Belconnen drug bust

My personal experience is not an ‘anecdote’ – it was transcribed into a statutory declaration along with photo’s related to the incident, for the ombudsman; do you know anything about legal process? that is evidence. As for the feeling in the community, are not polls when properly conducted regarded as evidence? is not statistical sampling a staple of policy making, psychology, social science and indeed, even climate change research? are you saying this is not evidence? (of a form)

Just because my experience differs from yours doesn’t make it any less relevant, so how about you use your brain for a moment and take a step back: how are the performance bonuses, (if any) of senior AFP (Canberra related) officers determined? Legitimate question for which I have no answer. Also, you failed to answer the following:

Who audits the police response to complaints and who audits the crime statistics? are they are arms length from the police themselves?

These are indeed important issues. Australian political and bureaucratic history is littered with the manipulation of information and statistics to benefit a small group of people or to maintain the illusion that everything is A-OK in regards to a particular issue, i find it highly amusing that you seem to assume police statistics would be any different to say, the manipulation of what constitutes an ‘on-time’ train in the city rail measurements, at least that was uncovered under FOI much to the behest of the Carr government at the time… do you STILL maintain that government agencies NEVER engage in the manipulation of information to present a certain scenario to the public? If so… well, if you can’t say anything nice….

And ‘a feeling in the community’ is about as far from evidence as you can get.

Are you really going to continue with this infantile crap? How about using your brain for a change?

You’re a loon.

Anecdotes are not ‘evidence’. Any retard could tell you that.

Jim Jones said :

“What does that really tell us? nothing. “

On being presented with the fact that crime stats are either stable or falling, you choose to discount the evidence rather than alter your belief that crime rates are rising: that’s textbook paranoid thought – ignoring evidence because it doesn’t fit your (hallucinatory) world-view.

So you are ignoring evidence – both my personal testimony and the feeling in the community that crime is rising – and discounting it rather than altering you belief that crime rates are stable: that’s also textbook paranoid thought, in this case you are ignoring evidence and testimony that doesn’t fit with your delusion world-view.

We could go on like that for hours, but what’s the point? I don’t trust the official statistics, and, based on my personal experience as well as that of, for example, my brother-in-law (in a separate incident) I have every reason to believe that crime in this city is either (a) under-reported (b) ignored when presented to the police either of which result in the statistics being manipulated either by the communities apathy or the police themselves. Who audits the police response to complaints and who audits the crime statistics? are they are arms length from the police themselves? This is not paranoid thought, this is asking hard questions based on personal experience, which, for the record, the ombudsman was at first very reluctant to act upon, but was since very helpful. Needless to say, informal (verbal) feedback indicated that my experience, and that of my brother-in-law may not be isolated incidents.

“What does that really tell us? nothing. “

On being presented with the fact that crime stats are either stable or falling, you choose to discount the evidence rather than alter your belief that crime rates are rising: that’s textbook paranoid thought – ignoring evidence because it doesn’t fit your (hallucinatory) world-view.

The CT is a poor, poor cousin of what it used to be… sigh

Sorry Jim I know what you are saying. I love the crime in the newspaper. Its what I read first, then the prostitute adds. I’m always disappointed with the lack of good juicy crime stories and funny hooker adds. If we had more creativity, it would make the CT a longer more satisfying read.

Jim Jones said :

Hdopler said :

Moral panic? if that’s the label you want to apply so be it…

… and then this bozo turns up and completely proves my point.

Likewise.

Jim Jones said :

Mr_Shab said :

I find it extremely telling that so many commentors on RiotAct keep talking about how crime in Canberra ‘keeps getting worse’ and lots of similar lines about how we’re ‘being overrun by druggies/prostitutes/criminals’ etc. When in actual fact the crime statistics are either unchanging or actually falling.
.

What does that really tell us? nothing. It tells us that the reported and published statistics say nothing has changed, but could it be that crime is simply not report, or when it is, it is ignored by the police? I have personally experienced being told by a police officer that a particular crime i had reported (with witnesses not related to myself) would not be followed up or logged. I won’t say anymore other than I was both shocked and amazed, and this has led me to seriously question the validity of the statistics we are presented. that said, yes the media do beat things up and that is another major problem in society: falling media standards.

It’s our motor car addiction that will be the undoing of us. Illegal Drugs are small fry. Drug reform is for drug users and their families. You will still be left with the twats who just want to cause trouble.

Canberra has some long established drug dealers. They are home grown. They purchase the drugs from other states. I would rather the devil I know. When my dealer died, I lost a friend.

Hdopler said :

Moral panic? if that’s the label you want to apply so be it…

… and then this bozo turns up and completely proves my point.

Mr_Shab said :

The drug problem exists alright; it’s just not that big a problem. A tiny minority of drug users cause any kind of problem. Those that cause problems tend to be social misfits who would arguably cause problems whether on drugs or not. The bleating around the “war on drugs” is just another of the moral panics we’ve become so fond of.

Now THAT is a great summation.

As with many other social ‘problems’ – the intense (and largely vicarious) focus of media attention to matters that are related to drugs/crime/sex and so on, are inevitably blown out of proportion in the public mind. You never pick up the paper and read a story about how civic was quiet last night and nothing happened. It’s always the story about fighting youths that sticks in the mind, or how schoolies are acting crazy, or more drug arrests, or a murder. Which makes people assume that these events are more prevalent than they actually are.

I find it extremely telling that so many commentors on RiotAct keep talking about how crime in Canberra ‘keeps getting worse’ and lots of similar lines about how we’re ‘being overrun by druggies/prostitutes/criminals’ etc. When in actual fact the crime statistics are either unchanging or actually falling.

But because there is the perception of a massive problem, people end up proposing ludicrous schemes that would make society a truly worse place: everything from the nutters who talk about the death penalty, or people who want to make jail into some American-inspired version of hell, or even just the ‘won’t someobody think of the children’ brigade.

Perception trumps reality, and in doing so threatens to make reality worse in response to a largely imaginary threat.

Mr_Shab said :

“Remember Al Capone? they changed laws to nab him in the end, but the net result was worth it – the decline of the gangs slid from that point on.”

They also repealed prohibition the year after he was sent down. I think that’s a much more likely cause for the decline of the rum runner gangs that Capone led.

The drug problem exists alright; it’s just not that big a problem. A tiny minority of drug users cause any kind of problem. Those that cause problems tend to be social misfits who would arguably cause problems whether on drugs or not. The bleating around the “war on drugs” is just another of the moral panics we’ve become so fond of.

