Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Officers in Call to Legalise Use of Drugs
Edinburgh Evening News (UK) ^ | 14 Apr 2006

Posted on 04/15/2006 2:21:22 PM PDT by Know your rights

SCOTTISH police officers have sparked anger after calling for the legalisation of all drugs - including heroin and cocaine.

The Strathclyde Police Federation has called for a dramatic change of direction in the battle on drugs crime, and the issue will be debated later this month.

The body, which represents 7000 officers, is set to argue that all drugs should be licensed in the same way as cigarettes and alcohol. Officers claim this would cut drug deaths and divert police resources to other crime-fighting priorities. It is the first time that an organisation representing officers has made such a demand.

Opponents today said the move would only increase the availability of drugs. But the federation believes millions of pounds are wasted on enforcing existing laws, with little impact on the availability of drugs on the street.

Inspector Jim Duffy, chairman of the federation, said: "We are not winning the war against drugs and we need to think about different ways to tackle it."

The Scottish Executive said that drug legislation is reserved to Westminster.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: corruption; dirtycops; drugskilledbelushi; himrleroy; lawenforcement; leo; leroyknowshisrights; mrleroy; mrleroyiskyr; thatsmrleroytoyou; wod; woddiecrushonleroy; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-226 next last
To: Know your rights
"effective" is not a binary, yes-or-no condition."

This is what makes you king of the weasels.

141 posted on 04/19/2006 5:13:21 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Maybe they can hit the jackpot and get a plant that produces substantial amounts of cyanide when burned.


142 posted on 04/19/2006 5:54:01 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
No doubt. Actually, we have such a plant ~ it's called the apricot.

But why do that. MJ must have some level of positive social application ~ setting it up to turn into alcohol if heated to 180 degrees would seem to me to be such a use.

Plus, we can broadcast the seed far and wide. Those badboys growing it in the national forests in this country will sure be surprised.

143 posted on 04/19/2006 9:01:15 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Drug users are not going to become productive members of society because drugs are legal.

No, but productive members of society who are also drug users/abusers won't become criminals.

In case you didn't know, some extremely wealthy and productive people have ravenous appetites for drugs and alcohol. Many of them also die of it.

For some reason most people on these threads seem to focus on the street crack whore and totally forget about the Betty Fords, Brett Favres, and (gasp!) Rush Limbaughs.

Why keep addiction a crime?

144 posted on 04/19/2006 9:09:49 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

I've been done with this argument for a week. Good luck with the legalization fantasy.


145 posted on 04/19/2006 9:15:48 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I've been done with this argument for a week. Good luck with the legalization fantasy.

Sounds like code for "Damn, I don't have anything relevant to counter that with..."

146 posted on 04/19/2006 9:33:57 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

Actually it means I'm done with arguing with drug addled scum.


147 posted on 04/19/2006 9:36:46 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

That's right, when you run out of logic and reason just accuse the other person of being a drug abuser.

LOL....just can't make an arguement that makes sense, can you?

At least Kevin Curry and Cultural Jihad were entertaining and occassionally thought provoking.


148 posted on 04/19/2006 10:14:45 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye; cripplecreek; muawiyah; robertpaulsen; Kevin Curry; Cultural Jihad
Eagle Eye wrote:

That's right, when you run out of logic and reason just accuse the other person of being a drug abuser.

LOL....just can't make an arguement that makes sense, can you? At least Kevin Curry and Cultural Jihad were entertaining and occassionally thought provoking.

None of the 'warriors' have ever been able to answer the question..

-- "Where in the Constitution does it give the Feds authority to outlaw drugs?"

149 posted on 04/19/2006 11:20:22 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You must have missed the part about repelling enemies, setting standards, regulating interstate commerce, and collecting taxes.

Plus, and this is very important and gets to the heart of the matter, the drug legalization people don't really want the government to remove the heavy hand of coercion from their necks ~ nosirreebob ~ they want it lifted up and placed on the rest of us to keep us from protecting ourselves against them.

150 posted on 04/19/2006 11:27:19 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Plus, we can broadcast the seed far and wide. Those badboys growing it in the national forests in this country will sure be surprised.

Great idea. The stuff will grow just about anywhere. You'll have a few thousand square miles of fire hazard in no time.

151 posted on 04/19/2006 11:28:09 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Not exactly a fire-hazard until it's heated to 180 degrees at which point none of that matters.


152 posted on 04/19/2006 11:32:18 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Not exactly a fire-hazard until it's heated to 180 degrees at which point none of that matters.

Okay, so a minor brush fire is going to be uncontrollable within a few minutes in the presence of the stuff. No biggie, right?

153 posted on 04/19/2006 11:42:26 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: bill1952
sexcrimes and drug crimes, stretching it a little aren't we.....as for speeding that is a different story, but let's talk about victims.

who are drug users victimizing?

who are sex crimes victimizing?

I will give you a little hint, in the first nobody, in the second who ever the abuser is abusing......sounds like apples and oranges to me......
154 posted on 04/19/2006 11:45:30 AM PDT by vin-one (REMEMBER the WTC !!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Hey, you shouldn't be planting MJ anyway, right?


155 posted on 04/19/2006 11:53:37 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Hey, you shouldn't be planting MJ anyway, right?

You're the one that's proposing planting it.

156 posted on 04/19/2006 11:57:05 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Plus, and this is very important and gets to the heart of the matter, the drug legalization people don't really want the government to remove the heavy hand of coercion from their necks ~ nosirreebob ~ they want it lifted up and placed on the rest of us to keep us from protecting ourselves against them.

This resembles English in some vague way.

Can you please explain how you need protection from Rush Limbaugh, Brett Favre, Betty Ford and a host of other famous, productive addicts whose addiction often becomse a criminal matter?

157 posted on 04/19/2006 1:20:19 PM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Just the guv'mnt.


158 posted on 04/19/2006 2:35:34 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Rush Limbaugh was addicted to a prescription medicine that is otherwise "controlled".

It's not like he went looking for that particular problem.

However, in the absence of some kind of government control on this stuff, we'd all have to provide our own protection against druggies.

At the moment, because of government control, you are protected from private individuals having to protect themselves.

159 posted on 04/19/2006 2:37:22 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"You are full of crap... "

good grief...how insecure must you be to feel compelled to make such a juvenile retort, and anonymously at that?

160 posted on 04/19/2006 2:48:18 PM PDT by Mark Felton ("Your faith should not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-226 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson