Weymouth man arrested after drugs bust

A WEYMOUTH man has been arrested and charged after a Drugs bust in the town.

Dorset Police executed a warrant under the misuse of drugs act on Wednesday morning at a property in Hardwick Street, Weymouth.

A 30-year-old Weymouth man was arrested and charged with possession of a class B drug, believed to be cannabis.

Inspector Les Fry from Weymouth police said officers take a ‘strong and proactive’ line with anyone involved in the drugs scene, whether they are involved in their use or supply.

He said: “Drugs have a detrimental effect on people’s lives and the community as a whole. We will not tolerate such use and we look to the community to support us by providing information on which we will act. Should anyone not feel comfortable contacting the police they can call Crimestoppers freely and anonymously on 0800 555 111.” Dorset Police can be contacted on 101.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:01pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Micke12 says...

I appreciate that the police are doing their best - maybe -, butr when you take out one drig user or supplier, there are two or more waiting in the wings. If we really want to send out the message that Dorset will not tolerate drug users and dealers, particularly dealers and suppliers, we must make sure that the courts impose maximum penalties at all times so the these scum get the message that drug use and supply in this county will only result in long jail terms, with no mitigation being permitted for dealer and suppliers. In the grand scale of things though, Dorset is only a speck in the ocean of drug misuse - the whole counties legal system needs to push maximum jail time for drug pushers, dealer and suppliers, to get the message through that drugs will not be tolerated in the United Kingdom.

It would be interesting though, to see how the courts deal with this man. If it was for personal use, and the quantity indicates this, then perhaps a term of 5 years in prison, with a drug rehab order attached might change his ways, but in any case, we need to put more effort into educating people to the danger of these drugs at a much lesser age. Like it or not, kids learn about sex, through the tv, at a very young age, as low as 5 years old, but we don't seeem to target them in educating about the dangers of drugs until they are much much older. If we educated at a much earlier age, then maybe, just maybe, we could cut the use of drugs by the younger generation by more than a third, and a third of something has to be far better than a third of nothing. Lets put it another way, we teach our children the dangers of crossing the roads at the earliest opportunity, but not about the danger of drugs, yeat lack of knowledge in both spheres can result in death or serious defects.
I appreciate that the police are doing their best - maybe -, butr when you take out one drig user or supplier, there are two or more waiting in the wings. If we really want to send out the message that Dorset will not tolerate drug users and dealers, particularly dealers and suppliers, we must make sure that the courts impose maximum penalties at all times so the these scum get the message that drug use and supply in this county will only result in long jail terms, with no mitigation being permitted for dealer and suppliers. In the grand scale of things though, Dorset is only a speck in the ocean of drug misuse - the whole counties legal system needs to push maximum jail time for drug pushers, dealer and suppliers, to get the message through that drugs will not be tolerated in the United Kingdom. It would be interesting though, to see how the courts deal with this man. If it was for personal use, and the quantity indicates this, then perhaps a term of 5 years in prison, with a drug rehab order attached might change his ways, but in any case, we need to put more effort into educating people to the danger of these drugs at a much lesser age. Like it or not, kids learn about sex, through the tv, at a very young age, as low as 5 years old, but we don't seeem to target them in educating about the dangers of drugs until they are much much older. If we educated at a much earlier age, then maybe, just maybe, we could cut the use of drugs by the younger generation by more than a third, and a third of something has to be far better than a third of nothing. Lets put it another way, we teach our children the dangers of crossing the roads at the earliest opportunity, but not about the danger of drugs, yeat lack of knowledge in both spheres can result in death or serious defects. Micke12
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Sat 20 Oct 12

da proof says...

He said: “Alcohol has a detrimental effect on people’s lives and the community as a whole. We will not tolerate such use and we look to the community to support us by providing information on which we will act. Should anyone not feel comfortable contacting the police they can call Crimestoppers freely and anonymously on 0800 555 111.” Dorset Police can be contacted on 101. - just changed two words......you do the sums.
He said: “Alcohol has a detrimental effect on people’s lives and the community as a whole. We will not tolerate such use and we look to the community to support us by providing information on which we will act. Should anyone not feel comfortable contacting the police they can call Crimestoppers freely and anonymously on 0800 555 111.” Dorset Police can be contacted on 101. - just changed two words......you do the sums. da proof
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Sat 20 Oct 12

da proof says...

