Richard Brunstron on Bebo

[welsh blackbird]

Take a look at this:-

http://www.bebo.com/richardbrunstrom

The man is barking!

[Mattt]

Bebo said:

By legalising drugs, not only can the profitable drug dealing trade cease to exist, but police duties can be concentrated to tackle REAL crime such as [...] speeding

I was starting to agree with him, then he lost it at the end.

[madmat]

As a ex resident of the sh1thole that is Colwyn Bay I have to say his policy on drugs is the biggest load of bull I've ever heard. The police in North Wales don't give a toss if your not in a car at the time. Theft, assault, a general ttish behaviour are perfectly acceptable though especially if under the influence of drugs! This man really should be shot! If he ever points his little radar gun at me i'll run him other and say I thought he was a terrorist!

[Scraggles]

Agree with the guy, if all the drugs u ever wanted were available from the local chemist and priced at cost plus small profit and not say cost and 5000% or whatever it is... then the drug of choice is probably going to be very cheap for someone living on a giro, addicts would not need to spend most of their time committing crimes to pay some dealer £2-300 for several fixes

they tried prohibition in the uSa a while back, it was so successful at making criminals rich and powerful that they stopped it

tried drugs in the past, they hold little interest for me, few beers and some wine are ok

Will probably never happen as the criminals would have to turn to something else to make easy money, maybe even get a job

[mark69sheer]

All this legalise drugs bullshit.
Richard Brunstrom and anyone else who comes up with the 'miracle cure' of legalising drugs really cant see beyond the end of their nose or their low IQ.

So we legalise drugs.

So where does the govt get these drugs from?
Is it to fill the surrey countryside with poppy fields?
Or will it end up dealing with worldwide drug barons. and paying through the nose making those criminals even richer.
If we make it legal isnt it likely that more people will take it up?
so how many of the working populace will then be queueing up for their next fix instead of adding to the GDP.
and when they have decided that a dossy drug fueled lifestyle for free is for them how many will actually give up work and sign on because they can't get a job due to being addicts.
Then there's the problem of cost.
Who then pays for all these drugs and the extra fackless on welfare..er you and me in taxes.
so instead of paying for drugs through crime we will pay in our wage packets.

Brunstrom is a dangerous ignorant egotistical self serving narcissist.
How very obvious he is a Blair protege.

[supersingle]

His smug expression actually makes me feel sick. He needs to be euthanased.

[Derek Smith]

mark69sheer said:

All this legalise drugs bullshit.
Richard Brunstrom and anyone else who comes up with the 'miracle cure' of legalising drugs really cant see beyond the end of their nose or their low IQ.

Dick has a high IQ which would, at least when I knew him, enable him to apply for MENSA membership.

mark69sheer said:

So we legalise drugs.
So where does the govt get these drugs from?
Is it to fill the surrey countryside with poppy fields?
Or will it end up dealing with worldwide drug barons. and paying through the nose making those criminals even richer.

Just a practical problem, easily overcome.

mark69sheer said:

so how many of the working populace will then be queueing up for their next fix instead of adding to the GDP.
and when they have decided that a dossy drug fueled lifestyle for free is for them how many will actually give up work and sign on because they can't get a job due to being addicts.

Probably no more than are currently hooked on alcohol.

mark69sheer said:

Then there's the problem of cost. Who then pays for all these drugs and the extra fackless on welfare..er you and me in taxes. so instead of paying for drugs through crime we will pay in our wage packets.

You, as indeed do the rest of us, currently pay for druggies, and their dealers, their crimes, their medical problems, their housing. If it is legalised the most certain result is that it will cost us less.

What is patently obvious is that the current system is not working. The country spends billions on dealing with the drugs problem. What is required is a different method but the options are limited. Legalising drugs is one.

mark69sheer said:

Brunstrom is a dangerous ignorant egotistical self serving narcissist.
How very obvious he is a Blair protege.

That is as maybe. However, it is the USA that stops us from experimenting with methods other than the banning of them - that's Blair's legacy, not Brunstrom's.

Dick's attitude to roads policing is most peculiar, and rather ridiculous. But this does not mean that everything he supports - legalising drugs is not his idea, he's not that clever - is wrong.

The current system of drugs enforcement does not protect our kids. Legalising them might not either but it is worth a go. It can't be any worse. If you attend the scene of a sudden death where some druggie has been sold bastardised chemicals you might doubt we are doing it right at the moment.

Other drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco, are legal and both are considerably more dangerous per se than the opiates. Kids die because they have no idea what they are injecting themselves with because, of course, they are illegal.

Legalising hard drugs is not an easy option. It has many inherent problems. It has some definite positives though.

[mark69sheer]

I hate to point out the obvious.
drugs in the 70's were dealt with more severely.
Merely possesion was enough to be carted off to the local nick.
Sentences existed for users not just dealers and pushers.

We as you know make no allowances when speeding is involved wether thats totting up for a few couple of mph over trigger speed offences or worse.
Where drugs are involved the backwards bending to avoid jail would shame a troop of contorsionists.
Drug users just like net users who view kiddie porn are just as much of the problem as dealers or child rapists.

of course the problem has exacerbated so much since the foot was taken off the gas in the drug war it has escalated to the point where its become uncontrolable.
The Irony of course and its a bloody spectacular irony is that everyone now turns round and says..jail doesn't work when in fact every effort has been made to keep users out of jail.
When you aproach kerb crawling you penalise the potential 'user' rather than the 'dealer' by stopping the motorist and prosecuting them . This is the way you used to deal with drugs. Now instead in the drug scenario you let the 'punters' go looking for 'tricks' with pockets full of cash and wonder why people keep bringing drugs into the country in ever bigger nimbers when the reason is you have let the market become so huge. Why wouldn't a dealer rub his hands with glee at the thought of supplying into the uk knowing that there are thousands of addicts out there who can wander the streets with cash in their pockets looking for drugs all times of day or night.
Brunstrom may have a high IQ mine is only 138 so I believe Mensa would reject me but that still puts me in the top 5% of the population.
Intelligence doesn't neccessarily mean common sense or indeed an ability to fathom the human mind and think ahead how policies could fail.
Brunstrom is following the arty farty after dinner lets get pissed and put the world to rights form of operational debate I'm sure his Dinner Guests Livvy and Tom would be delighted he can now puch this policy through given half a chance then Simon at Uni can have a few spliffs without worrying about getting chucked out.
The harsh truth is that we need jail space fast and if bringing crime under control means we need 25000 more spaces then lets ing have them. None of this extra 700 places that Bullshit Brown talks about.
If drugs ever became legal in this country I would be on the first flight out.
I don't want to be hanging around when drug use then escalates like bunge drinking did on the advebt of 24hr opening.
I really can't understand why noone can see a parallel in this.
Legalising drugs. Folly of the worst possible kind.

Could I just ask out of interest how many drug related deaths there are in the country?

I think you will find that if Brunstrom legalised his hated speeding the death toll would still be less.

And why the hell should I feel sorry for some 'poor' kid who's just dosed himself a cut piece of shit thats bad.

Are we supposed to feel more sorry for him than some Chav in a Nova who's just crashed going too fast round a bend.

In the hospital does one self inflicted 'victim' get more sympathy than the other then?

Does the junkie whos been stealing to fund a habit and then gets some bad shit really deserve more sympathy than a lad who has worked to save up to buy himself a car legally but crashed it through inexperience get nothing but contempt?

we are all going to hell on a rocket powered handcart.


ETA just checked and I would qualify for Mensa afterall...

Edited by mark69sheer on Monday 10th December 01:58

[mark69sheer]

Its all a farce anyway.

What was the reason for drugs being made illegal in the first place?

Because drug addicts don't make worthwhile members of the community.

So how does legalising drugs change that.

Legalising the drugs would create more addicts.

We have seen how people steal for drugs money anyway so how would legalising that make any difference.

I sincerely hope drugs do become legal because I for one would be the first in the queue to open a shop. Talk about a licence to print money.

If however they are legalised but become controlled and regulated by the NHS then Bingo Gordon Brown would instantly become the biggest dealer in history.

and legalising them presumably doesn't mean giving them away free. so the NHS would be able to profiteer at the expense of the poor downtrodden addict...

If anyone thinks legalising drugs will remove the associated crime unless when legalised they are then made free then they are not thinking properly with both their brain cells.

[Derek Smith]

mark69sheer said:

I hate to point out the obvious.
drugs in the 70's were dealt with more severely.
Merely possesion was enough to be carted off to the local nick.
Sentences existed for users not just dealers and pushers.

Not quite right. In the late 60s, early 70s, druggies could get opiates on prescription, i.e. legalised drugs to an extent. I was at college with a chap who weaned himself off injections with such help. I have no idea why the policy was abandoned. Further, when I was a PC in the 70s, if you wanted to really piss off your sergeant all you had to do was bring in a druggie. I had a refused charge (or told to leave the nick in colourful language) when I took a chap in for possession to Caledonian Road. Drugs were something to opt for when it was raining or cold. It was never a policing priority.

mark69sheer said:

We as you know make no allowances when speeding is involved wether thats totting up for a few couple of mph over trigger speed offences or worse. Where drugs are involved the backwards bending to avoid jail would shame a troop of contorsionists. Drug users just like net users who view kiddie porn are just as much of the problem as dealers or child rapists.

The difference is, of course, that for drug users, the answer is to legalise use. That way the connection with the dealers and organised crime is broken. That's the whole point of the suggestion.

mark69sheer said:

of course the problem has exacerbated so much since the foot was taken off the gas in the drug war it has escalated to the point where its become uncontrolable.

I must have missed that week when drugs were a high priority for the police. Most forces didn't even have a drugs unit/squad.

mark69sheer said:

The Irony of course and its a bloody spectacular irony is that everyone now turns round and says..jail doesn't work when in fact every effort has been made to keep users out of jail.

Are you under the impression that drugs are not available in prison? Do you think there has ever been a case of a druggie being weaned off his habit by being imprisoned?

mark69sheer said:

When you aproach kerb crawling you penalise the potential 'user' rather than the 'dealer' by stopping the motorist and prosecuting them.

And this has solved the problem of prostitution in your opinion?

mark69sheer said:

Intelligence doesn't neccessarily mean common sense or indeed an ability to fathom the human mind and think ahead how policies could fail.

Or, indeed, to show willingness to go for new ideas.

mark69sheer said:

Brunstrom is following the arty farty after dinner lets get pissed and put the world to rights form of operational debate I'm sure his Dinner Guests Livvy and Tom would be delighted he can now puch this policy through given half a chance then Simon at Uni can have a few spliffs without worrying about getting chucked out.

Ah, Dick getting pissed. I assume you have never met the chap.

mark69sheer said:

The harsh truth is that we need jail space fast and if bringing crime under control means we need 25000 more spaces then lets ing have them. None of this extra 700 places that Bullshit Brown talks about.

This country already has the highest proportion of its population in prison. Many people have the opinion that prison reduces crime. Many more that it actually increases it. I don't know which group is right but what I do know is that when sheep stealing was punishable by death, sheep were still stolen. Further, imprisoning a druggies is much, much more expensive than funding his habit would be.

mark69sheer said:

If drugs ever became legal in this country I would be on the first flight out.
I don't want to be hanging around when drug use then escalates like bunge drinking did on the advebt of 24hr opening. I really can't understand why noone can see a parallel in this.
Legalising drugs. Folly of the worst possible kind.

Has 24-hour drinking increased the consumption of alcohol? I'm not aware of any stats on this. I do know, however, that a couple of local landlords have started to concentrate on food rather than booze to make ends meet. They have told me that beer sales are down.

mark69sheer said:

Could I just ask out of interest how many drug related deaths there are in the country? I think you will find that if Brunstrom legalised his hated speeding the death toll would still be less.

