamin tablets...ginseng....!

But with illegal drugs... Course there is the buzz of doing something you should not! As well as "celebs" percceived as doing it! Thus - "so-called glamour!" What is glamourous about being dead - dying in pool of your own vomit? not to mention the full graphics!

You legalise it then! They still die! They still get the impure stuff! The barons still get rich! Solves nothing, nichts, zilch, rien, nada! At least keeping it illegal keeps the prison deterrent! (I know - does not necessarily work but better than nothing!)

Remember these doped up guys full of false confidence will be out and about in cars and I certainly do not want them appearing suddenly and from nowhere in crazed trance crashing into my rear end! Once was enough!


icamm

2,153 posts

259 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
WC, well we will have to disagree then.

Keeping them illegal is not working. The threat of prison is not working. More and more are being smuggled in (hence the bigger and bigger customs finds).

Yes, prostitution, rent boys, extortion would still happen but you have removed (or atleast reduced massively) the biggest source of money.

Yes illegal selling would still go on (look at booze as mentioned earlier in the thread).

However, alot of the "thrill" of doing something illegal would be removed. Maybe this would mean some people try it that wouldn't have before but some would not try it that would have before. Atleast they can be looked after and as safe as possible. Also, they could be kept off the road in safe places (drop in centres?) where they are not allowed to drive within a certain time of taking the drug.

There is no easy answer, I realise that. I just know the current system does not work. Prohibition has been proved not to work.

v8thunder

27,646 posts

257 months

Thursday 5th February 2004
quotequote all
Legal or illegal - people under their influence would still commit crime to get the money to buy them, and it would still ruin lives and careers - possibly more.

People say that 'tobacco is as addictive as heroin'. The difference is that tobacco doesn't put you in a hypnotic trance followed by cold turkey and artificially-accelerated paranoia.

All this comparison to alcohol is rather spurious as well. The reason why prohibition failed was because alcohol was legal beforehand, there was a vast industry around it (Jack Daniel's, anyone?), a whole load of jobs (fancy putting a whole industrial sector out of work by law in the midst of the Depression) and it seems like a dreadful idea, which is why it didn't really last that long. Then again, if no-one had heard of alcohol or tobacco until today, then they suddenly appeared, the government would make no hesitation in banning them and I bet many on PH would agree with them. (Imagine you don't know what a pint is, for a second...)

Also, we must remember that all alcohol does is get you pissed. Yes, you may become rowdy, your liver may die and you might stagger out in front of a car and get run over, but it doesn't change your brain so dramatically over time that you're prone to ultra-violent mood swings, split-personality disorders, hallucinations or severe memory loss, to the point where you can't remember who you are(OK it can, but only in a tiny minority of extreme cases).

Remember Trainspotting? Blatant advert for the criminalisation of drugs if I ever saw one. Remember Spud's job interview? Imagine if speed was legal. People would take it like that. Then they wouldn't be able to get jobs, but they'd still want their speed, so you'd end up with exactly the same crime problem as when you started, only probably with more perpetrators.

I think you also need to take into account the internaitonal aspect too. Drug barons are some of the most evil people you're likely to come across. Would you want to give them and their entire organisations legitimation?

If drugs are legal, they are also commercial. Look at the extent of cigarette advertising. Who's it aimed at? Yes - your kids. Would you want huge billboards advertising Crack Cocaine to them in the same way?

And as for the already-overloaded NHS, don't get me started.

The legalisation of drugs wouldn't really make much difference. If anything it would just make the problem worse. There would be less of the process you could call 'crime', but all the problems would still be there, leading to the same levels of deprivation.

IMO the solution is not to decriminalise drugs, but decriminalise their consumption. This sounds silly but bear with me:
If someone consumes they are to be considered the victim of a drug dealer. They are to be sent to secure hospitals where they will only be allowed to take what the hospital gives them alongside training for work to rebuild their lives once they're out.

Legalising drugs may solve some short term problems, but wouldn't really change anything and would still fail to address the wider issue - The world can do without, and would be better off without, drugs, drug dealers and drug addictions.

You'll probably call me naive now, telling me not to knock what I haven't tried, but in my 20-year existence I have had one of my friends die due to taking drugs, several have literally lost their minds, becoming different people (I know one guy on Magic Mushrooms who has not only 'given up' on social life, but reckons he is superhuman and has access to other realities, when we just see him writhing pathetically on the floor, spouting gibberish. He used to want to be a pilot and a physicist). I know several others I won't mention now. My mother used to work with pre-teen drug addicts/dealers, trying to teach them whilst she saw the future crumbling around her, and I myself have had a drink spiked, what ever was in it exacerbated the situation I was in at the time and led to a hellish month of unnaturally-induced depression.


I'll leave it at that. Oh, and Brunstrom is a