Macbeast
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 09:09 AM |
|
|
Not much
serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world. "
in your post. Maybe the dope isn't working any more ?
I'm addicted to brake fluid, but I can stop anytime.
|
|
|
|
|
Antnicuk
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 09:30 AM |
|
|
You have clearly just identified who doesn't know what they are talking about, cps making the charging decision, police charge but only in
certain offences, drink drive isn't one of them, the only motoring offences cps decide on are ones involving a road death. Also police have
just regained many more offences that they can charge without cos advice.
As for cannabis, this thread isn't the place for that discussion, but the fact is it's illegal. If you don't like the laws in this
country, leave or face the consequences.
600 BHP per ton, Stylus Brought back from the dead! Turbo Rotary Powered!
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 10:22 AM |
|
|
I think your summary is ....
"i want to break the laws i don't agree with without being punished" (cannabis).
"I want the police not to follow policy despite being revised over a number of years to make it as robust and safe for everyone else"
(drink driving).
Thanks .......... how can the police win when they get no respect for following the policies laid down by the superiors/courts? Policies formed over
time for good reason to protect the majority of society. If you don't like policies start or join a campaign to get the law changed. If the
majority or science believe in your views, the changes aren't too detrimental to society, then the law will (eventually) get changed. Simple
examples, fox hunting, seat belts, public smoking ban - science or the majority believed it was a bad idea, campaigned, law changed.
Oh, and whilst cannabis does have a lot of positive effects its also got (i believe, not done any recent reading on the subject) proven links to
psychosis and depending on the form taken (eg resin) mixed with lots of really poisonous stuff to make it go further. Also due to being an illegal
drug supports a number of criminal types who do lots of naughty things including not pay tax 
|
|
|
Strontium Dog
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 10:28 AM |
|
|
^^^^ ROFL Of course leaving the country is one option, changing the absurd laws is another! And as usual, thanks for the emails from those that
don't want to be identified/persecuted by the closed minded that seem to like to impose there lifestyle choices on others!
Mike, sorry but you don't have a clue from your comments and out of interest, do you think if I had never smoked a spliff the police would have
bothered to turn up when my bike was nicked? Or do I not qualify for the protection the law is supposed to provide for every citizen.
If you feel so strongly that I should not smoke the herb that alleviates my medical condition and which breaks down into absolutely no toxins when
ingested unlike the prescription alternatives I have to take instead you should try to find genuine rational arguments against it instead of spouting
Daily Mail type propaganda.
I'm off t5o drink 10 pints and smoke 40 fags now. Oh wait, I don't drink or smoke tobacco because they are bad for me and those in my
immediate proximity. Bugger, I'd better have a spliff instead then!
[Edited on 10/3/11 by Strontium Dog]
|
|
|
MikeFellows
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 10:38 AM |
|
|
Without pushing this thread even furth off topic.
but last year half the goverment drug advisory scientists lost their jobs pushed/quit for not towing the goverment line on cannabis.
so just because its scientific doesnt make it fact.
its estimated that the police siezed less that 1% of drugs entering the uk in 2009 - pointless
for me all drugs should be legalised, the trade is unstoppable due to the money involved - the £30k a year customs man being offered £100k to let 1
container through - nothing can compete. if he doesnt want the £100k, he will have a price and the smugglers can pay it.
then you can tax it, you can check its quality, and it could be sold professionally.
the laws cant keep up with the chemists either, the new wave of manufactured drugs is now unstoppable. in 1996 (I think), the goverment banned
ketamine, it pushed its use up 10 fold over the next few years
the bottom line comes down to peoples mis-education, people remember leah betts taking some exctasy and dying, nobody points out that she drank sooo
much water she would have died without the ecstasy.
If alcohol had just been invented - it would certainly be banned
please stop reading the daily mail!
edit to apologise about my horrific grammar and spelling
[Edited on 10/3/11 by MikeFellows]
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 11:06 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
I really don't believe the policeman's boss was telling him to wake up drivers in sleeper compartments and nicking them. It's more
likely the policeman's boss was telling him to nick as many drunk drivers as possible and Mr Plod doesn't know a) where to draw the line
b) any common sense.
By extrapolation if I had this in my garage
and I was working on it after a few beers and had the keys to the (yet to be fitted ignition switch) in my pocket I could get done for
1) drunk in charge
2) no insurance
3) no MOT
4) unroadworthy vehicle (after all, looks at the thread on those non-existant tyres )
5) not displaying a tax disc
Okay, that's extrapolation to the absurd but the point holds. At some level Mr Plod needed to show some bleeding common sense.
