PDA

View Full Version : Woud you 'shop' a drug dealer ?


Lost_luggage34
26th May 2005, 22:49
Had an interesting early morning wake-up call today - in the form of 6 armed Police Officers in full riot gear, inviting themselves into a neighbour's house.

Now many of my neighbours and I know what this individual gets up to.

Without wanting to stereotype, said individual doesn't work, drives a fairly expensive car, kids want for nothing etc.

I know enough about said person to put two and two together - and before I get jumped on, have seen said person openly trade. I know that said person does deal (fact) and I believe that said person only deals in what was a Class B drug - now Class C.

To some extent we turn a blind eye - or do we ? What I witnessed this morning would not have been actioned without some strong intelligence, presumably from more than one source (at least initially) ?

The operation was clearly well planned as one would expect from a professional team of Police Officers.

After the dust had settled, the local Community Bobby put a standard letter through all of the doors in the vicinity, explaining that they had excercised a search warrant based on intelligence.

This letter also encouraged us to help them by reporting activity in order to support them in their tough stance on drugs.

I am not stating whether I have or would consider reporting suspicious activity in this instance.

At the end of the day the individual was doing no harm to me personally.

However, questionable characters calling at all times of the day and evening ? Plus, all the other drug related issues that sadly go hand-in-hand with such activity on your own doorstep.

Your views please.

tony draper
26th May 2005, 23:01
There's a resident drug dealer just about in every street round here now,and I am not talking about some run down councill estate, I think the police keep a close eye on them, but if they cause no obvious trouble I think they are left alone, they probably are given this letter of marque to operate by keeping old bill informed on what his/her competitors/customers are up to, theres one in my road for sure, quite a distance away fortunatly, he gets a token tug every now and again but he never seems to be out of action for long.
This is one of the reasons I think all drugs should be legalised, its far to deeply embeded in our culture now ever to be shot of it by force of law, and thats a fact.

airship
26th May 2005, 23:09
I suppose this means you'll be house-hunting soon then...just in case?! :(

Will you have to let prospective buyers know that drug dealers were living just down the road or what...? ;)

tony draper
26th May 2005, 23:15
Nephew pointed out a successful drug dealers gaff to me tother day, large ostentaciously posh ranch style bungalo, on the outskirts, he says for some reason they always have plaster dog of horse heads on the gate posts, must be a kind of identification symbol.
:cool:

Hobgoblin
27th May 2005, 00:46
Block of flats I live in ( and bought one of ) have been remarkably free of drug dealers and the human flotsam that seems to collect around them. However recently it seems that two young ladies in the block have discovered that they have a certain....allure, shall we say, to members of the opposite sex.

What happens these days is we get a number of hairless teenagers hanging around on the premises smoking cannabis and sniffing around these two girlies who must be all of thirteen or fourteen years old. Also the telltale signs of graffiti have been making its appearance:{ .

Complained to the mangement company and we'll see what they are going to do. Is it even worth informing the Police as all that will happen is my home gets targeted when I am not there and as I work mostly nights and my wife is alone, it is not exactly a scenario that I want to encourage.

Personally I think all drug dealers are scum and not fit to walk the earth (and that includes people selling nicotine). While I understand and empathise with people who are addicted to these substances I cannot and will not sympathise with them.

I also do not want them on my doorstep but I suppose this is a case where discretion would be the better part of valour? Hopefully they will either grow up or die. :E

Lost_luggage34
27th May 2005, 01:13
I suppose this means you'll be house-hunting soon then

Absolutely not. The previous occupier conveniently ommitted that fine detail ! :) Apparently one which has been present for some time, I understand.

There are sufficient, decent Northern types here to support recent events on the correct side of right and wrong.

Is it even worth informing the Police as all that will happen is my home gets targeted

Yes, I still truly believe so despite any cynacism that I may have towards the Police. That cynacism perhaps not being well aimed as it generally relates to Road Traffic issues. That does not necessary relate directly to the Police and is another topic/thread.

Do you have a local Bobby permanently assigned to your area ? With no disrespect, I refer to a real Bobby, not a Support Officer.

If so, go and have a chat, find out how to contact him/her. You may be surprised at how much they are aware of in your locality and how receptive they are.

My view is that the Police cannot have an effective stance against pockets of lawlessness unless they are aware. Some of that information HAS to come from local residents who are affected by such matters.

SmilingKnifed
27th May 2005, 01:33
We had a neighbour quite openly dealing Class A, leading to her customers having a go at the houses on our street (nipping in to grab a handbag or doing over sheds). The police have a Rat on Rat line and she was raided and no longer lives locally.

Her main supplier and family are also currently serving between 15 and 30 years for a string of offences. The detective on the case said that tip-offs helped him get the evidence he'd been looking for for a while.

Lost_luggage34
27th May 2005, 01:51
It's a very emotive issue - particularly when personally I have witnessed the action earlier yesterday. I fully support that action by the way. (see above to those reading in)

It raises all type of questions about various classifications of drugs - be it nicotine or alcohol. But we are talking illegal drugs here.

For sure, I would shop anyone doing Class A drugs without hesitation. I consider the effects from the likes of heroin to be far worse than cannabis. But then how does one know what one's local street trader is trading ?

