Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

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

By paperboy - 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.

What’s Your opinion?


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

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.

Report this comment

62
Deadmandrinking 10:55 pm
07 Jul 08
#

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.

Report this comment

63
Headbonius 5:47 am
08 Jul 08
#

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.

Report this comment

64
Deadmandrinking 6:16 pm
08 Jul 08
#

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.

Report this comment

65
Mælinar 6:58 pm
08 Jul 08
#

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.

Report this comment

66
Deadmandrinking 7:12 pm
08 Jul 08
#

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.

Report this comment

67
vg 7:28 pm
08 Jul 08
#

“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?

Report this comment

68
Deadmandrinking 7:30 pm
08 Jul 08
#

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

Report this comment

69
Headbonius 7:43 pm
08 Jul 08
#

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 .

Report this comment

70
Pesty 7:48 pm
08 Jul 08
#

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

Report this comment

71
Deadmandrinking 8:02 pm
08 Jul 08
#

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.

Report this comment

72
Pesty 8:06 pm
08 Jul 08
#

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

Report this comment

73
DJ 8:07 pm
08 Jul 08
#

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.

Report this comment

74
Pesty 8:12 pm
08 Jul 08
#

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.

Report this comment

75
Deadmandrinking 8:29 pm
08 Jul 08
#

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.

Report this comment

1 3 4 5 6 7 11

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site