Also- how can you be in "drunk in charge" of a vehicle from a sleeper cab? Before Mr Plod told him to get into the driving seat he was not
in charge. Or to put in another way, if he was going down the road driving his vehicle from the luxury of the sleeper compartment he would get done
for not being in charge of his vehicle. If you can't be in charge of a vehicle from the sleeper cab you can't be drunk in charge of a
vehicle from the sleeper cab. QED
No you wouldn't as its just a frame and not registered as a vehicle yet.
This whole thing just shows this country is slowly going to a police state while it gurgles down the plug hole 
And I wonder if it was the policemans boss who gave him the go ahead to poke and beat me with his riot batten....
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 02:32 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Strontium Dog
^^^^ ROFL Of course leaving the country is one option, changing the absurd laws is another!
Excellent we agree, i'll look forward to your campaign to change the absurd laws. If your arguments are well founded I'll join you.
quote:
Mike, sorry but you don't have a clue from your comments
From a quick internet trawl (which ended up on wikipedia as it was the easiest source of links and in theory should be relatively even sided) of
evidence of resin being adulterated with stuff that will do you harm to bulk it out & that there are links (that scientists don't
understand) between cannabis and mental health. Willing to reconsider my position when i see evidence that disputes scientifically the links below.
Note - i've not actually said if i'm for or against deregulating cannabis..... just that there are proven links to the stuff being laced
with really bad stuff, that it seems to give you psychological issues and you shouldn't break the law but try to change the law.
Busse F, Omidi L, Timper K, et al. (April 2008). "Lead poisoning due to adulterated marijuana". N. Engl. J. Med. 358 (15): 1641–2
Venhuis BJ, de Kaste D (November 2008). "Sildenafil analogs used for adulterating marijuana". Forensic Sci. Int. 182 (1-3): e23–4.
http://www.ukcia.org/activism/soapbar.php (this is a pro cannabis site saying don't buy soapbar due to the potential pollutants in it)
http://www.lifelineproject.co.uk/Dr-Russell-Newcome-on-the-ACMD-report-on-cannabis_25.php
Henquet C, Krabbendam L, Spauwen J, et al. (January 2005). "Prospective Cohort Study of Cannabis Use, Predisposition for Psychosis, and
Psychotic Symptoms in Young People.". British Medical Journal 330 (7481):
Patton GC, Coffey C, Carlin JB, Degenhardt L, Lynskey M, Hall W (November 2002). "Cannabis Use and Mental Health in Young People: Cohort
Study.". British Medical Journal 325 (7374): 1195–1198.
Moore THM, Zammit S, Lingford-Hughes A et al. (2007). "Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic
review". Lancet 370 (9584): 319–328.
Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Ridder EM (March 2005). "Tests of Causal Linkages Between Cannabis Use and Psychotic Symptoms.". Addiction 100
(3): 354–366.
quote:
and out of interest, do you think if I had never smoked a spliff the police would have bothered to turn up when my bike was nicked? Or do I not
qualify for the protection the law is supposed to provide for every citizen.
IF the police refused to turn up because you've smoked a spliff in the past that is disgusting and should NEVER have happened. Based on just
those facts the police complaints commission should be informed. That is not acceptable.
As I know none of the facts between the two cases its impossible to make an accurate comment. Based on having had to personally chase the police 3
times to turn up to a break in at my property that have lots of forensic evidence to be collected, i'd suspect its a case of overworked police
not bothering to attend another stolen bike as there was no extra evidence to gather (or in my case there were out all night trying to find an old
lady who'd wandered off from sheltered housing).
quote:
If you feel so strongly that I should not smoke the herb that alleviates my medical condition and which breaks down into absolutely no toxins when
ingested unlike the prescription alternatives I have to take instead you should try to find genuine rational arguments against it instead of spouting
Daily Mail type propaganda.
[Edited on 10/3/11 by Strontium Dog]
I don't read the daily mail. Read the BBC, listen to radio 4 and 5, try to find the facts behind the argument and make my own mind up (Ben
Goldacre's site is interesting if you like this sort of thing - he's his links on Cannabis
http://www.badscience.net/index.php?s=cannabis). Hopefully this post will have helped prove that. Sorry to hear you have a medical condition that
causes you problems, hope the medical trials of cannabis come through soon so it can be prescribed to you legally & good luck joining the others
hoping to change the law in case the trials don't come through.
Now this really is off topic so i'll stop on this thread here. If you want to start another thread discussing this subject. I'll happily
read that and may join in.
|
|
|
Strontium Dog
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 04:45 PM |
|
|
Yes, thing I agree with you on is I don't want to keep on about this. I could spend the time you have and trawl up plenty of evidence and post
lots of links too but I won't. I will just make these two points though.
Adulterated cannabis can only exist in an unregulated market, the Government is allowing our people to come to harms they could prevent by maintaining
the present system, they are shirking their duty to a sizable minority by enforcing prohibition.
4% of the public are susceptible to psychosis, of them a small fraction MAY develop psychotic symptoms, although their is, as yet, no causal link.
Considering the risks compared to other legal activities, (smoking, drinking, hang gliding, etc. etc), it should be deemed as acceptable,
Other than that visit the LCA http://www.lca-uk.org/ and look at the response people like Luke Flanagan have received in a recent publi opinion
poll
http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-luke-ming-flanagan-be-growing-cannabis-2011-03/
Oh, and I don't think the old bill didn't turn up just 'cause I smoke. It's just that they didn't show up full stop. As
it goes, my recent involvement on more than one topic has been OK. They have been at worst polite and at best helpful. It's just not always the
case though!
[Edited on 10/3/11 by Strontium Dog]
|
|
|
StrikerChris
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 05:16 PM |
|
|
Been there got the t shirt and a dr10 on my licence.short answer is after (my drink awareness course) drunk in charge of a carriage (which is defined
as a method of transport,push bikes included)is the only law that i'd heard of you have to prove your innocence.and are assumed guilty.as in if
your pist and walking past your car with no intention of driving it,if your keys are in your pocket they can do you.same goes if you sleep in it with
your keys on you whats to say you wont wake up freezing and drive home,you have to prove you wont.thats how the magistrates look at it.best thing to
do is make sure someone else who isn't in your vehical has your keys.its rare for common sense not to work but they showed us newspaper
clippings of coach drivers etc loosing everything because of this law.
|
|
|
focijohn
|
| posted on 11/3/11 at 04:23 PM |
|
|
My 2p's worth on the drinking and driving front....
I personally think that there should be zero movement on it, i.e. you have A drink and your over the limit, or lower the legal limit to 5mg or
something silly like this. Altho this being a pain in the arse on a Friday after work and meeting up with friends for a social few, it would
completely remove the grey areas of "I only had 2-3 drinks officer I THOUGHT I was OK." People would know where they stand all the time.
This way it would also increase the possibly be walking to the pubs/bars/clubs etc etc which would be good for our health because recently its been
drummed into us that if we look wrongly at a bar of chocolate were going to die from being clinically obese. 
I also noticed that no one has touched on the morning after driving which among young people especially is as big a problem as drinking and
driving.
John
Anyone going slower than you is an idiot. Anyone going faster than you is a maniac.
Too many targets but too few bullets.
|
|
|
jossey
|
| posted on 11/3/11 at 09:04 PM |
|
|
you totally forgot about driving without due care and attention.. look at that park. you left it on the grass......
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
I really don't believe the policeman's boss was telling him to wake up drivers in sleeper compartments and nicking them. It's more
likely the policeman's boss was telling him to nick as many drunk drivers as possible and Mr Plod doesn't know a) where to draw the line
b) any common sense.
By extrapolation if I had this in my garage
and I was working on it after a few beers and had the keys to the (yet to be fitted ignition switch) in my pocket I could get done for
1) drunk in charge
2) no insurance
3) no MOT
4) unroadworthy vehicle (after all, looks at the thread on those non-existant tyres )
5) not displaying a tax disc
Okay, that's extrapolation to the absurd but the point holds. At some level Mr Plod needed to show some bleeding common sense.
Also- how can you be in "drunk in charge" of a vehicle from a sleeper cab? Before Mr Plod told him to get into the driving seat he was not
in charge. Or to put in another way, if he was going down the road driving his vehicle from the luxury of the sleeper compartment he would get done
for not being in charge of his vehicle. If you can't be in charge of a vehicle from the sleeper cab you can't be drunk in charge of a
vehicle from the sleeper cab. QED
Thanks
David Johnson
Building my tiger avon slowly but surely.
|
|
|