If you go by deaths from simple use of drugs, very few. Most are caused through the stuff being contaminated. There are nowhere near as many drugs related deaths as there are from alcohol and tobacco.

mark69sheer said:

And why the hell should I feel sorry for some 'poor' kid who's just dosed himself a cut piece of shit thats bad. Are we supposed to feel more sorry for him than some Chav in a Nova who's just crashed going too fast round a bend. In the hospital does one self inflicted 'victim' get more sympathy than the other then? Does the junkie whos been stealing to fund a habit and then gets some bad shit really deserve more sympathy than a lad who has worked to save up to buy himself a car legally but crashed it through inexperience get nothing but contempt?

I assume you are saying that you can't see the tragedy in a premature death. I feel sorry for those killed by tobacco and alcohol. I felt devestated when Jim Clark died despite the fact that a higher proportion of motor racing drivers died than drug users.

mark69sheer said:

we are all going to hell on a rocket powered handcart. ETA just checked and I would qualify for Mensa afterall...

Well I feel very pleased for you. You and Brustrom have a lot in common. His was 154 although I'm told it can vary considerably.

[10 Pence Short]

Derek Smith said:

...

Whether you legalise heroin or not, it still has to be paid for. As long as people need money for drugs, they will commit crime to pay for those drugs.

Legalisation making drugs cheap enough to remove that problem doesn't hold water, either. The nature of the drug means people need higher and higher dosages to get their fix. The nature of the drug also means even experienced users tread a fine line between ecstacy and an overdose- which is why all new inmates are asked if they know how to deal with an overdosing cell mate when they're admitted to prison.

Even available cheaply, a drug like heroin would need strict controls on purchasing, controls which would be too strict for the type of addicts who need to acquire stolen property to fund their habits now. The desperation for more would soon fuel the illicit parallel supply of illegal drugs once more to cater for those needs. The dependents buying those drugs, at highly inflated prices, would once again be commiting crime to fund it.

And around we go again.


What we actually need to do is make sure that once a person is committed by the courts to prison, they can no longer get or take drugs. If you talk to the addicts who're inside for drug related crimes (ie. theft after theft after theft), the one thing they really want to do is kick the habit. They hate it. It rules them. The sad thing is, either the drugs themselves or the replacements such as subutex are as much a currency in prisons as tobbaco or you weekly canteen allowance. They're too easily available.

If prisons could work like tough rehab centres, where dependents are genuinely separated and reformed from their habit, you wouldn't get the same yo-yo pattern of release, crime and return to prison that blights the justice system and the country as a whole at the moment.

[Mg6b]

Most people nicked for petty crime like shoplifting, theft of and from vehicles and more seriously mugging you and your children for their phones andburgling your houses have a drugs problem!

Dealing with that problem by giving these people free access to their substances will undoubtedly have an effect on the need for them to break into you property and steal it to supply their needs!

I work in an approved drugs testing custody area. Suspects arrested on trigger offences are required to provide a saliva sample. It is an offence to fail to do so. Most people arrested on trigger offences test positive for either heroin or cocaine!

Anyone in a position to influence how someone else enjoys their particular interest or how they behave in society is not going to be popular with members of those groups that are affected by someone influencing a curtailment of that activity (ie drug dealers, paedophiles and those who glory in the art of fast driving in public areas )

Brunstrom has some interesting ideas around all sorts of policing methods. He certainly is not stupid or suffering from a lack of IQ!

Edited by Mg6b on Monday 10th December 10:36

[Bing o]

Mg6b said:

Most people nicked for petty crime like shoplifting, theft of and from vehicles and more seriously mugging you and your children for their phones andburgling your houses have a drugs problem!

Dealing with that problem by giving these people free access to their substances will undoubtedly have an effect on the need for them to break into you property and steal it to supply their needs!

I work in an approved drugs testing custody area. Suspects arrested on trigger offences are required to provide a saliva sample. It is an offence to fail to do so. Most people arrested on trigger offences test positive for either heroin or cocaine!

Anyone in a position to influence how someone else enjoys their particular interest or how they behave in society is not going to be popular with members of those groups that are affected by someone influencing a curtailment of that activity (ie drug dealers, paedophiles and those who glory in the art of fast driving in public areas )

Brunstrom has some interesting ideas around all sorts of policing methods. He certainly is not stupid or suffering from a lack of IQ!

Edited by Mg6b on Monday 10th December 10:36

So we should prescribe H on the NHS?

Heroin addicts aren't really capable of holding down a job that would pay for their habit are they? (except maybe chief constable of North Wales...)

Let's punish the middle classes again by paying what is in effect protection money to addicts by prescribing them Heroin so they won't burgle us...very Nu Labia

[Mg6b]

10 Pence Short said:

Derek Smith said:

...

Whether you legalise heroin or not, it still has to be paid for. As long as people need money for drugs, they will commit crime to pay for those drugs.

It's relatively cheap to produce compared with the costs of the social problems it causes in its effects on society, trying to stop people using it through legislation and then dealing with the rehabilitation of them.

10 pence short said:

Legalisation making drugs cheap enough to remove that problem doesn't hold water, either. The nature of the drug means people need higher and higher dosages to get their fix.

There are many more people addicted and suffering from alcohol problems than there are illegal drugs. This behaviour however does not stretch to the majority of the population. I think you will find if drugs are legalised as they currently are being in certain experiments where doctors and nurses can prescribe heroin and cocaine to addicts, the numbers attracted to their use will not increase. I have never used it. I would never use it if it became legal to do so. I simply don't want it!

10 pence short said:

The nature of the drug also means even experienced users tread a fine line between ecstacy and an overdose- which is why all new inmates are asked if they know how to deal with an overdosing cell mate when they're admitted to prison.

You could say exactly the same about alcohol. This has the potential to kill just as easily when overdoses of alcohol cause people to take greater risks and have accidents because they indulge in behaviour that limits their natural inhibitions and cautiousness. Taking an excess amount of alcohol alone can kill through stopping vital bodily functions or people who vomit and choke on it.

10 pence short said:

Even available cheaply, a drug like heroin would need strict controls on purchasing, controls which would be too strict for the type of addicts who need to acquire stolen property to fund their habits now.

Experiments are currently happening where proper manufactured medicinal doses of both heroin and cocaine are being issued to addicts under supervision of doctors and nurses at local GP surgery's. This takes out the lottery of what a dealer cuts his gear with to make it go further!

10 pence short said:

The desperation for more would soon fuel the illicit parallel supply of illegal drugs once more to cater for those needs. The dependents buying those drugs, at highly inflated prices, would once again be commiting crime to fund it.

Why? Just go to the Doctors and ask for some more.

People trying to get off heroin often become addicted to the substitutes like methadone!

10 pence short said:

What we actually need to do is make sure that once a person is committed by the courts to prison, they can no longer get or take drugs. If you talk to the addicts who're inside for drug related crimes (ie. theft after theft after theft), the one thing they really want to do is kick the habit.

Drug taking in prisons is a huge problem. There is easy access t them inside.

10 pence short said:

They hate it. It rules them. The sad thing is, either the drugs themselves or the replacements such as subutex are as much a currency in prisons as tobbaco or you weekly canteen allowance. They're too easily available.

Some hate it but basically taking drugs is fun and when you become an addict, you don't have to worry about anything because other people end up looking after you such as the health authority, the social services, the police and eventually the prison service. You need to do nothing other than steal and collect your benefit then crash out into another place to get away from the problems the rest of us have to deal with.

10 pence short said:

If prisons could work like tough rehab centres, where dependents are genuinely separated and reformed from their habit, you wouldn't get the same yo-yo pattern of release, crime and return to prison that blights the justice system and the country as a whole at the moment.

They are already full to overflowing. Most drug addicts are sick, many with mental health problems before they start taking drugs for whatever reasons they may be. Prison does not make them better!

Edited by Mg6b on Monday 10th December 10:53

[Mg6b]

Bing o said:

So we should prescribe H on the NHS?

Heroin addicts aren't really capable of holding down a job that would pay for their habit are they? (except maybe chief constable of North Wales...)

Let's punish the middle classes again by paying what is in effect protection money to addicts by prescribing them Heroin so they won't burgle us...very Nu Labia

Yes. The costs to the rest of us in crime, social work, health care, prison and rehabilitation far outweigh the costs of giving a relatively cheap substance for nothing to those who need it.

Most children do not pay for properly prescribed drugs and neither do some other sections of society who qualify. Why not include sick people who are addicted to a particular illegal substance. Give it to them like other prescribed drugs that are probably much more expensive to produce and take away all the other hidden costs by trying to stop them offending and rehabilitating them.

[mark69sheer]

Derek Smith said:

Not quite right. In the late 60s, early 70s, druggies could get opiates on prescription, i.e. legalised drugs to an extent. I was at college with a chap who weaned himself off injections with such help. I have no idea why the policy was abandoned.

As far as I am aware we still do this with methadone

Derek Smith said:

Further, when I was a PC in the 70s, if you wanted to really piss off your sergeant all you had to do was bring in a druggie. I had a refused charge (or told to leave the nick in colourful language) when I took a chap in for possession to Caledonian Road. Drugs were something to opt for when it was raining or cold. It was never a policing priority.

Maybe thats how the rot started.

Derek Smith said:

The difference is, of course, that for drug users, the answer is to legalise use. That way the connection with the dealers and organised crime is broken. That's the whole point of the suggestion.

That doesn't turn an addict into a non addict what you are really saying here is that it will then be the state that benefits from the drug addicts money (which he will still have to steal to get) instead of a dealer.
Would I trust a govt dept to run a commercial operation open to abuse? Never.

Derek Smith said:

I must have missed that week when drugs were a high priority for the police. Most forces didn't even have a drugs unit/squad.

again maybe thats why the rot started...allways had plenty of speed guns though..

Derek Smith said:

Are you under the impression that drugs are not available in prison? Do you think there has ever been a case of a druggie being weaned off his habit by being imprisoned?

And there as you say is a good place to start. History allways shows us where to improve ourselves and the lessons of experience put in practice but as each generation takes over they allways think they know better.
Watch an old Jimmy Cagney movie and you will see the prisoner getting visitors on the other side of a glass screen.
Sniffer dogs in Jails would give them practice and sort out what is a definate problem.
If the country isn't going to take the opportunity to wean people off drugs when in jail then it has lost its right to proffess knowledge or capability on anything at any level.

Derek Smith said:

And this has solved the problem of prostitution in your opinion?

No but the point is that law and order isn't being thought through properly why can one supposed strategy for success be wrong and right at the same time?
Why are two opposing ways of dealing with a problems both be the correct way to deal with a problem?
Does the policy of punishing the punter work in Prostitution?
Does targetting punters work. If it doesn't then why do the police keep doing it?

Derek Smith said:

Or, indeed, to show willingness to go for new ideas.

legalising criminal acts to make the figures look better is not a new idea and it hasn't worked in the past. we only have to see the recent canabis U turn to see that.

Derek Smith said:

Ah, Dick getting pissed. I assume you have never met the chap.

Oh he's teetotal like me then. Maybe he needs a couple now and then in that case. He could do with 'chillin' his beans as my kids say

Derek Smith said:

This country already has the highest proportion of its population in prison. Many people have the opinion that prison reduces crime. Many more that it actually increases it. I don't know which group is right but what I do know is that when sheep stealing was punishable by death, sheep were still stolen. Further, imprisoning a druggies is much, much more expensive than funding his habit would be.

I don't care wether prison 'works' as you call it.
If people being in prison to complete their FULL sentence simply keeps them from preventing crime for that period then crime WILL fall.
If prison doesn't reform people then its hardly surprising since they have access to all the drugs they need apparemtly.
Prison will never act as a deterent as long as a 12 month sentence really means 3 months and thats if they even see the inside of a prison at all.
Your depressing answers merely admit you are defeated.
Imprisoning a druggie would be cheap as chips if prisons were subbed out to India like we do with everything else to save money.
Let the lags sweat it out in an austere purpose built Indian Jail with proper bars and security and no chance of drugs getting in and see if they still fancy that life of crime.
Only one in a hundred criminals tried in court actually go to jail.
So how can you possibly claim the detterent has been given a chance to prove it works.
The other point is there will allways be criminals no matter what we do. You seem to be subscribing to the falatious idea that criminals are just products and victims of society.

Derek Smith said:

Has 24-hour drinking increased the consumption of alcohol? I'm not aware of any stats on this. I do know, however, that a couple of local landlords have started to concentrate on food rather than booze to make ends meet. They have told me that beer sales are down.

Consumption of alcohol has increased to be unaware of the current binge drinking problem shows remarkable naivety..or are you just being mischievously ignorant here you naughty boy.
I have no doubt that your local landlords are struggling to make ends meet despite the increase in drinking , This is down to the price battle in the alcohol market.
I live in a prosperous town but it has a binge drink problem.
Pints are available for £1.30 where I live even ten years ago pints were £2.50
and since the revenue allways increase duty with each budget the profit made per pint now by landlords must be almost negligable hance the move to food.

Derek Smith said:

If you go by deaths from simple use of drugs, very few. Most are caused through the stuff being contaminated. There are nowhere near as many drugs related deaths as there are from alcohol and tobacco.

And the lessons of Tobacco aren't enough to tell us of the folly of legalising drugs.

Tobacco has been in effect the last addictive drug in legal use. and as you say look at the problems and deaths that has caused. Teenagers today still start smoking even though they know it will mean they will die young.
So when drugs are made legal do you think that more people will then try them or less?

Derek Smith said:

I assume you are saying that you can't see the tragedy in a premature death. I feel sorry for those killed by tobacco and alcohol. I felt devestated when Jim Clark died despite the fact that a higher proportion of motor racing drivers died than drug users.

Of course every young person that dies of drugs is a tradgedy. Thankfully though that will never be on my conscience. It will be on the concsience of anyone who legalises drugs and the death toll then rises when overdoses claim more lives due to the easier system of getting drugs.
I presume they would be cheaper than dealer supplied drugs otherwise any suggestion that crime will fall is instantly made a lie.

Derek Smith] said:

Well I feel very pleased for you. You and Brustrom have a lot in common. His was 154 although I'm told it can vary considerably.

My head hurts.

Thanks for the Debate Derek.

I actually wish to add that I allways thought the job of the Police was to uphold the law whatever that may be. Dick is now actually going without his remit in actually trying to influence new policies.

He is literally getting above his station here.

[10 Pence Short]

Did you read a thing I said? It doesn't look like it.

Prison now doesn't work because you can get drugs too easily.

Make prison work by stopping the flow of drugs, including the synthetic alternatives, and do some good by cleaning these people up.

Giving dependents free drugs on the NHS is a wonderful idea. Seeming you like to compare heroin to alcohol, why don't we make the NHS supply booze to p*ssheads- it's equal to what you're suggesting. You could even fit bars in the surgeries and do quiz nights on a thursday.

It's hardly the brightest idea on the planet to ask the working, tax paying members of society to pay for junkies to sit on their arses all day, enjoying state payouts and free drugs. We'd all like to do f*ck all for our kicks, I'm sure.

The real answer is to stop being so damned liberal and get these people off drugs cold turkey. Lock them up if necessary. They're already going to jail for other offences so it's not as if it's going to clog up the system more than it already is. And it's not exactly expensive, not giving people drugs. That way, when they come out of the other side, there's at least half a chance these people can become net contributors to society rather than debtors.

[Deltaf01]

If the country wasnt in such a shitball state, people wouldnt need to chase the escape that is drugs and drink, because life wouldnt be bad enough to need them.
However, it is, and they do.
Brunstrum is still a giant cock tho-

[mark69sheer]

First of all.

Dan... Its nice to be sat on the same side of the fence as you for a change.

and secondly.

The only excuses being offered as a defence to legalising drugs seem to be purely that there has been a complete lack of competence and ability to control the issue to date and the answer to legalise is simply an admission of defeat or a way to save money.

On that basis of argument you may as well scrap speed limits because everyone does it everyday.

Edited by mark69sheer on Monday 10th December 11:21

[10 Pence Short]

First time for everything, Mark!

People seem to focus on the legality or otherwise, rather than the fact that the drugs themselves are socially, morally and physically harmful and that's why they were banned in the first place.

Making drugs legal will not turn useless junkies into first class tax payers. It will just make existing tax payers poorer.