Five years for heroin addict serial burglar (From Daily Echo)

Cannabis- heroin. Usual gateway effect despite the blithering nonsense trotted out by the dope-brigade. Just wait for the 'scientific' pap that gets squeezed out by the apologists. Not forgetting the bleatings about 'alcohol abuse' etc etc.


Probably same numpties who blame us all for 'global warming'

Complete waster. The judge said he could go away for longer ? Why not sentence him to life now I say.......30 offences and convicted 17 times before ???? How many chances does one get ? Lock him up throw away the key. This kinda scum never learn...........his record proves it.

Poor boy has a drugs problem, lock him up for twenty years, let him go cold turkey in his cell all alone, that would kill two birds with one stone, the people who live near this scumbag would be able to venture out without the fear that he would burgle their homes and he would be cured of his drugs addiction, problem solved,

King Mush wrote:
Cannabis- heroin. Usual gateway effect despite the blithering nonsense trotted out by the dope-brigade. Just wait for the 'scientific' pap that gets squeezed out by the apologists. Not forgetting the bleatings about 'alcohol abuse' etc etc.


Probably same numpties who blame us all for 'global warming'

Hum, don't think we need to involve science - just statistics.
I have seen estimates that 40% of the population have used cannabis at least once and some 5% use it at least once a week. I can't vouch for the accuracy of these figures but would believe them to be in the right ball-park.
That's about 3 million people in the UK. Do we also have 3 million heroin addicts? Er, no. Nowhere near it. Need I say more?

freefinker wrote:

King Mush wrote:
Cannabis- heroin. Usual gateway effect despite the blithering nonsense trotted out by the dope-brigade. Just wait for the 'scientific' pap that gets squeezed out by the apologists. Not forgetting the bleatings about 'alcohol abuse' etc etc.


Probably same numpties who blame us all for 'global warming'

Hum, don't think we need to involve science - just statistics.
I have seen estimates that 40% of the population have used cannabis at least once and some 5% use it at least once a week. I can't vouch for the accuracy of these figures but would believe them to be in the right ball-park.
That's about 3 million people in the UK. Do we also have 3 million heroin addicts? Er, no. Nowhere near it. Need I say more?

your true gateway drugs are your humble tobacco and alcohol. even coffee and tea are drugs, cannabis comes after those.

As usual we have a defence barrister using drug addiction as a mitigating factor for their client. In future any barrister using this as an excuse should be fined themsleves. Any defendant who allows drugs or alcohol to be used as a mitigating factor should have their sentence doubled immediately.

lock him up for 20 years? don't be daft, he has 5 years worth of drug usage now, handed on a plate. jail has more drugs in it, and easier to get, than it is on the outside.

samantha pia wrote:
lock him up for 20 years? don't be daft, he has 5 years worth of drug usage now, handed on a plate. jail has more drugs in it, and easier to get, than it is on the outside.

True enough but at least hes off the streets so honest people dont have to worry over him. And who really cares about the figures of cannbis use ot drugs use ??? Only figures we need are the crimes hes been caught for and admitted to. Over 40 criminal acts hes deserves to hang really.

stmarysmush wrote:

samantha pia wrote:
lock him up for 20 years? don't be daft, he has 5 years worth of drug usage now, handed on a plate. jail has more drugs in it, and easier to get, than it is on the outside.

True enough but at least hes off the streets so honest people dont have to worry over him. And who really cares about the figures of cannbis use ot drugs use ??? Only figures we need are the crimes hes been caught for and admitted to. Over 40 criminal acts hes deserves to hang really.

the biggest problem is that there is no jobs out there for people, the conditions have been getting worse for the last 30 years. we need a radical rethink on how we do things, before its to late.

stmarysmush wrote:

samantha pia wrote:
lock him up for 20 years? don't be daft, he has 5 years worth of drug usage now, handed on a plate. jail has more drugs in it, and easier to get, than it is on the outside.

True enough but at least hes off the streets so honest people dont have to worry over him. And who really cares about the figures of cannbis use ot drugs use ??? Only figures we need are the crimes hes been caught for and admitted to. Over 40 criminal acts hes deserves to hang really.

well hung................
....like a phesant.

southy wrote:

stmarysmush wrote:

samantha pia wrote: lock him up for 20 years? don't be daft, he has 5 years worth of drug usage now, handed on a plate. jail has more drugs in it, and easier to get, than it is on the outside.

True enough but at least hes off the streets so honest people dont have to worry over him. And who really cares about the figures of cannbis use ot drugs use ??? Only figures we need are the crimes hes been caught for and admitted to. Over 40 criminal acts hes deserves to hang really.

the biggest problem is that there is no jobs out there for people, the conditions have been getting worse for the last 30 years. we need a radical rethink on how we do things, before its to late.

Southy are you turning into some kind of bleeding heart liberal ? This has nothing to do with the lack of jobs. Given that the guy has 17 previous convictions and has asked for 28 to be taken into consideration it's pretty clear that he has spent most of his adult life robbing people to pay for his habit. When he's not out burgling he's probably high as a kite and has never looked for work in his life. Put the smack head away for 10 years with the first year in solitary to dry out. If he still wants his fix after that at least he'll be inside and will have to find some other way of paying for it.

Do we need to radically rethink our attitude to heroin? Samantha pia is correct that heroin is very easy to obtain in prisons, so "locking them up", My View from the Hill, will NOT result in the cold turkey you envisage.
Far from it, they come out still addicted - but also with an "education" in how to be more efficient criminals.
Meanwhile, outside prison, the police estimate that some 80 to 90% of "petty" crime, like this individual has committed, is carried out by addicts for the sole reason of funding their very expensive habit.
Now, if we treated heroin addiction as a disease, and the state provided addicts with a free supply, coupled with some serious rehabilitation programmes, we solve many problems, i.e. : -
* reduced prison population
* vast reduction in petty crime
* cuts out organised crime in its importation and supply
* better supervision of addicts
* an end to adulterated supplies.
Our policies for fighting heroin over the last 40 years have clearly failed. It's time to start thinking "out of the box" if we are to rid society of the consequences of drug addiction.

freefinker wrote:
Do we need to radically rethink our attitude to heroin? Samantha pia is correct that heroin is very easy to obtain in prisons, so "locking them up", My View from the Hill, will NOT result in the cold turkey you envisage. Far from it, they come out still addicted - but also with an "education" in how to be more efficient criminals. Meanwhile, outside prison, the police estimate that some 80 to 90% of "petty" crime, like this individual has committed, is carried out by addicts for the sole reason of funding their very expensive habit. Now, if we treated heroin addiction as a disease, and the state provided addicts with a free supply, coupled with some serious rehabilitation programmes, we solve many problems, i.e. : - * reduced prison population * vast reduction in petty crime * cuts out organised crime in its importation and supply * better supervision of addicts * an end to adulterated supplies. Our policies for fighting heroin over the last 40 years have clearly failed. It's time to start thinking "out of the box" if we are to rid society of the consequences of drug addiction.

The best place for supervising addicts who commit crime is prison. I have no problem with people destroying their own lives with their drug-taking, it's their choice. As soon as they start committing criminal acts to maintain their habit they should be hammered by the full weight of the law. If this means being locked up until they are clean then so be it. Instead of using scarce resources to maintain their habit put more effort into making it harder to get drugs in prison - most of which get there via bent screws. Also make life in prison a little less comfortable. If you can't keep the junkies off the drugs at least keep them off the streets.

He will be out in 30 months! That's 1 month inside for every job! Call that justice? Ask the victims!
Even 10 years will only be 2 months per job. Throw away the key - he will be a drain on society forever!

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

King Mush wrote:
Cannabis- heroin. Usual gateway effect despite the blithering nonsense trotted out by the dope-brigade. Just wait for the 'scientific' pap that gets squeezed out by the apologists. Not forgetting the bleatings about 'alcohol abuse' etc etc.


