Canberra Druggos Out and About

Ever dealt with a meth freak, AD – I’d suggest otherwise.

Drugs are not a virus, Special G. Also, I’m sure the Indonesians would be thrilled to deal with our junkies.

Drunks more dangerous than those that are drug-fucked?!

Prefer to deal with someone full of ink than someone hyped up on meth or paranoid from excessive cannabis use. The druggies kill (see reports of dope caused murders in Vic) or skin and fuck bunnies or burst guinea pigs ‘cos they forgot the masking tape!

true but people are far more dangerous when they are drunk than when they are fucked on drugs. it’s just the lifestyle that surrounds the drug when not on it.

AD – I don’t think I have ever heard of an alcoholic robbing a service station for a bottle of port. The negative consequences associated with drugs and alcohol are different.

Alcohol being affordable doesn’t create the property, robbery, break and enter type crime which the main goal of is to get money for the next hit.

The ongoing effects being trauma to the victims of crime. Which the ACT Courts seem not to give a shit about. Whether the offender has a drug habit or not, they are committing offences. Of course they are remorseful about their actions. They got caught.

Lock them all up before they inflict their filth on the rest of society.

We should move to the NT system – 3 strikes and your out. Send them on a boat to Indonesia.

thats right the topic is about illegal drug use. But if we want to determine how truly bad (or good) illegal drugs are, a fair juxtaposition would be legal drugs.

Your statements may be valid Absent Diane but this particular topic of discussion relates to illegal drug use…. besides my point was merely but one example of the potential causal effects of drug use. No need to run off on tangents about abused children resulting from other social porblems….

The alcohol question is a very difficult one – most people seem to be able to drink socially and keep it under control, but for the few who let it control them, it ruins lives.

And yet, we can’t really have different rules for different groups. Maybe we could ban all alcohol (except for my home brew, of course).

the point is you can’t make them out to be any worse than alco’s etc…. it can’t really be used as an excuse for drugs being bad.. because we legalise booze and that has I would suggest an equal amount of negative consequences as well.

Consistency in legislation is generally considered a useful goal compared with the alternative (arbitrariness), thus criminalising alcohol or legalising heroin is justifiable on this ground.

I would not necessarily argue that society has an obligation to help addicts but society does have an obligation not to further the harm they experience (and thus hopefully reduce the harm they inflict on the rest of us).

VYBerlinaV8 – I agree that experience is very important in forming an opinion. But opinion also stems from other life experiences and varying degrees of intellect etc… so whilst maybe someone may not have experience in knowing a junkie for example… they may have a better understanding of the way people operate (hypothetical of course)..

when it comes down to it, it is all part of the big balance really.

“Very valid point.. but are these said childran any better or worse off than with alcoholic parents who may beat their kids or at the very least neglect them.”

They have parents who are substance abusers – the effect is the same. But just because alcohol is legal doesn’t mean we should go out and legalise other dangerous substances, just so it’s ‘fair’!

Caring about on issue is completely separate to how much you know about it. If you want to get behind something you feel strongly about, go for it. Just make sure you know what you’re talking about or you will likely do more harm than good.

As far as my personal experience assertion goes, my point is that in the context of this discussion, having a family member who is an addict gives you a very different view to someone who doesn’t even know anyone who is. I will typically place more emphasis on the former.

Agree, disagree, I don’t really care. Druggies and junkies chose to take the stuff in the first place. We can help them only so far, then it’s up to them. If they won’t take responsibility for their actions, and decide to commit crime in order to feed their habit, then they can wear the consequences (whatever they end up being).

“criminal activity will be reduced still doesn’t address the issue of “causing harm to others”. Example :- mum and dad are off their nut and incapable of even talking and yet their baby is in the house not being cared for”

Very valid point.. but are these said childran any better or worse off than with alcoholic parents who may beat their kids or at the very least neglect them. Also any worse than a parent that works long hours and pays no attention to their children and essentially lets the children be raised by institutions.

