Advertisement

Ice, Meth and E soon to be sold by the cops

By 5 July 2008 163

ABC recently reported that the laws are being upgraded in the ACT to allow our local police to possess and sell drugs.

It brings our laws into line with other states, allowing officers to buy and sell drugs, without fear of being prosecuted themselves for possessing the illegal substance.

It’s probably surprising they haven’t had this power before now, but when the laws are passed, it will certainly change the atmosphere in and around many of Canberra’s better known nightclubs. Not to mention a few of the city’s dark lanes and back streets.

Please login to post your comments
163 Responses to
Ice, Meth and E soon to be sold by the cops
vg 10:20 pm
07 Jul 08
#61

This is getting easy

“Why should drugs be banned because some people are retards? Kind of ‘pandering to a minority’ there, aren’t we?”

Why don’t we legalise speeding then, and stealing small amounts from big companies, or carrying loaded firearms around the streets? I mean most people could be responsible about those things, but we’d still have to legislate for the, as you say, ‘retards’.

“It’s personal choice and that’s something I believe everyone should have.”

I would like to take a dump on some people’s front lawn. I believe everyone should have that personal choice.

“People can still get them easily. I could probably have some sitting on the desk before me by the end of tomorrow (bar pot, which would take me about an hour at the most, I reckon).”

Lets extrapolate a bit further. You could probably get online kiddy porn quicker, or go outside, get in your car and run over and kill someone in less than 2 mins. So ease of access is a cause for legality?

Aside from that you have nothing of worth to add to the argument.

Deadmandrinking 10:55 pm
07 Jul 08
#62

Wow…did you just say that?

NOW it’s easy, because you’ve simplified the argument to b-s land.

Stop for a minute and try to think about what you’ve said. I’m going to adress your points slowly, so you can fully take in the stupidity of what you have just posted.

1)What we call speeding is exceeding the legal limits defined by the government. You never know, maybe a few of roads would benefit from having higher speed limits. Raising these limits would not ‘legalize speeding’. What you have said is what we call an oxymoron.
2) Stealing small amounts from companies. Stealing is what happens when you take possession of something that the law regards as belonging to someone else. If it becomes legal to take possession of that something…then the law is no longer regarding that as belonging to someone else and therefore, it is not stealing. This is another oxymoron.

3) This is the only part of your post that is worthy of some note. Very good VG, now grow a brain. Also, I’ve never heard of an ounce of pot killing thirty-five people at the same place in a short amount of time.

4) Could do both rather quickly (although I don’t actually have a car at the moment). Apart from the fact that I wouldn’t want to do either, ever, under any condition…I’d probably get caught a lot easier and a lot quicker (especially with the latter).

You seem to have no understanding of the law, how it applies and why. I am beginning to think you were never a cop and if you were, I am very worried about the standards the AFP has regarding it’s applicants. The thought of a man with your limited knowledge and understand patrolling the streets in uniform is a very fearful one, except for the crims.

Headbonius 5:47 am
08 Jul 08
#63

DMD wrote “Why don’t I? Because I don’t want to. I’m done with that stuff. Its got nothing to do with the legality. It never really did. It’s personal choice and that’s something I believe everyone should have.”

The question is DMD is how far do you think personal choice should extend? If it hasn’t dawned on your pea sized grey matter, the government enacts legislation to limit personal choice by making some choices “naughty choices” Choices like killing someone for kicks, raping a baby, selling illicit drugs and yes, even buying illicit drugs and the list goes on.

And why are these things naughty choices? Because generally they have consequences or potential consequences for an individual other than the person committing the offence and this infringes their civil liberties or pesonal rights.

You my retarded friend sound like an anarchist. If you were a true anarchist I would have some respect for you for sticking to your beliefs – as retarded as they are but sadly I suspect that you are a latte anarchist and the moment someone exercised a personal choice that infringed your rights you would be squealing like a little piglet.

If I have lost you on the whole concept of Anarchism, I apologize. I do realise that you are a little on the slow side, most anarchists are, even pretend ones (actually they are probably slower than real ones) So just in case you don’t know what Anarchism is.

“anarchism” and “anarchy” are undoubtedly the most misrepresented ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean “chaos” or “without order,” and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos and a return to the “laws of the jungle.”

So DMD, is this what you want? Really? I doubt it fool. You didn’t give up the drugs a long enough time ago, your brain is damaged beyond repair.

Deadmandrinking 6:16 pm
08 Jul 08
#64

I think you need to cut out on the crack, Headbonius. You’re thinking too far ahead and making sh-t up. That doesn’t get you anywhere in an argument.

I’m not an anarchist, I never said I was. Would I be stating that legalization would be better because the GOVERNMENT WILL BE ABLE TO REGULATE THE INDUSTRY if I were an anarchist? Was your mother a douchebag too? This sounds genetic!

I also notice how easily people seem to equate drugs with child-rape and murder. Sure, the two have come together before in criminal cases. Alcohol and the latter, hell, probably even prescription drugs have. It begs the question – how far down the line of preventative measures can you go without restricting the freedoms of those who have done nothing to deserve to have those freedoms restricted?

I think the prohibition of drugs is too far down the line. I also think that law funds an industry of the sickening afore-mentioned practices.

Banning the sale of drugs does nothing but raise their prices and takes quality control and general safety measures out of the equation. Many of the harder drugs, in the current purity levels they are sold in, are highly addictive. This means you’re always going to have a consumer base. The only thing that affects price afterwards is supply and competetion.

Every time a major drug bust is made, you have only given rival gangs more control over the market and given them an excuse to raise prices and bring more money in. Most criminal gangs nowadays source a majority of their income from the produce and distribution of illicit substances. This means for many of the more major ones, other, more sickening enterprises can be funded; such as protection rackets, sex-slavery, murder and in some cases, especially in many poorer countries, political manipulation.

Why do you think many of the gangs in Melbourne could roam the streets exerting unchallenged power over ordinary people with little fear of retribution for so long? Any big bastard can throw a hard punch, any douche-bag can make threats to kill, anybody can walk up and let off a few rounds into someone’s head if they’ve the stomach – but it takes a strong source of income to build up the networks of legal and illegal contacts to be able to continue this behavior unchallenged – and most of that is drugs. Sure many of the gangsters from Underbelly ended up dead or in prison eventually, but their places have certainly been taken by now. The faces may change, but the problem remains stagnant.

You said anarchists desire the laws of the jungle by implication. I put it to you that the current drug laws in this society nurture and sustain subcultures where the laws of the jungle (i.e. the strongest and the fittest rule) are the order of the day. this is one of the reasons they need to change.

Also, in a civilized, democratic society, laws always need to be challenged and weighed against the consequences of their enforcement. That is one of the principles upon which our society is based. If you don’t like that aspect, there are many other societies you can go to where the law is set in stone and detractors are executed.

Mælinar 6:58 pm
08 Jul 08
#65

flap… flap… flap…

Does this satisfy addressing points slowly so WMD can fully take in the stupitity of his posts ? I am still concerned they (the WMD/(F)Ant umbilical twits) do not understand the reference.

Engaging in a technical debate with somebody who throws in words with more than 3 syllables just because they kind of sound cool in that sentence, and it makes them appear more intellectual, really is still just a gold medal at the handicap games.

Deadmandrinking 7:12 pm
08 Jul 08
#66

Well at least I got a gold metal for engaging in a debate with someone who throws in words with more than 3 syllables just because they sound kind of cool in that sentence and makes them appear more intellectual.

Although, I’m not sure if it’s really a debate with you. In fact, I’m getting a little worried about you masturbating on your k/b every time I post. I’ll tell you now, mate, I’m not into that. Find someone else to spray.

vg 7:28 pm
08 Jul 08
#67

“Well at least I got a gold metal for engaging in a debate with someone who throws in words with more than 3 syllables just because they sound kind of cool in that sentence and makes them appear more intellectual.”

Debate, or mass debate?

Deadmandrinking 7:30 pm
08 Jul 08
#68

Well, I thought I was debating…but it seems other weren’t doing the same. Damn you internet! You have destroyed my innocence!

