Police Interceptors - Channel5

[12gauge82]

2 minutes ago, Danger-Mouse said:

It's certainly more potent. However it's not truly addictive, there are few if any side effects to withdrawal and therefore any addiction is psychological. Hallucinogenic? That depends on your definition of the word. It could be considered as such but most hallucinogens are also categorised as pyschedelics and that cannabis most certainly isn't.

Trust me I've seen people off their face on drugs like spice who didn' know they were on planet earth for a whole day.

I didn't say it wasn't, it's sort of what codeine is to morphine, but I beleive it works on the same receptors as cannabis

[Danger-Mouse]

1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said:

Trust me I've seen people off their face on drugs like spice who didn' know they were on planet earth for a whole day.

I can well believe that. However spice is an artificially created compound that was sold as a legal high, it's not a product of the cannabis plant.

I'm not entirely sure whether you've drifted slightly off topic or if you are confusing spice with skunk.

[Mungler]

2 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Trust me I've seen people off their face on drugs like spice who didn' know they were on planet earth for a whole day.

But he’s right, Spice is a synthetic man mad compound and that’s measuring apples against pears.

I remember when the then Government drugs Tsar said it was his recommendation that people stick to Cannabis (and even cocaine vis M-cat) because there was a wealth and generations of research into traditional drugs but with the new synthesised drugs they didn’t even know what was in them let alone what they would do to a human short/ long term.

 

[12gauge82]

2 minutes ago, Mungler said:

But he’s right, Spice is a synthetic man mad compound and that’s measuring apples against pears.

I remember when the then Government drugs Tsar said it was his recommendation that people stick to Cannabis (and even cocaine vis M-cat) because there was a wealth and generations of research into traditional drugs but with the new synthesised drugs they didn’t even know what was in them let alone what they would do to a human short/ long term.

 

Completely agreed, I'm not suggesting people who use cannabis have any link to spice use.

[Gordon R]

I will own up to being dismayed by some of the views. It is suggested that the laws on drugs are wrong and we should challenge them.

You challenge by pressuring your MP, writing to the media etc.. You do not challenge by breaking the law and hoping that the Police will share your view that cannabis is harmless. Those who claim it is harmless stuff have clearly never seen a person's life being ruined by it, or just don't care.

In my book, those who use the drugs - I don't care if it is for pain relief - are breaking the law as it stands. This disregard for the law renders them unfit to have firearms licences. If someone needs to use cannabis for pain relief - it is their business, but they should not demand the right to have a licence. The two are not compatible.

Debates about potential revenue by legalising some drugs are just that - a debate. They cut no ice with licence applications.

[12gauge82]

1 minute ago, Gordon R said:

I will own up to being dismayed by some of the views. It is suggested that the laws on drugs are wrong and we should challenge them.

You challenge by pressuring your MP, writing to the media etc.. You do not challenge by breaking the law and hoping that the Police will share your view that cannabis is harmless. Those who claim it is harmless stuff have clearly never seen a person's life being ruined by it, or just don't care.

In my book, those who use the drugs - I don't care if it is for pain relief - are breaking the law as it stands. This disregard for the law renders them unfit to have firearms licences. If someone needs to use cannabis for pain relief - it is their business, but they should not demand the right to have a licence. The two are not compatible.

Debates about potential revenue by legalising some drugs are just that - a debate. They cut no ice with licence applications.

Absaloutly spot on.

[Bazooka Joe]

2 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

. Those who claim it is harmless stuff have clearly never seen a person's life being ruined by it, or just don't care.

Or families....it's totally soul destroying to see it happen, & the worst part about it there not a lot you can do about it....the person involved must want help to be helped or it's fruitless trying.

It's a gateway drug, no skunk, they'll try something else, before they know it they are addicted, downward spiral after that.

 

[Mungler]

Don’t get me wrong, the law as it stands is the law - that’s pretty clear. But we can’t ignore and ought to debate the change that is heading over the horizon. Indeed, wasn’t legalisation in the Lib Dem manifesto?

The debate is now mainstream and my initial interest in the subject was economic - the potential tax take and ability to stifle revenue otherwise heading for organised crime and the black economy was quite compelling. 

I have 3 teenage boys. My own view is that there is something quite destructive in cannabis and that it significantly effects developing (teenage) brains. I expect them to at some point have a dabble but not under my roof and I hope not until they’re over 21, developed and have a better sense and understanding of life. Mind you, my great grandmother was an alcoholic who physically abused my maternal grand mother and I was warned that in my genetic make up is a predisposition to addiction. Following on I’m not a massive drinker and if I have a headache I’ll only take 1 paracetamol and not 2. 

[Vince Green]

Compared to the truly massive toll that alcohol takes on so many people's lives, much of it unseen except by close family members. Cannabis is not even on the same page in the book of horrors.

Alcohol is pushed relentlessly by Supermarkets, cannabis is not.

People who have the misfortune to have to deal with the consequences of alcohol abuse must wonder how it ever got this crazy 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Vince Green

[grrclark]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

I will own up to being dismayed by some of the views. It is suggested that the laws on drugs are wrong and we should challenge them.

You challenge by pressuring your MP, writing to the media etc.. You do not challenge by breaking the law and hoping that the Police will share your view that cannabis is harmless. Those who claim it is harmless stuff have clearly never seen a person's life being ruined by it, or just don't care.

In my book, those who use the drugs - I don't care if it is for pain relief - are breaking the law as it stands. This disregard for the law renders them unfit to have firearms licences. If someone needs to use cannabis for pain relief - it is their business, but they should not demand the right to have a licence. The two are not compatible.

Debates about potential revenue by legalising some drugs are just that - a debate. They cut no ice with licence applications.

That's fair enough Gordon, however the issue in respect to firearms licensing is one of criminality yes ?

I have certainly not argued about the relative merits of cannabis or otherwise, although I have cited medical use as an example to illustrate a point.

we have done the cannabis debate on pw several times and I have no interest to revisit that as it will all unfold the same way.

I absolutely believe our countries drug policy has failed and if anybody wishes to argue the contrary let them speak up.

I don't believe I have read anything about civic disobedience and deliberately breaking the law in respect to drug use by way of protest.

Back to the main point, does recreational cannabis use, on the basis of it being illegal, carry more weight than other criminal activity and if it does why? 

[Mungler]

5 hours ago, grrclark said:

Back to the main point, does recreational cannabis use, on the basis of it being illegal, carry more weight than other criminal activity and if it does why? 

If like me you can see legalisation / decriminalisation coming then the answer is going to be ‘no’.

The (as suggested in this thread) automatic link  between cannabis use and criminality is not made out beyond current legislation which makes possession a criminal offence (and as above, that can be subject to overnight change with a change in legislation - ‘criminals’ stop being criminals overnight because the goal posts / measuring stick moves in line with a changing world).

I also agree with you that the Government’s drug policy and ‘the war’ on drugs has failed. The approach and message is entirely wrong and the science deliberately ignored (the ousting of Professor Nutt being a good example) - that ‘Daily Mail’ approach just hasn’t worked at all on any level and it’s time for a new approach.

What about ‘well done, you’ve made it to 21/25, you are now in charge of yourself and you can do what you like as long as you don’t harm anyone else and you pay tax on it’ - economic crisis solved, NHS fully funded and high fives all round.

[Scully]

57 minutes ago, Mungler said:

 

What about ‘well done, you’ve made it to 21/25, you are now in charge of yourself and you can do what you like as long as you don’t harm anyone else 

This is basically what,  in my opinion, government legislation should consist of, for life in general,  and nothing else. 

Edited January 10, 2018 by Scully

[Mungler]

Just now, Scully said:

This is basically what,  in my opinion, government legislation should consist of, for life in general,  and nothing else. 

 

Ah a fellow libertarian.

[Scully]

Just now, Mungler said:

 

Ah a fellow libertarian.

?

[Penelope]

15 hours ago, Vince Green said:

Not so much at the cannabis level. 

If at all. Maybe Johnny nicking a score from his mum's purse for a deal bag

Edited January 10, 2018 by Penelope

[Penelope]

14 hours ago, 100milesaway said:

I have watched many of these type of programs and it has, at least  to me become obvious that the police do their best to get drugs off the streets but the courts hand out very soft penalties,ie small fines and community services and in the main the druggies are back at thieving,  stealing cars the very next day. IT most be soul destroying to chase crooks night after night to see them back in action the next day.WE are a soft society today without an ounce of back bone or bite, and what is worse is that these thugs are well aware that they will get let off.. from Auntie.

There is a massive difference between a puffer and a smackhead. Don't fall for lumping all drugs and all users into the same bracket.

[Penelope]

13 hours ago, Mungler said:

The study you have presented concerns wholesale commercial criminal cultivation of cannabis ie hundreds of plants and a couple of Vietnamese people who’ve had they passports taken off them locked in a warehouse fed with stolen electricity to farm the crop.

How is this relevant to the issue of legalisation or some bloke with 2 plants in his loft?

Indeed, with legalisation comes stringent regulation and taxation.

I’m fascinated with the Colorado / California documentaries (the last one with Biggins, Pat Butcher and that darts fella). In the States the cannabis industry is big and entirely commercial - the size, range, scope, quality and pricing of the product has hit criminal dealers hard. You can probably get $10 of who knows what off the street or $15 and get the Rolls Royce variety and Costa-seque loyalty card.

Anyone over 18 can pop down the Offy right now and get trollyed. With a bit of practice anyone can become an alcoholic. However, the vast majority of the population manage their drinking. 

Mungler, you should watch 'Cannabis Revolution' is you haven't already. Discovery I believe.

[12gauge82]

I agree with alot of what has been said above, I personally dislike drugs, and don't see the appeal, very rarely drink, that is irrelevant as I am always an advocate for free choice and if something isn't harming anyone then it should be aloud, in this case however i am completely on the government's side on several fronts. 

1.

if someone is prepared to break the law because they don't agree with it then are they fit to hold a licence, what other laws might they flout? I beleive being a firearms holder puts a higher level of responsibility on you than another member of society, anyone breaching that trust will damage out sport and tar other licence holders, in my opinion a selfish thing to do.

2.

It is fact that those involved in cannabis cultivation on average are at greater risk of criminal association, activity and are more likely to be the target of criminal gangs, I have alot of personal experience of this type of crime and the study I posted on here backs that up, this puts the public at greater risk from dangerous people getting hold of guns or the possibility of legally held guns being used in defence.( I'm not saying anyone smoking weed is a bad person or that everyone who breaks the law smoking weed breaks any more laws than anyone else, just a generalization) 

I do agree that the fight against drugs is being lost and legalizing cannabis might be something they should carefully look at, but as it is currently illegal that is a separate discussion that has no relevance to this topic.

[motty]

12 hours ago, TriBsa said:

It must be remembered when discussing Cannabis that times have moved on with new varieties grown , potency has increased by many folds of what is an addictive hallucinogenic drug. We are not talking the equivalent to half a shandy here with "the odd spliff" argument.

Addictive and hallucinogenic? You sure?

[Rewulf]

24 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I agree with alot of what has been said above, I personally dislike drugs, and don't see the appeal, very rarely drink, that is irrelevant as I am always an advocate for free choice and if something isn't harming anyone then it should be aloud, in this case however i am completely on the government's side on several fronts. 

1.

if someone is prepared to break the law because they don't agree with it then are they fit to hold a licence, what other laws might they flout? I beleive being a firearms holder puts a higher level of responsibility on you than another member of society, anyone breaching that trust will damage out sport and tar other licence holders, in my opinion a selfish thing to do.

2.

It is fact that those involved in cannabis cultivation on average are at greater risk of criminal association, activity and are more likely to be the target of criminal gangs, I have alot of personal experience of this type of crime and the study I posted on here backs that up, this puts the public at greater risk from dangerous people getting hold of guns or the possibility of legally held guns being used in defence.( I'm not saying anyone smoking weed is a bad person or that everyone who breaks the law smoking weed breaks any more laws than anyone else, just a generalization) 

I do agree that the fight against drugs is being lost and legalizing cannabis might be something they should carefully look at, but as it is currently illegal that is a separate discussion that has no relevance to this topic.

+1 

The simple facts ,when it comes to most 'growers' is , they are not doing it for personal use, it is done to sell.
Making the grower in effect ,a drug dealer.
Stats and support for this claim ?
There isnt any, because in 9 out of 10 small scale busts, the grower claims personal use, gets the usual slap on the wrist, often a caution.
The CPS just dont want to go near it, as unless there is a large amount of evidence to the contrary, its difficult to prove intent to supply.
Also, I dont think the 'will' is there to pursue it.

When it comes down to firearms ownership, its a no no.
Youre breaking the law, or youve broken the law previously, its as simple as that.
Its incompatible with firearms ownership.

As 12 gauge mentioned, the threat of having your harvest of weed taken off you by a 'tooled up' gang is a very real thing, even a low level grow, (12 plants ) could be worth £10000 if done correctly , thats a lot of money for a crime you cant report.
Again ,stats ? There arent any , because you cant report a crime against a crime.

Its also very difficult to talk about the subject, and your knowledge and experiences about this, on open forum.
Due to the sensitive nature, and the obvious risks to your ticket, by association ect.

Just now, motty said:

Addictive and hallucinogenic? You sure?

Physically addictive ? No.
Habit forming, psycologically addictive ? Definitely, in a lot of people.

Hallucinogenic? probably not in the classic (dragons !) sense, but certainly messes about with vision, enough to make driving ect ,hazardous, or so Im told..

[motty]

12 hours ago, Gordon R said:

I will own up to being dismayed by some of the views. It is suggested that the laws on drugs are wrong and we should challenge them.

You challenge by pressuring your MP, writing to the media etc.. You do not challenge by breaking the law and hoping that the Police will share your view that cannabis is harmless. Those who claim it is harmless stuff have clearly never seen a person's life being ruined by it, or just don't care.

In my book, those who use the drugs - I don't care if it is for pain relief - are breaking the law as it stands. This disregard for the law renders them unfit to have firearms licences. If someone needs to use cannabis for pain relief - it is their business, but they should not demand the right to have a licence. The two are not compatible.

Debates about potential revenue by legalising some drugs are just that - a debate. They cut no ice with licence applications.

I don't think anyone said cannabis is completely harmless. Lives may be "destroyed by it", but certainly less lives than alcohol.

I see no reason (other than the obvious current legal state) why someone who occasionally has a smoke should not be considered suitable to own shotguns.

I would trust a gun in the hands of a stoner more than I would an alcoholic.

12 hours ago, Bazooka Joe said:

Or families....it's totally soul destroying to see it happen, & the worst part about it there not a lot you can do about it....the person involved must want help to be helped or it's fruitless trying.

It's a gateway drug, no skunk, they'll try something else, before they know it they are addicted, downward spiral after that.

 

You are quite right - it is a gateway drug. I know people who used to smoke weed. They now drink a lot.

[grrclark]

3 hours ago, Scully said:

This is basically what,  in my opinion, government legislation should consist of, for life in general,  and nothing else. 

 

3 hours ago, Mungler said:

 

Ah a fellow libertarian.

At least 3 of us then, although in fairness there are also a few other contributers to this thread that are the same.

Thankfully some of us that can also look past the hysteria and consider things critically.  Who knew that was such a rare attribute.

I also see the "fact" merchants are back again peddling opinion and conjecture as fact.  For the record personal experience does not contstitute any scientific basis for something being a fact.

Even going so far as to say there is no evidence to prove this is a fact, but it still is ??‍♂️

A second question for all those that stating that knowingly breaking the law is justification to refuse a firearms grant.

If someone watches a pirate movie, listens to a downloaded pirated album or exceeds the speed limit should they also be denied a firearm?

All of the above is criminal activity, the first two being theft.

Edited January 10, 2018 by grrclark

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, grrclark said:

 

At least 3 of us then, although in fairness there are also a few other contributers to this thread that are the same.

Thankfully some of us that can also look past the hysteria and consider things critically.  Who knew that was such a rare attribute.

I also see the "fact" merchants are back again peddling opinion and conjecture as fact.  For the record personal experience does not contstitute any scientific basis for something being a fact.

Even going so far as to say there is no evidence to prove this is a fact, but it still is ??‍♂️

A second question for all those that stating that knowingly breaking the law is justification to refuse a firearms grant.

If someone watches a pirate movie, listens to a downloaded pirated album or exceeds the speed limit should they also be denied a firearm?

All of the above is criminal activity, the first two being theft.

Indeed , what is a fact ?
Because it is written down somewhere, and it says it is.
You have based your opinion (that low level growers, and the occasional weed smoker are perfectly entitled, and safe to own firearms) on your beliefs that they are, Im presuming that you have experience to back your opinion up.
And, whilst the firearms licencing dept in most areas would disagree with you, they may not have facts or stats to back up their opinion to suitability.
It is what it is, the law.
Which may be an ***, but I think private firearms ownership is precarious enough without chucking drug use into legal ownership.

On the point of breaking the law in minor things like copyright  theft , or speeding, then yes, you can, and will be revoked for excessive speeding, so ergo, a person with a large amount of speeding convictions may struggle to be granted.
I would also think they would take a dim view of someone with a conviction for copyright theft/fraud.

You obviously feel very strongly on the subject Grr, which I respect.
But getting back to the original question, should someone who is busted with a grow, keep their legal guns?  and its got to be a no.
Most licensing areas take your ticket of you for drink driving, so why would they let a person who is breaking the law/ smoking illegal drugs keep theirs?
Even if its for medicinal purposes.

[Gordon R]

Quote

If someone watches a pirate movie, listens to a downloaded pirated album or exceeds the speed limit should they also be denied a firearm?

Everyone who drives breaks the speed limit at some point, but I do not habitually break it. I drive to the speed limits, but it is easy to creep 1mph over the limit. The Police driver training limit is the speed limit plus 10% for overtaking. That said, the decision to use cannabis is a conscious decision, not an accidental one.

Smoking and alcohol usage are red herrings. Driving costs more lives than cannabis usage. So what?

They are not illegal - cannabis is, which seems to escape a large number.

 

[Scully]

2 hours ago, motty said:

Addictive and hallucinogenic? You sure?

Can’t ever remember tripping off a bit of Ganga, although I was already addicted to tobacco. The several pints of strong drink I would have already consumed may have had more of an hallucinogenic effect. ?