Probably same numpties who blame us all for 'global warming'

Hum, don't think we need to involve science - just statistics.
I have seen estimates that 40% of the population have used cannabis at least once and some 5% use it at least once a week. I can't vouch for the accuracy of these figures but would believe them to be in the right ball-park.
That's about 3 million people in the UK. Do we also have 3 million heroin addicts? Er, no. Nowhere near it. Need I say more?

your true gateway drugs are your humble tobacco and alcohol. even coffee and tea are drugs, cannabis comes after those.

Quite right. I hope King Mush never dabbles with caffene.

Drug use and abuse has been with us since we crawled out of a cave. The current demonisation is a relatively recent attitude.

And after a quarter of a century of the 'war on drugs', has use gone down? Have problems decreased?

No. Prohibition doesn't work.

freefinker wrote:
Do we need to radically rethink our attitude to heroin? Samantha pia is correct that heroin is very easy to obtain in prisons, so "locking them up", My View from the Hill, will NOT result in the cold turkey you envisage.
Far from it, they come out still addicted - but also with an "education" in how to be more efficient criminals.
Meanwhile, outside prison, the police estimate that some 80 to 90% of "petty" crime, like this individual has committed, is carried out by addicts for the sole reason of funding their very expensive habit.
Now, if we treated heroin addiction as a disease, and the state provided addicts with a free supply, coupled with some serious rehabilitation programmes, we solve many problems, i.e. : -
* reduced prison population
* vast reduction in petty crime
* cuts out organised crime in its importation and supply
* better supervision of addicts
* an end to adulterated supplies.
Our policies for fighting heroin over the last 40 years have clearly failed. It's time to start thinking "out of the box" if we are to rid society of the consequences of drug addiction.

good post freefinker

carpe diem, you need to look at why people end up on this road too, its probley to late for people like this nipper, but we can help our selfs by trying to prevent it in the first place. prevention is better than the cure most of the time.
poverty and dispare are the sort of things that lead to drink and drug abuse.

Carpe Diem, you obviously have no idea how much it costs to warehouse drug addicts in prison, or, it would seem, the cost of pure medical heroin.
The former is, probably, several ten's of thousands of pounds per annum, the latter a matter of a few pence.
I'm suggesting we save the state huge amounts of dosh AND cut crime substantially.
I can't see your solution achieving either of these benefits.

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote: Do we need to radically rethink our attitude to heroin? Samantha pia is correct that heroin is very easy to obtain in prisons, so "locking them up", My View from the Hill, will NOT result in the cold turkey you envisage. Far from it, they come out still addicted - but also with an "education" in how to be more efficient criminals. Meanwhile, outside prison, the police estimate that some 80 to 90% of "petty" crime, like this individual has committed, is carried out by addicts for the sole reason of funding their very expensive habit. Now, if we treated heroin addiction as a disease, and the state provided addicts with a free supply, coupled with some serious rehabilitation programmes, we solve many problems, i.e. : - * reduced prison population * vast reduction in petty crime * cuts out organised crime in its importation and supply * better supervision of addicts * an end to adulterated supplies. Our policies for fighting heroin over the last 40 years have clearly failed. It's time to start thinking "out of the box" if we are to rid society of the consequences of drug addiction.

good post freefinker carpe diem, you need to look at why people end up on this road too, its probley to late for people like this nipper, but we can help our selfs by trying to prevent it in the first place. prevention is better than the cure most of the time. poverty and dispare are the sort of things that lead to drink and drug abuse.

It's not poverty and despair that lead to drink and drug problems. It's lack of discipline, lack of any kind of work ethic and lack of punishment for wrongdoers. Prison is for punishment not rehabilitation. If a drug taker commits crime to fund their habit they are not the victim they are the perpetrator. You know it's wrong, I know it's wrong and they know it's wrong - but still they do it because prison is not an effective deterrent. Make prison a deterrent and crime will drastically reduce.

freefinker wrote:
Carpe Diem, you obviously have no idea how much it costs to warehouse drug addicts in prison, or, it would seem, the cost of pure medical heroin. The former is, probably, several ten's of thousands of pounds per annum, the latter a matter of a few pence. I'm suggesting we save the state huge amounts of dosh AND cut crime substantially. I can't see your solution achieving either of these benefits.

If the criminals are in prison they can't be doing the crime. Your approach doesn't work either, pilot schemes that tried exactly what you are advocating found that the majority of addicts used the prescribed heroin substitutes and still committed crime to buy additional street drugs. The issue or prison costs can be addressed making prisons less comfortable for prisoners. Forget their rights as they forgot the rights of their victims. The only rights they should have in prison are to be fed and watered.

Carpe Diem, you are still "looking through the wrong end of the telescope".
If the state provided free heroin for addicts (at almost zero cost) the addicts don't need to commit crime (at vast expense to society - through police and court involvement, imprisonment and our insurance premiums).
I'm not trying to assess why addicts become addicts, I'm just trying to suggest a more efficient and much cheaper way of treating them of this disease AFTER they have become addicted.

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote: Do we need to radically rethink our attitude to heroin? Samantha pia is correct that heroin is very easy to obtain in prisons, so "locking them up", My View from the Hill, will NOT result in the cold turkey you envisage. Far from it, they come out still addicted - but also with an "education" in how to be more efficient criminals. Meanwhile, outside prison, the police estimate that some 80 to 90% of "petty" crime, like this individual has committed, is carried out by addicts for the sole reason of funding their very expensive habit. Now, if we treated heroin addiction as a disease, and the state provided addicts with a free supply, coupled with some serious rehabilitation programmes, we solve many problems, i.e. : - * reduced prison population * vast reduction in petty crime * cuts out organised crime in its importation and supply * better supervision of addicts * an end to adulterated supplies. Our policies for fighting heroin over the last 40 years have clearly failed. It's time to start thinking "out of the box" if we are to rid society of the consequences of drug addiction.

good post freefinker carpe diem, you need to look at why people end up on this road too, its probley to late for people like this nipper, but we can help our selfs by trying to prevent it in the first place. prevention is better than the cure most of the time. poverty and dispare are the sort of things that lead to drink and drug abuse.

It's not poverty and despair that lead to drink and drug problems. It's lack of discipline, lack of any kind of work ethic and lack of punishment for wrongdoers. Prison is for punishment not rehabilitation. If a drug taker commits crime to fund their habit they are not the victim they are the perpetrator. You know it's wrong, I know it's wrong and they know it's wrong - but still they do it because prison is not an effective deterrent. Make prison a deterrent and crime will drastically reduce.

its to well know that the connection is there, between no work or very poorly paid jobs, leading to poverty and dispare, and then turning to drink and drugs. then leading to crime.
we can make a start by making more jobs upping the nwm. the best condition is to have more well paid jobs than there is unemployed. but thats not going to happen, because the bosses would not be able to dictate to the work force to have a wage cut or keep the wage low, because if you was unhappy you would be able to leave that job in the morning and be in another one that afternoon.
it is also known that people who are well off and do take drugs and drink dont tend to abuse it, and dont turn to crime because of it.

freefinker wrote:
Carpe Diem, you are still "looking through the wrong end of the telescope". If the state provided free heroin for addicts (at almost zero cost) the addicts don't need to commit crime (at vast expense to society - through police and court involvement, imprisonment and our insurance premiums). I'm not trying to assess why addicts become addicts, I'm just trying to suggest a more efficient and much cheaper way of treating them of this disease AFTER they have become addicted.

If the state provides free heroin the addicts have no incentive to get off the drugs. As per my previous post, it's been tried. It didn't work. The junkies still went out and robbed people to get an additional fix.

Carpe Diem wrote:

freefinker wrote:
Carpe Diem, you are still "looking through the wrong end of the telescope". If the state provided free heroin for addicts (at almost zero cost) the addicts don't need to commit crime (at vast expense to society - through police and court involvement, imprisonment and our insurance premiums). I'm not trying to assess why addicts become addicts, I'm just trying to suggest a more efficient and much cheaper way of treating them of this disease AFTER they have become addicted.

If the state provides free heroin the addicts have no incentive to get off the drugs. As per my previous post, it's been tried. It didn't work. The junkies still went out and robbed people to get an additional fix.

No, I'm sorry, you're confusing two different things.

Where heroin SUBSTITUTES are handed out, the problem often persists.

Where medical-grade heroin itself is handed out ('shooting galleries'), there have been very positive results.

Carpe Diem wrote:

freefinker wrote:
Carpe Diem, you are still "looking through the wrong end of the telescope". If the state provided free heroin for addicts (at almost zero cost) the addicts don't need to commit crime (at vast expense to society - through police and court involvement, imprisonment and our insurance premiums). I'm not trying to assess why addicts become addicts, I'm just trying to suggest a more efficient and much cheaper way of treating them of this disease AFTER they have become addicted.

If the state provides free heroin the addicts have no incentive to get off the drugs. As per my previous post, it's been tried. It didn't work. The junkies still went out and robbed people to get an additional fix.

I can also see the UK rapidly become a bigger magnet than it already is for the world's dross
The far East seem to have effective deterents to both drug use and trafficking, maybe along with tougher prisons we could try some of their tactics?
Last resort, invade the world's biggest heroin producer to dry up the source....um, that's A/Stan isn't it?

The pilot schemes you mention are usually methadone substitution schemes. They almost never work as methadone is not a "satisfactory" substitute for the addicts "cravings".
Additionally, unless EVERY addict is on such a scheme, the opportunity is always there to undercut the pushers by selling on.
Make heroin free to all addicts and both these problems with the badly thought out trials you refer to vanish completely.

freefinker wrote:

King Mush wrote:
Cannabis- heroin. Usual gateway effect despite the blithering nonsense trotted out by the dope-brigade. Just wait for the 'scientific' pap that gets squeezed out by the apologists. Not forgetting the bleatings about 'alcohol abuse' etc etc.


Probably same numpties who blame us all for 'global warming'

Hum, don't think we need to involve science - just statistics.
I have seen estimates that 40% of the population have used cannabis at least once and some 5% use it at least once a week. I can't vouch for the accuracy of these figures but would believe them to be in the right ball-park.
That's about 3 million people in the UK. Do we also have 3 million heroin addicts? Er, no. Nowhere near it. Need I say more?

We are back to the basic underlying debate that has gone on for ages.

Freefinker has seen 'estimates' - well that really settles it all but I think that 99.9% of us might not believe any kind of 'figures, statistics' etc Most data comes via the government and we all trust in them implicitly dont we? Some 'ball park' eh?

To quote the pro-rata 'argument' about 3 million cannabis users cranking up to 3m heroin addicts is laughable in the extreme.

Others roll out the caffeine barrel as well! ROTFLMAO

I am well aware that mental hospitals are full of psychosis -ridden patients as a direct proven result of ingesting dangerous toxic brain--cell zapping chemicals - notably the recent high strength skunk. Yes - I know all about alcohol abuse and 'normal' nicotine related heath problems. I''ve had pals and family lost due not being able to 'control' their habits.


FWIW I drink loads of tea/coffee. I drink moderately. I have the occasional small flutter on the horses. I buy the odd lottery ticket. I enjoy the occasional bit of p0rn. Dont most of us?

Its a sad fact that some people have addictive personalities and will not ignore peer pressure or just come from dysfunctional backgrounds.

I personally dont care what anybody does with their lives - unless they progress to stealing, mugging, stabbing to fund their next fix. I dont want to be driving my family around with scummy junkies on the same road. I resent much of my taxes being spent on the 'care' of these wastes of space. I dont want see our hospitals full of these idiots, whilst genuine cases get turned away.

I'm not in the mod for wasting more of my time in repeating my other points.

King Mush wrote:

"I am well aware that mental hospitals are full of psychosis -ridden patients as a direct proven result of ingesting dangerous toxic brain--cell zapping chemicals - notably the recent high strength skunk."

You'd be wrong then. The media splash was for a small and flawed study in NZ. This has since been shown to be wrong. Funnily enough, the media didn't pick up the "CANNABIS DOESN'T CAUSE SCHIZOPHRENIA" story with as much gusto...

A recent Cochrane study has confirmed that there is no evidential link.

'Skunk' is a media invention by the way. The potency of cannabis has changed very little since the 50s. See Goldacre for more on this.

Send them to prison until they can prove they have dried out, not 1.2.3.4. years sentence they have got to prove they have come off drugs completely.

espanuel wrote:
Send them to prison until they can prove they have dried out, not 1.2.3.4. years sentence they have got to prove they have come off drugs completely.

More addicts come out of prison than go in.

Redback wrote:
King Mush wrote:

"I am well aware that mental hospitals are full of psychosis -ridden patients as a direct proven result of ingesting dangerous toxic brain--cell zapping chemicals - notably the recent high strength skunk."

You'd be wrong then. The media splash was for a small and flawed study in NZ. This has since been shown to be wrong. Funnily enough, the media didn't pick up the "CANNABIS DOESN'T CAUSE SCHIZOPHRENIA" story with as much gusto...

A recent Cochrane study has confirmed that there is no evidential link.

'Skunk' is a media invention by the way. The potency of cannabis has changed very little since the 50s. See Goldacre for more on this.

but there is an evidential link between alcohol and schizophrenia, the human race has known that for a very long time now. well over 100 years.

Redback wrote:

espanuel wrote:
Send them to prison until they can prove they have dried out, not 1.2.3.4. years sentence they have got to prove they have come off drugs completely.

More addicts come out of prison than go in.

At least they can also get/receive as much sex as they want. Not always voluntarily - it goes with the territory along with graduating from the University of Crime.

Druggies need specialist help in specialist units - not mixed with up the dregs of society in mainstream prisons. The violent dangerous types need to be kept away from the rest of us.

King Mush, so nice of you to tell us all so much about yourself, but, so what? What are you trying to say?
You started off this whole discussion with "Cannabis- heroin. Usual gateway effect .. " My point was that the so-called "gateway effect" seems to be a meaningless phrase.
I don't doubt that almost all heroin addicts have consumed cannabis - and, also, their mothers milk, rice pudding, chocolate, coffee, alcohol, etc, etc ad infinitum.
However, the fact that there are, let us say, millions who have tried cannabis and only, perhaps, ten's of thousands of heroin addicts, clearly demonstrates that one does NOT lead to the other. It's simple statistics.

When it comes to Crime, left-wing thinkers are apologists for the mayhem and hurt caused by criminals and right-wing thinkers offer draconian blunderbuss answers that only temporarily stem, not halt the problem.

Society has in recent decades, become too tolerant, too accepting, of the suffering criminals generate for individuals and families and the blight they bring to entire communities.

For my money, the heart of the problem lays within families.

If morals/values/self-d
iscipline/self-worth
/respect for yourself and respect for others is missing in early family life then by adulthood it is far too late for everyone and the only response should then be to remove criminals from the communities they hurt and keep them removed in a civilised place and not allow them to return until they have learned the self-responsibility/
self-respect their parents did not teach them.

The quality of life for honest law-abiding citizens and their sense of feeling secure within their homes and safe within the communities in which they live, needs to be restored.

The pendulum needs to swing back in their favour.

Their rights and needs must take precedence over those of the people who hurt and damage them.

freefinker wrote:
The pilot schemes you mention are usually methadone substitution schemes. They almost never work as methadone is not a "satisfactory" substitute for the addicts "cravings". Additionally, unless EVERY addict is on such a scheme, the opportunity is always there to undercut the pushers by selling on. Make heroin free to all addicts and both these problems with the badly thought out trials you refer to vanish completely.

So would you advocate free cocaine for coke junkies who rob and steal to feed their habit ? What about the pot heads, free skunk for them too ?
What about those addicted to double cheese burgers ? The point I'm trying to make is that these people have a choice. When they choose to commit a crime to feed their habit they lose their rights and we as society should deal with them just as harshly as we deal with any criminal - their habit should not be a cause for leniency.

Carpe Diem wrote:

freefinker wrote:
The pilot schemes you mention are usually methadone substitution schemes. They almost never work as methadone is not a "satisfactory" substitute for the addicts "cravings". Additionally, unless EVERY addict is on such a scheme, the opportunity is always there to undercut the pushers by selling on. Make heroin free to all addicts and both these problems with the badly thought out trials you refer to vanish completely.

So would you advocate free cocaine for coke junkies who rob and steal to feed their habit ? What about the pot heads, free skunk for them too ?
What about those addicted to double cheese burgers ? The point I'm trying to make is that these people have a choice. When they choose to commit a crime to feed their habit they lose their rights and we as society should deal with them just as harshly as we deal with any criminal - their habit should not be a cause for leniency.

Nailed it.

You win the debate between the two of you.

clausentum wrote:
When it comes to Crime, left-wing thinkers are apologists for the mayhem and hurt caused by criminals and right-wing thinkers offer draconian blunderbuss answers that only temporarily stem, not halt the problem.

Society has in recent decades, become too tolerant, too accepting, of the suffering criminals generate for individuals and families and the blight they bring to entire communities.

For my money, the heart of the problem lays within families.

If morals/values/self-d

iscipline/self-worth

/respect for yourself and respect for others is missing in early family life then by adulthood it is far too late for everyone and the only response should then be to remove criminals from the communities they hurt and keep them removed in a civilised place and not allow them to return until they have learned the self-responsibility/

self-respect their parents did not teach them.

The quality of life for honest law-abiding citizens and their sense of feeling secure within their homes and safe within the communities in which they live, needs to be restored.

The pendulum needs to swing back in their favour.

Their rights and needs must take precedence over those of the people who hurt and damage them.

when we was closer to being left wing, there was a lot less of a drugs and drink abuse, its got worse in the last 30 years, and the funny thing about it all the last 30 years have been nothing but right wing politics, even when you go back when drink and drug abuse was a lot worse than it is today, it was nothing but right wing politics.

clausentum wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

freefinker wrote:
The pilot schemes you mention are usually methadone substitution schemes. They almost never work as methadone is not a "satisfactory" substitute for the addicts "cravings". Additionally, unless EVERY addict is on such a scheme, the opportunity is always there to undercut the pushers by selling on. Make heroin free to all addicts and both these problems with the badly thought out trials you refer to vanish completely.

So would you advocate free cocaine for coke junkies who rob and steal to feed their habit ? What about the pot heads, free skunk for them too ?
What about those addicted to double cheese burgers ? The point I'm trying to make is that these people have a choice. When they choose to commit a crime to feed their habit they lose their rights and we as society should deal with them just as harshly as we deal with any criminal - their habit should not be a cause for leniency.

Nailed it.

You win the debate between the two of you.

Clausentum - also good post above those two

King Mush wrote:

clausentum wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

freefinker wrote:
The pilot schemes you mention are usually methadone substitution schemes. They almost never work as methadone is not a "satisfactory" substitute for the addicts "cravings". Additionally, unless EVERY addict is on such a scheme, the opportunity is always there to undercut the pushers by selling on. Make heroin free to all addicts and both these problems with the badly thought out trials you refer to vanish completely.

So would you advocate free cocaine for coke junkies who rob and steal to feed their habit ? What about the pot heads, free skunk for them too ?
What about those addicted to double cheese burgers ? The point I'm trying to make is that these people have a choice. When they choose to commit a crime to feed their habit they lose their rights and we as society should deal with them just as harshly as we deal with any criminal - their habit should not be a cause for leniency.

Nailed it.

You win the debate between the two of you.

Clausentum - also good post above those two

it might of been if was true, but its not, we not even had a true left wing policy in the uk. the closes we got to it was a left to centre wing politics, and even with this type of policy the number of drinks and drugs abuse was a lot less than it is now. even the ted heath government was closer the centre than this right wing labour government, the more right wing you go the worse it is.

Carpe Diem, cocaine is not in the same league of addiction as heroin - it is more of a "psychological dependency" than a "medical addiction" - although crack does seem to be medically addictive. Cannabis/skunk is not medically addictive.
So my answer is if it's a medical addiction it should be treated as a disease. And you have to remember that addicts ARE ill and need their "fix" to feel "normal". In that situation it is often crime that they turn to to fund their habit - to the detriment of the immediate victims as well as society as a whole.
While I have no doubt that some petty crime is committeed to fund cocaine and cannabis consumption the vast majority of such crime is to fund addictive medical conditions - i.e heroin and crack.
If the state supplies these free to addicts all the benefits to society I originally outlined follow.
Personally, I'm with Redback - prohibition NEVER works. All it does is creates ever more profitable industries for organised crime. But that's a different matter. Most "drugs" are harmless in moderation (including alcohol) but a small number are medically addictive. For these, the best course of action for society is to treat their medical needs effectively. Warehousing them at great cost to you and me will help neither the addict or society.

clausentum wrote:For my money, the heart of the problem lays within families.

Well yes. We lost a generation of men in WWI and the widowed single mothers had none of the support available today. We're still seeing the effects now.

southy wrote:

King Mush wrote:

clausentum wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

freefinker wrote:
The pilot schemes you mention are usually methadone substitution schemes. They almost never work as methadone is not a "satisfactory" substitute for the addicts "cravings". Additionally, unless EVERY addict is on such a scheme, the opportunity is always there to undercut the pushers by selling on. Make heroin free to all addicts and both these problems with the badly thought out trials you refer to vanish completely.

So would you advocate free cocaine for coke junkies who rob and steal to feed their habit ? What about the pot heads, free skunk for them too ?
What about those addicted to double cheese burgers ? The point I'm trying to make is that these people have a choice. When they choose to commit a crime to feed their habit they lose their rights and we as society should deal with them just as harshly as we deal with any criminal - their habit should not be a cause for leniency.

Nailed it.

You win the debate between the two of you.

Clausentum - also good post above those two

it might of been if was true, but its not, we not even had a true left wing policy in the uk. the closes we got to it was a left to centre wing politics, and even with this type of policy the number of drinks and drugs abuse was a lot less than it is now. even the ted heath government was closer the centre than this right wing labour government, the more right wing you go the worse it is.

Predictable one-dimensional looney-tune fuzzy response. Return to afternoon napping in your Armchair Anarchist's bare-threaded armchair . . .

Redback wrote:
clausentum wrote:For my money, the heart of the problem lays within families.

Well yes. We lost a generation of men in WWI and the widowed single mothers had none of the support available today. We're still seeing the effects now.

Interesting analysis. Hmmm. Worth pondering over and discovering where the thought-process leads . . .

clausentum, if you have nothing constructive or relevant to say could you please stop posting. All the rest of us at least have considered views we are trying to put across to each other.

freefinker wrote:
clausentum, if you have nothing constructive or relevant to say could you please stop posting. All the rest of us at least have considered views we are trying to put across to each other.

Pardon?

"All the rest of us"?

For whom do you speak? Whom do you represent, apart from yourself?

My contribution has been as relevant and constructive as yours.

If you disagree with what I write or dislike what I write then that is OK. You are entitled to your view, as I am entitled to mine.

But desist from trying to censor or limit my freedom to express myself . . . after all, you are a free-thinking person and so should understand that??

freefinker wrote:
Carpe Diem, cocaine is not in the same league of addiction as heroin - it is more of a "psychological dependency" than a "medical addiction" - although crack does seem to be medically addictive. Cannabis/skunk is not medically addictive. So my answer is if it's a medical addiction it should be treated as a disease. And you have to remember that addicts ARE ill and need their "fix" to feel "normal". In that situation it is often crime that they turn to to fund their habit - to the detriment of the immediate victims as well as society as a whole. While I have no doubt that some petty crime is committeed to fund cocaine and cannabis consumption the vast majority of such crime is to fund addictive medical conditions - i.e heroin and crack. If the state supplies these free to addicts all the benefits to society I originally outlined follow. Personally, I'm with Redback - prohibition NEVER works. All it does is creates ever more profitable industries for organised crime. But that's a different matter. Most "drugs" are harmless in moderation (including alcohol) but a small number are medically addictive. For these, the best course of action for society is to treat their medical needs effectively. Warehousing them at great cost to you and me will help neither the addict or society.

I'm not advocating prohibition either, each to their own as far as I'm concerned. If anybody wants to drink, smoke, toke, sniff or shoot their way to early oblivion that's their choice. When they choose to commit a crime to enable them to do so that's when the full weight of the law should apply.

Carpe Diem, I agree.
What I'm suggesting is that we take away their "need" to commit crime.
Surely, that's a win win situation?

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote: Do we need to radically rethink our attitude to heroin? Samantha pia is correct that heroin is very easy to obtain in prisons, so "locking them up", My View from the Hill, will NOT result in the cold turkey you envisage. Far from it, they come out still addicted - but also with an "education" in how to be more efficient criminals. Meanwhile, outside prison, the police estimate that some 80 to 90% of "petty" crime, like this individual has committed, is carried out by addicts for the sole reason of funding their very expensive habit. Now, if we treated heroin addiction as a disease, and the state provided addicts with a free supply, coupled with some serious rehabilitation programmes, we solve many problems, i.e. : - * reduced prison population * vast reduction in petty crime * cuts out organised crime in its importation and supply * better supervision of addicts * an end to adulterated supplies. Our policies for fighting heroin over the last 40 years have clearly failed. It's time to start thinking "out of the box" if we are to rid society of the consequences of drug addiction.

good post freefinker carpe diem, you need to look at why people end up on this road too, its probley to late for people like this nipper, but we can help our selfs by trying to prevent it in the first place. prevention is better than the cure most of the time. poverty and dispare are the sort of things that lead to drink and drug abuse.

It's not poverty and despair that lead to drink and drug problems. It's lack of discipline, lack of any kind of work ethic and lack of punishment for wrongdoers. Prison is for punishment not rehabilitation. If a drug taker commits crime to fund their habit they are not the victim they are the perpetrator. You know it's wrong, I know it's wrong and they know it's wrong - but still they do it because prison is not an effective deterrent. Make prison a deterrent and crime will drastically reduce.

Anyone like to have a go at explaining why people take drugs in the first place. The continued use is made far worse by the addiction, but why the first time? I cant go along with the poverty bit, there are many very well off addicts. I think its more likely being unable to cope with life or one of the many tests it throws at us. Unfortunately now days there seems to be many more "tests" and pressures, many made far worse by advertising company's trying to convince us that we must have the very latest XYZ or be a failure.

freefinker wrote:
Carpe Diem, I agree.
What I'm suggesting is that we take away their "need" to commit crime.
Surely, that's a win win situation?

like i said before, it would help to go back to a left wing view. you look all the way back though history. and look at when and what the causes of drink and drugs abuse where. it comes down to the same problem, lack of work or no work poorly paid jobs, leading on to poverty and dispare, that leads on to crime.
and the only time when drink and drugs abuse and crime was on its way down was between 1945 to 1979, why because there was less poverty and less dispare.
and a radical rethink is needed, if we dont its only going to become worse.

agree colin there is a number of rich drink and drugs addicts,
but because they got money they dont need to turn to crime.

gosh, southy, most of that period was under the "never had it so good" Tories

freefinker wrote:
gosh, southy, most of that period was under the "never had it so good" Tories

80'and 90's was mostly under torys then fallowed by the tory labour party aka nu-labour, thats why we went back to that same old age problem, higher unemployment, more poverty, higher drink and drug abuse, and higher crime rate. 45 to 79 was dominantly labour.

colinpickford1, you say "Anyone like to have a go at explaining why people take drugs in the first place". I'll have a go.
It seems it is part of our social (or, perhaps our genetic) make-up. Look at almost all of the pre-industrial societies that still cling on to their traditional ways of life to this day, and they are characterized by at least some mind-altering rituals involving the use of "drugs".
We, in out "developed" societies still have that innate "desire" to "get out of our heads", as the colloquial phrase puts it. Thus, alcohol, cannabis, etc, etc.

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:
gosh, southy, most of that period was under the "never had it so good" Tories

80'and 90's was mostly under torys then fallowed by the tory labour party aka nu-labour, thats why we went back to that same old age problem, higher unemployment, more poverty, higher drink and drug abuse, and higher crime rate. 45 to 79 was dominantly labour.

You originally said "and the only time when drink and drugs abuse and crime was on its way down was between 1945 to 1979"
I seem to remember 13 years of continuous Tory rule followed by another 4 years under Heath.
That's about half of this period I believe.

colinpickford1 wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote: Do we need to radically rethink our attitude to heroin? Samantha pia is correct that heroin is very easy to obtain in prisons, so "locking them up", My View from the Hill, will NOT result in the cold turkey you envisage. Far from it, they come out still addicted - but also with an "education" in how to be more efficient criminals. Meanwhile, outside prison, the police estimate that some 80 to 90% of "petty" crime, like this individual has committed, is carried out by addicts for the sole reason of funding their very expensive habit. Now, if we treated heroin addiction as a disease, and the state provided addicts with a free supply, coupled with some serious rehabilitation programmes, we solve many problems, i.e. : - * reduced prison population * vast reduction in petty crime * cuts out organised crime in its importation and supply * better supervision of addicts * an end to adulterated supplies. Our policies for fighting heroin over the last 40 years have clearly failed. It's time to start thinking "out of the box" if we are to rid society of the consequences of drug addiction.

good post freefinker carpe diem, you need to look at why people end up on this road too, its probley to late for people like this nipper, but we can help our selfs by trying to prevent it in the first place. prevention is better than the cure most of the time. poverty and dispare are the sort of things that lead to drink and drug abuse.

It's not poverty and despair that lead to drink and drug problems. It's lack of discipline, lack of any kind of work ethic and lack of punishment for wrongdoers. Prison is for punishment not rehabilitation. If a drug taker commits crime to fund their habit they are not the victim they are the perpetrator. You know it's wrong, I know it's wrong and they know it's wrong - but still they do it because prison is not an effective deterrent. Make prison a deterrent and crime will drastically reduce.

Anyone like to have a go at explaining why people take drugs in the first place. The continued use is made far worse by the addiction, but why the first time? I cant go along with the poverty bit, there are many very well off addicts. I think its more likely being unable to cope with life or one of the many tests it throws at us. Unfortunately now days there seems to be many more "tests" and pressures, many made far worse by advertising company's trying to convince us that we must have the very latest XYZ or be a failure.

I also do not go along with the poverty bit.

My parent's generation were "poor" but none of my family nor the families of my friends or relations got into serious crime or addiction because we were "poor".

I think you touch on an important element of part of the answer when you describe the present-day pressures and tests faced by people. They are huge and can be debilitating and can overwhelm people.

Over the past generation or two, the "traditional family" model has been significantly eroded. I am not advocating it is the only model or it did not have fault-lines and weaknesses. But, it did have the advantage of offering a sort of safe sanctuary within which young people could be given a set of personal values that they could run with and adapt or modify or reject in adult life. And in that sense, they were perhaps better equipped and stronger in dealing with and coping with the pressures and tests of adult life, compared with the present generation of young adults?

The constant bombardment of a message telling us we must succeed in our materialistic society or risk being failures is another part of the answer.

The "Me" society is a soulless place. Living within it has to be unfulfilling, solitary and a grey existence.

clausentum wrote:

colinpickford1 wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote: Do we need to radically rethink our attitude to heroin? Samantha pia is correct that heroin is very easy to obtain in prisons, so "locking them up", My View from the Hill, will NOT result in the cold turkey you envisage. Far from it, they come out still addicted - but also with an "education" in how to be more efficient criminals. Meanwhile, outside prison, the police estimate that some 80 to 90% of "petty" crime, like this individual has committed, is carried out by addicts for the sole reason of funding their very expensive habit. Now, if we treated heroin addiction as a disease, and the state provided addicts with a free supply, coupled with some serious rehabilitation programmes, we solve many problems, i.e. : - * reduced prison population * vast reduction in petty crime * cuts out organised crime in its importation and supply * better supervision of addicts * an end to adulterated supplies. Our policies for fighting heroin over the last 40 years have clearly failed. It's time to start thinking "out of the box" if we are to rid society of the consequences of drug addiction.

good post freefinker carpe diem, you need to look at why people end up on this road too, its probley to late for people like this nipper, but we can help our selfs by trying to prevent it in the first place. prevention is better than the cure most of the time. poverty and dispare are the sort of things that lead to drink and drug abuse.