Headbonius 7:43 pm
08 Jul 08
#69

Braindeadmandrinking, you fool. You stated that you believe in personal choice. I merely wondered how far this extended. In its truest form this is Anarchy. Clearly you are not an Anarchist .

Pesty 7:48 pm
08 Jul 08
#70

vg said :

This is getting easy

“Why should drugs be banned because some people are retards? Kind of ‘pandering to a minority’ there, aren’t we?”

Why don’t we legalise speeding then, and stealing small amounts from big companies, or carrying loaded firearms around the streets? I mean most people could be responsible about those things, but we’d still have to legislate for the, as you say, ‘retards’.

“It’s personal choice and that’s something I believe everyone should have.”

I would like to take a dump on some people’s front lawn. I believe everyone should have that personal choice.

“People can still get them easily. I could probably have some sitting on the desk before me by the end of tomorrow (bar pot, which would take me about an hour at the most, I reckon).”

Lets extrapolate a bit further. You could probably get online kiddy porn quicker, or go outside, get in your car and run over and kill someone in less than 2 mins. So ease of access is a cause for legality?

Aside from that you have nothing of worth to add to the argument.

Well said VG

Deadmandrinking 8:02 pm
08 Jul 08
#71

If you took it that I was an anarchist, you are just a twit who needs to learn how to read and analyse information. Please join Pesty in the moron corner, over there with VG and Maelinar.

Pesty 8:06 pm
08 Jul 08
#72

Banning illegal drugs is futile. Driving over 60KM on Northbourne is also banned! What is desperately required is the availability erradicated. Easy to say I know. but I am pretty confident that most of the pro-drug lobby would soon change their tune if they had to watch a loved ones life decend into a horrible ruin because they were maybe to young to make a sensible choice and avoid the stuff. The most vulnerable are the young, even the good kids can succombe to peer pressure

DJ 8:07 pm
08 Jul 08
#73

DMD… inhale, exhale. Better? Now, take a strong sedative and just have a lie down and enjoy your holiday. Looks like you are way out there and simply have no clue as to the subject you are on about. Your logic isn’t. Your views are twisted and confused and it looks to me like you are attempting to validate part of your life… badly.

Pesty 8:12 pm
08 Jul 08
#74

Deadmandrinking said :

If you took it that I was an anarchist, you are just a twit who needs to learn how to read and analyse information. Please join Pesty in the moron corner, over there with VG and Maelinar.

Funny, I thought drugs were illegal for good reason! Gees, how moronic me, Maeliner, VG and the majority of society are.

Deadmandrinking 8:29 pm
08 Jul 08
#75

DJ, you haven’t even expressed an opinion on this. Until you do, stfu. You are an idiot.

Pesty, you’d be surprised how many of the pro-drug crew have watched loved ones suffer from the perils of addiction to drugs. Drugs still have bad side effects. Legalization would not remove addiction and all the bad elements of drug use. The question is, as I’ve said before, is this stuff not happening now? A walk through Garema place at any given time of the day would answer that question.

We have tried to tackle the problems with drugs for a long time. This particular method has not worked. Money is still going into the hands of criminals, lives are still being torn apart by the increasing cost of dependency and taken outright by devious backyard chemists. The war on drugs is a sham, a failure and a disgraceful waste of money and it’s time we matured as a society and looked at other options.

Headbonius 8:38 pm
08 Jul 08
#76

DMD, the reference to my mother was unneccesary.

DJ 8:40 pm
08 Jul 08
#77

DMD, my opinion is obviously not the same as yours – I don’t need to post a formal opinion here to see you are way off the planet. I read the posts from top to bottom and you sir appear to be unwilling to accept that your arguments are not logical or relevant.

I don’t have to justify myself to you or anybody else by making logical arguments that you ignore – just like you actually.

If posting an opinion that conflicts with the dribble you post makes me an idiot then so be it.

Deadmandrinking 8:42 pm
08 Jul 08
#78

Explain why it’s not logical DJ. Back it up.

vg 8:44 pm
08 Jul 08
#79

Pesty

I do not know you, but I think I love you

Deadmandrinking 8:45 pm
08 Jul 08
#80

Would have done him some favors, gotta say, VG. Kids are expensive things to raise.

DJ 8:57 pm
08 Jul 08
#81

You twist others opinions to suit yourself and what you believe in (which I actually respect your right to voice)- the back up of this is seen in every subject that you post regardless of subject matter. I am nothing like the voice of the downtrodden but several contributors added valid and reasoned opinions and you had a go at them then twisted their views to suit yourself – you don’t seem to acknowledge that a differing opinion that conflicts with yours could have any merit.

Remember the original story – cops can now perform their duties in a more effective manner to catch the bad people.

Deadmandrinking 9:33 pm
08 Jul 08
#82

I considered Vg’s points, if you read my posts. I just thought they were a bit stupid.

MRB 9:56 pm
08 Jul 08
#83

DMD, it follows then that in this big, wide, world of ours, people are also going to find your points ‘a bit stupid’ too. That’s what you seem to have trouble with.

“If drugs were legal and cheaper, would someone taking heroin in their home affect you?” Do you really believe this is the best option? If I’m a junkie with 50 bucks and the price of drugs has dropped, it just means I’ll buy more, shoot it up as soon possible, and then want some more (as in, an addict). If I happen to to have an OD, whos fault is that?

serpico 10:08 pm
08 Jul 08
#84

DMD,I agree with you.The war on drugs is a sham.It will only get worse under the present system of prohibition.What I would like to ask all the self appointed experts who are giving you a hard time is how would they fight the WAR.Post 72 says ‘What is desperately required is availability erradication’.How is that going to happen.Since the Americans have been in Afganistan there has been a massive increase in opium production.What does that tell you.Also I would like to ask the experts, Why do people take heroin,cocaine,speed etc.Not the first time but the SECOND time.

Deadmandrinking 10:14 pm
08 Jul 08
#85

MRB, what if you decide to drink too much and have to have your stomach pumped? Who’s fault is that?

MRB 10:37 pm
08 Jul 08
#86

If you can’t see the difference between drinking too much, and having an OD, then not much point continuing. I can go and have a few beers, or I can go and shoot up heroin. The difference is that there is an extremely small chance I’ll get hooked on alcohol, but there is an almost 100% chance I’ll get hooked on heroin. Not sure how legalising and regulating it will stop this happening…

How will it be decided who gets the government regulated/legalised drugs? What about the people that don’t qualify? Where do you think they’ll get their drugs from?

Thumper 10:46 pm
08 Jul 08
#87

Ask an ambo what they think of smack.

You’ll you get an extremely blunt answer that has very little to do with ideaology and lots to do with reality.

Comparing smack, coke, ice with booze is simply purile and a pointless argument that has been used by wet liberal democrats since the mid 70s.

Mælinar 11:16 pm
08 Jul 08
#88

Wait for it, I hear the ‘prove it by statistics’ catapault being rumbled into position.

And what the H.ll is that incessant flapping sound ?

Pesty 8:11 am
09 Jul 08
#89

serpico said :

DMD,I agree with you.The war on drugs is a sham.It will only get worse under the present system of prohibition.What I would like to ask all the self appointed experts who are giving you a hard time is how would they fight the WAR.Post 72 says ‘What is desperately required is availability erradication’.How is that going to happen.Since the Americans have been in Afganistan there has been a massive increase in opium production.What does that tell you.Also I would like to ask the experts, Why do people take heroin,cocaine,speed etc.Not the first time but the SECOND time.

The authorities will never stop drink driving, so does that mean they should give up trying and legalise it? Also, The Americans are not in Afganistan to fight the drugs war, at least not directly. Anyway, since when were the Americans to be depended on to do anything properly! They can grow all the poppies they like, but Australia is an island, and stopping the stuff getting in surely can’t be an impossible task if the resources are available?

Thumper 8:26 am
09 Jul 08
#90

Interestingly, who is to say that the so called war on drugs has been lost? After all, there is no bench mark to say yes or no.

Yes, there are smackies and methheads in civic.

For all we know, it has been won and there would be ten times more without the current regime.

Who knows? As I said, there’s no measurable way to tell. Therefore the tired old mantra that the war of drugs is lost that gets peddled out everytime this issue arises, is totally and absolutely irrelevant.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.