Drugs in Shetland

[Evil Inky]

Perhaps in these litigious times in which we live - where a gentleman may sue a vehicle manufacturer for failing to advise him that "cruise control" does not act as an "autopilot" whilst he leaves the wheel of the moving vehicle on a public carriageway and relieves himself in said vehicle's onboard facilities, thereby causing an automotive vehicular accident... and WIN said action!!

This is another urban myth, I'm afraid:

http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

[Sherlock]

Mea culpa.

 

That aside (and it was a tongue-in-cheek reference,chaps) it may also be alleged that the idea that introducing a sniffer dog has led to an explosion of Class A drug abuse is equally an urban myth. It may be that increased and often dedicated efforts to trace and apprehend those involved, whether through community intelligence or any other means, have been responsible for an apparent increase in detection and prosecution figures. Then there is the possibility (as has been described in Lerwick Sheriff Court) that some of those involved in this nefarious practice now actively look upon these isles as a business opportunity, bringing with them standard business practices, such as pyramid selling, amongst others.

 

Once again, I shall stress (before the "bash-the-polis" brigade wax apoplectic) that these are MY views and in no way reflect those of any other individual, organisation, agency or public sector body. I trust that makes it clear enough.

 

Your humble (still hypothetical) servant.

[Infiltrator]

^ The issue of legality wasn't mentioned. They're steal drug dealers in the broad sense.

 

You might not have mentioned it - but it's still the fundamental difference between the drugs being discussed.

 

 

Bit wrong there, the title of the string is Drugs in Shetland.

 

Don't think so, the phrase under question in Para Handy's post was 'drug dealers'- if someone will point me to a recognised reference where the phrase 'drug dealers' is widely accepted to include publicans and tocacconists then I'll accept maybe I'm out of touch with modern society.

[shetlandpeat]

Yup, the String is still Drugs in Shetland.

 

As you have read through this string, you will have seen many references to all types of drug.

 

The thread has commented on the harm drugs can do to a small community.

Of course all drugs as these have been discussed in previous posts.

I cannot see what point you are trying to make as we already now which is legal and which is not, that drum is many moons old.

I assume then, if the drug is legal it is ok. Even if it destroys far more families, lives and community safety than a drug that is generally consumed in secret behind closed doors, with the exception of cannabis and more increasingly cocaine.

[MuckleJoannie]

In idle moments, I sometimes wonder if our well-intentioned 'Don't bring drugs to Shetland' posters, displayed at Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness airports over several years (and at the ferry terminal in Aberdeen) have been a contributory factor in all this.

 

Millions of people (most of whom will never come anywhere near Shetland) will by now have seen these and the two words, 'Shetland' and 'drugs' will have imprinted themselves on their consciousness. If I were a drug dealer, and saw those posters, I think I'd smell an opportunity. And as part of any effort to create or maintain an appropriate image for the islands, they're hardly helpful.

 

It reminds of the time I took my sister's partner to a local hostelry. He noted the sign warning patrons not to deal drugs on the premises and noted "They must have a lot of that happening before they feel the need for a sign"

[KOYAANISQATSI]

if someone will point me to a recognised reference where the phrase 'drug dealers' is widely accepted to include publicans and tocacconists then I'll accept maybe I'm out of touch with modern society.

 

http://www.talktofrank.com/drugs.aspx?id=166

Alcohol is seen by many as a more socially acceptable drug, but that’s not to say it’s any less powerful than other drugs.

 

http://ardictionary.com/Dealer/799

Dealer 1

Definition: One who deals; one who has to do, or has concern, with others; esp., a trader, a trafficker, a shopkeeper, a broker, or a merchant; as, a dealer in dry goods; a dealer in stocks; a retail dealer.

 

http://www.ttb.gov/alfd/spectax.shtml

Sample listing of businesses that could be subject to registration as a "retail liquor dealer" for selling or offering for sale alcohol beverage products (e.g., beer, wine, liquor, coolers, mixed drinks, etc.).

 

^Six and 2 three's. Regardless how widely used the phrase is, it is still an accurate definition.

 

It's not you out of touch with modern society; modern society has been, for the large part, kept out of touch with itself and the reality of the situation by the good drug/bad drug labels that many people use for their belief systems, based around that which is legal/illegal.

[EM]

... it may also be alleged that the idea that introducing a sniffer dog has led to an explosion of Class A drug abuse is equally an urban myth.

You may allege that, but I would contend that it is not an urban myth, and certainly not equally an urban myth. Urban myths are tales, often apparently specific, which purport to be true, but when researched are found to be unsubstantiated. The relationship between the dogs and Class A prevalence in Shetland is an hypothesis. As such it would require to be researched before being dismissed as a myth.

 

... the title of the string is Drugs in Shetland.

String? What possible benefit is there in using this word rather than a universally accepted term?

[paulb]

anywaythey must think it works they are after another dog handler.

[Ghostrider]

anywaythey must think it works they are after another dog handler.

 

"They" are a relatively small group of people. Relatively small groups have thought, even believed to the point of martyrdom, many things over the centuries, including that the world was going to end on numerous occasions. Draw any conclusion from that you will.

 

There is no proof of anything, and the opinion of those who do not support the use of dogs is equally valid to those who do.

 

It may well be that such is the "drug problem" in Shetland that were it not for the dogs and what they have removed from the system it would be considerably worse, however it may well be that the use of dogs has shaped the supply chain and market in a way that has put it someplace it wasn't headed before their arrival, and exchanged a "drug problem" with softer "drugs" for one of harder "drugs" and considerably more and worse collateral damage.

 

IMHO the dogs people are behaving highly irresponsibly to forge ahead with continuation and expansion of their "belief", without first providing some reasonable level of proof that there strategy is overall beneficial. They are the ones who introduced the "changes" after all, so the onus is on them to prove that their changes were and are "good" ones. Simply pointing and saying "Look, our dog found that stash of whatever" isn't good enough, that's cherry picking an isolated "positive" and wholly ignoring the whole big picture.

 

I don't necessarily blame the Police for using the dogs, if it saves them some leg work, hassle and paid for time, its just common sense to go with what's handed on a plate. However, the fact that they do use them lends a sense of legitimacy, validity, and value to it that some dog supporters seem to understand to be endorsement, approval and encouragement.

[shetlandpeat]

Maybe we are finer and should use thread, makes no odds, but thanx for not calling me a fool.

[the pursuit of oblivion]

It may well be that such is the "drug problem" in Shetland that were it not for the dogs and what they have removed from the system it would be considerably worse, however it may well be that the use of dogs has shaped the supply chain and market in a way that has put it someplace it wasn't headed before their arrival, and exchanged a "drug problem" with softer "drugs" for one of harder "drugs" and considerably more and worse collateral damage.

 

IMHO the dogs people are behaving highly irresponsibly to forge ahead with continuation and expansion of their "belief", without first providing some reasonable level of proof that there strategy is overall beneficial. They are the ones who introduced the "changes" after all, so the onus is on them to prove that their changes were and are "good" ones. Simply pointing and saying "Look, our dog found that stash of whatever" isn't good enough, that's cherry picking an isolated "positive" and wholly ignoring the whole big picture.[/

Thanks, I think this hits the nail of the debate firmly on the head. For some strange reason a charitable group of non qualified people are bringing some of the greatest influence into the hard drug situation in Shetland.

 

If they were a professional organisation they would be compelled to provide data and statistics to demonstrate their effectiveness. Because they are a charity we know nothing about whether this works or not. Sure it may help find stashes dealers have hidden in their houses but does it reduce hard drug use in Shetland? Because of the sniffer dog charity status they seem totally unaccountable to anybody. It is clear they have affected the illegal drug supply chain into Shetland in some manner. Now has this affect been positive or negative in terms of young people moving into hard drugs? This is what we need to know in order to understand and deal with the escelating hard drug problem Shetland has acquired since the sniffer dogs arrival.

 

Jeez . Couldn't government just train and employ experts on this subject to do this for us?

 

I am sure the sniffer dog charity is run by nice people with good intentions but my granny was a nice person and she thought societies ails would be solved if everyone went to the kirk on Sunday night! Good intentions do not necessarily bring good solutions. IMHO it is so complex it frightens me that there appears to be so little emphasis on using properly qualified people to lead the policies on solving the hard drug problems that have now evolved up here.

[Sherlock]

"It is clear they have affected the illegal drug supply chain into Shetland in some manner."

 

You ask for evidence of this, and hard facts regarding that. Why not start the ball rolling and provide facts and evidence for such an assertion.

 

"This is what we need to know in order to understand and deal with the escelating hard drug problem Shetland has acquired since the sniffer dogs arrival."

 

If you seriously seek to blame the "escalating hard drug problem in Shetland" on the presence of a sniffer dog and handler, I fear that nothing either I or anyone else can say will change your already entrenched attitude.

 

"Jeez . Couldn't government just train and employ experts on this subject to do this for us?

 

IMHO it is so complex it frightens me that there appears to be so little emphasis on using properly qualified people to lead the policies on solving the hard drug problems that have now evolved up here."

 

I am sure the health professionals, social workers and those at CADSS (amongst others) will feel cheered by such a ringing endorsement and support, to say nothing of the Police and courts.

 

In my own humble opinion, it appears to be rather a misled or skewed view to state that Dogs Against Drugs "lead the policies...up here". Once again, evidence or facts to base such an assertion on would, perhaps, be helpful in fully understanding your argument.

 

Your humble (and still hypothetical) servant.

[Sherlock]

EM, one may allege that it MAY be an urban myth all one wants, just as you assert that it IS a hypothesis. I would submit that such things are a matter of one's particular point of view or belief system, are they not? One man's conspiracy theory is another man's truth, and all that.

[shetlandpeat]

We could be forgetting that the drug problem may have already existed, police intelligence systems my have improved enough to warrant more arrests. With the influx of folk from the cities to get away from such problems for some, those problems may have followed. Some drug dealers can be relentless when it comes to such matters, leaving the smaller, desperate addict who sold on to finance his habit vulnerable to this abuse, especially if he had someones powder confiscated by the police.

The larger drug dealers, generally those who do not take what they peddle will look at this as a new opportunity.

The community has to stop these sorts getting by. This may allow the smaller fish to sort themselves out.

What will happen, as does in large airports is someone will send through a carrier of cannabis via a courier, the opiate courier will be close behind. The dog spots the cannabis, bit of a fuss, the opiate courier slips through. This is where police intelligence takes over, this can be helped by the public starting to report back to the police if they see anything out of the ordinary.

There are many facets to this problem.

Again, if you took away the stigma you could go part way, if not most of the way to solve this problem and get folk to abstain from reoffending.

[EM]

I would submit that such things are a matter of one's particular point of view or belief system, are they not?:

Not so. The two concepts are in fundamentally different categories.

 

EM, one may allege that it MAY be an urban myth all one wants, just as you assert that it IS a hypothesis.

One may indeed allege that something is a myth all one wants. That is subjective view. However, when it is stated that the relationship between dogs and Class A is an hypothesis, that is an objective fact. Whether something is, or is not, a hypothesis is absolute and unambiguous, it is not something where alternate views can exist, or which can be debated. Consequently, your use of the expression "just as" above is quite incorrect. Apples and oranges.