Drugs - UK v Holland

[Laxi]

as the article says "there is no war on drugs in holland", but the mistake people make is to believe that drugs are legal there, there never was "legalisation" because as the police have said there, remove the laws and you remove the ability to control the problem side, what they do have however is police discretion (and a police force that uses it well), the police do not harrass the person sitting in a cafe with a coffee and a smoke after work, how ever they do have a law there to back them up when there is trouble (much like police using public disorder laws to control drunks), and the police in holland will and do prosecute harder drugs and growers/couriers.

[rachprice]

I think the Dutch approach to education on drugs is the way to go!

[RantyDave]

I doubt that any person can have a normal life after one time on heroin, yet a few tokes with other activities has little or no short or long term consequences.

And this is it. It's not "drugs are bad, mmmkay" it's "some drugs are really really fucking bad for you and others are not" followed by whole pile of education on what's what and why.

Heroin is very very bad news. There are a few people out there living with long term heroin habits, but they're few and those very few put an awful lot of cash into the hands of criminals who then, well, more or less kill teenagers. And it is "one" (as in, count them, one) time on Heroin too.

Heroin dealers should be shot through the forehead the first time they're caught. Right between the eyes, no blindfold, put it on YouTube as a warning to others, go totally Khmer Rouge on their sorry arses.

Bizarrely I'd like to see drug education extend to the crap the pharmaceutical industry turfs out too. Read this and feel sick - there are hundreds of stories like that.

Oh. Ugh. UHGGHGH! I'm not going to think about it any more. Stupid fucking society, we behave like Neanderthals. At least I don't live in the UK.

Dave

[RantyDave]

I know at some point my driver's license will be permanently removed.

Hopefully when you're in your seventies and can't get a thought from one side of your brain to the other in under five seconds. They might be senior citizens, but it doesn't mean they should be driving any more than the legally blind should.

Dave

[MSTRS:Me]

Hopefully when you're in your seventies and can't get a thought from one side of your brain to the other in under five seconds. They might be senior citizens, but it doesn't mean they should be driving any more than the legally blind should.

Dave

Plenty like that of all ages. And many of them right here in KB's hallowed halls. Senior citizens would be turning in their armchairs that you could think that the problem of slow thought is theirs alone...

[candor]

However what I also know for a fact, is that there is minimal rehabilitation resources available...

Anyone know what's happened to the state in Aus that has regulated cannibas, with an allowance for growing plants for personal usage?

The argument here becomes, does pot lead to harder drugs, and by regulating it, will it lead all kids straight to harder drugs? Would it reduce drug related crime and harm?

In Oz tolerance with pot has made little difference except a rise in use by young males with presumably knock on effects in mental health / car crashes and some violent crime.

People given reduced fines for attending education has resulted in low uptake of education - treatment is what is really the need regardless and thats not supplied as noone takes pot harms seriously due to years of jokey good press. Check Herald approach but the Aotearoa Legalise pot party is an advertiser.

The fact I know - from working in forensic psychiatry and with hundreds of murderers hands on is that cannabis use is often a very salient factor - as in the latest spree killing. It raises paranoia while reducing inhibitions (same as P) in people with sociopathic mindsets (Jan police killer and attempted neighbour killer some time later qualifies per al reports of his character), and increases psychosis in those with underlying mental illnesses. Treated schizophrenia + drugs that add to paranoia = danger.

Legalising is no answer, decrim may help make it easier for those with issues to seek help - but typically they won't. Compulsory treatment as in days of old is most successful but our liberal namby pamby values and the evil bill o frights act kind of militate against this getting traction. Though Sabin and others are working toward this. Hoping compulsory treatment is a topic at the Sensible Sentencing conference coming up.

[Sidewinder]

herd its a good time to go pig shooting in napier atm tho!

[Ocean1]

Job done! Retarded British Solo Mum.

Yeah. You don't need to look quite so far to see that cycle either.

I know the answer to this one, I just can't be fucked enunciating it.

Brief shot: Get a life. Give your kids one too.

[Skyryder]

They never outlawed glue sniffing and how many of them do we see on the streets now?


Skyryder

[CookMySock]

In Oz tolerance with pot has made little difference except a rise in use by young males with presumably knock on effects in mental health / car crashes and some violent crime.

That is hardly a good basis for a casual opinion, let alone a well considered one.

The fact I know - from working in forensic psychiatry and with hundreds of murderers hands on is that cannabis use is often a very salient factor - as in the latest spree killing. It raises paranoia while reducing inhibitions (same as P) in people with sociopathic mindsets (Jan police killer and attempted neighbour killer some time later qualifies per al reports of his character), and increases psychosis in those with underlying mental illnesses. Treated schizophrenia + drugs that add to paranoia = danger.

That it is 'salient' does not even suggest it is a contributing factor, just that is often in common. So which way around is it? That dope smokers are likely candidates for this type of behaviour, or that people who behave this way are likely candidates to smoke dope? From your description above, it seems more like those with dangerous tendencies are predisposed to smoke dope, than the other way around.

Compulsory treatment as in days of old is most successful but our liberal namby pamby values and the evil bill o frights act kind of militate against this getting traction. Though Sabin and others are working toward this. Hoping compulsory treatment is a topic at the Sensible Sentencing conference coming up.

Agreed. No one likes being treated, but thats too bad - it's like getting a speeding ticket. Once they are a little more settled, maybe they will be able to enjoy a toke again without having a wee flip-out.

Steve

[YellowDog]

Dutch people don't agree and object to their country being prostituted in this way.

The retarded British and many others spend $50 to fly to Amsterdam to spend a couple of brainless days in Dutch coffee houses. These places are legal and licensed to sell soft drugs to be consumed on the premises.

The licensing of such establisments is a direct result of the government's attempt to take control of an out of control problem that was created by being too soft on drug crime.

Not the way to go.

[CookMySock]

Dutch people don't agree and object to their country being prostituted in this way.

How could this possibly affect the "dutch people" or their country?

The retarded British and many others spend $50 to fly to Amsterdam to spend a couple of brainless days in Dutch coffee houses. These places are legal and licensed to sell soft drugs to be consumed on the premises.

Yeah but thats normal when you get a difference in law or culture just across a border. It's hardly fair to label the people retarded - its just an amusing once-off thing for them to do. Viz, its legal to distill your own spirits in NZ, and not in the US. For certain americans, it would be legal and fun, to sit in the kiwi bush next to their still - shotgun across their lap and distill all they bloody like. Conversely, the reverse is true regarding handguns. I think it would be bloody funny to wander around with a pistol down my pants - a perfectly legal activity in many parts of the US, but a jailable offence here.

Steve

[RantyDave]

In Oz tolerance with pot has made little difference except a rise in use by young males with presumably knock on effects in mental health / car crashes and some violent crime.

Where the key word is "presumably". Like, I am a parent and presumably don't ride a motorcycle.

I'm not going to deny the link to mental health issues though. But then the link between mental health problems and, say, poverty is stronger. Or workplace stress. Or having children. Or spending too long arguing on the Internet.

treatment is what is really the need

Treatment?

The fact I know - from working in forensic psychiatry and with hundreds of murderers hands on

Hundreds of murderers? Where in hell (literally) have you found hundreds of murderers?

It raises paranoia while reducing inhibitions (same as P) in people with sociopathic mindsets

In people with sociopathic mindsets. You may be pleased to hear that is a surprisingly low percentage of the population.

Compulsory treatment as in days of old is most successful but our liberal namby pamby values and the evil bill o frights act kind of militate against this getting traction.

That word, again. In days of old homosexuals had compulsory treatment. A hundred years or so ago it was people with black skin. Before that the Spanish inquisition laid down some compulsory treatment too. In fifty years time it might be people with blue eyes, or people who give children unpasteurised cows milk, or anyone who has expressed an interest in joining the civil service. In the UK, many years ago, an angry mob burned down a paediatrician's house, thinking it was a pedophile's house. My point is that it's pretty arbitrary what it is the public decides needs compulsory treatment and that one day it might be you that the evil bill of rights is protecting.

Hoping compulsory treatment is a topic at the Sensible Sentencing conference coming up.

Oh, the Sensible Sentencing Trust are hoping to promote themselves into the angry clueless men with pitchforks trust, are they?

OMG, that's such a good idea. I'm going to set up a stand selling pitchforks outside.

Dave

[Genestho]

Ah yes, perhaps you're right Ranty Dave.

Best we leave it to the, what was it? "Armchair warriors" to attempt to fix everything with dreamy illusions such as bullets, and capital punishment.

You may not understand but SST is a group of people affected by crime such as this thread alludes to.

Perhaps you'd prefer it if SST, Shut up and bugger off.
Until crimes such as the "napier siege" are addressed at many levels SST continues to grow.

I think I could quite easily turn your comment around, and I'm gonna.

I hope the Bill of Rights, doesn't fail you as systematic failures within the Justice Joke have failed us.
If one of the "victims" of the siege was a family member of yours, or the coppers whose body couldnt be retrieved - your brother? Would you be chuffed?
Nah - didn't think so.

Goodluck with that dude, you're a long time dead.

And if you have better ideas than SST?
For goodness sake! Please share!!

I invite you to do something, instead of attacking others that have experienced the arse-end reality of these types of crimes.
Go do something productive with your pitchfork stand will you?

[Usarka]

Morphine and guiness taste good. Oh no's im an illegalerer.