khitajrah Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 You seem to be arguing with yourself over what you want for us. you people I don't fall into either camp, I'm neither for nor against the legalisation of drugs. When I finally did come into this debate, what was it... 18 pages into it... I was merely commenting that I thought the Shetland News article was illustrating a poor argument for the legalisation of the stuff. Perhaps I should have just kept my opinions to myself, as I usually do. You people = not myself or my nearest and dearest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khitajrah Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 I worry what will happen to my children as they get older as well and want to experience the street for themselves. The street poses more threats than just drugs. I moved out of Lerwick because of dodgy dealings on my street. Again, there was more going on than just a few small-time dealers. I spent the better part of two years being stalked. I just generally stay home now with the door always locked. If only all those cops were there instead of wasting time and money chasing down everyone with a lump of blo in their pocket. They were there, and often very quickly. Unfortunately it appears to be perfectly legal to stalk someone in Shetland as long as they don't come outright and tell you they are going to kill you. The stalker had a wrist slap a few times which was all they could really do. I'm not bothered with interacting with society anymore really. No, I don't feel very safe at all. You seem to suffer some form of obscure paranoia. I do hope you find something that helps you chill a bit.You are more than welcome to nip round for a coffee anytime if you are looking for somewhere you can relax and feel safe.As long as the cops don't come and bust the door in that is. Thank you Dr. Koyaanisqatsi, I'll be sure to get that checked out. Maybe they could use me a guinea pig for their pharmaceuticals. I'll pass on the coffee, although that's kind of you to offer, your passion behind your posts in regards to various conspiracy theories (see many other threads) would be a tad intimidating for someone as delicate as myself. Also, in your infinite wisdom, what could you possibly gain from associating with an ignoramus such as myself. ps. And no, my not feeling very safe has nothing to do with drugs. I shall step out of this debate before I get picked apart any more. Good luck with your fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 And now, appearing for one day only in the Independent News paper, to shock, stun and amaze you, I give you former Chief Constable of Grampian Police, Dr Ian Oliver with his astounding "Case for Prohibition" ( Give him a big hand, Ladies and Gentlemen) http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/ian-oliver-legalising-drugs-would-only-make-matters-worse-901789.html?startindex=0 This is the one I like:"The cumulative effects of prohibition and interdiction, combined with education and treatment during 100 years of International Drug Control, have had a significant impact in stemming the drug problem."Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 One of the more sensible comments on the article mentioned above:"you don't need justification for legalisation, you need justificiation for criminalisation." (SH) Bravo! Good to see someone with some sense at last. If I could expand that a little: In a free society, everything not specifically forbidden by law can be assumed to be allowed. In an authoritarian society, everything not specifically allowed by law can be assumed to be forbidden. Since we live in a free society (or so our leaders keep telling us, anyway), the onus of proof is on them to prove the case for ciminalisation, not on us to prove the case for legalisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 ooh I remember him...He of car park fame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 it appears to be perfectly legal to stalk someone in Shetland as long as they don't come outright and tell you they are going to kill you. The stalker had a wrist slap a few times which was all they could really do. I did not mean to make light of your situation, I fully understand how totally useless the law can turn out to be when there is a real point of issue to be addressed and how effectively it can throw any book it likes at you if your caught holding some hash and stick a righteous finger up your anus to protect the souls of the law abiding, if they cant find any.I hope your situation is resolved in your favour as there is nothing worse than the unjust persecution of those who just wish to live in peace. Good luck with your fight. Again, I have no desire to fight but only ask to be left alone if I wish to spark up a J in my own home, instead of being forced to justify why I choose to live as a criminal on a daily basis because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 Is it the position that they wish to legalise "crack" and will all people, regardless of age and mental condition, be able to buy them?Yes, of course... that's the only possible scenario we'll be able to come up with. Research has demonstrated that the dependency rate for "legal" drugs among those who chose to use them would be around 50 per centAd Verecundiam! Hurrah! Always a good, solid debating tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamnSaxon Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 Not directly about Shetland (or even the UK) but an interesting take from a Native American - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9757 "In the 1960s kids in the U.S. were protesting against the Vietnam War. The U.S. establishment did not know what to do. On May 4, 1970, the National Guard shot four kids at Kent State University in Ohio. They were protesting against the U.S. invasion of Cambodia ordered by President Nixon. The shooting was meant to quell the demonstrations against the war. It didn’t work. To divert the youth, a humongous drug movement was started. The 1968 mega concert at Woodstock in Sullivan County New York was part of the drug and “free love†movement sponsored by companies like Capitol Records. In New York City the “Ed Sullivan Show†displayed these groups nationwide to promote the drug culture. For the U.S. to continue its warmongering it had to corrupt and destroy its opposition, the youth. According to recently released CIA documents, Allen Dulles, the then head of the CIA, purchased over 100 million doses of LSD – most of which flooded the streets of the USA during the late 1960s. [illuminaticonspiracyarchives.com]." All part of the conspiracy? Maybe. But then, why do so many conspiracy theories seem to fly a lot closer to the truth than the "official line"? There's no denying that kids on the street today are being heavily damaged by the "drug phenomenon" and are not very politically active. Can it really be that they just don't care? And hasn't this "problem" largely been created since the 60s? As the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers reminded us so long ago,True revolutionaries shun drugs.Not much danger of revolution now, then. The governments running this insane system appear safe ... which is a lot more than they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 Thankfully, the good doctor's 'article' has been neatly deconstructed already, saving me the bother of picking it apart any further Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 It won't be the first time the dippy doc has been picked apart: Dr Ian Oliver is a former Chief Constable of Grampian Police Yes well.... 'Dr Who?' Mr Oliver was born in Middlesex and joined the Metropolitan Police in 1961. He holds a Phd in public administration from Strathclyde University and likes to be known by his full academic title of Doctor.But critics refer to him as Dr Who because, they say, he is an infrequent visitor to police headquarters in Aberdeen.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/53709.stm Dr Oliver had remained out of public view for almost a week, after a tabloid newspaper published pictures of him with the 26-year-old wife of a millionaire car dealer.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/55727.stm Mr Dewar said Grampian's Chief Constable, Dr Ian Oliver, should "pack his bags and go. That would be in the best interests of the force. The public, with good reason, expect nothing less".But Dr Oliver is refusing to go.Mr Dewar said he hoped the Grampian Police Board would sack Dr Oliver when it meets on Tuesday, if the Chief Constable had not already resigned by then.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/80746.stm Grampian Police Board has called for the immediate resignation of its Chief Constable, Dr Ian Oliver, at an emergency meeting following a damning report into the force.The unanimous call for Dr Oliver's resignation was led by board member, councillor Duncan Crawford, himself a former police officer.Mr Crawford said: "I move that this board has no longer confidence in the chief constable and would call for his immediate resignation from the force."The move was seconded by the board chairman, councillor Patrick Chalmers.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/81330.stm He's basically just a dick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 I would rather live in a nanny state than in a society that allowed you to kill yourself. OK, how far should we take this? have we not had cannibis farms found in shetland recently what did they get in sentancing. i thought the maximum sentance for supply is life. now a few of them would soon cut the demand Set the controls for the heart of the sun then---------------------------1650- The use of tobacco is prohibited in Bavaria, Saxony, and Zurich, but the prohibitions are ineffective. Sultan Murad IV of the Ottoman Empire decrees the death penalty for smoking tobacco: "Wherever the Sultan went on his travels or on a military expedition his halting-places were always distinguished by a terrible increase in the number of executions. Even on the battlefield he was fond of surprising men in the act of smoking, when he would punish them by beheading, hanging, quartering, or crushing their hands and feet. Nevertheless, in spite of all the horrors of this persecution the passion for smoking still persisted."----------------------------17th century The prince of the petty state of Waldeck pays 10 thalers to anyone who denounces a coffee drinker.----------------------------17th century In Russia, Czar Michael Federovitch executes anyone on whom tobacco is found. "Czar Alexei Mikhailovitch rules that anyone caught with tobacco should be tortured until he gives up the name of the supplier."-----------------------------(21 April 2005) that two women were sentenced to the death penalty by the Mandaluyong City regional trial court for selling ecstasy to agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) three years ago. Judge Amelia Dy of the Mandaluyong RTC Branch 213 sentenced Emmalyn de la Serna alias Inday, 30, and Reggie Medenceles, 31, to die by lethal injection after finding them guilty of pushing ecstasy tablets. This was the first ever court decision on a case involving the peddling of ecstasy.------------------------------The chart below shows the deaths caused by various factors in the United States in the year 2000. Cause of Death Tobacco435,000Poor Diet and Physical Activity400,000Alcohol100,000Microbial Agents75,000Toxic Agents55,000Motor Vehicle Accidents40,000Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs32,000 – 106,000Suicide30,662Incidents Involving Firearms29,000Homicide20,308Sexual Behavior20,000All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect17,000Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs7,600Marijuana0 Fighting Drug Use There’s no dispute that drugs can be a terrible and debilitating scourge, but when the issues of “right and wrong†cross swords with the law of supply and demand, strange things happen in a society, no matter how closed or open that society may be. When people decide they want drugs, there is nothing a society or government can do about it, and throwing billions of dollars at the problem only forces the drug users to pay black market prices to support their habit. One of the byproducts of the war on drugs is the terrible violence that erupts in the ghettos in “turf wars†between gangs simply because drugs are illegal and very profitable. http://www.apatheticvoter.com/DeathPenalty.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medziotojas Posted September 2, 2008 Report Share Posted September 2, 2008 One Day of Prohibition and an Entire Country Starts to Come Apart at the Seams So it was the first of September yesterday and the first day back at school for Lithuanian pupils. As this day is a celebration for children with large opening ceremonies in all the schools, it was decided by the government that this would be a day specifically dedicated to children, with alcohol sales banned from midnight on the 31st until midnight on the 1st. I had just finished strimming the garden and headed back to the missus' bar to pick her up as I knew it would be quiet and she would close early. Teas, coffees and food are all very well during the day, but in the evening most people want 50 or 100 grammes of vodka. When I arrived at the bar the News was on the telly, and it was full of pictures of underagers in the parks drinking away to their hearts' contents. They'd obviously stocked up in advance. I guess they were kinda sticking two fingers up at the system and rebelling as teenagers often do. I also heard mention in the bar of pharmacies doing a roaring trade in certain medicines that contained alcohol. They were even offering gift sets that included a couple of pieces of chocolate. Oh, and the aftershave sales were up, I exaggerate not. Anyhoo, we closed the bar and decided to go to the 24 hour supermarket. We were still there just before midnight and there was a huge crowd of people 'waiting for the bells' (on a Monday night ). It was strangely reminiscent of New Year celebrations with everyone waiting near the checkouts, trolleys laden with booze, counting down the seconds. And this all happened after only one day of prohibition. When a substance is banned it only serves to open the floodgates for substitutes of unkown quality or source, and it also provides a platform for the criminal element to turn a buck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamnSaxon Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 Another worrying development the doggie can't sniff out:http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/sep/03/drugsandalcohol.drugstradeThought this stuff was more-or-less history, but no. Wake up, government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 More people in the anti-drug industry realise the futility of prohibition. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/the_drug_debate_rumbles_on.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamnSaxon Posted September 8, 2008 Report Share Posted September 8, 2008 ^^^ But will it make any difference against irrational bigotry?Seems you don't really need drugs to destroy yourself, anyhow.What passes for fresh air these days will do a pretty good job.Now, about unbanning smoking ... 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