In my circumstance I knew what was being dealt. (again - read in)

But we are fed up with all this 'touchy feeling' idea from the Government that cannabis is 'sort of' OK so we'll give you a telling off and make it not so serious as a Class C drug.

Drugs are drugs when they are illegal, simple as that.

Standard Noise
27th May 2005, 01:55
In answer to the original question, certainly.

Used to work in a pub back home and once caught a small time dealer selling the stuff in our pub toilets to one of our 15 yo waiters (who happened to be the brother of a good mate). I was warned not to say anything or I would have several parts of my body broken and two cut off. Oh how I laughed. I waited until he'd returned to the bar to finish his pint with his mates. Then I shouted to the doormen (who were also good mates of mine) that he needed escorting from the premises for selling dope in the pub. His face was a picture! He got barred for life cos our boss wasn't best pleased and despite more threats as he left, the long streak of pish never did get round to cutting my nuts off. Mind you, he was of a different religious denomination and he knew that Standard Noise Senior had some rather dodgy friends.

Said dealer is now reformed and is actually my brother's next door neighbour. Oh, and due to the fact that he thought better of chopping my nads off, he has been physically capable of fathering children himself. So you see, shopping a dealer DOES change lives for the better.:cool:

Hobgoblin
27th May 2005, 02:56
My view is that the Police cannot have an effective stance against pockets of lawlessness unless they are aware. Some of that information HAS to come from local residents who are affected by such matters.

I agree.

My problem is not shopping these little scumbags, I would gladly do so. My reservation stems from the fact that Mrs Goblin is alone at home most nights as I have to work.

I have decided to see what the management company says (surely they must have dealt with this kind of thing before) but speaking to the local Police might be a good idea. ( It could be that these dirtbags are not just smoking the stuff but are actually providing it to younger children....That should get the Police's attention;) )

Onewordanswer
27th May 2005, 03:08
Its just supply and demand isn't it.....suggest you'd do better petitioning for it to be legalised and therefore some semblance of control. As with prostitution you're clobbering a dead horse with this one.:ugh:

Lost_luggage34
27th May 2005, 04:29
I acknowledge your point Hobgoblin - particularly the point about repraisals.

I too have a partner who is frequently away as I am. Of course, it is a concern.

No-one prefers to leave property or loved ones unguarded under such circumstances.

But I would encourage you (and others) to get involved.

It is no good shrugging shoulders (no offence) and lying down, and accepting it.

Most areas these days have a local Community Bobby. Yes, I was sceptical too.

But if you make contact you may be surprised at how receptive these Officers are. Action does come out of it. It can take time.

The Police cannot be everywhere all of the time. They rely on us 'good' residents for their intelligence.

It's your community, if I dare use that expression. Community seems to be a rude word in some parts these days.

Why live in fear when you can at least try to do something about it.

It is not a dead horse as onewordanswer suggests with his/her constructive (tongue in cheek I hope) response.

LL34

Onewordanswer
27th May 2005, 04:47
You're wasting your tiiiiiiiime.
And from www.legalisedrugs.co.uk/

Here are the results:
More crime than ever before!
More recreational drug use than ever before!
More anti social behaviour than ever before!
Less trust of government and the political parties than ever!
More anti-drug spending than ever before!
More drug related deaths than ever before!
More drug related medical problems and costs than ever before!
More addicts than ever before!
Etc, etc, etc, etc...

And what is the worst aspect of this prohibition?

Generations of young people have been introduced to criminality, because that is where one gets drugs-from the criminal underworld. Yes, these are the same people who provide protection rackets, sell the worst kind of pornography, pimp for prostitutes, and lead previously good people down the wrong roads in life simply because they become addicted. Our laws actually push our children -our future-into the hands and control of the lowest part of our society. Is this crazy? You're damn right it is!

When in the history of our modern societies was the last time feuding gangs and criminals had battles with machine guns in our streets?

Answer: During the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's!

Well it's all back, and for exactly the same reasons. In the end of course it all comes down to stupidity, and a lack of willingness for governments, media and people generally to let people do what they want to do. The Nanny State knows best! Wrong!

Remember Liberty? Remember how we fought for it in two world wars, and why the slogan of the American Revolution was 'Give me liberty or give me death? Remember??:rolleyes:

Lost_luggage34
27th May 2005, 05:03
Pray tell us what your solution is/would be ?

The words of your poem or prose are very true.

I feel that you are well isolated from these issues and of the 'shrug shoulers' brigade.

Onewordanswer
27th May 2005, 05:09
Since you ask..........it is as I said earlier begin petitioning for a change that will address the root of the problem as opposed to the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff technique. Which is to say scurrying around trying to dob everyone in, 'twould seem futile in the long term.
Don't you agree?

Gouabafla
27th May 2005, 08:59
I've got teenage boys and yes, I would certainly shop any drug dealer I came across in our area - no hesitation. (Have already done so.) I don't expect everyone else to take the same stance though - as Flaps says, too many variables.

That being said, I've got a lot of sympathy for the legalise, control and tax route. It would be far easier to discourage my kids from going into a controlled drug shop, that it is to stop them being approached by some idiot selling stuff at the scholl gates.

Onewordanswer
27th May 2005, 09:16
Here is aa useful LINK (http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/drugten.html) .
But the point is if you genuinely care about your kids and society given that "...some dependent users resort to stealing to raise funds (accounting for 50% of UK property crime - estimated at 2 billion a year). Most of the violence associated with illegal drug dealing is caused by its illegality" and "nearly half of all 15-16 year olds have used an illegal drug. Up to one and a half million people use ecstasy every weekend. Amongst young people, illegal drug use is seen as normal." YOU NEED TO ACTIVELY CAMPAIGN FOR AN EFFECTIVE CHANGE :ok:

Lost_luggage34
27th May 2005, 21:14
All very well quoting facts and figures.

This is a well educated forum (for the most part) and we read papers, assimilate information.

Without doubt you are correct in some way - figures can be twisted massaged etc..

At the end of the day, you are not adding to this thread.

Onan the Clumsy
27th May 2005, 21:26
I think onewordanswer just want to stay out of prison :p

Lost_luggage34
27th May 2005, 21:44
Onan, maybe he/she is :)

At this point I am very happily writing a letter to the Central Seargant at my local Police division.

What happened yesterday morning, was ;

a) shocking
b) a damn good thing
c) extremely professionally executed
d) there was backup from the local Plod

I.e. as worried as I may be about repraisals, my local Bobby was very supportive.

So, let me reiterate, the Police don't want these people around just as much as you or I don't.

Therefore, get involved. Tell them of things which may be suspicious. They do like to listen.

Yes, I may be on a one man crusade. Perhaps that makes me happy.

Not really - but it makes me feel part of a community again. Something which is very sadly lost these days.

IB4138
27th May 2005, 22:06
After the damage drugs have done to my son and the money it has cost me, as a result, I would have no hesitation in turning a drug dealer in.:mad:

Infact the death penalty should be invoked for em world wide. Life inprisonment, or whatever this means these days, for these scum is no punishment. Bring on the firing squad!

tony draper
27th May 2005, 23:07
The death penalty does exist fror drug dealers/smugglers in some parts of the world,it still does not stop them, the finacial rewards are so great there will always be those willing to take the risk.
Legalisation and control is the only answer now,we lost the war against drugs about twenty years ago, only nobody will admit it.

Miserlou
27th May 2005, 23:56
With all the money being spent and problems caused by civilization's two most common drugs, alcohol and nicotine, I find it difficult finding any merit in the 'legalize drugs' campaign.

It is rather more difficult trying to persuade your kids to not get into drugs when they are legal then when one has a clear and well-proven slippery slope to illustrate your argument.

And if not wanting to be lead into a life of crime is sufficient to stop my lads from trying the stuff then that's great!

Another worrying thought is the 'they're not doing me any harm' attitude.
How will you feel when you find your kid (of whatver age) was 'mashed' on the sofa as the cops burst in?

If you don't do something about it, ie. shop 'em, then you have only yourself to blame as your society takes another step down the ladder.

If everyone kept a look out for one another then perhaps a sense of community might be re-established.

Pinky the pilot
28th May 2005, 08:32
In answer to the original question; Yes, in a flash!!!!
Tony Draper; with all due respect I disagree. If every "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt" drug dealer copped a 9mm slug in the back of the head I think the problem would not be as bad as it is now.

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

Onewordanswer
28th May 2005, 08:49
Miser I really cannot understand your point booze and ciggies are legal and at least cigs are on the decline in first world countries due to education? Booze is another question but you have far more chance of the kiddies hooking up with the "wrong sort" with unsanctioned drugs thems the facts. Incidentally herion is far less damaging to the body than booze.......go figure? Its the lifestyle of desperation leading to prostitution et al that hurts. My main point is address the cause and find the solution instead of narking one idiot petition for a change that will benefit your society, kids and even grandkids
Onan still free :E:ok:

BlueDiamond
28th May 2005, 09:17
Legalise and control the lot. The dealers would disappear just about overnight, petty crime would take a nosedive and nobody's child would die from a dirty hit. We seem to accept nicotine ... one of the most highly addictive substances ever ingested ... and alcohol which has been responsible for more misery the world over than any other recreational substance but we want to keep less damaging drugs illegal. It makes little sense.

The dealers profit most from heroin and to make sure their clients "graduate" from the more lowly cannabis, they spray the stuff with a heroin solution. The kids all think they're just having a THC hit while they're really becoming addicted to heroin which is where the real profit lies for the dealer. It would be a huge struggle to get through $3,000 of cannabis in a week but easily done with heroin.

If the stuff was properly controlled, the cannabis would be cannabis, the heroin would be heroin and the disco biscuits would be plain MDMA (3,4, MethyleneDioxyMethylAmphetamine) with no plaster of Paris, talc or Ratsak added. It's not always cut or jumped on with glucose ... anything white-ish will do. Proper control ensures a known dose of a known substance and reduces the number of people found dead with the needle still in their arm.

Would I dob in a dealer? Absolutely. Without a second's hesitation ... done it before and will do it again.

cyclicmicky
28th May 2005, 09:38
If anybody was foolish enough to try to deal this crap to my kids I would quite cheerfully shop, chop and execute in the most excruciatingly painful manner available, with a totally clear conscience.
These parasitic bastards are dealers in human misery and ultimate death.

No quarter given

Grrrr












Rant Over

Miserlou
28th May 2005, 11:37
It doesn't take too great a feat of logic to work out that if, as is stated above, heroin has a lesser effect on the body than alcohol then alcohol, if being introduced today, would not be permitted.

Cigarettes are the perfect example. What was once accepted is now being strongly discouraged. Binge drinking is also a worrying trend.

So having established that it's not a good idea to use pharmaceuticals the emphasis must be on prevention rather than cure.

What point is there in legalizing something which is going to cause more problems?
The fact that it is illegal must also serve as a deterrant.
This goes for alcohol, cigs, cannabis and all the other controlled substances.

CarltonBrowne the FO
28th May 2005, 17:54
A point not always mentioned in the "legalise them all" argument is the cost of production. One of the reasons illegal drugs are such a profitable trade is that the cost of production is minimal- not for nothing is cannabis also known as weed!
During the 1990s it was estimated that the most strung-out heroin addict used drugs with a total production and transport cost of around 1.20 a day. However, throw in the price rise associated with illegal activity, the losses to confiscation, etc, and he would in fact be paying something like 250-300 a day! Allowing for inflation, the actual production cost today would probably be less than 2. Add in a hefty slice of tax (a tax I suspect few ppruners would object to, after all we are not going to be paying it :) ) and said addict could probably get all the necessary supplies for 50 a week.
Remove the threat of always having to be looking for the next source of supply, and the addict could even hold down a job- sure, most responsible jobs would be barred to him, but he could flip burgers. He would be less likely to require emergency hospital treatment (given some ppruners' liking for more extreme sports, probably less than many of those who regularly post here) thus saving the NHS money... the list of benefits is long, not only for the addict, but for society.
I am still in favour of long sentences for drug dealers. The only allowable source for drugs should be the approved pharmacies. Drugs should only be sold to adults, on production of ID. Existing addicts, whose only convictions referred to their personal stash, could be offered the quashing of their criminal records in return for informing on suppliers- if the prospect of a 95% price cut was not enough!
All the above is only my opinion. In this topic especially, I fully respect the right of others to hold opposing views. I hope I have listened as fully to their arguments as I would like them to listen to mine.

Two clarifications. Firstly, my use of the pronoun "he" to refer to drug addicts is purely a convenience. Nothing in my post should be taken as restricting the rights of women to be strung out drug addicts should they so decide. Secondly, my suggestion of burger flipping as a job is not a suggestion that existing staff at burger joints are drug addicts- although I have met some who seemed so bored they wished they were out of their skulls! Some of the larger fast food chains go to great lengths to ensure their outlets are drug free.

Loki
28th May 2005, 20:07
I would cheerfully report a crime to the police (I like to think I`m a responsible citizen)

Life`s never quite that simple though is it? What if the law being broken is plainly stupid? What if the pepetrator were a friend /relative and one thought the crime was relatively minor?

Whole thing is a moral maze. I suppose one just has to try and do the right thing (whatever that is).

2R
29th May 2005, 00:51
Most countries where these substaces are not illegal or the governments are incapable of enforcing the law are more commonly known as the third world.
In countries where self medication is the norm those countries are violent and the people oppressed.
Do not fall for the softies and wets arguement that there is nothing to be done and that we are powerless to defeat this mass poisoning of the youth.
Take the shackles off the Police and Army and it will not take long to eridicate these mass poisoners.Unleash the hounds.
One off the reasons that criminals commit crime is that they think they will never get caught,and that the rules do not apply to them.The reasons that most people do not commit crime has nothing to do with getting caught,most people are law abiding as it is the right thing to do.So they do not need a deterent.But for those who lack morales,have no love for others ,no fear of god ,no love of god ,no respect for law and order and a complete lack of regard for their fellow humans , When they force young girls and boys into prostituion for drugs .What should we do to stop such monsters amonst us "a phone call is all it takes"
You are not shopping a dealer you would be saving a child from an evil pusher.
:ok:

Onewordanswer
29th May 2005, 01:28
countries where these substaces are not illegal or the governments are incapable of enforcing the law are more commonly known as the third world.
Like the Netherlands:rolleyes:

BlueDiamond
29th May 2005, 01:28
In countries where self medication is the norm ...
Is there any country where self-medication is not the norm? We diagnose our own headache or toothache, prescribe Panadol for ourselves and self-administer it. Those of us who have migraines, bee-sting allergy or similar, diagnose the problem and use our own epi-pens to apply treatment. Diabetics calculate their own dosage and self-inject, and we put our own antiseptic on cuts.

We administer our own nicotine when we feel we need it and many of us self-diagnose that we are tense and administer alcohol to help ourselves relax. We like to have life's little comforts at our fingertips and we certainly do not go to the doctor to have a band-aid put on or to slop on a bit of cream when we've overdone the sunbathing.

There's no difference between addictions really. Alcohol, heroin, nicotine ... they are all drugs of addiction and I feel they should all be treated the same way; kept under control for availability and quality of product. Can you imagine the uproar if someone suggested making alcohol illegal because it's bad for you? I think the prohibition era demonstrated the result of that course of action.

The Real Slim Shady
29th May 2005, 09:47
I guess that this is the wrong place to look for some sympathy, but spare a thought for we poor dealers.

I have had to give up the beamer and the place in Marbella, all thanks to a turn down in trade, thanks to the bl**dy environmentalists.

They complained to the council about the pilies of dogsh1t left by the guide dogs outside the gaffe.

Bl**dy Viagra..........side effects should be researched better.

Miserlou
29th May 2005, 10:00
The comparison with prohibition is not relevant.
At that time alcohol was legal and normal part of society and had been for most of history. Then for poliltical and fundamental religious reasons it was outlawed.

The effect of the harder substances is considerably debilitating.

Smoking may be unpleasant but addicts are not necessarily unable to function whilst inder the influence. Quitting seems not to be so difficult as 'getting clean'.
Similarly, whilst most of us enjoy a pint or two, we are sble to sympathize with another who 'has a problem'.

This is not the case with hard drugs; only a minority are involved and once hooked, drop out completely. Recovery is a considerably longer and harder process and fraught with problems.

Whilst we have always thought of Holland as a shining example of tolerance, this is not actually the case. Cracks are appearing both with regard to drugs and race issues.

I concur with 2R. Unleash the dogs on the scum who would endanger our lifestyle!

Onewordanswer
29th May 2005, 11:52
alcohol was legal and normal part of society and had been for most of history. Then for poliltical and fundamental religious reasons it was outlawed.
You Sir are mistaken, misguided or a fool, do you have children?
Your theory is a continuance of perpetual failure
:{

Miserlou
29th May 2005, 12:01
What kind of an answer is that?

If the case is other than that which I describe then outline your case.

If you'd like me to go further then I may mention that prohibition was the first example of what happens when you allow preachers and women into the political arena.

Please correct me if I am wrong but don't just say, "You're wrong". That doesn't further a discussion in any way except to declare your intellectual bancrupcy.

Onewordanswer
29th May 2005, 12:20
Ahhhhhhh I didn't your saying the status quo is to be applauded I offer an alternative......to your propping-up of a proven failed social experiment:zzz:

BlueDiamond
29th May 2005, 12:48
... the first example of what happens when you allow preachers and women into the political arena.
I thought the man who designed the 18th Amendment was a Minnesota lawyer. Or are you saying that Congress consisted mostly of "preachers and women" when the Volstead act was passed?

Miserlou
29th May 2005, 13:12
Point 10 or your link, Oneword, "Legalisation is not a cure-all".

I see no reason why the underlying issues and social causes cannot be addressed without legalizing drugs. Furthermore, it is considerably harder to make them illegal again when you discover that this social experiment has failed.

You have to laugh at the phrase, 'otherwise law-abiding people'. Myra Hindley was, apart from her crimes, an otherwise law-abiding citizen'.

It is not unreasonable for a developed country to wield power, I'd prefer influence, over another. This is the way the world, civilization progresses. If by this practice we are able to influence them to take a stance against the drug-lords then we will be helping ourselves aswell. This will also address another point in the link.
When other cultures cease to have drug taking as a normality they will not bring that part of their culture to ours when they come.

It seems that many drug users manage to OD. How does a supply of better quality, cheaper and legal drugs reduce this number? I feel the main argument against the use of drugs is the degradation in decision-making and reasoning skills. The proof is obvious in that these people find themselves trying to decide how much and not whether to do it.

Legalizing drugs also removes another way to get at the other businesses organized crime use.

The stigma attached to drug use is entirely acceptable and should remain as a deterrant. It certainly was when I was at school. Drug use leading to a life of crime was a sufficient argument for us to make a decision to steer clear.

That's just a quick selection from the 'bleedin' obvious' drawer.

flapsforty
29th May 2005, 13:30
Onewordanswer, sticking to your username doesn't cut it in this case. ;)
Shape up man & put forward a coherent argument.

WorkingHard
29th May 2005, 13:54
Well said Mike Jenvey. Singapore IS a superb example of how to STOP drugs and dealers, If only our western politicians ahd the guts to do the same as the government of Singapore or are our politicians getting something out of all this crime?

Burnt Fishtrousers
29th May 2005, 18:58
When we see the effects drugs have on society, the gun crime,the huge swathes of our cities becoming slum no go areas, the rise in all our insurance premiums and the millions spent on rehab for these sad pathetic creatures that get their kicks by filling themselves with cr*p, our properties being broken into and the crime effects of drugs, theres one thing to do with drug dealers KILL THE FECKIN LOT OF EM that way crime will drop 80%.

Forget legalising it .Legalising drugs doesnt put money in the addicts pockets.They will still have to steal our property to fuel their habit.

LIQUIDATE THE DEALING BASTARDS

ShyTorque
29th May 2005, 23:06
My parents, after their retirement, were troubled by the goings-on at a house oppposite theirs after a certain "retired old lady" moved in. Young men began turning up at all hours of the night, banging on the door until they were let in by said lady in her late 60s or her two grandsons. It soon became obvious that drug dealing was going on big time.

We arranged for a video camera in their lounge for a couple of days, operated by a nice policewoman who they kept fed and watered. The police warned them they were putting themselves at some risk of repercussions if the case went to court, but they insisted it went ahead.

After enough evidence was gathered, they were gratified to hear the front door opposite go in at first light and two young chavs plus their "innocent" grandmother were led away in cuffs. :ok:

My parents have both since passed on, my mother 3 years ago tomorrow and my father just last year but I am still proud of them for doing their bit for society.

I would do the same thing tomorrow.

Paul Wilson
30th May 2005, 00:08
Quitting seems not to be so difficult as 'getting clean'

Talking to a friend who went to medical school at St. Georges and therefore did his psych work at Springfield (where they keep the real nutters(ahhh the sound of sirens when one got out)) giving up the fags is harder than the heroin, a good few of the patients had kicked the opiates, but were unable to give up smoking.

BlueDiamond
30th May 2005, 01:49
Concur with that, Paul Wilson. A friend of mine was able to beat her heroin addiction but unable to get away from cigarettes. I read a bit about nicotine when I was in the process of giving up smoking and it appears to be far more addictive than opiates.

Onewordanswer
30th May 2005, 06:23
Shape up man & put forward a coherent argument.
I didn't want to repeat myself ad nauseum;) I have laid it out pretty thoroughly already

It seems that many drug users manage to OD. How does a supply of better quality, cheaper and legal drugs reduce this number?
The answer is in your statement .......better quality:confused:

You have to laugh at the phrase, 'otherwise law-abiding people'
.......so you have zero record no parking/speeding infringements etc???.......Myra as an example is really getting desperate....

It certainly was when I was at school.

So you think the status quo is working?????:rolleyes:

Miserlou
30th May 2005, 09:18
".....so you have zero record no parking/speeding infringements etc???"

Unbelievable as it may seem, clean as a whistle, but they are civil offences anyway as opposed to criminal offences which are the subject of the discussion.

Better quality will make it easier to OD. Judgement is already out of the window, as previously stated, or they wouldn't be doing the stuff in the first place.

The example of Hindley is as relevant as any other. I'm sure you'd agree then that Her Majesty's prisons are full of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

I do not think the status quo is working.
But legalizing drugs is the opposite direction from that which I would prefer to see.

The other issues can still be tackled without legalizing drugs.

CargoMatatu
30th May 2005, 09:23
In view of what drugs did to my son and consequently my family, my answer to the original question is very simple:-

ABSOLUTLEY!:ok: In a heartbeet!:ok:

May the Matatu be with you.

Matatu Man:cool:

BlueDiamond
30th May 2005, 10:01
Better quality will make it easier to OD.
It would actually make it near impossible unless the overdose was intentional.

The heroin sold on the streets varies in purity which is usually somewhere in between 1% and 10%. Occasionally, a batch of high purity heroin gets on to the streets which is in the range of 50% to 60% pure or even higher. Since the addict has no idea just from looking at the stuff what the purity might be, he or she prepares the hit in the usual manner, starts to inject and is dead sometimes before the syringe barrel is even empty. If the drug was controlled, the purity would be known and it would not be possible to accidentally overdose.

The quality itself is another thing to be considered. The "considerate" dealer cuts their stuff with glucose, quinine, milk sugar, powdered milk or other substances, the "unscrupulous" dealer uses anything from brick dust to Ratsak. Again, if the substance were controlled, quality would improve along with purity and we would see fewer deaths from the added toxic substances.

tony draper
30th May 2005, 10:36
Agree BD many thousands of men returned from the war addicted to heroin because of its medical use,they got their prescriptions every week like any other person with a long term medical problem thet required repeat prescription,they for the most part led normal lives.
The real drug problem here started in the sixties with prohibition,as you say the medical problems associated with heroin abuse stems from the impurity,pharacutrical quality heroin would not have this problem.
We have tried everything to date,prohibition does not work,when there is a demand for a product there will always be those that will service that demand,prohibition has patently not work,nor has education or any of the other silly things they have tried such as appointing a Drug tzar.
For the most part I don't give a toss what some chap wants to inject into themselve,whether it be heroin or some other chap, (that seems to be regarded as quite acceptable now)but I do object to the criminality that goes with maintaining a illegal drug habit,that does effect me.
Legalisation and control,is the only option left to us I believe.

Miserlou
30th May 2005, 11:51
So, I guess you are suggesting a variety of strengths. You could get Sainsbury's to put it on the shelves in the kiosk when they're not allowed to sell cigarettes anymore.

But for my sake, go on legalize it. I think it would be great to see how many we lose in the cross-over period.

Obviously, the new controlled substance will be diluted. I wonder how long it will be before the black market dealers start offering stronger stuff.

Furthermore, I wonder if the drug barons are going to give up such a lucrative source of income. Of course, they may welcome their life new kosher business but they are still going to be controlling the man in the field and the cost will go up from source. Supply and demand, nothing to do with what it costs to produce, an argument earlier raised.

Rather, the 'legalize it' brigade have really thought this out.

I still maintain that the clean stuff will get as many as before. It's a judgement call, nothing to do with the actual purity. It's the drive to do more and more, getting better and better,

Just out of interest, is there any-one going to argue that taking drugs is harmless or o good thing to do?

ORAC
30th May 2005, 11:54
Laudanum, opium, morphine. The victorians seemed to do well enough without legislation banning them (Lord Byron, Shelly and others were know to indulge.) ......

BlueDiamond
30th May 2005, 12:05
Just out of interest, is there any-one going to argue that taking drugs is harmless or o good thing to do?
I'd be willing to bet you'd find a few people around here who'd put their hands up in favour of their own drug of choice. Alcohol would be the odds-on favourite I think.

Onewordanswer
30th May 2005, 12:19
No, the problem for society is the crime committed to fund a habit, and will it make any difference whether the supplier is legal or illegal?

