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 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-226 next last
To: muawiyah
muawiyah pretends he supports property rights:

Look, the Second Amendment recognizes my God-given right to keep and bear arms. Find the Amendment that says you can smoke dope.

The 9th says all rights are not enumerated. -- The 14th says that our rights to life, liberty, or property cannot be deprived without due process. Prohibitions on 'smoking' our property deprive us of due process.

The "my right to property" argument as the sole reason for anything went down the tubes with the Civil War.

Weird reasoning, seeing that the 14th wasn't passed till after the war in 1868. -- Admit it, you haven't a clue on how to constitutionally justify prohibitions.

You'all should have looked to your dope, not your slaves, when you started the conflict. Too late now.

Give it up kid, - you're not making a bit of sense.

181 posted on 04/19/2006 6:50:02 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

How is it you can imagine a few grams of plant material in a cigarette paper burning violently enough to set a person on fire, but cannot seem to grasp the potential consequences of having entire fields of it?


182 posted on 04/19/2006 6:51:10 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
It's pretty obvious you don't understand anything about the legal history of the United States.

Frankly, if you want the courts, and the legislative bodies, and the various executives, of the United States to accept your reading of the Constitution, it's long overdue for you to get to work. At the moment none of them agree with you.

183 posted on 04/19/2006 6:53:41 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Hey, don't plant it. But if you do, be careful when you try to harvest it. Wouldn't smoke if I were you.


184 posted on 04/19/2006 6:56:23 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Hey, don't plant it. But if you do, be careful when you try to harvest it. Wouldn't smoke if I were you.

Who's going to harvest what you want the government to plant? Or do we just let it go wild and start spreading into populated areas? If you're going to have any substantial affect on the drug crop you'll have to plant it just about everywhere.

185 posted on 04/19/2006 7:00:27 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Do we?

Seems to me that if the government announces that a couple of major beds have been "seeded" with this new variety, it puts all of the growers at risk.

186 posted on 04/19/2006 7:04:30 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
muawiyah pretends he supports property rights:

Look, the Second Amendment recognizes my God-given right to keep and bear arms. Find the Amendment that says you can smoke dope.

The 9th says all rights are not enumerated. -- The 14th says that our rights to life, liberty, or property cannot be deprived without due process. Prohibitions on 'smoking' our property deprive us of due process.

The "my right to property" argument as the sole reason for anything went down the tubes with the Civil War.

Weird reasoning, seeing that the 14th wasn't passed till after the war in 1868. -- Admit it, you haven't a clue on how to constitutionally justify prohibitions.

You'all should have looked to your dope, not your slaves, when you started the conflict. Too late now.

Give it up kid, - you're not making a bit of sense.

It's pretty obvious you don't understand anything about the legal history of the United States.

No, what is "pretty obvious" is that you are a very confused person. -- Nothing in our exchange could possibly lead you to say that I "--don't understand anything about the legal history of the United States.--"

Frankly, if you want the courts, and the legislative bodies, and the various executives, of the United States to accept your reading of the Constitution,

Millions of people have been arguing the anti-prohibition position since the Constitution was ratified. -- Hell, we even won on prohibiting booze..

it's long overdue for you to get to work. At the moment none of them agree with you.

Dream on kiddo. As a prohibitionist you are blinded by your own agenda. -- Millions of people agree that our Constitution finds repugnant laws that ignore due process in either their writing or enforcing.

187 posted on 04/19/2006 7:20:09 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The Constitution provides that the states may regulate alcohol as they wish.

Earlier they didn't quite have that authority.

So, what is it you are talking about?

188 posted on 04/19/2006 7:22:42 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
By the way, down at the bottom, next to "Post reply | Privte reply | " you will find a number. That number refers to the post to which you are responding.

It is a simple matter to rotate backwards through a FreeRepublic thread to find out what else the Freeper had to say.

You don't have to use that "copy all of it over" nonsense that you find in the inferior threads carved out for the use of children.

189 posted on 04/19/2006 7:24:47 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
muawiyah wrote:

The Constitution provides that the states may regulate alcohol as they wish.

The Constitution provides that the states may reasonably regulate alcohol as long as their laws comply with due process of law. [see the 14th]

Earlier they didn't quite have that authority. So, what is it you are talking about?

Good of you to admit you're confused. What specifically did I 'talk about' that you can't understand?

190 posted on 04/19/2006 7:31:43 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
By the way, down at the bottom, next to "Post reply | Privte reply | " you will find a number. That number refers to the post to which you are responding.

After posting to juvenile personalities at FR since early '98, I've found it wise to keep discussions in context.

It is a simple matter to rotate backwards through a FreeRepublic thread to find out what else the Freeper had to say.

Yes, it is. -- But some here try to divert discussions, when they find they can't debate the issue using logic.

You don't have to use that "copy all of it over" nonsense that you find in the inferior threads carved out for the use of children.

I find it useful when debating at certain lower levels.

191 posted on 04/19/2006 7:42:13 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I'm starting to think you and your ideas are a stone waste of time and money. If the plants with the enzyme are no more dangerous than the ones without, then we're going to spend a bunch of money on R&D, more to cultivate a seed crop, and them some more to plant it, and after all that not get anyone to set fire to themselves.


192 posted on 04/19/2006 7:48:52 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; tacticalogic
tacticalogic: If you're going to have any substantial affect on the drug crop you'll have to plant it just about everywhere.

muawiyah: Do we?

You just said it would be done very shortly:

muawiyah: Very shortly you will find vast plantings of "switch grass" all over the nation. [post 171]

Do you even believe what you write?

193 posted on 04/19/2006 8:38:25 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The number-trace feature has been added long after 1998.

Your refusal to accept the future, and change, is not a good sign.

194 posted on 04/20/2006 4:27:33 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
One would imagine that not all druggies are as stupid as the freebasers and actually fear fire.

No doubt something more subtle will be used ~ for instance, an enzyme that turns THC into chocolate when baked at 350 degrees.

195 posted on 04/20/2006 4:29:11 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

It would appear you are not keeping up with the news.


196 posted on 04/20/2006 4:30:04 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Not often I get to see ignorance and arrogance at the same time...oh wait, you're a drug warrior!


197 posted on 04/20/2006 5:18:06 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
No doubt something more subtle will be used ~ for instance, an enzyme that turns THC into chocolate when baked at 350 degrees.

Then it shouldn't be too hard to have coacoa that turns chocolate into THC. You're just full of good ideas!

198 posted on 04/20/2006 5:24:53 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

Same old tired argument.


199 posted on 04/20/2006 5:28:47 AM PDT by verity (The MSM is comprised of useless eaters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H; muawiyah

Either he does which makes him an idiot, or he doesn't which makes him a troll.


200 posted on 04/20/2006 6:09:03 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-226 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