420 Cannabis Picnic - Why So Many Police ?
Discussion
PH XKR said:
perhaps if you live somewhere like the North, but it is very rare I get a whiff of the stuff. Hardly old myself, go out regularly just not to some skank joint which attracts the sort of dole scum that feel the need to smoke it in a public place.
This is hilarious. I know people on £30k, £50k - £120k a year that smoke it and also a millionaire. They live very good lives.If you have never smelt it in South then you don't go out much.
You do surely know that some millionaires like a drink too and so do tramps? Does that make all drinkers tramps?
PH XKR said:
it is hardly harmless, having witnessed the mental damage and dependency caused by "its only weed", it is anything but a bit of harmless fun.
This is the default response from people ignorant of the bigger picture. Someone close to them has suffered from mental health issues, one of the symptoms of which is problematic use of substances. Therefore, oh great White Knight, come trumpeting to the 'rescue' of the tens of millions of other people who consume cannabis in a safe and responsible fashion, with absolutely no problems at all for themselves or others! Please, take away their right to choose what they do with their own bodies, whilst simultaneously exposing said people who are not harming anyone, to the risk of being labelled criminals and locked up in jail, careers ruined all for the heinous sin of burning some leaves...
And what of the massive inroads of legalisation throughout the world? Including the very country whose oppressive foreign policy caused the substance to be illegal in the first place? I suppose they're wrong and we're right as usual?
Edited by vsonix on Friday 22 April 14:22
jshell said:
Seems to me that most druggies are on the lower end of the economic scale...!
So you're telling me that investment bankers in the City are not partial to a bit of cocaine on a night out? Or are they not 'druggies' because they wear nice suits and don't break into your car to steal your parking meter change? wolves_wanderer said:
I've no problem with weed and remember my younger years when a copper told us to move to a quieter area of the park if my schoolmates and I wanted to carry on smoking it, but what are they supposed to do if a great big group turn up for that express purpose? If you're going to do something illegal then don't advertise it, even if the law is daft, police don't really have a choice in that situation.
Because, the whole point of the event is to RAISE AWARENESS of the fact that normal people use cannabis daily and want the laws changed. Being able to do this is the cornerstone of democracy, and we bomb people in order to bring them that, so we should be very, very careful what we attempt to do at home in terms of controlling the lives of Joe Public, if we want to retain any kind of moral high ground whatsoever. 
PH XKR said:
perhaps if you live somewhere like the North, but it is very rare I get a whiff of the stuff. Hardly old myself, go out regularly just not to some skank joint which attracts the sort of dole scum that feel the need to smoke it in a public place.
Skank joints such as Hyde Park you mean?Seriously they were just young people having a good time. I just felt too old to join them.
Why so many police? Probably because there were going to be several hundred people openly possession a class B controlled substance (I think it should be legalised and taxed, but that's not really relevant here). Since that's the case, it needs to be done properly, which means having sufficient resources to offer continences if things don't go smoothly. What type of people were there (other than cannabis smokers?) or intending to be there? Who was going to 'bolt-on'? 'Anarchists' / others who like a bit of disorder? Any other intelligence of people looking to do more than just protest? Who knows?
What do people think should have occurred? It's something where a decision needs to be made. It can't just be looked at in hindsight.
The resourcing fallacy comes up as per usual. 'The police didn't attend my shed break which had no reasonable lines of enquiry, but found resources to police a larger-scale event like this'.
What do people think should have occurred? It's something where a decision needs to be made. It can't just be looked at in hindsight.
The resourcing fallacy comes up as per usual. 'The police didn't attend my shed break which had no reasonable lines of enquiry, but found resources to police a larger-scale event like this'.
Murph7355 said:
I think you're being way too simplistic (though I think some relaxation of the law would be sensible).
Which countries with more liberal rules on drugs have "the least problems". What sort of "problems"?
Holland. Portugal. Czech. Uruguay.Which countries with more liberal rules on drugs have "the least problems". What sort of "problems"?
Mexico decriminalized many drugs that are considered “hard,” including cocaine, LSD and heroin in 2009.
Jazzy Jefferson said:
V6Pushfit said:
I have seen hundreds of peoples lives ruined in this way
There's only one solution - keep it BANNED.
Because that obviously stopped the lives of the people you know being ruined There's only one solution - keep it BANNED.
Good idea mate, let me know how it works out.The law should be enforced. I believe you can technically be put away for up to 2 years for possession.
vsonix said:
jshell said:
Seems to me that most druggies are on the lower end of the economic scale...!
So you're telling me that investment bankers in the City are not partial to a bit of cocaine on a night out? Or are they not 'druggies' because they wear nice suits and don't break into your car to steal your parking meter change? 
king house for a hit. They are, in most cases, a low risk to the rest of the public. I also imagine the use of heroin, crack etc is less in the more affluent classes.PH XKR said:
I'd say thats more over debt and plain stupidityvsonix said:
DuncsGTi said:
So a large group of people openly break the law and the police shouldnt react?
The whole point of the event is to draw attention to the fact that the law is outdated and needs to be changed, which many officers also agree with. As long as no harm is being done to others, why should police be expected to react? Their purpose is to protect the public, not to beat on them. Why is the law outdated? What changed since the law was not outdated?
Aphex said:
PH XKR said:
I'd say thats more over debt and plain stupidityAdam Ansel said:
All drugs should be legal. The state has no business telling us what we can and cannot put in our own bodies.
What if mind altering substances sometimes lead to actions which effect other people? These things need to be understood better before the genie is let out of the box.PH XKR said:
Aphex said:
PH XKR said:
I'd say thats more over debt and plain stupidityCaused by alcohol.
Esseesse said:
What if mind altering substances sometimes lead to actions which effect other people? These things need to be understood better before the genie is let out of the box.
Alcohol is probably the worst for this. Are you suggesting that we put the genie back into the bottle?Surely if something is legalised it is far easier to control its effects than when it is illegal but widely used.
bad company said:
PH XKR said:
Aphex said:
PH XKR said:
I'd say thats more over debt and plain stupidityCaused by alcohol.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff