Police boss calls for drugs to be legal

Police boss calls for drugs to be legal

Durham's Police and Crime Commissioner Ron Hogg talks to local resident Helen Green and her sons James (9) and Daniel (5) in Newton Hall, Durham.

Police and crime commissioner Ron Hogg talks to children at Etherley Lane Primary School in Bishop Auckland about cyber bullying.

Police and crime commissioner Ron Hogg talks to children at Etherley Lane Primary School in Bishop Auckland about cyber bullying.

Durham's Police and Crime Commissioner Ron Hogg talks to shoppers with PCSO's Ben Kinnair (blue shirt) and Adam Abram in Newton Hall, Durham.

Durham's Police and Crime Commissioner Ron Hogg talks to shoppers in Newton Hall, Durham.

First published in News
Last updated
The Northern Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Regional Chief Reporter

"THE war on drugs has failed. The criminalisation of people addicted to drugs has been a destructive force in every conceivable arena; from ethics to politics, health to policing, social work to economics.

Addiction is an illness, and recognised as such in almost all instances, including alcohol and gambling. It is quite correctly public policy, not to mention common decency, to help and treat those who are ill. But for those addicted to controlled drugs, this is not currently the case.

The current legal framework dictates that they are arrested, vilified and persecuted. This approach is not only ethically dubious, but is rooted in decades of failure. We need a new approach; one that treats addicts as patients who need treatment, rather than criminals who need locking up.

When I was campaigning to become police and crime commissioner, I made a promise to ensure all policy is evidence-based.

The UK’s drug policy contradicts and denies overwhelming evidence more than any other policy area I have encountered. There is a taboo around this issue that has politicians running scared from the evidence.

My force area is at the forefront of much of this evidence. In Darlington, from 2006 to 2011 RIOTT (Randomised Injectable Opiates Treatment Trial) led the way alongside its sister pilots in London and Brighton, with early analysis revealing the effectiveness of drug consumption rooms that offer provision of diamorphine.

Some of our local people claimed to be “saved” by this treatment. One even remarked that their “life started to have meaning again.” The benefit to the patients should be enough of a reason to change our practice. If you disagree though, one patient felt confident that the trial led to “no use of street heroin.” Locally today, in Seaham, RIO (Recovery Injectable Opioid) continues to build on this evidence.

Imagine a world with no heroin on our streets. No money for heroin being put in the hands of organised crime. No spread of HIV or hepatitis B/C through shared and dirty needles. No needles littering our streets. No fatal overdoses. No more pressure from organised criminals to remain addicted. No more theft or prostitution to feed drug habits. This is what decriminalisation could achieve.

Similar projects in various forms are part of national policies throughout the world including that of Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland. Drug consumption rooms are just one possibility in what could be a world of opportunities. These opportunities are stifled and silenced by the current approach. Both evidence and common sense urge a new approach, so why is it controversial?

Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg has expressed disappointment at his “coalition partners’ refusal to engage in a proper discussion about the drugs problem.”

He is right to be disappointed.

Prime Minister David Cameron was in fact a vocal supporter of drug policy reform right up until becoming Tory leader. In 2002 he spoke in Parliament criticising government “posturing with tough policies” and “holding back debate”.

In the USA there has been clear progress on decriminalisation and legalisation, but it has been led by individual states such as their constitution allows.

In this respect, if the rigidity of national government is taken as fact, then I am eager for County Durham and Darlington to be at the forefront of UK drug policy reform. The North-East can sometimes feel very remote from the political centre of London, but together we can make our voices heard and drive the change that is so sorely needed.

The evidence demands it and so we must demand it. I call for the Government to decriminalise addiction and support recovery. Isolation and persecution of addicts is uncivilised, unsuccessful, and too often wholly unaddressed. We need a new approach."

Comments (59)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:14am Wed 3 Sep 14

somethinginsidesostrong says...

Ron Hogg calling for drugs to be legalised is just DISTRACTION THEORY. This is to stop the focus on the sexual abuse and torture of HUNDREDS of kids in the next County Yorkshire, where there was Dereliction of Duty. The P.C.C. does not have authorisation to legalise drugs. I have not seen any expose on this. There is a rat off.
Ron Hogg calling for drugs to be legalised is just DISTRACTION THEORY. This is to stop the focus on the sexual abuse and torture of HUNDREDS of kids in the next County Yorkshire, where there was Dereliction of Duty. The P.C.C. does not have authorisation to legalise drugs. I have not seen any expose on this. There is a rat off. somethinginsidesostrong
  • Score: -67

9:20am Wed 3 Sep 14

David Lacey says...

"THE war on drugs has failed".
.
It never started!!!! The law has never been enforced. Addicts are not suffering from an illness - they have made a lifestyle choice and a bad one at that. Time to implement draconian far eastern laws aimed at criminalising everyone involved in the supply and use of these substances.
"THE war on drugs has failed". . It never started!!!! The law has never been enforced. Addicts are not suffering from an illness - they have made a lifestyle choice and a bad one at that. Time to implement draconian far eastern laws aimed at criminalising everyone involved in the supply and use of these substances. David Lacey
  • Score: -120

9:58am Wed 3 Sep 14

trevc1 says...

David Lacey wrote:
"THE war on drugs has failed".
.
It never started!!!! The law has never been enforced. Addicts are not suffering from an illness - they have made a lifestyle choice and a bad one at that. Time to implement draconian far eastern laws aimed at criminalising everyone involved in the supply and use of these substances.
really?? despite all the evidence to the contrary that criminalising people for addictions doesn't work?? despite all of the evidence that prohibition measures don't work?? despite all of the evidence that shows that treating people as addicts rather than criminals is far better for them??
if that's the case what about cigarette smokers?? drinkers?? those addicted to prescription meds??
i think you need to do some research mate.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: "THE war on drugs has failed". . It never started!!!! The law has never been enforced. Addicts are not suffering from an illness - they have made a lifestyle choice and a bad one at that. Time to implement draconian far eastern laws aimed at criminalising everyone involved in the supply and use of these substances.[/p][/quote]really?? despite all the evidence to the contrary that criminalising people for addictions doesn't work?? despite all of the evidence that prohibition measures don't work?? despite all of the evidence that shows that treating people as addicts rather than criminals is far better for them?? if that's the case what about cigarette smokers?? drinkers?? those addicted to prescription meds?? i think you need to do some research mate. trevc1
  • Score: 100

10:29am Wed 3 Sep 14

Ron Carter-Bonsteel says...

HOGG Start helping VICTIMS OF CRIME AND ASB Because you are failing them. Drugs and Alcohol is not a addiction it's a Lifestyle choice of people who take them. The quicker the Labour Party gets rid of PCC the better. They are a waste of time. It's no wonder the North-East is as bad as it is with people like Hogg in charge Soft on Crime soft on the causes of Crime.
HOGG Start helping VICTIMS OF CRIME AND ASB Because you are failing them. Drugs and Alcohol is not a addiction it's a Lifestyle choice of people who take them. The quicker the Labour Party gets rid of PCC the better. They are a waste of time. It's no wonder the North-East is as bad as it is with people like Hogg in charge Soft on Crime soft on the causes of Crime. Ron Carter-Bonsteel
  • Score: -70

10:40am Wed 3 Sep 14

IanfromCrook says...

There is no war on drugs. The police try to do their best but the judiciary fail them. It is like sending troops into a war zone with guns that when fired drop a flag saying bang. The 'evidence' that the war against drugs has failed is invalid. Unless , over a period of time judges sentence appropriately all areas of crime so there is an element or punishment and deterent then there is no excuse for waving the white flag. This is a distraction, it is also old news as the NE already ran this story months ago. I cannot remember Mr Hogg being so vocal before he was elected. Perhaps, like many politicians, the reasons why people voted him in mean nothing after the count.
There is no war on drugs. The police try to do their best but the judiciary fail them. It is like sending troops into a war zone with guns that when fired drop a flag saying bang. The 'evidence' that the war against drugs has failed is invalid. Unless , over a period of time judges sentence appropriately all areas of crime so there is an element or punishment and deterent then there is no excuse for waving the white flag. This is a distraction, it is also old news as the NE already ran this story months ago. I cannot remember Mr Hogg being so vocal before he was elected. Perhaps, like many politicians, the reasons why people voted him in mean nothing after the count. IanfromCrook
  • Score: -49

10:56am Wed 3 Sep 14

Yemen says...

Typical sensationalist headline. The call is not for the legalisation of drugs but for the decriminalisation of the addicts themselves. If this were to be done then resources which are already stretched could be pointed at the dealers and those higher up i.e. the real problem.

For those saying its a lifestyle choice, up to a point it is yes but once it becomes an addiction, your body if physically reliant on the substance, thats no longer a choice but a requirement. Also let them shine thier own light on themselves. scratch cards, coffee, tobacco, SUGAR, alcohol, sports.

remember when the USA tried that prohibition thing ? yeah that really worked didnt it ... and many US states have already started decriminalising marijuana and guess what ... crime has gone down and those who have been caught are the ones doing damage to the society not them ones stuck under the boot of the dealer because to seek help or admit their addiction means jail.

either way, agree or disagree with what i say the clear thing that comes from this is that what we are doing is not working and we need a proper debate and referendum (much more important that scotland or the EU imho) on the subject.

we all know where the money from trafficking goes after all...the heroin industry is what buttets bullets in isis' AK's and bombs on the disabled that they use for suicide bombers.
Typical sensationalist headline. The call is not for the legalisation of drugs but for the decriminalisation of the addicts themselves. If this were to be done then resources which are already stretched could be pointed at the dealers and those higher up i.e. the real problem. For those saying its a lifestyle choice, up to a point it is yes but once it becomes an addiction, your body if physically reliant on the substance, thats no longer a choice but a requirement. Also let them shine thier own light on themselves. scratch cards, coffee, tobacco, SUGAR, alcohol, sports. remember when the USA tried that prohibition thing ? yeah that really worked didnt it ... and many US states have already started decriminalising marijuana and guess what ... crime has gone down and those who have been caught are the ones doing damage to the society not them ones stuck under the boot of the dealer because to seek help or admit their addiction means jail. either way, agree or disagree with what i say the clear thing that comes from this is that what we are doing is not working and we need a proper debate and referendum (much more important that scotland or the EU imho) on the subject. we all know where the money from trafficking goes after all...the heroin industry is what buttets bullets in isis' AK's and bombs on the disabled that they use for suicide bombers. Yemen
  • Score: 49

11:14am Wed 3 Sep 14

Ron Carter-Bonsteel says...

IanfromCrook wrote:
There is no war on drugs. The police try to do their best but the judiciary fail them. It is like sending troops into a war zone with guns that when fired drop a flag saying bang. The 'evidence' that the war against drugs has failed is invalid. Unless , over a period of time judges sentence appropriately all areas of crime so there is an element or punishment and deterent then there is no excuse for waving the white flag. This is a distraction, it is also old news as the NE already ran this story months ago. I cannot remember Mr Hogg being so vocal before he was elected. Perhaps, like many politicians, the reasons why people voted him in mean nothing after the count.
Totally agree with you.What next shoplifters getting off without paying? There would be no crimes at all if we all just give up. Why are addicts of alcohol and drugs so special? So if drugs do actually become legal and I do believe in the future some stupid government will allow it. We have a major problem with drugs and alcohol with people drink and drug driving and terrible crimes being committed with people blaming addictions for their crimes. So legalise drugs and say someone off their faces kill someone who would be liable? Yes the offender but would it be the Government to blame for prescribing the drugs to users? Just a thought?
[quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: There is no war on drugs. The police try to do their best but the judiciary fail them. It is like sending troops into a war zone with guns that when fired drop a flag saying bang. The 'evidence' that the war against drugs has failed is invalid. Unless , over a period of time judges sentence appropriately all areas of crime so there is an element or punishment and deterent then there is no excuse for waving the white flag. This is a distraction, it is also old news as the NE already ran this story months ago. I cannot remember Mr Hogg being so vocal before he was elected. Perhaps, like many politicians, the reasons why people voted him in mean nothing after the count.[/p][/quote]Totally agree with you.What next shoplifters getting off without paying? There would be no crimes at all if we all just give up. Why are addicts of alcohol and drugs so special? So if drugs do actually become legal and I do believe in the future some stupid government will allow it. We have a major problem with drugs and alcohol with people drink and drug driving and terrible crimes being committed with people blaming addictions for their crimes. So legalise drugs and say someone off their faces kill someone who would be liable? Yes the offender but would it be the Government to blame for prescribing the drugs to users? Just a thought? Ron Carter-Bonsteel
  • Score: -59

11:25am Wed 3 Sep 14

laboursfoe says...

But addiction is not criminal.

The criminal element relates to the cultivation, production and use of these illicit substances.
But addiction is not criminal. The criminal element relates to the cultivation, production and use of these illicit substances. laboursfoe
  • Score: 11

11:25am Wed 3 Sep 14

IanfromCrook says...

Ron Carter-Bonsteel wrote:
IanfromCrook wrote:
There is no war on drugs. The police try to do their best but the judiciary fail them. It is like sending troops into a war zone with guns that when fired drop a flag saying bang. The 'evidence' that the war against drugs has failed is invalid. Unless , over a period of time judges sentence appropriately all areas of crime so there is an element or punishment and deterent then there is no excuse for waving the white flag. This is a distraction, it is also old news as the NE already ran this story months ago. I cannot remember Mr Hogg being so vocal before he was elected. Perhaps, like many politicians, the reasons why people voted him in mean nothing after the count.
Totally agree with you.What next shoplifters getting off without paying? There would be no crimes at all if we all just give up. Why are addicts of alcohol and drugs so special? So if drugs do actually become legal and I do believe in the future some stupid government will allow it. We have a major problem with drugs and alcohol with people drink and drug driving and terrible crimes being committed with people blaming addictions for their crimes. So legalise drugs and say someone off their faces kill someone who would be liable? Yes the offender but would it be the Government to blame for prescribing the drugs to users? Just a thought?
Sorry to be the harbinger of gloom but the rubbish court system already allows for all these excuses, and more to way lay decent sentencing. Though I obviously agree that it should not be the case. Though what is being proposed is a step in the direction of decriminalisation...
.... crimes are still happening but they are not recorded in the stats so heyho crime numbers tumble. Complete logic NOT.
[quote][p][bold]Ron Carter-Bonsteel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: There is no war on drugs. The police try to do their best but the judiciary fail them. It is like sending troops into a war zone with guns that when fired drop a flag saying bang. The 'evidence' that the war against drugs has failed is invalid. Unless , over a period of time judges sentence appropriately all areas of crime so there is an element or punishment and deterent then there is no excuse for waving the white flag. This is a distraction, it is also old news as the NE already ran this story months ago. I cannot remember Mr Hogg being so vocal before he was elected. Perhaps, like many politicians, the reasons why people voted him in mean nothing after the count.[/p][/quote]Totally agree with you.What next shoplifters getting off without paying? There would be no crimes at all if we all just give up. Why are addicts of alcohol and drugs so special? So if drugs do actually become legal and I do believe in the future some stupid government will allow it. We have a major problem with drugs and alcohol with people drink and drug driving and terrible crimes being committed with people blaming addictions for their crimes. So legalise drugs and say someone off their faces kill someone who would be liable? Yes the offender but would it be the Government to blame for prescribing the drugs to users? Just a thought?[/p][/quote]Sorry to be the harbinger of gloom but the rubbish court system already allows for all these excuses, and more to way lay decent sentencing. Though I obviously agree that it should not be the case. Though what is being proposed is a step in the direction of decriminalisation... .... crimes are still happening but they are not recorded in the stats so heyho crime numbers tumble. Complete logic NOT. IanfromCrook
  • Score: -20

11:25am Wed 3 Sep 14

IanfromCrook says...

