'Legalise drugs' Brunstrom urges
Discussion
Here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7038552.stm
BBC said:
'Legalise drugs' Brunstrom urges
North Wales Police chief constable Richard Brunstrom has said he will be "campaigning hard" for drugs such as heroin to be legalised.
In the past, Mr Brunstrom has said drugs laws are out of date and that the police are engaged in a battle which they cannot win.
He is now campaigning for drugs to be legalised, and for the class A, B and C system to be scrapped.
Mr Brunstrom's suggestions have already been criticised by some politicians.
In a report to be presented to the North Wales Police Authority next Monday, he says the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 should be replaced by a new "Substance Misuse Act".
The chair of the authority, councillor Ian Roberts, said there would be a "full and frank debate" on the issue.
In the report Mr Brunstrom writes: "if policy on drugs is in future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral.... Such a strategy leads inevitably to the legalisation and regulation of all drugs".
His report was prepared in response to the HM Government Consultation paper "Drugs: Our community, your say", and the forthcoming Welsh Assembly Government consultation on the all Wales substance misuse strategy.
The Transform Drug Policy Foundation (TDPF), which describes itself as a charitable think-tank and says drug prohibition is the major cause of drug-related harm to individuals, communities and nations, welcomed Mr Brunstrom's report.
Director Danny Kushlick said: "We are absolutely delighted at Mr Brunstrom's paper.
"The chief constable has displayed great leadership and imagination in very publicly calling for a drug policy that replaces the evident failings of prohibition with a legal system of regulation and control for potentially dangerous drugs".
But MP for Alyn and Deeside Mark Tami said claiming the legalising of heroin to be the only way forward was "blinkered and dangerous".
He said drugs policy was not "black and white" and a more considered approach had to be taken.
He said: "As 280,000 Class A drug users are responsible for half of all crime, taking the risk of legalising such a dangerous drug is foolhardy and I would not wish to gamble so much on the health and wellbeing of our children."
'Deprivation and poverty'
Alyn and Deeside AM Carl Sergeant said a more sustainable solution would be to tackle the causes of drug abuse.
He said: "Drug use is strongly linked to deprivation and poverty, which is why so much money has been invested in lifting people - particularly children - out of poverty."
Mr Brunstrom's comments come as Conwy Council's cabinet is preparing to discuss plans for a needle exchange machine which the force want installed in Colwyn Bay.
He may or may not be right, who knows. But is it right for a chief constable to be "campaigning hard" to change the law on anything? To me it demonstrates again that senior police have become political. Does N Wales police force (informally) have a different policy on drug law enforcement to other forces because of Brunstrom's desire to change this law?North Wales Police chief constable Richard Brunstrom has said he will be "campaigning hard" for drugs such as heroin to be legalised.
In the past, Mr Brunstrom has said drugs laws are out of date and that the police are engaged in a battle which they cannot win.
He is now campaigning for drugs to be legalised, and for the class A, B and C system to be scrapped.
Mr Brunstrom's suggestions have already been criticised by some politicians.
In a report to be presented to the North Wales Police Authority next Monday, he says the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 should be replaced by a new "Substance Misuse Act".
The chair of the authority, councillor Ian Roberts, said there would be a "full and frank debate" on the issue.
In the report Mr Brunstrom writes: "if policy on drugs is in future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral.... Such a strategy leads inevitably to the legalisation and regulation of all drugs".
His report was prepared in response to the HM Government Consultation paper "Drugs: Our community, your say", and the forthcoming Welsh Assembly Government consultation on the all Wales substance misuse strategy.
The Transform Drug Policy Foundation (TDPF), which describes itself as a charitable think-tank and says drug prohibition is the major cause of drug-related harm to individuals, communities and nations, welcomed Mr Brunstrom's report.
Director Danny Kushlick said: "We are absolutely delighted at Mr Brunstrom's paper.
"The chief constable has displayed great leadership and imagination in very publicly calling for a drug policy that replaces the evident failings of prohibition with a legal system of regulation and control for potentially dangerous drugs".
But MP for Alyn and Deeside Mark Tami said claiming the legalising of heroin to be the only way forward was "blinkered and dangerous".
He said drugs policy was not "black and white" and a more considered approach had to be taken.
He said: "As 280,000 Class A drug users are responsible for half of all crime, taking the risk of legalising such a dangerous drug is foolhardy and I would not wish to gamble so much on the health and wellbeing of our children."
