Twerto Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 Taken from Here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaflech Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 He said roughly the same thing about the number of drink drivers in Shetland. I don't know if per head of population Shetland has a greater number of court magnets for these issues or if we just hear about it more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 I'm not sure what exactly he meant with his overall piece, but this line, notwithstanding any typos and/or misquotes, was what seriously pissed me off.... He added it was an equal indictment that XXXXXX was safer from drugs in prison than he was in the isles. One little letter, an "r"! Surely if a Sheriff cannot say that someone is 100% safe from drugs in prison, they have by default admitted that whole prohibition/criminality/penalty etc charade in which they are a component part is not working, and if it's not working, to keep on perpetrating it until its either fixed or scrapped is a farce and dis-service to the public they are supposedly serving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 Ghostrider wroteOne little letter, an "r"! Surely if a Sheriff cannot say that someone is 100% safe from drugs in prison, they have by default admitted that whole prohibition/criminality/penalty etc charade in which they are a component part is not working, and if it's not working, to keep on perpetrating it until its either fixed or scrapped is a farce and dis-service to the public they are supposedly serving.Well to a great extent this is true which is why I am in favour of courts trying everything other than prison but at the end of the day there comes a time when the Sheriff has to be seen to be punishing persistent offenders and also seen to be giving those who directly suffer from the offending a bit of respite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiiMan Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 I'm not sure that the Sheriff really gets the problem at all. You still appear to be able to get a heftier fine for a driving offence than for drug trafficking. It concerns me when the substitute sheriff dishes out fines for drink driving that are only a fraction of what Napier gives. I thought justice was supposed to be fair and even-handed regardless of who is dishing it out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandman1982 Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 Is he possibly saying that he's feed up of seeing the same faces every other week in court for drug offences & they only return a short time later another drug offence charge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medziotojas Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 Reading between the lines, it does seem like he's blaming the entire community. Anyway, isn't there a thread somewhere else already dealing with this topic? ...says Mr Irrelevant Poet on the 'Random Windows/IE Message Thread' last Friday night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 I take it to be he is blaming a composite of Shetland, not specifically blaming the drug problem, the close knit community, the temptation/peer pressure/association, lack of possible detachment etc etc, ie it is a complex combination of many things. Hence he indicts 'Shetland' as a sum of the parts by way of abbreviating a very lengthy answer. At the risk of sounding like a pretentious git, I think it shows that he has taken an overview of the situation befitting his post. Or, perhaps I've misunderstood the whole point. [***Mod hat on - And you are right Medzi, I will merge this with the existing thread, thanks ***] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 I dunno, having read the quote attributed to the Sheriff a few times, I think he's swallowed the psycho-babble "no blame" syndrome "he's a victim of circumstance" garbage Social Enquiry reports tend to produce. I fail to see what personal choices of nature in question made by one individual has to do with their geographical location. The vast majority of the population at the same location make personal choices other than those the Sheriff is criticising, and numerous people make the criticised choices everywhere else in the UK as well. It is a total nonsense and pointless statement as it stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyfootballer Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Perhaps it's even a self criticism. He's paid/appointed by society to be an integral part of the approach in addressing the drugs culture. Perhaps he's conceding that the correctional measures he's placed on offenders over the years have not been effective and therefore he's contributed to this "drug culture". I doubt this is it but this is what make's the statment strange. It's like a director of a company coming out and really slagging his own business publically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medziotojas Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Teens steer clear of hard drugs Alcohol remains the “gateway†to illegal drugs in the isles, he said. At last some common sense. I'm fed up with people harping on about cannabis being a gateway drug. Alcohol has always been the biggest problem drug in Shetland and will remain so for some time to come. Alcohol reduces users' inhibitions and may make them more inclined to experiment IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roachmill Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Pub-goers to be tested for drugs Pub-goers in Aberdeen are facing a drugs test before entering bars as part of a crackdown by Grampian Police. The test is voluntary, but customers will be refused entry if they do not take part. They could be searched and even arrested if traces are found. The device can show three possible results: green, amber or red. Customers who get a green reading are allowed entry to the pub, those who get amber are given a drug information pack and those who get red could be searched by police. Police said the device deters unwanted drug dealers. Ch Insp Innes Walker, of Grampian Police, said that as a result of the trial period in October "people had a greater confidence that they could enjoy a night out without fear of encountering drugs". We're all saved I realise they can't possibly do this in every pub and club... and those that are doing it will be the places I'd never want to go... but FFS this is ridiculous. Police State. Nanny State. Big Frickin Brother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxFusion Posted November 8, 2008 Report Share Posted November 8, 2008 considering how easy it is to come into contact with drugs without realising it that could put lots of ppl off going out... http://www.rsc.org/aboutus/news/pressreleases/2007/cocainebanknote.asp Every single bank note from a random sample analysed by Irish researchers has tested positive for cocaine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie Posted November 8, 2008 Report Share Posted November 8, 2008 considering how easy it is to come into contact with drugs without realising it that could put lots of ppl off going out... http://www.rsc.org/aboutus/news/pressreleases/2007/cocainebanknote.asp Every single bank note from a random sample analysed by Irish researchers has tested positive for cocaine. It wouldn't put me off. The Itemiser is already being used in pubs in England where concerns have been raised about the possibility of customers getting a positive reading simply by touching a surface where there are traces of drugs. But a spokeswoman for the SCDEA said the device was able to tell the difference between this type of contamination and drug use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justlookin Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 For anyone that has been using the bull excuse of cannabis causing schizophrenia. It also happens to be the governments only argument for not legalising it, even after the ACMD (Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs) advised them to legalise. Along with the Bekley Council which are an advisory council for the UN. I doubt if anyone has heard but there have been recent findings that cannabis and mental health have no connection. Ofcourse there have been plenty in the past, but a new one out has found that cannabis can infact be used to diagnose schizophrenia. What argument can anyone come with now that Browns reclassification to B is the correct step? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now