We shouldn’t discount the opinions of people who may not necessarilly have some link to an issue, just because of that. If people have an opinion and are genuinely wanting to fight a problem, what does it matter whether they know someone or not?

People are so self obsessed that they only start to care about something once it’s affected them.

(“himself or herself”)

“Perhaps we should ignore the fact that those with personal experience (of anything) tend to know more about it than those who don’t.”

By that sort of reasoning the argument that “I have cancer (or my cousin has cancer) therefore I know more about cancer than a Doctor who has undertaken detailed study of cancer but has never treated a patient with cancer or had it himself” would be valid.

An unsustainable assertion.

Interesting to see how my comment has gotten up some noses. Perhaps we should ignore the fact that those with personal experience (of anything) tend to know more about it than those who don’t. Gee, maybe I should leave Canberra with an attitude like that…

My point about commenting about the fact that I personally know people who are addicts was to demonstrate that I see them and their lives through another set of lenses other than “those druggies”.

Even though I have seen them as a “person” other then just as an addict, the moment they steal stuff to fund their habit, they are a criminal plain and simple. That criminal activity should not go un-punished simply because they have an addiction.

If an addict can support their habit financially AND they cause no harm to others through their addiction who could care less. But if they are are stupid enough to get a habit that they simply can’t afford, don’t want to get off or cause harm to others as a result then they should suffer the consequences.

Comments about reducing the price so criminal activity will be reduced still doesn’t address the issue of “causing harm to others”. Example :- mum and dad are off their nut and incapable of even talking and yet their baby is in the house not being cared for….. an addiction is that, you can’t just say “can you look after my child for the next hour or so, ive gotta run down to the shops to get my $10 fix….

B Toad. If heroin was priced at cost (plus reasonable profit) then a $400 a day habit would cost less than $10 a day, thus probably affordable on social security and if not would probably only need one B&E or credit card rort a fortnight to afford it as opposed to 1 or 2 a day.

master_bates, are you sure that you know everything about your cousin. A lot of very depressed people hide it with so called spark. maybe you are begrudging her of the only true happiness she has ever had? just speculating of course.

“…it’s nice to get the views of people who have actually had to live with this, rather than those who just have an opinion…”

Why is it that having an opinion is seen as self-righteousness, yet if you have some sob story that proves that ‘it happened to me’… then it somehow gains more credibility!?!?

I think people need to start giving a shit about things because they’re important… not just because it’s affected someone they know.

Whether it’s drugs, sickness, sexual preference or whatever, if more people made a stand for what is right rather than what has afffected them up until now, so many of these issues could be resolved BEFORE it affects you.

Binks, your assumption that a price reduction for heroin would help stop crime because addicts could afford it assumes they can obtain a legitimate income other than break & enter.

This I doubt.

“Snahon – it’s nice to get the views of people who have actually had to live with this, rather than those who just have an opinion.”

It is a rather an obvious rhetorical device that adds heat but no light to (erroneously) imply that those of an opposing view have not lived with a friend/relative addict, been victims of drug related crime or been employed to coercively deal with addicts (among others).

If illicit drugs were sold at cost price plus reasonable profit people would not need to commit crime to afford them. This is not to say that all crimes by addicts would stop as some will commit crime whether or not they are addicts and whether they need money for drugs or not (i.e. some people are just plain old Anti-Social Personality Disordered).

It is hard to find a reason to legally discriminate between alcohol and heroin. By reason I mean a logical one with empirical support as opposed to ill informed self righteous rants where one example is cited while ignoring multiple examples to the contrary.

And alcohol destroys too Mast B but it’s legal and in our society its use encouraged. It’s the hypocrisy I rile against.

My cousin was a wonderfull ladyas a late teenager.

Then she got heavily involved in the drug scene.

Now, she is a broken shell of a girl. Not one ounce of the original spark that was there.

Drugs destroy.

