Thursday no-brainer....

Which of the following is more harmful?

a) heroin

b) a speeding motorist

I must admit I'm struggling to comprehend Brunstrom's latest pronouncement
about supporting the open sale of hard drugs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3460485.stm . I can just see the Tourist
Board advertising North Wales in the near future - "Welcome to N Wales - No
Cars, No Bikes, Drug Salesmen Welcome". The man is clearly off his rocker -
just how did he become a Chief Constable?????

 

No way to comment on the article, what a shame.

 

Just how stupid are you?

 

It pains me to say this, but he's absolutely right on this matter.

For years and years we've been pouring money into fighting drugs and it has
got us absolutely nowhere. All of the illegal drugs are easily available
and the law has proved no deterrent to users or dealers.

Whilst I know that Brainstorm is unpopular on this group what we keep asking
for is an end to the nanny state; to have the government recognise that
bikers like riding fast and we accept that a few of us are going to die
doing it. Drugs, IMO, fall into the same argument. If people want to take
drugs then let them, it's their life, their health and their choice.

If the government controls drug supply then it actively takes money out of
the pocket of organised crime and is free to plough it back into drug
education, rehabilitation and speed cameras (erm, maybe not the last one).


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

In

You're missing the point .... he's got his own political ambitions hence
why he makes some "newsworthy" statement weekly to keep himself in the
media ... just an attention whore plain and simple ...




--
Steve Parry

http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk

K100RS SE
F650

 

Here, let me spell out my position for you.....

Personally, I don't agree with any legislation that supports hard drugs and
neither does the law as it stands. What I am struggling to understand is his
over-zealous crusade against the motoring population, while this
announcement flies in the face of conventional wisdom, benefits a small
minority of the population and would have the effect of legalising a drug
that is both extremely addictive and, if mis-used, can lead directly to
death. Yes I know both alcohol and tobacco are addictive and kill, however
their effects are much less immediate, easier to come off, and its much
harder to O/D on either of them.

Is this stupid? personally, I don't think so, but I'll leave you to draw
your own conclusions; views of stupidity are so personal, don't you think?

Answering AndrewR's points, I agree that fighting the drug trade has not
been effective, however, is this a reason to "lay down and die"?

Cheers

 

Are there speed limits on race tracks? No and why is that? It's because
everyone in the vicinity has the same desire to go fast and accepts the
risks associated with. Speed limits exist on public roads to protect drivers
/ riders not only from themselves but from those with more ambition than
ability.

If you had a child that got knocked down and killed by some nugget in either
a car or a bike speeding and losing control you might feel differently. Just
like the current drug law the system needs a major overhaul but not
discarded completely.

Drugs, IMO, fall into the same argument. If people want to take

That will only work if the government give all the drugs away free and if
that is to happen then it's the taxpayer who must fund it. If they don't
give them away free then the only difference will be that the government is
the drug dealer and they are the ones making the dosh instead of the current
crop of dealers. You'll still have the main problems that drugs produce and
that's addicts doing ANYTHING to get the cash to pay for their next fix.
Robberies, muggings, murders, shoftlifting, house breaking. You'll also have
the problems of addicts roaming the streets out of their skulls attacking
people for no other reason than they think it's fun when they're out their
skulls.

Good plan mate, glad your not in charge all the same.

Best approach to dealing with drugs would IMHO be MUCH tougher sentences and
much more money spent on catching the bastards that deal in it. If there's
no supply then there's no problem.

Rikki

 

What is the alternative?

We can keep pouring money into fighting the import, distribution and supply
of drugs or we can accept that people want drugs.

While drugs are illegal every penny that the end-user spends on them goes to
criminals, some of it just to small time dealers, but a lot of it to serious
organised crime. The government then spends _more_ money battling organised
crime.

I accept that the drugs we are talking about are much more likely to kill
instantly than alcohol or tobacco, but part of the reason for that is that
people are getting something of unknown purity which has been cut with
****-knows what on its way to the street.

On a wider note I have to question whether we have taken "sanctity of life"
too far when we try to prevent people from doing things that may kill them
if they are careless, unlucky or stupid. If we support that path then we
shouldn't be at all surprised when bikes become illegal, along with
hang-gliding, diving, rock climbing, parachuting, all forms of motor-racing,
etc, etc.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

How many people do you know or have even heard of though that's went out and
robbed / stabbed / mugged someone to get some cash to buy new tyres so they
can get out for their speed fix on thier R1 or buy a bloody parachute. I'm
gagging to get a new bike in time for the good weather coming in but I ain't
gonna get masked up to turn over the local Haddows to help finance it.

You obviously don't live in or anywhere nearby an area where drugs is a
problem or you're just plain thick.

Rikki

 

Are there speed limits on race tracks? No and why is that? It's because
everyone in the vicinity has the same desire to go fast and accepts the
risks associated with. Speed limits exist on public roads to protect drivers
/ riders not only from themselves but from those with more ambition than
ability.