They changed income tax laws after studying his corporate structure and books per se; that is how they got him. Moral panic? if that’s the label you want to apply so be it…

“Now, hypothetical question: if the drug trade in Canberra was largely controlled by a handful of criminal gangs, and there were certain individuals that were known the be at the centre of the problem but kept getting away / off / getting someone to take the fall, what would you do?”

Canberra, unlike Singapore at the time isn’t riddled with corruption. I’m sure the cops are probably for the most part aware of who the players in the Canberra drug market are, but lack the evidence to go to court. Beyond reasonable doubt is just very difficult to prove – all a good lawyer need do is cast doubt on a prosecution case; which is how people “get away”. That’s as it should be. I’d rather see a thousand guilty people walk free than a single innocent go to jail.

Anyway – people can’t “get away” forever.

“Remember Al Capone? they changed laws to nab him in the end, but the net result was worth it – the decline of the gangs slid from that point on.”

They also repealed prohibition the year after he was sent down. I think that’s a much more likely cause for the decline of the rum runner gangs that Capone led.

The drug problem exists alright; it’s just not that big a problem. A tiny minority of drug users cause any kind of problem. Those that cause problems tend to be social misfits who would arguably cause problems whether on drugs or not. The bleating around the “war on drugs” is just another of the moral panics we’ve become so fond of.

dexi said :

Yes I do. The land we live on shapes who we are. We treat our land with the same contempt a drug user does his drugs. Its all about how much we can get out of it. Bugger the true cost or tomorrow.

Yes, it’s rather sad when mining companies don’t factor in the cost of land reclamation or restoration in the iron ore price, or farmers fail to cost in the price of desalination in 20 years time etc – but in this regard I believe some progress, albeit slowly, is being made in society.

Yes I do. The land we live on shapes who we are. We treat our land with the same contempt a drug user does his drugs. Its all about how much we can get out of it. Bugger the true cost or tomorrow.

Jim Jones said :

I hereby launch Australia’s war on pumpkin.

But pumpkin tastes good!

dexi said :

If there is a war to fight within our society, then it is the war of the environment. Fighting for the environment, is fighting for our survival as a society into the next generations. Its a war that we have been losing. It will have a far greater effect then any drug war on who we become. That’s the kind of war I would believe deserves sacrifice so others can live.

Agree 100%. Question: do you consider the environment to extend beyond the physical and also into the society as a whole? I’d like my children and grandchildren to live in a world that is both physically safe as well as socially safe.

New Zealand does have good drugs. I really like sheep. “Outragous Fortune” rules. When’s the plane leaving.

Jim Jones said :

Hdopler said :

A bleeding-heart-pink-liberal-hippy calling me a goose? now you’ve made my day!

Oh wow. You’ve just used the term “bleeding heart”, and successfully outed yourself as a redneck.

Perhaps we could have you deported to a dank Turkish prison, “for the greater good” of course.

Wow, really? i thought i was something else, thanks for the tip, i think i’ll go and bleach my skin now so i’m not so dark….

dexi said :

Hdopler is taking an interest and has some valid points on how thing work. I get your middle road thing. Ive seen how the police operate within the drug community. It borders on “I don’t want to know about it unless it relates to my direct inquiry.” The governments are only interested on providing the basic level of support on the health approach. That is probably across the whole health system though.

As for war. The only people who profit are the armorers. Every one else, on both sides, are brutalised and victimised. War is for when all the political options fail. We are along way from a war on drugs.

I think that a lot of our overall drug and violence issues in Australia, stem from our war’s. Hey but I’m wrong a lot.

Possibly not… the middle road often leads to failure. Take preventative health – the economic notion that preventing heart disease in the long-term is more cost effective than treating it, this has been known in economic and health circles for decades and yet we treat the acute end of the stick rather than the underlying causes. Another example: rehabilitation. Victoria leads the way spending 50c of every 100 dollars on prisoner rehabilitation despite tons of evidence (even from ‘redneck’ sources) that if a prisoner is educated, treated for mental health problems (if appropriate) given new life skills, supported after release etc then the likelihood of re-offending is reduced by close to 90% and this is an incredibly cost-effective way to approach crime in the community – prevention is better (and cheaper) than the cure. Prison doesn’t have to be easy, but it should serve the purpose of reducing crime – this is a two-fold task of which our beloved leaders only ever talk about ‘being tough on crime’ like a bunch of red-necks high on crack at a McCain rally! when was the last time a leader (outside the blessedly liberal ACT) got elected on a platform of prisoner rehabilitation and education programs as economically cost effective way to protect the community? ’nuff said.

This is the problem with our stance on drugs: we are not doing enough to prevent their use which in itself is a two-fold task of tackling both supply and demand, nor do we have enough deterrent in place, nor do we support those that wish to extricate themselves from that lifestyle. Failure all round due to ideological blinkers. Some ‘red neck’ or ‘authoritarian’ measures have real merit, and yet some many on the conservative side that espouse those beliefs are blinkered to the equally valid and useful ‘liberal’ or ‘bleeding heart’ measures. So the middle road fails as it takes nothing on board that is useful for fear or offending sections of the community. Pathetic really.

Singapore at the time of independence had a much larger drug problem when viewed both as a proportion of the GDP and in terms of the proportion of the population employed / affected / addicted. Singapore now? different kettle of fish all together. Also, for the record, it was about 20 of the ‘big’ men that ran the drug trades and were associated with what most Australian would colloquially know as ‘triads’ that were locked up by the army without trial and remain behind bars, so we are not talking hundreds of people – in the historical context of Singapore it was those whom the police were unable / unwilling to arrest or were to well connected with the establishment (this is prior to the PAP gaining it’s iron-fist rule) and government figures. Those actions were circuit breakers per se to get the ‘war’ off to a good start. Due process came later. Now, hypothetical question: if the drug trade in Canberra was largely controlled by a handful of criminal gangs, and there were certain individuals that were known the be at the centre of the problem but kept getting away / off / getting someone to take the fall, what would you do? Remember Al Capone? they changed laws to nab him in the end, but the net result was worth it – the decline of the gangs slid from that point on.

All that said, i do agree with your philosophy of personal responsibility – but that is a two edged sword. I agree that taking the criminality out is probably, in the modern Australian context, more likely to work in the long (50+yrs) term. For the short term, the ‘true’ war waged in forthright fury would perhaps have a greater impact.

Failing all that, easy way out: deport all druggies to New Zealand. Might improve that countries average IQ! 🙂

Mr_Shab said :

I suppose a proper “war” on drugs might work. The problem is, drugs are so ingrained into society and the Australian context is so different to Singapore that the “war” you’ll be marching into will be your own personal Stalingrad; complete with cannibalism and 1.2 million casualties.

The system as it stands is not ideal (far from it), but I’d rather see the status quo remain than see us start locking up “drug dealers” without trial (Burn the witch!). That’s not an alternative. That’s unleashing a horror I won’t even begin to countenance.

Personally, I’d rather not see us go down that road. The idea of society getting any more authoritarian in its views on our personal vices I find repugnant (even if the Kev-bot seems to think it’s a good thing). I support legalisation from a philosophical point of view as well as a practical one. I think that an individual ought to be the master of their person. I support another’s right to be as smacked-up as they like, provided the harm to others is limited; and I think a better way of limiting harm to others is to take criminality out of the equation.

So what your saying is the ‘War on things” is just a language thing, used to divert peoples attention from the real issues by politicians. We have given it a name so we must be doing something along with all the words that go with war. Its actually not a real option, just propaganda.

Its the sort of thing you say when you want to be seen doing something but taking the middle, easy road and doing as little as possible.

Can we dump the whole war on drugs thing as a real option. Its a linguistic diversion.

I hereby launch Australia’s war on pumpkin.

War on obesity, that’s another good one.

I mean, honestly, it’s just stupid. I’d be fine with it if it meant I was allowed to shoot fat people in the street in response to their vile treachory against the Australian State, but it doesn’t.

The whole war metaphor is a complete load of bollocks – the sooner that the problems are precisely defined in their own terms (rather than being redefined beyond reality with the ill-fitting ‘war’ metaphor), the sooner we can start dealing with them properly.

The same applies to the ‘war’ on terror, unemployment, interest rates, the environment, blah blah blah.

We should seeking solutions, not engaging in linguistic gung ho.

If there is a war to fight within our society, then it is the war of the environment. Fighting for the environment, is fighting for our survival as a society into the next generations. Its a war that we have been losing. It will have a far greater effect then any drug war on who we become. That’s the kind of war I would believe deserves sacrifice so others can live.

Hdopler is taking an interest and has some valid points on how thing work. I get your middle road thing. Ive seen how the police operate within the drug community. It borders on “I don’t want to know about it unless it relates to my direct inquiry.” The governments are only interested on providing the basic level of support on the health approach. That is probably across the whole health system though.

As for war. The only people who profit are the armorers. Every one else, on both sides, are brutalised and victimised. War is for when all the political options fail. We are along way from a war on drugs.

I think that a lot of our overall drug and violence issues in Australia, stem from our war’s. Hey but I’m wrong a lot.

Hdopler said :

A bleeding-heart-pink-liberal-hippy calling me a goose? now you’ve made my day!

Oh wow. You’ve just used the term “bleeding heart”, and successfully outed yourself as a redneck.

Perhaps we could have you deported to a dank Turkish prison, “for the greater good” of course.

I suppose a proper “war” on drugs might work. The problem is, drugs are so ingrained into society and the Australian context is so different to Singapore that the “war” you’ll be marching into will be your own personal Stalingrad; complete with cannibalism and 1.2 million casualties.

The system as it stands is not ideal (far from it), but I’d rather see the status quo remain than see us start locking up “drug dealers” without trial (Burn the witch!). That’s not an alternative. That’s unleashing a horror I won’t even begin to countenance.

Personally, I’d rather not see us go down that road. The idea of society getting any more authoritarian in its views on our personal vices I find repugnant (even if the Kev-bot seems to think it’s a good thing). I support legalisation from a philosophical point of view as well as a practical one. I think that an individual ought to be the master of their person. I support another’s right to be as smacked-up as they like, provided the harm to others is limited; and I think a better way of limiting harm to others is to take criminality out of the equation.

A bleeding-heart-pink-liberal-hippy calling me a goose? now you’ve made my day!

Of course I meant “You’re a *goose* Hdopler”.

You’re a good Hdopler. I won’t shed a tear for you if you’re locked up for something you didn’t actually do. I mean, it’d be for the greater good right?

justbands said :

> so some collateral damage happened along the way, some innocents got locked up, so what?

I can’t believe someone would actually write such dribble.

LOL, small price to pay for a safe and prosperous society as LKY would argue. History is littered with examples of innocents being locked up in the pursuit of the greater good, a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless. Progress sometimes requires hard decisions to be made, something our glorious leaders seem to have forgotten how to do.

Dexi, please re-read my previous posts – you’ll see i’m a big advocate of methods other than those used in Singapore. As for the ‘drug issue’ being related to society, yes it is an issue that effects society as a whole and individual on a daily basis, if you disagree that is fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, even when they are wrong 😉

Yes I have travelled widely and Australia has it relatively good, but i’m not deluded enough to think we can’t learn from other countries successes and failures, which some people seem to find offensive if a certain aspect of another countries ways of doing things offends our sensibilities when it comes to certain liberal democratic policies.

Finally, “it” (ie drug policy / law enforcement etc) in this country is not about protecting either drug users or non-drug users and that is the problem. Singapore takes a society-first attitude that places the well-being of drug users at the very, very bottom (and criminals in general). Everything they do, from education (propaganda?) programs up involves preventing use from happening and protecting society from crime related to drug use (heroin being the main problem historically in that part of SEA Asia). That is something I do agree with, placing the needs of the many above the needs of a few (hence I support democratically elected governments, even if i didn’t vote for them).

That’s one approach, the other is to treat “it” as health problem – intensive intervention, counselling to address addicts underlying reasons for drug abuse (mental health issues etc are very common amongst drug users who turn to crime) as well as broader education programs and so forth. That works too.

What doesn’t work, in my opinion, is the current approach where we have police forces around Australia talking about the ‘war’ on drugs but in reality there is no WAR being waged, and if it was, it is not being waged to WIN it is being waged for PR purposes only, so there is no deterrent, no strong criminal justice system to prevent drug use and abuse and associated social problems (of which crime is only one) and yet at the same time we are totalling failing our young people by a lack of education and prevention programs and support for addicts who are actually stupid enough to get caught. As i’ve said before, we are taking a middle road to failure.

Wage a WAR on drugs and win it at all costs – that can work OR make them legal, and treat them the way booze and ciggies have been treated – progressive taxation, education programs etc. Personally i don’t mind which way we go, but the current non-decision and mixed policy signals is simply failing our community, country and children.

Hdopler..Once again, if you like zero tolerance as practiced in Singapore, then you should move there. You seem to think the drug issue has something to do with the society as a whole. I think you will find it has only a small effect and a large media hype. Drug reform isn’t about protecting the whole society. Its about making a difference in the lives of drug users and their families. Society as a whole in this country has it bloody good. You have traveled so you will know this.

Drug reform isn’t about separation and creating an enemy to be punished. It should be about integration and healing.

Its not about protecting you its about protecting drug users. Id say your doing just fine.

I’d loved to be trained and disciplined in the art of warfare. What our society needs are more trained killers. Lets keep alive the political doctrine of ultimate power achieved by the gun. It will bring peace to the world. The only collateral damage will be our young men. (some of who, you might find, then enjoy poly-drug use)

The only bloody failure right now are the idea’s of people like you.

> so some collateral damage happened along the way, some innocents got locked up, so what?

I can’t believe someone would actually write such dribble.

Yeah, border protection / patrol is an issue… but then again, with a huge army of National Service men, the Australian navy could potentially man many patrol boats… oh for national service to be introduced into this country, albeit with a non-military component available… but yes, there are differences in the political sphere but INMHO they are part of the problem in Australia’s case – not the democracy part (lacking in Singapore in reality) but the making hard decisions part on behalf of our great elected leaders… as for zero tolerance, as i said: i’ve seen places where it has worked, and worked well if you look from the viewpoint of society as a whole. No method is 100% effective but what we have right now in a bloody failure

Easy Tiger, I didn’t say Singapore’s drug enforcement had no relevance to Australia, it does. They are our neighbour and trading partner. My point is that the fundamental differences (political and geographic) between the two countries renders finding parallels difficult when it comes to dealing with those in the drug industry and sealing up the border.

And yeeeah, zero tolerance, good luck with that.

*Oh!* I just checked my watch and guess what time it is… 4:20! I’m ghost.

Peace out.

Yes they do, but at least one mistake they don’t (usually) make is to make sweeping generalisations and dismiss relevant example and experience as having no relevance 😉

Hmmm… let’s see, yes once I was detained at Changi airport for a box of talcum powder (for my daughter at the time) and guess what? nothing happened. In Singapore NOW if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about (unless it is a political critique issue v Lee family, different story then) Singapore THEN, yes it would have sucked hard but you know what? it worked, so some collateral damage happened along the way, some innocents got locked up, so what? think about all the lives saved from death, all the trauma to families that was saved. It’s one of the very few things i agree with LKY on: it was worth it. Don’t be so blinked to suggest that because it worked in SEA Asia it can’t work here as well (with some adaptation, but no so much as to water down the central pillar of the approach: zero tolerance)

Why do you even bother comparing Australia to Singapore? Singapore is an authoritarian state (not necessarily a bad thing, either) and occupies a smaller land space than Canberra, let alone that of the ACT. Having a small border and a self-styled philosopher king allows Singapore to take a completely different approach to dealing with the drug issue.

If Singapore-style policing happens in Australia I hope that you don’t accidentally get fingered as a dealer, either by the cops or by someone who has it in for you. It would not be pleasant.

And don’t be so blinkered as to suggest to that just because something worked South East Asia it will work here; they make mistakes too.

So what? uncle harry (LKY) freely admits that when he took over, drugs and crime were rampant in Singapore – certain key figures were so ingrained into the local police force, so clever that they couldn’t be caught (or got family to take the fall etc) that he made a decision – use the military to lock them up. Some are still in jail, having never faced a trial or even being charged. Harsh? sure, but it WORKED and crippled the local drug trade and usage scene in Singapore. Nowdays you get a trial etc etc in Singapore, but back then he had to make harsh decisions to get on top of the problem – it worked. It could also work in Australia, if anyone in office had the balls to make it work. Conversely I believe a good harm minimisation is just a likely to succeed in the goal: reducing crime, reducing harm to individual and society as a whole. Either can work, but we have to commit to a process and right now we aren’t committed to either thus people get sick from crooked pills, houses get broken into by junkies, kids harassed for cash by junkies, there is no real deterrent from the legal system not to take drugs, nor are drugs really dealt with as a health problem for those that want to use them safely or get off them… the list goes on and on… in short we are FAILING MISERABLY as a society to address the issue of drugs.

Want it fixed quick? go the Singapore solution and screw the collateral damage and civil rights – focus on the end outcome. Want a more socially acceptable solution? go the whole-hog and treat drugs as a health problem, make them legal, tax them, treat them like booze and ciggies are now – will take much more dollar but maybe in the long-term the result will be better and perhaps more importantly, it might be a little more palatable to the soft under-bellies of most Australian voters when it comes to social / law connexion issues.

Don’t be so blinkered as to think that we can’t learn something valuable from our ‘brutal’ SEA Asian Neighbours; trust me; they don’t look to us for solutions in this area as it is plain as day we have failed – famously.

Hdopler said :

Whilst i don’t agree with the death sentence, i’ll give SEA nations one big slap of on the back for the mere fact they don’t talk crap about waging war on drugs, they actually do treat it like a WAR and go in hard accordingly.

How can you not agree with the death sentence but back South East Asian nations’ wars on drugs? As I recall, several thousand people were killed when Thaksin cracked down on drugs earlier this century. Only a fool would contend that they were all guilty.

I never advocated blanket legalization of drugs (clearly a bad idea), i just said don’t paint drug users with the same brush as drug dealers. Many people seem to think binge drinking or even light drinking is fine yet the occasional pill is horrible. These people are stupid.

While compete legalization of drugs like herion is stupid i think ecstacy being illegal is a problem. When the drug is made properly and basic precautions are followed it has no where near the health implications of drinking. Especially binge drinking. It would make young partiers much much safer.

Also i don’t think decriminilsation of small amounts of weed here in the ACT has caused people to think the drug is any less dangerious. It just shows the government is bright enough to recognise making criminals out of stoners is a very bad idea. Which IMHO it is.

Laws on drug users need IMHO to be relaxed massively. A amount of a drug small enough for personal used should be a fine and in the case of hard drugs mandatory drug enducation and rehabilitation. You will never stop drug use, the best we can do is make sure drug users are well informed.

Punishments for drug dealers should be much tougher and in the case of dealers attempting to pass off large doses of PMA as MDMA should incure an extra attempted murder charge. This might help stem the tide of poor quality drugs hitting the street.

Oh and i made a mistake before it is Prof David Nutt. Two t’s. No it wasn’t a joke read the article. I would really suggest looking up the study he did it is very interesting especially if you like a drink or smoke 😛

Babyface;

Whilst i don’t agree with the death sentence, i’ll give SEA nations one big slap of on the back for the mere fact they don’t talk crap about waging war on drugs, they actually do treat it like a WAR and go in hard accordingly.

Here in Australia we are drifting between a supposed ‘war’ on drug and the alternative, which is to treat drugs as a health problem rather than a law enforcement problem.

As a result, we are doing both poorly. Time for the community to make a clear choice and go after that choice with vigour.

… which is why you can’t buy green listerine in parts of NT anymore. Not because it’s banned, but because alcohol is banned, so green listerine (which has a higher alcohol content than most basic spirits) sells as fast as it hits the shelf. Banning alcohol isn’t the solution, anymore than banning listerine is.

fnaah You have a point. Many people adjust there drug use when they are faced with huge financial cost. Many others just go to the bus stop and pick up all the ciggy butts. It’s the addiction that forces the bad choices, that without the drug you wouldn’t normal consider. This is one problem that has to be dealt with, prohibition or not. Its the, I want more, now, thing.

Farq – from memory (uni was a while ago now), dexamphetamine (the stuff given to kiddies with ADD) is chemically similar to methamphetamine; though the molecule is a different shape and interacts less strongly with dopamine (?) receptors in parts of the brain. So yeah – similar stuff.

Justbands – oops. You’re quite right about illegal tobacco. I guess it shows that the government shouldn’t tax heavily if their aim is to reduce profits going to illegal entities (the more attractive you make the crime, the more likely criminals are to commit it I guess).

In my experience observing middle class families, I have seen more damage caused by prescribed drugs (mostly oxycontin and xanax) than illegal ones.

I would prefer my kids on dope than xanax. At least you can’t OD on dope.

Yes, the halth system. It’s a new part of the wider health system.

Is Dexi on the dexi’s?

The dose of amphetamine used to treat ADD is very, very low. Nothing like the doses recreational uses take.

Also, not quite the same stuff. Not that I’m a pharmacist of chemist.

The consequential additional costs resulting from increased drug use would nullify any expected economic savings through legalization’s elimination of law enforcement in this function. When it comes to any mind-altering substance, cost supersedes revenue.

I disagree. A combination of tax revenue from the products themselves combined with the savings on law enforcement would more than balance the books in terms of providing adequate health facilities. In fact, you could argue that more revenue diverted into the halth system (particularly mental health) would in fact stop many people from becoming addicts in the first place.

I’ll have to dig and find the figures, but didn’t the netherlands find that addiction levels were roughly the same after legalising?

Why is speed destructive. You can get forms of amphetamine on health care. It doesn’t turn me into a violent loon. It actual chills me out and allows me to function like a model citizen.

Drugs have different effects on different people.

Genie, you seem to be missing the point. I’m not saying that criminals shouldn’t be punished appropriately, I’m suggesting that recreationally taking drugs should not be a crime and thus should not attract punishment. What follows from that is that selling and manufacturing recreational drugs should not be a crime, but should necessarily be regulated and monitored (like the existing legal recreational drug, alcohol).

Here’s food for thought: I’m a smoker, but if they made tobacco illegal I wouldn’t go robbing houses to pay $10 for a ciggie because I know I should just bloddy well quit anyway.

I can’t decide if that makes me a hypocrite or not.

> I foresee it ending up in a similar mode to illegal tobacco/alcohol distribution – present, but not amazingly lucrative.

Actually, illegal tobacco is very, very lucrative. It’s just about the biggest tax dodge in the country.

Hmm – legalised designer drugs could be an option.

It might provide an easier alternative to destructive drugs like speed and ice.

Medically perhaps it is true they don’t physically harm the user (I don’t know). But they are no good for people’s mental state and turn plenty of people into violent loons.

Some good points made in there Thumper. As I said – legalisation presents some unique problems of its own.

It wouldn’t end the criminal element in drug use and distribution, but it would substantially reduce the power of drug distribution rings (drugs would suddenly become a whole lot less profitable). I foresee it ending up in a similar mode to illegal tobacco/alcohol distribution – present, but not amazingly lucrative.

I think when you move to a legalised system, you do create an air of acceptability around drugs; which would take some time to normalise. In the meantime you’ll see a spike in usage, which I think would peter out after people “got over it”. In much the same manner as alcohol, you’ll still get addicts, but most users will be largely casual.

I think another unexplored angle in legalisation is the idea of designer drugs. Conceivably, you could have pharmaceutical companies compete to make new recreational drugs – with fewer side-effects, lower toxicity, low addictive predelictions etc. Make them go to clinical trials (you’d have to fight off volunteers!) and release like a new therapeutic. Regulate the things through the TGA. You know it makes sense.

I don’t assume legalisation is a panacea – just a less bad answer than what we’ve got now.

Genie said :

Look obviously tax payers have to pay to house and feed criminals… The money has to come from somewhere to build and maintain prisons and pay the salaries of the workers there – But perhaps we shouldn’t have to pay SO MUCH.

You don’t even have the faintest idea of how much we spend on prisons, why should anybody bother listen to you complaining about it?

Perhaps if you’d bothered to do some research and learn about the topic then you might have something novel to say, but I gotta say that I (and I daresay many others) are mightily sick of hearing ill-informed bullsh1t of the ‘my tax dollars … lock them up … prisons are a luxury’ variety.

Really – do yourself a favour and become informed before you start pulling this kind of crap.

Read New Yeah’s comment again.

Well said. Heartily agreed from this corner.

Good point dexi….zero tolerance is VERY expensive.

I find it odd that Canberra has traditionally had low crime rates as well as the lowest incarceration rate in Australia. Yet It would seem that people want to see more crimes punished. Increasing both our crime and incarceration rate. Shouldn’t we be trying to have less prisoners and less crime. It would also be less tax funding.

justbands said :

Have you ever been to jail Genie? Go visit Goulburn, it’s no luxury. It’s not on the top of my places to stay list, that much is certain.

I dont even think genie has been to Belconnen.

Have you ever been to jail Genie? Go visit Goulburn, it’s no luxury. It’s not on the top of my places to stay list, that much is certain.

Look obviously tax payers have to pay to house and feed criminals… The money has to come from somewhere to build and maintain prisons and pay the salaries of the workers there – But perhaps we shouldn’t have to pay SO MUCH.

Maybe using the Tent City Jail was a bad example, but this guy has proven we don’t need to spend millions every year to house criminals. They can survive without being provided weightlifting equipment, or things like coffee and cable tv.

I simply just agree with the statement of:
‘Criminals should be punished for their crimes – not live in luxury until it’s time for parole, only to go out and commit more crimes so they can come back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things many taxpayers can’t afford to have for themselves.’

c’mon piratemokey……”professor nut”??????…..you made that up didn’t you?

This thread is a hoot.

Mr_Shab is on the right track. I think much of the problem stems from the definitions –
*there is a huge spectrum of drugs (some made in a lab by a professor, some made in a lab by a booner in Yass, some growing under lights in an Adelaide bikie’s shed, some growing naturally on a patch of dirt),
*the legal/illegal dichotomy is somewhat arbitrary, and
*the people who make decisions on these matters often have no real idea (or experience in) what they’re talking about.

And yes, Sheriff Joe sounds like an inhumane nob.

Merrika has zero tolerance and huge drug problems… Now look at certain european countries and their rather casual approach to drugs… They have much lower rates of drug abuse. Hmmms funny that.

As i have posted before everyone who is so arrgh drugs are bad mmmkay should really read up on professor david nut’s work on comparing the relative harms of drugs like alcohol and ecstacy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3352286/Alcohol-%27is-more-dangerous-than-ecstacy%27.html

Please don’t be throwing drug users into the same class as drug dealers.

It should turn up eventually.

: )

Doh, I should have known a comment full of links would be moderated. :/ *sigh*

I’ll admit, I’ve done a bit of copying and pasting, but I’m happy to argue the merits of the following:

Health dangers associated with recreational drugs exist precisely because they are illegal

Measures to monitor the supply and distribution of precursor chemicals for MDMA have forced illicit drug makers to take shortcuts or use alternate precursors, or even market much more dangerous drugs like methamphetamine, MDA, MDEA or PMA as “ecstasy”.

A similar danger is where dealers use cutters or fillers in an effort to maximise profit. Often, the fillers are much more dangerous than the drug they are replacing.

The purity of legalised drugs could be monitored by the TGA, or liquor licensing board, or some other official body. Companies would still need licenses to manufacture and market drugs, the same way that liquor or pharmaceutical drug comanies need to be licensed. Even with all that beauracracy, recreational drugs would still be profitable to make legally, and cheaper to buy legally.

Prohibition denies research into clinical use

MDMA has been shown to be extremely useful in treating the symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease(ref), and as therapy for those with post traumatic stress disorder.

Cannabis has been used successfully to restore appetite and reduce nausea for patients undergoing chemotherapy or with AIDS.

crime

Legalising drugs would make them relatively cheap, which would remove the massive profit margins that makes the illicit drug trade attractive to organised crime, and would also alleviate the pressure on users to turn to crime in order to finance an addiction.

health issues

There’s a serious double standard here. Alcohol and tobacco are legal, MDMA and marijuana are not.

Some facts for your consideration(ref):

In the UK, 500,000 people take ecstasy every weekend.
40,000,000 are social drinkers.
11,000,000 are “at risk” or “problem” drinkers.
9,000,000 are smokers.

There are 40 ecstasy-*related* deaths each year (and for most of these, poly-drug use and impurities such as pma/mda are to blame, rather than MDMA itself)

There are 6,500 deaths due to alcohol and 120,000 deaths due to smoking.

That means the *per-use risk of death* of ecstasy half that of alcohol (1:12,500 vs 1:6,153), and miniscule compared to tobacco (1:75).

Please, PLEASE do not go and try to quote that study about monkey brains and MDMA causing lots of death. That is one of the vanishingly few studies that found MDMA to be neurotoxic (and, not coincidentally, the one that continues to be splashed all over the media any time someone is “killed by ecstasy”, which is clinically almost impossible), and it was *flawed*: http://www.maps.org/mdma/nyt120203.html

References:
http://www.maps.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/drugs-alcohol/mg19225754.800-ecstasy-as-a-brain-booster-for-parkinsons.html|Ecstasy
http://www.smokefreeengland.co.uk/files/smoking-kills.pdf
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1736243,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2159470.stm
http://www.avon.nhs.uk/alcohol/the_facts.htm

Ahh jeeze – again? /dons mask & snorkel and wades in.

rosie_bubz – you seriously plan to lock up every smackie, ice-head, pill-popper and dope-smoker in the Territory? Better start with most of the students at ANU and UC, a fair chunk of the kiddies at our high-school and a substantial proportion of the lumpy white folk out in the burbs.

Crap! We’re going to need a bigger jail!

Why the frothing anger every time drugs are mentioned? You’d think there were armed gangs of drooling zombies lurching about the streets raping and pillaging the way some of you folk go on.

To answer VY’s questions (what’s good about drugs?), I posit the following:

There’s nothing particularly “good” about drugs. They can be a way to relax and a social disinhibitor (I’d probably not have had the guts to get chatting to my good lady wife without a couple of pints under the belt). There’s a hell of a lot wrong with them too (mental effects and physical effects; to say nothing of the odd retard who smokes half a dozen cones/drops a couple of eccies and wraps his car around a tree).

But that’s rather beside the point, IMO.

If you criminalise drugs, you drag a lot of otherwise law-abiding people through the criminal justice system, where they have no business being. You can ruin a person’s life for their curiosity or for what in the main is a harmless diversion (there are a lot more drug users than drug addicts – and there is a difference folks).

You also hand the manufacture and distribution of drugs to people who have no interest in delivering a safe product to the market; and who are quite willing to use some fairly unpleasant means to maintain their market share. You hyperinflate the price of the product, leading addicts to illegal activity to raise the requisite sums of money to feed their addictions. You marginalise addicts, which makes it more difficult to reintegrate into society and kick the habit.

Whilst druggies provide us with a convenitent witch to burn, penalising them more harshly is not going to eradicate them. Witness…well…pretty much every country with ultra-harsh drug laws. Indo seems to jail or execute anyone with ties to drugs with gay abandon, but still has a drug problem. US seems to have marginally more compunction about killing people, but locks people away like it’s going out of style. They have the largest prison population on the planet (from memory, about 6 times the incarceration rate of Aust), two thirds of whom are in the clink for some kind of drug offence (i.e possession or dealing) but…crikey! Still seem to have a drug problem.

Rock apes like Sherrif Joe just entrench poverty and disadvantage.

Where you legalise drugs, you take the sale and manufacture out of the hands of criminals and into the hands of regulated companies or the government. You remove addicts from the margins so they’re more likely to seek treatment. You make the end product safer and slash the price (you don’t need to break into a house to afford your hit if you can get it and a coke for a fiver).

But most of all, you don’t drag otherwise law-abiding people through the criminal justice system or through prisons in some misguided attempt to try to control people’s personal choices.

Legalisation won’t “solve” the drug problem any more than summarily executing every drug user will (it even creates a couple of problems all of its own) but it’s the “least worst” option. It’s about all you can hope for when you’re creating public policy.

Genie “Why should tax payers have to pay to feed and house criminals ?”

Tax payers are criminals too. I wonder what the percentage of prisoners are tax payers. Is it the tax payers causing crime? I know a lot of tax payers who are on drugs. Someone should look into tax payers. At best they are a bunch of cheap whiner’s.

You always leave out the negatives that PBO has drawn attention to in this thread and I have posted on previously.

By leaving out the atrocities perpetrated by this system, you are encouraging people to adopt a methodology that produces these completely unacceptable results without warning them that this may be the case.

This guy and his henchmen are bullies. It is a system in which bullies thrive. They are attracted to it, and they love it. It’s every bully’s wet dream.

I only said that all jails should be like this and copied the contents of a regularly forwarded email into the post. No mention in my own words of the Sherrif being a ‘hero’

Yeah, but you make him sound like a hero when he’s a state-sanctioned murderer.

Hey I didn’t say bring the Sherrif over here… I said employ his ideas and concepts for a jail. I only agree on how he runs the jail not everything else he does.

Why should tax payers have to pay to feed and house criminals ? They should pay for their own meals, as the Sherrif does… meals down to 20cents a serving. Etc etc….

or mention that for all the money he has saved treating the inmates like animals, the state loses paying out all the wrongful death and injury claims made against his department.

Well, the late marijuana-possessing quadriplegics will certainly not reoffend ….

Id support wearing pink underwear.

Oooh – I saw this on the Crime Channel. My personal favourite was his decision to dye all the underwear pink, so the inmates don’t steal and sell it.

What nobody seems to be able to andswer is whether there is less recidivism amongst his former inmates.

Lets not be America. Your welcome to go live there. We won’t miss you.

20 paragraphs of redneckery – that’s gotta be a record.

Seriously, would you really want someone like Joe Arpaio in Canberra? Here is a little something about him so we have both sides of this story:

Joe Arpaio is a man who enjoys his job. His job is terrorizing Mexicans, always a popular pastime in the southwest. Arpaio wins 80-90 per cent approval from the aged voters of Phoenix not just because he terrorizes Mexicans but because he delights his living-dead fanbase with new ways of humiliating petty criminals and vagrants. In order to find more victims for his pranks, deputies are sent on 200-strong sweeps of the local barrios, pouncing on any brown-skinned driver with a broken windshield, with prizes awarded for most illegals caught. Once the new crop of ritual victims has been chained up, Arpaio grandstands to his audience of bitter white retirees, humiliating inmates with pink jails and uniforms, and arranging photo ops of chain gangs in cartoon black-and-white stripes.

Arpaio is a checklist of the most vile traits of the “greatest generation”: first, of course, there is his fatuous vanity. He boasts like Capone about his fame: “I get more press than the governor gets. If you go anywhere in the world, all you have to do is say Arizona, and they say Sheriff Joe.”

Next, of course, comes gross hypocrisy: Arpaio is the child of Italian immigrants who came to Massachusetts for better-paid factory jobs. That, he says, was different.

Arpaio’s deputies stand out for sadistic violence even by American cop standards. They have killed or paralyzed suspects, in one case laughing and joking while they broke the neck of a paraplegic arrested for the non-crime of marijuana possession. Though Arpaio’s department was forced to pay the victim almost a million dollars, the incident failed to affect the adoration in which the vicious living corpses of Phoenix regard this monster, their avenger against younger, warmer people.

Does this sound like someone that we need here?

Joe Arpaio is a turkey.

Fine, start building jails. Very big jails. Fill them full. Keep building jails and fill them. Build another jail and another. Fill them full. I’m not sure where the tipping point lies with jailed tax payers on drugs charges and working tax payers paying for the jail system. It would be cheaper to shoot them. Less tax. But it also, would be easier to step over your cold bloody body to get to your big screen TV.

No need to build jails… Just do what they did in Arizona ! I love it everytime I get the email and feel all jails should be like this.. Could you imagine a tent city jail here in Canberra in the freezing cold of Winter? And then the boiling heat of Summer. Doubtful anyone would be likely to wanna spend more than 6-12 months in that place.

I will admit the current legal system is too leanient… Hooray get busted dealing drugs and get weekend detention…. Woo Hoo….

For those who havent seen the email I’m referring too:

USA JAIL – SOME INTERESTING READING
TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO, HE IS THE MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF (ARIZONA ) AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

These are some of the reasons why:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio created the ‘tent city jail’ to save Arizona from spending tens of millions of dollars on another expensive prison complex.

He has jail meals down to 20 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.

He banned smoking and pornographic magazines in the jails, and took away their weightlifting equipment and cut off all but ‘G’ movies. He says: ‘They’re in jail to pay a debt to society not to build muscles so they can assault innocent people when they leave.’

He started chain gangs to use the inmates to do free work on county and city projects and save taxpayer’s money.

Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn’t get sued for discrimination.

He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only allows the Disney channel and the weather channel.

When asked why the weather channel, he replied: ‘So these morons will know how hot it’s gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.’

He cut off coffee because it has zero nutritional value and is therefore a waste of taxpayer money. When the inmates complained, he told them, ‘This isn’t the Ritz/Carlton. If you don’t like it, don’t come back.’

He also bought the Newt Gingrich lecture series on US history that he pipes into the jails. When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series that actually tells the truth for a change would be welcome and that it might even explain why 95% of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.

With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record for June 2nd 2007), the Associated Press reported: About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed wire surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.

On the Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing pink boxer shorts were overheard chatting in the tents, where temperatures reached 128 degrees. ‘This is hell. It feels like we live in a furnace,’ said Ernesto Gonzales, an inmate for 2 years with 10 more to go. ‘It’s inhumane.’

Joe Arpaio, who makes his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. ‘Criminals should be punished for their crimes – not live in luxury until it’s time for parole, only to go out and commit more crimes so they can come back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things many taxpayers can’t afford to have for themselves.’

The same day he told all the inmates who were complaining of the heat in the tents: ‘It’s between 120 to 130 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to walk all day in the sun, wearing full battle gear and get shot at, and they have not committed any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!’

Way to go, Sheriff! If all prisons were like yours there would be a lot less crime and we would not be in the current position of running out of prison spaces.

If I took drugs apart from the usual social beverages I would definitely shop halal. I would also prefer that they were certified organic, unless they weren’t.

Well there’s evidently a market for Halal drugs.

> Prohibition has been tried for centuries, and failed. Even in those countries where they have the death penalty for trafficing, held up by some morons here as a panacea, they still have drug users, dealers and problems.

Exactly. Harsher penalties & prohibition simply do not work. Never have…never will. The stupid, uninformed & ignorant option is always “yeah, lock them up/kill them”. Obviously a new approach is needed.

& remember…alcohol is a drug…& as far as drugs go, it’s a very, very dangerous one.

I say we revoke the gun control laws, then sit back and watch all the drug dealers naturally deal out death penalties to each other. Then our courts apply the death penalty to any leftovers.

The US and other countries around the world have reached this state of utopia already. Quick, we’re falling behind!

*cough*

yes i agree….and let’s start by killing all english immigrants first……

Squil said :

In hrazor’s defence, he was probably pissed at the time of that post. Gets him a little worked up you see.

Complaining about drugs while being under the influence of a drug.

It’s a wonder he didn’t drown in the massive pool of irony.

Prohibition has been tried for centuries, and failed. Even in those countries where they have the death penalty for trafficing, held up by some morons here as a panacea, they still have drug users, dealers and problems.

Maybe the answer is to kill people more than once for trafficing, get triple death penalties, or maybe we should kill their freinds and relatives too?

Lets just kill anyone who thinks about taking a drug, and include alcohol and tobacco on the list!

Lets just kill people!!!! It’s the answer I tell you!!!!!

ON balance I think leagalising (or decriminalising) drugs is the answer.

But how to do it without normalising it so that every teenager is having a go of hard drugs?

And how to avoid glamourising drugs?

And how to avoid the honeypot syndrome where Canberra/Australia becomes a tourist destination for the drug f***8ed?

I think a heroin trial and an injecting room would be a good start for Canberra.

And a whole lot more access to decent rehab options.

I would also publicise the downside of drugs much more. Not just the violent crim stories – noone thinks they will be like that. Just the festy,greasy, pimply strung out side of drugs. Not so glamourous then.

In hrazor’s defence, he was probably pissed at the time of that post. Gets him a little worked up you see.

farq said :

Jim Jones said :

A post about a drug bust and within 10 seconds some mouth-breathing retard is yapping about the death penalty, his head almost bursting with rage.

Surprise surprise.

It’s no wonder then that our politicians can’t put forward sensible alternatives to the current drug policy. The idiots just scream so loudly.

Shtis me that most police seem to support the status quo, even though they have seen how ineffectual it is first hand.

How do police support the status quo? You might have to explain that one a bit more.

VYBerlina, fair enough, I guess I went straight for the “arrgh, shaddup” argument because this topic seems to degenerate to that level pretty quickly here, despite best intentions and clearly worded arguments.

Lemme muster some thoughts and get back to you.

Jim Jones said :

A post about a drug bust and within 10 seconds some mouth-breathing retard is yapping about the death penalty, his head almost bursting with rage.

Surprise surprise.

It’s no wonder then that our politicians can’t put forward sensible alternatives to the current drug policy. The idiots just scream so loudly.

Shtis me that most police seem to support the status quo, even though they have seen how ineffectual it is first hand.

In the interest of fairness, how about each side explains why they do or do not like drugs, and why they do or do not think harsh penalties are required. Perhaps keeping a lid on the emotion might help us get to the issues beneath.

A post about a drug bust and within 10 seconds some mouth-breathing retard is yapping about the death penalty, his head almost bursting with rage.

Surprise surprise.

I’m with babyace and dexi. All you buttoned-down plastic-fantastic Madison Avenue ninnies who think prohibition is The Great Panacea, please STFU and try not to be so terrified of everything.

LlamaFrog said :

It is Belconnen, sniffing the air down there will make you fail a drug test.

Being high in Belconnen relates to altitude not drugs. The air is fresher here than anywhere else in Canberra. Back into your swamp llamafrog!

Fine, start building jails. Very big jails. Fill them full. Keep building jails and fill them. Build another jail and another. Fill them full. I’m not sure where the tipping point lies with jailed tax payers on drugs charges and working tax payers paying for the jail system. It would be cheaper to shoot them. Less tax. But it also, would be easier to step over your cold bloody body to get to your big screen TV.

Its a savage world you want. Makes me want to escape it. Hmmmmm.

hrazor said :

It’s everywhere not just Belco, As soon as they bust one dealer, 3 more are ready to take their place (there is too much money to be made in the drug trade, 4 such minimum penalty) We should be like the Asian country’s & have a zero tolerance, & on the 2nd offense they should get the death penalty “NO EXCUSES”

So increase the penalty…. 1st offence dealing anything = 10 years before parole, 2nd offence 15 years before parole and so on. What amazes (and offends) me is that the Courts actually believe the stories drug users/dealers come up with.

hrazor said :

It’s everywhere not just Belco, As soon as they bust one dealer, 3 more are ready to take their place (there is too much money to be made in the drug trade, 4 such minimum penalty) We should be like the Asian country’s & have a zero tolerance, & on the 2nd offense they should get the death penalty “NO EXCUSES”

i second that.
well maybe not the death penalty but a long hard lifetime in jail.
drug dealers and takers are losers

kill yourself. unironically, kill yourself. society would be better off without you.

babyface….this link is just for you!!!
http://piv.pivpiv.dk/

Stop talking to yourself, babyface!

Ant, I shudder to think of the price of bananas. Not so long ago they were like gold, and you couldn’t even make a banana cake. My kids had almost forgotten what a banana looked like!

hrazor said :

It’s everywhere not just Belco, As soon as they bust one dealer, 3 more are ready to take their place (there is too much money to be made in the drug trade, 4 such minimum penalty) We should be like the Asian country’s & have a zero tolerance, & on the 2nd offense they should get the death penalty “NO EXCUSES”

kill yourself. unironically, kill yourself. society would be better off without you.

No, legalise it, and take money out of the equation. Then they could sell halal drugs next to the bananas, and for about the same price.

It’s everywhere not just Belco, As soon as they bust one dealer, 3 more are ready to take their place (there is too much money to be made in the drug trade, 4 such minimum penalty) We should be like the Asian country’s & have a zero tolerance, & on the 2nd offense they should get the death penalty “NO EXCUSES”

It is Belconnen, sniffing the air down there will make you fail a drug test.