But that is precisely what this thread is about......the impact of drug dealers in the society........half the problem is you're chosing to only agknowledge the part you think is "nice".:rolleyes:

ORAC
30th May 2005, 12:24
Unless anyone is suggesting supplying hard drugs free to those on benefits at the taxpayers expense?

I think you will find it already does (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2537265.stm).........
:rolleyes:

etrang
30th May 2005, 12:32
China has tried the "Just kill the dealers" approach to this problem. It didn't work.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050526/ap_on_re_as/china_drug_war_1

BlueDiamond
30th May 2005, 12:41
Unless anyone is suggesting supplying hard drugs free to those on benefits at the taxpayers expense? Could a case be made for that?
Possibly it could. If we acknowledge that much criminal ctivity is the result of addicts needing to raise the funds for their next fix, then it should follow that if they can get it free, they will not need to commit armed robberies, muggings etc.. Theoretically, if all addicts were able to get their hits free, the dealers would be deprived of their business.

It might then be argued that they would try to protect their interests by "recruiting" new customers ... but since this is already the case, nothing would really change in that regard. If a "free drugs" system were put in place, the dealers might still be able to find new customers here and there but once any addict knows they can get their hits free, they are not very likely to spend 2 - 3 thousand dollars a week with their dealer, so any new customers the dealers managed to recruit would soon be lost to the free system.

The increase in cost to the health system would be partially offset by the fewer medical problems experienced by addicts on pharmaceutical grade drugs who now would be using clean needles with no sharing. There would be no overdosing requiring (costly) emergency medical intervention and the addicts would not be getting sick from toxic additives.

If such a system could be made to work, the best benefit to communities would be a big drop in crime. I think the idea has merit.

Deaf
30th May 2005, 14:15
The cost of pure heroin in powder form, proper vac packs would be a few cents per gram. Same as asprin - the packaging would cost more than the drug.

When you hear that x% of crime is due to heroin that means that x% of the wages of police/lawyers/judges/screws/social workers etc etc come from heroin.

When you hear a ..... being particularly anti drug that often means he/she gets x+y, ie is on the take.

For heroin insert drug of problem ( and in Thailand they have a amphetamine rehab units for elephants(they work harder))

tony draper
30th May 2005, 15:40
There is also the problem of the vast amounts of drug cash floating around the black economy, that prolly keeps near a million off benifits, also supect large wads of drug money float around the city as well, being cleaned up and gentrified, remember drugs are not just a problem, they are a very large value added retail industry in this country as well as places like Colombia and Afghanistan.
Look at the stupidy of governments adding excesive amounts of duty to cigarettes and drink,they have created another huge illegal industry smuggling these comodities,and for all this is a relativly recent problem they are incapable of doing buggah all about it, I still smoke and to tell the truth I have not bought honest ciggies for a couple of years,nor has any smoking aquaintence of mine, we would have to be mad to go to the corner shop and pay three times the price for the identical packet of snide ciggies.
Give it a couple of years and I think we will see smuggled petrol/diesel being flogged from street corner tankers, I understand this is already happening in Ireland.
Prohibition od a commodity that a fair percentag of the population want, never works, never has worked and never will work, although as somebody has pointed out,the war against drugs has become something of a industry in its own right as well,so we have to expect resistance from them.

Miserlou
30th May 2005, 16:16
Does any-one think taking illegal drugs is a sound and healthy choice?

Would any-one like to volunteer to enter a trial to test the addictive properties of a selection of hard drugs?

I think the issue of whether or not they should be made legal is quite rather an aside to the real issue; tackling the factors which lead people into the lifestyle.

Let them remain illegal and allow us to use this as a deterrant whilst we get to the heart of the problem.

ExSimGuy
30th May 2005, 17:47
YES
I'm not talking about the "grass sellers", but anyone selling serious drugs needs to be put off the streets.

I had 3 kids growing up in a "slightly drug popular town" while I was not able to have much influence on them (divorce etc) and was worried about what could happen.

Here in Saudi, we have a simple way of stopping drug pushers re-offend - their heads part from their bodies publicly!

"Heavy" drug-pushers are murderers and should be teated as such. The fact that their "victims" are "accessories" doesn't come into it.

It hasn't cured the drug problem here. but it sure has helped!

[/end rant]

flapsforty
30th May 2005, 18:15
OK. Mod hat firmly OFF.

Miserlou, I recognise your point of view regarding the 'deterrent' as one that is very prevalent in Scandinavia.
People in this part of the world are law abiding and have a natural tendency to view whatever the law of the land is as valid, morally right, and needing to be obeyed just because it's the law.
It is one of the things that did (and still does) surprise me when I moved here.
Without wanting to kick in an open door; this high regard for what the law says, is not as prevalent in the rest of the world. Consequently, in most of the world the deterrent value of narcotics being illegal, is far less than it is in Scandi.

Answering your question; I don't believe that any taking of drugs for the purpose of entertaining oneself is healthy.
I do think that people always have and always will indulge in various forms of long-term unhealthy behaviour because that behaviour gives them short-term pleasure. Alcohol is a toxin; yet a majority of people drink and consider the pleasurable side effects worth the health risk and the possibility of getting addicted to the point of becoming alcoholics and suffering Korsakov's syndrome.

