The Legalisation of All Drugs
30 July 2010, 03:56 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
The Legalisation of All Drugs
Who would support it?
Obviously there are arguments for both points of view when it comes to this:
On the one hand, all the crime surrounding the importation and dealing of drugs would be eradicated - that may sound self-evident, but I'm talking about the violence and everything else that goes with it, not merely the acts of importation and dealing themselves. So as a result of that, prison numbers would be slashed dramatically. Instead of all those dodgy folk turning each other over there would be legitimate businesses operating in their place.
On the other hand, at least initially, drug addiction is likely to go up. And it seems most people do believe that they should be protected from their own choices. But why? Also, in the case of increased addiction to harder drugs, there is likely to be more of a burden on the NHS, which would offset savings from the prisons.
Would be interesting to see people's views either way.
Obviously there are arguments for both points of view when it comes to this:
On the one hand, all the crime surrounding the importation and dealing of drugs would be eradicated - that may sound self-evident, but I'm talking about the violence and everything else that goes with it, not merely the acts of importation and dealing themselves. So as a result of that, prison numbers would be slashed dramatically. Instead of all those dodgy folk turning each other over there would be legitimate businesses operating in their place.
On the other hand, at least initially, drug addiction is likely to go up. And it seems most people do believe that they should be protected from their own choices. But why? Also, in the case of increased addiction to harder drugs, there is likely to be more of a burden on the NHS, which would offset savings from the prisons.
Would be interesting to see people's views either way.
Last edited by GlesgaKiss; 30 July 2010 at 04:12 PM.
30 July 2010, 04:45 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Well if drugs were controlled (by the government) then it would cost twice as much as it would for your usual 'henry' or wizz.
Yet it would (maybe/hopefully) be a bit safer and you hopefully wouldn't be smoking tree bark or sniffing shake n vac.
There would be pros and cons to it. But you would still get people selling the non legal back ally stuff that has mire chance of killing you.
The same goes for prostitution. Legalise is, control it, pay tax on it etc....
But you will still have the same problems.
If it could be controlled by a third party, which would be unlikely, maybe it could be different.
Yet it would (maybe/hopefully) be a bit safer and you hopefully wouldn't be smoking tree bark or sniffing shake n vac.
There would be pros and cons to it. But you would still get people selling the non legal back ally stuff that has mire chance of killing you.
The same goes for prostitution. Legalise is, control it, pay tax on it etc....
But you will still have the same problems.
If it could be controlled by a third party, which would be unlikely, maybe it could be different.
Last edited by Hysteria1983; 30 July 2010 at 04:48 PM.
30 July 2010, 04:50 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
I'm talking about totally legal (that means everything), and not controlled in any way - i.e., a free market where companies would be free to sell anything to anyone wishing to buy. Why would people buy stuff from a back alley when it's readily available in shops for adults? If it was imported and sold by legitimate businesses, it would be cheaper than from some individual. Afterall, how would the individual be able to get to the point of selling it more cheaply than a large business?
Prostitution itself is legal in the U.K. by the way.
Prostitution itself is legal in the U.K. by the way.
Last edited by GlesgaKiss; 30 July 2010 at 04:52 PM.
30 July 2010, 04:53 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having nicked the same lad three times in two weeks who is self medicating his bi-polar with amphet and cannabis, I would say "no".
This kid is a complete tool. Last time I took him in, he was claiming to be able to read minds, looking for his staffy in a locked car on someone elses driveway, seeing ultra violet Philipino spiders under his skin, ants walking between his toes, spiders crawling out of his ring piece, claiming to have superpowers etc.
Most of the missing person reports I take from the local mental health hospital state that the absconder has a drug habit and they are probably out there trying to get a hit.
There also seems to be as strong between drugs and alcoholism creating crime in the area I police. There is high unemployment and the majority of drug-fuelled crime is not the dealing/supply but the addicts committing burglaries, thefts and robberies in order to fuel their habits.
I can't see that legalising will improve things as the addicts still will be unable/unwilling to work and will carry on stealing from others to fuel the habit. Potentially, it will just create more and more people of the same ilk.
Being on the front line, I'e seen what drugs do to people and how it makes people act, the results of their actions and the wider consequences of those actions.
It's not the nicest feeling when I have to tell a 6 year old girl who has had all of her birthday presents stolen that she might not get them back and reassure her that strangers will not break in to her house again while she is sleeping.
This kid is a complete tool. Last time I took him in, he was claiming to be able to read minds, looking for his staffy in a locked car on someone elses driveway, seeing ultra violet Philipino spiders under his skin, ants walking between his toes, spiders crawling out of his ring piece, claiming to have superpowers etc.
Most of the missing person reports I take from the local mental health hospital state that the absconder has a drug habit and they are probably out there trying to get a hit.
There also seems to be as strong between drugs and alcoholism creating crime in the area I police. There is high unemployment and the majority of drug-fuelled crime is not the dealing/supply but the addicts committing burglaries, thefts and robberies in order to fuel their habits.
I can't see that legalising will improve things as the addicts still will be unable/unwilling to work and will carry on stealing from others to fuel the habit. Potentially, it will just create more and more people of the same ilk.
Being on the front line, I'e seen what drugs do to people and how it makes people act, the results of their actions and the wider consequences of those actions.
It's not the nicest feeling when I have to tell a 6 year old girl who has had all of her birthday presents stolen that she might not get them back and reassure her that strangers will not break in to her house again while she is sleeping.
30 July 2010, 04:59 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
That's fair enough, but do you really think people would have to steal to pay for a drug when it is many many times cheaper than it is currently? It's a good point that many addicts have no form of income anyway (other than possibly state benefits) and consequently commit crimes to fund it, but the deterrent to not harm others in any way through your actions should much greater and not in any way tolerated. Obviously as a result of this, costs to the prison service would be greater initially, but in the long-term people would be discouraged from stealing, etc.
30 July 2010, 04:59 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if drugs were controlled (by the government) then it would cost twice as much as it would for your usual 'henry' or wizz.
Yet it would (maybe/hopefully) be a bit safer and you hopefully wouldn't be smoking tree bark or sniffing shake n vac.
There would be pros and cons to it. But you would still get people selling the non legal back ally stuff that has mire chance of killing you.
The same goes for prostitution. Legalise is, control it, pay tax on it etc....
But you will still have the same problems.
If it could be controlled by a third party, which would be unlikely, maybe it could be different.
Yet it would (maybe/hopefully) be a bit safer and you hopefully wouldn't be smoking tree bark or sniffing shake n vac.
There would be pros and cons to it. But you would still get people selling the non legal back ally stuff that has mire chance of killing you.
The same goes for prostitution. Legalise is, control it, pay tax on it etc....
But you will still have the same problems.
If it could be controlled by a third party, which would be unlikely, maybe it could be different.
If the supply was legalised and the price dropped then all that would happen is that the user would simply buy more and take more, most likely resulting in an overdose.
Then again, overdosing could be a useful form of natural selection.
30 July 2010, 05:04 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
I've been inside houses where babies are crawling on floors where the adults have left dirty needles on the floor after injecting. I don't think who supplies the drugs will make a difference if the end user is careless enough to put others at risk through his/her use.
If the supply was legalised and the price dropped then all that would happen is that the user would simply buy more and take more, most likely resulting in an overdose.
Then again, overdosing could be a useful form of natural selection.
If the supply was legalised and the price dropped then all that would happen is that the user would simply buy more and take more, most likely resulting in an overdose.
Then again, overdosing could be a useful form of natural selection.
Last edited by Hysteria1983; 30 July 2010 at 05:07 PM.
Trending Topics
30 July 2010, 05:06 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
I'm talking about totally legal (that means everything), and not controlled in any way - i.e., a free market where companies would be free to sell anything to anyone wishing to buy. Why would people buy stuff from a back alley when it's readily available in shops for adults? If it was imported and sold by legitimate businesses, it would be cheaper than from some individual. Afterall, how would the individual be able to get to the point of selling it more cheaply than a large business?
Prostitution itself is legal in the U.K. by the way.
Prostitution itself is legal in the U.K. by the way.
Drugs like alcohol and cigarettes are already a perfect example.
And yes, I know what you mean about the prostitution technically being legal. I was thinking more along the lines of the red light district.
30 July 2010, 05:08 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
I've been inside houses where babies are crawling on floors where the adults have left dirty needles on the floor after injecting. I don't think who supplies the drugs will make a difference if the end user is careless enough to put others at risk through his/her use.
If the supply was legalised and the price dropped then all that would happen is that the user would simply buy more and take more, most likely resulting in an overdose.
Then again, overdosing could be a useful form of natural selection.
If the supply was legalised and the price dropped then all that would happen is that the user would simply buy more and take more, most likely resulting in an overdose.
Then again, overdosing could be a useful form of natural selection.
But definitely a clear message should be sent out that harming others won't be tolerated. So if they choose to do that they have to face the consequences.
30 July 2010, 05:09 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
That's fair enough, but do you really think people would have to steal to pay for a drug when it is many many times cheaper than it is currently? It's a good point that many addicts have no form of income anyway (other than possibly state benefits) and consequently commit crimes to fund it, but the deterrent to not harm others in any way through your actions should much greater and not in any way tolerated. Obviously as a result of this, costs to the prison service would be greater initially, but in the long-term people would be discouraged from stealing, etc.
Secondly, the *suppliers* would know they were selling to a legal market and thus put the price up. Read the stories lately about how much the NHS gets charged for legal, generic drugs?
Dave
30 July 2010, 05:13 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's fair enough, but do you really think people would have to steal to pay for a drug when it is many many times cheaper than it is currently? It's a good point that many addicts have no form of income anyway (other than possibly state benefits) and consequently commit crimes to fund it, but the deterrent to not harm others in any way through your actions should much greater and not in any way tolerated. Obviously as a result of this, costs to the prison service would be greater initially, but in the long-term people would be discouraged from stealing, etc.
They will still be on benefits and if it being legal means more people, who would normally have been put off, getting hooked and are unable to work and need benefits, then the cost to prisons may reduce, but the amount of tax you pay will probably escalate to pay more and more dole.
The questions I'd ask is do these users have a conscience? Do they care about who's quality of life they are destroying? Are they solely interested in where the next hit comes from? Many of the heroin users I have met take the stuff as they want to escape the **** life they feel they have and are not interested in how anyone else feels.
Only last weekend I had a grown man of 37 in tears in front of me as a heroin addict had kicked his door in, stolen several items and then threatened to come back an stab him if this chap reported the incident to the police.
The addict in question funds his £20 daily habit by claiming JSA, which clearly doesn't pay him £140 a week. That probably explains why he has a record for thefts from dwellings, burglaries, twoc, vehicle interference, stealing bikes and shop-theft. In fact, the first time I nicked that individual, he was sent down and had over 40 offences taken in to consideration.
30 July 2010, 05:13 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
That's the point though, they don't have to. Essentially they are protecting people from their own decisions. Why? If you're going down that road then why not also ban things that are responsible for many more deaths than any drug. Why not ban fatty foods if you're using that principle? Do you see the road that's going down.
30 July 2010, 05:18 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Why would it be cheaper? Firstly, it'll still be under the control of the *market*, albeit legal instead of the black market, and the sellers/dealers will have to make money. And as much as they can squeeze out of punters. As a fair percentage of the *punters* would be addicted they'd be desperate and pay whatever was asked.
Secondly, the *suppliers* would know they were selling to a legal market and thus put the price up. Read the stories lately about how much the NHS gets charged for legal, generic drugs?
Dave
Secondly, the *suppliers* would know they were selling to a legal market and thus put the price up. Read the stories lately about how much the NHS gets charged for legal, generic drugs?
Dave
. You have no understanding of how a market works. Why would they put the prices up? People want cheaper prices so rival companies lower their's so they get the business. Take a look at the technology sector for an example of a totally free market. Why have prices come down dramatically there?And again, if the punter chooses to take drugs, becomes addicted, and pays high prices the seller is asking, then that's his decision. What would the argument be to force the seller to lower their prices if the consumer wants to pay? The seller would be forced to lower their prices to be able sell anything if the buyer refused to pay.
30 July 2010, 05:19 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is precisely my point. If people want to harm themselves then let them. All the information relating to the taking of herion is well documented and public knowledge. People know that's it's pretty much a one way street... so if they want to go down that road then let them. It's pretty much the same as someone wanting to smash their skull in with a hammer - people know it will not end well, so as a result people in general don't do it. Lol
But definitely a clear message should be sent out that harming others won't be tolerated. So if they choose to do that they have to face the consequences.
But definitely a clear message should be sent out that harming others won't be tolerated. So if they choose to do that they have to face the consequences.
In this case, her drug taking has had a major effect on him, even though he doesn't take drugs.
30 July 2010, 05:21 PM
#15
At least there would be a tax take !
I cant imagine otherwise sane individuals are waiting for Smack to be made legal before they shoot up, I was talkign to a mate on Facebook the other night from school and we counted about seven or eight that we nkew that were dead from drugs, 2 sets of brothers and they were, all, to a man, *********, ********* at school and obviously continued the tradition.
I wouldnt take up any new substances even if there were a Sainsburys "Base the difference" Heroin or Tesco Finest Skunk and anyone who did would probably have done it anyway but atleast if it were cheap then they might not commit so much crime.
I suspect though, there are a lot of stupid people out there and it may end badly !
I cant imagine otherwise sane individuals are waiting for Smack to be made legal before they shoot up, I was talkign to a mate on Facebook the other night from school and we counted about seven or eight that we nkew that were dead from drugs, 2 sets of brothers and they were, all, to a man, *********, ********* at school and obviously continued the tradition.
I wouldnt take up any new substances even if there were a Sainsburys "Base the difference" Heroin or Tesco Finest Skunk and anyone who did would probably have done it anyway but atleast if it were cheap then they might not commit so much crime.
I suspect though, there are a lot of stupid people out there and it may end badly !
30 July 2010, 05:22 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No they wouldn't . You have no understanding of how a market works. Why would they put the prices up? People want cheaper prices so rival companies lower their's so they get the business. Take a look at the technology sector for an example of a totally free market. Why have prices come down dramatically there?
And again, if the punter chooses to take drugs, becomes addicted, and pays high prices the seller is asking, then that's his decision. What would the argument be to force the seller to lower their prices if the consumer wants to pay? The seller would be forced to lower their prices to be able sell anything if the buyer refused to pay.
. You have no understanding of how a market works. Why would they put the prices up? People want cheaper prices so rival companies lower their's so they get the business. Take a look at the technology sector for an example of a totally free market. Why have prices come down dramatically there?And again, if the punter chooses to take drugs, becomes addicted, and pays high prices the seller is asking, then that's his decision. What would the argument be to force the seller to lower their prices if the consumer wants to pay? The seller would be forced to lower their prices to be able sell anything if the buyer refused to pay.
30 July 2010, 05:23 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
As I mentioned in my last reply to Hysteria, if it's cheaper, then they will just take more.
They will still be on benefits and if it being legal means more people, who would normally have been put off, getting hooked and are unable to work and need benefits, then the cost to prisons may reduce, but the amount of tax you pay will probably escalate to pay more and more dole.
The questions I'd ask is do these users have a conscience? Do they care about who's quality of life they are destroying? Are they solely interested in where the next hit comes from? Many of the heroin users I have met take the stuff as they want to escape the **** life they feel they have and are not interested in how anyone else feels.
Only last weekend I had a grown man of 37 in tears in front of me as a heroin addict had kicked his door in, stolen several items and then threatened to come back an stab him if this chap reported the incident to the police.
The addict in question funds his £20 daily habit by claiming JSA, which clearly doesn't pay him £140 a week. That probably explains why he has a record for thefts from dwellings, burglaries, twoc, vehicle interference, stealing bikes and shop-theft. In fact, the first time I nicked that individual, he was sent down and had over 40 offences taken in to consideration.
They will still be on benefits and if it being legal means more people, who would normally have been put off, getting hooked and are unable to work and need benefits, then the cost to prisons may reduce, but the amount of tax you pay will probably escalate to pay more and more dole.
The questions I'd ask is do these users have a conscience? Do they care about who's quality of life they are destroying? Are they solely interested in where the next hit comes from? Many of the heroin users I have met take the stuff as they want to escape the **** life they feel they have and are not interested in how anyone else feels.
Only last weekend I had a grown man of 37 in tears in front of me as a heroin addict had kicked his door in, stolen several items and then threatened to come back an stab him if this chap reported the incident to the police.
The addict in question funds his £20 daily habit by claiming JSA, which clearly doesn't pay him £140 a week. That probably explains why he has a record for thefts from dwellings, burglaries, twoc, vehicle interference, stealing bikes and shop-theft. In fact, the first time I nicked that individual, he was sent down and had over 40 offences taken in to consideration.
Last edited by GlesgaKiss; 30 July 2010 at 05:27 PM.
30 July 2010, 05:26 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Wouldn't we have a situation similar to that of branding? Audi cocaine versus Tesco value cocaine. One costs a lot more and is probably better manufactured with higher quality ingredients while the other one uses lesser quality ingredients to enable them to sell at a much cheaper price but still make a healthy profit?
30 July 2010, 05:29 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He consumed just short of a kilogram of some of the purest caffeine you can get off the internet, then his heart just failed.
It may not be illegal, but it sure ended badly.
30 July 2010, 05:35 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can imagine the stuff you've seen being on the beat, but as for benefits going up, why would they? If these people are sent to prison they should have no drugs... all they need is food to survive, they shouldn't have any consumer items whatsoever. So they will be forced to go cold turkey, which sounds harsh, but again it is a consequence of their actions. And who is anyone to say they someone should be mollycoddled in adult life and protected from harming themselves?
I don't think they are bothered about the quality they are taking, more the quantity they can get.
30 July 2010, 05:52 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Again, I see what you're saying, but they don't go cold turkey in prison, they simply go on to methadone instead. Once they are released they staff on methadone, but when they don't bother picking up their prescription, they turn straight back to heroin for the hit and I think we've established how they pay for that....
I don't think they are bothered about the quality they are taking, more the quantity they can get.
I don't think they are bothered about the quality they are taking, more the quantity they can get.
If they don't want to pay for the quality then that's up to them. If a company brought out a new brand of orange juice that was only 1p per can, but which killed 1 in 5 of the people who drank it, would this brand take over the world and kill everyone because people still wanted to buy it for its low price over other orange juice that wouldn't kill you?
30 July 2010, 05:56 PM
#23
I recently spent an evening taking statements for submission to the coroner as a result of a lad who was eating pure caffeine by the tablespoon.
He consumed just short of a kilogram of some of the purest caffeine you can get off the internet, then his heart just failed.
It may not be illegal, but it sure ended badly.
He consumed just short of a kilogram of some of the purest caffeine you can get off the internet, then his heart just failed.
It may not be illegal, but it sure ended badly.
You could say fast cars should be banned because everyone will be doing a million miles per hour. Or alcohol should be banned because everyone will become alcoholics. Or burgers should be banned because everyone will become fat. Or knives should be banned because everyone will get stabbed. Or drugs should be banned because of blah blah blah.
Fact is people enjoy a responsible spirited blast every now and again. Or a couple of bottles of wine of an evening. Or a fat juicy burger a couple of times a week. Or a shiny new chefs knife. Or a couple of fat lines before hitting the club followed by a cheeky half while in the mood.
It doesn't make people into dangerous criminals or suicide statistics.
Seeing as you seem to be talking in broad generalisations today... IMO the trouble with the police today is that some of them spend so much time dealing with **** they can no longer differentiate between the good people and bad...
30 July 2010, 06:07 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
30 July 2010, 06:08 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: pencoed s wales
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be tempted to yes legalise everything with a few caveats.
Govt supply with known strengths and purity levels(vital as a large majority of physical problems come from additives to bulk weight/profit)
A licence required to purchase and prove 'entilement' to be in posession
Total zero tolerance toward 'street dealers' with minimum prison sentences and fines.
cheers richie
Govt supply with known strengths and purity levels(vital as a large majority of physical problems come from additives to bulk weight/profit)
A licence required to purchase and prove 'entilement' to be in posession
Total zero tolerance toward 'street dealers' with minimum prison sentences and fines.
cheers richie
30 July 2010, 06:08 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: pencoed s wales
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bloody double post and no intoxicants(bar sleep depravation) on board 
Last edited by richieh; 30 July 2010 at 06:12 PM. Reason: I B can't be bothered to sort out long standing issues
30 July 2010, 06:16 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But, but...
You could say fast cars should be banned because everyone will be doing a million miles per hour. Or alcohol should be banned because everyone will become alcoholics. Or burgers should be banned because everyone will become fat. Or knives should be banned because everyone will get stabbed. Or drugs should be banned because of blah blah blah.
Fact is people enjoy a responsible spirited blast every now and again. Or a couple of bottles of wine of an evening. Or a fat juicy burger a couple of times a week. Or a shiny new chefs knife. Or a couple of fat lines before hitting the club followed by a cheeky half while in the mood.
It doesn't make people into dangerous criminals or suicide statistics.
Seeing as you seem to be talking in broad generalisations today... IMO the trouble with the police today is that some of them spend so much time dealing with **** they can no longer differentiate between the good people and bad...
You could say fast cars should be banned because everyone will be doing a million miles per hour. Or alcohol should be banned because everyone will become alcoholics. Or burgers should be banned because everyone will become fat. Or knives should be banned because everyone will get stabbed. Or drugs should be banned because of blah blah blah.
Fact is people enjoy a responsible spirited blast every now and again. Or a couple of bottles of wine of an evening. Or a fat juicy burger a couple of times a week. Or a shiny new chefs knife. Or a couple of fat lines before hitting the club followed by a cheeky half while in the mood.
It doesn't make people into dangerous criminals or suicide statistics.
Seeing as you seem to be talking in broad generalisations today... IMO the trouble with the police today is that some of them spend so much time dealing with **** they can no longer differentiate between the good people and bad...
I've given real examples of people who are known criminals, I've also explained how I've dealt with people who have been victims of crimes and also how I've dealt with the fella who's girlfriend died as a result of drugs, but he isn't a criminal or on drugs. I've given an example of someone overdosing on caffeine, I did not state he was a criminal.
I treat all victims as victims, no matter if they have a drink problem, take drugs, have a criminal past or just a bad haircut.
The other thing to consider is, if there weren't so many criminals, we'd have more time to spend with the 'good' people (as you refer to them) when they need us. Please elaborate on what the differences are between a good and bad person.
Would you class someone who is speeding on his way home after a couple of bottles of wine, a couple of fat lines, a cheeky half with a knife in his possession a good or bad person? Is he dangerous or not and why or why not?
30 July 2010, 06:30 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
You could say all of those things, and I think you'll find laws relating to all of them. But that isn't the point of this thread.
I've given real examples of people who are known criminals, I've also explained how I've dealt with people who have been victims of crimes and also how I've dealt with the fella who's girlfriend died as a result of drugs, but he isn't a criminal or on drugs. I've given an example of someone overdosing on caffeine, I did not state he was a criminal.
I treat all victims as victims, no matter if they have a drink problem, take drugs, have a criminal past or just a bad haircut.
The other thing to consider is, if there weren't so many criminals, we'd have more time to spend with the 'good' people (as you refer to them) when they need us. Please elaborate on what the differences are between a good and bad person.
Would you class someone who is speeding on his way home after a couple of bottles of wine, a couple of fat lines, a cheeky half with a knife in his possession a good or bad person? Is he dangerous or not and why or why not?
I've given real examples of people who are known criminals, I've also explained how I've dealt with people who have been victims of crimes and also how I've dealt with the fella who's girlfriend died as a result of drugs, but he isn't a criminal or on drugs. I've given an example of someone overdosing on caffeine, I did not state he was a criminal.
I treat all victims as victims, no matter if they have a drink problem, take drugs, have a criminal past or just a bad haircut.
The other thing to consider is, if there weren't so many criminals, we'd have more time to spend with the 'good' people (as you refer to them) when they need us. Please elaborate on what the differences are between a good and bad person.
Would you class someone who is speeding on his way home after a couple of bottles of wine, a couple of fat lines, a cheeky half with a knife in his possession a good or bad person? Is he dangerous or not and why or why not?
. Do you think drink driving being legal, but a strong punishment for actually causing harm to others as a result of that, would do the same job as actually having drink driving as a crime itself? Or do you not think that would be as effective? Same could be said for any motoring-related crime: instead of having speed laws, make people realise that they'll be severely punished for causing harm to others as a result of it. The responsibility would then be on them to decide how to drive.
30 July 2010, 06:55 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC Portugal has gone down this route.
The worry was that addiction would rise and the country become a haven for addicts. Neither has happened and drug use has fallen.
But I believe EC law would prevent UK from taking this action.
If more countries did this then the worldwide consequence would be enormous if the poppy industry became worthless, for example.
It would take a brave government though and the general, non using public, wouldn't understand.
dl
The worry was that addiction would rise and the country become a haven for addicts. Neither has happened and drug use has fallen.
But I believe EC law would prevent UK from taking this action.
If more countries did this then the worldwide consequence would be enormous if the poppy industry became worthless, for example.
It would take a brave government though and the general, non using public, wouldn't understand.
dl