If you had a child that got knocked down and killed by some nugget in either
a car or a bike speeding and losing control you might feel differently. Just
like the current drug law the system needs a major overhaul but not
discarded completely.

Drugs, IMO, fall into the same argument. If people want to take

That will only work if the government give all the drugs away free and if
that is to happen then it's the taxpayer who must fund it. If they don't
give them away free then the only difference will be that the government is
the drug dealer and they are the ones making the dosh instead of the current
crop of dealers. You'll still have the main problems that drugs produce and
that's addicts doing ANYTHING to get the cash to pay for their next fix.
Robberies, muggings, murders, shoftlifting, house breaking. You'll also have
the problems of addicts roaming the streets out of their skulls attacking
people for no other reason than they think it's fun when they're out their
skulls.

Good plan mate, glad your not in charge all the same.

Best approach to dealing with drugs would IMHO be MUCH tougher sentences and
much more money spent on catching the bastards that deal in it. If there's
no supply then there's no problem.

Rikki

 

In

.... of course we could implement the death penalty like some of the
countries in the Far East )

--
Steve Parry

http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk

K100RS SE
F650

 

The question of people committing illegal acts to finance drugs is not
linked, in any way, to the question of whether the drugs they are buying are
legal or illegal.

It's also not linked to my point that you quoted, which was that we either
have a state that decides what is "good" for an individual or we don't.

As it happens I believe that if you want to reduce drug-related crime the
answer is still to legalise drugs. Drugs currently have a street value that
is massively out of proportion to their cost, this is because;

1. The people who run the supply operations have to factor in large-scale
losses to customs.

2. None of the supply can be done through cheap, legal means.

3. They can charge what they like.

So, if drugs were to be legalised the government could buy them at source,
either processed or unprocessed, import them cheaply into the country, levy
tax equivalent to tobacco tax on them and _still_ make them cheaper than
they currently are.

Cheaper drugs = Less money required to support a drug habit = Less drug
related crime.

As a final point, next time you are going to accuse me of being thick could
at least make an effort to understand the discussion.

Thanks.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Here's something to help. The proposed legislation doesn't "support"
hard drugs. it regulates their distribution.

The current law is widely ignored and completely discredited. The drug
trade generates large profits for organized crime; these are then often
used to fund other criminal activities. The unregulated supply of drugs
has led to people becoming addicted and having to turn to street crime
to fund their habits. This impacts the whole of society.

Legalising drugs removes part of their attraction shrinking the market
and also reduces the level of street crime (if there is the will to
price the 'hard' drugs like smack at a realistic level). Further it
ensures good quality drugs are available and people don't end up jacking
up brick dust or worse- this will reduce the load (a small reduction) on
the NHS.

Which hard drugs have you had direct experience of?

And as for conventional wisdom, it's a cliched argument but look what
prohibition did for booze in the states.

Regarding the "small minority of the population"; the reason I support
this isn't because I take drugs- I don't take any (apart from caffeine
and alcohol). I support this because I want street crime to reduce and
should my children **** around with drugs (I hope they won't but shit
happens) I don't want them playing around with stuff that's been stepped
on and dealing with the sort of low-life that deal drugs.

I'd also suspect that coming off tobacco is as hard as the 'hard drugs'
that you refer to.

I think you are having your chains yanked matey.

And in your case it is either stupidity or ignorance. You really don't
understand the issue.

The proposal isn't to lay down and die as you put it. Read it again.

 

I'd be all for that so long as the conviction was solid.

 

Probably pretty accurate. However in this case he's speaking sense.

 

Indeed, which is why the general tone of this group is support of measures
such as speed cameras in built up areas, where inappropriate speed is a real
problem, whilst prefering real policemen on NSL roads, where the officer in
charge can make a determination of whether your riding was just fast or
dangerous as well.

Think of the children!

See my other post for an answer to this point.

Believe me, the feeling is deeply mutual.

Except, of course, for every dealer you lock up another one will spring up.
There is just too much money to be made to allow a vacuum to exist.

Think about this question in relation to the 18th Amendment and the Volstead
Act. If nothing else that episode at least proved that denying the public
of something it wants is almost certainly doomed to failure.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Right, like prohibition worked.

Learn from history, there's a good boy.

 

Then you're a twat of the first order.

Although, I must admit, I was already predisposed to suspect this after your
earlier posts.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

You mean the ones that supply a lot of the world's smack?

Well it certainly seems to be effective, doesn't it.

 

Fan-fucking-tastic ... It's a beautiful day here, but I can't ride the bike;
I'm trying to deal with a group of people at work who couldn't reasonably be
expected to find their arse without at least 3 tries; I've got baby-sitting
duty all day ...

.... and now I'm in total agreement with Burnt and even posting the same
stuff.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.