Snahon – it’s nice to get the views of people who have actually had to live with this, rather than those who just have an opinion. Like I said, I have a family member (a cousin) who’s an addict, and I’d be the first to throw his useless arse in gaol.

Slightly off topic here, but since we were talking about how tough the Police have it, they will have it even tougher after someone picks up the unattended, unlocked (window is down) marked police car parked illegally on Ballumbir st in the city at the moment…

Lets face it, drugs and crime will always go hand in hand. The problem we face is that drug use has shifted from a “crime” to a “social problem” and subsequently when a users does a crime to feed their habit, the victim of the crime is effectively ignored and the user gets labelled as a victim of their addiction.

I have close relatives who are addicts and they have been on or are currently in programmes like methodone substitution and even half my family view them as victims and conveniently “forget” about the victims of their criminal activities and I find it sad.

I can’t see we why we don’t treat both aspects of drug use together (the crime component and the addiction component). Give them a punishment for their crimes and at the same time detox them. They don’t get ‘out of gaol’ as such until both the punishment is served and they are declared clean.

If after all that, as VYBerlinaV8 quoted “Some people just wanna get high”, then fine if they commit a crime, lock them up… as many have already said, at some point, they must take responsibility for their action…..

Yeah that one is good as well…

There was a conspiracy theory (I think aired on 4 Corners) that went something along the lines of: the USA administrations vehement opposition to any loosening of drug laws (leading to the pressure on our fed govt) was at least in part due to the lobbying by ardent anti-drug groups (one in particular but can’t remember the name). And this anti-drug group received significant funding from the illegal drug (predominantly cocaine) industry so as to maintain illegal status and thus maximise profits.

(my tin foil hat must have holes in it as I’m being controlled by the aliens again)

TINFOIL HAT ALERT
Binker – came up with a conspiracy theory regarding the heroin trials.

We noticed that everytime they were mentioned in the media there would also be increased reports of people OD’ing… we suspected that because the heroin trial would not be beneficial to the big bosses.. they deliberately planted hotshots in the batches sent here to scare the hell out of the public.

Sanctimonious wanker eh? How exactly am I to ‘be your beating heart’ Big Al? Gotta lot of mouth on you mate, just not much sense coming out of it.

Yep, I think it was the Follet gov’t tried to bring in the heroin trial? Our Fed gov’t leaned on them to can it, after the US gov’t leaned on them to prevent it going ahead. They threatened our sugar market in China should it proceed.

A heroin trial nearly got going in the ACT a few years back but the fed govt canned it.

Agree with Spec G although counselling, rehab etc should be optional not mandatory. Forcing users is pointless hence a waste of money but giving them assistance when they chose to stop is often useful.

Legalisation and government supply has the obvious effects of reducing crime by cutting out illegal supply as well as the need for users to commit crime to finance their habit, leading to reduced costs throughout the criminal justice system.

If users are freed from the merry-go-round of getting money and scoring they are in a position to contribute to society (through employment or family responsibilities).

Heroin is very cheap to produce and we already have thriving opium poppy industry in Tassie.

Having spent considerable time working as an agent of social control it became manifest to me that alcohol is a much larger cause of crime, misery and the depletion of public monies than all other drugs combined (excluding the health costs of tobacco). It is really only a historical quirk that alcohol is the socially acceptable, legal drug, in western cultures while opiates, stimulants, and cannabis are not.

It is notable that other (non-western) countries find the use of the drugs we deem illegal socially acceptable (and legal either de facto or de jure) and their societies are no worse off for it than our society (e.g. Laos-opium, Nepal –cannabis, Yemen-Khat [stimulant], Peru-coca).

AD – don’t worry about being off topic – this is RiotAct 😉

I guess the biggest concern I have with some drug users is that they end up strongly addicted (since the “good feeling” ends up so much better than life is). They then commit crimes to support their habit (since work, etc goes out the window). It is much better to not lead down that path by trying drugs in the first place.

I guess I also worry about the unstable/unpredictable behaviour of such individuals – eg. being stabbed by an infected user’s needle because they were after money or simply in drug induced psychosis. When my own personal saftey is affected I believe I am entitled to worry.

For those who think I’m speaking from an ivory tower, my half-sister has been jailed for using AND dealing and I think she’s a sh*t bag. I’ve seen what drugs do to families – it has ruined her children’s chances of thinking there is anything to life besides drinking and smoking and being on the dole (since that is all she does now that she’s out and “clean”).

So I guess the crux of it is: I have no problems with people doing whatever makes them feel good or whatever they enjoy – but when it endangers others I do have a problem with it (and that includes obvious effects like stealing property and less obvious effects like family decay).

We seem to have moved the debate to a humanistic approach. A health approach could work something like this: Govt starts supplying heroin (any other drug) to registered users. As a user they would have to attend a clinic to obtain their shot, given safetly by a nurse. It would be scheduled and cost them $2.95. In return they would have to be monitored and placed on education/rehabilitation programs to get them off it.

This in turn would can the dealers as there is no market anymore. Dealing heroin is only profitable because its illegal. It would also lead to a drop in break and enters and robberies because the poor dears wouldn’t need large amounts of cash to obtain their hit, their dole cheque would easily cover it.

No Govt has the balls to implement this type of program.

Or you have to go the other way and stamp them out. Mr Shab came up with some suggestions. Again I say no Govt has the balls to do it.

So we are left with a somewhere in the middle approach.

I read an article a couple of months ago in the CT. 5000 break and enters a month in Canberra. Average suburb has 1000 houses. 5 suburbs each year. Its only a matter of time before you get broken in to. My place got done last year.

I have a friend who had a miscarriage as a result of stress caused by a break in. Do the Courts even give a shit. A shovel and a bag of lime is too good for some of these shitbags. Although as I am a law abiding citizen I let the Courts deal with it. A revolving door straight back into someone elses house.

ps. not trying to drag off topic.. just stating an opinion 🙂

drugs would probably be safer than booze if they were legalised and controlled…. though it could never happen because the drug kings have control..

I stopped using drugs a few years ago because I developed an anxiety disorder…. if they were legalised and controlled then things like that could be controlled.

i personally don’t see the problem in feeling good. I find it really weird that the whole world is based on being miserable.. yet anything that makes you feel good is shunned. A much more peaceful answer to the worlds problems than merely being accepting of religion.

fercrissake

there is only one human race.

unless theres a continent inhabited by homo erectus.

Ari, here’s a newflash, your word is related to RACE.

Mine is for a person in general who uses illegal drugs.

If that makes me a hypocrite, it must make you a racist.

Teenagers are given drug information. What they CHOOSE to do with it is based on their home life, their families morals and their role models.

I work with teenagers on a daily basis so you don’t need to tell me anything.

FYI, my sister is 28yo. She also has Hep C. She is a waste of space. She stole off people to continue her habit.

Not all druggos started in their teens, and not all teens are druggos. Care to start again?

You can resent it as much as you like, Nyssa, but my point is that using such terms don’t help a debate, neither “Abo” nor “junkie”. They’re both designed to dehumanise.

You’re offended by the term “Abo”, but freely dub drug users “druggos”.

Hypocrite.

Most people using addictive drugs start when they’re in their teens.

News flash! Teenagers don’t always make the best decisions.

So the choice is to write them off as mere “druggos” and condemn them to death for a foolish mistake in their teens, or provide health-related support to allow them to avoid HIV Hep C etc until they get to their late 20s and get sick enough of the lifestyle to stop.

And none of this defends drug users committing property crime or crimes against people to fund an addiction. They should be targeted.

i dont regard ciggarette smokers as addicts.

its a habit, not an addiction.

Ari, as someone who is of Aboriginal descent and grew up in an Aboriginal family – step-dad is Aboriginal, I resent your “insert instead of junkie”.

A druggo chose to start using drugs. No one held a gun to their head and said “take it or you die”. Given that we know so much more about the effects of drug abuse than the 1960’s, it amazes me that people can say “well smokers can’t complain ’cause they know what it does to them” but we can’t say it about druggos.

Too true, Thumper.

And with tobacco taxes rising so fast we’ll soon have desperadoes mugging people simply to pay for their $250 packet of cigs.

It’s not the drug using itself that’s a huge problem, but the crime that some junkies commit to fuel it.

Target the crime element, but treat the drug-taking as a health problem.

There are plenty of junkies out there functioning reasonably well with full-time jobs who don’t commit crime (apart from buying and possessing the drugs).

I know several who managed to keep it all together until they eventually got sick of it and stopped (along with help from methadone clinics etc).

Needle exhanges helped them avoid HIV and Hep C until they came to their senses.

And the labels junkie … druggo … smackhead … whatever … are just simplistic and aim to dehumanise. Try substituting “Abo” for “junkie” in some of the above rants and see how far you’d get.

When people become junkies and do break and enters to fund their habit, no one bleats about the rights of the people who were robbed or mugged. Everyone is too worried that the druggie might actually have to take some responsibility for their actions. It’s all well and good for us to support and rehabilitate addicts, but there’s a quote by Kurt Russell from the movie ‘Interstate 60’ that sums the problem up: “Some people just wanna get high”.

Yeah, cause forcibly drying people out has proved such a stunning sucess wherever it’s been tried…

The problem is that we are taking a half-hearted approach. As far as I can see we have two distinct options:

1. Get properly tough. Jail all users in “drug prisons” with no external contact. Strip search the guards before shifts to stop anything getting in. Slap extra penalties on top of property crimes if they are drug-related. Force users to relocate interstate at the end of their sentance so they don’t fall in with the same crowd when they get out. Lock up dealers and throw away the key. Have captains found with drugs on board their ships forefiet all cargo and their ships. Dish out enormous fines to airlines that carry people carrying drugs. Cut all funding to addiction services. Ban all treatment. Make needles and syringes a schedule 8 medication. Pillory the families of drug users. Offer huge rewards to people who dob-in drug users and dealers.

2. Start treating addiction as a medical and economic issue. Expand harm-minimisation programs. Get drug education into schools as more than just a token. Register and support addicts. Expand rehab. Provide post-rehab support. Engage social programs in problem areas (nyssa’s right – you need to show the kids of addicts that there is another way). Then think about slapping down the incorrigable reoffenders.

I know which one I find more paleteable. If we’re going to be “tough on drugs” we need to be properly tough on drugs. Of course, that means pretty much disregarding civil rights.

Dealing with drug crime is a whole lot more complicated than locking more people up. It’s not a problem you can ever make go away; especially with glib statements about “junkie scum” and “bootcamps”.

I heard that Rocky is making a comeback:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5BL99ONK3I

I must add that the 11yo was the passenger’s son. My nephew was on an access visit at the time. His father is also a drug addict.

I pity his chances in life. Who says drug addicts DON’T affect others?

Loadeddog, my sister is a drug addict.

She’s a f*ckwit.

She’s “participated” in so many break and enters in the ACT that her fingerprints are on the system. She kept using whilst pregnant – moving on to methadone at the 5 month mark.

She’s been in a car accident drunk and drugged, hitting parked car, injuring herself, her passenger, the driver of the other car and leaving an 11yo at home by himself to be collected by child services.

She got a slap on the wrist from the judicial system and NOTHING MORE.

She still lives on a centrelink pension and does nothing.

Druggos are a waste of space.

I just pity my nephew. And yes, I have cut my sister out of my life. My mother brings my nephew over to see us and I talk to him on a regular basis. He has to see that there is more to life than drugs and people who actually work for a living.

But it can’t really be selfishness if I am convinced to do it because of the media? Can it?

Cold turkey is the only solution.

Any form of addiction is a cancer, whether it is being addicted to alcohol, gambling, drugs, tobaco, sex, being a victim, or anything else that affects your ability to have a happy, uncomplicated life.

I have seen families destroyed over gambling, sexual addiction, alcoholism, and marijuana abuse, and it looks the same to me. One persons selfishness is turned into multiple peoples problem.

So, it should be treated hard and fast.

I also have *no* problem with “instant termination” of any dealer….

I like bonfires idea of rounding them up and sending them off (forcibly if need be) to dry out. I have a family member of is a regular user, and I would drag his sorry arse to the boot camp bus myself!

Druggies – Be the in your family or not are simply evidence of darwinian evolution.

Cut the suckers goods, an get over them. They are damaged goods.

I feel sorry for them right up ’til they rob me, or try to bash me up, or in some other way impose themselves very negatively on my life. THEN I lose all pity.

i hate junkies.

they are already dead in my opinion, real world vampires.

despite several decades of dogooder work, addicts just keep coming back for more of whatever it is they cant get enough of.

i know we cant save everyone.

but sometimes i think the nt govt approach was a good one. give them a bus ticket out of the state.

my other solution, forcibly rounding them up and reeducating them cold turkey boot camp style, would upset too many people if implemented.

Oh please be my bleeding heart Loadedog … you sanctimonious wanker. There are many of us who know first hand what happens when friends and family members CHOOSE to become addicted to drugs.

The moment that drug addiction starts being treated as a health issue, rather than a prohibition/enforcement issue, all the “drugged up shitbags” would cease to be a problem of the sort that seems to cause you all such grief.

The comments by many above reflect not just profound ignorance of substance abuse/addiciction issues, but, unfortunately, the presence of cold stones wherein the human heart ought reside. Ever had a heroin addict in the family? Probably not, but better people than you have, and, when it hits home, most turn to other than the stick and the bigger stick approach to solving this grave social ill.

Special G – I think people blame the police because they are the interface the general community has into law enforcement. It is an unfortunate situation when the police get called because the public doesn’t know what else to do, but the police can’t or won’t attend. I think the issue really gets muddied when you get a situation where a call is made, the police can’t do anything about it, and when an individual deals with the situation they then get into the poo.

So obviously a number of you feel that the all the Police are touchy feely about junkies and let them do as they please. I haven’t met one yet who wouldn’t like to lock them up for a long time.

Problem with that is that with our civil libitarian approach by the Govt and the Courts it doesn’t really matter what the Police do because they will be back on the streets breaking into your homes about 2 hours after they get out of Court.

There is another post just gone on RA about all Aboriginals being victims. Thats the crap the Police have to deal with. If you don’t like it write some letters about getting sentencing changed.

Ahhh, You couldn’t get the police to come out… For future information, the best way to get the cops involved is to be a chick, and to say “I’m scared”

So what we’re really saying, then, is that as a society we find it acceptable that someone can use an illicit substance to alter their state of mind in a public place. Well guess what, I don’t think it is. I always vote for those who espouse a zero tolerance policy for druggies and drugs. What shits me is that you try to do the right thing and call the police, and they just don’t want to know – but let their tyres down or (God forbid) try to move them along yourself and the police will come down on you like a ton of bricks because you “broke the law”. Never mind that all you want is a clean, safe neighbourhood for your kids to grow up in.

Special G – I used to be a lab tech, and as far as I know, the test for cannabis is based on an inactive metabolite of THC. In other words, the test can only tell if you’ve smoked in the last 14-90 days (depending on your metabolism), not whether you’re high or not.

As I recall, the test was designed to see if people had been smoking (i.e – for rehab, workplace monitoring, etc) not as a roadside screen.

I think the best way there is (for now) for a copper to tell if someone is off their chops is to speak to them.

Special G I get drug tested on random quiet regularly in my industry and I know very well the ins and outs of the drug testing process. Most of the hard drugs are out of your system in 24 hours to a few days. Marijuana stays in your system for weeks stored in the fat cells.

We all ready have far to many rules and regulations in this country and now Steve Pratt wants to turn it into a Police state. The way Pratt goes on about Law and Order in Canberra its like he still thinks he’s in war torn Bosnia or where ever he was.

In reality how many deaths on Canberra roads last year were caused by drugged up drivers. Bugger all and lets just except the fact Humans weren’t designed to be moving faster then running pace so there is always going to be deaths on our roads. Its a fact of life all be it a sad one but just get over it.

Big Al,

If he was out of his tree I’d have simply deflatesd all 4 of his tyres. he ain’t going nowhere fast then….

Shauno, Driving after smoking a joint, shooting up heroin, or getting pissed. Same shit, justify it however you like, then justify it when you kill some person on the roads.

I’m not a lab tech although I am figuring that there is some way of determining whether the joint was smoked a month ago or there is still active TCH in the blood stream. You can then use the excuse that you are addicted and want to do rehab for your drug problem and you’ll turn around and walk out of the Court like all the other junkies.

joeyjo, I had something “making weird noises and following me home” – turned out it was the neighbours’ dog.
How many legs did yours have? Maybe for ‘druggie’ read ‘doggie’.

Big Al- there is no offence for self administering an illicit substance. There was some years ago but some do gooder thought it would be too traumatic for some piece of shit junkie to get rolled by the cops, have his drugs seized and get locked up, so unless he drove off and was a disqualified driver the Police have no relevant power to arrest him. Instead of bagging ACTP why not bag the squeezers who stripped the ACT Crimes Act and Criminal Code of the offences and powers that could have been used in such situations.

JoeyJo is 131 444 really that hard to remember ?

What you recon some one who smokes a joint a month before he drives and then fails a road side drug test is as bad as some one injecting and then driving while high as a kite. Come on give us a break.

Well if there was enough Police in Canberra they would be able to attend to incidences such as the ones you are describing. Many a discussion has been held on RA to this effect.

I have plenty of friends who are Police, they are quite happy to arrest junkies at any opportunity. Too bad they are out on the streets again before they have finished the required paperwork. Blame the Courts and the soft stance on drugs that the ACT Government and civil libitarians have.

As for Shauno “But they seem quiet keen to go along with the insane idea of arrest somebody for driving after smoking a joint a month before hand.” Your just as bad as the bloke sticking the needle in his arm.

About six months ago I found one of these drugged up shitbags blocking my parking space when I got to work – he was sitting in the front seat completely out of his tree – still had the tourniquet around his arm. I rang the cops on my mobile – Gave them a full description of the car, the guy everything. I even told them I had him parked in and that I’d be happy to wait while they came and got him – the response? After giving me a serve about trying to tell them how to do their job I was pretty much told that there wasn’t much that could do about it. By this time the druggie had come ‘round and wanted to get out so I moved. I told the cops that there was now a drugged out prick heading toward Wentworth Ave – the cop said if that was a problem for me, maybe I should keep off the road. I let him know what I though of that idea and hung up. I sent a letter to the Chief Minister and the Minister for Police detailing in full what had happened and asking whether or not they felt that this was appropriate – no response as yet …

Obviously not the public…

But they seem quiet keen to go along with the insane idea of arrest somebody for driving after smoking a joint a month before hand.

Just like the druggos out the front of Dick Smith in Civic. They’d shoplift and shoot up out the front of the store, harass customers and passersby and the cops would do nothing.

ah, ACT Police. Are they useless or what? If you got a cricket bat to the druggos, then you’d be in trouble.

years and years ago, there was a bunch of aboriginals in town for some event or protest or something. That afternoon, there was a crowd of them in the middle of civic, demanding money off passersby, clutching stubbies, and grabbing at people.

When I got back to work, I phoned the police. Massive boredom from them. WTF do they see as their jobs, I wonder?