Swindon AdvertiserYoung bear brunt of police searches (From Swindon Advertiser)

Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us

Young bear brunt of police searches

YOUNG people are more likely to be stopped and searched, figures released by Wiltshire Police show.

The most common age group held to account across Swindon and Wiltshire is 18 to 25 year olds. They accounted for 50 per cent of the total number in the first three months of 2012.

The figure represented an increase of 0.7 per cent on the previous quarter. Black people were six times more likely to be stopped than other ethnic groups.

However, 3,920 stop searches were recorded during the 2011 to 2012 financial year compared to 4,746 the year before – an overall reduction of 17 per cent.

Police made a total of 455 arrests as a result.

Temporary Chief Insp Roger Bull, who is the force tactical lead on stop and search, said: “Half of those stopped and searched are aged between 18 and 25.

“This reflects the age group of people most often involved in acquisitive crime, such as shoplifting, theft of bikes and robbery.

"This age group is also most active when it comes to the use of illegal drugs.”

Stop and search tactics have come under criticism in other parts of the country for turning young people and members of ethnic groups againt police, with some groups claiming they were an aggravating feature behind the London riots.

But Chief Insp Bull defended the use of the powers by Wiltshire Police, which has been pursuing targeted operations, particularly against drug dealers.

He said: “The use of stop and search powers allows the police to tackle crime and anti social behaviour, and to prevent more serious crimes.

“The police view remains that stop and search is a powerful weapon in the fight against crime.

"But it needs to be effective, targeted and, as far as possible, intelligence-based.

“Therefore, the police service locally and nationally has worked with partners over many years to address these community concerns.”

Drugs were the main reason why people were stopped and searched, with 2,382 people held to account – of which more than 1,000 took place in Swindon.

Chief Insp Bull said: “Op Atlantic is targeting drug dealers from London and Bristol attempting to spread into Swindon and Chippenham.

"We are monitoring their activities using intelligence generated locally and from other forces. This leads to a targeted stop and search.”

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:06am Mon 4 Feb 13

Robh says...

I think a 15% arrest rate justifies the stop and search.
I think a 15% arrest rate justifies the stop and search. Robh
  • Score: 0

11:01am Mon 4 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

It is not 'unfair' to stop and search individuals who meet certain criteria that is known to reflect high levels of certain crimes.

Equally, it is certainly not 'racist' to stop and search young black males in relation to certain crimes that are committed by black males to disproportionate levels.

Let's face it, there aren't many 60 year old Chinese women in British jails.

Also, if young males don't want to be thought of as potential criminals, they might wish to consider not dressing, behaving and putting on an attitude that they believe makes them look like potential criminals. Just a thought.
It is not 'unfair' to stop and search individuals who meet certain criteria that is known to reflect high levels of certain crimes. [p] Equally, it is certainly not 'racist' to stop and search young black males in relation to certain crimes that are committed by black males to disproportionate levels. [p] Let's face it, there aren't many 60 year old Chinese women in British jails. [p] Also, if young males don't want to be thought of as potential criminals, they might wish to consider not dressing, behaving and putting on an attitude that they believe makes them look like potential criminals. Just a thought. Tim Newroman
  • Score: 0

11:34am Mon 4 Feb 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

I thought most of the younger males wanted to be put in jail the way they advertise their services by wearing their trousers half way round their butt......!
I thought most of the younger males wanted to be put in jail the way they advertise their services by wearing their trousers half way round their butt......! LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Mon 4 Feb 13

benzss says...

For me this kind of shows what a waste of resource the war on drugs is.
For me this kind of shows what a waste of resource the war on drugs is. benzss
  • Score: 0

1:28pm Mon 4 Feb 13

house on the hill says...

""benzss says...
12:35pm Mon 4 Feb 13

For me this kind of shows what a waste of resource the war on drugs is.”""

Presumably you are one of those drug takers who wants it legalised?

Firstly, well over 2/3rd of the population disagree with you.
Secondly what sort of message is it sending to criminals and everyone that the answer to unsolved crime is to legalise it. Whats next, legalise carrying knives as thousands do or drink driving which hundreds of thousands do?
Thirdly, do you think that drug dealers would simply vanish into thin air or would they turn to something else or harder drugs or undercut the price and quality of the legal ones? There are enough problems with those idiots taking legal highs without adding to it.

More stop and searches are what is required if the fit the profile. If you look the part chances are you are the part. and thats not stereotyping its common sense.
""benzss says... 12:35pm Mon 4 Feb 13 For me this kind of shows what a waste of resource the war on drugs is.”"" Presumably you are one of those drug takers who wants it legalised? Firstly, well over 2/3rd of the population disagree with you. Secondly what sort of message is it sending to criminals and everyone that the answer to unsolved crime is to legalise it. Whats next, legalise carrying knives as thousands do or drink driving which hundreds of thousands do? Thirdly, do you think that drug dealers would simply vanish into thin air or would they turn to something else or harder drugs or undercut the price and quality of the legal ones? There are enough problems with those idiots taking legal highs without adding to it. More stop and searches are what is required if the fit the profile. If you look the part chances are you are the part. and thats not stereotyping its common sense. house on the hill
  • Score: 0

2:40pm Mon 4 Feb 13

benzss says...

house on the hill wrote:
""benzss says... 12:35pm Mon 4 Feb 13 For me this kind of shows what a waste of resource the war on drugs is.”"" Presumably you are one of those drug takers who wants it legalised? Firstly, well over 2/3rd of the population disagree with you. Secondly what sort of message is it sending to criminals and everyone that the answer to unsolved crime is to legalise it. Whats next, legalise carrying knives as thousands do or drink driving which hundreds of thousands do? Thirdly, do you think that drug dealers would simply vanish into thin air or would they turn to something else or harder drugs or undercut the price and quality of the legal ones? There are enough problems with those idiots taking legal highs without adding to it. More stop and searches are what is required if the fit the profile. If you look the part chances are you are the part. and thats not stereotyping its common sense.
You presume much, and with so little insight.

1: It is somewhat irrelevant what the population thinks. The majority of the population (according to some polls) want capital punishment to return, but they'd be dead (ahem) wrong. 9 out of 10 people could believe the Earth to be flat and they'd be wrong too.

2: Use of drugs is a victimless crime in and of itself*. Carrying weaponry with intent or drink driving are quite different matters, as you really ought to know.

3: The economics on this are pretty clear. There is a good reason why 99.9999999% of booze consumed in this country is from a regulated and legal source, even when in theory you could buy moonshine for a fraction of the price (but know not whence it came).

If the aim of the war on drugs is to reduce harm, it seems pretty clear that moving drug use from a criminal pursuit controlled by criminals to something more akin to drinking beer or coffee will reduce harm both to the user and the inadvertent victim.

In any case, you don't need to ask me for logic, for an empirical understanding just look at Portugal post-decriminalisati
on. Or, y'know, study the history of prohibition and how well that worked out...


*I suppose you could argue that using drugs affects other people, but even if you agree with that (which I don't, as that argument would implicate basically anything you do) your aim really is still to 'reduce harm'.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: ""benzss says... 12:35pm Mon 4 Feb 13 For me this kind of shows what a waste of resource the war on drugs is.”"" Presumably you are one of those drug takers who wants it legalised? Firstly, well over 2/3rd of the population disagree with you. Secondly what sort of message is it sending to criminals and everyone that the answer to unsolved crime is to legalise it. Whats next, legalise carrying knives as thousands do or drink driving which hundreds of thousands do? Thirdly, do you think that drug dealers would simply vanish into thin air or would they turn to something else or harder drugs or undercut the price and quality of the legal ones? There are enough problems with those idiots taking legal highs without adding to it. More stop and searches are what is required if the fit the profile. If you look the part chances are you are the part. and thats not stereotyping its common sense.[/p][/quote]You presume much, and with so little insight. 1: It is somewhat irrelevant what the population thinks. The majority of the population (according to some polls) want capital punishment to return, but they'd be dead (ahem) wrong. 9 out of 10 people could believe the Earth to be flat and they'd be wrong too. 2: Use of drugs is a victimless crime in and of itself*. Carrying weaponry with intent or drink driving are quite different matters, as you really ought to know. 3: The economics on this are pretty clear. There is a good reason why 99.9999999% of booze consumed in this country is from a regulated and legal source, even when in theory you could buy moonshine for a fraction of the price (but know not whence it came). If the aim of the war on drugs is to reduce harm, it seems pretty clear that moving drug use from a criminal pursuit controlled by criminals to something more akin to drinking beer or coffee will reduce harm both to the user and the inadvertent victim. In any case, you don't need to ask me for logic, for an empirical understanding just look at Portugal post-decriminalisati on. Or, y'know, study the history of prohibition and how well that worked out... *I suppose you could argue that using drugs affects other people, but even if you agree with that (which I don't, as that argument would implicate basically anything you do) your aim really is still to 'reduce harm'. benzss
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Mon 4 Feb 13

The Real Librarian says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
I thought most of the younger males wanted to be put in jail the way they advertise their services by wearing their trousers half way round their butt......!
Ironically you are entirely right.

The fashion of trousers hanging down and ill fitting clothes generally, comes from prisoners being given generic sized clothing.

When a young man walks around with his waistband around his bottom, he is pretending he has just come out of jail.
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: I thought most of the younger males wanted to be put in jail the way they advertise their services by wearing their trousers half way round their butt......![/p][/quote]Ironically you are entirely right. The fashion of trousers hanging down and ill fitting clothes generally, comes from prisoners being given generic sized clothing. When a young man walks around with his waistband around his bottom, he is pretending he has just come out of jail. The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Mon 4 Feb 13

The Real Librarian says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
I thought most of the younger males wanted to be put in jail the way they advertise their services by wearing their trousers half way round their butt......!
Ironically you are entirely right.

The fashion of trousers hanging down and ill fitting clothes generally, comes from prisoners being given generic sized clothing.

When a young man walks around with his waistband around his bottom, he is pretending he has just come out of jail.
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: I thought most of the younger males wanted to be put in jail the way they advertise their services by wearing their trousers half way round their butt......![/p][/quote]Ironically you are entirely right. The fashion of trousers hanging down and ill fitting clothes generally, comes from prisoners being given generic sized clothing. When a young man walks around with his waistband around his bottom, he is pretending he has just come out of jail. The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Mon 4 Feb 13

The Real Librarian says...

house on the hill says...
1:28pm Mon 4 Feb 13
QUOTE
""benzss says...
12:35pm Mon 4 Feb 13
For me this kind of shows what a waste of resource the war on drugs is.”""
Presumably you are one of those drug takers who wants it legalised?
UNQUOTE

I don’t use controlled substances but I want it legalised.

QUOTE
Firstly, well over 2/3rd of the population disagree with you.
UNQUOTE

So what!. Once upon a time the majority of the population liked to burn witches. They weren’t right.

QUOTE
Secondly what sort of message is it sending to criminals and everyone that the answer to unsolved crime is to legalise it.
UNQUOTE

What sort of message is it sending to everyone that the solution to repeated failure is to carry on doing exactly the same thing, over and over again. That is the definition of madness. The so called “War on Drugs” has failed in every way.
Its time to rethink.

QUOTE
Whats next, legalise carrying knives as thousands do or drink driving which hundreds of thousands do?
UNQUOTE

Very good Red Herrings. Also irrelevant.

QUOTE
Thirdly, do you think that drug dealers would simply vanish into thin air or would they turn to something else or harder drugs or undercut the price and quality of the legal ones? There are enough problems with those idiots taking legal highs without adding to it.
UNQUOTE

If drugs were decriminalised they could be sold, even taxed, at 10% of current prices. Illegal dealers couldn’t compete.
If you look at what happened after prohibition, the crooks either went legitimate or went into controlled drugs.

Odd that!
house on the hill says... 1:28pm Mon 4 Feb 13 QUOTE ""benzss says... 12:35pm Mon 4 Feb 13 For me this kind of shows what a waste of resource the war on drugs is.”"" Presumably you are one of those drug takers who wants it legalised? UNQUOTE I don’t use controlled substances but I want it legalised. QUOTE Firstly, well over 2/3rd of the population disagree with you. UNQUOTE So what!. Once upon a time the majority of the population liked to burn witches. They weren’t right. QUOTE Secondly what sort of message is it sending to criminals and everyone that the answer to unsolved crime is to legalise it. UNQUOTE What sort of message is it sending to everyone that the solution to repeated failure is to carry on doing exactly the same thing, over and over again. That is the definition of madness. The so called “War on Drugs” has failed in every way. Its time to rethink. QUOTE Whats next, legalise carrying knives as thousands do or drink driving which hundreds of thousands do? UNQUOTE Very good Red Herrings. Also irrelevant. QUOTE Thirdly, do you think that drug dealers would simply vanish into thin air or would they turn to something else or harder drugs or undercut the price and quality of the legal ones? There are enough problems with those idiots taking legal highs without adding to it. UNQUOTE If drugs were decriminalised they could be sold, even taxed, at 10% of current prices. Illegal dealers couldn’t compete. If you look at what happened after prohibition, the crooks either went legitimate or went into controlled drugs. Odd that! The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

@benzss -

The majority of the population (according to some polls) want capital punishment to return, but they'd be dead (ahem) wrong.

On balance, I'm against the return of the death penalty in the UK, but that's not to say it's 'wrong'. It's a subject which doesn't have an overal 'right' or 'wrong' answer.

One thing is for certain, any criminals who are exectuted under a sentence of death have a zero percent chance of re-offending.

And this leads us to the precise reason so many people appear to wish to see the return of the death penalty. Instead of the Life Sentences the nation was promised in return for the abolition of the death penalty, we now routinely see murderers only spend 11 years in prison and the average time spent in prison for convicted rapists is a derisory 4 years.

It's my belief that the majority of those who call for the return of the death penalty are simply trying to make the point that sentencing in this country is far, far too unduly lenient.
@benzss - [quote] The majority of the population (according to some polls) want capital punishment to return, but they'd be dead (ahem) wrong. [/quote] On balance, I'm against the return of the death penalty in the UK, but that's not to say it's 'wrong'. It's a subject which doesn't have an overal 'right' or 'wrong' answer. [p] One thing is for certain, any criminals who are exectuted under a sentence of death have a zero percent chance of re-offending. [p] And this leads us to the precise reason so many people appear to wish to see the return of the death penalty. Instead of the Life Sentences the nation was promised in return for the abolition of the death penalty, we now routinely see murderers only spend 11 years in prison and the average time spent in prison for convicted rapists is a derisory 4 years. [p] It's my belief that the majority of those who call for the return of the death penalty are simply trying to make the point that sentencing in this country is far, far too unduly lenient. Tim Newroman
  • Score: 0

5:05pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Impact 7 says...

it's a common misconception that recreational drugs are harmless. The mental health problems caused by these things abound. Don't kid yourself they are safe.

And in a democracy if 2/3 if the population want this law implemented that is what we get.
it's a common misconception that recreational drugs are harmless. The mental health problems caused by these things abound. Don't kid yourself they are safe. And in a democracy if 2/3 if the population want this law implemented that is what we get. Impact 7
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Mon 4 Feb 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

@benzss

Quote "What sort of message is it sending to everyone that the solution to repeated failure is to carry on doing exactly the same thing, over and over again. That is the definition of madness. The so called “War on Drugs” has failed in every way.
Its time to rethink."

Your argument actually enforces the idea that punishments for drug based crimes are unacceptable lenient. Punishments should be significantly harsher.


We have for too long taken a liberal approach to crime and punishment and it has been a proven failure. Its time for it to get harsher.


Quote "If drugs were decriminalised they could be sold, even taxed, at 10% of current prices. Illegal dealers couldn’t compete.
If you look at what happened after prohibition, the crooks either went legitimate or went into controlled drugs. "

This is also proven to be inaccurate as alcohol and illegal alcohol and tobacco is showing. The very fact that something is taxed means it can be produced for lower cost.


People already use under the influence of drugs and alcohol as arguments to some of their criminal behaviour; including a recent case of arson which was published in the Adver.
@benzss Quote "What sort of message is it sending to everyone that the solution to repeated failure is to carry on doing exactly the same thing, over and over again. That is the definition of madness. The so called “War on Drugs” has failed in every way. Its time to rethink." Your argument actually enforces the idea that punishments for drug based crimes are unacceptable lenient. Punishments should be significantly harsher. We have for too long taken a liberal approach to crime and punishment and it has been a proven failure. Its time for it to get harsher. Quote "If drugs were decriminalised they could be sold, even taxed, at 10% of current prices. Illegal dealers couldn’t compete. If you look at what happened after prohibition, the crooks either went legitimate or went into controlled drugs. " This is also proven to be inaccurate as alcohol and illegal alcohol and tobacco is showing. The very fact that something is taxed means it can be produced for lower cost. People already use under the influence of drugs and alcohol as arguments to some of their criminal behaviour; including a recent case of arson which was published in the Adver. LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Tue 5 Feb 13

benzss says...

@LordAshOfTheBrake

You were responding to The Real Librarian there, but I basically agree with what he said.

Two things:

1) Capital punishment is not a sigificant deterrent, particularly when it comes to trafficking. The higher the risk, the higher the reward. This is why people still traffic drugs into Singapore, Malaysia, et al. The Philippines provides the most stark example of why your method just won't work. In the 60s the level of drug use was very low, and generally was only alcohol, nicotine and opium. After opium was declared a national threat and various task forces set up, opium turned into heroin, which has now changed to Shabu, a type of methamphetamine. This is a nasty drug, many, many times more harmful than opium, and its very existence was brought about by hamfisted government chest thumping. Indeed, a similar thing happened in the UK and USA in the early C20th. Opium was as bad as it got, maybe some cocaine, but after prohibitionist policies were put in place, heroin and crack became the drugs of choice, and the nastier, more risky and cheaper drugs were always ahead of the curve. And this is even without mentioning moonshine, itself a nasty substitute for an evening pint.

2) You're right that all things are subject to a kind of laffer curve. It is just a fact that if the law makes a thing more expensive, the black market will benefit from it to some extent, especially those products which are pretty inelastic (like drugs). But even given that, for the average punter it is still a risk-reward ratio to consider. A legal and regulated drug of known origin and purity will for the vast majority of users be preferable to anything the black market has to offer. Not that the black market disappears, but, by definition, it would get a hell of a lot smaller.


In any case, I completely disagree with the idea that mere use of a given drug is worth a harsh punishment. Especially when some drugs which are currently illegal (e.g. THC, MDMA) are not really harmful, especially compared with some legal drugs and recreational pursuits (horse riding anyone?) which are accepted today.
@LordAshOfTheBrake You were responding to The Real Librarian there, but I basically agree with what he said. Two things: 1) Capital punishment is not a sigificant deterrent, particularly when it comes to trafficking. The higher the risk, the higher the reward. This is why people still traffic drugs into Singapore, Malaysia, et al. The Philippines provides the most stark example of why your method just won't work. In the 60s the level of drug use was very low, and generally was only alcohol, nicotine and opium. After opium was declared a national threat and various task forces set up, opium turned into heroin, which has now changed to Shabu, a type of methamphetamine. This is a nasty drug, many, many times more harmful than opium, and its very existence was brought about by hamfisted government chest thumping. Indeed, a similar thing happened in the UK and USA in the early C20th. Opium was as bad as it got, maybe some cocaine, but after prohibitionist policies were put in place, heroin and crack became the drugs of choice, and the nastier, more risky and cheaper drugs were always ahead of the curve. And this is even without mentioning moonshine, itself a nasty substitute for an evening pint. 2) You're right that all things are subject to a kind of laffer curve. It is just a fact that if the law makes a thing more expensive, the black market will benefit from it to some extent, especially those products which are pretty inelastic (like drugs). But even given that, for the average punter it is still a risk-reward ratio to consider. A legal and regulated drug of known origin and purity will for the vast majority of users be preferable to anything the black market has to offer. Not that the black market disappears, but, by definition, it would get a hell of a lot smaller. In any case, I completely disagree with the idea that mere use of a given drug is worth a harsh punishment. Especially when some drugs which are currently illegal (e.g. THC, MDMA) are not really harmful, especially compared with some legal drugs and recreational pursuits (horse riding anyone?) which are accepted today. benzss
  • Score: 0

8:20am Wed 6 Feb 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

@benzss

Recreational drug manufactures can set up legitimate businesses and go through the same screening and trials as pharmaceuticals. They chose not to because many of them are dangerous. They clearly have the money so that is no excuse.


You cannot class all drugs as harmless and therefore should be legalised. Each drug needs to be taken in its own right and go through the necessary medical trials. That avenue is already open; yet they do not take it why?


People will always traffic drugs and illegal goods, however the volume of people doing so is much less in those countries than it would be if the punishments were less; hence the high rewards and even higher risks where those countries use capital punishment.
@benzss Recreational drug manufactures can set up legitimate businesses and go through the same screening and trials as pharmaceuticals. They chose not to because many of them are dangerous. They clearly have the money so that is no excuse. You cannot class all drugs as harmless and therefore should be legalised. Each drug needs to be taken in its own right and go through the necessary medical trials. That avenue is already open; yet they do not take it why? People will always traffic drugs and illegal goods, however the volume of people doing so is much less in those countries than it would be if the punishments were less; hence the high rewards and even higher risks where those countries use capital punishment. LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 0

9:26am Wed 6 Feb 13

benzss says...

LordAshOfTheBrake

The question is one of *reducing harm*; capital punishment does not reduce the aggregate of harm caused by drug use/abuse/traffickin
g when compared with more lenient punishments, and certainly not when compared with little or no punishment. My point is that harsher punishments do not necessarily reduce harm overall, even if they may make you feel better (you know, those 'liberals' do have a point when it comes to crime & punishment).

The first part of your post is a little baffling to me... nobody's said just yet that recreational drugs are all harmless - some more harmful than others, of course, as i said THC and MDMA are pretty close to harmless - but, um, there is no avenue for recreational drugs to be manufactured for recreational use, except for the Big Three. So I don't know exactly what you're talking about there.

And in pharmaceuticals, the cost of bringing a single molecule from conception to market is pretty high. A billion dollars is a good average. Recreational drugs for obvious reasons do not and should not go through the same process. You're a bit wide of the mark there.

As a sort of primer to arguments going against the status quo when it comes to drugs, check out 'The Art of Suppression' by Chris Snowdon. It's an interesting narrative, but it's the references which are the most useful.
LordAshOfTheBrake The question is one of *reducing harm*; capital punishment does not reduce the aggregate of harm caused by drug use/abuse/traffickin g when compared with more lenient punishments, and certainly not when compared with little or no punishment. My point is that harsher punishments do not necessarily reduce harm overall, even if they may make you feel better (you know, those 'liberals' do have a point when it comes to crime & punishment). The first part of your post is a little baffling to me... nobody's said just yet that recreational drugs are all harmless - some more harmful than others, of course, as i said THC and MDMA are pretty close to harmless - but, um, there is no avenue for recreational drugs to be manufactured for recreational use, except for the Big Three. So I don't know exactly what you're talking about there. And in pharmaceuticals, the cost of bringing a single molecule from conception to market is pretty high. A billion dollars is a good average. Recreational drugs for obvious reasons do not and should not go through the same process. You're a bit wide of the mark there. As a sort of primer to arguments going against the status quo when it comes to drugs, check out 'The Art of Suppression' by Chris Snowdon. It's an interesting narrative, but it's the references which are the most useful. benzss
  • Score: 0

8:33am Thu 7 Feb 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

@Benzss

Your stance along with the Librarians is that the war on drugs is a waste of time and therefore drugs should be legalised. If you do not legalise all of them then by definition you still need some war albeit smaller against drugs.

In general neither of you single out specific drugs. Therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that you support the legalisation of all drugs.


There is so much money in recreational drugs that if the will by the illegal drug trade existed to go through pharmaceutical testing the money would be there. They chose not to. It doesn't need the big 3 companies to do this. Small drug companies pop up all the time.

Bringing up the big 3 though is interesting is it not. Do you not think that if they believed some of the drugs were as safe as claimed they would not be lobbying harder and actually doing work in this field.

The avenue does exist but none of the drug makers etc are prepared to follow it because they know their drugs will not pass.

With regards to your 'liberals' have a point on crime and punishment; decades of soft sentencing have proven this to be incorrect.
@Benzss Your stance along with the Librarians is that the war on drugs is a waste of time and therefore drugs should be legalised. If you do not legalise all of them then by definition you still need some war albeit smaller against drugs. In general neither of you single out specific drugs. Therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that you support the legalisation of all drugs. There is so much money in recreational drugs that if the will by the illegal drug trade existed to go through pharmaceutical testing the money would be there. They chose not to. It doesn't need the big 3 companies to do this. Small drug companies pop up all the time. Bringing up the big 3 though is interesting is it not. Do you not think that if they believed some of the drugs were as safe as claimed they would not be lobbying harder and actually doing work in this field. The avenue does exist but none of the drug makers etc are prepared to follow it because they know their drugs will not pass. With regards to your 'liberals' have a point on crime and punishment; decades of soft sentencing have proven this to be incorrect. LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Fri 8 Feb 13

benzss says...

@LordAshofBrake

By 'big 3' I mean nicotine, alcohol and caffeine.

In any case, you'd be interested to know that a good deal of drugs available over-the-counter now would not pass clinical trials with flying colours... penicillin and paracetamol, for instance, are pretty dangerous in relation to their efficacy.

But the point of pharmaceutical testing is for medical efficacy. THC, morphine, et al, have of course been shown to have positive effects in certain cases (THC with cancer, for instance). But this isn't the avenue by which we test recreational cases and nor should it be.

In general though, yes, I support legalisation of *all* recreational drugs, with certain caveats, of course. Standard market rules apply, i.e. you have to show where it came from, its contents (and therefore purity), weight, etc etc. This is the majority of overdoses gone, and the criminal element completely undermined, insofar as dealers can either go legit or find another 'job'.

Once again, i reiterate that this is with the aim of reducing harm caused. It would seem as if most avoidable harm is caused by the mere fact that most recreational drugs are illegal.
@LordAshofBrake By 'big 3' I mean nicotine, alcohol and caffeine. In any case, you'd be interested to know that a good deal of drugs available over-the-counter now would not pass clinical trials with flying colours... penicillin and paracetamol, for instance, are pretty dangerous in relation to their efficacy. But the point of pharmaceutical testing is for medical efficacy. THC, morphine, et al, have of course been shown to have positive effects in certain cases (THC with cancer, for instance). But this isn't the avenue by which we test recreational cases and nor should it be. In general though, yes, I support legalisation of *all* recreational drugs, with certain caveats, of course. Standard market rules apply, i.e. you have to show where it came from, its contents (and therefore purity), weight, etc etc. This is the majority of overdoses gone, and the criminal element completely undermined, insofar as dealers can either go legit or find another 'job'. Once again, i reiterate that this is with the aim of reducing harm caused. It would seem as if most avoidable harm is caused by the mere fact that most recreational drugs are illegal. benzss
  • 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