Ron Carter-Bonsteel wrote:
IanfromCrook wrote:
There is no war on drugs. The police try to do their best but the judiciary fail them. It is like sending troops into a war zone with guns that when fired drop a flag saying bang. The 'evidence' that the war against drugs has failed is invalid. Unless , over a period of time judges sentence appropriately all areas of crime so there is an element or punishment and deterent then there is no excuse for waving the white flag. This is a distraction, it is also old news as the NE already ran this story months ago. I cannot remember Mr Hogg being so vocal before he was elected. Perhaps, like many politicians, the reasons why people voted him in mean nothing after the count.
Totally agree with you.What next shoplifters getting off without paying? There would be no crimes at all if we all just give up. Why are addicts of alcohol and drugs so special? So if drugs do actually become legal and I do believe in the future some stupid government will allow it. We have a major problem with drugs and alcohol with people drink and drug driving and terrible crimes being committed with people blaming addictions for their crimes. So legalise drugs and say someone off their faces kill someone who would be liable? Yes the offender but would it be the Government to blame for prescribing the drugs to users? Just a thought?
Sorry to be the harbinger of gloom but the rubbish court system already allows for all these excuses, and more to way lay decent sentencing. Though I obviously agree that it should not be the case. Though what is being proposed is a step in the direction of decriminalisation...
.... crimes are still happening but they are not recorded in the stats so heyho crime numbers tumble. Complete logic NOT.
[quote][p][bold]Ron Carter-Bonsteel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: There is no war on drugs. The police try to do their best but the judiciary fail them. It is like sending troops into a war zone with guns that when fired drop a flag saying bang. The 'evidence' that the war against drugs has failed is invalid. Unless , over a period of time judges sentence appropriately all areas of crime so there is an element or punishment and deterent then there is no excuse for waving the white flag. This is a distraction, it is also old news as the NE already ran this story months ago. I cannot remember Mr Hogg being so vocal before he was elected. Perhaps, like many politicians, the reasons why people voted him in mean nothing after the count.[/p][/quote]Totally agree with you.What next shoplifters getting off without paying? There would be no crimes at all if we all just give up. Why are addicts of alcohol and drugs so special? So if drugs do actually become legal and I do believe in the future some stupid government will allow it. We have a major problem with drugs and alcohol with people drink and drug driving and terrible crimes being committed with people blaming addictions for their crimes. So legalise drugs and say someone off their faces kill someone who would be liable? Yes the offender but would it be the Government to blame for prescribing the drugs to users? Just a thought?[/p][/quote]Sorry to be the harbinger of gloom but the rubbish court system already allows for all these excuses, and more to way lay decent sentencing. Though I obviously agree that it should not be the case. Though what is being proposed is a step in the direction of decriminalisation... .... crimes are still happening but they are not recorded in the stats so heyho crime numbers tumble. Complete logic NOT. IanfromCrook
  • Score: -13

11:27am Wed 3 Sep 14

IanfromCrook says...

Hate it when that happens.....duplicat
es
Hate it when that happens.....duplicat es IanfromCrook
  • Score: 0

11:27am Wed 3 Sep 14

GazzyWazzy says...

Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it?

I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it.

For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist.

And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways.

Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.
Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it? I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it. For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist. And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways. Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those. GazzyWazzy
  • Score: -29

11:41am Wed 3 Sep 14

Yemen says...

GazzyWazzy wrote:
Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it?

I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it.

For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist.

And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways.

Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.
my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport !

peadeophillia ??? seriously
[quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it? I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it. For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist. And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways. Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.[/p][/quote]my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport ! peadeophillia ??? seriously Yemen
  • Score: 38

11:52am Wed 3 Sep 14

IanfromCrook says...

Yemen wrote:
GazzyWazzy wrote:
Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it?

I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it.

For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist.

And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways.

Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.
my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport !

peadeophillia ??? seriously
It seems a reasonable argument to me. Hoggs point is basically
Police time and effort + moral majority = no progress
I say his equation is actually
Police +moral majority - court system =little progress
However if it were
Police+ moral majority+court system = lots of success
It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment.
And yes I do believe the vast number of law abiding citizens agree with me.....whether or not a CLEGGITE is fixing on warping the thumbs up/down figures.
[quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it? I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it. For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist. And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways. Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.[/p][/quote]my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport ! peadeophillia ??? seriously[/p][/quote]It seems a reasonable argument to me. Hoggs point is basically Police time and effort + moral majority = no progress I say his equation is actually Police +moral majority - court system =little progress However if it were Police+ moral majority+court system = lots of success It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment. And yes I do believe the vast number of law abiding citizens agree with me.....whether or not a CLEGGITE is fixing on warping the thumbs up/down figures. IanfromCrook
  • Score: -20

12:22pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Yemen says...

IanfromCrook wrote:
Yemen wrote:
GazzyWazzy wrote:
Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it?

I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it.

For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist.

And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways.

Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.
my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport !

peadeophillia ??? seriously
It seems a reasonable argument to me. Hoggs point is basically
Police time and effort + moral majority = no progress
I say his equation is actually
Police +moral majority - court system =little progress
However if it were
Police+ moral majority+court system = lots of success
It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment.
And yes I do believe the vast number of law abiding citizens agree with me.....whether or not a CLEGGITE is fixing on warping the thumbs up/down figures.
OK lets start with the source that you draw 'the moral majority' from please ? because as far as i know there have been no survey nor referendum or even discussion on this.

its nice to see that you also like to use stawmen... with your stastement below

>It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment.

YES its a massive leap... This you reframing the argument into something that fits your view, equating this proposal to being driven by low solving stats... all of which is complete tosh.


All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. Its asking that we consider a new approach, that is one in which we go for the dealers and suppliers and traffickers. The amount of time money and resource spent chasing down addicts, processing them, jailing them etc etc is staggering i would imagine. its also completely unworkable.

It does not take a genius to work out that if you have a finite resource (police,jail space,court time) and a growing problem, it wont be long before you run out of resource. once you do the problem starts to win and grow exponentially. the only way then to beat it is to stop cutting the heads off (as more grow instantly) and forget the head and go straight for the heart !

Ill attempt to illustrate it with an example using one of out more widely recognised addictions... tobacco.

As it stands at the moment if you purchase a packet of dodgy Old Holborn from someone and were to be caught with it... you would end up with possession on your record and maybe a jail term.

What its proposing is that that not be the case that you would be given help to stop smoking and the time and resource would be directed against the person who sold it to you.


Also lets please not go all lib lab con about this ... its a problem that spans generations and governments.
[quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it? I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it. For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist. And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways. Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.[/p][/quote]my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport ! peadeophillia ??? seriously[/p][/quote]It seems a reasonable argument to me. Hoggs point is basically Police time and effort + moral majority = no progress I say his equation is actually Police +moral majority - court system =little progress However if it were Police+ moral majority+court system = lots of success It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment. And yes I do believe the vast number of law abiding citizens agree with me.....whether or not a CLEGGITE is fixing on warping the thumbs up/down figures.[/p][/quote]OK lets start with the source that you draw 'the moral majority' from please ? because as far as i know there have been no survey nor referendum or even discussion on this. its nice to see that you also like to use stawmen... with your stastement below >It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment. YES its a massive leap... This you reframing the argument into something that fits your view, equating this proposal to being driven by low solving stats... all of which is complete tosh. All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. Its asking that we consider a new approach, that is one in which we go for the dealers and suppliers and traffickers. The amount of time money and resource spent chasing down addicts, processing them, jailing them etc etc is staggering i would imagine. its also completely unworkable. It does not take a genius to work out that if you have a finite resource (police,jail space,court time) and a growing problem, it wont be long before you run out of resource. once you do the problem starts to win and grow exponentially. the only way then to beat it is to stop cutting the heads off (as more grow instantly) and forget the head and go straight for the heart ! Ill attempt to illustrate it with an example using one of out more widely recognised addictions... tobacco. As it stands at the moment if you purchase a packet of dodgy Old Holborn from someone and were to be caught with it... you would end up with possession on your record and maybe a jail term. What its proposing is that that not be the case that you would be given help to stop smoking and the time and resource would be directed against the person who sold it to you. Also lets please not go all lib lab con about this ... its a problem that spans generations and governments. Yemen
  • Score: 16

12:27pm Wed 3 Sep 14

GazzyWazzy says...

Yemen wrote:
GazzyWazzy wrote:
Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it?

I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it.

For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist.

And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways.

Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.
my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport !

peadeophillia ??? seriously
You're only seeing strawmen because you're not looking at the bigger picture. While I could agree or disagree with Hogg's initial argument and this alone, such a change in the law would have far reaching consequences that it'd be too naive to not consider them.

As for paedophilia, I picked that because its current lack of legal control (particularly in Rotherham) is both topical and emphatic of my point.

Slippery slope? Perhaps. But so is de-criminalising class A drugs because you can't be bothered to eradicate it the current way.
[quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it? I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it. For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist. And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways. Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.[/p][/quote]my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport ! peadeophillia ??? seriously[/p][/quote]You're only seeing strawmen because you're not looking at the bigger picture. While I could agree or disagree with Hogg's initial argument and this alone, such a change in the law would have far reaching consequences that it'd be too naive to not consider them. As for paedophilia, I picked that because its current lack of legal control (particularly in Rotherham) is both topical and emphatic of my point. Slippery slope? Perhaps. But so is de-criminalising class A drugs because you can't be bothered to eradicate it the current way. GazzyWazzy
  • Score: -19

12:31pm Wed 3 Sep 14

GazzyWazzy says...

Yemen wrote:
IanfromCrook wrote:
Yemen wrote:
GazzyWazzy wrote:
Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it?

I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it.

For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist.

And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways.

Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.
my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport !

peadeophillia ??? seriously
It seems a reasonable argument to me. Hoggs point is basically
Police time and effort + moral majority = no progress
I say his equation is actually
Police +moral majority - court system =little progress
However if it were
Police+ moral majority+court system = lots of success
It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment.
And yes I do believe the vast number of law abiding citizens agree with me.....whether or not a CLEGGITE is fixing on warping the thumbs up/down figures.
OK lets start with the source that you draw 'the moral majority' from please ? because as far as i know there have been no survey nor referendum or even discussion on this.

its nice to see that you also like to use stawmen... with your stastement below

>It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment.

YES its a massive leap... This you reframing the argument into something that fits your view, equating this proposal to being driven by low solving stats... all of which is complete tosh.


All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. Its asking that we consider a new approach, that is one in which we go for the dealers and suppliers and traffickers. The amount of time money and resource spent chasing down addicts, processing them, jailing them etc etc is staggering i would imagine. its also completely unworkable.

It does not take a genius to work out that if you have a finite resource (police,jail space,court time) and a growing problem, it wont be long before you run out of resource. once you do the problem starts to win and grow exponentially. the only way then to beat it is to stop cutting the heads off (as more grow instantly) and forget the head and go straight for the heart !

Ill attempt to illustrate it with an example using one of out more widely recognised addictions... tobacco.

As it stands at the moment if you purchase a packet of dodgy Old Holborn from someone and were to be caught with it... you would end up with possession on your record and maybe a jail term.

What its proposing is that that not be the case that you would be given help to stop smoking and the time and resource would be directed against the person who sold it to you.


Also lets please not go all lib lab con about this ... its a problem that spans generations and governments.
Why would you need to go after the dealers if the drugs are legal? You can't legalise class A drugs then go after the dealers. It doesn't work like that. I agree that the end user are in some way a victim, and that it's those further up the chain that are the main problem, but legalising it won't help. A more relaxed approach to the end user, helping them to help you, yes. By all means, get them better in return for information for the dealers. But never should extremely dangerous drugs be made illegal.
[quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it? I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it. For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist. And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways. Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.[/p][/quote]my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport ! peadeophillia ??? seriously[/p][/quote]It seems a reasonable argument to me. Hoggs point is basically Police time and effort + moral majority = no progress I say his equation is actually Police +moral majority - court system =little progress However if it were Police+ moral majority+court system = lots of success It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment. And yes I do believe the vast number of law abiding citizens agree with me.....whether or not a CLEGGITE is fixing on warping the thumbs up/down figures.[/p][/quote]OK lets start with the source that you draw 'the moral majority' from please ? because as far as i know there have been no survey nor referendum or even discussion on this. its nice to see that you also like to use stawmen... with your stastement below >It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment. YES its a massive leap... This you reframing the argument into something that fits your view, equating this proposal to being driven by low solving stats... all of which is complete tosh. All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. Its asking that we consider a new approach, that is one in which we go for the dealers and suppliers and traffickers. The amount of time money and resource spent chasing down addicts, processing them, jailing them etc etc is staggering i would imagine. its also completely unworkable. It does not take a genius to work out that if you have a finite resource (police,jail space,court time) and a growing problem, it wont be long before you run out of resource. once you do the problem starts to win and grow exponentially. the only way then to beat it is to stop cutting the heads off (as more grow instantly) and forget the head and go straight for the heart ! Ill attempt to illustrate it with an example using one of out more widely recognised addictions... tobacco. As it stands at the moment if you purchase a packet of dodgy Old Holborn from someone and were to be caught with it... you would end up with possession on your record and maybe a jail term. What its proposing is that that not be the case that you would be given help to stop smoking and the time and resource would be directed against the person who sold it to you. Also lets please not go all lib lab con about this ... its a problem that spans generations and governments.[/p][/quote]Why would you need to go after the dealers if the drugs are legal? You can't legalise class A drugs then go after the dealers. It doesn't work like that. I agree that the end user are in some way a victim, and that it's those further up the chain that are the main problem, but legalising it won't help. A more relaxed approach to the end user, helping them to help you, yes. By all means, get them better in return for information for the dealers. But never should extremely dangerous drugs be made illegal. GazzyWazzy
  • Score: -12

12:32pm Wed 3 Sep 14

GazzyWazzy says...

GazzyWazzy wrote:
Yemen wrote:
IanfromCrook wrote:
Yemen wrote:
GazzyWazzy wrote:
Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it?

I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it.

For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist.

And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways.

Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.
my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport !

peadeophillia ??? seriously
It seems a reasonable argument to me. Hoggs point is basically
Police time and effort + moral majority = no progress
I say his equation is actually
Police +moral majority - court system =little progress
However if it were
Police+ moral majority+court system = lots of success
It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment.
And yes I do believe the vast number of law abiding citizens agree with me.....whether or not a CLEGGITE is fixing on warping the thumbs up/down figures.
OK lets start with the source that you draw 'the moral majority' from please ? because as far as i know there have been no survey nor referendum or even discussion on this.

its nice to see that you also like to use stawmen... with your stastement below

>It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment.

YES its a massive leap... This you reframing the argument into something that fits your view, equating this proposal to being driven by low solving stats... all of which is complete tosh.


All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. Its asking that we consider a new approach, that is one in which we go for the dealers and suppliers and traffickers. The amount of time money and resource spent chasing down addicts, processing them, jailing them etc etc is staggering i would imagine. its also completely unworkable.

It does not take a genius to work out that if you have a finite resource (police,jail space,court time) and a growing problem, it wont be long before you run out of resource. once you do the problem starts to win and grow exponentially. the only way then to beat it is to stop cutting the heads off (as more grow instantly) and forget the head and go straight for the heart !

Ill attempt to illustrate it with an example using one of out more widely recognised addictions... tobacco.

As it stands at the moment if you purchase a packet of dodgy Old Holborn from someone and were to be caught with it... you would end up with possession on your record and maybe a jail term.

What its proposing is that that not be the case that you would be given help to stop smoking and the time and resource would be directed against the person who sold it to you.


Also lets please not go all lib lab con about this ... its a problem that spans generations and governments.
Why would you need to go after the dealers if the drugs are legal? You can't legalise class A drugs then go after the dealers. It doesn't work like that. I agree that the end user are in some way a victim, and that it's those further up the chain that are the main problem, but legalising it won't help. A more relaxed approach to the end user, helping them to help you, yes. By all means, get them better in return for information for the dealers. But never should extremely dangerous drugs be made illegal.
I mean made legal, not illegal...oops
[quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it? I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it. For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist. And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways. Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.[/p][/quote]my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport ! peadeophillia ??? seriously[/p][/quote]It seems a reasonable argument to me. Hoggs point is basically Police time and effort + moral majority = no progress I say his equation is actually Police +moral majority - court system =little progress However if it were Police+ moral majority+court system = lots of success It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment. And yes I do believe the vast number of law abiding citizens agree with me.....whether or not a CLEGGITE is fixing on warping the thumbs up/down figures.[/p][/quote]OK lets start with the source that you draw 'the moral majority' from please ? because as far as i know there have been no survey nor referendum or even discussion on this. its nice to see that you also like to use stawmen... with your stastement below >It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment. YES its a massive leap... This you reframing the argument into something that fits your view, equating this proposal to being driven by low solving stats... all of which is complete tosh. All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. Its asking that we consider a new approach, that is one in which we go for the dealers and suppliers and traffickers. The amount of time money and resource spent chasing down addicts, processing them, jailing them etc etc is staggering i would imagine. its also completely unworkable. It does not take a genius to work out that if you have a finite resource (police,jail space,court time) and a growing problem, it wont be long before you run out of resource. once you do the problem starts to win and grow exponentially. the only way then to beat it is to stop cutting the heads off (as more grow instantly) and forget the head and go straight for the heart ! Ill attempt to illustrate it with an example using one of out more widely recognised addictions... tobacco. As it stands at the moment if you purchase a packet of dodgy Old Holborn from someone and were to be caught with it... you would end up with possession on your record and maybe a jail term. What its proposing is that that not be the case that you would be given help to stop smoking and the time and resource would be directed against the person who sold it to you. Also lets please not go all lib lab con about this ... its a problem that spans generations and governments.[/p][/quote]Why would you need to go after the dealers if the drugs are legal? You can't legalise class A drugs then go after the dealers. It doesn't work like that. I agree that the end user are in some way a victim, and that it's those further up the chain that are the main problem, but legalising it won't help. A more relaxed approach to the end user, helping them to help you, yes. By all means, get them better in return for information for the dealers. But never should extremely dangerous drugs be made illegal.[/p][/quote]I mean made legal, not illegal...oops GazzyWazzy
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Yemen says...

GazzyWazzy wrote:
GazzyWazzy wrote:
Yemen wrote:
IanfromCrook wrote:
Yemen wrote:
GazzyWazzy wrote:
Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it?

I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it.

For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist.

And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways.

Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.
my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport !

peadeophillia ??? seriously
It seems a reasonable argument to me. Hoggs point is basically
Police time and effort + moral majority = no progress
I say his equation is actually
Police +moral majority - court system =little progress
However if it were
Police+ moral majority+court system = lots of success
It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment.
And yes I do believe the vast number of law abiding citizens agree with me.....whether or not a CLEGGITE is fixing on warping the thumbs up/down figures.
OK lets start with the source that you draw 'the moral majority' from please ? because as far as i know there have been no survey nor referendum or even discussion on this.

its nice to see that you also like to use stawmen... with your stastement below

>It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment.

YES its a massive leap... This you reframing the argument into something that fits your view, equating this proposal to being driven by low solving stats... all of which is complete tosh.


All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. Its asking that we consider a new approach, that is one in which we go for the dealers and suppliers and traffickers. The amount of time money and resource spent chasing down addicts, processing them, jailing them etc etc is staggering i would imagine. its also completely unworkable.

It does not take a genius to work out that if you have a finite resource (police,jail space,court time) and a growing problem, it wont be long before you run out of resource. once you do the problem starts to win and grow exponentially. the only way then to beat it is to stop cutting the heads off (as more grow instantly) and forget the head and go straight for the heart !

Ill attempt to illustrate it with an example using one of out more widely recognised addictions... tobacco.

As it stands at the moment if you purchase a packet of dodgy Old Holborn from someone and were to be caught with it... you would end up with possession on your record and maybe a jail term.

What its proposing is that that not be the case that you would be given help to stop smoking and the time and resource would be directed against the person who sold it to you.


Also lets please not go all lib lab con about this ... its a problem that spans generations and governments.
Why would you need to go after the dealers if the drugs are legal? You can't legalise class A drugs then go after the dealers. It doesn't work like that. I agree that the end user are in some way a victim, and that it's those further up the chain that are the main problem, but legalising it won't help. A more relaxed approach to the end user, helping them to help you, yes. By all means, get them better in return for information for the dealers. But never should extremely dangerous drugs be made illegal.
I mean made legal, not illegal...oops
Exactly.... i wholeheartedly concur.

And this is why the echo's sensationalist headline does not help the debate one jot. As far as i'm aware (i've been following the issue with interest for a while along with whats going on with marijuana in america) the proposal is that possession/use be 'decriminalised' NOT the drug itself... i was trying to illustrate that point with my dodgy old holborn analogy.

Therefore if you were caught with a small amount that was clearly for you only you would have it taken off you and helped to recover from your addiction.

i don't think the proposal limits itself to just class A btw ....
[quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it? I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it. For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist. And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways. Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.[/p][/quote]my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport ! peadeophillia ??? seriously[/p][/quote]It seems a reasonable argument to me. Hoggs point is basically Police time and effort + moral majority = no progress I say his equation is actually Police +moral majority - court system =little progress However if it were Police+ moral majority+court system = lots of success It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment. And yes I do believe the vast number of law abiding citizens agree with me.....whether or not a CLEGGITE is fixing on warping the thumbs up/down figures.[/p][/quote]OK lets start with the source that you draw 'the moral majority' from please ? because as far as i know there have been no survey nor referendum or even discussion on this. its nice to see that you also like to use stawmen... with your stastement below >It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment. YES its a massive leap... This you reframing the argument into something that fits your view, equating this proposal to being driven by low solving stats... all of which is complete tosh. All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. Its asking that we consider a new approach, that is one in which we go for the dealers and suppliers and traffickers. The amount of time money and resource spent chasing down addicts, processing them, jailing them etc etc is staggering i would imagine. its also completely unworkable. It does not take a genius to work out that if you have a finite resource (police,jail space,court time) and a growing problem, it wont be long before you run out of resource. once you do the problem starts to win and grow exponentially. the only way then to beat it is to stop cutting the heads off (as more grow instantly) and forget the head and go straight for the heart ! Ill attempt to illustrate it with an example using one of out more widely recognised addictions... tobacco. As it stands at the moment if you purchase a packet of dodgy Old Holborn from someone and were to be caught with it... you would end up with possession on your record and maybe a jail term. What its proposing is that that not be the case that you would be given help to stop smoking and the time and resource would be directed against the person who sold it to you. Also lets please not go all lib lab con about this ... its a problem that spans generations and governments.[/p][/quote]Why would you need to go after the dealers if the drugs are legal? You can't legalise class A drugs then go after the dealers. It doesn't work like that. I agree that the end user are in some way a victim, and that it's those further up the chain that are the main problem, but legalising it won't help. A more relaxed approach to the end user, helping them to help you, yes. By all means, get them better in return for information for the dealers. But never should extremely dangerous drugs be made illegal.[/p][/quote]I mean made legal, not illegal...oops[/p][/quote]Exactly.... i wholeheartedly concur. And this is why the echo's sensationalist headline does not help the debate one jot. As far as i'm aware (i've been following the issue with interest for a while along with whats going on with marijuana in america) the proposal is that possession/use be 'decriminalised' NOT the drug itself... i was trying to illustrate that point with my dodgy old holborn analogy. Therefore if you were caught with a small amount that was clearly for you only you would have it taken off you and helped to recover from your addiction. i don't think the proposal limits itself to just class A btw .... Yemen
  • Score: 3

12:54pm Wed 3 Sep 14

IanfromCrook says...

YEMEN you said
"All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. "
My main point is we are not giving law and order a real try.....
If you try to help a driver by pushing his car you find it hard to do so if some doughnut in a white wig insists on pushing the front.
Apart from believing through discussions (face to face) with real people that I am on the side of the majority.... Only one person was in disagreement........ It is logical to believe a good barometer may be that it is very rare that anyone from any political persuasion preports to legalising drugs in any kind of campaign. The reason I am particularly down on Cleggy is purely due to him buying votes by making his MPs sign an agreement then tare it up post election.....in the world of the untrustworthy I am afraid he (and so his party) take the prize for LCD. Just a personal gripe slightly off topic.
YEMEN you said "All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. " My main point is we are not giving law and order a real try..... If you try to help a driver by pushing his car you find it hard to do so if some doughnut in a white wig insists on pushing the front. Apart from believing through discussions (face to face) with real people that I am on the side of the majority.... Only one person was in disagreement........ It is logical to believe a good barometer may be that it is very rare that anyone from any political persuasion preports to legalising drugs in any kind of campaign. The reason I am particularly down on Cleggy is purely due to him buying votes by making his MPs sign an agreement then tare it up post election.....in the world of the untrustworthy I am afraid he (and so his party) take the prize for LCD. Just a personal gripe slightly off topic. IanfromCrook
  • Score: -5

1:05pm Wed 3 Sep 14

GazzyWazzy says...

Yemen wrote:
GazzyWazzy wrote:
GazzyWazzy wrote:
Yemen wrote:
IanfromCrook wrote:
Yemen wrote:
GazzyWazzy wrote:
Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it?

I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it.

For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist.

And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways.

Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.
my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport !

peadeophillia ??? seriously
It seems a reasonable argument to me. Hoggs point is basically
Police time and effort + moral majority = no progress
I say his equation is actually
Police +moral majority - court system =little progress
However if it were
Police+ moral majority+court system = lots of success
It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment.
And yes I do believe the vast number of law abiding citizens agree with me.....whether or not a CLEGGITE is fixing on warping the thumbs up/down figures.
OK lets start with the source that you draw 'the moral majority' from please ? because as far as i know there have been no survey nor referendum or even discussion on this.

its nice to see that you also like to use stawmen... with your stastement below

>It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment.

YES its a massive leap... This you reframing the argument into something that fits your view, equating this proposal to being driven by low solving stats... all of which is complete tosh.


All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. Its asking that we consider a new approach, that is one in which we go for the dealers and suppliers and traffickers. The amount of time money and resource spent chasing down addicts, processing them, jailing them etc etc is staggering i would imagine. its also completely unworkable.

It does not take a genius to work out that if you have a finite resource (police,jail space,court time) and a growing problem, it wont be long before you run out of resource. once you do the problem starts to win and grow exponentially. the only way then to beat it is to stop cutting the heads off (as more grow instantly) and forget the head and go straight for the heart !

Ill attempt to illustrate it with an example using one of out more widely recognised addictions... tobacco.

As it stands at the moment if you purchase a packet of dodgy Old Holborn from someone and were to be caught with it... you would end up with possession on your record and maybe a jail term.

What its proposing is that that not be the case that you would be given help to stop smoking and the time and resource would be directed against the person who sold it to you.


Also lets please not go all lib lab con about this ... its a problem that spans generations and governments.
Why would you need to go after the dealers if the drugs are legal? You can't legalise class A drugs then go after the dealers. It doesn't work like that. I agree that the end user are in some way a victim, and that it's those further up the chain that are the main problem, but legalising it won't help. A more relaxed approach to the end user, helping them to help you, yes. By all means, get them better in return for information for the dealers. But never should extremely dangerous drugs be made illegal.
I mean made legal, not illegal...oops
Exactly.... i wholeheartedly concur.

And this is why the echo's sensationalist headline does not help the debate one jot. As far as i'm aware (i've been following the issue with interest for a while along with whats going on with marijuana in america) the proposal is that possession/use be 'decriminalised' NOT the drug itself... i was trying to illustrate that point with my dodgy old holborn analogy.

Therefore if you were caught with a small amount that was clearly for you only you would have it taken off you and helped to recover from your addiction.

i don't think the proposal limits itself to just class A btw ....
Yemen, I'm glad we managed to find some common ground.

The headline is very loaded. Even making possession and use legal is dangerous as it gives rise to loopholes, ones that dealers will find a way of exploiting. "I'm not dealing, office. It's just for me and my friends". I think making possession/use legal for what would be the end user would make it harder for police to nail the dealers.

Perhaps a more relaxed set of guidelines towards the end user, those that clearly aren't dealing and are just addicts, is what is needed. Keep the current laws in place, but do more to help those stuck at the bottom instead of busting them. I'm all for helping people who need help, but I'm firmly against giving criminals a free pass or amnesty.

Also, I knew it wouldn't be just class A. I just figured you'd know that I meant all drugs, in that, if you were going to legalise class A, you wouldn't leave less harmful drugs illegal.
[quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it? I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it. For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist. And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways. Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.[/p][/quote]my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport ! peadeophillia ??? seriously[/p][/quote]It seems a reasonable argument to me. Hoggs point is basically Police time and effort + moral majority = no progress I say his equation is actually Police +moral majority - court system =little progress However if it were Police+ moral majority+court system = lots of success It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment. And yes I do believe the vast number of law abiding citizens agree with me.....whether or not a CLEGGITE is fixing on warping the thumbs up/down figures.[/p][/quote]OK lets start with the source that you draw 'the moral majority' from please ? because as far as i know there have been no survey nor referendum or even discussion on this. its nice to see that you also like to use stawmen... with your stastement below >It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment. YES its a massive leap... This you reframing the argument into something that fits your view, equating this proposal to being driven by low solving stats... all of which is complete tosh. All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. Its asking that we consider a new approach, that is one in which we go for the dealers and suppliers and traffickers. The amount of time money and resource spent chasing down addicts, processing them, jailing them etc etc is staggering i would imagine. its also completely unworkable. It does not take a genius to work out that if you have a finite resource (police,jail space,court time) and a growing problem, it wont be long before you run out of resource. once you do the problem starts to win and grow exponentially. the only way then to beat it is to stop cutting the heads off (as more grow instantly) and forget the head and go straight for the heart ! Ill attempt to illustrate it with an example using one of out more widely recognised addictions... tobacco. As it stands at the moment if you purchase a packet of dodgy Old Holborn from someone and were to be caught with it... you would end up with possession on your record and maybe a jail term. What its proposing is that that not be the case that you would be given help to stop smoking and the time and resource would be directed against the person who sold it to you. Also lets please not go all lib lab con about this ... its a problem that spans generations and governments.[/p][/quote]Why would you need to go after the dealers if the drugs are legal? You can't legalise class A drugs then go after the dealers. It doesn't work like that. I agree that the end user are in some way a victim, and that it's those further up the chain that are the main problem, but legalising it won't help. A more relaxed approach to the end user, helping them to help you, yes. By all means, get them better in return for information for the dealers. But never should extremely dangerous drugs be made illegal.[/p][/quote]I mean made legal, not illegal...oops[/p][/quote]Exactly.... i wholeheartedly concur. And this is why the echo's sensationalist headline does not help the debate one jot. As far as i'm aware (i've been following the issue with interest for a while along with whats going on with marijuana in america) the proposal is that possession/use be 'decriminalised' NOT the drug itself... i was trying to illustrate that point with my dodgy old holborn analogy. Therefore if you were caught with a small amount that was clearly for you only you would have it taken off you and helped to recover from your addiction. i don't think the proposal limits itself to just class A btw ....[/p][/quote]Yemen, I'm glad we managed to find some common ground. The headline is very loaded. Even making possession and use legal is dangerous as it gives rise to loopholes, ones that dealers will find a way of exploiting. "I'm not dealing, office. It's just for me and my friends". I think making possession/use legal for what would be the end user would make it harder for police to nail the dealers. Perhaps a more relaxed set of guidelines towards the end user, those that clearly aren't dealing and are just addicts, is what is needed. Keep the current laws in place, but do more to help those stuck at the bottom instead of busting them. I'm all for helping people who need help, but I'm firmly against giving criminals a free pass or amnesty. Also, I knew it wouldn't be just class A. I just figured you'd know that I meant all drugs, in that, if you were going to legalise class A, you wouldn't leave less harmful drugs illegal. GazzyWazzy
  • Score: -9

1:15pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Yemen says...

IanfromCrook wrote:
YEMEN you said
"All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. "
My main point is we are not giving law and order a real try.....
If you try to help a driver by pushing his car you find it hard to do so if some doughnut in a white wig insists on pushing the front.
Apart from believing through discussions (face to face) with real people that I am on the side of the majority.... Only one person was in disagreement........ It is logical to believe a good barometer may be that it is very rare that anyone from any political persuasion preports to legalising drugs in any kind of campaign. The reason I am particularly down on Cleggy is purely due to him buying votes by making his MPs sign an agreement then tare it up post election.....in the world of the untrustworthy I am afraid he (and so his party) take the prize for LCD. Just a personal gripe slightly off topic.
Thank you for the clarification Ian. i share your disgust with clegg but extend it across all parties.

This is a contentious issue and i would argue that we have given the law a go and due to the massive scale of the problem the laws are no longer suitable. we need to rethink.

I'm all for a proper debate in the public forum... were having one about the EU and Scotland lets have one about a subject that is killing and harming people everyday.

Also and with tongue in cheek as per your clegg gripe can we talk about a fat tax too :)
[quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: YEMEN you said "All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. " My main point is we are not giving law and order a real try..... If you try to help a driver by pushing his car you find it hard to do so if some doughnut in a white wig insists on pushing the front. Apart from believing through discussions (face to face) with real people that I am on the side of the majority.... Only one person was in disagreement........ It is logical to believe a good barometer may be that it is very rare that anyone from any political persuasion preports to legalising drugs in any kind of campaign. The reason I am particularly down on Cleggy is purely due to him buying votes by making his MPs sign an agreement then tare it up post election.....in the world of the untrustworthy I am afraid he (and so his party) take the prize for LCD. Just a personal gripe slightly off topic.[/p][/quote]Thank you for the clarification Ian. i share your disgust with clegg but extend it across all parties. This is a contentious issue and i would argue that we have given the law a go and due to the massive scale of the problem the laws are no longer suitable. we need to rethink. I'm all for a proper debate in the public forum... were having one about the EU and Scotland lets have one about a subject that is killing and harming people everyday. Also and with tongue in cheek as per your clegg gripe can we talk about a fat tax too :) Yemen
  • Score: 4

1:29pm Wed 3 Sep 14

IanfromCrook says...

Yemen wrote:
IanfromCrook wrote:
YEMEN you said
"All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. "
My main point is we are not giving law and order a real try.....
If you try to help a driver by pushing his car you find it hard to do so if some doughnut in a white wig insists on pushing the front.
Apart from believing through discussions (face to face) with real people that I am on the side of the majority.... Only one person was in disagreement........ It is logical to believe a good barometer may be that it is very rare that anyone from any political persuasion preports to legalising drugs in any kind of campaign. The reason I am particularly down on Cleggy is purely due to him buying votes by making his MPs sign an agreement then tare it up post election.....in the world of the untrustworthy I am afraid he (and so his party) take the prize for LCD. Just a personal gripe slightly off topic.
Thank you for the clarification Ian. i share your disgust with clegg but extend it across all parties.

This is a contentious issue and i would argue that we have given the law a go and due to the massive scale of the problem the laws are no longer suitable. we need to rethink.

I'm all for a proper debate in the public forum... were having one about the EU and Scotland lets have one about a subject that is killing and harming people everyday.

Also and with tongue in cheek as per your clegg gripe can we talk about a fat tax too :)
I take your point but disagree about last having had a chance......as for the Tax.....nooooooooo.
How about a morality in public office tax......any elected individual that renages on a promise has a 5% of their yearly salary fine......I think that would raise quite a bit.
PS that may have to include commissioners who are elected to ensure laws are enforced properly ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: YEMEN you said "All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. " My main point is we are not giving law and order a real try..... If you try to help a driver by pushing his car you find it hard to do so if some doughnut in a white wig insists on pushing the front. Apart from believing through discussions (face to face) with real people that I am on the side of the majority.... Only one person was in disagreement........ It is logical to believe a good barometer may be that it is very rare that anyone from any political persuasion preports to legalising drugs in any kind of campaign. The reason I am particularly down on Cleggy is purely due to him buying votes by making his MPs sign an agreement then tare it up post election.....in the world of the untrustworthy I am afraid he (and so his party) take the prize for LCD. Just a personal gripe slightly off topic.[/p][/quote]Thank you for the clarification Ian. i share your disgust with clegg but extend it across all parties. This is a contentious issue and i would argue that we have given the law a go and due to the massive scale of the problem the laws are no longer suitable. we need to rethink. I'm all for a proper debate in the public forum... were having one about the EU and Scotland lets have one about a subject that is killing and harming people everyday. Also and with tongue in cheek as per your clegg gripe can we talk about a fat tax too :)[/p][/quote]I take your point but disagree about last having had a chance......as for the Tax.....nooooooooo. How about a morality in public office tax......any elected individual that renages on a promise has a 5% of their yearly salary fine......I think that would raise quite a bit. PS that may have to include commissioners who are elected to ensure laws are enforced properly ;-) IanfromCrook
  • Score: 1

1:30pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Ron Carter-Bonsteel says...

Some very good points raised there by posters. There are people out there who cannot get the help and support the genuine people who have serious health issues like Cancer and other illnesses. People are dying because they cannot get the treatment they deserve.I myself have a genetic condition which has effected my grown up kids did not know about it till they were into the late teens. Have a son who is blind and had a stroke at 24 he has other medical conditions which are not of his doing?I have many family and friends who suffer real disabilities caused through no fault of their own and what help do we get? Nothing. Just left to get on with it. Which we do. A bit off topic but my wife is a Carer and there are thousands out there who save the Government £124 Billion pounds a year for 24/7 care. Why would anyone in their right mind put something into your body which is destructive? I know everyone has a sob story to tell but it's a fact.
Some very good points raised there by posters. There are people out there who cannot get the help and support the genuine people who have serious health issues like Cancer and other illnesses. People are dying because they cannot get the treatment they deserve.I myself have a genetic condition which has effected my grown up kids did not know about it till they were into the late teens. Have a son who is blind and had a stroke at 24 he has other medical conditions which are not of his doing?I have many family and friends who suffer real disabilities caused through no fault of their own and what help do we get? Nothing. Just left to get on with it. Which we do. A bit off topic but my wife is a Carer and there are thousands out there who save the Government £124 Billion pounds a year for 24/7 care. Why would anyone in their right mind put something into your body which is destructive? I know everyone has a sob story to tell but it's a fact. Ron Carter-Bonsteel
  • Score: -3

1:34pm Wed 3 Sep 14

IanfromCrook says...

IanfromCrook wrote:
Yemen wrote:
IanfromCrook wrote:
YEMEN you said
"All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. "
My main point is we are not giving law and order a real try.....
If you try to help a driver by pushing his car you find it hard to do so if some doughnut in a white wig insists on pushing the front.
Apart from believing through discussions (face to face) with real people that I am on the side of the majority.... Only one person was in disagreement........ It is logical to believe a good barometer may be that it is very rare that anyone from any political persuasion preports to legalising drugs in any kind of campaign. The reason I am particularly down on Cleggy is purely due to him buying votes by making his MPs sign an agreement then tare it up post election.....in the world of the untrustworthy I am afraid he (and so his party) take the prize for LCD. Just a personal gripe slightly off topic.
Thank you for the clarification Ian. i share your disgust with clegg but extend it across all parties.

This is a contentious issue and i would argue that we have given the law a go and due to the massive scale of the problem the laws are no longer suitable. we need to rethink.

I'm all for a proper debate in the public forum... were having one about the EU and Scotland lets have one about a subject that is killing and harming people everyday.

Also and with tongue in cheek as per your clegg gripe can we talk about a fat tax too :)
I take your point but disagree about last having had a chance......as for the Tax.....nooooooooo.
How about a morality in public office tax......any elected individual that renages on a promise has a 5% of their yearly salary fine......I think that would raise quite a bit.
PS that may have to include commissioners who are elected to ensure laws are enforced properly ;-)
I meant that i disagree that law has had a chance. Stopping commenting now for a bit until I beat my tablets dumb auto correction.
[quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: YEMEN you said "All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. " My main point is we are not giving law and order a real try..... If you try to help a driver by pushing his car you find it hard to do so if some doughnut in a white wig insists on pushing the front. Apart from believing through discussions (face to face) with real people that I am on the side of the majority.... Only one person was in disagreement........ It is logical to believe a good barometer may be that it is very rare that anyone from any political persuasion preports to legalising drugs in any kind of campaign. The reason I am particularly down on Cleggy is purely due to him buying votes by making his MPs sign an agreement then tare it up post election.....in the world of the untrustworthy I am afraid he (and so his party) take the prize for LCD. Just a personal gripe slightly off topic.[/p][/quote]Thank you for the clarification Ian. i share your disgust with clegg but extend it across all parties. This is a contentious issue and i would argue that we have given the law a go and due to the massive scale of the problem the laws are no longer suitable. we need to rethink. I'm all for a proper debate in the public forum... were having one about the EU and Scotland lets have one about a subject that is killing and harming people everyday. Also and with tongue in cheek as per your clegg gripe can we talk about a fat tax too :)[/p][/quote]I take your point but disagree about last having had a chance......as for the Tax.....nooooooooo. How about a morality in public office tax......any elected individual that renages on a promise has a 5% of their yearly salary fine......I think that would raise quite a bit. PS that may have to include commissioners who are elected to ensure laws are enforced properly ;-)[/p][/quote]I meant that i disagree that law has had a chance. Stopping commenting now for a bit until I beat my tablets dumb auto correction. IanfromCrook
  • Score: -3

1:34pm Wed 3 Sep 14

IanfromCrook says...

IanfromCrook wrote:
Yemen wrote:
IanfromCrook wrote:
YEMEN you said
"All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. "
My main point is we are not giving law and order a real try.....
If you try to help a driver by pushing his car you find it hard to do so if some doughnut in a white wig insists on pushing the front.
Apart from believing through discussions (face to face) with real people that I am on the side of the majority.... Only one person was in disagreement........ It is logical to believe a good barometer may be that it is very rare that anyone from any political persuasion preports to legalising drugs in any kind of campaign. The reason I am particularly down on Cleggy is purely due to him buying votes by making his MPs sign an agreement then tare it up post election.....in the world of the untrustworthy I am afraid he (and so his party) take the prize for LCD. Just a personal gripe slightly off topic.
Thank you for the clarification Ian. i share your disgust with clegg but extend it across all parties.

This is a contentious issue and i would argue that we have given the law a go and due to the massive scale of the problem the laws are no longer suitable. we need to rethink.

I'm all for a proper debate in the public forum... were having one about the EU and Scotland lets have one about a subject that is killing and harming people everyday.

Also and with tongue in cheek as per your clegg gripe can we talk about a fat tax too :)
I take your point but disagree about last having had a chance......as for the Tax.....nooooooooo.
How about a morality in public office tax......any elected individual that renages on a promise has a 5% of their yearly salary fine......I think that would raise quite a bit.
PS that may have to include commissioners who are elected to ensure laws are enforced properly ;-)
I meant that i disagree that law has had a chance. Stopping commenting now for a bit until I beat my tablets dumb auto correction.
[quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: YEMEN you said "All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. " My main point is we are not giving law and order a real try..... If you try to help a driver by pushing his car you find it hard to do so if some doughnut in a white wig insists on pushing the front. Apart from believing through discussions (face to face) with real people that I am on the side of the majority.... Only one person was in disagreement........ It is logical to believe a good barometer may be that it is very rare that anyone from any political persuasion preports to legalising drugs in any kind of campaign. The reason I am particularly down on Cleggy is purely due to him buying votes by making his MPs sign an agreement then tare it up post election.....in the world of the untrustworthy I am afraid he (and so his party) take the prize for LCD. Just a personal gripe slightly off topic.[/p][/quote]Thank you for the clarification Ian. i share your disgust with clegg but extend it across all parties. This is a contentious issue and i would argue that we have given the law a go and due to the massive scale of the problem the laws are no longer suitable. we need to rethink. I'm all for a proper debate in the public forum... were having one about the EU and Scotland lets have one about a subject that is killing and harming people everyday. Also and with tongue in cheek as per your clegg gripe can we talk about a fat tax too :)[/p][/quote]I take your point but disagree about last having had a chance......as for the Tax.....nooooooooo. How about a morality in public office tax......any elected individual that renages on a promise has a 5% of their yearly salary fine......I think that would raise quite a bit. PS that may have to include commissioners who are elected to ensure laws are enforced properly ;-)[/p][/quote]I meant that i disagree that law has had a chance. Stopping commenting now for a bit until I beat my tablets dumb auto correction. IanfromCrook
  • Score: -2

1:52pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Tom Speed says...

David Lacey wrote:
"THE war on drugs has failedSir, you need educating, because Vices are NOT Crimes: http://www.lysanders
pooner.org/VicesAreN
otCrimes.htm

Now we have that out of the way...

With regard to Cannabis, nothing could be further from the truth about its negative effects, the truth is that it is a supplement for most medical conditions that result from a mal-functioning EndoCannabinoid System: http://www.faqs.org/
patents/assignee/gw-
pharma-limited/

Even 'Addiction' itself, it asserted to be as a result of ECS mal-function: http://www.faqs.org/
patents/app/20100317
729

"The ability of a compound to have antagonistic properties at a constitutively active receptor may be extremely beneficial in the treatment of diseases where a change in the background tone of a cell is the cause of the disease state.

Examples of diseases and conditions that are the result of the background tone of constitutively active cannabinoid receptors include but are not limited to obesity, schizophrenia, epilepsy, cognitive disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, bone disorders such as osteoporosis, bulimia, obesity associated with type II diabetes (non-insulin dependant diabetes), the treatment of drug, alcohol and nicotine abuse or dependency and inflammatory disorders (Pertwee, R. G., 2000)."
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: "THE war on drugs has failedSir, you need educating, because Vices are NOT Crimes: http://www.lysanders pooner.org/VicesAreN otCrimes.htm Now we have that out of the way... With regard to Cannabis, nothing could be further from the truth about its negative effects, the truth is that it is a supplement for most medical conditions that result from a mal-functioning EndoCannabinoid System: http://www.faqs.org/ patents/assignee/gw- pharma-limited/ Even 'Addiction' itself, it asserted to be as a result of ECS mal-function: http://www.faqs.org/ patents/app/20100317 729 "[0013]The ability of a compound to have antagonistic properties at a constitutively active receptor may be extremely beneficial in the treatment of diseases where a change in the background tone of a cell is the cause of the disease state. [0014]Examples of diseases and conditions that are the result of the background tone of constitutively active cannabinoid receptors include but are not limited to obesity, schizophrenia, epilepsy, cognitive disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, bone disorders such as osteoporosis, bulimia, obesity associated with type II diabetes (non-insulin dependant diabetes), the treatment of drug, alcohol and nicotine abuse or dependency and inflammatory disorders (Pertwee, R. G., 2000)." Tom Speed
  • Score: 9

1:58pm Wed 3 Sep 14

somethinginsidesostrong says...

Gazzy Wazzy you are so right! What expose has there been of all those 100's of kids in THE NEXT COUNTY that were sexually TORTURED? I have seen no concern for them on here! Ron Carter Bonsteel rightly said Durham Police has even lost the Handle on Anti Social Behaviour = ASB PACT has failed to do what its aims and objectives were. Even Victim Resolution is a load of cobblers. `This happened and that happened then every body shook hands and all lived happily ever after' The Reportage is flawed, the disabled victim unfairly/inadequatel
y reported. e.g. One victim from Darlington had a new mobility car - windows smashed , wheels stolen, it was the disabled victims 3rd claim and she could not get further insurance. so she lost her mobility. Police say each time you suffer a disturbance at 4:10 a.m "report it" So due to disturbance affecting autistic grandson it is reported as instructed. Then you are treated worse than a criminal for objecting to being abused in your own home at 4:10 a.m. The same PCC says tantamount "I cant cope on my 80k a year salary so let the druggies just continue destroying this Broken Society. Get a grip Ron and Northern Echo editorial its a harsh world right near home where hundreds of kids are being sexually abused!
Gazzy Wazzy you are so right! What expose has there been of all those 100's of kids in THE NEXT COUNTY that were sexually TORTURED? I have seen no concern for them on here! Ron Carter Bonsteel rightly said Durham Police has even lost the Handle on Anti Social Behaviour = ASB PACT has failed to do what its aims and objectives were. Even Victim Resolution is a load of cobblers. `This happened and that happened then every body shook hands and all lived happily ever after' The Reportage is flawed, the disabled victim unfairly/inadequatel y reported. e.g. One victim from Darlington had a new mobility car - windows smashed , wheels stolen, it was the disabled victims 3rd claim and she could not get further insurance. so she lost her mobility. Police say each time you suffer a disturbance at 4:10 a.m "report it" So due to disturbance affecting autistic grandson it is reported as instructed. Then you are treated worse than a criminal for objecting to being abused in your own home at 4:10 a.m. The same PCC says tantamount "I cant cope on my 80k a year salary so let the druggies just continue destroying this Broken Society. Get a grip Ron and Northern Echo editorial its a harsh world right near home where hundreds of kids are being sexually abused! somethinginsidesostrong
  • Score: -4

2:02pm Wed 3 Sep 14

David Lacey says...

Thank you Ron Carter-Bonsteel. Drugs are evil. Addicts are weak fools who chose to take them. When the NHS is under great financial pressure to deal with seriously ill people spending a single penny on pathetic addicts is wrong.
Thank you Ron Carter-Bonsteel. Drugs are evil. Addicts are weak fools who chose to take them. When the NHS is under great financial pressure to deal with seriously ill people spending a single penny on pathetic addicts is wrong. David Lacey
  • Score: -8

2:11pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Tom Speed says...

David Lacey wrote:
Thank you Ron Carter-Bonsteel. Drugs are evil. Addicts are weak fools who chose to take them. When the NHS is under great financial pressure to deal with seriously ill people spending a single penny on pathetic addicts is wrong.
NHS admissions due to Alcohol topped 1,000,000 again last year.

Peanuts account for about 3,000 admissions per year.

Cannabis 750. (mostly first time users who tried too much, often brownies which are much stronger! than smoking!!!)

Deaths from lethal overdoses from Cannabis, "Do not occur" http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmedhealth
/PMH0032740/

"Because cannabinoid receptors, unlike opioid receptors, are not located in the brainstem areas controlling respiration, lethal overdoses from Cannabis and cannabinoids DO NOT OCCUR."
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Thank you Ron Carter-Bonsteel. Drugs are evil. Addicts are weak fools who chose to take them. When the NHS is under great financial pressure to deal with seriously ill people spending a single penny on pathetic addicts is wrong.[/p][/quote]NHS admissions due to Alcohol topped 1,000,000 again last year. Peanuts account for about 3,000 admissions per year. Cannabis 750. (mostly first time users who tried too much, often brownies which are much stronger! than smoking!!!) Deaths from lethal overdoses from Cannabis, "Do not occur" http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmedhealth /PMH0032740/ "Because cannabinoid receptors, unlike opioid receptors, are not located in the brainstem areas controlling respiration, lethal overdoses from Cannabis and cannabinoids DO NOT OCCUR." Tom Speed
  • Score: 11

2:11pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Bill_Teesside says...

What a relief to see a Police and Crime commisioner with vision
The war on drugs is another pathetic Americanism
Leaglise all drugs, Stop the drug barons profitering and stop criminalising recreational users, Most of whom are law abiding citizens who only partake recreationally and have to purchase from characters who in there normal life they wouldnt be associated with, Use the tax recieved to offer treatments at source, it would be nice to see the £2 billion revenue that drug use is estimated at going into the UK treasury rather than going to street dealers and there suppliers, By doing so this country could offer a 2nd to none rehabilitation program and offer drugs of approved quality and so by reducing the risks to users
What a relief to see a Police and Crime commisioner with vision The war on drugs is another pathetic Americanism Leaglise all drugs, Stop the drug barons profitering and stop criminalising recreational users, Most of whom are law abiding citizens who only partake recreationally and have to purchase from characters who in there normal life they wouldnt be associated with, Use the tax recieved to offer treatments at source, it would be nice to see the £2 billion revenue that drug use is estimated at going into the UK treasury rather than going to street dealers and there suppliers, By doing so this country could offer a 2nd to none rehabilitation program and offer drugs of approved quality and so by reducing the risks to users Bill_Teesside
  • Score: 3

2:15pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Yemen says...

David Lacey wrote:
Thank you Ron Carter-Bonsteel. Drugs are evil. Addicts are weak fools who chose to take them. When the NHS is under great financial pressure to deal with seriously ill people spending a single penny on pathetic addicts is wrong.
well now we have that out of the way... care to offer up a solution to the out of control problem we have, on topic as it were ?

Also i would add that NHS already pays out VAST quantities on smokers, drinkers and the obese all of which are addictions.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Thank you Ron Carter-Bonsteel. Drugs are evil. Addicts are weak fools who chose to take them. When the NHS is under great financial pressure to deal with seriously ill people spending a single penny on pathetic addicts is wrong.[/p][/quote]well now we have that out of the way... care to offer up a solution to the out of control problem we have, on topic as it were ? Also i would add that NHS already pays out VAST quantities on smokers, drinkers and the obese all of which are addictions. Yemen
  • Score: 6

2:51pm Wed 3 Sep 14

settheworldonfire says...

David Lacey wrote:
Thank you Ron Carter-Bonsteel. Drugs are evil. Addicts are weak fools who chose to take them. When the NHS is under great financial pressure to deal with seriously ill people spending a single penny on pathetic addicts is wrong.
EXCUSE THE CAPS.........
THIS IS THE BEST COMMENT YOU HAVE DONE FOR A WHILE.....
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Thank you Ron Carter-Bonsteel. Drugs are evil. Addicts are weak fools who chose to take them. When the NHS is under great financial pressure to deal with seriously ill people spending a single penny on pathetic addicts is wrong.[/p][/quote]EXCUSE THE CAPS......... THIS IS THE BEST COMMENT YOU HAVE DONE FOR A WHILE..... settheworldonfire
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Ron Carter-Bonsteel says...

I had 5 Motabilty cars destroyed by criminals because I spoke out on the SCUM who terroriised our estate and others because I did not conform to buying or selling drugs and stolen property. Authorities turned a blind eye to our suffering for 12 years. There are some evil sons of hitches out there who will stop at nothing to get myself and family out of the estate I loved and the good decent people who lived on it. Would I do the same now? My head would say Yes but my heart No I seen first hand what these criminals can do and believe me no one knows until you have experience this yourselves. I have never given up fighting for Justice and will continue my fight to the day I die.
I had 5 Motabilty cars destroyed by criminals because I spoke out on the SCUM who terroriised our estate and others because I did not conform to buying or selling drugs and stolen property. Authorities turned a blind eye to our suffering for 12 years. There are some evil sons of hitches out there who will stop at nothing to get myself and family out of the estate I loved and the good decent people who lived on it. Would I do the same now? My head would say Yes but my heart No I seen first hand what these criminals can do and believe me no one knows until you have experience this yourselves. I have never given up fighting for Justice and will continue my fight to the day I die. Ron Carter-Bonsteel
  • Score: 1

3:09pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Ron Carter-Bonsteel says...

Going for a record of 30 thumbs down previous ones on this issue I got 24 think it was.and it should say **** not Hitches sorry my sausage fingers hit the wrong key.:-)
Going for a record of 30 thumbs down previous ones on this issue I got 24 think it was.and it should say **** not Hitches sorry my sausage fingers hit the wrong key.:-) Ron Carter-Bonsteel
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Yemen says...

Ron Carter-Bonsteel wrote:
I had 5 Motabilty cars destroyed by criminals because I spoke out on the SCUM who terroriised our estate and others because I did not conform to buying or selling drugs and stolen property. Authorities turned a blind eye to our suffering for 12 years. There are some evil sons of hitches out there who will stop at nothing to get myself and family out of the estate I loved and the good decent people who lived on it. Would I do the same now? My head would say Yes but my heart No I seen first hand what these criminals can do and believe me no one knows until you have experience this yourselves. I have never given up fighting for Justice and will continue my fight to the day I die.
I am sorry to hear that that has happened to you.

I believe that a new approach is needed to bring these dealer scum to justice because, as you yourself have experienced, what we have in place is not working.

unless we do something this will only get worse...

As for your sausage finger slip i know the word you are after and consider it lenient in relation to these lowlives.
[quote][p][bold]Ron Carter-Bonsteel[/bold] wrote: I had 5 Motabilty cars destroyed by criminals because I spoke out on the SCUM who terroriised our estate and others because I did not conform to buying or selling drugs and stolen property. Authorities turned a blind eye to our suffering for 12 years. There are some evil sons of hitches out there who will stop at nothing to get myself and family out of the estate I loved and the good decent people who lived on it. Would I do the same now? My head would say Yes but my heart No I seen first hand what these criminals can do and believe me no one knows until you have experience this yourselves. I have never given up fighting for Justice and will continue my fight to the day I die.[/p][/quote]I am sorry to hear that that has happened to you. I believe that a new approach is needed to bring these dealer scum to justice because, as you yourself have experienced, what we have in place is not working. unless we do something this will only get worse... As for your sausage finger slip i know the word you are after and consider it lenient in relation to these lowlives. Yemen
  • Score: 5

4:15pm Wed 3 Sep 14

johnny_p says...

Oh look- it's Ron Hogg. A man who can focus so much of his time into making "cycling on pavements" illegal, but at the same time thinks that exactly the opposite should apply to drug use.

Think it's time he should be sacked. Does anyone know how to set up a government petition calling for this? I wonder how much this work shy, incompetent liberal costs the taxpayer each year?

Time to go you clown.
Oh look- it's Ron Hogg. A man who can focus so much of his time into making "cycling on pavements" illegal, but at the same time thinks that exactly the opposite should apply to drug use. Think it's time he should be sacked. Does anyone know how to set up a government petition calling for this? I wonder how much this work shy, incompetent liberal costs the taxpayer each year? Time to go you clown. johnny_p
  • Score: 4

4:21pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Yemen says...

johnny_p wrote:
Oh look- it's Ron Hogg. A man who can focus so much of his time into making "cycling on pavements" illegal, but at the same time thinks that exactly the opposite should apply to drug use.

Think it's time he should be sacked. Does anyone know how to set up a government petition calling for this? I wonder how much this work shy, incompetent liberal costs the taxpayer each year?

Time to go you clown.
Cycling on the footway (pavement) is an offence under Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 as amended by Section 85 (1) of the Local Government Act 1888.

He's not making it illegal... it is illegal.
[quote][p][bold]johnny_p[/bold] wrote: Oh look- it's Ron Hogg. A man who can focus so much of his time into making "cycling on pavements" illegal, but at the same time thinks that exactly the opposite should apply to drug use. Think it's time he should be sacked. Does anyone know how to set up a government petition calling for this? I wonder how much this work shy, incompetent liberal costs the taxpayer each year? Time to go you clown.[/p][/quote]Cycling on the footway (pavement) is an offence under Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 as amended by Section 85 (1) of the Local Government Act 1888. He's not making it illegal... it is illegal. Yemen
  • Score: 9

4:26pm Wed 3 Sep 14

s1nnah says...

Yemen wrote:
GazzyWazzy wrote:
GazzyWazzy wrote:
Yemen wrote:
IanfromCrook wrote:
Yemen wrote:
GazzyWazzy wrote:
Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it?

I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it.

For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist.

And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways.

Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.
my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport !

peadeophillia ??? seriously
It seems a reasonable argument to me. Hoggs point is basically
Police time and effort + moral majority = no progress
I say his equation is actually
Police +moral majority - court system =little progress
However if it were
Police+ moral majority+court system = lots of success
It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment.
And yes I do believe the vast number of law abiding citizens agree with me.....whether or not a CLEGGITE is fixing on warping the thumbs up/down figures.
OK lets start with the source that you draw 'the moral majority' from please ? because as far as i know there have been no survey nor referendum or even discussion on this.

its nice to see that you also like to use stawmen... with your stastement below

>It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment.

YES its a massive leap... This you reframing the argument into something that fits your view, equating this proposal to being driven by low solving stats... all of which is complete tosh.


All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. Its asking that we consider a new approach, that is one in which we go for the dealers and suppliers and traffickers. The amount of time money and resource spent chasing down addicts, processing them, jailing them etc etc is staggering i would imagine. its also completely unworkable.

It does not take a genius to work out that if you have a finite resource (police,jail space,court time) and a growing problem, it wont be long before you run out of resource. once you do the problem starts to win and grow exponentially. the only way then to beat it is to stop cutting the heads off (as more grow instantly) and forget the head and go straight for the heart !

Ill attempt to illustrate it with an example using one of out more widely recognised addictions... tobacco.

As it stands at the moment if you purchase a packet of dodgy Old Holborn from someone and were to be caught with it... you would end up with possession on your record and maybe a jail term.

What its proposing is that that not be the case that you would be given help to stop smoking and the time and resource would be directed against the person who sold it to you.


Also lets please not go all lib lab con about this ... its a problem that spans generations and governments.
Why would you need to go after the dealers if the drugs are legal? You can't legalise class A drugs then go after the dealers. It doesn't work like that. I agree that the end user are in some way a victim, and that it's those further up the chain that are the main problem, but legalising it won't help. A more relaxed approach to the end user, helping them to help you, yes. By all means, get them better in return for information for the dealers. But never should extremely dangerous drugs be made illegal.
I mean made legal, not illegal...oops
Exactly.... i wholeheartedly concur.

And this is why the echo's sensationalist headline does not help the debate one jot. As far as i'm aware (i've been following the issue with interest for a while along with whats going on with marijuana in america) the proposal is that possession/use be 'decriminalised' NOT the drug itself... i was trying to illustrate that point with my dodgy old holborn analogy.

Therefore if you were caught with a small amount that was clearly for you only you would have it taken off you and helped to recover from your addiction.

i don't think the proposal limits itself to just class A btw ....
help to recover from your addiction? we are talking about weed here, no?
look at it this way if I were a 17yr old drinking a bottle of vodka in the park and the police turned up. what would happen? nothing. worst case scenario, taken home and getting a slap on the wrist for embarrassing mum and dad by having the police turn up. remember we are talking about an adolescent drinking a highly toxic drug that causes many direct and indirect harms on society.

Now what would happen if the same 17yr old was smoking a joint. you are looking at a caution and 3 or 4 hours in the police station. If the humiliation of that wasn't bad enough that caution is going to cost you your preferred university place along with future employment prospects. infact that little line on the CRB check which reads 'in possession of a controlled substance' is so vague it could mean anything. The worst part of this is that cannabis (especially when compared to alcohol) is a relatively safe drug.

A majority of cannabis's problems are caused by prohibition itself. We criminalise large swathes of the population, allow gangs to control the market, encourage human trafficking by making cannabis so lucrative. We even gift these criminals millions of otherwise taxable £££ that could be invested in healthcare and education.

On top of all of that we are letting big pharmaceutical companies grow acres of pot to produce whole plant extracts which cost a ridiculous amount of money when sick people could be growing their own and getting some quality of life back.

If you are against that then I'm sorry but you are part of the problem.
[quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it? I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it. For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist. And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways. Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.[/p][/quote]my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport ! peadeophillia ??? seriously[/p][/quote]It seems a reasonable argument to me. Hoggs point is basically Police time and effort + moral majority = no progress I say his equation is actually Police +moral majority - court system =little progress However if it were Police+ moral majority+court system = lots of success It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment. And yes I do believe the vast number of law abiding citizens agree with me.....whether or not a CLEGGITE is fixing on warping the thumbs up/down figures.[/p][/quote]OK lets start with the source that you draw 'the moral majority' from please ? because as far as i know there have been no survey nor referendum or even discussion on this. its nice to see that you also like to use stawmen... with your stastement below >It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment. YES its a massive leap... This you reframing the argument into something that fits your view, equating this proposal to being driven by low solving stats... all of which is complete tosh. All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. Its asking that we consider a new approach, that is one in which we go for the dealers and suppliers and traffickers. The amount of time money and resource spent chasing down addicts, processing them, jailing them etc etc is staggering i would imagine. its also completely unworkable. It does not take a genius to work out that if you have a finite resource (police,jail space,court time) and a growing problem, it wont be long before you run out of resource. once you do the problem starts to win and grow exponentially. the only way then to beat it is to stop cutting the heads off (as more grow instantly) and forget the head and go straight for the heart ! Ill attempt to illustrate it with an example using one of out more widely recognised addictions... tobacco. As it stands at the moment if you purchase a packet of dodgy Old Holborn from someone and were to be caught with it... you would end up with possession on your record and maybe a jail term. What its proposing is that that not be the case that you would be given help to stop smoking and the time and resource would be directed against the person who sold it to you. Also lets please not go all lib lab con about this ... its a problem that spans generations and governments.[/p][/quote]Why would you need to go after the dealers if the drugs are legal? You can't legalise class A drugs then go after the dealers. It doesn't work like that. I agree that the end user are in some way a victim, and that it's those further up the chain that are the main problem, but legalising it won't help. A more relaxed approach to the end user, helping them to help you, yes. By all means, get them better in return for information for the dealers. But never should extremely dangerous drugs be made illegal.[/p][/quote]I mean made legal, not illegal...oops[/p][/quote]Exactly.... i wholeheartedly concur. And this is why the echo's sensationalist headline does not help the debate one jot. As far as i'm aware (i've been following the issue with interest for a while along with whats going on with marijuana in america) the proposal is that possession/use be 'decriminalised' NOT the drug itself... i was trying to illustrate that point with my dodgy old holborn analogy. Therefore if you were caught with a small amount that was clearly for you only you would have it taken off you and helped to recover from your addiction. i don't think the proposal limits itself to just class A btw ....[/p][/quote]help to recover from your addiction? we are talking about weed here, no? look at it this way if I were a 17yr old drinking a bottle of vodka in the park and the police turned up. what would happen? nothing. worst case scenario, taken home and getting a slap on the wrist for embarrassing mum and dad by having the police turn up. remember we are talking about an adolescent drinking a highly toxic drug that causes many direct and indirect harms on society. Now what would happen if the same 17yr old was smoking a joint. you are looking at a caution and 3 or 4 hours in the police station. If the humiliation of that wasn't bad enough that caution is going to cost you your preferred university place along with future employment prospects. infact that little line on the CRB check which reads 'in possession of a controlled substance' is so vague it could mean anything. The worst part of this is that cannabis (especially when compared to alcohol) is a relatively safe drug. A majority of cannabis's problems are caused by prohibition itself. We criminalise large swathes of the population, allow gangs to control the market, encourage human trafficking by making cannabis so lucrative. We even gift these criminals millions of otherwise taxable £££ that could be invested in healthcare and education. On top of all of that we are letting big pharmaceutical companies grow acres of pot to produce whole plant extracts which cost a ridiculous amount of money when sick people could be growing their own and getting some quality of life back. If you are against that then I'm sorry but you are part of the problem. s1nnah
  • Score: 13

4:32pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Ron Carter-Bonsteel says...

Thank You Yemen for your kind words. Much appreciated. That's what is really good about debating on forums like this I am not trying to change anyone's opinion on drugs as I know you are not we all have our views and I do respect them. I am so passionate about this issue because I have seen the effects first hand. Don't take my word for it Google my name and you will see just a few of the serious incidents we had and could not list the threats the assaults and other things that happened to my family and myself. Was it wrong of me to speak out on the subject? That will be other people to decide I and my family rightly or wrongly just couldn't stand by and watch young people with bongs and alcohol was involved but that's was down to local shops selling them to children which is another issue best served for another day. I know I have probably lost the battle on drugs as we all have but the war is far from over. Respect to all :-)
Thank You Yemen for your kind words. Much appreciated. That's what is really good about debating on forums like this I am not trying to change anyone's opinion on drugs as I know you are not we all have our views and I do respect them. I am so passionate about this issue because I have seen the effects first hand. Don't take my word for it Google my name and you will see just a few of the serious incidents we had and could not list the threats the assaults and other things that happened to my family and myself. Was it wrong of me to speak out on the subject? That will be other people to decide I and my family rightly or wrongly just couldn't stand by and watch young people with bongs and alcohol was involved but that's was down to local shops selling them to children which is another issue best served for another day. I know I have probably lost the battle on drugs as we all have but the war is far from over. Respect to all :-) Ron Carter-Bonsteel
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Wed 3 Sep 14

st-george1 says...

It’s shameful that this Labour PCC and ex Cleveland Police Officer is so intent on caring for the drug-infested criminals and believing that addiction to anything is an illness rather than a lifestyle choice they chose … in my opinion it’s really NOT an ethical or constitutional thing to do with taxpayers money it could be deemed dishonest and maybe fraudulent and I would think it’s criminal …

Sir Robert Peel would be turning over in his grave if he knew what some of today’s politically-motivate
d Labour PPC’s are doing to keep their jobs in a Labour Party world where the in-word is unconscious coupling, which is so like Judges and Law Enforcers appearing to identify-with-the-ag
gressor and lawbreaker and treat them more leniently than any of their victims and at great expense.

Sounds like a Pre 2015 general election bit of the Unite Leverage Squad-Labour Party propaganda starting early …
It’s shameful that this Labour PCC and ex Cleveland Police Officer is so intent on caring for the drug-infested criminals and believing that addiction to anything is an illness rather than a lifestyle choice they chose … in my opinion it’s really NOT an ethical or constitutional thing to do with taxpayers money it could be deemed dishonest and maybe fraudulent and I would think it’s criminal … Sir Robert Peel would be turning over in his grave if he knew what some of today’s politically-motivate d Labour PPC’s are doing to keep their jobs in a Labour Party world where the in-word is unconscious coupling, which is so like Judges and Law Enforcers appearing to identify-with-the-ag gressor and lawbreaker and treat them more leniently than any of their victims and at great expense. Sounds like a Pre 2015 general election bit of the Unite Leverage Squad-Labour Party propaganda starting early … st-george1
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Wed 3 Sep 14

FreddyF says...

David Lacey wrote:
"THE war on drugs has failed".
.
It never started!!!! The law has never been enforced. Addicts are not suffering from an illness - they have made a lifestyle choice and a bad one at that. Time to implement draconian far eastern laws aimed at criminalising everyone involved in the supply and use of these substances.
Time to implement draconian far eastern laws aimed at criminalising everyone involved in the PROHIBITION of these substances.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: "THE war on drugs has failed". . It never started!!!! The law has never been enforced. Addicts are not suffering from an illness - they have made a lifestyle choice and a bad one at that. Time to implement draconian far eastern laws aimed at criminalising everyone involved in the supply and use of these substances.[/p][/quote]Time to implement draconian far eastern laws aimed at criminalising everyone involved in the PROHIBITION of these substances. FreddyF
  • Score: 3

5:48pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Yemen says...

s1nnah wrote:
Yemen wrote:
GazzyWazzy wrote:
GazzyWazzy wrote:
Yemen wrote:
IanfromCrook wrote:
Yemen wrote:
GazzyWazzy wrote:
Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it?

I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it.

For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist.

And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways.

Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.
my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport !

peadeophillia ??? seriously
It seems a reasonable argument to me. Hoggs point is basically
Police time and effort + moral majority = no progress
I say his equation is actually
Police +moral majority - court system =little progress
However if it were
Police+ moral majority+court system = lots of success
It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment.
And yes I do believe the vast number of law abiding citizens agree with me.....whether or not a CLEGGITE is fixing on warping the thumbs up/down figures.
OK lets start with the source that you draw 'the moral majority' from please ? because as far as i know there have been no survey nor referendum or even discussion on this.

its nice to see that you also like to use stawmen... with your stastement below

>It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment.

YES its a massive leap... This you reframing the argument into something that fits your view, equating this proposal to being driven by low solving stats... all of which is complete tosh.


All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. Its asking that we consider a new approach, that is one in which we go for the dealers and suppliers and traffickers. The amount of time money and resource spent chasing down addicts, processing them, jailing them etc etc is staggering i would imagine. its also completely unworkable.

It does not take a genius to work out that if you have a finite resource (police,jail space,court time) and a growing problem, it wont be long before you run out of resource. once you do the problem starts to win and grow exponentially. the only way then to beat it is to stop cutting the heads off (as more grow instantly) and forget the head and go straight for the heart !

Ill attempt to illustrate it with an example using one of out more widely recognised addictions... tobacco.

As it stands at the moment if you purchase a packet of dodgy Old Holborn from someone and were to be caught with it... you would end up with possession on your record and maybe a jail term.

What its proposing is that that not be the case that you would be given help to stop smoking and the time and resource would be directed against the person who sold it to you.


Also lets please not go all lib lab con about this ... its a problem that spans generations and governments.
Why would you need to go after the dealers if the drugs are legal? You can't legalise class A drugs then go after the dealers. It doesn't work like that. I agree that the end user are in some way a victim, and that it's those further up the chain that are the main problem, but legalising it won't help. A more relaxed approach to the end user, helping them to help you, yes. By all means, get them better in return for information for the dealers. But never should extremely dangerous drugs be made illegal.
I mean made legal, not illegal...oops
Exactly.... i wholeheartedly concur.

And this is why the echo's sensationalist headline does not help the debate one jot. As far as i'm aware (i've been following the issue with interest for a while along with whats going on with marijuana in america) the proposal is that possession/use be 'decriminalised' NOT the drug itself... i was trying to illustrate that point with my dodgy old holborn analogy.

Therefore if you were caught with a small amount that was clearly for you only you would have it taken off you and helped to recover from your addiction.

i don't think the proposal limits itself to just class A btw ....
help to recover from your addiction? we are talking about weed here, no?
look at it this way if I were a 17yr old drinking a bottle of vodka in the park and the police turned up. what would happen? nothing. worst case scenario, taken home and getting a slap on the wrist for embarrassing mum and dad by having the police turn up. remember we are talking about an adolescent drinking a highly toxic drug that causes many direct and indirect harms on society.

Now what would happen if the same 17yr old was smoking a joint. you are looking at a caution and 3 or 4 hours in the police station. If the humiliation of that wasn't bad enough that caution is going to cost you your preferred university place along with future employment prospects. infact that little line on the CRB check which reads 'in possession of a controlled substance' is so vague it could mean anything. The worst part of this is that cannabis (especially when compared to alcohol) is a relatively safe drug.

A majority of cannabis's problems are caused by prohibition itself. We criminalise large swathes of the population, allow gangs to control the market, encourage human trafficking by making cannabis so lucrative. We even gift these criminals millions of otherwise taxable £££ that could be invested in healthcare and education.

On top of all of that we are letting big pharmaceutical companies grow acres of pot to produce whole plant extracts which cost a ridiculous amount of money when sick people could be growing their own and getting some quality of life back.

If you are against that then I'm sorry but you are part of the problem.
Im not against it have you read my comments ????
[quote][p][bold]s1nnah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GazzyWazzy[/bold] wrote: Is this the answer now? Whenever a particular crime becomes too much and all those involved feel defeated, we just decide to de-criminalise it? Gun crime in America in recent years seems a losing battle, do we suggest that they make murder legal? Police have recently had trouble eliminating sexual abuse in Rotherham, do we make that legal while we're at it? I agree with some folk on here, that once you take the bull by the horns and start throwing realistic sentences at people and giving them a real reason not to do drugs, then you're never going to get a full grip on it. For those that can't afford drugs, they steal, and this won't change whether the drugs are legal or not. They're still going to need to pay for it. All that will change is that they'll have one less crime listed on their rap sheet. Also, they'll still be out of their face, high as the sky, and other drug related crime will still exist. And then there's is the newcomers to the party. Without the threat of the police knocking on your door, people who had been curious but deterred before will now feel they can try it. And if they get hooked, then the problem will escalate in other ways. Yes, I agree that addiction is an illness and that some people aren't criminals beyond their drug use, and for those, help is essential. But some might argue that paedophilia is an illness, an addiction, or that mental illness (a reason some go on a shooting spree) requires medical attention. I don't hear Mr Hogg rushing to de-criminalise those.[/p][/quote]my god that statement is so riddled with reframing, stawmen and slippery slope arguments im finding difficult to believe you don't write for the daily sport ! peadeophillia ??? seriously[/p][/quote]It seems a reasonable argument to me. Hoggs point is basically Police time and effort + moral majority = no progress I say his equation is actually Police +moral majority - court system =little progress However if it were Police+ moral majority+court system = lots of success It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment. And yes I do believe the vast number of law abiding citizens agree with me.....whether or not a CLEGGITE is fixing on warping the thumbs up/down figures.[/p][/quote]OK lets start with the source that you draw 'the moral majority' from please ? because as far as i know there have been no survey nor referendum or even discussion on this. its nice to see that you also like to use stawmen... with your stastement below >It is not a large leap to say Hogg's equation could be an argument to decriminalise lots of various laws with a low success rate at the moment. YES its a massive leap... This you reframing the argument into something that fits your view, equating this proposal to being driven by low solving stats... all of which is complete tosh. All this proposal (and thats all it is at the moment) is saying is that what we are doing is not working, demonstrably so. Its asking that we consider a new approach, that is one in which we go for the dealers and suppliers and traffickers. The amount of time money and resource spent chasing down addicts, processing them, jailing them etc etc is staggering i would imagine. its also completely unworkable. It does not take a genius to work out that if you have a finite resource (police,jail space,court time) and a growing problem, it wont be long before you run out of resource. once you do the problem starts to win and grow exponentially. the only way then to beat it is to stop cutting the heads off (as more grow instantly) and forget the head and go straight for the heart ! Ill attempt to illustrate it with an example using one of out more widely recognised addictions... tobacco. As it stands at the moment if you purchase a packet of dodgy Old Holborn from someone and were to be caught with it... you would end up with possession on your record and maybe a jail term. What its proposing is that that not be the case that you would be given help to stop smoking and the time and resource would be directed against the person who sold it to you. Also lets please not go all lib lab con about this ... its a problem that spans generations and governments.[/p][/quote]Why would you need to go after the dealers if the drugs are legal? You can't legalise class A drugs then go after the dealers. It doesn't work like that. I agree that the end user are in some way a victim, and that it's those further up the chain that are the main problem, but legalising it won't help. A more relaxed approach to the end user, helping them to help you, yes. By all means, get them better in return for information for the dealers. But never should extremely dangerous drugs be made illegal.[/p][/quote]I mean made legal, not illegal...oops[/p][/quote]Exactly.... i wholeheartedly concur. And this is why the echo's sensationalist headline does not help the debate one jot. As far as i'm aware (i've been following the issue with interest for a while along with whats going on with marijuana in america) the proposal is that possession/use be 'decriminalised' NOT the drug itself... i was trying to illustrate that point with my dodgy old holborn analogy. Therefore if you were caught with a small amount that was clearly for you only you would have it taken off you and helped to recover from your addiction. i don't think the proposal limits itself to just class A btw ....[/p][/quote]help to recover from your addiction? we are talking about weed here, no? look at it this way if I were a 17yr old drinking a bottle of vodka in the park and the police turned up. what would happen? nothing. worst case scenario, taken home and getting a slap on the wrist for embarrassing mum and dad by having the police turn up. remember we are talking about an adolescent drinking a highly toxic drug that causes many direct and indirect harms on society. Now what would happen if the same 17yr old was smoking a joint. you are looking at a caution and 3 or 4 hours in the police station. If the humiliation of that wasn't bad enough that caution is going to cost you your preferred university place along with future employment prospects. infact that little line on the CRB check which reads 'in possession of a controlled substance' is so vague it could mean anything. The worst part of this is that cannabis (especially when compared to alcohol) is a relatively safe drug. A majority of cannabis's problems are caused by prohibition itself. We criminalise large swathes of the population, allow gangs to control the market, encourage human trafficking by making cannabis so lucrative. We even gift these criminals millions of otherwise taxable £££ that could be invested in healthcare and education. On top of all of that we are letting big pharmaceutical companies grow acres of pot to produce whole plant extracts which cost a ridiculous amount of money when sick people could be growing their own and getting some quality of life back. If you are against that then I'm sorry but you are part of the problem.[/p][/quote]Im not against it have you read my comments ???? Yemen
  • Score: 1

5:48pm Wed 3 Sep 14

FreddyF says...

IanfromCrook wrote:
There is no war on drugs. The police try to do their best but the judiciary fail them. It is like sending troops into a war zone with guns that when fired drop a flag saying bang. The 'evidence' that the war against drugs has failed is invalid. Unless , over a period of time judges sentence appropriately all areas of crime so there is an element or punishment and deterent then there is no excuse for waving the white flag. This is a distraction, it is also old news as the NE already ran this story months ago. I cannot remember Mr Hogg being so vocal before he was elected. Perhaps, like many politicians, the reasons why people voted him in mean nothing after the count.
"War on drugs" is a jingoistic phrase from the Nixon era to give the impression that there is some good war to fight and that those that don't join in are "going soft" or are traitors.

What there is in reality is a persecution of anyone who has anything to do with any recreational or inspirational drug that isn't alcohol, tobacco or caffeine. However much you feel the law is or isn't being enforced doesn't change the fact that there is still a pointless persecution encoded into law.

Calling it a "war on drugs" is like justifying the persecution of gays a "war on buggery", or justifying apartheid in last-century South Africa as a "war on trespass".
[quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: There is no war on drugs. The police try to do their best but the judiciary fail them. It is like sending troops into a war zone with guns that when fired drop a flag saying bang. The 'evidence' that the war against drugs has failed is invalid. Unless , over a period of time judges sentence appropriately all areas of crime so there is an element or punishment and deterent then there is no excuse for waving the white flag. This is a distraction, it is also old news as the NE already ran this story months ago. I cannot remember Mr Hogg being so vocal before he was elected. Perhaps, like many politicians, the reasons why people voted him in mean nothing after the count.[/p][/quote]"War on drugs" is a jingoistic phrase from the Nixon era to give the impression that there is some good war to fight and that those that don't join in are "going soft" or are traitors. What there is in reality is a persecution of anyone who has anything to do with any recreational or inspirational drug that isn't alcohol, tobacco or caffeine. However much you feel the law is or isn't being enforced doesn't change the fact that there is still a pointless persecution encoded into law. Calling it a "war on drugs" is like justifying the persecution of gays a "war on buggery", or justifying apartheid in last-century South Africa as a "war on trespass". FreddyF
  • Score: 3

7:38pm Wed 3 Sep 14

IanfromCrook says...

FreddyF wrote:
IanfromCrook wrote:
There is no war on drugs. The police try to do their best but the judiciary fail them. It is like sending troops into a war zone with guns that when fired drop a flag saying bang. The 'evidence' that the war against drugs has failed is invalid. Unless , over a period of time judges sentence appropriately all areas of crime so there is an element or punishment and deterent then there is no excuse for waving the white flag. This is a distraction, it is also old news as the NE already ran this story months ago. I cannot remember Mr Hogg being so vocal before he was elected. Perhaps, like many politicians, the reasons why people voted him in mean nothing after the count.
"War on drugs" is a jingoistic phrase from the Nixon era to give the impression that there is some good war to fight and that those that don't join in are "going soft" or are traitors.

What there is in reality is a persecution of anyone who has anything to do with any recreational or inspirational drug that isn't alcohol, tobacco or caffeine. However much you feel the law is or isn't being enforced doesn't change the fact that there is still a pointless persecution encoded into law.

Calling it a "war on drugs" is like justifying the persecution of gays a "war on buggery", or justifying apartheid in last-century South Africa as a "war on trespass".
So your view seems to be druggies are inspired people victimised in the same way as the victims of rascism and homophobia. This has to be the most extreme view I have ever heard. Drugs are not inspirational and the correction of laws concerning sexuality and race are in no way comparable.
'The war on drugs' may have been a political sound bite BUT it is a just and sound idea, if we tried it. I would prefer a phrase "WAR ON CRIMINALS" where sentences are 1.A punishment. 2. A deterrent. And the rights of victims to be paramount not just a ticked box on how nice they are spoken to by officials.
[quote][p][bold]FreddyF[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: There is no war on drugs. The police try to do their best but the judiciary fail them. It is like sending troops into a war zone with guns that when fired drop a flag saying bang. The 'evidence' that the war against drugs has failed is invalid. Unless , over a period of time judges sentence appropriately all areas of crime so there is an element or punishment and deterent then there is no excuse for waving the white flag. This is a distraction, it is also old news as the NE already ran this story months ago. I cannot remember Mr Hogg being so vocal before he was elected. Perhaps, like many politicians, the reasons why people voted him in mean nothing after the count.[/p][/quote]"War on drugs" is a jingoistic phrase from the Nixon era to give the impression that there is some good war to fight and that those that don't join in are "going soft" or are traitors. What there is in reality is a persecution of anyone who has anything to do with any recreational or inspirational drug that isn't alcohol, tobacco or caffeine. However much you feel the law is or isn't being enforced doesn't change the fact that there is still a pointless persecution encoded into law. Calling it a "war on drugs" is like justifying the persecution of gays a "war on buggery", or justifying apartheid in last-century South Africa as a "war on trespass".[/p][/quote]So your view seems to be druggies are inspired people victimised in the same way as the victims of rascism and homophobia. This has to be the most extreme view I have ever heard. Drugs are not inspirational and the correction of laws concerning sexuality and race are in no way comparable. 'The war on drugs' may have been a political sound bite BUT it is a just and sound idea, if we tried it. I would prefer a phrase "WAR ON CRIMINALS" where sentences are 1.A punishment. 2. A deterrent. And the rights of victims to be paramount not just a ticked box on how nice they are spoken to by officials. IanfromCrook
  • Score: -2

7:38pm Wed 3 Sep 14

IanfromCrook says...

FreddyF wrote:
IanfromCrook wrote:
There is no war on drugs. The police try to do their best but the judiciary fail them. It is like sending troops into a war zone with guns that when fired drop a flag saying bang. The 'evidence' that the war against drugs has failed is invalid. Unless , over a period of time judges sentence appropriately all areas of crime so there is an element or punishment and deterent then there is no excuse for waving the white flag. This is a distraction, it is also old news as the NE already ran this story months ago. I cannot remember Mr Hogg being so vocal before he was elected. Perhaps, like many politicians, the reasons why people voted him in mean nothing after the count.
"War on drugs" is a jingoistic phrase from the Nixon era to give the impression that there is some good war to fight and that those that don't join in are "going soft" or are traitors.

What there is in reality is a persecution of anyone who has anything to do with any recreational or inspirational drug that isn't alcohol, tobacco or caffeine. However much you feel the law is or isn't being enforced doesn't change the fact that there is still a pointless persecution encoded into law.

Calling it a "war on drugs" is like justifying the persecution of gays a "war on buggery", or justifying apartheid in last-century South Africa as a "war on trespass".
So your view seems to be druggies are inspired people victimised in the same way as the victims of rascism and homophobia. This has to be the most extreme view I have ever heard. Drugs are not inspirational and the correction of laws concerning sexuality and race are in no way comparable.
'The war on drugs' may have been a political sound bite BUT it is a just and sound idea, if we tried it. I would prefer a phrase "WAR ON CRIMINALS" where sentences are 1.A punishment. 2. A deterrent. And the rights of victims to be paramount not just a ticked box on how nice they are spoken to by officials.
[quote][p][bold]FreddyF[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: There is no war on drugs. The police try to do their best but the judiciary fail them. It is like sending troops into a war zone with guns that when fired drop a flag saying bang. The 'evidence' that the war against drugs has failed is invalid. Unless , over a period of time judges sentence appropriately all areas of crime so there is an element or punishment and deterent then there is no excuse for waving the white flag. This is a distraction, it is also old news as the NE already ran this story months ago. I cannot remember Mr Hogg being so vocal before he was elected. Perhaps, like many politicians, the reasons why people voted him in mean nothing after the count.[/p][/quote]"War on drugs" is a jingoistic phrase from the Nixon era to give the impression that there is some good war to fight and that those that don't join in are "going soft" or are traitors. What there is in reality is a persecution of anyone who has anything to do with any recreational or inspirational drug that isn't alcohol, tobacco or caffeine. However much you feel the law is or isn't being enforced doesn't change the fact that there is still a pointless persecution encoded into law. Calling it a "war on drugs" is like justifying the persecution of gays a "war on buggery", or justifying apartheid in last-century South Africa as a "war on trespass".[/p][/quote]So your view seems to be druggies are inspired people victimised in the same way as the victims of rascism and homophobia. This has to be the most extreme view I have ever heard. Drugs are not inspirational and the correction of laws concerning sexuality and race are in no way comparable. 'The war on drugs' may have been a political sound bite BUT it is a just and sound idea, if we tried it. I would prefer a phrase "WAR ON CRIMINALS" where sentences are 1.A punishment. 2. A deterrent. And the rights of victims to be paramount not just a ticked box on how nice they are spoken to by officials. IanfromCrook
  • Score: -1

7:38pm Wed 3 Sep 14

IanfromCrook says...

FreddyF wrote:
IanfromCrook wrote:
There is no war on drugs. The police try to do their best but the judiciary fail them. It is like sending troops into a war zone with guns that when fired drop a flag saying bang. The 'evidence' that the war against drugs has failed is invalid. Unless , over a period of time judges sentence appropriately all areas of crime so there is an element or punishment and deterent then there is no excuse for waving the white flag. This is a distraction, it is also old news as the NE already ran this story months ago. I cannot remember Mr Hogg being so vocal before he was elected. Perhaps, like many politicians, the reasons why people voted him in mean nothing after the count.
"War on drugs" is a jingoistic phrase from the Nixon era to give the impression that there is some good war to fight and that those that don't join in are "going soft" or are traitors.

What there is in reality is a persecution of anyone who has anything to do with any recreational or inspirational drug that isn't alcohol, tobacco or caffeine. However much you feel the law is or isn't being enforced doesn't change the fact that there is still a pointless persecution encoded into law.

Calling it a "war on drugs" is like justifying the persecution of gays a "war on buggery", or justifying apartheid in last-century South Africa as a "war on trespass".
So your view seems to be druggies are inspired people victimised in the same way as the victims of rascism and homophobia. This has to be the most extreme view I have ever heard. Drugs are not inspirational and the correction of laws concerning sexuality and race are in no way comparable.
'The war on drugs' may have been a political sound bite BUT it is a just and sound idea, if we tried it. I would prefer a phrase "WAR ON CRIMINALS" where sentences are 1.A punishment. 2. A deterrent. And the rights of victims to be paramount not just a ticked box on how nice they are spoken to by officials.
[quote][p][bold]FreddyF[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IanfromCrook[/bold] wrote: There is no war on drugs. The police try to do their best but the judiciary fail them. It is like sending troops into a war zone with guns that when fired drop a flag saying bang. The 'evidence' that the war against drugs has failed is invalid. Unless , over a period of time judges sentence appropriately all areas of crime so there is an element or punishment and deterent then there is no excuse for waving the white flag. This is a distraction, it is also old news as the NE already ran this story months ago. I cannot remember Mr Hogg being so vocal before he was elected. Perhaps, like many politicians, the reasons why people voted him in mean nothing after the count.[/p][/quote]"War on drugs" is a jingoistic phrase from the Nixon era to give the impression that there is some good war to fight and that those that don't join in are "going soft" or are traitors. What there is in reality is a persecution of anyone who has anything to do with any recreational or inspirational drug that isn't alcohol, tobacco or caffeine. However much you feel the law is or isn't being enforced doesn't change the fact that there is still a pointless persecution encoded into law. Calling it a "war on drugs" is like justifying the persecution of gays a "war on buggery", or justifying apartheid in last-century South Africa as a "war on trespass".[/p][/quote]So your view seems to be druggies are inspired people victimised in the same way as the victims of rascism and homophobia. This has to be the most extreme view I have ever heard. Drugs are not inspirational and the correction of laws concerning sexuality and race are in no way comparable. 'The war on drugs' may have been a political sound bite BUT it is a just and sound idea, if we tried it. I would prefer a phrase "WAR ON CRIMINALS" where sentences are 1.A punishment. 2. A deterrent. And the rights of victims to be paramount not just a ticked box on how nice they are spoken to by officials. IanfromCrook
  • Score: -2

11:30pm Wed 3 Sep 14

settheworldonfire says...

Drugs are and should always remain illegal...lock up the dealers and keep them locked up....users are usually the ones out stealing and dealing......This idiot police commissioner should be sacked......
Drugs are and should always remain illegal...lock up the dealers and keep them locked up....users are usually the ones out stealing and dealing......This idiot police commissioner should be sacked...... settheworldonfire
  • Score: 3

6:55am Thu 4 Sep 14

JJ2000 says...

My issue is not with the addictions, it's with the criminal acts that these addictions lead to.
By all means treat the addict as an ill person, but that does not alter the culpability of any act of violence, theft or vandalism.
While treating the addict can serve to reduce the number of subsequent crimes, what I can't ignore are the actual crimes perpetrated in pursuit of the addiction. Responsibility and acceptance are a crucial part of rehabilitation and this needs to be enforced rather than ignored as a symptom of an illness.
My issue is not with the addictions, it's with the criminal acts that these addictions lead to. By all means treat the addict as an ill person, but that does not alter the culpability of any act of violence, theft or vandalism. While treating the addict can serve to reduce the number of subsequent crimes, what I can't ignore are the actual crimes perpetrated in pursuit of the addiction. Responsibility and acceptance are a crucial part of rehabilitation and this needs to be enforced rather than ignored as a symptom of an illness. JJ2000
  • Score: 2

7:14am Thu 4 Sep 14

Yemen says...

JJ2000 wrote:
My issue is not with the addictions, it's with the criminal acts that these addictions lead to.
By all means treat the addict as an ill person, but that does not alter the culpability of any act of violence, theft or vandalism.
While treating the addict can serve to reduce the number of subsequent crimes, what I can't ignore are the actual crimes perpetrated in pursuit of the addiction. Responsibility and acceptance are a crucial part of rehabilitation and this needs to be enforced rather than ignored as a symptom of an illness.
I agree... i dont believe anyone advocates using 'addiction' as a get out of jail free card.
[quote][p][bold]JJ2000[/bold] wrote: My issue is not with the addictions, it's with the criminal acts that these addictions lead to. By all means treat the addict as an ill person, but that does not alter the culpability of any act of violence, theft or vandalism. While treating the addict can serve to reduce the number of subsequent crimes, what I can't ignore are the actual crimes perpetrated in pursuit of the addiction. Responsibility and acceptance are a crucial part of rehabilitation and this needs to be enforced rather than ignored as a symptom of an illness.[/p][/quote]I agree... i dont believe anyone advocates using 'addiction' as a get out of jail free card. Yemen
  • Score: 2

11:40am Thu 4 Sep 14

somethinginsidesostrong says...

Johnny P Seems to think spending £80k+ a year on P.C.C. Ron Hogg is unjustifiable. Perhaps Johnny if a-propo 80 POLICE CADETS were employed at £10 k per annum for the first 5 years per County = Cleveland = 80 Police Cadets Durham = 80 Police Cadets North Yorkshire = 80 Police Cadets = Reducing unemployment by 240 as most P.C.C's are affluent retirees anyway. They could be mentored in Police Ethics not by a know it all . Giving fresh incite. Its a CATCH 22 Nepotistic situation the Police Force anyway. But these 240 Police Cadets recruited fairly would then reduce crime. Some form of Benefit Society could equip each one with their own bicycle. Yes Johnny P you are right that makes more sense!
Johnny P Seems to think spending £80k+ a year on P.C.C. Ron Hogg is unjustifiable. Perhaps Johnny if a-propo 80 POLICE CADETS were employed at £10 k per annum for the first 5 years per County = Cleveland = 80 Police Cadets Durham = 80 Police Cadets North Yorkshire = 80 Police Cadets = Reducing unemployment by 240 as most P.C.C's are affluent retirees anyway. They could be mentored in Police Ethics not by a know it all . Giving fresh incite. Its a CATCH 22 Nepotistic situation the Police Force anyway. But these 240 Police Cadets recruited fairly would then reduce crime. Some form of Benefit Society could equip each one with their own bicycle. Yes Johnny P you are right that makes more sense! somethinginsidesostrong
  • Score: 1

11:53am Thu 4 Sep 14

somethinginsidesostrong says...

Johnny P suggests that P.C.C.'s are a waste of financial resources - I agree - for £80k+ a year each County could employ 80 Police Cadet P.C.'s . Some Benefit Society could provide each Cadet their own bicycle . P.C.C.'s tend to be affluent retirees anyway = thus reducing the unemployment figure by giving the young an annual salary of £10k a year for 5 years, this is Opportunity for them , when they are unable to find initial employment often down to nepotism and lacking a springboard. providing "Professional training majoring on Ethics" Yes Johnny P to provide a solution to the unemployed over and above 1 P.C.C. is a good idea.
Johnny P suggests that P.C.C.'s are a waste of financial resources - I agree - for £80k+ a year each County could employ 80 Police Cadet P.C.'s . Some Benefit Society could provide each Cadet their own bicycle . P.C.C.'s tend to be affluent retirees anyway = thus reducing the unemployment figure by giving the young an annual salary of £10k a year for 5 years, this is Opportunity for them , when they are unable to find initial employment often down to nepotism and lacking a springboard. providing "Professional training majoring on Ethics" Yes Johnny P to provide a solution to the unemployed over and above 1 P.C.C. is a good idea. somethinginsidesostrong
  • Score: 0

11:59am Thu 4 Sep 14

somethinginsidesostrong says...

Anyway Johnny P seemed to take exception to PCC Ron Hoggs bike ride - but my late mother always winked and said "CRACK ON YOUR DAFT AND YOU WILL GET A LONG RIDE " It seems Ron Hogg got a long ride.
Anyway Johnny P seemed to take exception to PCC Ron Hoggs bike ride - but my late mother always winked and said "CRACK ON YOUR DAFT AND YOU WILL GET A LONG RIDE " It seems Ron Hogg got a long ride. somethinginsidesostrong
  • Score: -1

12:22pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Tom Lloyd says...

PCC Hogg makes a great deal of sense, not least because he's questioning the status quo. Whether you agree with his proposals or not I hope you agree that we need to develop an evidence-based discussion on this issue. The Home Office remains with its head firmly in the sand as evidence, and growing popular opinion, demand a fresh approach.

I have yet to come across anybody who is satisfied with the current policy or law (apart from the Home Office who only pretend to be) so Ron Hoog shoul dbe applauded for raising the issue and suggesting pragmatic options for change.

This is a necessary read: http://www.tdpf.org.
uk/resources/publica
tions/debating-drugs
-how-make-case-legal
-regulation

It's also worth noting the difference between laws based on "Malum in se" and "Malum prohibitum". Thaft and assault are not in the same category as drug taking.
PCC Hogg makes a great deal of sense, not least because he's questioning the status quo. Whether you agree with his proposals or not I hope you agree that we need to develop an evidence-based discussion on this issue. The Home Office remains with its head firmly in the sand as evidence, and growing popular opinion, demand a fresh approach. I have yet to come across anybody who is satisfied with the current policy or law (apart from the Home Office who only pretend to be) so Ron Hoog shoul dbe applauded for raising the issue and suggesting pragmatic options for change. This is a necessary read: http://www.tdpf.org. uk/resources/publica tions/debating-drugs -how-make-case-legal -regulation It's also worth noting the difference between laws based on "Malum in se" and "Malum prohibitum". Thaft and assault are not in the same category as drug taking. Tom Lloyd
  • Score: 0

11:00pm Thu 4 Sep 14

JackieShops says...

After this many comments , I guess the thumbs up have it. Ron Hogg's argument got many more thumbs up than the opposite argument. If you made a comment and it got loads of thumbs down, guess who might not have the right to speak for the public.
After this many comments , I guess the thumbs up have it. Ron Hogg's argument got many more thumbs up than the opposite argument. If you made a comment and it got loads of thumbs down, guess who might not have the right to speak for the public. JackieShops
  • Score: -3

11:07pm Thu 4 Sep 14

IanfromCrook says...

JackieShops wrote:
After this many comments , I guess the thumbs up have it. Ron Hogg's argument got many more thumbs up than the opposite argument. If you made a comment and it got loads of thumbs down, guess who might not have the right to speak for the public.
Very easy to abuse the thumbs up/down system. One person on a personal crusade with time on their hands can skew the stats.
[quote][p][bold]JackieShops[/bold] wrote: After this many comments , I guess the thumbs up have it. Ron Hogg's argument got many more thumbs up than the opposite argument. If you made a comment and it got loads of thumbs down, guess who might not have the right to speak for the public.[/p][/quote]Very easy to abuse the thumbs up/down system. One person on a personal crusade with time on their hands can skew the stats. IanfromCrook
  • Score: 5

12:07pm Fri 5 Sep 14

Ron Carter-Bonsteel says...

Thank You for all the Thumbs Down got my record from -30 poor Dave over a -100+ and Counting. Jealous Dave of you. I am sure that we will have more discussions in the future about this subject But we can all agree to disagree and that's good thing?
Thank You for all the Thumbs Down got my record from -30 poor Dave over a -100+ and Counting. Jealous Dave of you. I am sure that we will have more discussions in the future about this subject But we can all agree to disagree and that's good thing? Ron Carter-Bonsteel
  • Score: 1

12:19pm Fri 5 Sep 14

Yemen says...

JackieShops wrote:
After this many comments , I guess the thumbs up have it. Ron Hogg's argument got many more thumbs up than the opposite argument. If you made a comment and it got loads of thumbs down, guess who might not have the right to speak for the public.
Regardless of the winning argument i think it plain from all comments on here that a proper discussion is needed on a national level.

one that is not party prejudiced, i.e. labours policies fault... conservative policy fault etc... this is a pan generational issue political affiliations have no place .
[quote][p][bold]JackieShops[/bold] wrote: After this many comments , I guess the thumbs up have it. Ron Hogg's argument got many more thumbs up than the opposite argument. If you made a comment and it got loads of thumbs down, guess who might not have the right to speak for the public.[/p][/quote]Regardless of the winning argument i think it plain from all comments on here that a proper discussion is needed on a national level. one that is not party prejudiced, i.e. labours policies fault... conservative policy fault etc... this is a pan generational issue political affiliations have no place . Yemen
  • Score: 2

8:33am Sun 21 Sep 14

Dr Martin says...

Tom Speed wrote:
David Lacey wrote:
Thank you Ron Carter-Bonsteel. Drugs are evil. Addicts are weak fools who chose to take them. When the NHS is under great financial pressure to deal with seriously ill people spending a single penny on pathetic addicts is wrong.
NHS admissions due to Alcohol topped 1,000,000 again last year.

Peanuts account for about 3,000 admissions per year.

Cannabis 750. (mostly first time users who tried too much, often brownies which are much stronger! than smoking!!!)

Deaths from lethal overdoses from Cannabis, "Do not occur" http://www.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/pubmedhealth

/PMH0032740/

"Because cannabinoid receptors, unlike opioid receptors, are not located in the brainstem areas controlling respiration, lethal overdoses from Cannabis and cannabinoids DO NOT OCCUR."
Not totally correct
[quote][p][bold]Tom Speed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Thank you Ron Carter-Bonsteel. Drugs are evil. Addicts are weak fools who chose to take them. When the NHS is under great financial pressure to deal with seriously ill people spending a single penny on pathetic addicts is wrong.[/p][/quote]NHS admissions due to Alcohol topped 1,000,000 again last year. Peanuts account for about 3,000 admissions per year. Cannabis 750. (mostly first time users who tried too much, often brownies which are much stronger! than smoking!!!) Deaths from lethal overdoses from Cannabis, "Do not occur" http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmedhealth /PMH0032740/ "Because cannabinoid receptors, unlike opioid receptors, are not located in the brainstem areas controlling respiration, lethal overdoses from Cannabis and cannabinoids DO NOT OCCUR."[/p][/quote]Not totally correct Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree