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
Headbonius 9:20 am
09 Jul 08
#91

DMD’s resort to attacking my parents is a clear indication of the base level of his argument.

I am happy to take personal attack, God knows I hand it out myself but DMD’s methods of argument clearly come from a puerile and miniscule intellect. DMD if we ever come face to face at a RiotAct get together I challenege you to say those retorts about my parents to my face. I suggest you smile while you say them and enjoy the last smile with your own teeth.

Jazz 10:31 am
09 Jul 08
#92

Can you all leave the comments about each others geneaology to a minimum. It really does save me from having to edit so much.

Ingeegoodbee 11:30 am
09 Jul 08
#93

So Jazz, just to clarify editorial policy. Threats of violence are cool, but poking fun at the douche-bags (or would that be son of douche-bags) who make those threats is a no no.

[Ed (Jazz) No, threats of violence are not, but i can't be everywhere at once. if in doubt check the terms and conditions of use]

Headbonius 12:14 pm
09 Jul 08
#94

[moderated]

Ingeegoodbee 12:32 pm
09 Jul 08
#95

This being the internet, as everyone knows, we’re all eight foot tall, rich, good looking and have dicks that swing down past our knees – so your challenge is, like most of the drivel you manage to sprout … meaningless.

I’ll give you the credit of having the guts to threaten violence in a public place and to suffer the inevitable consequenses, rather than other cry-babies here who want to hide behind the defence of “fair contest”

In the event that I ever do meet you, I’ll happily repeat in person, anything I’ve said to you here on RiotACT happy in the knowledge that there’s jack all you can do about it except swallow your pride and crawl off like some manky … I give up, my insult gland isn’t not working today …

jakez 1:22 pm
09 Jul 08
#96

Well I’m glad people took my advice, HA.

Pesty 1:24 pm
09 Jul 08
#97

Thumper said :

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.

On the news today was an item regarding smuggling drugs “internally” apparently there has been a resurgence of this practice believed to be the result of greater detection of consignments in containers etc at the ports. So, all is not lost, far from it it would seem.

farq 1:35 pm
09 Jul 08
#98

As long as we are on the topic of drug laws I thought I’d include a couple of quotes from the late great Bill Hicks…

“If you don’t believe drugs have done good things for us, then go home and burn all your records, all your tapes, and all your CDs because every one of those artists who have made brilliant music and enhanced your lives? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL fucking high on drugs. The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few songs”

“Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body – as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?”

“I got nothing against drugs, I got NOTHING against drugs, I think it’s a personal choice just like alcohol, just like cigarettes. As long as that personal choice doesn’t infringe upon the freedoms of another person’s personal choice really that’s the end of the story, that’s called logic, it’ll help you.”

——————————————————————————–

When a person’s personal choice to use drugs (including alcohol and cigarettes) impacts negatively on their family, or the community at large we already have existing laws/support systems to address the problem. In the majority of times, drug use impacts (positive or negative) only on one person, the user. Comparing the issue of drug use to speeding, child rape or crapping on peoples lawn is silly and emotive as these crimes have a horrible impact on the lives of other people.

Drug use should not be encouraged (especially the harder drugs), due to the health affects and the impact it can have on your priorities (both of which impact on society through the provision of health and welfare services). But the same could be said about many legal activities (my sister-in-law’s ex-boyfriend is ruining his life by playing too much Halo on an xbox!).

It’s a VERY complicated question, how do you weigh personal freedom against ‘the greater good’? I personally believe that if society is willing to allow alcohol (which in a minority of cases has extreme negative consequences), then we should look seriously at allowing pot and ecstasy (which too, in a minority of cases have extreme negative consequences) if for no other reason than moral consistency.

imhotep 1:35 pm
09 Jul 08
#99

The ‘war’ on drugs will never be won, any more than the war on poverty or the war on child abuse. This does not mean that we should just give up.

The war on drugs means that drugs are difficult, dangerous and expensive to acquire, which is a good thing.

Clown Killer 1:50 pm
09 Jul 08
#100

Whilsts I’ll agree that in some instances the use of alcohol can have seriously negative consequences, I’d be reluctant to go making drugs like pot and ecstacy legal. I’d say that your moral consistency argument would probably have to swing back the other way with a ban on alcohol – which is unwarranted and unsustainable – so I guess the inconsistency remains.

If these laws help facilitate the capture of drug dealers then all the better I reckon.

farq 2:10 pm
09 Jul 08
#101

CK: Agreed, it’s hard to have sympathy for dealers, especially the ‘up-stream’ ones making the big $$$.

I’m sort of surprised that we did not already have that law.

dalryk 3:33 pm
09 Jul 08
#102

I don’t know what people have against ‘dealers’, like they’re the devil incarnate or something.

Crime gangs, sure, they’re mostly pure evil; violence, theft and intimidation are all bad, and often these things happen in the context of maintaining their drug empires. But in my time I’ve known lots of people who have been involved with the drug trade, and they were all perfectly normal, mostly decent people looking to make a buck.

I’m sure most people here won’t even contemplate the thought for more than a second, but purely selling a product that people want is not an inherently evil act. It’s all the crap that goes along with it that most people take issue with.

Pesty 4:25 pm
09 Jul 08
#103

I think there is certainly a case for very limited controlled supply of “Pot” for pain relief, but prolonged recreational use of this too can cause serious mental issues.

farq, after you fill yourself up with whatever drugs you see fit, as its your body! Which non tax payer funded hospital will you be expecting help from when it all goes bad for whatever reason, after all, its non of our (tax payers) business what you do…is it?

farq 4:50 pm
09 Jul 08
#104

Petsy, I sort of covered that when I said:

…(both of which impact on society through the provision of health and welfare services)…

I guess we could say that after you fill up on fatty foods and play xbox most of your life, which tax payer funded hospital will you expect help with your cardiovascular problems from?

As I said, it’s a complex issue.

Deadmandrinking 5:51 pm
09 Jul 08
#105

[Moderated]

**Flame business section ends. Discussion section below**

Pesty, on the taxpayer thing…alcohol and tobacco are heavily taxed. People who purchase these products enough for them to cause health problems are pretty much funding their own health-care costs. I assume it would be the same with drugs.

Quality control as well would drastically reduce the amount of overdoses and possibly the likelihood of addiction (Btw, you don’t become addicted to heroin the first time, usually, although it depends on the person). A good number of the cases Thumper’s hypothetical ambo would have been dealing with that were heroin-related would have been the result of the heroin being too pure or cut with something bad.

Thumper 6:59 pm
09 Jul 08
#106

Not hypothetical?

No, real.

As in real people doing a real job. no hypotheticals about it.

Deadmandrinking 7:01 pm
09 Jul 08
#107

So you’re talking about a certain ambo in particular?

Pesty 7:27 pm
09 Jul 08
#108

farq said :

Petsy, I sort of covered that when I said:

…(both of which impact on society through the provision of health and welfare services)…

I guess we could say that after you fill up on fatty foods and play xbox most of your life, which tax payer funded hospital will you expect help with your cardiovascular problems from?

As I said, it’s a complex issue.

Fair comment

Pesty 7:33 pm
09 Jul 08
#109

Deadmandrinking said :

[Original Moderated]

**Flame business section ends. Discussion section below**

Pesty, on the taxpayer thing…alcohol and tobacco are heavily taxed. People who purchase these products enough for them to cause health problems are pretty much funding their own health-care costs. I assume it would be the same with drugs.

Quality control as well would drastically reduce the amount of overdoses and possibly the likelihood of addiction (Btw, you don’t become addicted to heroin the first time, usually, although it depends on the person). A good number of the cases Thumper’s hypothetical ambo would have been dealing with that were heroin-related would have been the result of the heroin being too pure or cut with something bad.

I was making comment on the use of drugs as things are at present, and will be for the forseeable.I have no doubt should they ever become legalised & thus controlled, they will be taxed to buggery!

Special G 7:36 pm
09 Jul 08
#110

I have no sympathy whaysoever for a junkie who OD’s. I have spoken wih a number of ambos who narcan the same person several times in a night as they don’t learn too quick.

Less drugs on the streets is a good thing however it comes about. Our society doesn’t tolerate hard drugs so legislating the Police to get rid it is a good thing. Now we just need to work on the courts.

Mælinar 7:38 pm
09 Jul 08
#111

WMD, Thumper works with ambo’s all the time. Either pull your head in or pass on whatever qualification level you have in the field of medicine so we can doubly gaze in wonderment at your qualifications and your ability to pile s4it that high off the ground.

I salute your ability at binding feaces.

And yes, that was a comment directed at you. Don’t expect an answer though to whatever peurile drivel you type addressed to me next.

Deadmandrinking 7:48 pm
09 Jul 08
#112

Shut-up Maelinar. People with brains and opinions are talking.

Thumper, I was not questioning whether you knew ambos. I said hypothetical ambo, because you said ask any ambo, not a specific ambo,so I can’t really say a specific ambo would deal with…God f-king christ, Thumper, I know you’re not stupid. You must know what I mean!

Headbonius 7:55 pm
09 Jul 08
#113

dmd AND iNGEE YOU HAVE NO IDEA.

Deadmandrinking 8:02 pm
09 Jul 08
#114

Aw, poor baby.

Deadmandrinking 8:06 pm
09 Jul 08
#115

And look…you’re an anarchist, Headbonius.

serpico 8:10 pm
09 Jul 08
#116

Pesty said :

Thumper said :

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.

On the news today was an item regarding smuggling drugs “internally” apparently there has been a resurgence of this practice believed to be the result of greater detection of consignments in containers etc at the ports. So, all is not lost, far from it it would seem.

Referring to the first paragraph.Have you ever heard of statistics.

MRB 1:17 am
10 Jul 08
#117

Geez, I’d love to be like DMD and Ingee…you know, the type that no matter what anyone else says, you are always right. Although I’d imagine that you’d be a right pain in the a#s to you friends in ‘real’ life, that is, assuming you do have real friends.

“Quality control as well would drastically reduce the amount of overdoses and possibly the likelihood of addiction”.

Are you serious????

“Hello, welcome to the quality control heroin distribution centre, QCHDC. Are you a 80%, 50% or 30% pure recipient? We have all three flavours. Please note however, as we are quality controlled, if you don’t tell us the truth, we are not responsible!”

People that are used to x percent pure will eventually need more to get the same high, and make no mistake, that’s what they’ll be chasing. This is achived by either by a higher purity, or more of the product. Quality control has got sweet FA to do with it.

DMD etc. I really can’t believe that someone with your apparent intelligence (“apparent” being obvious to yourselves) belives this stuff. Although I do wish it was a problem as easily solved as you suggest, the reality is that it is not.

Ingeegoodbee 7:15 am
10 Jul 08
#118

Ingee…you know, the type that no matter what anyone else says, you are always right.

MRB,care to point out one single post on this thread where I have expressed an opinion on this topic? Anyone …. anyone …. Bueller? Diddn’t think so.

All I’m doing is poking a little fun at the idiots here who what to muscle up when the single synapse connecting their live brain cell with the dead one starts to overload under the stress of dealing with other people that hold different but equally valid points of view.

Buddy, I may not always be right, but I’m rarely wrong … when I am though it’s usually seriously wrong and I’ll take responsibility for that.

farq 8:41 am
10 Jul 08
#119

Well farq me.

This thread is getting way out of hand, and for once it’s not my fault. Can’t we just pretend to listen to each other?

Do you want Jazz to have to close another thread?

Petsy: Thanks.

serpico 1:50 pm
10 Jul 08
#120

The War on drugs will never be won because you so called experts do not understand WHY people who take hard drugs for the FIRST time decide to continue to use them.It is not because they are instantly addicted.The REASON is because the drugs make you feel so good initially.The real problem is temptation and availability and no one can stop that.Look at what happened during prohibition of alcohol in America between 1920-1933.It was a complete failure.And all you know alls who have never tried illegal drugs,you have no idea what your talking about.

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.