You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > London's weedy mayor
May 26 2022 2.50am

London's weedy mayor

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 4 of 4 << First< 1 2 3 4

 

View steeleye20's Profile steeleye20 Flag Croydon 14 May 22 8.35pm Send a Private Message to steeleye20 Add steeleye20 as a friend

I think the de-criminalisation of minor drug offences is probably a good thing.

But for a politician the obvious risk is being seen as soft on crime.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View HKOwen's Profile HKOwen Flag Hong Kong 14 May 22 11.28pm Send a Private Message to HKOwen Add HKOwen as a friend

Sad Dick has no authority in this matter, end of

 


If untruths and bllshit are allowed to flourish unchallenged the forum will be the worse for it.

Opinions are not facts just because you believe them

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View orpingtoneagle's Profile orpingtoneagle Flag Orpington 15 May 22 7.17pm Send a Private Message to orpingtoneagle Add orpingtoneagle as a friend

Walking around Central Croydon with the strong smell of skunk I assumed the People's republic of the Cronx had already legalised cannabis

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 15 May 22 7.20pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by orpingtoneagle

Walking around Central Croydon with the strong smell of skunk I assumed the People's republic of the Cronx had already legalised cannabis

The whole thing is stupid. You can literally smell the grow houses too. Has to be decriminalised at the very least, in order to reflect the reality of the situation - whether people like it or not. It's here, millions smoke it, get some tax from it, get rid of the crooks and let police go after more serious offenders.

 


I used to put the manager's name in front of Red and Blue but got fed up with changing it. If someone cool becomes our manager then maybe..

Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View PalazioVecchio's Profile PalazioVecchio Flag south pole 15 May 22 11.17pm Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio Add PalazioVecchio as a friend

so called 'soft' drugs. Should be...
- legalised
- regulated
- taxed

Alcohol is a fairly hard drug, and look how tolerant society is of it. The US experience with prohibition was a lesson for all.

Regulation is important. Especially concerning

what age the users
whether the drug makes users violent or not
the control of vehicles or other equipment
addiction & criminality

etc etc

 


7 points from Manchester this season

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 16 May 22 11.28am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by ASCPFC

The whole thing is stupid. You can literally smell the grow houses too. Has to be decriminalised at the very least, in order to reflect the reality of the situation - whether people like it or not. It's here, millions smoke it, get some tax from it, get rid of the crooks and let police go after more serious offenders.

Then there is the Peter Hitchen's line that cracking down on drugs has never actually been tried.

There are also lots of implications once you officially accept and widen hallucinogens' cultural acceptance within society....because there are consequences society has to then explicitly own, policy changes that increase drug usage and hence dependency.....that's something China found out when we forced them to trade in opium....there's the increase in mental illness....it'll also widen the social productivity gap between people...plus the state will have to admit social responsibility...as it does implicitly does with alcohol and gambling that they are making profit from personal misery due to natural human flaws....which are majority genetic.

Personally I don't think this issue has any good answers.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 May 2022 3.09pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 16 May 22 3.16pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Then there is the Peter Hitchens line that cracking down on drugs has never actually been tried.

There are also lots of implications once you officially accept and widen hallucinogens' cultural acceptance within society....because that's a consequence you're going to have to own, that you're going to increase drug usage and hence dependency.....as China found out when we forced them to trade in opium....increased mental illness....it'll also widen the social productivity gap between people...plus the state will have to admit social responsibility...as it does implicitly does with alcohol and gambling that they are making profit from personal misery due to natural human flaws....which are majority genetic.

Personally I don't think this issue has any good answers.


Edited by Stirlingsays (16 May 2022 11.31am)

When I was young, people used to go to prison regularly for petty dealing of 'soft' drugs and even possession. A famous case worldwide happened at my school (after I had left) where two kids were jailed for years for a few acid 'tabs'. In that respect, I say could we have fought the war on drugs and have lost?
After the rave generation of the late eighties/ very early nineties, drugs became so common place that you would have to jail every second person. Certainly 75% of the House of Commons. It's just silly now. Something to remember is why many drugs were banned. It was arbitrary and more linked to revenue from other sources, than it was for any health benefits.
The silliest for me would be having a conviction for possession of a bit of hash and then, essentially being blacklisted for most employment. It can hardly be life defining to have a smoke (although you might feel that way the first time!).

 


I used to put the manager's name in front of Red and Blue but got fed up with changing it. If someone cool becomes our manager then maybe..

Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 16 May 22 3.38pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by ASCPFC

When I was young, people used to go to prison regularly for petty dealing of 'soft' drugs and even possession. A famous case worldwide happened at my school (after I had left) where two kids were jailed for years for a few acid 'tabs'. In that respect, I say could we have fought the war on drugs and have lost?
After the rave generation of the late eighties/ very early nineties, drugs became so common place that you would have to jail every second person. Certainly 75% of the House of Commons. It's just silly now. Something to remember is why many drugs were banned. It was arbitrary and more linked to revenue from other sources, than it was for any health benefits.
The silliest for me would be having a conviction for possession of a bit of hash and then, essentially being blacklisted for most employment. It can hardly be life defining to have a smoke (although you might feel that way the first time!).

I also lived through this time. I knew what was going on and I wasn't even part of those scenes. If I knew then the fuzz certainly did...they never had a zero tolerance policy, they always chose their battles and when to draw a blind eye. So on that point we would differ I agree with Hitchens that this battle was never seriously taken on.

If we go with the Hitchen's line and have society go hardcore on drugs, then we both know that you are going to need major investment in prisons and all the rest of it. Because what you are essentially doing is looking to shift the culture. During that effort a lot of otherwise harmless people are going to get criminal records as they did in the past....but it would be far more and more severe. That's also damaging people.

But more than anything I think the cost was part of the reason the politicians only ever gave anti drug policies lip service. That and the fact that a significant percent of the middle class and as you say....the politicians themselves love their secretive drug habits and Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.

Saying all that doesn't mean I agree that we should go with Hitchen's hardcore anti drugs route....the truth is I don't think there is a 'good' answer. Whichever line you took there are good arguments to say you are worsening society. I laid some of them out, it's not as though the pro or anti position comes without a downside.....maybe that's why the 'fudge' position has been here for decades.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 May 2022 3.42pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 16 May 22 4.22pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I also lived through this time. I knew what was going on and I wasn't even part of those scenes. If I knew then the fuzz certainly did...they never had a zero tolerance policy, they always chose their battles and when to draw a blind eye. So on that point we would differ I agree with Hitchens that this battle was never seriously taken on.

If we go with the Hitchen's line and have society go hardcore on drugs, then we both know that you are going to need major investment in prisons and all the rest of it. Because what you are essentially doing is looking to shift the culture. During that effort a lot of otherwise harmless people are going to get criminal records as they did in the past....but it would be far more and more severe. That's also damaging people.

But more than anything I think the cost was part of the reason the politicians only ever gave anti drug policies lip service. That and the fact that a significant percent of the middle class and as you say....the politicians themselves love their secretive drug habits and Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.

Saying all that doesn't mean I agree that we should go with Hitchen's hardcore anti drugs route....the truth is I don't think there is a 'good' answer. Whichever line you took there are good arguments to say you are worsening society. I laid some of them out, it's not as though the pro or anti position comes without a downside.....maybe that's why the 'fudge' position has been here for decades.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 May 2022 3.42pm)

If Khan is advocating for something, he's not likely to get it right anyway. Somehow racism or slavery will be involved, or some such. Plus, I don't think the average Muslim in the street, let's call him Mohammad, will go for it.

 


I used to put the manager's name in front of Red and Blue but got fed up with changing it. If someone cool becomes our manager then maybe..

Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 4 of 4 << First< 1 2 3 4

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > London's weedy mayor