Lets put it another way, we teach our children the dangers of crossing the roads at the earliest opportunity, but not about the danger of alcohol yet the lack of knowledge in both spheres can result in death or serious defects.- two words again - does it all start to add up?
Lets put it another way, we teach our children the dangers of crossing the roads at the earliest opportunity, but not about the danger of alcohol yet the lack of knowledge in both spheres can result in death or serious defects.- two words again - does it all start to add up? da proof
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Sat 20 Oct 12

da proof says...

Two paragraphs four words .........
Two paragraphs four words ......... da proof
  • Score: 0

5:24pm Sat 20 Oct 12

da proof says...

Micke12 wrote:
I appreciate that the police are doing their best - maybe -, butr when you take out one drig user or supplier, there are two or more waiting in the wings. If we really want to send out the message that Dorset will not tolerate drug users and dealers, particularly dealers and suppliers, we must make sure that the courts impose maximum penalties at all times so the these scum get the message that drug use and supply in this county will only result in long jail terms, with no mitigation being permitted for dealer and suppliers. In the grand scale of things though, Dorset is only a speck in the ocean of drug misuse - the whole counties legal system needs to push maximum jail time for drug pushers, dealer and suppliers, to get the message through that drugs will not be tolerated in the United Kingdom.

It would be interesting though, to see how the courts deal with this man. If it was for personal use, and the quantity indicates this, then perhaps a term of 5 years in prison, with a drug rehab order attached might change his ways, but in any case, we need to put more effort into educating people to the danger of these drugs at a much lesser age. Like it or not, kids learn about sex, through the tv, at a very young age, as low as 5 years old, but we don't seeem to target them in educating about the dangers of drugs until they are much much older. If we educated at a much earlier age, then maybe, just maybe, we could cut the use of drugs by the younger generation by more than a third, and a third of something has to be far better than a third of nothing. Lets put it another way, we teach our children the dangers of crossing the roads at the earliest opportunity, but not about the danger of drugs, yeat lack of knowledge in both spheres can result in death or serious defects.
The next time you imbibe in a nice glass of Chateau Méaume or a single malt just relax and think you are a better person
[quote][p][bold]Micke12[/bold] wrote: I appreciate that the police are doing their best - maybe -, butr when you take out one drig user or supplier, there are two or more waiting in the wings. If we really want to send out the message that Dorset will not tolerate drug users and dealers, particularly dealers and suppliers, we must make sure that the courts impose maximum penalties at all times so the these scum get the message that drug use and supply in this county will only result in long jail terms, with no mitigation being permitted for dealer and suppliers. In the grand scale of things though, Dorset is only a speck in the ocean of drug misuse - the whole counties legal system needs to push maximum jail time for drug pushers, dealer and suppliers, to get the message through that drugs will not be tolerated in the United Kingdom. It would be interesting though, to see how the courts deal with this man. If it was for personal use, and the quantity indicates this, then perhaps a term of 5 years in prison, with a drug rehab order attached might change his ways, but in any case, we need to put more effort into educating people to the danger of these drugs at a much lesser age. Like it or not, kids learn about sex, through the tv, at a very young age, as low as 5 years old, but we don't seeem to target them in educating about the dangers of drugs until they are much much older. If we educated at a much earlier age, then maybe, just maybe, we could cut the use of drugs by the younger generation by more than a third, and a third of something has to be far better than a third of nothing. Lets put it another way, we teach our children the dangers of crossing the roads at the earliest opportunity, but not about the danger of drugs, yeat lack of knowledge in both spheres can result in death or serious defects.[/p][/quote]The next time you imbibe in a nice glass of Chateau Méaume or a single malt just relax and think you are a better person da proof
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Sat 20 Oct 12

da proof says...

fk it im gonna say it fk the law - who is to decide what constitutes a 'drug' and what is not ?????The guy sits in his flat and smokes a bit of green AND???Lock the man up fk it there is no danger in 'drugs'just the danger of narrowminded idiots - alcohol kills far more people - but its still legal
fk it im gonna say it fk the law - who is to decide what constitutes a 'drug' and what is not ?????The guy sits in his flat and smokes a bit of green AND???Lock the man up fk it there is no danger in 'drugs'just the danger of narrowminded idiots - alcohol kills far more people - but its still legal da proof
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Micke12 says...

da proof wrote:
fk it im gonna say it fk the law - who is to decide what constitutes a 'drug' and what is not ?????The guy sits in his flat and smokes a bit of green AND???Lock the man up fk it there is no danger in 'drugs'just the danger of narrowminded idiots - alcohol kills far more people - but its still legal
I agree that alcohol causes more problems than drugs, but as you said, alcohol is not illegal and drugs are. Whether we like it or not is neither here or there, drugs are illegal, and the revenue to the government would never be as great as alcohol or ciggies, so it is not in the interest of the government to legalise drugs. It is not a case of whether or not we hate or agree with the law, it is still the law and in the main the law is there to keep society in general from falling into anarchy. Maybe cannabis should never have returned to class B on the statute books, but that, unfortunately, like it or not, is what we vote tese idiots into parliament to do, make the laws and adjust them as seems right to the parliament. If you don't like it da proof, go out next year or whenever the next election is and stand up and ask for people to vote for you on the basis of changing the cannabis laws of this country.

"'The next time you imbibe in a nice glass of Chateau Méaume or a single malt just relax and think you are a better person'”.

I don't know where you got the impression that I can afford such drinks, much as I would like to be able to do so. I go out and have a drink usually about once a year, maybe twice, and then occasionally drink at home, but there are know single malts or Chateau Méaumein my drinking circles, not that rich, in fact not rich at all. But if you would like to buy these for me da proof, all donations to my drinking funds are gratefully accepted.

I am no right winger or left red, not Lib Dem or whatever Clegg calls his party these days, just an ordinary citizen making a comment, just like you.
[quote][p][bold]da proof[/bold] wrote: fk it im gonna say it fk the law - who is to decide what constitutes a 'drug' and what is not ?????The guy sits in his flat and smokes a bit of green AND???Lock the man up fk it there is no danger in 'drugs'just the danger of narrowminded idiots - alcohol kills far more people - but its still legal[/p][/quote]I agree that alcohol causes more problems than drugs, but as you said, alcohol is not illegal and drugs are. Whether we like it or not is neither here or there, drugs are illegal, and the revenue to the government would never be as great as alcohol or ciggies, so it is not in the interest of the government to legalise drugs. It is not a case of whether or not we hate or agree with the law, it is still the law and in the main the law is there to keep society in general from falling into anarchy. Maybe cannabis should never have returned to class B on the statute books, but that, unfortunately, like it or not, is what we vote tese idiots into parliament to do, make the laws and adjust them as seems right to the parliament. If you don't like it da proof, go out next year or whenever the next election is and stand up and ask for people to vote for you on the basis of changing the cannabis laws of this country. "'The next time you imbibe in a nice glass of Chateau Méaume or a single malt just relax and think you are a better person'”. I don't know where you got the impression that I can afford such drinks, much as I would like to be able to do so. I go out and have a drink usually about once a year, maybe twice, and then occasionally drink at home, but there are know single malts or Chateau Méaumein my drinking circles, not that rich, in fact not rich at all. But if you would like to buy these for me da proof, all donations to my drinking funds are gratefully accepted. I am no right winger or left red, not Lib Dem or whatever Clegg calls his party these days, just an ordinary citizen making a comment, just like you. Micke12
  • Score: 0

11:30pm Sat 20 Oct 12

da proof says...

Micke12 wrote:
da proof wrote:
fk it im gonna say it fk the law - who is to decide what constitutes a 'drug' and what is not ?????The guy sits in his flat and smokes a bit of green AND???Lock the man up fk it there is no danger in 'drugs'just the danger of narrowminded idiots - alcohol kills far more people - but its still legal
I agree that alcohol causes more problems than drugs, but as you said, alcohol is not illegal and drugs are. Whether we like it or not is neither here or there, drugs are illegal, and the revenue to the government would never be as great as alcohol or ciggies, so it is not in the interest of the government to legalise drugs. It is not a case of whether or not we hate or agree with the law, it is still the law and in the main the law is there to keep society in general from falling into anarchy. Maybe cannabis should never have returned to class B on the statute books, but that, unfortunately, like it or not, is what we vote tese idiots into parliament to do, make the laws and adjust them as seems right to the parliament. If you don't like it da proof, go out next year or whenever the next election is and stand up and ask for people to vote for you on the basis of changing the cannabis laws of this country.

"'The next time you imbibe in a nice glass of Chateau Méaume or a single malt just relax and think you are a better person'”.

I don't know where you got the impression that I can afford such drinks, much as I would like to be able to do so. I go out and have a drink usually about once a year, maybe twice, and then occasionally drink at home, but there are know single malts or Chateau Méaumein my drinking circles, not that rich, in fact not rich at all. But if you would like to buy these for me da proof, all donations to my drinking funds are gratefully accepted.

I am no right winger or left red, not Lib Dem or whatever Clegg calls his party these days, just an ordinary citizen making a comment, just like you.
sorry mike i have spoken a little off key mate - lot more to be said face 2 face
[quote][p][bold]Micke12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]da proof[/bold] wrote: fk it im gonna say it fk the law - who is to decide what constitutes a 'drug' and what is not ?????The guy sits in his flat and smokes a bit of green AND???Lock the man up fk it there is no danger in 'drugs'just the danger of narrowminded idiots - alcohol kills far more people - but its still legal[/p][/quote]I agree that alcohol causes more problems than drugs, but as you said, alcohol is not illegal and drugs are. Whether we like it or not is neither here or there, drugs are illegal, and the revenue to the government would never be as great as alcohol or ciggies, so it is not in the interest of the government to legalise drugs. It is not a case of whether or not we hate or agree with the law, it is still the law and in the main the law is there to keep society in general from falling into anarchy. Maybe cannabis should never have returned to class B on the statute books, but that, unfortunately, like it or not, is what we vote tese idiots into parliament to do, make the laws and adjust them as seems right to the parliament. If you don't like it da proof, go out next year or whenever the next election is and stand up and ask for people to vote for you on the basis of changing the cannabis laws of this country. "'The next time you imbibe in a nice glass of Chateau Méaume or a single malt just relax and think you are a better person'”. I don't know where you got the impression that I can afford such drinks, much as I would like to be able to do so. I go out and have a drink usually about once a year, maybe twice, and then occasionally drink at home, but there are know single malts or Chateau Méaumein my drinking circles, not that rich, in fact not rich at all. But if you would like to buy these for me da proof, all donations to my drinking funds are gratefully accepted. I am no right winger or left red, not Lib Dem or whatever Clegg calls his party these days, just an ordinary citizen making a comment, just like you.[/p][/quote]sorry mike i have spoken a little off key mate - lot more to be said face 2 face da proof
  • Score: 0

9:53am Mon 22 Oct 12

stench says...

Cannabis is illegal because the man aat the top says so, and you all bend over and say ok!

Stand up, fight!

Who'd you rather walk past in town, the group of special brew drinking loud mouth tramps at the station, or the quiet-mellow group that smell of the most beautiful plant, with wide smiles?
Cannabis is illegal because the man aat the top says so, and you all bend over and say ok! Stand up, fight! Who'd you rather walk past in town, the group of special brew drinking loud mouth tramps at the station, or the quiet-mellow group that smell of the most beautiful plant, with wide smiles? stench
  • Score: 0

5:28pm Tue 23 Oct 12

dontbuyit says...

So Micke12 as Tony Blair told us the war in Iraq was legal and justified was it wrong for us to question our government? Not so long ago it was our government that didn't want women to vote, were they right? Just because our leaders make laws doesn't mean they get it right every time and the sign of a healthy democracy is one where the populace questions the laws that are passed by their rulers.
So Micke12 as Tony Blair told us the war in Iraq was legal and justified was it wrong for us to question our government? Not so long ago it was our government that didn't want women to vote, were they right? Just because our leaders make laws doesn't mean they get it right every time and the sign of a healthy democracy is one where the populace questions the laws that are passed by their rulers. dontbuyit
  • Score: 0

9:35pm Tue 23 Oct 12

Micke12 says...

I did not say we should disagree or not agree with the government of the day and their legalislation, but once it is made, then there is only one real way to challenge it and that is by having your own voice in the seats of our democracy - Parliament.

To use the war in Iraq as the basis for your argument is pretty shallow. Wars, wherever and whenever they happen, usually cost the lives of our servicemen, and there is no doubt in my mind that the War in Iraq was perfectly illegal and was not right, yet no one in the Blair government, or that of Brown admitted they had lied, even though we knew they were lying and the the document had been 'sexed' up.

Either way, whether it is cannabis legislation or the war in Iraq, whether they are wrong or right, on this side of the house, we can do nothing as once all the parasites we call MPs are in power from our votes, they cease to listen to us and do as they feel fit, not n the intersts of the electorate that voted them in.

If you vote for a candidate and they win, then they arte effectively empowered by us, the voter, to do what they want, because if you look at the constituant basis of most of the MPs in Westminster, they are all very wealthy and therefore have no reason to do what we tell them to do, they get their funding from the big companies through donations to Party funds and back-handers with large brown envelopes, similar to what some of our local councillors recieve. If governments were not voted in on a Party politics basis, then half of the corruption in Parliament would not happen, because a lot of the MPs would be men and women on the street, and not the idiots that have been to Eton, Oxford or Cambridge.

To get into mainstream politics in this country, you either have to have a lot of money of be sponsored by some big corporation willing to spend thouands and sometimes millions to get their man/woman in government.

Personally, I would like to get every MP and member of the House of Lords, into a big courtyard, shoot the bloody lot of them and start afresh with just commoner blood, no blue (Tory) or red (Left Union) blood.

People told Cameron that his policy of Austerity was too much in too shorter period, but he went ahead, sating that we were all in this together, whilst he and Osborne, as well as Clegg, are sitting on a nice pre-politics nest-egg, and getting paid thousands of taxpayers pounds each year to put us through financial pain whislt they sit there quite happy and untouched by what we, the common people are going through.

If you attempt to question any law in this country, our response from the powers that be, is that we are trouble makers and our names and other details get passed to Special Branch or MI-5 or some other such Nation Security Agency, and we are branded 'TROUBLE', so don't try and tell me that this is a true democracy that we live in. All the time there are have's and have not's, there will never be true democracy in this country.

Look at it this way, we, the working class people, are under severe financial pressure at the moment, so what do the utility companies do, they hike the prices of the utilities, by some 13% above the inflation rate, blaming the rising cost of fuels to provide electricity, which is needed by the other utilities. If, a certain, past, Conservative Prime Minister, had not sold and privatised the oil and gas fields of this country, we would not need to rely on Russian gas and oil, we would have our own, and look who gained out of that sell-off - The rich and the middle classes, not the man on the street, the working class. People blame the last Labour government for the problems we have now, but in the last Labour government, there were only 5 people going after every available job vacancy, now it stands at 8. This government tells us things are getting better, but the plain truth is, that things are now worse than when Cameron and Osborne came into power 2 years ago. The policy of cutting so much spending at one time was never going to work, and many a decent economist said so at the time, but monetary policy in this country is dictated to a great degree by the International Monetary Fund and Europe. We are, according to the Chancellor, of the Exchequer, trillions of pounds in the red, so what do we do, we cut services, causing unemployment, which in turn means less people paying tax as they are on social security benefits, so the Exchequer gets less inland revenues with which to pay the bills. The Social Security budget goes up by a staggering amount, and then the Chancellor starts bleating that this ai unacceptable, yet he is the very scumbag that caused it. Everyone new that private sector would not spend during a recession, but Osborne and Cameron kept telling us that private sector jobs would be available to take up the slack. It was all lies, and we are still giving away billions of taxpayers pounds to foriegn countries to persuade them to give our call centres space over there as it will be cheaper to pay a man from India or Pakistan to do the job for a quarter of the pay, meaning that businesses over here only have to pay a 25% wage bill for the cheaper service. No wonder the foriegn countries love us, we are their financial benefators - and who pushes for all these foriegn call centres - the big conglomerates.

Our leaders make laws day in day out, and I have yeat to see a decent law fit for purpos that does have some get-out clause that well-to-do people can use their lawyers to find.

Ask any man on the street, 'do you think the laws of this country apply to every citizen, regardless of postion in the society'. The answer will be 'NO'

Laws in this country are not made to benefit the common man/woman, but to benefit those who are rich or fairly well off. This is fact - please don't tell me that we live in a true democracy - because that is total ****.
I did not say we should disagree or not agree with the government of the day and their legalislation, but once it is made, then there is only one real way to challenge it and that is by having your own voice in the seats of our democracy - Parliament. To use the war in Iraq as the basis for your argument is pretty shallow. Wars, wherever and whenever they happen, usually cost the lives of our servicemen, and there is no doubt in my mind that the War in Iraq was perfectly illegal and was not right, yet no one in the Blair government, or that of Brown admitted they had lied, even though we knew they were lying and the the document had been 'sexed' up. Either way, whether it is cannabis legislation or the war in Iraq, whether they are wrong or right, on this side of the house, we can do nothing as once all the parasites we call MPs are in power from our votes, they cease to listen to us and do as they feel fit, not n the intersts of the electorate that voted them in. If you vote for a candidate and they win, then they arte effectively empowered by us, the voter, to do what they want, because if you look at the constituant basis of most of the MPs in Westminster, they are all very wealthy and therefore have no reason to do what we tell them to do, they get their funding from the big companies through donations to Party funds and back-handers with large brown envelopes, similar to what some of our local councillors recieve. If governments were not voted in on a Party politics basis, then half of the corruption in Parliament would not happen, because a lot of the MPs would be men and women on the street, and not the idiots that have been to Eton, Oxford or Cambridge. To get into mainstream politics in this country, you either have to have a lot of money of be sponsored by some big corporation willing to spend thouands and sometimes millions to get their man/woman in government. Personally, I would like to get every MP and member of the House of Lords, into a big courtyard, shoot the bloody lot of them and start afresh with just commoner blood, no blue (Tory) or red (Left Union) blood. People told Cameron that his policy of Austerity was too much in too shorter period, but he went ahead, sating that we were all in this together, whilst he and Osborne, as well as Clegg, are sitting on a nice pre-politics nest-egg, and getting paid thousands of taxpayers pounds each year to put us through financial pain whislt they sit there quite happy and untouched by what we, the common people are going through. If you attempt to question any law in this country, our response from the powers that be, is that we are trouble makers and our names and other details get passed to Special Branch or MI-5 or some other such Nation Security Agency, and we are branded 'TROUBLE', so don't try and tell me that this is a true democracy that we live in. All the time there are have's and have not's, there will never be true democracy in this country. Look at it this way, we, the working class people, are under severe financial pressure at the moment, so what do the utility companies do, they hike the prices of the utilities, by some 13% above the inflation rate, blaming the rising cost of fuels to provide electricity, which is needed by the other utilities. If, a certain, past, Conservative Prime Minister, had not sold and privatised the oil and gas fields of this country, we would not need to rely on Russian gas and oil, we would have our own, and look who gained out of that sell-off - The rich and the middle classes, not the man on the street, the working class. People blame the last Labour government for the problems we have now, but in the last Labour government, there were only 5 people going after every available job vacancy, now it stands at 8. This government tells us things are getting better, but the plain truth is, that things are now worse than when Cameron and Osborne came into power 2 years ago. The policy of cutting so much spending at one time was never going to work, and many a decent economist said so at the time, but monetary policy in this country is dictated to a great degree by the International Monetary Fund and Europe. We are, according to the Chancellor, of the Exchequer, trillions of pounds in the red, so what do we do, we cut services, causing unemployment, which in turn means less people paying tax as they are on social security benefits, so the Exchequer gets less inland revenues with which to pay the bills. The Social Security budget goes up by a staggering amount, and then the Chancellor starts bleating that this ai unacceptable, yet he is the very scumbag that caused it. Everyone new that private sector would not spend during a recession, but Osborne and Cameron kept telling us that private sector jobs would be available to take up the slack. It was all lies, and we are still giving away billions of taxpayers pounds to foriegn countries to persuade them to give our call centres space over there as it will be cheaper to pay a man from India or Pakistan to do the job for a quarter of the pay, meaning that businesses over here only have to pay a 25% wage bill for the cheaper service. No wonder the foriegn countries love us, we are their financial benefators - and who pushes for all these foriegn call centres - the big conglomerates. Our leaders make laws day in day out, and I have yeat to see a decent law fit for purpos that does have some get-out clause that well-to-do people can use their lawyers to find. Ask any man on the street, 'do you think the laws of this country apply to every citizen, regardless of postion in the society'. The answer will be 'NO' Laws in this country are not made to benefit the common man/woman, but to benefit those who are rich or fairly well off. This is fact - please don't tell me that we live in a true democracy - because that is total ****. Micke12
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Thu 25 Oct 12

tarka says...

stench wrote:
Cannabis is illegal because the man aat the top says so, and you all bend over and say ok! Stand up, fight! Who'd you rather walk past in town, the group of special brew drinking loud mouth tramps at the station, or the quiet-mellow group that smell of the most beautiful plant, with wide smiles?
Niether if it involves breaking the law to fund the habit.

Which would you prefer a break in at your house by an alcolholic or a drug user ?
[quote][p][bold]stench[/bold] wrote: Cannabis is illegal because the man aat the top says so, and you all bend over and say ok! Stand up, fight! Who'd you rather walk past in town, the group of special brew drinking loud mouth tramps at the station, or the quiet-mellow group that smell of the most beautiful plant, with wide smiles?[/p][/quote]Niether if it involves breaking the law to fund the habit. Which would you prefer a break in at your house by an alcolholic or a drug user ? tarka
  • Score: 0

3:36pm Fri 26 Oct 12

marabout says...

Stringent laws, spectacular police drives, vigorous prosecution, and imprisonment of addicts and peddlers have proved not only useless and enormously expensive as means of correcting this evil, but they are also unjustifiably and unbelievably cruel in their application to the unfortunate drug victims. Repression has driven this vice underground and produced the narcotic smugglers and supply agents, who have grown wealthy out of this evil practice and who, by devious methods, have stimulated traffic in drugs. Finally, and not the least of the evils associated with repression, the helpless addict has been forced to resort to crime in order to get money for the drug which is absolutely indispensable for his comfortable existence.
The first step in any plan to alleviate this dreadful affliction should be the establishment of a UK wide control and dispensation – at cost – of habit-forming drugs. With the profit motive gone, no effort would be made to encourage its use by private dispensers of narcotics, and the drug peddler would disappear. New addicts would be speedily discovered and through early treatment, some of these unfortunate victims might be saved from becoming hopelessly incurable.

Drug addiction, like prostitution, and like Alcohol abuse, is not a police problem; it never has been, and never can be solved by policemen. It is first and last a medical problem, and if there is a solution it will be discovered not by policemen, but by scientific and competently trained medical experts whose sole objective will be the reduction and possible eradication of this devastating appetite. There should be intelligent treatment of the incurables in outpatient clinics, hospitalisation of those not too far gone to respond to therapeutic measures, and application of the prophylactic principles which medicine applies to all scourges of mankind.


Rant over
Stringent laws, spectacular police drives, vigorous prosecution, and imprisonment of addicts and peddlers have proved not only useless and enormously expensive as means of correcting this evil, but they are also unjustifiably and unbelievably cruel in their application to the unfortunate drug victims. Repression has driven this vice underground and produced the narcotic smugglers and supply agents, who have grown wealthy out of this evil practice and who, by devious methods, have stimulated traffic in drugs. Finally, and not the least of the evils associated with repression, the helpless addict has been forced to resort to crime in order to get money for the drug which is absolutely indispensable for his comfortable existence. The first step in any plan to alleviate this dreadful affliction should be the establishment of a UK wide control and dispensation – at cost – of habit-forming drugs. With the profit motive gone, no effort would be made to encourage its use by private dispensers of narcotics, and the drug peddler would disappear. New addicts would be speedily discovered and through early treatment, some of these unfortunate victims might be saved from becoming hopelessly incurable. Drug addiction, like prostitution, and like Alcohol abuse, is not a police problem; it never has been, and never can be solved by policemen. It is first and last a medical problem, and if there is a solution it will be discovered not by policemen, but by scientific and competently trained medical experts whose sole objective will be the reduction and possible eradication of this devastating appetite. There should be intelligent treatment of the incurables in outpatient clinics, hospitalisation of those not too far gone to respond to therapeutic measures, and application of the prophylactic principles which medicine applies to all scourges of mankind. Rant over marabout
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree