Police stole my bong!
Discussion
I'm not sure if I was just too stoned the other night and have dreamt it up, but I'm sure I've seen a post that said the OP had started another thread, claiming to have been banned from posting in this one, but that the bong had been hidden by his flatmate before the police came round, so it wasn't actually stolen in the end?
I tried clicking the link at the time but the link was to a thread that had also been banned by the Mods.
I tried clicking the link at the time but the link was to a thread that had also been banned by the Mods.
Johnnytheboy said:
That'll be a no then, I wasn't stoned.
Gaspode said:
This may be true, and I'm not necessarily against decriminalising drug use, but the fact remains that we've been burgled 4 times in the last 20 years and in each case the perpetrator was a junkie.
If a drug addict is unable to sustain his or her habit through legitimately-earned income, they are going to lie, cheat and steal to get their fix, regardless of the legal status of those drugs. I don't see how decriminalisation is going to reduce this problem.
Anyone wanting to legalise it answer this point?If a drug addict is unable to sustain his or her habit through legitimately-earned income, they are going to lie, cheat and steal to get their fix, regardless of the legal status of those drugs. I don't see how decriminalisation is going to reduce this problem.
Mx5guy said:
Gaspode said:
This may be true, and I'm not necessarily against decriminalising drug use, but the fact remains that we've been burgled 4 times in the last 20 years and in each case the perpetrator was a junkie.
If a drug addict is unable to sustain his or her habit through legitimately-earned income, they are going to lie, cheat and steal to get their fix, regardless of the legal status of those drugs. I don't see how decriminalisation is going to reduce this problem.
Anyone wanting to legalise it answer this point?If a drug addict is unable to sustain his or her habit through legitimately-earned income, they are going to lie, cheat and steal to get their fix, regardless of the legal status of those drugs. I don't see how decriminalisation is going to reduce this problem.
fluffnik said:
Mx5guy said:
Gaspode said:
This may be true, and I'm not necessarily against decriminalising drug use, but the fact remains that we've been burgled 4 times in the last 20 years and in each case the perpetrator was a junkie.
If a drug addict is unable to sustain his or her habit through legitimately-earned income, they are going to lie, cheat and steal to get their fix, regardless of the legal status of those drugs. I don't see how decriminalisation is going to reduce this problem.
Anyone wanting to legalise it answer this point?If a drug addict is unable to sustain his or her habit through legitimately-earned income, they are going to lie, cheat and steal to get their fix, regardless of the legal status of those drugs. I don't see how decriminalisation is going to reduce this problem.
JustinP1 said:
fluffnik said:
A legal supply chain will not accept stolen goods in payment...
My understanding is that the drug dealers prefer cash, thus necessitating the addict to trade his swag for cash before making his drug run. just1e said:
I hate the police at the best of times! It is legal to buy and own a bong so how they have the right to come into your home and just take something like that i will never know!
Surely that is theft isnt it?
If i were you, i would make a complaint to IPPC or whatever its called and i would approach it in the way that a theft has occurred. There is no way they are going to do any tests on it so even if there are traces or weed or anything else i wouldnt worry. I would seriously do my nut over something like that! I have a couple of bongs in my house but they have never been used as i bought them as souvenirs when i went to Amsterdam. To think that the police would just take them without any reason is just filth!
Why is it that the police are often referred to as filth? hhmmmmmmm
You may wish to brush up on your comprehension skills. Then you may wish to learn the definition of theft. Once that is done, you may wish to look up s19 PACE as well as S17. You then may wish to read up on some case law. Surely that is theft isnt it?
If i were you, i would make a complaint to IPPC or whatever its called and i would approach it in the way that a theft has occurred. There is no way they are going to do any tests on it so even if there are traces or weed or anything else i wouldnt worry. I would seriously do my nut over something like that! I have a couple of bongs in my house but they have never been used as i bought them as souvenirs when i went to Amsterdam. To think that the police would just take them without any reason is just filth!
Why is it that the police are often referred to as filth? hhmmmmmmm
The police are referred to as filth by people such as yourself in an effort to raise some kind of upset or insult. The problem is that when it is uttered by individuals it often reveals far more about their character and attitudes to life than it does cause upset.
For information, pig, gavva etc as names really don't bother police officers. They equally give great insight into the individual uttering the words.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
just1e said:
I hate the police at the best of times! It is legal to buy and own a bong so how they have the right to come into your home and just take something like that i will never know!
Surely that is theft isnt it?
If i were you, i would make a complaint to IPPC or whatever its called and i would approach it in the way that a theft has occurred. There is no way they are going to do any tests on it so even if there are traces or weed or anything else i wouldnt worry. I would seriously do my nut over something like that! I have a couple of bongs in my house but they have never been used as i bought them as souvenirs when i went to Amsterdam. To think that the police would just take them without any reason is just filth!
Why is it that the police are often referred to as filth? hhmmmmmmm
You may wish to brush up on your comprehension skills. Then you may wish to learn the definition of theft. Once that is done, you may wish to look up s19 PACE as well as S17. You then may wish to read up on some case law. Surely that is theft isnt it?
If i were you, i would make a complaint to IPPC or whatever its called and i would approach it in the way that a theft has occurred. There is no way they are going to do any tests on it so even if there are traces or weed or anything else i wouldnt worry. I would seriously do my nut over something like that! I have a couple of bongs in my house but they have never been used as i bought them as souvenirs when i went to Amsterdam. To think that the police would just take them without any reason is just filth!
Why is it that the police are often referred to as filth? hhmmmmmmm
The police are referred to as filth by people such as yourself in an effort to raise some kind of upset or insult. The problem is that when it is uttered by individuals it often reveals far more about their character and attitudes to life than it does cause upset.
For information, pig, gavva etc as names really don't bother police officers. They equally give great insight into the individual uttering the words.
Stevenj214 said:
Unless the addictive (and crime causing) drugs are given free, in rehabilitation clinics.
So we give all cannabis, cocaine, crack etc free to anyone who wants to take it? Or just those that want off? What about those who are unemployed but love taking cocaine? Or crack?
Legalisation and easy availability won't reduce associated crime. Stands a greater chance of increasing it.
It also means criminal organisations will have to go elsewhere to make their monies.
All legalisation will do is mean that it will no longer be illegal to be in posession or sell. Although you'll have other offences.
Stevenj214 said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
fluffnik said:
It's more likely that a customer dealing with one criminal enterprise will deal with another...
So it won't stop crime associated with addiction then. The problem is that a lot of addicts don't want to.
What baffles me about the pro-legalisation stance is that when we consider the huge medical and social costs of smoking and drinking in the UK, that if we were to legalise other drugs, that not only would magically crime associated with drugs would disappear but we somehow would not have the same widespread problems we have with smoking and drinking but a hell of a lot worse.
JustinP1 said:
I think they already are, for those that want to give up.
The problem is that a lot of addicts don't want to.
What baffles me about the pro-legalisation stance is that when we consider the huge medical and social costs of smoking and drinking in the UK, that if we were to legalise other drugs, that not only would magically crime associated with drugs would disappear but we somehow would not have the same widespread problems we have with smoking and drinking but a hell of a lot worse.
The health issues should get better not worse surely?The problem is that a lot of addicts don't want to.
What baffles me about the pro-legalisation stance is that when we consider the huge medical and social costs of smoking and drinking in the UK, that if we were to legalise other drugs, that not only would magically crime associated with drugs would disappear but we somehow would not have the same widespread problems we have with smoking and drinking but a hell of a lot worse.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
So we give all cannabis, cocaine, crack etc free to anyone who wants to take it?
Or just those that want off? What about those who are unemployed but love taking cocaine? Or crack?
Legalisation and easy availability won't reduce associated crime. Stands a greater chance of increasing it.
It also means criminal organisations will have to go elsewhere to make their monies.
All legalisation will do is mean that it will no longer be illegal to be in posession or sell. Although you'll have other offences.
just as you recommended a poster above engage in some educational reading, i suggest you read about the effects of decriminalisation in portugal. Or just those that want off? What about those who are unemployed but love taking cocaine? Or crack?
Legalisation and easy availability won't reduce associated crime. Stands a greater chance of increasing it.
It also means criminal organisations will have to go elsewhere to make their monies.
All legalisation will do is mean that it will no longer be illegal to be in posession or sell. Although you'll have other offences.
Of course legalisation will reduce crime, the entire supply chain will become a legal enterprise and therefore no longer of interest to criminals, who therefore won't engage in peripheral criminal activities.
If crime won't reduce because of legalisation, why would criminal organisations have to go elsewhere to make their money?
Use Psychology said:
Of course legalisation will reduce crime, the entire supply chain will become a legal enterprise and therefore no longer of interest to criminals, who therefore won't engage in peripheral criminal activities.
If crime won't reduce because of legalisation, why would criminal organisations have to go elsewhere to make their money?
So it is kind of like the argument that because smoking and drinking is legal we don't get counterfeit/dodgy/smuggled fags and booze?If crime won't reduce because of legalisation, why would criminal organisations have to go elsewhere to make their money?
Business will always thrive where someone wants to buy something at a higher rate that it can be sold for. In the above example, the large scale criminal activity is physically only possible because there are a ready supply of users *and* the drug itself is legal so that there is a cover story good enough to cover very large scale activity.
The booze and fags example isn't really relevant because the crims can undercut what is a commercial enterprise with the aim of making profit, therefore the prices are high to start with. If the government were supplying the drugs to the addicts and not making money, then the opportunity for the criminals to make money supplying the goods wouldn't exist.
Use Psychology said:
just as you recommended a poster above engage in some educational reading, i suggest you read about the effects of decriminalisation in portugal.
Of course legalisation will reduce crime, the entire supply chain will become a legal enterprise and therefore no longer of interest to criminals, who therefore won't engage in peripheral criminal activities.
If crime won't reduce because of legalisation, why would criminal organisations have to go elsewhere to make their money?
Show me that burglary. Theft etc saw significant reductions ?Of course legalisation will reduce crime, the entire supply chain will become a legal enterprise and therefore no longer of interest to criminals, who therefore won't engage in peripheral criminal activities.
If crime won't reduce because of legalisation, why would criminal organisations have to go elsewhere to make their money?
If there is no money to be made selling drugs. Money has to be made elsewhere. Drugs are the route of choice for some currently. If that revenue steam dries up are you seriously saying criminals will go back to work in Tesco?
Users still have to fund their use. Doesn't matter who supplies it.
Currently the majority if drug users don't use crime.
However a significant proportion do. Making it legal will not change that.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff