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

If you really believe junkies SELL drugs to feed thier habit and not for monetry gain, you are a little bit naive…. Junkies BUY drugs to feed thier habit, drug dealers sell drugs to make money…simple.

What do you mean by “that bullshit wouldn’t happen in real life” ? What are you talking about? If you are talking about “controlled deliveries” Sorry to tell you, but it happens frequently in the other jurisdictions and federally.

VG,You did’nt answer the last paragraph of my post 149.But I certainly got an ear full from you about Controlled delivery.That bullshit would’nt happen in real life.I think you have been watching to many episodes of Miami Vice.

….and this is all explained in the legislation, both ACT and Commonwealth. Here’s some excerpts from the Bill for the Commonwealth Legislation. Straight off the net so none of this is a secret

“New section 15H defines a controlled operation. A controlled operation is an operation involving law enforcement officers, carried out in order to obtain evidence that may lead to the prosecution of a person for an offence against section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 or an associated offence. Such an operation may involve law enforcement officers in conduct that, if not excused by the Bill, would constitute a narcotics goods offence.”

No doubt the ACT act wil include ACT drug offences

“New section 15J provides that a certificate authorising a controlled operation must be obtained from the Commissioner, a Deputy Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police or a member of the National Crime Authority.”

and finally

” Before granting an authorising certificate, the authorising officer must be satisfied of all of the following matters:

* that he or she has been given any information known to the applicant about the nature and quality of the relevant narcotic goods,
* that the target of the controlled operation would be likely to commit a relevant offence whether or not the controlled operation occurs,
* that the controlled operation will make it easier to obtain evidence that will lead to a prosecution,
* that any narcotic goods in Australia at the end of the controlled operation will be under the control of an Australian law enforcement officer. “

As stated, no doubt the ACT act will mirror certain aspects of the above with respect to ACT offences.

And the most important part for you once again, before everyone screams ‘entrapment’ and ‘police selling drugs’ in an uneducated fashion.

“that the target of the controlled operation would be likely to commit a relevant offence whether or not the controlled operation occurs”

And to expand on my last, my personal belief is that Police officers who sell drugs illegally and are caught should be held to a higher level than those who are not. Same for anyone else involved in law enforcement.

Maybe now people can pull their heads out of their posterior and lose the hysteria

Police who deal in drugs illegally should be locked up.

If you are directing that comment towards the title of this thread you really have no idea what you’re talking about. Controlled operations have nothing to do with Police selling drugs. Do some research on what a controlled operation is. Here’s an easy one for you.

Man A in Amsterdam mails 1000 ecstasy tabs to man B in Canberra. Customs intercepts the said package on its way into the country and detects the drugs, then refers it to the Police. In order for the Police to allow the drugs to reach their final destination they must get a controlled ops certificate as, according to the High Court case of Ridgway, they could be interpreted as being part of the importation by not stopping it.

They get a controlled ops certificate indemnifying their ‘role’ and said package is monitored and delivered to man B. Police then take appropriate action when said package is dealt with by man B.

Nothing to do with selling drugs. Change your tag to Einstein

VG,It appears that you have great knowledge about the drug business.So all drug addicts and drug dealers should be locked up.So what punishment should be given to police who deal in drugs.What’s worse a junkie selling drugs to feed his habit or a policeman selling drugs for monetery gain.

Or because DMD says its over the mods think so too

This site has gone completely to insipid poop

Oh FFS!

So DMDs invitations to clash in the above are OK

“Also, if you honestly want to talk about this face to face, feel free to come down to the Pot or the Basement this Saturday night. See the bands too (there’ll be some good ones). Just look for the 6?4-5 guy with a full dark beard and short hair. I hope you have fun.”

But my invitation to a civilised confrontation aren’t

Nice to see the consistency in moderation. Apparently DMD’s juvenile insults and barbs are OK but the right to respond is edited and moderated so as to disappear.

Compare the crime rates in San Diego with somewhere like Detroit, Los Angeles, Houston, Miami, Oakland or St Louis, then, douche-bag.

Yeah, I’d rather ask someone who knew what he was talking about. You don’t even seem to know sh-t about crime. You have obviously been lying to everyone about your service in the police force. Did you want to be just like the big boys at the PCYC? Wanted a life more than writing cheques on the internet your fat arse can’t cash? Please turn left down the corridor to the lame failure room.

