18 yrs for Charlie - bit steep?
26 February 2007, 02:10 PM
#121
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not conclusive but this was the first page that I googled - couln't be ar%ed to look at any more.
The fact that some illegal drugs *may* be less dangerous/addictive than alcohol/nicotine is no reason to make them legal. They still destroy lives, even if your's is still on the straight and level, so why make them easier to get/consume?
And before knocking those pesky mail readers I'd go and look at newspaper circulations. There are an axful lot of them out there. So if newspapers bought is an indication of any political alleigence/social thinking then, as I 'infer' from what you state that you're not one of them, then you're one of the minority.
Dave
26 February 2007, 02:23 PM
#122
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The quote about " ..Drug taking is totally addictive, far more than alcohol, or smoking for that matter ...". Go see Drug addiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia one of the comments from it " .. Drugs such as codeine or alcohol, for instance, typically require many more exposures to addict their users than drugs such as heroin or cocaine ..." .
And before knocking those pesky mail readers I'd go and look at newspaper circulations. There are an axful lot of them out there. So if newspapers bought is an indication of any political alleigence/social thinking then, as I 'infer' from what you state that you're not one of them, then you're one of the minority.
Dave
Dave
26 February 2007, 03:41 PM
#123
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alcazar is absolutely right. Drug taking is totally addictive, far more than alcohol, or smoking for that matter, both of those habits, although generally bad for you, can be easily controlled. Drugs however are a different story altogether. The addiction can be virtually instant these days with the stronger drugs available and lead to a life of total degradation and eventually death.
You've not been talking to Frank by any chance have you?
26 February 2007, 04:06 PM
#124
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have not read all of this thread but here is my take on it
18 years does seem excessive compared to say child molesters, rapists, murderers, my thought are increase these sentences rather than lower those for importation of a class a.
18 years for attempting to smuggle in 3m of charley. Well, the charley could have been cut and sold on as charley or converted into crack cocaine.
Both are class A drugs both are addictive.
Coke is more likely to get someone with an addictive personality hooked where as crack is a more serious problem and will be much harder to get off of and more likely to lead to crime to fuel the habit.
I know a few coke users, some it has ruined their lives and livelihoods and other people who it hasn’t and all I can attribute this to is whether they have addictive or non addictive personalities and a lot of support.
I do not know anybody who has tried or hooked on crack
Both will ruin lives if abused, not just the user but the family as well.
18 years does send out a message and may put of some small(ish) time importers like this guy and people thinking of copying him
It is not going to affect some drug lord importing 60+m a year and insulated from this by layers of people.
There is BIG money in drugs and it will not even make a dent in the supply and demand
What really worries me is hearing that Meth amphetamine is now on the streets of the UK and people are using. Probably more of a threat than crack is.
18 years does seem excessive compared to say child molesters, rapists, murderers, my thought are increase these sentences rather than lower those for importation of a class a.
18 years for attempting to smuggle in 3m of charley. Well, the charley could have been cut and sold on as charley or converted into crack cocaine.
Both are class A drugs both are addictive.
Coke is more likely to get someone with an addictive personality hooked where as crack is a more serious problem and will be much harder to get off of and more likely to lead to crime to fuel the habit.
I know a few coke users, some it has ruined their lives and livelihoods and other people who it hasn’t and all I can attribute this to is whether they have addictive or non addictive personalities and a lot of support.
I do not know anybody who has tried or hooked on crack
Both will ruin lives if abused, not just the user but the family as well.
18 years does send out a message and may put of some small(ish) time importers like this guy and people thinking of copying him
It is not going to affect some drug lord importing 60+m a year and insulated from this by layers of people.
There is BIG money in drugs and it will not even make a dent in the supply and demand
What really worries me is hearing that Meth amphetamine is now on the streets of the UK and people are using. Probably more of a threat than crack is.
Last edited by The Zohan; 26 February 2007 at 04:34 PM.
26 February 2007, 04:36 PM
#125
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think the crystal meth hoo-har that's going on at the moment is completely over the top. A girl i know recently came back from Australia after working there for 5/6 years. It's really big over there as Coke is so expensive (and pills too). She said her and her friends often did it when going out on the lash. She was a professional sports person too and competed at a high level and it didn't adversely effect her life or turn her or any of her friends into zombified meth monsters.
Another guy i know moved to Oz last year and has basically said the same thing. Over there it's use is similar in scale (proportionally) to coke use in this country and is used by professional people who hold down jobs, decent lives etc.
It's certainly not more of threat than crack. It's being massively over-hyped by the media at the moment.
Another guy i know moved to Oz last year and has basically said the same thing. Over there it's use is similar in scale (proportionally) to coke use in this country and is used by professional people who hold down jobs, decent lives etc.
It's certainly not more of threat than crack. It's being massively over-hyped by the media at the moment.
26 February 2007, 04:53 PM
#126
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the crystal meth hoo-har that's going on at the moment is completely over the top. A girl i know recently came back from Australia after working there for 5/6 years. It's really big over there as Coke is so expensive (and pills too). She said her and her friends often did it when going out on the lash. She was a professional sports person too and competed at a high level and it didn't adversely effect her life or turn her or any of her friends into zombified meth monsters.
Another guy i know moved to Oz last year and has basically said the same thing. Over there it's use is similar in scale (proportionally) to coke use in this country and is used by professional people who hold down jobs, decent lives etc.
It's certainly not more of threat than crack. It's being massively over-hyped by the media at the moment.
Another guy i know moved to Oz last year and has basically said the same thing. Over there it's use is similar in scale (proportionally) to coke use in this country and is used by professional people who hold down jobs, decent lives etc.
It's certainly not more of threat than crack. It's being massively over-hyped by the media at the moment.
£50.00 may well have been a salary to some people back then now that is much more affordable.
Coke is readily available, cheap and not perceived as having nasty side effects and crosses all boundaries between the classes. You are just as likely to get people passing the charley at a dinner party as the after eights, well a bit of an exaggeration but it is a lot more acceptable, socially than say heroin or crack.
Part of this is of course that a lot of celebs and footballers, models, etc take it and do not appear to fall over and die horribly. maybe not good role models but they are to kids, etc. The press would like us to think that one snort will get you hooked, robbing your gran at knifepoint or trying to kill babies this is really not the case unless you are unstable in the first place. I wonder how many journo have a few lines ‘to kep em going’ or before they write their columns
As for meth not being more of a threat, crack was not a big issue to begin with, It will be priced to sell and get people to try and get hooked on so I think it will be another problem, maybe not now but eventually.
I am not asying that is a good thing, far from it.
Last edited by The Zohan; 26 February 2007 at 04:56 PM.
26 February 2007, 06:14 PM
#127
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They'll always be people who can't control their urges and these people will always abuse chemicals, be it alcohol, crack, coke, heroin nicotine or whatever; it's these people who make it impossible for any thought of drug decriminalisation to exist.
Many many illegal drugs can be taken, in moderation, with minimal adverse effects (as with alcohol). Take it to breaking point and that's where the trouble starts. At the end of the day a drug is inanimate, it can't be "evil", it's the people who can't say no that's the problem.
Many many illegal drugs can be taken, in moderation, with minimal adverse effects (as with alcohol). Take it to breaking point and that's where the trouble starts. At the end of the day a drug is inanimate, it can't be "evil", it's the people who can't say no that's the problem.
26 February 2007, 09:32 PM
#129
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2000
Location: MY00,MY01,RX-8, Alfa 147 & Focus ST :-)
Posts: 10,371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They'll always be people who can't control their urges and these people will always abuse chemicals, be it alcohol, crack, coke, heroin nicotine or whatever; it's these people who make it impossible for any thought of drug decriminalisation to exist.
Many many illegal drugs can be taken, in moderation, with minimal adverse effects (as with alcohol). Take it to breaking point and that's where the trouble starts. At the end of the day a drug is inanimate, it can't be "evil", it's the people who can't say no that's the problem.
Many many illegal drugs can be taken, in moderation, with minimal adverse effects (as with alcohol). Take it to breaking point and that's where the trouble starts. At the end of the day a drug is inanimate, it can't be "evil", it's the people who can't say no that's the problem.
So you either persist with the current policies that have existed for decades and that have soundly failed to solve the problem or you start to take a slightly more realistic view. There will always be people that will abuse a substance and there will always be people who have some sort of allergic reaction that may cause them harm - these people will unfortunately be victims whatever the policy.
If you take away the financial rewards of 'illegal' drugs (i.e. the several thousand per cent mark up from production to street cocaine and heroin), then you will destroy the industry. While the financial incentive remains there will always be enough people prepared to take the risk of production, smuggling or supplying drugs.
One of the only answers may be to legalise drugs. Now many people recoil in horror when you suggest this, but if you first accept that many people will always do some kind of drug for whatever reason, then surely it makes sense to at least control and regulate the quantity and quality? The last statistics I read were that something like 85% of all crime is drug related, so you have to ask yourself, why isn't a more radical solution being sort?
The other problem is the way that drug taking has been totally demonised by the government - now this may have more basis than the 'speed kills' message, but the problem is that the real issues have been lost in the desire to see all drugs as bad and life threatening.
The fact that drugs are so widespread and pervade all levels of society regardless of social background or wealth, escapes most people. More people in this country die each year from paracetamol overdoses (around 200) than they do ecstasy (around 50). Given that there are an estimated 2 million regular users of ecstasy, is it any wonder that people don't believe the message being put out by the government?
Sadly I don't see the situation changing any time soon.
26 February 2007, 09:42 PM
#130
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 9,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you take away the financial rewards of 'illegal' drugs (i.e. the several thousand per cent mark up from production to street cocaine and heroin), then you will destroy the industry. While the financial incentive remains there will always be enough people prepared to take the risk of production, smuggling or supplying drugs.
astraboy.
28 February 2007, 12:24 PM
#134
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les, your initial post gives every indication of what type of paper you might read As for 'scoring points' not my bag I am afraid so you are barking up the wrong tree. Unlike some on here I don't view this place as some kind of macho bull**** playground, couldn't give a toss what my post count is and certainly won't lose any sleep over anything anyone writes to me so please leave that sort of comment for the more regaulr NSR clique.
You inferred I used drugs as much as I inferred you read The Daily Mail (arguably the more dangerous of the two pastimes). How else do you rationalise these comments in reply to me?
I suppose that was the 'royal you' was it? Anyway, no matter as I truly don't mind if you did or not and if not and you feel offended I apologise, but I think most if not all would draw the same conclusion I did.
As for getting your facts right, let's just read this again
That quote is about as factually incorrect as they come so please put your own house in order first.
Les at the end of the day I just feel that given the use of coke and the likes is not confined to a small criminal minority like the powers that be would like to have us believe and is therefore obviously not the complete and utter evil it is portrayed as and that arguably more damaging and addictive drugs seem to be legal combined with the problems caused by the fact that some of these drugs are illegal (dealers etc) that maybe the time has come to look at alternative approach regarding certain drugs.
I know that view may seem abhorrent to you and others, but sometimes a radically alternative approach to reflect a changing society is what is required.
As for 'scoring points' not my bag I am afraid so you are barking up the wrong tree. Unlike some on here I don't view this place as some kind of macho bull**** playground, couldn't give a toss what my post count is and certainly won't lose any sleep over anything anyone writes to me so please leave that sort of comment for the more regaulr NSR clique.You inferred I used drugs as much as I inferred you read The Daily Mail (arguably the more dangerous of the two pastimes). How else do you rationalise these comments in reply to me?
I suppose that was the 'royal you' was it?
Anyway, no matter as I truly don't mind if you did or not and if not and you feel offended I apologise, but I think most if not all would draw the same conclusion I did.As for getting your facts right, let's just read this again
That quote is about as factually incorrect as they come so please put your own house in order first.
Les at the end of the day I just feel that given the use of coke and the likes is not confined to a small criminal minority like the powers that be would like to have us believe and is therefore obviously not the complete and utter evil it is portrayed as and that arguably more damaging and addictive drugs seem to be legal combined with the problems caused by the fact that some of these drugs are illegal (dealers etc) that maybe the time has come to look at alternative approach regarding certain drugs.
I know that view may seem abhorrent to you and others, but sometimes a radically alternative approach to reflect a changing society is what is required.
You say in the first place that you do not wish to "score" over others. Why then did you say that I was likely to be a Mail reader then? How does that influence what I was saying? What other reason could you have had to say it? It has no relevance to the discussion in hand anyway.
You said I accused you of being into the drug scene which was of course quite untrue. I did not implicate you personally as you did me over what papers I might read. There is in fact a wealth of difference here and you are merely scratching ineffectually at trying to make up an argument over that.
It is of course no argument either to say that because the world has changed thus making it normal for so many to be using drugs, that it is now acceptable for that to go on unchecked in any way. Do you think it to be a good thing for people generally to be "out of their heads" and to be encouraged to do so by having a liberal attitude towards the use of drugs in such a way including young children also in that scenario?
We also see a gross increase in teenage crime and violence with guns and knives thses days as well as violent muggings. This is all part of your brave new world, do you think that the same liberal attitude should apply? Do you really want to see Society go completely down the tubes, is this how you want to see the world in the future. Or should there be a strong stand against it by the authorities?
Modern ideas towards a descent into moral degradation and liberal attitudes towards wrongdoing are not necessarily the right way to go for the future.
If what is said on this forum is so unimportant to you, why post in the first place?
Les
28 February 2007, 12:45 PM
#135
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les, have you any idea how pompous and self righteous you come across as sometimes? 'You don't see why I should get away with it?' Listen to yourself
Get away with what? Having a different opinion to you and feeling that your views on this subject are so weirdly skewed that you must read the likes of the Mail as that is the only other place I have come across a similar outlook on this. I am entitled to offer that opinion just as much as you are entitled to disagree with it.
As for comparing violent muggings and the likes to drug use what a silly point to make. All things being equal an individual who chooses to get 'out of their head' on drugs doesn't harm anyone (maybe themselves but that is their choice and no different to smoking a cigarette with all the warnings plastered over the packets) whereas an individual mugging someone obiously is harmlng someone. Surely you can see they are just not the same, not even close.
Look, we aren't going to agree on this which is fine, but please don't get quite so incensed over something such as me daring to suggest what paper you might read, it's just a post on an Internet forum at the end of the day, take it a little less seriously, you mght enjoy it more 
Finally I post on here as I find it an enjoyable way to pass the time occasionally. Oh and I do own a Scoob so I do have other reasons for partaking, but that seems less important as this board grows anyway.
All the best Les, look on the bright side, at least our debates are literate and civil or shall we start with some name calling soon
Get away with what? Having a different opinion to you and feeling that your views on this subject are so weirdly skewed that you must read the likes of the Mail as that is the only other place I have come across a similar outlook on this. I am entitled to offer that opinion just as much as you are entitled to disagree with it.
As for comparing violent muggings and the likes to drug use what a silly point to make. All things being equal an individual who chooses to get 'out of their head' on drugs doesn't harm anyone (maybe themselves but that is their choice and no different to smoking a cigarette with all the warnings plastered over the packets) whereas an individual mugging someone obiously is harmlng someone. Surely you can see they are just not the same, not even close.
Look, we aren't going to agree on this which is fine, but please don't get quite so incensed over something such as me daring to suggest what paper you might read, it's just a post on an Internet forum at the end of the day, take it a little less seriously, you mght enjoy it more
Finally I post on here as I find it an enjoyable way to pass the time occasionally. Oh and I do own a Scoob so I do have other reasons for partaking, but that seems less important as this board grows anyway.
All the best Les, look on the bright side, at least our debates are literate and civil or shall we start with some name calling soon
Last edited by f1_fan; 28 February 2007 at 12:50 PM.
28 February 2007, 02:25 PM
#136
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I think you are both taking yourselves two seriously [SIC], but only one is spoling for a fight!
Les has an Old Skool view - it is probably the majority view, for the time being, and, IMHO well out of touch. This thread has certainly enlightened me on a few things though [anyone know wher I can score some nice Colombian wing tips?]
D
Les has an Old Skool view - it is probably the majority view, for the time being, and, IMHO well out of touch. This thread has certainly enlightened me on a few things though [anyone know wher I can score some nice Colombian wing tips?
]D
Last edited by Diesel; 28 February 2007 at 02:31 PM.
28 February 2007, 05:39 PM
#137
Guest
Posts: n/a
above, so forgive me if I decline your kind offer
28 February 2007, 05:55 PM
#139
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 March 2007, 11:30 AM
#140
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les, have you any idea how pompous and self righteous you come across as sometimes? 'You don't see why I should get away with it?' Listen to yourself
Get away with what? Having a different opinion to you and feeling that your views on this subject are so weirdly skewed that you must read the likes of the Mail as that is the only other place I have come across a similar outlook on this. I am entitled to offer that opinion just as much as you are entitled to disagree with it.
As for comparing violent muggings and the likes to drug use what a silly point to make. All things being equal an individual who chooses to get 'out of their head' on drugs doesn't harm anyone (maybe themselves but that is their choice and no different to smoking a cigarette with all the warnings plastered over the packets) whereas an individual mugging someone obiously is harmlng someone. Surely you can see they are just not the same, not even close.
Look, we aren't going to agree on this which is fine, but please don't get quite so incensed over something such as me daring to suggest what paper you might read, it's just a post on an Internet forum at the end of the day, take it a little less seriously, you mght enjoy it more
Finally I post on here as I find it an enjoyable way to pass the time occasionally. Oh and I do own a Scoob so I do have other reasons for partaking, but that seems less important as this board grows anyway.
All the best Les, look on the bright side, at least our debates are literate and civil or shall we start with some name calling soon
Get away with what? Having a different opinion to you and feeling that your views on this subject are so weirdly skewed that you must read the likes of the Mail as that is the only other place I have come across a similar outlook on this. I am entitled to offer that opinion just as much as you are entitled to disagree with it.
As for comparing violent muggings and the likes to drug use what a silly point to make. All things being equal an individual who chooses to get 'out of their head' on drugs doesn't harm anyone (maybe themselves but that is their choice and no different to smoking a cigarette with all the warnings plastered over the packets) whereas an individual mugging someone obiously is harmlng someone. Surely you can see they are just not the same, not even close.
Look, we aren't going to agree on this which is fine, but please don't get quite so incensed over something such as me daring to suggest what paper you might read, it's just a post on an Internet forum at the end of the day, take it a little less seriously, you mght enjoy it more
Finally I post on here as I find it an enjoyable way to pass the time occasionally. Oh and I do own a Scoob so I do have other reasons for partaking, but that seems less important as this board grows anyway.
All the best Les, look on the bright side, at least our debates are literate and civil or shall we start with some name calling soon
I was actually enjoying the discussion and was thankfull that it did not deteriorate into name calling. Such a stupid way to go on and proves nothing.
You are however guilty of an assumption about my reading matter, and I have the right to put you right on that and to point out the weak points in your arguments over that and other things too.
Its as though you are telling us things that you know are not true but wishing they were. Like a certain organisation we all love and revere-not! I wonder if you even understood what I said in my posts.
Never mind-won't be long to the first F1 race of the season and we can both look forward to that anyway.
Les
01 March 2007, 11:37 AM
#141
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
