Police stole my bong!

[Mr_annie_vxr]

kingmoosa said:

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.

Thus they have to generate that money elsewhere. Are you suggesting they'll do so with legitimate or illegitimate enterprise?

[kingmoosa]

I think the first priority should be the safety of the British resident, his home and property. Worrying about how major criminal organizations will make profit if you destroy their business seems a bit leftfield, ok it may be an issue, but worthy of not stopping the drugs trade over?

[Mr_annie_vxr]

kingmoosa said:

I think the first priority should be the safety of the British resident, his home and property. Worrying about how major criminal organizations will make profit if you destroy their business seems a bit leftfield, ok it may be an issue, but worthy of not stopping the drugs trade over?

Not taking all issues into account. Legalising drugs won't improve the safety. Won't improve the security. Will lead to criminal organisations finding other means ( that will impact on safety) to fund their lifestyles.

You've not quite understood the argument.

I have yet to see any real compelling evidence that legalisation will do more good than harm. It won't reduce crime. It won't save police time and resources. It will less to more availability and more use. It will lead to more dependency.

We have enough problems with alcohol abuse. I really cannot see any financial incentive to add to it.

[cotney]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Not taking all issues into account. Legalising drugs won't improve the safety. Won't improve the security. Will lead to criminal organisations finding other means ( that will impact on safety) to fund their lifestyles.

You've not quite understood the argument.

I have yet to see any real compelling evidence that legalisation will do more good than harm. It won't reduce crime. It won't save police time and resources. It will less to more availability and more use. It will lead to more dependency.

We have enough problems with alcohol abuse. I really cannot see any financial incentive to add to it.

I'm undecided about legalisation but surely it would save Police time and resources? How many drugs raids are carried out? How many people are arrested for possession... taking 1 or 2 officers off the street for however long it takes to process it?

[Mr_annie_vxr]

cotney said:

I'm undecided about legalisation but surely it would save Police time and resources? How many drugs raids are carried out? How many people are arrested for possession... taking 1 or 2 officers off the street for however long it takes to process it?

They'd still be enforcing the illegal drug sellers. They'd now be dealing with other criminality or anti social behaviour linked with legal drug use.

All legalisation would do is IMHO decriminalise some activity with very limited benefit to society as a whole if any. I personally think it will lead to further issues and costs as yet unknown.

It won't reduce crimes against property or persons.

[cotney]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

They'd still be enforcing the illegal drug sellers. They'd now be dealing with other criminality or anti social behaviour linked with legal drug use.

All legalisation would do is IMHO decriminalise some activity with very limited benefit to society as a whole if any. I personally think it will lead to further issues and costs as yet unknown.

It won't reduce crimes against property or persons.

Totally agree that it wouldn't reduce crime against property or person. As mentioned above, addicts at the minute steal to fund their habit, why would that change just because they are paying the chemist instead of their dealer.

However, I do think that whilst a blanket legalisation of all drugs would cause other problems, what is your 'police' opinion on legalising cannabis?

I would suggest that cannabis actually reduces anti-social behaviour (as people are too stoned to go out looking for fights). It's much less harmful to users' health than current legal drugs like alcohol and fags. Apart from politicians' fear of being lynched by the red tops, I can't see much point in the current prohibition?

[GC8]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

I have yet to see any real compelling evidence that legalisation will do more good than harm. It won't reduce crime

Ive only read your post here in isolation; but surely decriminalising drugs will lead to a massive drop in certain types of theft (burglary, street robbery and shop lifting)?

[oldsoak]

GC8 said:

Ive only read your post here in isolation; but surely decriminalising drugs will lead to a massive drop in certain types of theft (burglary, street robbery and shop lifting)?

No I don't believe it would. So its no longer illegal to buy or posses "drugs"...people who take them will still have to fund their habit somehow...unless you also aim to give "drugs" away free gratis and for nothing?

[Cotty]

spitfire123 said:

For those interested, it was a Roor BubbleMaster,

Whats funny is if you Google "Roor BubbleMaster" this thread is the first hit.

[fluffnik]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

kingmoosa said:

I think the first priority should be the safety of the British resident, his home and property. Worrying about how major criminal organizations will make profit if you destroy their business seems a bit leftfield, ok it may be an issue, but worthy of not stopping the drugs trade over?

Not taking all issues into account. Legalising drugs won't improve the safety. Won't improve the security.

Safety will be improved by regulating quality and removing the black market advantage of low bulk low odour drugs.

You won't solve all problems by legalisation but you're not going to add any...

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Will lead to criminal organisations finding other means ( that will impact on safety) to fund their lifestyles.

That's their problem not ours, it's not like there are unoccupied niches in the criminal ecosystem just waiting for unemployed drugs lords to stroll in.

It's far more likely that they'll become tax paying recreational pharmacists...

[ExChrispy Porker]

Hardly.

[Baryonyx]

spitfire123 said:

edit: I know using a bong isn't illegal, but I "used" my bong. I'm an otherwise law abiding student and even hope to join the police one day.

Edited by spitfire123 on Wednesday 24th August 21:18

Hopefully they'll recognise you the immoral, criminal scum you are and you'll never join any force. You're not the type to fight crime anyway, saying as you're upset about your particular instrument of offending being taken.

[eskidavies]

kingmoosa said:

Do you not think it will reduce the need for your average heroin addict to break into people's homes and cars to fund their expensive habit?

no they will still do it as clinics will only pescribe a small amount ,tolerances increase and they will need more, one hit wont be enough,so itll still be sold on black market,also they will be robbing the chemists and clinics where the stuff is kept.

[Mx5guy]

Can someone who wants to legalise it go through the details more precisely of how to legalise it in a way it will solve the things they mention.

1) It will be free in a clinic - so normal tax payers will have to cover the costs? Then you'll get the people who have problems with addictions getting hooked on it and it messing up their life (which you do get now, but alcohol is legal and has a far greater number of people on it, so it would suggest more people would start, not less).

So assuming it costs money (but less than current dealers):

2) People would still be encouraged to steal to fund the habit, but they wouldn't be limited by the price, so could get more drugs for the same money. Which would end up with an overdose. Unless they weren't allowed more than "x" amount per week/ day etc. Then they'd just go to dealers who would provide it as there would still be a market for it.

So result: Still people out there stealing, and still people out there dealing. And potentially a bigger problem since more people would start considering alcohol and smoking (more people smoking and drinking).

The only difference would be is that there would be less rubbish mixed in with the drugs, but you'd still have all the other problems.

[kingmoosa]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

kingmoosa said:

I think the first priority should be the safety of the British resident, his home and property. Worrying about how major criminal organizations will make profit if you destroy their business seems a bit leftfield, ok it may be an issue, but worthy of not stopping the drugs trade over?

Not taking all issues into account. Legalising drugs won't improve the safety. Won't improve the security. Will lead to criminal organisations finding other means ( that will impact on safety) to fund their lifestyles.

You've not quite understood the argument.

I have yet to see any real compelling evidence that legalisation will do more good than harm. It won't reduce crime. It won't save police time and resources. It will less to more availability and more use. It will lead to more dependency.

We have enough problems with alcohol abuse. I really cannot see any financial incentive to add to it.

I think I do understand the argument.

Safety and security of the average non drug taking person would be improved because the need for addicts to steal to fund their habit would be removed, do you not understand this? Legalisation would decimate the illegal trade because the price of man made synthetic drugs would be next to nothing, and natural ones would be free to anyone who wanted them.

I'm undecided as to the bigger picture of whether legalisation is a good move, but on the above I think it's quite obvious, reduce price of said drugs to near zero, remove need for addicts to commit crime, also remove illegal dealers, it's blindingly obvious.

[kingmoosa]

cotney said:

Totally agree that it wouldn't reduce crime against property or person. As mentioned above, addicts at the minute steal to fund their habit, why would that change just because they are paying the chemist instead of their dealer.

However, I do think that whilst a blanket legalisation of all drugs would cause other problems, what is your 'police' opinion on legalising cannabis?

I would suggest that cannabis actually reduces anti-social behaviour (as people are too stoned to go out looking for fights). It's much less harmful to users' health than current legal drugs like alcohol and fags. Apart from politicians' fear of being lynched by the red tops, I can't see much point in the current prohibition?

If you had to pay your chemist a couple of quid instead of £50 to your dealer then that would probably change your attitude towards going out and committing crime. In most cases they commit these acts to fund their habit, not because they enjoy it.

[kingmoosa]

Mx5guy said:

Can someone who wants to legalise it go through the details more precisely of how to legalise it in a way it will solve the things they mention.

1) It will be free in a clinic - so normal tax payers will have to cover the costs? Then you'll get the people who have problems with addictions getting hooked on it and it messing up their life (which you do get now, but alcohol is legal and has a far greater number of people on it, so it would suggest more people would start, not less).

So assuming it costs money (but less than current dealers):

2) People would still be encouraged to steal to fund the habit, but they wouldn't be limited by the price, so could get more drugs for the same money. Which would end up with an overdose. Unless they weren't allowed more than "x" amount per week/ day etc. Then they'd just go to dealers who would provide it as there would still be a market for it.

So result: Still people out there stealing, and still people out there dealing. And potentially a bigger problem since more people would start considering alcohol and smoking (more people smoking and drinking).

The only difference would be is that there would be less rubbish mixed in with the drugs, but you'd still have all the other problems.

I'll have a try...

1) Yes tax payers cover / subsidise the cost of the drugs. I would suggest that the messing up of the addicts lives comes from the fact that the drug is illegal and horrendously expensive making their addiction unfeasible to manage past the short term.

2) I guess heroin addicts only need a certain amount if injecting to get to where they want to be. If they take more they overdose, true. If they do, then so be it, the aim of legalisation would be firstly to improve the lives of those NOT addicted who are being blighted by those who are. Don't limit the amount anyone can have, if you want to drink yourself to death you can, why not the same attitude for currently illegal drugs? This outlook removes the illegal dealers, so you have less people stealing, less people dealing, a good result for everyone else not wishing to be involved.

[Mx5guy]

kingmoosa said:

cotney said:

Totally agree that it wouldn't reduce crime against property or person. As mentioned above, addicts at the minute steal to fund their habit, why would that change just because they are paying the chemist instead of their dealer.

However, I do think that whilst a blanket legalisation of all drugs would cause other problems, what is your 'police' opinion on legalising cannabis?

I would suggest that cannabis actually reduces anti-social behaviour (as people are too stoned to go out looking for fights). It's much less harmful to users' health than current legal drugs like alcohol and fags. Apart from politicians' fear of being lynched by the red tops, I can't see much point in the current prohibition?

If you had to pay your chemist a couple of quid instead of £50 to your dealer then that would probably change your attitude towards going out and committing crime. In most cases they commit these acts to fund their habit, not because they enjoy it.

Except that more people would get addicted, and they wouldn't be limited by cost so they would take more and more (thus becoming useless to society).

[kingmoosa]

Mx5guy said:

Except that more people would get addicted, and they wouldn't be limited by cost so they would take more and more (thus becoming useless to society).

Edited for me completely missing your point, sorry. Yes they may well take more and more, but they will be no more useless to society than today's addict, just substantially less costly to maintain. And I don't think it's a given that more will get hooked, possible yes, but not a definite.

Edited by kingmoosa on Sunday 28th August 19:59

Edited by kingmoosa on Sunday 28th August 20:00

[Mx5guy]

kingmoosa said:

Edited for me completely missing your point, sorry. Yes they may well take more and more, but they will be no more useless to society than today's addict, just substantially less costly to maintain. And I don't think it's a given that more will get hooked, possible yes, but not a definite.

Edited by kingmoosa on Sunday 28th August 19:59

Edited by kingmoosa on Sunday 28th August 20:00

But considering alcohol and smoking then it would be likely there would be more. And how would you run it:

a) Give them as much as they want

or

b) limit them to a certain amount per week/ day

If it's a) then you'd be responsible for their death if they overdose from too much (which could easily happen as they wouldn't be limited by the money), and if nothing else potentially opening yourself up to be sued by the family of the person who has died. Would YOU be happy to give someone an amount of drugs that you know would be likely to kill them? A friend? A family member?

If it's b) then it doesn't fix the problem as they will use illegal sources, which can be expensive etc, and so will result in people continuing to steal.