Jump to content

Should drugs be legalised?  

193 members have voted

  1. 1. Should drugs be legalised?

    • Yes
      74
    • No
      86
    • Its not a yes/no question
      43
    • Undecided
      2


Recommended Posts

Ok well firstly , I'm a girl not a boy..well a woman actually , not that it matters I suppose.

 

You cant compare alcohol to heroin, if after just a few pints you found you were throwing up and feeling like you were on deaths door unless you had another beer , then you could compare it.

 

Interestingly enough if that had been the case , would you still be saying the same? boozers are all wasters? let the boozey scum suffer? You honestly believe people begin to take heroin 'just' for the buzz of it and that there is nothing psychologically deeper going on there?...who in thier right mind takes something which is effectively equates to signing thier own death certficate? Theres plenty of less hazardous ways to have a good time, heroin is last chance street... some drugs people take to explore themselves and altered states , heroin people take to avoid themselves and to numb everything.

 

See this is where I think you've got it all ass upwards , they arent taking it for pleasure anymore so how would it be mollycoddeling them, its not saying go and enjoy yourself at our expense , its saying here you go , now you dont feel sick anymore go contribute something to this world, be a productive member of the community?. You cant give someone who is suffering withdrawls a kick up the ass and tell them to pull themselves together, if only it were that simple!

 

Our youngesters are the ones most at risk here , easily led and bored and many of them impressed by doing somehting a little bit naughty and ilicit. Legalising drugs would remove the 'cool' factor which plays its part.

 

Anyway bobahog I hope you're openminded enough to just look a bit deeper into whats worked in other countries. I get the impression you have your mind made up and no matter how many genuine facts and figures are presented to you , you will never believe them ( or rather admit to beliveing them ) so I shall leave it there and bid you good day ;-) x

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Drugs suck, :x my opinioin would be if a dealer is found den boil up his gear and give it ALL tae him in a fine big needle!!! :lol: Wan less dealer tae worry aboot, why should dey profit while da rest o wis suffer wi da scourge o druggies increasing, pretty sure dey wid think twice if certain death wis da punishment for dealing such stuff. Shetland is becoming ower run wi da stuff :( and da sentances seem to be too low, max sentance by the sherrif would be a good help instead o back ground reports an da lik. Dey all ken if dir caught da chances o jail are slim (maybe should o put taxpayer holiday camp instead o jail, bring back da days o porridge, basic rooms wi nae playstations etc)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Drugs suck, :x my opinioin would be if a dealer is found den boil up his gear and give it ALL tae him in a fine big needle!!! :lol: Wan less dealer tae worry aboot, why should dey profit while da rest o wis suffer wi da scourge o druggies increasing, pretty sure dey wid think twice if certain death wis da punishment for dealing such stuff. Shetland is becoming ower run wi da stuff :( and da sentances seem to be too low, max sentance by the sherrif would be a good help instead o back ground reports an da lik. Dey all ken if dir caught da chances o jail are slim (maybe should o put taxpayer holiday camp instead o jail, bring back da days o porridge, basic rooms wi nae playstations etc)

I'm sure you would be the first to cry foul when your taxes are raised to pay for all the extra prison places your "solution" would require.

 

Prohibition doesn't work.

 

It has never worked.

 

And it never will work.

 

When will you ignorant rednecks get this through your thick skulls? :roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at a bit of a loss here because I dont really understand how armed with the knowledge that our present system is failing everyone , drug users and non drug users alike people can still refute the need for a new look at drugs policy.

 

So if you agree our system dosnt and wont work...

 

If you can clearly see other countires systems DO work...

 

If you have evidence to show you the difference it would make both social and economic to all of our lives...

 

Why wouldnt you be screaming at the top of your lungs for change?

 

if youre just going to harp on inanely about scum/losers/wasters some more please don't bother responding but truly...Im really curious what REAL and logical arguments people might have against this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
.....pretty sure dey wid think twice if certain death wis da punishment for dealing such stuff. Shetland is becoming ower run wi da stuff :( and da sentances seem to be too low, max sentance by the sherrif would be a good help instead o back ground reports an da lik.

 

Certain death didn't do much to deter murder when we had it that way, and doesn't exactly seem to be doing much where they still have it. Anybody with the brass neck to set up and run a decent sized dealing operation, is likely to be made of sterner stuff too than your average Joe who loses the cool for a few minutes and hits someone else that bit too hard in the wrong place. If it wasn't much of a deterrent for the latter, I can't see it deterring the former noticably.

 

That said, even if there was a death sentence for dealing, what would it achieve. All the old bill pull in round here, and most often than not nationwide, are the small timers and mules. Removing those would make minimal difference, as they're just yesterday's addict and there are plenty more wher ethey came from. Somebody is importing the raw material in to the country, somebody is manufacturing the end product, those, if you really want to make a difference, are the people that you have to go after. Yet when did you last hear of the old bill pulling some king pin whose removal actually made a national difference, or anything more than a localised difference come to that.

 

The sentences handed down as things stand are wholly irrelevant. As long as "drugs" are as available inside as out of the jug, they can't and won't. If the powers that be cannot or will not eliminate "drugs" from within their own penal establishments, which they're perfectly capable of making and keeping 100% secure, I can only conclude they only wish to pay lip service to the laws on the subject they created and are supposed to uphold.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as "drugs" are as available inside as out of the jug, they can't and won't. If the powers that be cannot or will not eliminate "drugs" from within their own penal establishments, which they're perfectly capable of making and keeping 100% secure...

I think it's a lot harder to keep drugs out of prisons than you might think. You'd have to subject all incoming prisoners and visitors to cavity searches, plus keep a very close eye on them in case they've swallowed something to be excreted later. Then you'd somehow have to deal with corrupt prison officers. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would cost a lot of money, and make contact visits very difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I'm not pretending it would be easy, but I can't see how it would be particularly expensive.

 

Visitors, as I see it are a privilege, and if the visiting system is being abused to the point it is contributing significantly to the ingress of contraband, then it needs to be reviewed and modified. I'd suggest visits should involve no possible physical contact whatsoever, or that visitors are ever allowed to enter any area where inmates are allowed.

 

Cue the cliched movie scene of the prisoner one side of plate glass, their visitor the other, talking through a phone.

 

For new arrivals, bung them in solitary holding cells under camera survellience 24/7, for say a week, before transferring them in to the main prison population. Nature will have dislodged pretty much everything by then.

 

As regards corrupt staff or even corrupt delivery/collection personnel, outside contractor staff etc, it really doesn't matter whether its "drugs" that's involved or something else, a prison is one place that zero tolerance of any and all corruption should be paramount IMHO. Once an individual has shown themselves as capable to bending and/or ignoring the rules, they have disqualified themselves from being a suitable and competent person to be employed in the penal system.

 

Point is, prisons currently employ a relatively relaxed and beneficial visitor regime, but its being abused. In my book that means they have abdicated their right to it, and have no grounds for complaint when a stricter and more effective system is installed to prevent them furthering the current abuse. Incarceration is about compliance from the residents, not compromise between them and the management, if as appears to be the case compliance has deteriorated to the point that the level of prohibited substances smuggled in is problematic, stronger measures need to be installed to regain that compliance.

 

Is it any wonder many addicts don't care whether they're inside or out, and prisons are at bursting point at least partially because of that, when the most important thing in their life, their fix, is as easily gotten whichever side of the wall they are on.

 

Cost does not appear to be a significant issue for the Govt. when hauling someone in front of the court on a "drugs" charge for some act committed in public. Yet if found guilty and imprisoned, apparently the importance of upholding the same statutes inside one of their own secure establishments becomes very much cost driven. To my mind thats an untenable inconsistency which borders on hypocracy by the Govt, which in turn leads me back to my earlier conclusion that the Govt. don't wish to enforce their own "drugs" laws, simply pay lip service to them to appease the vocal red top brainwashed crowd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I don't doubt it, but a soild wall and firing everyone with access who is even the slightest corrupt, would go a long way towards closing down most of them.

 

The current set up is so hypocritical it would be hilarous if it wasn't serious.

 

Lemme see....If you possess certain substances in the street, or even in your own home, you're told by the powers that be you did wrong, and they lock you up. Yet once locked up, they turn a blind eye to you doing whatever you want to do with exactly the same substances, providing you do it on the quiet, and scratch the appropriate backs first.

 

What kind of message is that sending out to anyone, and is it any wonder some addicts are indifferent about ending up back inside.

 

If the powers that be want folk to get the message that it is "wrong" and maintain their own credibility, they need to lead by example in their own establishments where they have total control to do what they like. By either being unable and/or unwilling to take that zero tolerance at all costs approach in their own exclusive territory, unless they repeal/relax the zero tolerance at any cost facade they perpetually churn out on to the public, they're pushing two contradictory messages simultaneously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Exactly. You can't "uninvent" something, and you can't effectively ban something that is so easily made from readily obtainable ingredients.

 

What I was trying to illustrate, is that besides the argument prohibition does not and cannot work, the stance and actions the Govt. currently stand behind while telling everyone they're fighting a "war on drugs", and that they must be "stamped out", is itself inconsistent and contradictory.

 

Not only are they backing the wrong team, they're saying one thing in one place, but doing something else in another, destroying any credibility they try to have on the subject.

 

If they truly mean they want to win the "war on drugs", and that they must be "stamped out", they need to put their own house in order first. With the situation in prisons ist clear they're not even seriously trying to do that, so its time they were pushed to admit to what they're really doing, tolerating it and keeping a lid on it, and apply it right across the board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For new arrivals, bung them in solitary holding cells under camera survellience 24/7, for say a week, before transferring them in to the main prison population. Nature will have dislodged pretty much everything by then.

 

As regards corrupt staff or even corrupt delivery/collection personnel, outside contractor staff etc, it really doesn't matter whether its "drugs" that's involved or something else, a prison is one place that zero tolerance of any and all corruption should be paramount IMHO. Once an individual has shown themselves as capable to bending and/or ignoring the rules, they have disqualified themselves from being a suitable and competent person to be employed in the penal system.

 

But 24 hour monitoring of inmates and the detection of corruption are labour-intensive ( ie expensive ) activities. You can't root out corrupt staff by simply announcing that you aren't going to put up with it any more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...