I believe the same can and does actually happen when what most people consider illegal drugs, would be legalised. Have a look at the stats
here (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lif_can_use) and pay particular attention to where the Netherlands sit in relation to Oz and the US and Scandiavia. As you know, the use of cannabis is not criminalised in Holland and it is widely available. For the record, I don't believe that heroin should be available freely to anyone, but having it available legally to those who are already junkies would IMO save society a great deal of money, criminality and aggravation. Also, contrary to what has been stated earlier on this thread, once heroin junks have a steady and reliable supply of heroin plus a proper support network, many of them can and do hold down regular jobs and lead respectable lives contributing to society.

Summing it up, in an ideal world, nobody would smoke cigarettes, nobody would drink anything but 2 glasses of red wine a day and nobody would do recreational drugs.
To get as close as we can to that ideal, governments should spend a great deal of money, time and effort teaching children about the harmful effects of the above and stimulating them never to start on any substance detrimental to their health.
At the same time, we should recognise the human penchant for wanting the easy pleasure provided by alcohol and drugs. If we do that, we can try to educate people to deal with these drugs in a responsible manner, balancing long-term health and short-term pleasure in an optimal manner instead of driving millions of youngsters into the hands of muderously ruthless drug dealers and using billions and billions of $ on a useless war on drugs in a world where that money could be put to much better use helping those in genuine need.

Miserlou
30th May 2005, 20:01
Interesting staistics, Flaps.

Interesting especially to note the percentage of Dutch who consider drug addicts undesirable neighbours.

It was pointed out earlier that heroin is available on perscription but I believe this is only to addicts who are in detox programs.

Whilst the Netherlands is under scrutiny it should be noted that the detox experiments (involving free prescription heroin) which have been carried out there and in Sweden proved to be unsuccessful.

The Scandinavians do rather tend to over-regulate and to quote an English friend here, "The Danes are so ****ing well-adjusted!"
Still the Swedes, I suppose, are just like the Germans...just without the sense of humour. (Only joking folks.)

To clarify, I mean deterrant in terms of scare factor for the very young. This is where the drug problem has it's roots.

flapsforty
30th May 2005, 21:07
Miserlou, too funny! :E Have just quoted your "***ing wel adjusted etc" to my own well adjusted Viking. He fully agrees. (and abt the Swedes as well). ;)

2R
31st May 2005, 00:42
"The Fastest way to end a War is to give up" George Orwell

As for etrang position that the chinese solution of execution does not work .It does the proven method was used to end the opium wars and rid China of the many drug problems Introduced by foreigners to China.This technique was used during the boxer rebillion /Harmonious fist rebellion against the foreigners in China

"We sleep safe in our beds,because rough men in the night will visit violence upon those who would harm us." George Orwell
Sorry to quote an old Etonian twice but when your right,your right even if you are leftty left.
The damage that this poison does to society is worse than the gin binges in England of the 1700's.

Deterance does work.
Lord Chief Justice Campbell proved that in Glasgow many years ago.When the Razor Gangs had everone in Glasgow living in fear and the police had little effect as the Razor attacks netted a small fine and a slap on the wrist from the bench .One monday the first razor attacker went up in front of the Lord Chief Justice and got
Ten Years instead of ten pounds.Not one razor attack the next week.And the razor gangs disappeared overnight.
It may not be effective to someone who has had their brain fried on drugs but it will deter others from that path in life.

Flash2001
31st May 2005, 14:05
Just to add something to the mix:

Many years ago I read a study of opiate addicts who could afford their habits, Doctors, Lawyers, Politicians and such. They tended to be functioning addicts, without the disabling features that we normally associate with addiction. Further, they tended to withdraw voluntarily and without symptoms around age 40 to 50. Needless to say, this study is not much cited these days.

After an excellent landing you can use the airplane again.

WG774
31st May 2005, 21:00
Once upon a time I lived next door to this dodgy looking bloke, and people were coming and going in and out of his house at all times of the day. One day I noticed most of them seemed to be carrying what appeared to be a rolled up carpet.













It turns out that I was living next to a rug dealer.

tony draper
31st May 2005, 21:07
Be a few investors with long faces tonight ,customs have seized 5 tons of cocaine bound for the UK, 240 million squids worth they recon.
:E

MikeKnight
1st Jun 2005, 15:21
As a late-joiner to this thread, much of my thunder has already been stolen, suffice to say the war on drugs is a losing battle. I would refer you to TD's supply/demand argument. To counter this is akin to burying one's head in the sand.

It seems to me that for every drug dealer 'shopped', there is another 1 000 of them waiting in the wings.

As far as I understand, a kid's personality is created in the first 5 years of their life and because of this, I would not admit on a public forum to being the parent of drug-addict offspring.

I'm not a daddy yet so I have nothing really to back up what I am about to say but I don't see one-off use or a short experimental phase with soft drugs as too much of a problem. However, if my son/daughter went off the deep end, I should imagine I'd have some fairly serious soul-searching to do wrt my child-rearing skills, particularly if they're still quite young when it hits the fan.

edited for an allusion to correct use of gramma

Miserlou
1st Jun 2005, 21:11
So you mean the acid test, if you'll pardon the pun, as to whether drugs should be legalized, regardless of the not totally unreasonable arguments in it's favour, is how would one feel about one's own children getting into it.

Sounds sensible to me.