'Deprivation and poverty'
Alyn and Deeside AM Carl Sergeant said a more sustainable solution would be to tackle the causes of drug abuse.
He said: "Drug use is strongly linked to deprivation and poverty, which is why so much money has been invested in lifting people - particularly children - out of poverty."
Mr Brunstrom's comments come as Conwy Council's cabinet is preparing to discuss plans for a needle exchange machine which the force want installed in Colwyn Bay.
My company ist the one which responsible for licencing the so-called date rape drug. This drug was designed for a completely different purpose for use. It has licence. Ist legal under normal restriction - as in used under supervision of the doctors.
But the thugs still manage to get hands on it und twist its properties to undermine law und order in a very violent manner. It sell hard on the black market too. Does not matter how you package/classify ANY drug. Unscrupulous will get hands on them.. make money out of them.. Legalising them would not change anything nor untwist any evil minds either.
By the way - we have enough problems according to Dick - with motorists who speed without being under influence of "speed"
I am sure his many speed cams will prevent all those drug induced accidents waiting to happen as a result of his crass stupidity in general. If ever there was a policeman who give the force a bad name.. he the one who does so .. over und over. 
But the thugs still manage to get hands on it und twist its properties to undermine law und order in a very violent manner. It sell hard on the black market too. Does not matter how you package/classify ANY drug. Unscrupulous will get hands on them.. make money out of them.. Legalising them would not change anything nor untwist any evil minds either.
By the way - we have enough problems according to Dick - with motorists who speed without being under influence of "speed"
I am sure his many speed cams will prevent all those drug induced accidents waiting to happen as a result of his crass stupidity in general. If ever there was a policeman who give the force a bad name.. he the one who does so .. over und over. WildCat said:
My company ist the one which responsible for licencing the so-called date rape drug. This drug was designed for a completely different purpose for use. It has licence. Ist legal under normal restriction - as in used under supervision of the doctors.
Your point is? Diamorphine is available on the NHS, as is Methylphenidate and a plethora of other drugs, i can't see legalising them making any difference.ETA. except to the safety of drug users forced to shoot up random crap and then go stealing to obtain it.
Flunitrazepam was designed as a sedative anyway so they're not twisting it's use, they're using it inappropriately.
To be quite honest it's something that will never be stopped, like someone said in a thread the other day, look what happened when the americans tried to ban alcohol.
Edited by Silent1 on Thursday 11th October 08:14
Dick's policy is hardly new. It's been going on for years and has had some sensible people supporting it when it didn't have a catchy name.
There's little argument against a certain legalisation of drugs. There is a suggestion in the article that 50% of all crimes are committed by druggies but that minimises the problem. The dealers, importers and other hangers-on to the trade all make a killing and use the money to fund other illegal activities.
There is a simple fact: no drugs policy will work. The only thing government should do is to regulate it a manner where it impinges on the community as little as possible. With people being shot and killed all over the country, the majority involved some way in the drugs trade, then something which might stop this, or at least be of less risk to the majority, should be looked at.
I wish that drugs were, to a certain extent, legalised. Giving methadone to addicts doesn't work, one of the reasons being that they can't. The situation is getting worse and the government is obliged to do something about it.
Lives are being ruined by drugs, that's for certain. The current legal stance means that the price is quite high and that addicts steal to pay for their fix. Further, organised crime thrives on the current drugs trade.
Brunstrom is not the person to front this. His tarnished reputation with a large proportion of the electorate should have excluded him. Look beyond him to the real problem.
There's little argument against a certain legalisation of drugs. There is a suggestion in the article that 50% of all crimes are committed by druggies but that minimises the problem. The dealers, importers and other hangers-on to the trade all make a killing and use the money to fund other illegal activities.
There is a simple fact: no drugs policy will work. The only thing government should do is to regulate it a manner where it impinges on the community as little as possible. With people being shot and killed all over the country, the majority involved some way in the drugs trade, then something which might stop this, or at least be of less risk to the majority, should be looked at.
I wish that drugs were, to a certain extent, legalised. Giving methadone to addicts doesn't work, one of the reasons being that they can't. The situation is getting worse and the government is obliged to do something about it.
Lives are being ruined by drugs, that's for certain. The current legal stance means that the price is quite high and that addicts steal to pay for their fix. Further, organised crime thrives on the current drugs trade.
Brunstrom is not the person to front this. His tarnished reputation with a large proportion of the electorate should have excluded him. Look beyond him to the real problem.
andy_s said:
Just another social dichotomy:
All sorts of cruel, sadistic, dramatic and bloody violence on TV/Film = OK
A couple of people doing the dance of the two backed animal = Tut tut tut tut
Going out, having 12 pints, getting into a fight/collapsing in the street/end up in hospital etc = OK
Having a spliff, listen to Pink Floyd = Tut tut tut tut tut
All sorts of cruel, sadistic, dramatic and bloody violence on TV/Film = OK
A couple of people doing the dance of the two backed animal = Tut tut tut tut
Going out, having 12 pints, getting into a fight/collapsing in the street/end up in hospital etc = OK
Having a spliff, listen to Pink Floyd = Tut tut tut tut tut
The entire decriminalising of drugs is driven by the police upper echelon.
What we are seeing is in part an internecine struggle within the public services and it is important to see the real motive for the 'change of mind'.
The problem at the moment is that the problem is in the hands of the police, they are the ones that have the figures laid at their door and they are not good reading.
Effectively 10 years ago they lost the battle against the drug dealers, they knew and ACPO sort of acknowledged such.
The answer was as simple as it is bad for all of us... slow incremental legalisation.
This will put the problem into the hands of the NHS... the NHS will have to clear up the surge in deaths from legalising the stuff and the 'Social Services' for the increased addiction levels will also come under the NHS.
The Civil Service call this trick 'moving the social burden' the benefit of moving the social burden from the police to the NHS is that there is no funding change to the services... so the cops get the same amount of money to do less and the NHS hasthe same amount of money to do more.
This is the root cause of this, there is no 'social cohesion' content at all.
It is a bureaucratic sleight of hand.
Look at the news with this in mind and suddenly all the manoeuvring becomes transparent.
"The king [Brunstrom] has no clothes!"
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/515VGRS9P9L....
What we are seeing is in part an internecine struggle within the public services and it is important to see the real motive for the 'change of mind'.
The problem at the moment is that the problem is in the hands of the police, they are the ones that have the figures laid at their door and they are not good reading.
Effectively 10 years ago they lost the battle against the drug dealers, they knew and ACPO sort of acknowledged such.
The answer was as simple as it is bad for all of us... slow incremental legalisation.
This will put the problem into the hands of the NHS... the NHS will have to clear up the surge in deaths from legalising the stuff and the 'Social Services' for the increased addiction levels will also come under the NHS.
The Civil Service call this trick 'moving the social burden' the benefit of moving the social burden from the police to the NHS is that there is no funding change to the services... so the cops get the same amount of money to do less and the NHS hasthe same amount of money to do more.
This is the root cause of this, there is no 'social cohesion' content at all.
It is a bureaucratic sleight of hand.
Look at the news with this in mind and suddenly all the manoeuvring becomes transparent.
"The king [Brunstrom] has no clothes!"
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/515VGRS9P9L....
TheCarpetCleaner said:
But isnt the same true of speeding? Almost everybody speeds and "prohibition" also is not working?
Well at least the raving loony is bleating on about something else for a change...
I'm afraid the whole speeding thing with Brunstrom was political and had very little to do with anything else.Well at least the raving loony is bleating on about something else for a change...
The man is FAR from being a raving loony, he is a very adept political animal.
He lacks finesse though, as his outbursts and clumsy statements show, but by picking on a subject where he could rely on a lot of sheep [no pun intended] to bleat on about speed kills shielding him to some extent, he has been quite protected from his teething troubles with getting to grips with the media and we are going to see a slightly more 'considered stance from him on this... I don't believe that drug legalisation is his 'end game' but it might be... in that case he lacks the ambition I credit him with... he has a an agenda and we have not seen the full extent of it yet.
I've never been convinced that legalising drugs will reduce the crimes which take place to fund buying them.
With all the regulatory, manufacture, marketing, tax and sales costs I can't see drugs being any cheaper if they were made 'legally' than they are when sold on the street. If you look at like for like costs between certain types of cannabis available legally in Amsterdam and illegally in the UK, the costs appear to be very similar. With more damaging drugs such as heroin, I can't see theat trend being reversed.
So we will still be left with dependent people needing to find money to buy drugs. The only difference will be the person selling them. The thought that junkies will suddenly become 'clean living productive people' just because the fix now comes in a proper wrapper and doesn't contain Ajax seems a fallacy to me.
Organised criminals trafficking drugs are just that: criminals. If they can't make money selling drugs, they're hardly likely to shrug their shoulders and pop down the Job Centre Plus. They'll just move on into other areas such as financial crimes and people trafficking, for example.
The current prohibition may not work perfectly, but I don't see that as an excuse to relax the rules, just because the rules are difficult to enforce. Maybe instead of sending out the wrong messages by softening the classifications of drugs, a government could make it easier for people to spend jail time when they're caught in any kind of possession?
As an example, a friend of mine was caught with nine 9 bars of cannabis. Not a small amount, and as he admitted in court, to his credit, he had it to sell to his friends, which is exactly what he does. All he got for this was a curfew (though no tag) and a suspended sentence. It was such a harsh penalty he's still selling the stuff now.
With all the regulatory, manufacture, marketing, tax and sales costs I can't see drugs being any cheaper if they were made 'legally' than they are when sold on the street. If you look at like for like costs between certain types of cannabis available legally in Amsterdam and illegally in the UK, the costs appear to be very similar. With more damaging drugs such as heroin, I can't see theat trend being reversed.
So we will still be left with dependent people needing to find money to buy drugs. The only difference will be the person selling them. The thought that junkies will suddenly become 'clean living productive people' just because the fix now comes in a proper wrapper and doesn't contain Ajax seems a fallacy to me.
Organised criminals trafficking drugs are just that: criminals. If they can't make money selling drugs, they're hardly likely to shrug their shoulders and pop down the Job Centre Plus. They'll just move on into other areas such as financial crimes and people trafficking, for example.
The current prohibition may not work perfectly, but I don't see that as an excuse to relax the rules, just because the rules are difficult to enforce. Maybe instead of sending out the wrong messages by softening the classifications of drugs, a government could make it easier for people to spend jail time when they're caught in any kind of possession?
As an example, a friend of mine was caught with nine 9 bars of cannabis. Not a small amount, and as he admitted in court, to his credit, he had it to sell to his friends, which is exactly what he does. All he got for this was a curfew (though no tag) and a suspended sentence. It was such a harsh penalty he's still selling the stuff now.
Wasn't it 50% of crime committed by the 280,000 class A drug users?
Even if it's only a miniscule percentage of those 280,000 users who commit those crimes, legalising the drug would still not remove the need to commit crime for that tiny percentage- hence nothing would change! Class A drug users would still be responsible for 50% of crime.
Even if it's only a miniscule percentage of those 280,000 users who commit those crimes, legalising the drug would still not remove the need to commit crime for that tiny percentage- hence nothing would change! Class A drug users would still be responsible for 50% of crime.
That depends how greedy the goverment were vis a vis taxation.
The only reason that drugs are expensive is the risk of importation/distribution.
Cost of production is nothing.
ETA: Oh and I would say the number of Class A drug users in the UK is closer 2.8 million than the laughable guess of 280,000.
The only reason that drugs are expensive is the risk of importation/distribution.
Cost of production is nothing.
ETA: Oh and I would say the number of Class A drug users in the UK is closer 2.8 million than the laughable guess of 280,000.
Edited by Plotloss on Thursday 11th October 09:16
Plotloss said:
That depends how greedy the goverment were vis a vis taxation.
The only reason that drugs are expensive is the risk of importation/distribution.
[1] Cost of production is nothing.
God... the 'socially concerned' might just hit the 'fair trade' button on drugs too... light up and keep a family in Afghanistan in weapons and ammo for years!The only reason that drugs are expensive is the risk of importation/distribution.
[1] Cost of production is nothing.
The drugs trade is a big revenue earner , someone may have their eyes on the VAT revenue this could provide .
I just hope that in 5 years i dont go in my smoke free local and have to look around for a table with the least amount of dust on it.
Or even a budget section in the local supermarket "get our brand drugs here" Double points on cocaine this week !.
I just hope that in 5 years i dont go in my smoke free local and have to look around for a table with the least amount of dust on it.
Or even a budget section in the local supermarket "get our brand drugs here" Double points on cocaine this week !.
Brother Mycroft said:
The man is FAR from being a raving loony, he is a very adept political animal.
Many people would think that this statement should be written as: "The man is CERTAINLY a raving loony, BECAUSE he is a very adept political animal."
As far as the definiton of being far from a raving loony goes, I think there is a family of a dead biker who would strongly disagree.
As far as Brunstrom is concerned, I am sure there are many within the police who feel that he has done a great deal of harm to police/BiB relations, and that he has made thier lives harder. He should be quietly shuffled out into retirement.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff