Drugs in Shetland

[Fjool]

i.e stealing money, selling family items, etc is this the type of thing that could occur as a result of a @Smack Head' being in the family home.

 

None of these things are guaranteed. That it happens so frequently is as a result of an unregulated and sporadic supply chain with 'vendors' who are able to set the prices as they choose; i.e. extortionate to those who need it most. This is called 'gouging' and is prohibited in legal business; but we cannot prevent this with heroin, so the users suffer further and quickly find themselves taken advantage of by the dealers who, quite plainly, have no morals anyway.

 

In a properly regulated environment, much of these problems vanish.

[Guest Anonymous]

I See from sherlocks long winded yet eloquent posts that he thinks we should not bother debating prohibition of the so called controlled substances anymore as each side is to firmly entrenched in with their own view.

Well I think the open debate is good to enlighten folk about what is really happening as regards the use of illicit substances.

Sherlock also states that as a police officer he simply does not care and there for upholds the law without question.

That he follows the law like this I find quite sinister.

What would happen if this was how the government decided to handle the problem

All people convicted of smoking cannabis should wear a cannabis leaf print stitched to the left breast of your jacket.?

 

cannabis convicts are not allowed to use public transport?

 

cannabis convicts cannot be seen on the streets after dark?

 

Cannabis convicts are to be rounded up and transported to a government facility for re-education. (never to be seen again)

 

The law needs to be questioned and held to account, especially when it clearly does not work.

Keep polishing those jackboots sherlock.

[Sherlock]

Droilker, my dear fellow, it is my choice to do my job, just as it is that of a soldier to go to war if necessary, or of a doctor to treat all patients in the same professional manner. It is not my job to question the law, unless I am ordered to carry out an illegal act, in which case it IS my duty to do so. It is not the job or duty of the soldier to ask "Shall I follow that order?" If it is a lawful order, and he/she does so, they will be dealt with accordingly for refusing to soldier, and should not be doing the job. If a doctor questions whether to treat a patient whom he/she knows or believes to be or have been a killer/rapist/addict/merely unpleasant, the medical professional is not doing their similarly sworn duty and needs to move on to another profession.

 

If we Police are to do as you suggest and question the laws passed by the democratically elected government of this country, deciding not to enforce them as we see fit dependent on our personal views, are we not then taking power unto ourselves and taking the country that step closer to a Police State? Where do we draw the line, if you are prepared for us to exercise such a vast increase in our authority? It would seem that you would have neither Parliament nor the House of Lords, nor even the European Court of Human Rights hold sway over the Police. What a trusting fellow you are. 8O It is a very sharp double-edged sword that you suggest we hold.

 

The Police should not be swayed by religion, politics, nor personality, and none of these things have any place in deciding how we should act, in my humble opinion.

 

I took an oath to preserve life, protect property and prevent/detect crime, and to serve the public in doing so. To carry out the sworn office of Constable requires you to serve the law and the public interest. Not YOUR interest, the public interest. If the two are the same, then I have done my duty and you are happy. If not, so be it, however I will still do my job and sworn duty in order to serve the silent majority, those law abiding citizens who do attempt to uphold the law on a daily basis.

 

Please refrain from attempting to tarnish me and my colleagues with fascistic overtones to satisfy your need to take a pop at what you see as flawed authority. It verges on being deeply, deeply offensive and ill befits you, sir. In fact, it just IS deeply offensive.

 

Do not attempt to portray me as some product from Milgram's laboratory or Mengele's workshop, trained to "do what we are told". I do not feel I have ever posted anything or done anything to you, or any other person, to support such a gross and baseless accusation. If you had any inkling of what is involved in the role of a Police Officer on a day to day basis, I would hope you would not attempt to make such analogies. Portraying us all as Nazis is not only offensive, it displays a lazy mindset that is, in itself, bigoted and not prepared to see past the uniform in the same way racists refuse to see past skin pigment.

 

If such laws WERE ever passed, then you would surely be as much to blame as anyone else in that, unless the system of government changed beyond all recognition, it would be a democratically elected government - in which you have a vote - that would be responsible for doing so? It would be the collective people who would have allowed such to happen without protest or outcry. Not the Police. We are not your bogeyman, despite your attempts to portray us as so.

 

Police Officers are agents of the law. Where crime has been committed we gather facts and evidence, from every side and every available source in an enquiry. We then furnish these facts and evidence to the authorities to place before the courts, if they qualify for such a setting. We are not Solomon, dispensing divine wisdom and decisions as we see fit, and it concerns me that you might think that we should do so. Similarly, we are not Judge Dredd, dispensing instant and totalitarian justice on street corners, Judge and Jury, etc.

 

I believe what I said was that it was "apparent to me that to argue over such points is a useless and pointless exercise and leads to intransigence on both sides". I was speaking for myself (I believe I covered that in my disclaimer and use of the words "to me"?). I did not advocate that every forum user should think likewise, did I? Or am I mistaken and were there subliminal messages contained therein, urging you to stop your protests and to accept Big Brother and the State to control your every move and to hand your stash in to the nearest Police station, thereafter reporting to the cells for imprisonment?

 

Please stop looking for shadows where there are none, I do try to be an eminently reasonable fellow, and would ask only that you do likewise.

 

And do forgive and indulge me for being so long-winded, it is just that there is only one of me and seemingly so many of you out there, and I merely make every attempt to answer all questions or points that I see as requiring an answer as fully as possible. Perhaps I should restrain myself from hereon in and merely just say, "Nope, you're wrong. Just because!" Or perhaps not.

 

I remain your (collective) humble (if slightly chagrined ) humble servant.

[Sherlock]

Willies_landy,

 

My fellow forum users are correct, in that it depends entirely on what the circumstances of the specific addict are. If employed and able to maintain their habit, the effects are purely personal (i.e. physical) and appear to affect no one else.

 

I am not an expert on the matter, my esteemed colleague, Mr McConnachie, is the Area Drugs Officer, and best suited to provide a detailed and comprehensive answer, replete with facts and figures. I can only offer a balanced generalisation (which I must emphasise is a generalisation) based on my experience and limited knowledge.

 

If they are in the apparently larger per centage of those less fortunate, they must finance their habit however they see fit or appropriate (bearing in mind the manner in which withdrawal can skew your ability to rationalise and reason what is appropriate or reasonable). If you were to accept - for example only - that each bag of Heroin costs £10 and the user requires approximately (for example) 4 bags a day (some use more, some less), then they have a £280 per week habit to finance. Other things can often tend to fall by the wayside, such as wholesome food, clothing, providing for dependents, personal hygiene, all of which costs money to provide for. I am absolutely certain that the majority of such addicts would much rather be in the first camp, able to provide for themselves and have a "normal" lifestyle, while not preying on others to fund their habits. However if they are in the latter category, such humanitarian concerns tend to also fall by the wayside when the pains and demons of withdrawal set in, and any person they encounter or shop they enter may well be seen as a potential source of funding for the habit.

 

The cumulative imposed effect of such unfortunate souls on a society in funding a habit can be massive, and lead to correlative increases in crime, affecting the "ordinary" folk around them.

 

Not quite the News of the World answer, merely trying to make it an honest one.

 

Your humble servant.

[ArabiaTerra]

It is not the job or duty of the soldier to ask "Shall I follow that order?" If it is a lawful order, and he/she does so, they will be dealt with accordingly for refusing to soldier, and should not be doing the job.

 

The Holocaust was legal according to the laws pertaining in Germany at the time.

 

If we Police are to do as you suggest and question the laws passed by the democratically elected government of this country,

 

The Nazi's were democratically elected according to the laws pertaining in Germany at the time.

 

It's a minefield isn't it? The "Just following orders" defence was thrown out at the Nurnberg trials, and while I don't want to suggest for a moment that the UK today is in any way comparable to the nightmare of Germany in the thirties, it is surely the duty of any officer of the law to question each and every law that they are asked to uphold.

 

I took an oath to preserve life, protect property and prevent/detect crime, and to serve the public in doing so. To carry out the sworn office of Constable requires you to serve the law and the public interest.

 

Surely the "public interest" must come before the wishes of any government, however democratic. After all, while you are not swayed by religion, politics or personality, the government you serve may very well be swayed by exactly those things!

 

If such laws WERE ever passed, then you would surely be as much to blame as anyone else in that, unless the system of government changed beyond all recognition, it would be a democratically elected government - in which you have a vote - that would be responsible for doing so? It would be the collective people who would have allowed such to happen without protest or outcry. Not the Police. We are not your bogeyman, despite your attempts to portray us as so.

 

I absolutely agree with the above.

 

It is our current democratically elected government which is causing so much concern with it's obsession with ID cards, it's DNA database and now the proposal to install satellite tracking devices into all off our cars (for road pricing, apparently), not to mention the sea of new laws which they have introduced with what seems like very little regard for public opinion or civil liberties, let alone human rights.

 

And now, rant over, to address the subject of this thread and quote an earlier post from Sherlock :-

 

An established fact is that Cannabis can often be a gateway drug, leading some into the use of harder, more addictive drugs, leading in turn to increases in crimes of dishonesty. Ultimately, the people at the top end of the supply chains for Class A (Heroin, Cocaine and all their pernicious offspring) are the same as those at the top end for Cannabis. The same gangs and syndicates market and supply these drugs throughout the UK, whether Class A, B or C. The resultant increase in profits these criminals have reaped from the increase in Cannabis use has been ploughed back into the more lucrative Class A trade. This has had a knock on effect, ultimately contributing to already existing crimes which affect many persons living in most areas of the U.K. As my colleague so eloquently put it, Class A addiction most often leads to crime in order to fund the habits of those addicted. Few in number are those persons who can finance such habits and maintain a lifestyle and employment sufficient to feed said addiction (although that is not to say that such persons do not exist). This increase in numbers of those addicted, in turn, affects the victims of said crimes, often hugely and dramatically.

 

This is surely the most reasoned and eloquent arguement I have ever read in support of the legalisation of cannabis.

[Sherlock]

You say you do not wish to suggest that the UK today is comparable to Nazi Germany, right after mentioning the Holocaust and the (allegedly) democratic election of the Nazis.

 

Shall we attempt to keep this thread in perspective and on track, or shall we all just start insulting one another? If you read my post, ArabiaTerra, I believe I already at least attempted to cover the "I do what I am told" Milgram mentality side of things.

 

If I go in to Comet, it would be a pleasant, although unlikely, surprise to find the staff handing out free 42" plasma tv's just because they felt sorry for folk who could not afford it. Instead they sell them at prices guaranteed to make a profit for their employer. Why? Because they do their job. If I go to the butcher, I expect to see hygienic conditions and not filthy worktops, hands and other unsanitary conditions, just because they do not agree with the requisite legislation. Or a garage where they do their job rather than neglect to fix your brakes during your MOT just because they cannot be bothered and don't see the need.

 

So why, when I do my job and try and serve a community to the best of my ability and uphold laws that - to the best of my knowledge (and correct me and provide proof if I am wrong here) - have been passed by, on the whole, decent thinking men and women, on behalf of millions, and without mass uprising, civil unrest, anarchy or populist overthrow of tyrannical regimes taking place, am I compared to and villified as the same class of person who shepherded people into gas chambers and slaughtered millions? Does anyone else see the sheer offensive lunacy in this viewpoint? 8O

 

I have to admit to having moved past offended to becoming a trifle annoyed at these posts.

 

The smug "It's a minefield, isn't it?" "just following orders" bit could be applied to just about any job out there. Perhaps I am a wee bit more high profile (or just an easier target) because of mine, however it is far more important that Police learn the laws and thereby understand how to apply them than to constantly question them. Unless you wish Police standing by the roadside saying to the drunk driver, "Nah, I'm fond of a pint myself, go ahead, mate, drive home". I could provide even more (offensive) examples of how we could stop doing our jobs through questioning "each and every law", however I do not believe in doing so, in case it offends someone.

 

As I said, in my opinion, it betrays a lazy mindset looking for easy targets and bogeymen, that is in it's own way as bigoted as any racist or sectarian out there. A uniform does not a Nazi make. 8O

 

And at what stage of my posts have I ever stated that the wishes of the government comes before the public interest? Damn these subliminal messages!

 

As to my statement about Cannabis, it is merely that, not an argument, although I thank you for your compliments on that account (although I am somewhat surprised not to therefore be compared to Goebbels for my troubles in this current mode of thinking on the forum!)

 

I remain, as ever, your humble servant.

[Njugle]

I sympathize with your possible offence at the comparisons made Sherlock, i don't think that was fair or reasonable at all. It is politicians whose job it is to question and change laws, not the police.

 

If it were the case that the police had a right to implement their own interpretations of the law this could equally go in a very negative direction akin to small town USA, whereby having the wrong length of hair could be reason enough to generate a charge sheet.

 

The police and court in Shetland have been known to exercise a certain degree of leniency at times, i am reliably informed. That is where the behaviour of those paid to uphold the laws of this country can be seen to be serving the interests of the people, and if it is true then they are doing a reasonable job.

 

Let's not shoot the messenger, eh?

 

As a footnote, my memory seem to suggest to me that there may be those in this debate who are crying "Fascist!", after stating elsewhere on these forums* that they advocate the reformation of prisons into labour camps, incorporating capital punishment and physical abuse deemed appropriate to the crime. Pot calling the kettle black, or has my memory failed me?

 

*"Hell on Earth"

 

>

[Guest Anonymous]

Having re read what I put in my last post here , i realize that i have been well out of line on that one and would like to offer my sincere apologies to sherlock and any one else I may have offended.

I was trying to make a point that some laws do need to be questioned but made what can only be described as an ass of it.

I stand corrected and will try and think afore I type in the future.

[Sherlock]

Droilker,

I have always been of the belief that a measure of a person is in their willingness to apologise for an action, and in the willingness to accept such an apology. I can do no less than accept your sincere apology and hope that we can continue to confer and debate as "virtual" comrades.

 

I post here (openly as a serving Police Officer) in order to provide what I hope to be a rational and reasoned viewpoint. I attempt to provide information and a viewpoint that may be otherwise lacking, and which may serve to address and inform issues raised and - in doing so - to fuel further debate.

 

I would expect others to pull me up on anything I posted which was seen as unacceptable or offensive to others.

 

Alas, I accept that we share different views on the matter at hand, and that it is unlikely that either of us will change to agree with the other.

 

I thank you and remain your (and all others') most humble servant.

 

(Njugle, my gratitude is further extended to you for your words over this point.)

[KOYAANISQATSI]

In the absence of any convincing evidence that cannabis is an especially dangerous drug, another justification for preventing people from using it is that although it may not be dangerous in itself, it can lead to harder drugs. The gateway theory is riddled with errors-both of logic and of fact. Many people continue to believe the escalation theory because they would like it to be true. There is one vestige of truth in the escalation theory, but this has much more to do with the reasons why people want to take drugs and the social circumstances in which they take them than with any property of cannabis itself. many people who use cannabis have a general intrest in the use of drugs to change their consciousness. Because they must obtain it illegally they are likely to come into contact with members of the drug subculture who have access to other drugs. It is not entirely surprising that some cannabis users should experiment with these drugs, a few may go on to become dependent upun these, but under the circumstances, it is remarkable that so few cannabis users progress to other drugs. REMEMBER a wise man once said, "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data.

[Sudden Stop]

I dunno, the escalation theory is quite feasible. Think about it in the opposite direction, rather than go up through the drug chain, go down. I doubt there are many cannabis smokers out there that weren't tobacco smokers first. Which ever step in the chain you are at, there is potential to move on to the next one.

[Fjool]

There are many things wrong with this theory; not least of which is that it is just too simple. People like it because it's neat and allows them to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say 'Drugs are bad. Drugs are over there and I'm over here (with my G&T and cigar, btw), so I'm a safe.'

 

Are we so naive to believe that it is truly this simple?

[moorit]

I must admit that I am pretty ignorant when it comes to discussions on illegal drugs. Please excuse my naivity.

 

But, are there many people who start off on Heroin, or do they generally try something else first, like cannabis, then move on to heroin or something consider a bit harder than cannabis ?

[Fjool]

Moorit, most people try alcohol long before heroin or cannabis. Most people stick with alcohol and never progress to anything else. Booze is right up there with the worst of them, but gateway-theorists routinely ignore this point.

 

I would expect that very few people start out with heroin, but neither do people really start with alcohol either. These days they start with TV, computer games, fast-food, ritalin, valium, ...., who knows whatever else people find to have a problem with.

 

Take any activity or substance, someone somewhere has trouble not using it to excess. If it's a problem with too much chocolate, we don't find this sinister, but it causes many problems for some people too.

 

Fact is... people have problems. Some people have problems with drugs. Some people have problems with specific drugs which others do not. For example: Some smokers wrestle for years, others are able to stop on a whim.

 

I don't believe that anyone can honestly say that, any one drug - or other potentially problematic scenario - will, or will not, cause X problem.

 

Everyone, and every case, is different.

[tlady]

Hi, I must appologise that my first post is going to be a rant... but after 20 years experience in the license trade I feel very stongly about cannabis being discribed as a "harmless drug" ...

Of the 72 people on our barred list for various offences, 4 of them were barred on separate occasions for repeatedly smoking cannabis, they couldnt do without it! even after being warned that even out the back of the pub was still "on the premises"..... 3 of that 4 are now DEAD... long before their time...

To keep the facts right of the remaining 68 barred for other offences 4 have passed on, 1 of old age 2 of alcohol related problems and 1 of harder drug problems...

On a slightly lighter note I have passed on my "real life" statistics to the last remaining cannabis addict and warned them what will happen if they dont kick the habit!......