I think this discussion is over. There is no point in trying to hold a civil conversation with a cop-wannabe who has no understanding of people outside his minuscule mental sphere.

Based on what your good ol’ uncle told you.

Did Daddy tell you Santa wasn’t real yet.

Some people do, some people have to ask those who do. Have a guess who I might have been spending all my time with whilst in the US, maybe people who know a boat load about the drug problems in their cities?

You got caught out big time on San Diego reference, even more so when this line comes straight from their stats

“However, while burglaries and larceny/thefts were lower than the national average, vehicle thefts were twice as high as the national average.”

Learn some geography and travel outside your own town once in a while you dilettante. I never said I was an expert (you love making this crap up) but someone who has been there once knows a lot more than you, I have been there a lot more than that and had the opportunity to see a lot more than what the average tourist does because of my background..

Keep swinging away champ, you’ll hit the ball eventually. Ask your uncle how to do it

I’ll be there regardless.

I was talking about a safer city – San Diego is one of the safer ones and a popular tourist destination.

I’m no expert on the US…but nor are you, it seems. In fact, you seem a little naive. Crack is very easy to buy in many poorer downtown areas. That is why the War on Drugs is an failure. Just like you.

What’s the point, to have an internet laugh at someone who turns up to smack your head in then turns out they wasted your time as you weren’t there.

My uncle’s a kiwi, doesn’t make me an authority on NZ (mind you I have been there 3 times so I’m more of an authority on NZ than you are on the US). There is gang violence in every major city on the planet, many of which don’t have the associated drug problem.

“I hope you enjoyed San Diego”.

WTF? I think you meant to have an amateur try at implying I was a homo when what you actually meant was SAN FRANCISCO. What a complete ignoramus you are.

But thank you, I enjoyed the entire east and west coasts as well as the Great Lakes area and Canada.

Hicks did drugs, and what a poster boy he ended up

You’re too stupid to be Robert Mugabe. Fail, once again. What’s the point of putting up my location on Saturday night ifI was just gonna shit my pants anyway.

My uncle’s Californian 😉 And I never said it was a non-stop den of sin. However there is frequent gang-violence in many of the poorer areas of the major cities. This is a documented fact. I hope you enjoyed San Diego.

Limbaugh should be doing drugs, then he’d have an excuse.

You’re 6’4″-6’5″ as much as I am Robert Mugabe but in any case its not the size of the dog in the fight, its the fight in the dog. You would crap your duds if he turned up anyway

Apparently Limbaugh, who is sober, is so so bad but Bill Hicks, a drug addicted entertainer, is a god on the subject. You can pick and choose your selective American quotes but others can’t?

I think you ought to not watch so much TV as well. Having travelled to the US on numerous occasions its not the non-stop den of sin that your online chess mates portray

We don’t live in America, Headbonius, just so you know. You can move there if you like. Australia would be better off without morons like you voting.

Interesting how Rush Limbaugh sounds about as nonsensical and ranting as most of the hardline right-wingers on this site.

The United States is having a massive prison problem as well. Jails are overcrowded with people who’ve been sent to jail for petty sh-t. Taxpayers are paying exhorbitant amounts of money to keep people in institutions where they’ll be brutalised and hardened into tough criminals.

The murder rate has dropped, but it is still the highest in the western world. Crack is still freely available and easy to purchase off the street in many cities (I’ve spoken to Americans about the ease of getting crack there before).

Do you want to know why the states had such a high rate of murder during the time of that quote anyway? Street Gangs. They live by weird codes of honor and often use violence as a first resort to maintaining the borders of their territory. Many of these gangs, especially the ones in the inner-areas of major cities are heavily armed. Where do they get the money to fund their guerrilla wars that drive many already impoverish areas into utter ruin? Selling crack. Your average crack dealer can make $400 a night.

Sure they get busted if they don’t get shot dead, but it makes no difference. There’ll be two doing the same thing the next day, since there’s little else to do in areas where gang-violence has driven away alot of industry. They’ll make a killing off selling crack at stupidly high prices, buy guns to make real killings, make crack-babies then another body or another prisoner for the cops to deal with.

The fact is, the tougher you get on people with no hopes or dreams, the tougher they get on you.

It’s time we looked at other solutions.

Also, if you honestly want to talk about this face to face, feel free to come down to the Pot or the Basement this Saturday night. See the bands too (there’ll be some good ones). Just look for the 6″4-5 guy with a full dark beard and short hair. I hope you have fun.

Quoting drug addicted American comics is really throwing some worth into it as well. Might as well quote Oliver Reed on the benefits of smashing as much alcohol into oneself as one can.

DMD, FYI, drug possesion, use, and distribution is still against the law. Until it ain’t then the users are crooks. Something you haven’t reallt addressed in your argument. Whinge to the law makers, not us.

For every ‘positive’ contribution to society drug users apparently give, I’ll see you and raise you about a billion negatives. The contents of the Belconnen Remand Centre would be a good start

Deadmandrinking said :

“Lock ‘em up with every other crook, ‘cos that’s what they are. No better than a burglar”

Except of course, that a burglar invades the privacy of someone else’s home and takes their possessions, directly affecting that innocent person financially and emotionally.

I didn’t know the act of being in possession of an illicit substances did all those things. (remember, I said the act, not what it takes to afford the high cost of them – thanks again, war on drugs).

And you think they are in the house taking prized possessions to pay off the S-Class Mercedes they are using as a get away vehicle?

CFMD DMD you are such a tool. What little fantasy land to you live in?

There’s nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods, which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent to Gaol. BTW we have a nice new one just down the road that needs to be filled.

What this says to me is that too many shit head (probably just like you) and getting away with drug use. Too many no hoping pieces of trash are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites,blacks, gooks and rag heads are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we’re not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.

Really if you think your ideas are SFG run for election idiot. Then at least I know where you’ll be when I choose to exact retribution for the slight on my parents.

…We are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks, especially of crime, in too many parts of the country…. This country certainly appears to be tolerant, forgive and forget. I mean, you know as well as I do, you go out and commit the worst murder in the world and you just say you’re sorry, people go, “Oh, OK. A little contrition.”… People say, “I feel better. He said he’s sorry for it.” We’re becoming too tolerant, folks.

–Rush Limbaugh TV show (10/5/95)

These tough sentencing laws were instituted for a reason. The American people, including liberals, demanded them. Don’t you remember the crack cocaine epidemic? Crack babies and out-of-control murder rates? Liberal judges giving the bad guys slaps on the wrist? Finally we got tough, and the crime rate has been falling ever since, so what’s wrong?

Once you’re born into it, you should have a chance and be allowed to make mistakes. You’d also be surprised how many drug-users contribute to our infrastructure.

Not every mind functions the same. Someone quoted Bill Hicks before with his remark about musicians. You of all people should appreciate what some drug-users are capable of, Thumper.

I know a fair few people, I won’t mention what they do, but they’re not just laborers, who use illicit drugs, not frequently, but more than rarely and still function in society and contribute to our economy. Perhaps your and Vg’s views are skewed by the fact that in areas of health (? – not too clear on what you do..) and policing, usually only the people who have major problems with drugs are encountered.

And I’m sorry, but I do honestly believe that everyone in Australia who was either born here or has become a citizen is part of society. Some people just find it hard to fit.

“Lock ‘em up with every other crook, ‘cos that’s what they are. No better than a burglar”

Except of course, that a burglar invades the privacy of someone else’s home and takes their possessions, directly affecting that innocent person financially and emotionally.

I didn’t know the act of being in possession of an illicit substances did all those things. (remember, I said the act, not what it takes to afford the high cost of them – thanks again, war on drugs).

Serpico pull your head out of your posterior.

Comparing your wiki explanation of the prohibition era of the 20s with the present drug issue is pathetic. The contrast is circumstances is stunning, yet you still rant on and on and on……..

“So vg’s solution is what? Imprisonment for taking drugs?”

If someone continues to break the criminal law, and I’m not talking once or twice here, the ‘ken oath. Lock ’em up with every other crook, ‘cos that’s what they are. No better than a burglar

I’m still going for prohibition in that case, then.

Ahh wikipedia – I read it on the internet so it must be true.

if your quick This page indicates that In the United States, the term Prohibition refers to the period 1920 to 1933, during which the sale, manufacture, and transportation of DaNmAn for consumption were banned nationally as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Proving categorically that wiki is 100% true at all times.

Maelinar – “Either pull your head in or pass on whatever qualification level you have in the field of medicine” is what I was responding to.

It’s not my war, VG. I don’t agree with it. I don’t want to see my tax dollars being spent on what I see is a useless enterprise.

I would like to see the Government take real action and start looking at the alternatives to drug prohibition. I would like them to recognize that drugs can also be a symptom of a problem, that is only escalated to being the primary problem by the cost and lack of quality and safety control that is directly caused by prohibition. I would like to see less money going into the hands of criminal organizations that bring suffering and pain to so many innocent people. I would like to see less money spent on imprisoning addicts and more on offering them help and support so they can find an alternative to spending their lives high.

The ‘war on drugs’ offers none of that. It is one of the great failures of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st.

There’s more people in the world than gym junkies who threaten to assault people over the internet, VG. You need to recognize that. Society is about everyone who is born into it, not just those who fit a certain mold.

VG,Are you telling us that you spent 20yrs working with drug addicts.From your ramblings you did’nt learn much.Look up PROHIBITION IN AMERICA 1920-1933 on wikipedia and read what John Rockefellar says about it.Those are the reasons why prohibition of drugs do not work and will NEVER work.

WMD – your quote I would also like to add that under Maelinar’s regime… completely baffles me. Where on earth are you quoting that from, or what have you obtained this opinion from ?

For the official record I have never held the view that you require a formal qualification in order to provide an opinion, and furthermore have upheld this for far beyond the innane ramblings of that idiot who posted his contrary view. Most of the senior posters would have recognised this as not the case already anyway.

it would be interesting to see stats on how many people have been regular recreational drug user nd how many of them end up living that shitful smacky lifestyle. then having a look at those who did end up like that and determine what kind of background they camne from (eg socioeconomic, bogan parents etc etc).

Given that most people i know have tried drugs harder than pot and many people i know have used them on a regular basis for a period in their life and the majority of them are normal/succesful people and far from the junkie stigma as you can get. This makes me believe that the results of the above would be quite eye opening to the anti-drug crowd.

So vg’s solution is what? Imprisonment for taking drugs?

Its your war too………….
No resources being wasted away, they’re all quite healthy
As for the lives, I only feel sorry for the families, not the weak willed individuals who ‘succumb to the terrors’ of illicit drugs. Harden up and get off them, its not as hard as everyone raves about

Your War on drugs is giving us all a laugh. Although it is kind of sad to see all those police resources being wasted away. And the lives.

serpico said :

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

Smoking half a parsley ‘joint’ behind the garden shed when you’re 13yo can hardly be said to be establishing a life of hard drugs and a font of information on the topic.

“The real problem is temptation and availability and no one can stop that.”
Bollocks. If that was the case we’d be a nation of smack-heads. Most of it is because you’re average drug addict is as weak willed as potty calf and uses their ‘addiction’ as a crutch to blame every ill in their life and the deeds many of them commit.

I’d suggest some of you would want to get a little more life experience before you pontificate on society with your background of a half completed arts degree and a square eyes from communicating with your second life ‘buddies’. But I guess 20 years of working with druggies every day stands for nought, whereas 20 mins of Google makes you an expert.

But c’mon DMD, Ingee and Fant, surely you want to lecture us all once again. You can’t resist……………………..

C’mon give us a laugh

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

If we ‘mistakenly’ misquote it, it looks even better! Mods… PLEASE!

Well said, Serpico.

I would also like to add that under Maelinar’s regime, anyone who does not have a degree in hospitality and a degree in journalism cannot write restuarant reviews anymore. Anyone who does not have a law degree cannot comment on the decisions of Canberra’s magistrates. In fact, if you do not have a degree in every subject matter concievable, you shouldn’t really be commenting on this site.

RIOT-ACT: The forum for experts(like Maelinar, Elf Lord of the Universe)

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

Well farq me.

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

Do you want Jazz to have to close another thread?

Petsy: Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you serious????

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

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

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

Pesty said :

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

Yes, there are smackies and methheads in civic.

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

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

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

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

And look…you’re an anarchist, Headbonius.

Aw, poor baby.

dmd AND iNGEE YOU HAVE NO IDEA.

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

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

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

I salute your ability at binding feaces.

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

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

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

Deadmandrinking said :

[Original Moderated]

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

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

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

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

farq said :

Petsy, I sort of covered that when I said:

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

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

As I said, it’s a complex issue.

Fair comment

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

[Moderated]

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

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

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

Petsy, I sort of covered that when I said:

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

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

As I said, it’s a complex issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

Yes, there are smackies and methheads in civic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[moderated]

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

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

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

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

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

serpico said :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pesty

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

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

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

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

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

DMD, the reference to my mother was unneccesary.

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

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

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

Deadmandrinking said :

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

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

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

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

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

vg said :

This is getting easy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well said VG

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

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

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

Debate, or mass debate?

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

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

flap… flap… flap…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow…did you just say that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is getting easy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keyboard sticky now, Maelinar? Don’t cry. That’s what happens.

G and VG, yes, some well off people f-k themselves up on drugs and do completely stupid sh-t. Some well-off people also screw themselves up on alcohol.

This is not to say that there aren’t massive amounts of addicts who take drugs to get away from their problems and/or develop mental illness as a result of too much usage.

Why should drugs be banned because some people are retards? Kind of ‘pandering to a minority’ there, aren’t we? If you’re worried about these people not getting prosecuted for that stuff…well, you do know that assaulting people and stealing cars is illegal right? Before you start waving your arms about drugs being illegal as a preventative measure, remember that it simply has not worked. People are still using drugs frequently. People can still get them easily. I could probably have some sitting on the desk before me by the end of tomorrow (bar pot, which would take me about an hour at the most, I reckon).

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

kapow kapow blam blam, flap flap flap.

I think that’s a strong enough message to all concerned.

Oh dear.

I’m shattered.

But I would bet it was based on the social scene of the time.

Can we all read VG’s post and calm down. There appears no intention to sell drugs by the police, no entrapment, simply catching the crims red handed.

I do agree that we need to consider decriminalising drug use. Illegality has caused massive social disruption, the transfer of massive amounts of money to criminal organisations, and diversion of much needed resources from general policing.

I believe vehement criminalisation grew from US sources empire building after the collapse of prohibition. I would love to see the results of any studies made into the use of heroin in the UK up until it was criminalised (I suspect at the behest of the US). Sherlock Holmes seemed to handle it OK.

Howard employing the head of the Salvation Army as a messenger for strict enforcement of existing anti-drug laws has permanently clouded my view of the Army.

Could we prove our coming of age, and apply some deeper and latteral thinking to this problem?

G

It is dangerous to assume that DMD would comprehend what happens in the real world. Lots of very well off people take drugs and carry on like absolute f*ck bags because they like punching the sh*t through people while they are high as a kite….or pranging cars……or other assorted crimes that have nothing to do with their ‘unfortunate’ backgrounds

DMD you seem to think all people who take drugs have underlying issues. What if they just like drugs and the adrenalin rush of burglaries, armed robbery and stealing cars. That would be a bit too difficult to comprehend for you.

People jump up and down about the addictive side of drugs like heroin and junkies use it to get themselves out of gaol and into rehab etc. Thing is a junkie who likes heroin at the moment is not struggling because of a heroin shortage in Canberra, they just switched to ice instead. How does that fit into the poor victim of society with an addiction view of things.

Guess where the members of that particular Victorian drug squad are now?

let the freaking police get the legislation they need to do their job i say.

For all you hysterical posters out there you obviously have no idea of what goes into a controlled operation. Police will not be ‘selling drugs’ to catch people. All that will happen is that they will be permitted to allow drugs to arrive at their destination and then catch the crooks. If the Police did not have the controlled ops certificate it could be said that they facilitated the crooks committing the offences.

Have a look at Ridgeway’s case in the High Court for what kicked the whole thing off and grow a brain. Small time users will not get caught up in major controlled operations. They involve a lot of time and resources and are designed to get the heavy hitters, not Johnny on the street corner with his $20 bag of dope.

“What an absolute joke…
Looks like more small time drug users will be busted for minor possesion, lucky we are on the verge of having our own prison because this type of thing is filling up the gaols all over the country..”

Perhaps in other states people are sent to prison for minor drug possession. It will never happen in the ACT.

What an absolute joke…
Looks like more small time drug users will be busted for minor possesion, lucky we are on the verge of having our own prison because this type of thing is filling up the gaols all over the country..

Serpico – yes there was corruption in Victoria police drug squad and probably still is like every other police suffers from. Does not mean you don’t do the difficult stuff like using under cover cops buying and selling. Main thing is to ensure the young cops doing the work are properly supervised and supported. They are the ones with the fresh faces who can come to grief. Correct audit checks need top be in place to make sure the older guys are doing the right thing.

I can post whenever I damn like, thanks, VG (If you really want to know, I’m on holidays).

Of course drugs do damage. I’m not saying that the legalization of drugs will cure everything. There will still be incurable addicts, there will be violent users (although, I’ve said before that if speed were regulated, there is a chance ice would be wiped off the face of the planet), there will still be families torn apart and lives lost. The legalization of drugs will not cure the problems surrounding the use of drugs entirely.

The thing is, though, all of this stuff is happening already. To a wide variety of families across a wide scope of socio-economic statuses (Drugs have affected members of my family – and we’re your average middle-class pretty much). The war on drugs is not stopping this from happening, nor is it helping bring an end to the suffering that surrounds addiction. It only works to benefit those who distribute drugs on a large scale. It has failed what it set out to do. Simple as that. We need to try something else.

Drugs are usually the symptom of deeper problems, anyway. At least by removing the legal stigma against users, we’d increase their confidence in seeking help for the problems they’ve been trying to get away from with drugs – instead of just trying to force them to sober up and be alone with their problems.

serpico said :

This will just create more corruption in the Drug squad.Look what happened in Victoria with there controlled drug operations.It was an absolute joke,the police became the major supplier of drugs.WHY, one word TEMPTATION.The war on drugs was lost years ago.The only way to deal with the drug scourge is to legalise all drugs.The governments can then regulate them just like it does with alcohol and tobacco.No need for a drug squad and all drug dealers go out of business.

Props

This will just create more corruption in the Drug squad.Look what happened in Victoria with there controlled drug operations.It was an absolute joke,the police became the major supplier of drugs.WHY, one word TEMPTATION.The war on drugs was lost years ago.The only way to deal with the drug scourge is to legalise all drugs.The governments can then regulate them just like it does with alcohol and tobacco.No need for a drug squad and all drug dealers go out of business.

What about drunk wife-beaters and killers, then?

What about them?

vg and I don’t always agree, but this is one area where I think vg’s comments are spot on. Drugs do a shedload of damage, not just to victims of drug related crime but to the families and friends of the junkies.

I have no doubt that a number of people here use illicit substances on occasion, and think it’s fine, but my opinion is that ultimately, drugs are a destructive influence.

The fact that some drugs are legal in no way excuses the use of (and damage caused by) the illegal variants.

If police being able to sell drugs to help catch out crooks and push junkies to rehab, that’s a good thing.

I wish to apologize publicy to Paperboy. I was mistaken. H/she does have a future past being a paperboy. With the mount of insight they have into matters legal and their ability to take a story and twist it around ” Ice, Meth and E soon to be sold by the cops” Paperboy has a future as a presenter on Today Tonight. Hell they may even replace Anna Coren with this amount of skill. I just want to hear the segue into this story from the preceding story about a child with 4 Mom’s.

Well this debate has quickly fallen by the wayside. It’s understandable that people get so emotional when discussiong drug addiction and its associated consequences. Both those in favour of keeping illicit drugs illicit and those in favour of legalising illicit drugs are guilty of descending into hyperbole, and that is quite clear here.

All policies have their unintended consequences and these unintended consequences have to be acknowledged.

Putting aside my own philosophical opposition to Government bans, I think that on a practical measure, the drug war has been a massive failure (even moreso in the US).

Die narc scum!

So that means the cops are legally allowed to sell as oppossed to just selling as some do?

A ‘defo suite’?

What’s that? A room next to a laundry?

.

dmd – that kind of negates your point doesn’t it? I mean, alcohol is cheap and legal yet we still get drunkards who beat their wives, neglect their kids…

A junkie thinks of one thing – the next score. Making it cheap and available just makes that score come quicker.

Deadmandrinking said :

What about drunk wife-beaters and killers, then?

What about them?

How do they relate to controlled operations being as their possession and use is legal?

Was that noise I heard a penny dropping?

Fant, hush now, the adults are speaking. You make no sense, especially when you try and shorten legal words to sound super cool, but just look super silly. Maybe you and DMD can hook up online for a big RSVP an online bridge session. You really do need something if you are posting at 2.29am on a Monday morning

Paperboy, I am assuming your name actually reflects your actual occupation and you are 12 to 15 years old. This assumption is based upon the totally off target nature of your posting. These laws have nothing to do with Cops selling E’s or other drugs. It has nothing to do with addicts. It is equally surprising that other more supposedly mature and educated posters have jumped on the fantasies.

Please stick to being a paperboy, you’ll never make a lawyer.

Deadmandrinking said :

What about drunk wife-beaters and killers, then?

Ooooh, you’re courting a defo suite with that one, DMD! Defaming a pseudonym is a serious offence.

Off-topic, can anyone explain the need for “ice” and “meth” to be mentioned separately in the title of this article? They’re both methamphetamine.

Looking forward to any replies to this post.

What about drunk wife-beaters and killers, then?

Skip

Do you love fear

or

Do you fear love?

God bless

vg said :

Skip

I am just high on life

God bless

Don’t you get religious on me

Skip

I am just high on life

God bless

Flap somewhere else with that sputum

Wow vg, that’s really deep! You’ve been shooting up corn flour again?

Deadmandrinking said :

Tell me, (Barring your professional dealings, of course) how has a junkie’s drug-use affected you apart from matters which are related to the exorbitant price of drugs (i.e. theft)?

If drugs were legal and cheaper, would someone taking heroin in their home affect you?

Honest to god if your post doesn’t exemplify naivety and immaturity I don’t know what does. Try friends who have had the shit beaten out of them by an ice freak, being stuck with a used pick, watch children being neglected to the point of starvation and malnutrition because of the alternate universe their drug affected parents live in……..and none of this was through ‘professional’ dealings.

Christ you need to grow up

Flap somewhere else with that sputum

Skip said :

vg said :

Deadmandrinking said :

What’s your definition of minority, vg?

The opposite to the majority of society that don’t smash illicit hard drugs into their system, and I’m not talking smoking dope once in your life.

What an incoherent dumbarse post! Better not stop taking those pills vg

Nice try Skippy. Looks quite coherent to me, but then again I am literate

Cops who go undercover to buy sell drugs have got balls. Good way to bleed prospective new D’s. A friend of mine down South went through this process to become a D. Not for the faint hearted.

Are these the same powers the NSW Crime Commission operate under?

vg said :

Deadmandrinking said :

What’s your definition of minority, vg?

The opposite to the majority of society that don’t smash illicit hard drugs into their system, and I’m not talking smoking dope once in your life.

What an incoherent dumbarse post! Better not stop taking those pills vg

Remember that by definition, entrapment requires a law enforcement official to entice the subject into committing a crime that they would not otherwise intend to commit. For that reason, I can’t see how this legislation could provide law enforcement with any legal ability to entrap law abiding citizens – there is no provision for offering drugs to citizens randomly in order to make an arrest.

If an officer wanted to do this, they would do it regardless of this new legislation as it would be corrupt and illegal, would not stand up in court, and there would be much easier and more discrete ways (such as planting drugs during a property search) to make such an arrest.

Tell me, (Barring your professional dealings, of course) how has a junkie’s drug-use affected you apart from matters which are related to the exorbitant price of drugs (i.e. theft)?

If drugs were legal and cheaper, would someone taking heroin in their home affect you?

Deadmandrinking said :

What’s your definition of minority, vg?

The opposite to the majority of society that don’t smash illicit hard drugs into their system, and I’m not talking smoking dope once in your life.

Go back to bed, Pesty. The world is too hard.

Deadmandrinking said :

I understand this is going to be used to snare the big fish. As a short term solution this is not a bad thing. In the long term…well, take one dealer down, another takes his place, then another, then another. Demand’s always going to find some sort of supply somehow. I think it’s time society really started to look at the impact of the failed ‘war on drugs’ and thought about real solutions to the problems with drugs.

How? nuke the golden triangle?.

For those interested in the entrapment implications.

Here’s what Simon Corbell had to say in his press release on the laws.

“The law will protect Police from prosecution for authorised acts that occur in the conduct of controlled operations and will ensure Courts cannot exclude evidence simply because it was gathered in the course of a controlled operation”. Mr Corbell said.

What’s your definition of minority, vg?

Like what, rolling over, playing dead, giving up and pandering to another minority?

I understand this is going to be used to snare the big fish. As a short term solution this is not a bad thing. In the long term…well, take one dealer down, another takes his place, then another, then another. Demand’s always going to find some sort of supply somehow. I think it’s time society really started to look at the impact of the failed ‘war on drugs’ and thought about real solutions to the problems with drugs.

The civil liberties moron should do a bit more reading as to what constitutes ‘entrapment’. If entrapment is established then any criminal case will fail because of it. The legislation just brings us into line with the same style of Commonwwealth legislation, which allows Police to permit a criminal act that was set into motion by the crooks (i.e. importation of drugs).

“yeah cos recipients of drugs are the big fish in the whole drug chain.”
Grow up

Not before time, and a great outcome for the forces of law and order. To that end, I am somewhat surprised that Mr Stanhopeless has agreed to this legislation.

Fabforty, if you do entrap some clueless addict at the interchange and therefore push that person towards rehab, all the better too.

Paperboy, did you actually read the article ? If you did, you clearly don’t quite understand it.

This is about giving police the ability to properly run covert operations to combat high level drug dealing and money laundering. It is about getting the drug bosses and traffickers and securing proper convictions.

It is not about deliberately entrapping some clueless addict at the bus interchange.

Jonathan: Two situations…

First, entrapment:

Cop: Hi would you like to buy some horse?
Gumby: Why yes please sir!
Cop: You’re nicked, sunshine.

Second, not entrapment:

Gumby: Hi may I have some delicious methamphetamine please?
Cop: Sure, enjoy. Also, you’re nicked.

I dont buy or use drugs, so I guess I have nothing to worry about then. Oh well.

I think you’ve missed the point.

Eg Drugs intercepted by customs or courier service. Current situation drugs are binned, job complete, nobody is charged.

New legislation (on par with everywhere else in the country). The police take possession of the drugs, take them to the intended recipient in an operation and nab Mr Tran.

tybreaker said :

yeah cos recipients of drugs are the big fish in the whole drug chain.

If you don’t have a distribution network or a way of getting a product (in this case poisionous drugs) to the potential buyers, explain how the big fish can profit?? Once it becomes common knowledge in the potential buyer ranks that it may be a cop they are buying from, the potential buyer may think twice.

I agree with the general sentiment of the majority of the posts thus far; if it stops one teenager from ruining their life I am in full support of it…….

There are moments in time where someone genuinely needs the noise made by these drongos to bring a significant wrong to the attention of the public. Sadly, they spend so much time demanding we honour the right of some deviant, drug pusher, or axe murderer to not be punished in a nasty way for their evil acts, that we have usually stopped listening. FFS, this is a law to enable cops to catch murdering bastards whose sole motivation is to get rich at the expense – read life – of anyone young or stupid or vulnerable enough to think that being cool and taking drugs is worth being dead. Or worse, being alive and addicted to this shit. All the rights, none of the responsibility.

So what if they do go undercover to entrap the receipients? Anything that adds to the risk of being caught in possession or attempting to possess drugs is good IMO. I would rather my teenager was caught-out trying to buy this shit rather than have her hooked on it. What we are dealing with here is not trying to catch out someone driving 10ks over the speed limit, this is potentially life ruining drugs aimed mainly at our kids. A special place in hell for ALL those who deal in the stuff (not the cops) I say.

I like the way the civil libertarians justify their position in the ABC story by saying:

“The legislation on its face appears to be authorisation of activities that could constitute entrapment activities by law enforcement officers”

Given that it is already illegal to either be in possession or purchase Ice, Meth and E, how is this entrapment? If you are a law abiding citizen this legislation will never affect you.

My only concern is that it targets users and does nothing to stem and restrict the actual supply and source of the drugs in the first place.

yeah cos recipients of drugs are the big fish in the whole drug chain.

DAMN!

It’s controlled delivery legislation. Basically the power for the police to continue a drug delivery after drugs have been intercepted to nab the recipient. Without this legislation there is difficulty in prosecuting the recipients of anything if police have replaced the drugs with fake drugs.

Police will not be selling drugs out of a Mr Whippy van in Civic to entrap the public.