"Drugs legal in 10 years"--Brainstorm
Discussion
brunstrom said:
The government wants evidence-based policy; the evidence is very clear that prohibition doesn't work, it can't work, an enforcement-led strategy is making things worse, not better
Funny that brunsy, funny because you say prohibition of something cant work (your pet project of drugs for example) yet on the other you directly contradict that with your zero tolerance speed kills bollox.Are from the planet earth by any chance?....no youre from wales...... god you help you.
You cant have it both ways "DICK".
Complete muppet.
Deltaf01 said:
brunstrom said:
The government wants evidence-based policy; the evidence is very clear that prohibition doesn't work, it can't work, an enforcement-led strategy is making things worse, not better
Funny that brunsy, funny because you say prohibition of something cant work (your pet project of drugs for example) yet on the other you directly contradict that with your zero tolerance speed kills bollox.Are from the planet earth by any chance?....no youre from wales...... god you help you.
You cant have it both ways "DICK".
Complete muppet.
Marf said:
Strikes me that his speeding comments are a professional opinion, and his drugs comments are personal opinion, one I can't help agreeing with.
Ehm yes, but would anyone be interested in his personal opinion on the matter if he weren't a Chief Constable? What strikes me is that apparently a man in his position can be logical and free thinking of sorts on one aspect of law & enforcement, and a completely authoritarian apparatsjik on another...
[quote]His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully-constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them; to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again
[/quote]
[/quote]
900T-R said:
Marf said:
Strikes me that his speeding comments are a professional opinion, and his drugs comments are personal opinion, one I can't help agreeing with.
Ehm yes, but would anyone be interested in his personal opinion on the matter if he weren't a Chief Constable? What strikes me is that apparently a man in his position can be logical and free thinking of sorts on one aspect of law & enforcement, and a completely authoritarian apparatsjik on another...
I guess its one of the "perks" of having a senior position in a national organisation such as the police, it gives you a platform to voice your personal opinion on something you have had professional dealings in.
flemke said:
"Ecstasy is a remarkably safe substance - it's far safer than aspirin," he said.
This from the rocket scientist who said that drifting over the speed limit is like drifting a knife into a person.
Remove the messenger from the message. Such drugs used to be perfectly legal in this country. Further, there have been very few deaths through E misuse, whilst asprin derivates . . . This from the rocket scientist who said that drifting over the speed limit is like drifting a knife into a person.
The main way controlled drugs affect society is through them being controlled, i.e. illegal. Kids die not because they take drugs but because they take contaminated drugs. My opinion has changed from being pro illegal to pro legalising them after years in the Job and talking to druggies and especially ex druggies. We had one ex druggie used to visit our cells in Brighton. Thoroughly pleasant chap, kowns all the problems with H and such having been an abuser but, with the aid of a Brighton drugs initiative, got himself off them. His argument was that legalising them would cause less harm to the users, would not increase the number of users significantly and further, would lower the chances of pushers wanting to reinfect those who've been weaned off. The detrimental effect on organised crime was of no concern to him but from a public point of view must be the biggest advantage. He felt that most people who used drugs wanted to get off them. The way society/the law treated them was an obstruction to this.
Dick is wrong in so many things, and indeed wrong in much of his idea on drugs. The fact that the 'war' cannot be won is of no relevance. The same argument could be used for domestic abuse, murder, and illegal parking. I feel that he is publicity hungry, but that does not alter the fact that many people at the forefront of dealing with the drugs problem agree that some form of legalisation is worth considering. Let's face it, it could hardly make the situation worse.
Every youngster is vulnerable to drug addiction. Policies should be there to limit the danger. At the moment organised crime targets youngsters. Take away that pressure group and who knows what the result would be.
If you study research into drug abuse you will find that addiction is less as a result of the substance itself but more of a combination of the person's, probably, DNA, mental state, current situation, age, environment as well as the drug. There was a fascinating study of American GIs returning from Vietnam who had been what could only be defined as H addicts when in the army but, on their return home, the vast majority no longer wanted them. Many continued with occasional cannabis use but mainly for social reasons.
There is strong evidence to suggest that certain people have 'addictive personalities'. Whether personality has anything to do with it is up for argument but most people who take the hard stuff do not become addicted.
I don't know whether legalising drugs will have a major effect on users. However, I do know that organised crime will be disrupted. Many urban areas are blighted by pushers and users so at the very least, one problem will disappear.
I don't think anyone (even our own, lovely 'my parents were prescient' Dick) is suggesting a WH Spliff on every corner. Supply will have to be regulated in some manner. But that's detail.
Ignore dick and give the idea consideration.
any sane person knows brunstrom is completly barking woof woof grrr, mad as a hatter, hes also an oppertunistic attention whore, fact.
who also wants an easy ride.
fine more motorists for victimless crimes as they are easy to convict.
let off dodgy drug dealers as they cant pin much on them and spend far more time trying, compared to speeding, as an example, so get drugs legalised and their numbers will look LOADS better.
simple.
who also wants an easy ride.
fine more motorists for victimless crimes as they are easy to convict.
let off dodgy drug dealers as they cant pin much on them and spend far more time trying, compared to speeding, as an example, so get drugs legalised and their numbers will look LOADS better.
simple.
You only have to look a the "success" of prohibition in the US to work out that making drugs illegal is counter productive - in any case the present laws are unbelievably hypocritical. Caffiene is more addictive than cannabis, tobacco is far more dangerous than cannabis (as well as being far more addictive). Make ALL drugs illegal or legal - but not this mess. Hopefully Brunstrom is right in this case.
jaybkay said:
You only have to look a the "success" of prohibition in the US to work out that making drugs illegal is counter productive - in any case the present laws are unbelievably hypocritical. Caffiene is more addictive than cannabis, tobacco is far more dangerous than cannabis (as well as being far more addictive). Make ALL drugs illegal or legal - but not this mess. Hopefully Brunstrom is right in this case.
I agree partly.I struggle with the concept of conciousness altering drugs being "rolled out" across the country because of their effects on judgement though.
Some of these substances take a while to be flushed from the system, so itd be perfectly possible to have an aircrew flying 200 people home while not in 100% normal state of awareness and its that kind of scenario which would happen more frequently, because some people just cant help themselves and conduct themselves sensibly and responsibly.
You only have to look at the amount of absolute shitheads who think nothing of snorting a line of coke off their hand or sucking a spliff and then getting in the car.
How do we deal with this? I have no idea what would work. Human nature and especially the F**K YOU! culture that exists in post blair britain makes for a seriously difficult situation for anyone to solve.
Attitudes need to be altered but quite how that can be achieved ( i dont want to see fpn's im sick of that idea and it dosent work either) i cant say but i cant see a free for all being a sensible solution either.
Some people just dont know when to quit, and in any case, would we really want declassification/legalisation to happen wholesale, where the kid across the street is openly handing out wraps to your kids to go smoke in a den somewhere cos "its legal innit?
Ruination lies that direction, the destruction of aspiration, ambition and achievement exists within the nightmare of a population completely smashed out of their heads, too stoned to give a shit about anything except their next upper.
Legalisations no more of a fix than prohibition in this case.
Derek Smith said:
flemke said:
"Ecstasy is a remarkably safe substance - it's far safer than aspirin," he said.
This from the rocket scientist who said that drifting over the speed limit is like drifting a knife into a person.
Remove the messenger from the message. Such drugs used to be perfectly legal in this country. Further, there have been very few deaths through E misuse, whilst asprin derivates . . ..This from the rocket scientist who said that drifting over the speed limit is like drifting a knife into a person.
That is a very fair point, to remove the message from the messenger. Not the easiest thing to do in the case of this obnoxious buffoon, but something for which one always should strive.
I accept that, if all drugs (mood altering) were legal, there would be a lot less small-scale crime (not sure about the organised bit, as the gentle people who operate in that world seem quite effective at finding new business opportunities should the need arise).
I also put a lot of weight on libertarian concerns about leaving an individual to his or her own devices.
However, amongst the friends and acquaintances whom I have had in my life have been one man who died of a heroin overdose, another who died through cocaine abuse, several others whose potentially-brilliant careers were destroyed by using drugs, and others whose spouse's and children's lives were permanently scarred because of the parent's addiction.
I could go on, but it's a profoundly unpleasant subject - and one which the one-celled mind of the Chief Constable of North Wales appears incapable of appreciating.
For Brunstrom (at least acording to this article; I did not hear the radio programme) to focus on the crime-reduction aspect is very convenient for him, whose job is crime reduction. The fact that, no matter how destructive are the effects of illegal drugs to crime victims, their baneful effects on the lives of addicts and their families are far worse, seems to have gone right over his head. Unless, that is, he doesn't care.
flemke said:
Derek Smith said:
flemke said:
"Ecstasy is a remarkably safe substance - it's far safer than aspirin," he said.
This from the rocket scientist who said that drifting over the speed limit is like drifting a knife into a person.
Remove the messenger from the message. Such drugs used to be perfectly legal in this country. Further, there have been very few deaths through E misuse, whilst asprin derivates . . ..This from the rocket scientist who said that drifting over the speed limit is like drifting a knife into a person.
That is a very fair point, to remove the message from the messenger. Not the easiest thing to do in the case of this obnoxious buffoon, but something for which one always should strive.
I accept that, if all drugs (mood altering) were legal, there would be a lot less small-scale crime (not sure about the organised bit, as the gentle people who operate in that world seem quite effective at finding new business opportunities should the need arise).
I also put a lot of weight on libertarian concerns about leaving an individual to his or her own devices.
However, amongst the friends and acquaintances whom I have had in my life have been one man who died of a heroin overdose, another who died through cocaine abuse, several others whose potentially-brilliant careers were destroyed by using drugs, and others whose spouse's and children's lives were permanently scarred because of the parent's addiction.
I could go on, but it's a profoundly unpleasant subject - and one which the one-celled mind of the Chief Constable of North Wales appears incapable of appreciating.
For Brunstrom (at least acording to this article; I did not hear the radio programme) to focus on the crime-reduction aspect is very convenient for him, whose job is crime reduction. The fact that, no matter how destructive are the effects of illegal drugs to crime victims, their baneful effects on the lives of addicts and their families are far worse, seems to have gone right over his head. Unless, that is, he doesn't care.
Mandatory MINIMUM statutory sentences for drug dealers dependant on the class of drugs they are dealing.
Right now the courts are handing out ludicrously short sentences to drug dealers which does not reflect the misery they are bringing upon society.
Small time drug dealers are lazy by nature, many only sell drugs because the have either their own habit to feed or are trying to make as much money for as little effort as they can. The fact that they have no conscience and nothing to fear when caught just serves to make it all the more appealing to them.
Right now the courts are handing out ludicrously short sentences to drug dealers which does not reflect the misery they are bringing upon society.
Small time drug dealers are lazy by nature, many only sell drugs because the have either their own habit to feed or are trying to make as much money for as little effort as they can. The fact that they have no conscience and nothing to fear when caught just serves to make it all the more appealing to them.
Edited by G51CAV on Tuesday 1st January 23:06
flemke said:
However, amongst the friends and acquaintances whom I have had in my life have been one man who died of a heroin overdose, another who died through cocaine abuse, several others whose potentially-brilliant careers were destroyed by using drugs, and others whose spouse's and children's lives were permanently scarred because of the parent's addiction.
I could go on, but it's a profoundly unpleasant subject - and one which the one-celled mind of the Chief Constable of North Wales appears incapable of appreciating.
I accept your point. Difficult not to really. My grandfather died of alcohol poisoning and an uncle, a war hero - and mine of course, of lung cancer and any freeing up of access to hard drugs will have the potential of increasing the possibility of such tragedy. But on injected drugs, I went to a number of sudden deaths through doctored drugs. Nothing more than kids and they died in agony. Even the few ODs were probably due to the fact that the addicts did not realise the strength of the stuff they were taking. I was convinced then that we were wasting our time but it wasn't until I asked ex druggies, victims I suppose, that I began to think that legalisation was the best way. I agree that no-one knows if it is the answer but the pushers used all sorts of rubbish to cut the stuff and these kids pumped it into themselves. Obscene.I could go on, but it's a profoundly unpleasant subject - and one which the one-celled mind of the Chief Constable of North Wales appears incapable of appreciating.
I put a violent chap away and he became a druggie whilst in prison. It was that easy to get he reckoned. Oddly enough, he came off when he was released but by then he'd got hep C. Reformed him oddly though. Didn't beat up any women after that.
Another point that comes to mind. I visited in hospital a WPC who had ODed on paracetomol. She woke the following day, went down to the section house caretaker and said, "I've done something silly." She died about a week later in intensive care but I knew when I went in to see her that I was visiting the dead. I got a bit wound up and did a bit of reading and found that it is quite simple and fairly cheap to make paracetomol completely non-fatal but no one seems willing to make it compulsory. Yet hundreds of people, mainly kids, die in agony each year. It seems somehow all connected.
As I say, I don't think anyone knows what is the best way. However, I think that we've experimented with the present system for long enough to realise that it's killing kids. There's got to be a better way.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff