Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

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

By paperboy - 5 July 2008 163

ABC recently reported that the laws are being upgraded in the ACT to allow our local police to possess and sell drugs.

It brings our laws into line with other states, allowing officers to buy and sell drugs, without fear of being prosecuted themselves for possessing the illegal substance.

It’s probably surprising they haven’t had this power before now, but when the laws are passed, it will certainly change the atmosphere in and around many of Canberra’s better known nightclubs. Not to mention a few of the city’s dark lanes and back streets.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
163 Responses to
Ice, Meth and E soon to be sold by the cops
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
5
Clown Killer 1:50 pm 09 Jul 08

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.

imhotep 1:35 pm 09 Jul 08

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.

farq 1:35 pm 09 Jul 08

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.

Pesty 1:24 pm 09 Jul 08

Thumper said :

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

Yes, there are smackies and methheads in civic.

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

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

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

jakez 1:22 pm 09 Jul 08

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

Ingeegoodbee 12:32 pm 09 Jul 08

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 …

Headbonius 12:14 pm 09 Jul 08

[moderated]

Ingeegoodbee 11:30 am 09 Jul 08

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]

Jazz 10:31 am 09 Jul 08

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

Headbonius 9:20 am 09 Jul 08

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.

Thumper 8:26 am 09 Jul 08

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.

Pesty 8:11 am 09 Jul 08

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?

Mælinar 11:16 pm 08 Jul 08

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 ?

Thumper 10:46 pm 08 Jul 08

Ask an ambo what they think of smack.

You’ll you get an extremely blunt answer that has very little to do with ideaology and lots to do with reality.

Comparing smack, coke, ice with booze is simply purile and a pointless argument that has been used by wet liberal democrats since the mid 70s.

MRB 10:37 pm 08 Jul 08

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?

Deadmandrinking 10:14 pm 08 Jul 08

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

serpico 10:08 pm 08 Jul 08

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.

MRB 9:56 pm 08 Jul 08

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?

Deadmandrinking 9:33 pm 08 Jul 08

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

DJ 8:57 pm 08 Jul 08

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.

5

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site