Safe Speed Forums

What more had Brunstrom got to do to get sacked ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3462885.stm

If I'd have said that, I'd be out of a job....

He's quite obviously mentally unstable.

It's only a matter of time before he becomes the new David Icke and starts his own personality cult based around his arcane knowledge of reptilian off-planet invaders being responsible for all the crime in the UK.

Either that, or he'll just have a complete nervous breakdown when his cognitive dissonance reaches critical mass and he can't remember what he thinks about anything.

Actually, if somebody smokes in the same room, you risk getting cancer from secondary smoking. If they shoot up with heroin or pop some pills, you only risk getting robbed to pay for it, so I can see old Brunstrom's point

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Hmm....

Wildy got hooked on strong morphine based pain killers during the recuperation period. Those who have "met" her on PH and occasionally on here when she hacks into my machine... if you think she's wild now... you should have known her then... She did got to the tolerance stage - and I can assure you coping with a stressed out wild cat was not easy for me. She's a darned good bio-chemist as well... top of the profession - and knew what was happening to her as well. Was actually worse than the aftermath of the original accident. So any call to legalise any hard drug is a definite within our family.

Heroin, crack, smack... all highly adicitive and it is when the addict requires his fix that he becomes aggressive. The drug itself indices lethargy and sleepiness.

However, there is more to the dangers than HIV through shared needles (most of the HIV patients we see in our viral department - result of shared needles and poor hygiene), Prolonged use of heroin can lead to some very nasty long-term neurological ailments. Our neurosurgeon (one of the Swiss and think she posted a couple of times on Cumbrian site) spars with Brainstorm on regular basis over this issue. Oddly enough - she is pro supervised us of cannabis as this is very beneficial for certain ailments (MS, Parkinsons, Motor Neuron.... in very small prescribed doses and under strict supervision)

As for legalisation reducing crime... Switzerland and Germany have "Needle Parks" and drop-in centres. Addicts have the opportunity to shoot up with clean needles, methodone and so on. Their heroin is not provided - so it is of dubious quality. However, help is at hand should they overdose or suffer the effects of a bad fix in the centre. But it does not reduce the crime as they still have to purchase the drug.

So... we legalise and tax it to the hilt. People will commit crime to fund the habit.

Or... we prescribe heroin on the NHS. It's cheap enough. Only demand may make this non-viable as more wants more. Also...Joe Public ends up paying and that heroin prescription is another OAP's blood pressure tablets. Then there are the related NHS costs of treating the addicts who have ruined their health. This will cost far more to NHS than Brainstorm can possibly realise. Certainly in the long term more than treating the victim of an uninsured twazak....

(remember ..we recoup some of the costrs from RTCs from insurance companies....)

But remember an addict can never get enough. Once he has gone throught he NHS alloowance (assuming we go that path) he will =go to get more from a dealer who will charge all the more as he know addict is desperate and has gone through his NHS allowance...and he will commit more crime for it...

Brainstorm of course is far too thick to realise this.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Maybe. But you shouldn't be. There is a serious case to be made for the complete legalization of all narcotics. Many senior police officers covertly, even openly, support it. It's claimed that following legalization, crimes such as theft and burglary would reduce by (estimates vary, but not much) 50% in 2 years. I saw one recently retired senior police officer (not Brunstrom) making a very convincing case for legalization on 'Election Unspun' on Channel 4 early Saturday evening.

At the moment, the narcotics supply industry is handed on a plate to international criminals, who get richer and more ruthless every year. You would think that the consequences of alcohol prohibition in the US in the 1920s would have taught the legislators something, but no - head in the sand. Let the drug barrons get rich, let crime soar to pay for drugs off the street at hugely inflated prices. Current policy on narcotics has catastrophically failed for the past 40 years, so the attitude seems to be: 'it's a complete failure, so let's do more of it...'

Reminded of 'since we put in all these speed cameras, accident rates are going up, so we must have more cameras.' Same mindset.

Brunstrom has no understanding of road accident causation though, and apparently his policies on this in N. Wales are as much a disaster there as is our government's policy on narcotics. He just needs educating.


Just read your post, Mad Moggie. The drug thing is complex. But prohibition is not the solution. It only makes things worse. It's time to try a different approach.

_________________
'The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal, regardless of the letter of statute'

Rioman, Herts

Swiss have tried this. I know for fact. My wife is Swiss. We visit the in-laws regularly. Crime reduced initallywhen they adopted a more liberal approach. Now it is back up.

If we legalise- we tax to deter. They commit crime to afford it. It is simple.

We prescribe on NHS... and I compromise prescription of aspirin to OAP.

I then pick up the pieces of shattered lives in rehab - plus a full load of severe neurlological diseases brought on by overdose and so on. Herin also interracts with some of my viruses..

Also . these drug impaired drivers will be on the road ..... NHS then picks up tab for their injuries as insurance companies will no doubt impose a get-out clause restricting insurance in this way. Or ... may have a loading for addict in same way as carry a loading..

Police want an easy life. Too easy to blame burglaires on kids wanting a fix. How about pure strigh forward coveting another's belongings.



Yes .. am consultant medic. Field is viral diseases and my wife is a drugs specialist who designs and trials new drugs. Drugs are complex - even prescribed ones affect the brain and body.

But even if we legalise - we will have to deter. This means high tax and to afford - they will still commit crime.

If we prescribe on NHS... there is opportnity cost of treatment for another and not guarantee that crime will reduce as more will demand more.

I know how addiction occurs and its effects on addict and family. My wife developed a tolerance. She was just one step away from addiction. It was scary - and she knew the risk and efects of those pills as well. We both did and we were caught out by it. The effects were definitely scary and if someone was behind wheel of a car in that state... think death toll would treble overnight.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Just like alcohol, then.

For me it's fundamentally an issue of freedom and responsibility. You can't nanny people all thir lives: they need to learn to be responsible for themselves. Prohibition of substances, with legal sanctions, is demonstrably not the answer.

Anyway, it's not me you need to convince. It's all the senior police officers, and others, who on balance support legalization.

You will not persuade me. We must agree to differ.

_________________
'The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal, regardless of the letter of statute'

Rioman, Herts

Not really a case of nannying to prohibit the use of these hard drugs like heroin

Experience tells me that people will behave like kids in a candy shop if this were to be made freely available like alcohol - and all BiBs on here will tell you... weekend shift in clubland is not for the faint hearted. When they are doped up as well .. situation can get nasty.

Mad Doc has served his time in A&E as well when he was a junior. One of this family was A&E consultant in London hospital until he moved out of reach of speed cams and legged it to USA. Both these guys could give very graphic accounts of addicts they treated in A&E in the past ..I'm sure.



Dick does not have support of his peers on this. Sir John Stevens has slated him over it... as have other CCs. Am senior ranked BiB.. and I am against legalisation of addictive hard drugs. I have seen the damage for myself - and firmly believe that legalisation will not mean these drugs will be available at lower prices. Crime will still occur to feed the habit.

Besides... I have scraped up the remains of drunk drivers and drugged drivers .. and we are getting more drugged drivers on our patch .. screwing up our record at a time when slightest increase leads to criticism of our stance on speed cams.



Perhaps neither myself nor the Mad Doc will persuade you that use of these drugs should continue to be frowned on by society at large and kept as offence on statute books. But both of us have seen the effects at close hand in our different professional experiences - and we did have to deal with weaning off a very wild cat from strong painkillers at one point. So we have seen tolerance build up at very close hand too. She needed the pills at the time to control the pain...only she kept popping them. Her body developed a tolerance level and she needed more. One step away from dependence and two steps away from addiction. Even at that stage - it was unnerving for this family as collective to deal with.

[/quote]

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

We have problems with alcohol abuse.Some people, especially out young, do not know when enough is enough.

Alcohol in moderation is not in itself dangerous. Heroin alters the mind and body almost instantly. Hence danger is greater. Whereas alcholism builds up fairly gradually , hard drug addiction is much more immediate - instant with some variations... crack etc.



But that is the fundamental problem. The people more than tempted are youngsters who see drug taking as glam - because celebs do so.

These people will drive cars whilst impaired by these drugs. Worse still - they will combine with alcohol as well.

Some of the drugs I prescribe as routine are fatal if patient overdoses. I do not allow these patients to administer their own medication on this basis. They come to me or my colleagues as out patients for these. As for the other medicines - am very clear in my instruction if these are to self administered.

You would be amazed at some of the stats we have concerning some middle aged as well as old dears who forget they took the blood pressure tablet, take another and end up being rescuscitated in A&E. So not sure we can trust people to exercise caution on use of hard or so-called "recreational " drugs.



Swiss had needle parks and Germany has drop-in clinics. Initially they saw reduction in crime. However, whilst these countries show higher level of tolerance in that they prosecute for dealing as opposed to possession, drug relate crime is still prevalent as they still have to buy their fixes. Only positive outcome is less HIV as result of shared needles. But thatis really the only plus from the needle park experiment.

Also... with an addict.. one fix is never enough. They will always want that bit more.

My experience as a doctor places me firmly in the "do no legalise" camp. Dealt with addicts in A&E as junior. Deal with the consequences of shared needles within my area of expertise - comes under my virology department. Seen these drugs destroy too many people's lives to wish for legalisation and potential upsurge in users.



IG has already pointed out... not all senior cops or senior medics support this.

But I guess we shalll just have to

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Hi 'In Gear'

Thanks for your thoughts & obviously strongly-held views. Appreciated. Your professional experience acknowledged.

As I seem to have started something here, better follow through for the sake of clarity.

Cards on table. Am ex-user of various substances, all freely available on the street through the usual illegal channels, and forced to acquire them through said channels due to, in my view, misguided and counter-productive legal prohibition. For a period in the 1970s, took almost all illegal narcotics. Wouldn't recommend them all, but would definitely recommend LSD: absolutely fantastic experience, and I will never regret taking it (in all about 7 times).

Not touched anything since 1978, save one joint at someone's dinner party in 1988. Not even smoked tobacco - by far the most dangerous and addictive substance - since 1990. Tobacco was definitely the worst, and most difficult drug to kick.



As I see it there are 2 separate issues here.

The first is one of principle: you have no right to tell another responsible, otherwise law-abiding, tax-paying adult what they may or may not do in the privacy of their own home, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else. It's none of anyone else's damned business.

This is not an argument against control: quite the reverse. We don't allow 8-year old children to buy a bottle of whisky in the supermarket, and the same should apply to narcotics. A certain amount of regulation and control to prevent minors abusing substances is absolutely necessary. What is wrong is prohibition, not only on principle but because of the demonstrably disastrous consequences of this policy, which brings us to the second point.

This is a pragmatic one. By prohibition of narcotics we have created huge, fabulously rich international criminal empires who bring misery to millions. We hand the supply and distribution industry to them, and as a consequence millions of customers are created, who are forced to pay hugely inflated prices because there is no legal alternative. This policy is an absolute disaster, and verging on insane.

To respond to a few of your points:



High taxation never deters purchase. Do you drink less wine because it is highly taxed? How many 1,000s of miles fewer do you drive each year because of excise duty on fuel?

High taxation of narcotics, if legalised, would be disastrous. The prices must reflect production costs plus normal operating costs to deliver them to users through the distribution chain, plus normal business profit margins. This will result in prices approx. 1,000th of present street prices, and will bust the drug cartels overnight. They will never recover. High taxation will attract even more illegal traffickers, drawn by the huge profits potential created by the state artificially inflating end-user prices, and encourage the survival and growth of even more illegal supply channels. You would hardly change the situation at all, and might as well leave things as they are.




It might, but I doubt it. Even if it did, the principle is sound.



This is absolutely nannying, of the very worst kind.




I agree 100%. You are describing your personal experience of the inevitable and visible consequences of the present policy of prohibition.



I've worked in A&E too, including Fri & Sat nights. I've pumped the stomachs of ODs, been assaulted - the lot, so I know what he's talking about. These days, I design, manufacture and supply medical equipment, so still spend most waking hours in NHS hospitals, and have seen it all. Again, the consequences of the present policy of prohibition, and of unregulated substances, are sadly in evidence every day.




You have your views, they are valid and well thought out, and you are absolutely entitled to them. However, several mainly-ex senior coppers have gone on record recently, mostly in the national media, to articulate a different view. Leave it to you to think about why they feel they cannot speak out against current political orthodoxy whilst in post, but wait until they have retired and then come clean.



Me too - are we agreed this is under the present policy, and its consequences are disastrous?



Prices in a free market will be between 100th & 1,000th of present street prices. You will only get elevated levels of crime to feed consumption if taxation is high - see above.




Admire & respect your profession, and can only guess at what you sometimes have to deal with. Don't know how you do it. But again, you are describing the consequences of the present policy.



Well prohibition looks set to continue, as it's the international political orthodoxy. But at some time in the next 20 years, the consequences of present policy will become so catastrophic that legislators will be forced to see common sense and reconsider. We can but hope.

The orthodoxy is safe for now. Unfortunately for the victims.

Good debate. And all started, indirectly, by Richard Brunstrom!!!

_________________
'The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal, regardless of the letter of statute'

Rioman, Herts

I had a shot of morphine in the leg in july. it was great! But you only need to hear an interview with John Frusciante (Red Hot Chili Peppers guitarist) from pre Blood Sex Sugar Magic then listen to a post Californication interview to know that heroin is very bad news.

Sure it's bad news. But this is not an argument for prohibition, it's a case for control, and of honest and accurate publicity about its effects - like fast food = obesity, or tobacco smoking = lung cancer & bronchitis.

The direct consequences, and side effects, of prohibition are just too serious for it to continue as policy unchallenged.

In Gear: the name of the copper who made the case for full legalization of narcotics on Channel 4's 'Election Unspun' program on Saturday 24 April was Eddie Ellison, recently retired head of the Met's Drug Squad based at Scotland Yard. You may know him?

_________________
'The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal, regardless of the letter of statute'

Rioman, Herts

To answer a couple of points :

"High taxation doesn't deter purchase"
Maybe not, but it does deter purchase of the safest of a bad option. For example tobacco - there is a massive black market in fags, mainly ones from very dodgy Chinese underground factories, mixed with all sorts of nasties. And with this comes all the crime of smuggling, extortion, protection rackets, etc. Same situation applies to diesel especially in Northern Ireland, where certain paramilitary groups derive massive income from "washed" diesel (i.e. red diesel with the dyes removed).

"We are seeing the effects of prohibition"
Hardly. As a few have said, just look at alcohol. I can't speak for In Gear, but I suspect he like me is getting slightly fed up with spending weekend shifts collecting fighting drunk youngsters (why are women the worst fighters?) and alcohol can hardly be called prohibited, or under taxed.

If drugs were legalised, and not taxed heavily, the dealers would still not go away. We are dealing with very powerful cartels which basically are the sole economy of some countries - they would not give up that power overnight. I recently spent some time in the States in an area where legalised drugs were available through the state - the supply office was firebombed regularly by the dealers, forcing people back to the dealers.

For me, the best model of how to deal with drugs is Singapore - no tolerance, no excuses. Sadly we're too concerned in this country with the perpetrator of crime, not the victim, to take this view. I certainly know that anyone attempting to sell drugs to my daughter will be taking a trip in the van in the style of olden days TSG units

Rioman,

Like a couple of others here I hold views diametrically opposed to your own on this subject. This is hardly surprising; up until a year ago I was in a job that would have seen me banged up with a loss of pension rights to boot had I so much as sniffed a spliff. That said, I of course resect your stance on this moral and ethical quagmire.
Personally, I'm not sure comparisons with tobacco hold up. I'm positive that if it had been discovered yesterday, and the health hazards found out about today, tobacco would be banned tomorrow. As it is, it's just a teensy bit too difficult to do it now.
I'm all for people being permitted to what they like in their own homes provided it is within reason and would never impact on others; keeping ebola virus samples or experimenting with plutonium spring to mind as obvious no-nos. That said, I would like to reserve the right to refuse to have to pay for the picking up of the pieces when it all goes pete tong - a simple X in a box marked "no funds for drug rehabilitation from my taxes" on my tax return form would suffice.

Hi Cotswold (nice part of the world)



I'm glad you agree. This is my point, entirely.



My point entirely. Taxation will never make any difference to consumption. Neither does prohibition, obviously.




'Worst', or 'dirtiest'?




Well I don't know the details of the situation you describe in the US (sounds like simply ineffective law enforcement) but if you can buy something legally for 100th of the price that an illegal dealer wants to sell it to you, would you really use the illegal dealer? Why?



It may surprise you to hear that I agree with you: this approach is the only workable alternative to legalization. But we'd have to be absolutely draconian. For a start, the death penalty would have to be reintroduced in the UK, and it would have to command public support, and it would have to be used. This might work. But consider the realistic chances of getting these changes through in the prevailing political climate.

There are still narcs in Singapore (been there), but the problem's not so totally out of control as it is in the West. So yes, this might work as an alternative. What obviously has no future is our present policy. It's failed for 40 years, and will continue to fail. Time for a rethink.

_________________
'The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal, regardless of the letter of statute'

Rioman, Herts

No argument from me on that one.

However, I'd extend the number of X-boxes on the tax return for 'no funds for...'

Don't get me started.

_________________
'The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal, regardless of the letter of statute'

Rioman, Herts

Brunstrom is a Class A arsehole.

He is toadying up to Bliar and the policy monkeys in order to get his knighthood and then a few positions on the boards of various scamera manufacturing companies at a vast salary for his huge skills as a speed/police consultant.

Can the bloke be anymore obvious in this course of action.

_________________
6 points for speeding - higher insurance costs. Its the £120 for the B&W photos of the car I object to!

Have strong views based on afore-mentioned experiences over a long career. Also - lucky enough to have Wildy (who really is a "toppest" - as she calls herself - scientist ) as my cousin and another cousin neurologist - as well as load of other medics to chat to - including our own Mad Doc.



Ah... it crossed my mind you had dabbled ....



Far out...man! Cannot say I have even tried any of these ...my parents would have killed me if I tried!

Never appealed to me anyway. Like being in self-control at all times. Did come across folks at Uni in a trance like state... again, this did not appeal to me. Might have been because even though I dallied with idea of career in accountancy - perhaps deep down I knew I'd follow my father's family tradition into BiB.. and conviction for possession would have nobbled the recruitemnt and even had repercussions on my father's pension in those days - when BiB life was a lot stricter than present.



Guess I come across as one odd dude... but have smoked one joint only - at age 19 - and I was sick for days. Have never smoked a cigarrette.




Well - it is when their habit leads them to get into a car and drive it.

It is when they are so far spaced out they cannot function properly

It is when their addiction costs me my taxation money in treatment to keep them alive after an overdose - and people like my cousin (some may have "met" him on the old CSPC forum as Joachim Wildkater - formerly A&E consultant at a busy London hospital) spend several hours fighting to keep addict alive and usually losing due to addict's generally ill health.



If a minor wishes to get hold of a bottle of whiskey or fireworks or cigarettes - they will. If they wish to get hold of a Class A drug - they will.

You would be amazed at what we see and what never appears in newspapers. Kids are protected and we do not name child criminals unless they murder two year olds and judge rules that name can be released in the public interest.




A prudent governemt would still place a whopping tx to deter use and attempt to make it unattractive. Thus- they'd still steal to buy. The only advantage as I can see would be purity of substance. But that is all. We are still talking of a substance which changes a personality and can lead to violence once deprived. Even Swiss have discovered that a controlled use can lead to violent craving for more.

And the drug barons... they'd deal on black market - perhaps undercut the legal price. They'd still make a profit by offering at lower price than official taxed price. Or they would modify the drug to give a bigger kick than the one offered legally and officially.

Hardened criminals will diversify to something even nastier.




Depends how high they decide to tax this. we are talking of a substance which is very dangerous to a person's health. It will carry an artificially punitively high tax to cover the hospital treatments resultant from use. It would have to as the more we discover about the drug and about human bio-chemistry - the more we learn of potential dangers.



Exactly - and because we are talking of a drug which alters personalities very quickly and very drastically and creates addiction with almost immediate effect - this would be taxed punitively. They would have little choice. This legalisation would achieve very little - crime would still be committed to feed habits.



In theory - NHS heroin could be offered at a low cost. It is the cost of treating neurological illnesses, collapsed veins brought on by drug useage which would bite into us - not only as taxpayers but as patients.



Not really. We police football matches and any public gaterhing to ensure decent social behaviour. This is a sort of nannying - if you like. But we have all seen consequences of a free-for all.

Trouble is .. some people do need to be protected for their own good. Significant majority are not capbale of making an informed and reasoned judgement and choice

. Sounds patronising - perhaps. Arrogant of me - maybe. I hope I do not come across as such -as am not the "holier than thou" type BiB.


But I've seen the ugly side of people as well as the decent side. But even many of the decent amongst us need that guideline and that ruling to ensure they are not tempted to go down that route.



No one forces them to drink or take the drugs. Their choice and some regret and some revel in being unable to remember the night out on the town. Never been able to understand this logic. I enjoy life and enjoy savouring each experience. But that's me.



I know both Joachim (my cousin - have lots of them ) had a hard time in London and Mad Doc shudders over his junior days - though that could be because he used to nip to the gents to look up what was wrong with the patient! I only repeat what he has said to me in the past ....

But the violence is the result of the withdrawal symptoms.

[qutoe="Rioman"]


You have your views, they are valid and well thought out, and you are absolutely entitled to them. However, several mainly-ex senior coppers have gone on record recently, mostly in the national media, to articulate a different view. Leave it to you to think about why they feel they cannot speak out against current political orthodoxy whilst in post, but wait until they have retired and then come clean.[/quote]

They do the same on s/cams

But somehow .. cannot see my guv and others doing a U-turn once retired.

But... those who have seen effects at close hand and even dealt with a well respected relative being weaned off a morphine-based painkiller - not addicted nor even dependent - but strongly tolerant - you would never wish to see anyone in that drug -induced state.

It is no life to lead - state of sleepiness, trancelike state and tendency towards violence when body craves more. And an addict is never satisfied... the more it feeds the habit - the more voracious the appetite for more fixes. This continues until they eventually kill themselves.

Thes people will be on the road - driving by the way. Speed cam will not stop them. You will - when they drive into you at a very unsafe speed for conditions. I have scraped these people off the windscreen in the past.



No... as said - problem will not disappear if we legalise the drugs. More will be tempted to try. After all. - if it's legal it will not hurt. Bit like brainwashing people into thinking they wil never have an accident if they stick to 30mph at all times. We know that ain't true.

[qutoe="Rioman"]


Prices in a free market will be between 100th & 1,000th of present street prices. You will only get elevated levels of crime to feed consumption if taxation is high - see above.[/quote]

And they will tax high as they will have no choice. They do not want to encourage useage. Because of the consequences. They will not dare prescribe on NHS ... Middle England would probably revolt over it.



Would not matter if they took it legally or illegally. If they are impaired by herion - they are not likely to react to hazard in time. They will dies and take others with them.... as they have done on our patch near our Cleveland and Northern county lines over and over..

Tis a hard job in real terms. People do not realise just how much work we really do... (Get the violins out )



True - we would have to keep in line globally Even Holland and Switzerland - both have a liberal attitude...still illegal - buit they tend to prosecute dealers as opposed to users. But they still have a high related crime rate amongst users trying to fund the habit.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Hi 'In Gear'

Again, your well-argued and thoughtful replies much appreciated.

Without going back over the same ground, what would be your solution? The presesnt policy is not working, is it? Don't you see there is a case to be made for the least worst option?

The political point about what might be acceptable ('middle England wouldn't accept it' etc...) is a separate issue. This leads politicians to steer clear of the subject, as they fear loss of votes - and so to a blind continuance of the present policy, which by almost universal admission is a miserable failure with disastrous side-effects.

So what else can be done?

_________________
'The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal, regardless of the letter of statute'

Rioman, Herts

Well Pontyslapper, you will find a lot of sympathy for this particular view in these forums, though sometimes expressed in more diplomatic terms.

_________________
'The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal, regardless of the letter of statute'

Rioman, Herts