It's not poverty and despair that lead to drink and drug problems. It's lack of discipline, lack of any kind of work ethic and lack of punishment for wrongdoers. Prison is for punishment not rehabilitation. If a drug taker commits crime to fund their habit they are not the victim they are the perpetrator. You know it's wrong, I know it's wrong and they know it's wrong - but still they do it because prison is not an effective deterrent. Make prison a deterrent and crime will drastically reduce.

Anyone like to have a go at explaining why people take drugs in the first place. The continued use is made far worse by the addiction, but why the first time? I cant go along with the poverty bit, there are many very well off addicts. I think its more likely being unable to cope with life or one of the many tests it throws at us. Unfortunately now days there seems to be many more "tests" and pressures, many made far worse by advertising company's trying to convince us that we must have the very latest XYZ or be a failure.

I also do not go along with the poverty bit.

My parent's generation were "poor" but none of my family nor the families of my friends or relations got into serious crime or addiction because we were "poor".

I think you touch on an important element of part of the answer when you describe the present-day pressures and tests faced by people. They are huge and can be debilitating and can overwhelm people.

Over the past generation or two, the "traditional family" model has been significantly eroded. I am not advocating it is the only model or it did not have fault-lines and weaknesses. But, it did have the advantage of offering a sort of safe sanctuary within which young people could be given a set of personal values that they could run with and adapt or modify or reject in adult life. And in that sense, they were perhaps better equipped and stronger in dealing with and coping with the pressures and tests of adult life, compared with the present generation of young adults?

The constant bombardment of a message telling us we must succeed in our materialistic society or risk being failures is another part of the answer.

The "Me" society is a soulless place. Living within it has to be unfulfilling, solitary and a grey existence.

And with that I agree.......but only 100%

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:
gosh, southy, most of that period was under the "never had it so good" Tories

80'and 90's was mostly under torys then fallowed by the tory labour party aka nu-labour, thats why we went back to that same old age problem, higher unemployment, more poverty, higher drink and drug abuse, and higher crime rate. 45 to 79 was dominantly labour.

You originally said "and the only time when drink and drugs abuse and crime was on its way down was between 1945 to 1979"
I seem to remember 13 years of continuous Tory rule followed by another 4 years under Heath.
That's about half of this period I believe.

just done a quick check, it was a lot closer to beening even than i thought, out of the 33 years after the war, 16 years was tory controlled while the other 17 years was labour controlled.
so now i got to look at what else might of help to contribute to the drop, one thing that would of help was that all 3 main partys there politics was very close to being centre, weather if it was centre right or centre left and centre, but the major thing was in 1945 the neo-liberalism policy was change to the keynesian policy whitch stayed in place till 1979 when it was change back to neo-liberalism with neo-nationalism policy that are still in place today, and is why all the main partys are far right right wing partys

Why does everyone ignore the fact that most people do drugs because they enjoy them?

For the well off, real life ain't so bad, so it's an enjoyable experiment.

For those living a life of no prospects, no hope, hostility and aggression, it's an alluring escape. It's there that you see the spiral of addiction.

But ignoring the fact that people enjoy taking drugs is just silly and blinkered.

Redback wrote:
Why does everyone ignore the fact that most people do drugs because they enjoy them?

For the well off, real life ain't so bad, so it's an enjoyable experiment.

For those living a life of no prospects, no hope, hostility and aggression, it's an alluring escape. It's there that you see the spiral of addiction.

But ignoring the fact that people enjoy taking drugs is just silly and blinkered.

A valid point.

But the allurement, escape from daily woes and enjoyment is transitory, because down the road lies personal humiliation, degradation, self-destruction and a lot of pain and suffering inflicted on innocent others.

freefinker wrote:
Do we need to radically rethink our attitude to heroin? Samantha pia is correct that heroin is very easy to obtain in prisons, so "locking them up", My View from the Hill, will NOT result in the cold turkey you envisage.
Far from it, they come out still addicted - but also with an "education" in how to be more efficient criminals.
Meanwhile, outside prison, the police estimate that some 80 to 90% of "petty" crime, like this individual has committed, is carried out by addicts for the sole reason of funding their very expensive habit.
Now, if we treated heroin addiction as a disease, and the state provided addicts with a free supply, coupled with some serious rehabilitation programmes, we solve many problems, i.e. : -
* reduced prison population
* vast reduction in petty crime
* cuts out organised crime in its importation and supply
* better supervision of addicts
* an end to adulterated supplies.
Our policies for fighting heroin over the last 40 years have clearly failed. It's time to start thinking "out of the box" if we are to rid society of the consequences of drug addiction.

Please spare me the drugs are readily available in jail, if you go down the block in most prisons, the last thing you get your hands on is heroin.

Food and drink delivered by the screw's, no tv, no kettle, no cigarettes, no luxuries, just basic stuff, away from everyone with no access to nothing, you would soon go cold turkey, maybe the creature might need some medical attention, fine then give it them, unless of course the doctor is too busy dishing out your form of treatment.

samantha pia wrote:
lock him up for 20 years? don't be daft, he has 5 years worth of drug usage now, handed on a plate. jail has more drugs in it, and easier to get, than it is on the outside.

5 years worth of drug usage, please don't be daft.

A 5 year sentence means 2.5 years behind the prison door, time off for early release and tag

Total Prison time 2 years 3 months.

At least with 10 years he might OD but at least he wouldn't burgle again in that time away.

My View from the Hill, I'm not particularly interested in your views about the severity of any prison regime you would like to see introduced.
What I was looking at was EFFECTIVE ways of significantly reducing both the number of victims of petty crime and the number of prisoners you an I have to fund - at great expense I might add. Doesn't that sound like a worthwhile aspiration?
Your prison "reform" programme of indefinite solitary confinement does nothing for those robbed and burgled by addicts.
It's not very constructive, is it?

freefinker wrote:
My View from the Hill, I'm not particularly interested in your views about the severity of any prison regime you would like to see introduced.
What I was looking at was EFFECTIVE ways of significantly reducing both the number of victims of petty crime and the number of prisoners you an I have to fund - at great expense I might add. Doesn't that sound like a worthwhile aspiration?
Your prison "reform" programme of indefinite solitary confinement does nothing for those robbed and burgled by addicts.
It's not very constructive, is it?

I'm confused.

"victims of petty crime . . . those robbed and burgled by addicts".

Which is it.? A petty crime or a robbery and burglary - the latter are by any standard, serious offences and devastating to the victim?

If someone does not buy into your view, your remedy, your analysis, your prescribed solution then you imply their views to be "not very constructive". Can you not simply disagree with their views, their opinions, and resist rubbishing them?

You have interesting things to say and make worthwhile and valid points. You have advanced an interesting debate/dialogue, but setting out to rubbish what others think simply weakens your position and opens you up to labels such as "pompous" and "self-opinionated" and deaf to other's ideas, with a closed mind?

The air must be rare and thin when perched on top of the moral high ground?

Others may have as much legitimacy in standing on that spot, as you?

The "victims of petty crime" are "those robbed and burgled by addicts". What's confusing about that? I had originally said: -
.
"Meanwhile, outside prison, the police estimate that some 80 to 90% of "petty" crime, like this individual has committed, is carried out by addicts for the sole reason of funding their very expensive habit."
.
The vast majority of addict-related criminality is "petty" when compared to "serious" crimes of violence like armed robbery, murder, etc.
Part of my point is that there are far too many people who have to suffer the frightening consequences of this needless crime-wave.
It's proximate cause is addiction and if that is treated medically there is no need to commit the crime, no need for imprisonment, no need to discuss prison conditions and, more importantly, many fewer victims.
If you think I sound "pompous" and "self-opinionated" so be it. I was just pointing out that "lock them up and throw the key away" does not offer any solution to future victims, society or the addict.
It contributes nothing to the debate, does it?

freefinker wrote:
The "victims of petty crime" are "those robbed and burgled by addicts". What's confusing about that? I had originally said: -
.
"Meanwhile, outside prison, the police estimate that some 80 to 90% of "petty" crime, like this individual has committed, is carried out by addicts for the sole reason of funding their very expensive habit."
.
The vast majority of addict-related criminality is "petty" when compared to "serious" crimes of violence like armed robbery, murder, etc.
Part of my point is that there are far too many people who have to suffer the frightening consequences of this needless crime-wave.
It's proximate cause is addiction and if that is treated medically there is no need to commit the crime, no need for imprisonment, no need to discuss prison conditions and, more importantly, many fewer victims.
If you think I sound "pompous" and "self-opinionated" so be it. I was just pointing out that "lock them up and throw the key away" does not offer any solution to future victims, society or the addict.
It contributes nothing to the debate, does it?

I take issue with your definition of petty crime and robbery and burglary as essentially being one and the same, in terms of severity or painful impact on victims of crime.

To be burgled and have a stranger ransack your home is a devastating experience for someone and the effects can last a lifetime.

Similarly, to be a victim of a robbery ( an attack on the person) is an even greater horrendous experience for someone. And the effects of being robbed can totally destroy a person's self confidence.

I take issue with your claim that "The vast majority of addict-related criminality is "petty" "

That is not so. Addicts fund their addictions not from low-level, petty crime, but from burglaries of people's homes.

The remainder of your contribution makes a lot of sense, is rational and offers a useful perspective. Most clear-minded, fair-minded, thoughtful, tolerant people would agree with the essence of your arguement.

My guess is that you and I and you and the other posters that you have debated with, share a lot in common in wanting a better and safer community in which to work and live?

Maybe we are not as far apart in our thinking and in our views as it might appear?

Perhaps, communication is an art and not a science and full of potholes of misunderstanding/mis
conception ?

OK, we have a disagreement on the word "petty" - and I agree robbery is borderline, at best.
I have been burgled so I do know the distress it causes. But I still consider it to be petty when compared to violent crime. Although not "official language" the police also tend to colloquially refer to crime of this nature as petty.
So glad we only have a dispute over terminologly and not the substance of what I understand we both desire - less crime, fewer victims, less expenditure on prisons/prisoners, and, hopefully dealing with addiction in a more civilised mannor.

I do so like to see people kiss and make up. Hey, its not allways easy to have a debate by typing. But it can be fun to watch people try.

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:
gosh, southy, most of that period was under the "never had it so good" Tories

80'and 90's was mostly under torys then fallowed by the tory labour party aka nu-labour, thats why we went back to that same old age problem, higher unemployment, more poverty, higher drink and drug abuse, and higher crime rate. 45 to 79 was dominantly labour.

You originally said "and the only time when drink and drugs abuse and crime was on its way down was between 1945 to 1979"
I seem to remember 13 years of continuous Tory rule followed by another 4 years under Heath.
That's about half of this period I believe.

just done a quick check, it was a lot closer to beening even than i thought, out of the 33 years after the war, 16 years was tory controlled while the other 17 years was labour controlled.
so now i got to look at what else might of help to contribute to the drop, one thing that would of help was that all 3 main partys there politics was very close to being centre, weather if it was centre right or centre left and centre, but the major thing was in 1945 the neo-liberalism policy was change to the keynesian policy whitch stayed in place till 1979 when it was change back to neo-liberalism with neo-nationalism policy that are still in place today, and is why all the main partys are far right right wing partys

***just done a quick check, it was a lot closer to beening even than i thought,****
So having admitted you were wrong the first time, you'll try again to distort facts to prove another of your inane theories.

Actually Derek, having got this rare admission from southy, I think his subsequent analysis is spot on.
Pre 1979 we had the "one nation" Tories. Thatcher ditched that for the "grab what you can" Tories - i.e from a Keynesian to neo-liberal ecconomy.

Not forgetting we have a two tier overview in drug use.


I tend to note that some posters tend to suggest that we read some of the views perpetrated by Guardian journalists - many of whom tend to be part of the so-called chattering classes and London-centric. They regularly joist with their usual Daily Mail target readers/writers on the usual Left vs Right ways of thinking.

One level sees the use of A class drugs in 'trendy' circles as part of the whole package in music, fashion etc where money is no object. The above Guardianista ethos is a prime example of the Islington mafia and their refusal to accept any responsibility as it might impinge on their own use of 'recreational drugs' (lol everytime I have to use that phrase or read it)

They make 'role models' out of junkies like Potty Pete Doherty who should have been banged up years ago but gets off time and time again. Is this an Establishment conspiracy?

That well know Scraggy Croydon slapper Cocaine Kate still makes millions and adored by sucker fans, despite years of drugs, drink and all that goes with the fashion game. Loses some contracts but then lurches into new ones as soon as the excreta has dried off the last fan.

Whilst the elite few just laugh it all of- we have to put up with the lower end of this stinking festering cesspit that causes misery for those who indulge (by choice) and those of us that suffer.

Male druggies will inevitably turn to crime against their own family, friends and strangers. Burglary, mugging and possible murder is on the menu. Not forgetting the money made by the other scum - the dealers and it's all linked to other crimes as we know.

The females will often have to sell the one thing they possess in some dingy bedsit, brothel, alleyway etc.

Drugs are the biggest curse of recent years and I'm fed up with the apologists - i.e. those that mostly partake and get oh so miffed when anybody dares to criticise their way of escaping whatever life has thrown them.

A nice little saying to help you get through the day is "This to will pass". Nothing is forever. But you have to remember that that includes the good as well as the bad.

freefinker wrote:
Actually Derek, having got this rare admission from southy, I think his subsequent analysis is spot on.
Pre 1979 we had the "one nation" Tories. Thatcher ditched that for the "grab what you can" Tories - i.e from a Keynesian to neo-liberal ecconomy.

Luckily he was able to join in the 'grab what you can party' by picking up a council house on the cheap after Margaret Thatcher started selling them off.

King Mush wrote:
"Male druggies will inevitably turn to crime against their own family, friends and strangers. Burglary, mugging and possible murder is on the menu. Not forgetting the money made by the other scum - the dealers and it's all linked to other crimes as we know."

Er... I do beg to differ.

It may help if you stopped referring to 'drugs' as though it were a brand name. There's quite a big difference between the lawyer who enjoys the odd spliff and the burglar who can't get through the day without a 10-bag of smack.

Derek of Dibden Purlieu wrote:

freefinker wrote:
Actually Derek, having got this rare admission from southy, I think his subsequent analysis is spot on.
Pre 1979 we had the "one nation" Tories. Thatcher ditched that for the "grab what you can" Tories - i.e from a Keynesian to neo-liberal ecconomy.

Luckily he was able to join in the 'grab what you can party' by picking up a council house on the cheap after Margaret Thatcher started selling them off.

wrong again derek, ask colin when this house became private, it was before loony thatcher became mp.

Redback wrote:
King Mush wrote:
"Male druggies will inevitably turn to crime against their own family, friends and strangers. Burglary, mugging and possible murder is on the menu. Not forgetting the money made by the other scum - the dealers and it's all linked to other crimes as we know."

Er... I do beg to differ.

It may help if you stopped referring to 'drugs' as though it were a brand name. There's quite a big difference between the lawyer who enjoys the odd spliff and the burglar who can't get through the day without a 10-bag of smack.

lol

Good points but perhaps I often tend to make sweeping generalisations and using terminology that raises a few hackles?

I fully agree with you and quite a few of my 'professional' colleagues and friends have been casual tokers for decades with no 'outward' signs of brain damage. I also know a few people whose medical condition has been alleviated by the use of cannabis - one could even label this as 'herbal' remedy?

I'm also aware that much of the world's greatest innovative music, writings and much more have partly due to 'mind expanding' substances ingested by the relevant artistes.


You know exactly what I mean to put across as I bang on the KM drum about HARD drugs. Not every smoker will progress to higher planes but I dont think that a 'gateway' syndrome applies to those who are not stupid to start smoking 'normal' ciggies in the first place! Smokers all wish they hadnt, despite bleating about how they 'enjoy' this pathetic habit, whilst coughing and spluttering all over the place.


Hard drugs and its associated problems are a spin-off from the selfish 60s dopesmokers who felt they had the right to do what they want. Tune in - turn -drop out. Yeah......right

We know that its all part of 'rebellion' and seems to instigate a movement between like minded people. It's all a bit 'naughty' and underground i.e. 'cool'

Sad suckers

security-word 'star-blow' lol

KM said
""I tend to note that some posters tend to suggest that we read some of the views perpetrated by Guardian journalists - many of whom tend to be part of the so-called chattering classes and London-centric. They regularly joist with their usual Daily Mail target readers/writers on the usual Left vs Right ways of thinking.""

the guardian is not a left paper its a green issue paper and a liberal news paper, old liberal that is when they use to stand on the centre ground.

KM what about when parents give there baby rose hip syrup, could this be your gateway drug, because rose hip syrup is alcohol weak but still alcohol.

King Mush wrote:

Redback wrote:
King Mush wrote:
"Male druggies will inevitably turn to crime against their own family, friends and strangers. Burglary, mugging and possible murder is on the menu. Not forgetting the money made by the other scum - the dealers and it's all linked to other crimes as we know."

Er... I do beg to differ.

It may help if you stopped referring to 'drugs' as though it were a brand name. There's quite a big difference between the lawyer who enjoys the odd spliff and the burglar who can't get through the day without a 10-bag of smack.

lol

Good points but perhaps I often tend to make sweeping generalisations and using terminology that raises a few hackles?

I fully agree with you and quite a few of my 'professional' colleagues and friends have been casual tokers for decades with no 'outward' signs of brain damage. I also know a few people whose medical condition has been alleviated by the use of cannabis - one could even label this as 'herbal' remedy?

I'm also aware that much of the world's greatest innovative music, writings and much more have partly due to 'mind expanding' substances ingested by the relevant artistes.


You know exactly what I mean to put across as I bang on the KM drum about HARD drugs. Not every smoker will progress to higher planes but I dont think that a 'gateway' syndrome applies to those who are not stupid to start smoking 'normal' ciggies in the first place! Smokers all wish they hadnt, despite bleating about how they 'enjoy' this pathetic habit, whilst coughing and spluttering all over the place.


Hard drugs and its associated problems are a spin-off from the selfish 60s dopesmokers who felt they had the right to do what they want. Tune in - turn -drop out. Yeah......right

We know that its all part of 'rebellion' and seems to instigate a movement between like minded people. It's all a bit 'naughty' and underground i.e. 'cool'

Sad suckers

security-word 'star-blow' lol

You're less blinkered than I thought lol.

I'd take no great issue with any of that. But freefinker's argument remains persuasive.

By 'hard drugs', let's assume you're talking about heroin, cocaine and its derivatives, and amphetamines. The rest of the proscribed substances are generally not really addictive and unlikely to cause someone to start housebreaking.

How do these drugs 'cause' crime? It's through the need to pay for them.

The legitimate market price of these substances (eg medically) are minimal. By legalising and heavily regulating, pharmaceutical grade (thus not cut with the substances that often cause a lot of the harm) drugs could be provided by the state in a safe setting, along with harm reduction instruction. By doing this, you remove the need for crime to fund the habit, you reduce the damage done to themselves by the users, and you have a regular avenue of communication when people start to feel they'd like advice on quitting. The cost of doing all this would be far less than the cost of policing prohibition, not to mention the cost to the NHS cleaning up after an unregulated market.

southy wrote:
KM what about when parents give there baby rose hip syrup, could this be your gateway drug, because rose hip syrup is alcohol weak but still alcohol.

lol

You may have a good point there! Calpol may have also triggered certain brain cells to act in a strange way many years down the line.

Redback wrote:

King Mush wrote:

Redback wrote:
King Mush wrote:
"Male druggies will inevitably turn to crime against their own family, friends and strangers. Burglary, mugging and possible murder is on the menu. Not forgetting the money made by the other scum - the dealers and it's all linked to other crimes as we know."

Er... I do beg to differ.

It may help if you stopped referring to 'drugs' as though it were a brand name. There's quite a big difference between the lawyer who enjoys the odd spliff and the burglar who can't get through the day without a 10-bag of smack.

lol

Good points but perhaps I often tend to make sweeping generalisations and using terminology that raises a few hackles?

I fully agree with you and quite a few of my 'professional' colleagues and friends have been casual tokers for decades with no 'outward' signs of brain damage. I also know a few people whose medical condition has been alleviated by the use of cannabis - one could even label this as 'herbal' remedy?

I'm also aware that much of the world's greatest innovative music, writings and much more have partly due to 'mind expanding' substances ingested by the relevant artistes.


You know exactly what I mean to put across as I bang on the KM drum about HARD drugs. Not every smoker will progress to higher planes but I dont think that a 'gateway' syndrome applies to those who are not stupid to start smoking 'normal' ciggies in the first place! Smokers all wish they hadnt, despite bleating about how they 'enjoy' this pathetic habit, whilst coughing and spluttering all over the place.


Hard drugs and its associated problems are a spin-off from the selfish 60s dopesmokers who felt they had the right to do what they want. Tune in - turn -drop out. Yeah......right

We know that its all part of 'rebellion' and seems to instigate a movement between like minded people. It's all a bit 'naughty' and underground i.e. 'cool'

Sad suckers

security-word 'star-blow' lol

You're less blinkered than I thought lol.

I'd take no great issue with any of that. But freefinker's argument remains persuasive.

By 'hard drugs', let's assume you're talking about heroin, cocaine and its derivatives, and amphetamines. The rest of the proscribed substances are generally not really addictive and unlikely to cause someone to start housebreaking.

How do these drugs 'cause' crime? It's through the need to pay for them.

The legitimate market price of these substances (eg medically) are minimal. By legalising and heavily regulating, pharmaceutical grade (thus not cut with the substances that often cause a lot of the harm) drugs could be provided by the state in a safe setting, along with harm reduction instruction. By doing this, you remove the need for crime to fund the habit, you reduce the damage done to themselves by the users, and you have a regular avenue of communication when people start to feel they'd like advice on quitting. The cost of doing all this would be far less than the cost of policing prohibition, not to mention the cost to the NHS cleaning up after an unregulated market.

Good post. You may be surprised to learn that I am all for the possibility of legalising hard drugs. Prohibition has not worked and the authorities cannot stem the Tsunami tide levels that are swamping us all.


It appears that large sections of the population wish to get off their heads for a variety of reasons so let the poor sods do it. Preferably in the privacy of their homes and away from those of us who wish to have a normal day or night out.

We have nothing to lose and its worth a try as a desperate measure. The cops admit that it is out of control and banging up a few small-time dealers is a waste of time as the street scum-stock is simply replenished


Why not go back some 100-150 years and have Chinese style opium dens on the level of the London East End dock areas. Let's have a nation of zombies wandering the streets. If they wish to try and get off whatever junk is being used, then the taxes/profits from a legalised drug state could be used for specialist units - not prisons which should only house the violent scum.

Problem is that the government (yawn) would be responsible for administration of a billion pound business. There lies another problem

Gosh KM, you've changed your views a bit since you were first to post on this story only yesterday morning!

DS Phil Jones, the senior investigating officer, told the Daily Echo: “I want to reinforce the crime prevention message that householders must fit deadlocks to their doors and make sure they are locked, as their property is very vulnerable to this type of offence.”
Why do we have to spend our hard earned money on deadlocks? Why doesn't DS Jones just get up off his rear, do his job properly and get these filthy, rank heroin idiots off our streets so we don't have to fit extra security? I thought that was the point of a Police force.