Yes, but they're now knobs high on drugs - legally.
Police Taser their own race relations adviser in Bristol
- Thread starter lurkio
- Start date
Yes, but they're now knobs high on drugs - legally.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Yeah, what i am saying is that the being knobs part should really be the only part thats illegal, rather than the drugs part as a 'just in case' they are knobs.
Obviously there are a lot more complications involved when talking about decriminalisation but the point i am making is that people love to point at drugs or booze and lay blame, when in reality, there is usually a dick involved.
Obviously there are a lot more complications involved when talking about decriminalisation but the point i am making is that people love to point at drugs or booze and lay blame, when in reality, there is usually a dick involved.
Lol. The trouble is though we can't remove the morons from society. But we can remove the things that trigger their behaviour - except alcohol for some reason.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
I think removing the substances and putting a stigma on them works as a short term solution but really, the people who can still get a hold of them easily are probably the worst culprits and continue to do them illegally.
I think if we moved the stigma onto the people and their poor behaviour than use the drugs as the excuse, acting like a knob on these substances will seem less acceptable. it will still happen but probably less so.
Like if you take drink culture in places like Italy/Germany, where drinking among younger people is widly accepted yet not prohibited. The behaviour we have in many of our pubs on a friday/saturday here is thought of as pretty much embarrassing. younger people in Italy tend to not binge and being hammered at 9pm at a bar on a friday would be socially off putting instead of an indication of a start of a good night.
Just think that moving the stigma away from the substance would make our view and culture around the substance shift in a good direction. Getting wasted at a party when 16 years old certainly wont be as fun if it was legal and a bottle of wine generally sat on your dinner table growing up.
I think if we moved the stigma onto the people and their poor behaviour than use the drugs as the excuse, acting like a knob on these substances will seem less acceptable. it will still happen but probably less so.
Like if you take drink culture in places like Italy/Germany, where drinking among younger people is widly accepted yet not prohibited. The behaviour we have in many of our pubs on a friday/saturday here is thought of as pretty much embarrassing. younger people in Italy tend to not binge and being hammered at 9pm at a bar on a friday would be socially off putting instead of an indication of a start of a good night.
Just think that moving the stigma away from the substance would make our view and culture around the substance shift in a good direction. Getting wasted at a party when 16 years old certainly wont be as fun if it was legal and a bottle of wine generally sat on your dinner table growing up.
That creates a situation where the 99% suffer because of the 1%.
That's what we have now though. Surely those suffering violence and crime is worse than someone not being able to get off their faces?
except people aren't going to stop taking them are they? it's naive. if you tax it then you can afford better policing, education and controls as well etc..
B@
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
I would argue that the ones that are involved in causing the violence and crime are the majority of those that commit regardless of legality
I wouldn't. I know a huge number of people who when they are sober are absolutely delightful but put some drink in them and they're utter muppets.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Would those people also become completely T total if it became illegal tomorrow?
Maybe they would get ****** less if it was illegal but i reckon when they do get ****** less frequently they let loose a lot more.
Maybe they would get ****** less if it was illegal but i reckon when they do get ****** less frequently they let loose a lot more.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Exactly
For the criminals it certainly did, for those caught up in the violence less so. The bars and pubs which still had booze, they became hotbeds for alcoholics and cheap awful substitutes for drink was found in almost everywhere.
It wasn't that it was not policed but rather it was ridiculously hard to police.
A situation we have now. Policing of the violence caused by drink and drugs users has to be retrospective. By which point there is already a victim.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Dude looks like he's making a meal of a questioning and wings a punch/ shrug. No person should have to deal with that, let alone the police. Taser to the face. Job well done
Lol spotted the blind boot licker!
The USA tried removing alcohol. That was a huge boon to organised crime. It could be removed nowadays by a really authoritarian state, but you then have to ask if the "solution" is better or worse than the problem.
There are also questions of how far you go in outlawing things that trigger some people to do something bad. For example, last week I had a bottle of beer at home while listening to an audiobook. It was a pleasant evening for me. Should that be illegal because some people get drunk and attack other people? If so, why? How about clothing with a football team's name on? Some people have attacked other people for that. Should the clothing be illegal as a result? The same is true for many types of clothing, make-up and hairstyles. Those triggers could be removed by forcing everyone to wear the same clothes, have the same hairstyle (bald people would have to wear a wig, obviously) and the same makeup.
A line has to be drawn somewhere, but I think it's far from simple to decide where the line should be drawn.
Regarding alcohol, I think a better solution is to target the problem behaviour rather than the alcohol that in some cases worsens the behaviour. Partly through the law, which could be changed to make being drunk an aggravating factor in criminal acts and partly through encouraging a change in social norms to make that behaviour taboo. Two very successful examples come to mind from my lifetime - drinking and driving and dog faeces on pavements. Both those things were socially acceptable and very common when I was young. Now they're taboo, illegal and rare.
That statement is simply untrue.
Also, if they had gone straight in and arrested him you'd be complaining about that too. Your position is wildly irrational prejudice about the police, so you interpret everything into that prejudice.
The tenet of policing with consent is part of the reason why the police here usually start by politely asking questions at the scene rather than always going straight in with an arrest (which is unlikely to be consensual) and taking the person to a police station for questioning there.
Yet we have states the world over where it is (largely) removed and things seem to be fine in them! Nothing wrong with Saudi, Iran, Pakistan...
Things that only some people do dangerously are banned already. You have to jump through hoops to own a gun, there are restrictions on knives (length, type etc...). To own a car - something that is pretty much necessary to large swathes of the country you have to have a licence, insurance, MOT and VED.
Yet a substance which can render anyone a babbling incoherent muppet and render many a violent or criminal bag of crap can be attained by anyone (over the age of 18...lol).
Cannabis whilst not as cuddly and rosey as some will make out has nowhere near the harm of alcohol and quite possibly has some benefits yet...no. Bad. Illegal.
It's definitely far from simple where to draw the line but it's quite evident that it's already drawn in the wrong place. We as a country and as a culture have a massive problem with alcohol. That's something that really does need to be tackled by force.
It's something that really does need to be tackled. It doesn't follow that the only way to tackle it is by force or that the best way to tackle it is by force. You mention Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan as examples of places where it is successfully tackled by force and your use of ellipses makes me pretty sure you see the issue. To quote myself - "It could be removed nowadays by a really authoritarian state, but you then have to ask if the "solution" is better or worse than the problem." It's not even clear that's entirely possible - e.g. reports from survivors of IS occupation confirm that alcohol was still being made and used under IS rule even though IS was a tyranny using very extreme force to suppress it.
Cannabis is being engineered to be more harmful, by the way, with the goal of making it more potent. Given free rein, it would become much more harmful than it naturally is. As harmful as alcohol? Maybe.
We are using the softly softly approach though and it's just not working. People have free reign over how much they are allowed to drink and it's quite frankly a disaster.