Commissioner should be sacked

in a previous life having run ins with drug users and dealers regularly it was clear to me that it is a continuous cycle of misery and crime with no end in sight.

the rewards are great for dealers. much greater than the small risk of being caught...and when they are caught theres plenty more where they came from.
the chance of users giving up using are minimal and an addiction needs continuous feeding.

I think registered drug houses run by experts is a step in the right direction. it works in other places, but I am not so naive to think this will solve the problem.

they would need to be open 24 hours a day. and if an addict wants more drugs than they will offer, then the addict will in all likelihood go and see a dealer again....

it also would not address the recreational user who buys on impulse while clubbing...unless they dish some pills out for users for a rainy day.

this is such a complicated issue to address in a couple of sentences.
it needs discussing and imho comments like sack the commissioner etc are loopy

 

this right wing bile makes you sound incredibly snobbish, prejudiced and arrogant mate...

he might be a working class pleb in your eyes, but he's better than you, because he earns more money than you do and has more influence than you have....and in the right wing world, thats how you judge the quality of a person.

 

A misunderstanding here ...

I think Bradders was employing a little self-deprecating humour when he spoke of being working class. Not that he believes it himself, of course :wink:

 

Blimey Funky, surely it is prejudiced, arrogant and inverted snobbery to define all right wing people like that . What is right wing anyway, just right of Michael Foot , just right of Tony Blair or do you have to be a full on Daily mail reader ?

 

Hey hey hey, let's keep this civil. I mean, no one here is a Daily Flail reader here, right?

 

State sponsored illicit drug assistance doesn't change the basic fact that people addicted to Opiates or Narcotics cannot work. They will still become isolated and subject to prejudice and petty violence.

 

IMO it has to be a good thing to get drug production and distribution out of the hands of the gangs, drug barons, whatever you want to call them. At present all the money goes into the wrong hands and funds all sorts of things. I`m not generally in favour of legalising things just because the law isn't working and I don't want to encourage anyone to take anything but the current system is pretty crap and as the population ages with a higher % of us having tried a few things it is probably only a matter of time before the law gets changed.

 

How can anyone honestly believe that legalising, and subsequently supplying and taxing, drugs would stop illegal drug trafficking and use? Given that there is already a well organised supply chain for illegal drugs, how much tax-payers money would need to be spent to either compete with the existing suppliers or to employ sufficient police resources to eliminate the competition? Given that any legally supplied drugs would be taxed, how much more expensive would they be than illegal drugs? The illegal drug trade would simply be able to undercut the "controlled" trade which would then become an expensive white elephant - one which would have lead to MORE people taking drugs... And, back at the original point, should senior police officers publicly state their opinions about what laws should be changed? No - it' their job to uphold the law, whatever it is. "The law is an ass" - and so is any senior police officer who publicly criticizes it...

 

I'm not entirely convinced by what you say there, JR.

Compare a legal and illegal drugs trade running side by side with a real world example: legally purchased tobacco vs contraband/counterfeit/smuggled tobacco.
When I smoked, sure I could have sought out cheap, illegal smokes but in the end, I bought it from the cheapest legitimate supplier I could find - usually the local supermarket. I couldn't be bothered to do deals in back-alleys and dark 'n' dodgy pubs.

Given the choice, I would say that the majority of drug-users would opt for a clean, legal, trustworthy source over some illegal and unlicensed dodgy geezer. Your objection on financial grounds doesn't convince me.

As for whether legal drugs = an explosion of new, unproductive, addicted population, I don't know the answer to this. What real-world examples can we draw upon?

A top police officer saying that he cannot police effectively what is allegedly a social issue, rather than a straightforward matter of criminality, is someone we should hear from. He isn't offering to make policy, but he is telling us something we need to know. Compare this to a hypothetical situation: a scientist is hired by the government to invent a perpetual-motion machine. Do we tell him that it isn't his place to inform us that his task is impossible or do we listen to what he has to say?

 

On the news just now: Philip Morris, whose European and African headquarters are in Switzerland are going to be laying off a lot of people. Cigarette smoking in Switzerland has fallen by a quarter lately (and is surely still much higher than in the UK). Similar story throughout Europe.

Some of these things self-regulate. Smoking is seen now as being for losers. Legalise many drugs and it would be similar, I suspect. Would being a heroin addict be glamorous?

Prohibition doesn't seem to work. Quite apart from the criminal activity in the UK, you have to think of the thousands who are dying in the Mexican drug cartel wars - perhaps the 100s of thousands.

So do a full cost/benefit analysis and see what it tells you about legalisation. I remember some copper saying that they reckoned that 80 or 90 % of all the crime in Brighton was drug related. The prisons are full of drug-related criminals: all the thieves, users and dealers - and that costs a lot of money. Cut off a source of income for organised crime and you are doing it down.

Notice, I am not saying legalise class A drugs. I am saying that the time for a full financial analysis is well overdue and that nothing should be ruled out. You're not going to win the war on drugs. The only way of tackling it is to reduce the market for it, and the only way to do that is to bring it out into the open and throw PR at it. I'm glad to see a senior copper stand up and say the things that everyone seems to be afraid to say.

 

I also think you need to understand the consumer motivations for taking drugs. These are likely to be quite complicated, but maybe some of them are due to living in an alienating, boring urban environment. Certainly taking hallucinogenic drugs is a cheap and convenient way of having a short holiday.

Drug-taking is a symptom of society. Isn't it about time that that society was truly examined, warts and all and some sort of blueprint for a happier society arrived at?

 

Well, that seems to be a strange interpretation of the case:

He doesn't seem to be trying to dictate anything. He's giving a viewpoint, and a valid one worthy of discussion, to open a debate which is currently ignored by the powers that be.

is he leading his force "in this manner", ie failing to pursue drug-related crime? Where does it say that?

I don't mind anyone disagreeing with him. But I can't understand why you'd want someone at the pointy end of the war on drugs to either have no view or keep it to himself. He clearly has something valuable to bring to the party.

 

What a sheltered life I lead these days! Just had to "Ask Frank" what G13 and silver haze were,:biggrin:

 

Actually this Chief Constable has no power to change or abolish any law whatever. Nor does he have power to set the policies to be followed by his police force, since they are set by the Commissioner. His job is operational management. He is however able to express an opinion on law enforcement matters, based on his experience. That opinion has no force at all - unless people are persuaded by it.

When policemen express opinions, sometimes I agree with them, more often I don't. But I do not see why they should be gagged.

 

He is entitled to his opinion, however, at the rank of Chief Constable, he is way more politician than front line policeman. Sadly, his idea of policing is vastly different from actually how it is. Much the same as generals and infantry etc. Therefore, whatever he does say has to be taken in this context.
For me, no, drugs such as being discussed should never be legalised, we would just end up policing a two tier system, and allegedly we cannot cope with a single tier. Most police officers, ie the ones doing and not the ones talking, would reckon that whilst solving the problem would not be easy, much much more can be done, given the resources to do it. Unfortunately, most forces do not spend anywhere enough money trying to tackle the issue, it is considered by some to be too big a problem to handle almost.

 

Bradders see my post 40.Third link down.Portugal ,Holland is the clue.

Good debate you started here

Magic 1 if ever your in Amsterdam visit a coffee shop and they will give you some G13 or silver haze to try for a few euro with a nice cup of coffee also.Take it easy though as its quite strong.Still if you over do it you will just fall asleep very stoned unlike alcohol that fuels so much violence.

If it remains illegal so be it as its not exactly a problem finding your poison whatever it is.The only problem you face is being nicked for possession.Oh and purity in powders and have to worry about all sorts of shite being mixed in with it.

Plus the drug dealers and gangsters would much prefer it stays illegal too.