Police Interceptors - Channel5

[Duckandswing]

7 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

I'd be more worried about people who drink a shed load of beer and drive home than someone who smokes a joint on the weekend and goes clay pigeon shooting or similar. 

Which is a bigger risk to the public? 

 

I agree, I would also be more worried about a drink driver than a occasional recreational drug user who stays in their home and has the occasional joint.

Unfortunately, drug usage can be much more than that.

I guess I just never understood the need. Obviously, it’s each to their own.

[martyn2233]

Just now, JohnfromUK said:

I don't know enough to get involved there (having zero experience of cannabis), so I'll resist the temptation and follow the legislators on this occasion.

 

I’d get learning as cannabis is coming if you like or not 

that’s the Brexit bill paid When we do

[Mungler]

.

6 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I don't know enough to get involved there (having zero experience of cannabis), so I'll resist the temptation and follow the legislators on this occasion.

 

And rightly so - they have the experts and access to all the evidence. 

The legislature in other countries have however made the leap and as I said, it’s on the horizon. 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Mungler

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, martyn2233 said:

I’d get learning as cannabis is coming if you like or not 

I rather think that like tobacco, I won't be participating.

[grrclark]

The wider debate is good if we can set the hysteria to the side and actually try to be objective and reasoned.

It seems from most of the responses the issue is not so much the use of drugs, but the legal status of the drugs, i.e. the drug user being engaged in something that is illegal.  The obvious conclusion from that argument is that any illegal activity should preclude someone from owning a firearm.  As Mungler referenced in an earlier post, someone who knowingly exceeds the speed limit is engaging in an illegal activity so should they have their cert's revoked?  What about those that park against the direction of traffic at night time and don't leave their side lights on, or those that park with wheels up on the pavement?

[Mungler]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

I rather think that like tobacco, I won't be participating.

Don’t worry, like smoking I don’t think they’ll make it mandatory.

[martyn2233]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I rather think that like tobacco, I won't be participating.

You don’t need to take anything to learn John education is the key 

[grrclark]

7 hours ago, Davyo said:

But its not illegal just irresponsible to get slaughtered in beer.

Interesting point, in the specific context of gun ownership and gun use what presents most risk, someone who does something that is illegal or someone whose behaviour is knowingly irresponsible?

[JohnfromUK]

5 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Don’t worry, like smoking I don’t think they’ll make it mandatory.

You never know if they are getting tax revenue

[Guest cookoff013]

maybe he has had to start pushing drugs to fund his game shooting ?? with the increased in shooting costs, i`m not suprised.

especially the cost of shells thesedays, birds are what £30 a bird? that and the added rangerover rental, shooting is very expensive !

 

[JohnfromUK]

8 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Interesting point, in the specific context of gun ownership and gun use what presents most risk, someone who does something that is illegal or someone whose behaviour is knowingly irresponsible?

That can never be answered because there are so many ways of being illegal (minor to major) and same for irresponsible.  One of the purposes of making some things illegal is to discourage irresponsibility, and similarly it is almost automatically irresponsible to behave in an illegal way - so they are not really separable.

[grrclark]

7 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

That can never be answered because there are so many ways of being illegal (minor to major) and same for irresponsible.  One of the purposes of making some things illegal is to discourage irresponsibility, and similarly it is almost automatically irresponsible to behave in an illegal way - so they are not really separable.

There are a couple of interesting elements in your reply.  The degree of criminality is relevant, so breaking a speed limit by a few miles per hour is a minor event, therefore it's ok, but growing cannabis plants in your attic to then sell on is a major, so not OK.  So the question is where is the line that does or does not permit firearm ownership?

Does someone who takes a regular, but small amount of cannabis for pain control cross that line?  Or even the person who smokes a few joints to get pleasingly high of an evening, but is never under the influence when they shoot, much like someone who might get a little drunk but always shoots sober, do they cross the line?

PW typically is very black or white on some issues, but quite happy to recognise multiple shades of grey when it comes to others.

As for the law being there to prevent irresponsible behaviour, should that be the purpose of legislation?  Is breaking the law really irresponsible? if i exceed the speed limit on an empty road where my speed is still comfortably within my capabilities as the driver, where the speed is well within the capabilities of the car and the design of the road supports that level of speed is that irresponsible?  Say for example I am out at 5am on a bright summer morning and doing 85mph on an empty and straight motorway.

I would suggest that being irresponsible and being illegal are entirely separable, but I do agree with you that the answer cannot be binary, it is far too complex a question to be able to give a simple answer too.

My contention to many of the comments in this debate, and very many others on PW, is that far too often there is a very simple solution unthinkingly offered to what is really a complex question.  For example, the original point I responded to was that anyone caught growing drugs should be banned for life from owning a gun. Does that include the person that grows 2 plants at home so they can control the quality of the cannabis that they use for chronic pain relief, or perhaps someone else in their family uses to control chronic pain  or even epilepsy?

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, grrclark said:

The degree of criminality is relevant

Of course: a serial murderer is probably not suited to holding firearms, whereas a person who has failed to pay his TV license may be.

 

6 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Does someone who takes a regular, but small amount of cannabis for pain control cross that line?

I cannot answer that as I don't have any knowledge/expertise in that area.  However, the police are there to police the law, NOT to interpret it.  That would be for the courts

 

8 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Or even the person who smokes a few joints to get pleasingly high of an evening, but is never under the influence when they shoot, much like someone who might get a little drunk but always shoots sober, do they cross the line?

As above

 

9 minutes ago, grrclark said:

As for the law being there to prevent irresponsible behaviour, should that be the purpose of legislation?

It is the purpose of some legislation (e.g. speeding) but not all (e.g. financial, border control and taxation leglislation)

 

11 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Is breaking the law really irresponsible? if i exceed the speed limit on an empty road where my speed is still comfortably within my capabilities as the driver, where the speed is well within the capabilities of the car and the design of the road supports that level of speed is that irresponsible?  Say for example I am out at 5am on a bright summer morning and doing 85mph on an empty and straight motorway.

You are breaking the law - so yes.  If there was no law on the speed, you might well be  perfectly responsible to drive at 85 on a good condition day - and highly irresponsible in fog.  BUT THERE IS A LAW - and breaking it is irresponsible.

Overall I have great sympathy with your arguments (I have been done for speeding under good road conditions - and I didn't feel I was driving irresponsibly (85 on a clear summer day on a near empty motorway), but I was breaking the law - and it cost me a fine and 3 points).  Unfortunately you cannot make laws to cover all eventualities: the police are there to uphold the law, NOT interpret it: the courts (should you end up there) are these to interpret and apply the law - in many minor offence cases (in my view) they don't interpret properly, just rubber stamp the police/CPS case.  There are many cases where it doesn't work very well, but that is all part of life.

[Vince Green]

My mate who lives in St Austell contends that cannabis has been unofficially 'legal' in Cornwall for more than 20 years. The police decided years ago not to go after all the surfers etc because it would damage the local economy to do so.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Until the laws are changed we as a society comply with those laws.

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Until the laws are changed we as a society comply with those laws.

+1

[Penelope]

2 hours ago, Mungler said:

There’s a change in the law coming over the horizon driven by the decriminalisation of cannabis in Canada, the States, Spain, Holland (etc.) and a large chunk of supportive medical evidence.

I am relatively ambivalent - I think alcohol is the far more damaging and abused substance (just look in on any A&E at the weekend) but alcohol currently has greater social acceptance and tolerance.

However, if we all pause and put our copies of the Daily Mail away for one moment there is a strong economic case for the legalisation of cannabis - it would be *the* single biggest earner for the government (up there with the tax revenues currently enjoyed on cigarettes and alcohol) and I just don’t see a government struggling to fund the NHS likely to knock that opportunity back and at the same time they get to take a massive bite out of the black economy.

One of my chums in the plod called it a few years ago - he said once they have the road side testing bit off pat (prescribed limits, detection etc) then it’s coming.

I do love these threads though for the hysteria. Hysteria and anecdotal evidence; what better ways to stifle a debate.

Plus a huge chance to take loads of people and the associated cost of dealing with them through the justice system out of it. There was recently a very good documentary (on Discovery I believe) about the cannabis industry in the states and how it has revitalised an old logging town.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Penelope

[silver pigeon69]

2 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Plus a huge chance to take loads of people and the associated cost of dealing with them through the justice system. There was recently a very good documentary (on Discovery I believe) about the cannabis industry in the states and how it has revitalised an old logging town.

I saw this, i think it was called the canabis revolution? I couldn't believe the amount of money involved in the now "legal" industry! I cant remember the exact figure, but i think they mentioned a farmer growing a field of cannabis will make 1000+ times more than the same field of corn!

[grrclark]

This has the potential to stray into a very good and philosophical debate.

Some good points above, especially the statement that it is the responsibility of the police to police (enforce) the laws, but not to interpret the law.  That makes things very binary, you are either breaking the law or not, so why is it the interpretation of an FEO/Chief Constable on whether someone should be granted a ticket or not?  As rightly stated the law is a broad brush and cannot cater to every specific eventuality, so there must be a degree of interpretation.

The philosophical question is should we have a blind obedience to the law even if the law is stupid?  Or what about if our staying within the law permits a far greater harmful thing to happen?

Edited January 9, 2018 by grrclark

[TIGHTCHOKE]

3 minutes ago, grrclark said:

This has the potential to stray into a very good and philosophical debate.

Some good points above, especially the statement that it is the responsibility of the police to police (enforce) the laws, but not to interpret the law.  That makes things very binary, you are either breaking the law or not, so why is it the interpretation of an FEO/Chief Constable on whether someone should be granted a ticket or not?  As rightly stated the law is a broad brush and cannot cater to every specific eventuality, so there must be a degree of interpretation.

The philosophical question is should we have a blind obedience to the law even if the law is stupid?  Or what about if our staying within the law permits a far greater harmful thing to happen?

Some people are allowed to interpret the law within their job.

 

If it needs changing that can only come about through parliament.

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, grrclark said:

so why is it the interpretation of an FEO/Chief Constable on whether someone should be granted a ticket or not? 

Because (I think - and I'm not a lawyer) the LAW is along the lines that the FEO/Chief Constable must be satisfied that ..........  in other words it specifically puts the 'judgement' on the police.  That is NOT the case with speeding - or breathalysers - which have defined limits set in law.  You have a right of appeal against the FEO/Chief Constable's decision.

4 minutes ago, grrclark said:

The philosophical question is should we have a blind obedience to the law even if the law is stupid?  Or what about if our staying within the law permits a far greater harmful thing to happen?

You may of course rely on the court upholding how you have interpreted/complied with the law - but it is likely to get expensive  - and do you have sufficient faith in the courts to do this?  Magistrates courts have (my opinion) a tendency to be very supportive of the 'letter of the law', whereas a jury might take a different interpretation.  That is why you can (in some instances) elect for crown court jury trial, but be prepared for a large bill .......

[Lloyd90]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

 

We don’t disagree.

But there’s always ‘that’ wider debate.

The spin from the pro-legalisation lobby is the middle to upper chap with a medical condition that he doesn’t want to take a prescribed opiate for. Or they lead with children with seizures.

That ‘face’ of legalisation is nonsense because 99% of people will just want to get off their faces in the same way that your average whiskey drinker doesn’t look like David Beckham

I love the debate!

Edit:

As I get older I find I watched every good film / TV show worth watching and so I find I casually watch more documentaries and stuff on the history channel.

One or two that have stuck with me are the history of the Kennedy family and how the family money cane from running booze in prohibition, a documentary where they offered a range of healthy to intoxicating substances to chimps and without fail the Chimps went for getting mashed over everything else and any one of the drug cartel exposes - I didn’t realise that something like 50% of the Sinaloa cartel revenue comes from cannabis.

When legalisation comes I will be remortgaging my house and sticking my pension into whichever big pharma takes the plunge into that market

I digress.... 

GW Pharmaceiiricals plc ????

[Mungler]

7 minutes ago, grrclark said:

This has the potential to stray into a very good and philosophical debate.

Some good points above, especially the statement that it is the responsibility of the police to police (enforce) the laws, but not to interpret the law.  That makes things very binary, you are either breaking the law or not, so why is it the interpretation of an FEO/Chief Constable on whether someone should be granted a ticket or not?  As rightly stated the law is a broad brush and cannot cater to every specific eventuality, so there must be a degree of interpretation.

The philosophical question is should we have a blind obedience to the law even if the law is stupid?  Or what about if our staying within the law permits a far greater harmful thing to happen?

 

The Americans are struggling with this now because they have an entire generation that have been criminalised (either convicted and or incarcerated) under legislation which is entirely binary, and for the most minor non violent drugs related offences. However, these people are not actually "criminals" by reference to what criminologists universally accept to amount to criminal behaviour or being a criminal.

So, in the US they are finding out that you can have people who have broken a law and gone to prison, but who are not actually criminals. The fallout is that these quite normal people with criminal records are struggling to get on with their lives and now cannot make the best of their lives. Further up that path are the people who have had 3 non violent cannabis related arrests and been sentenced to life in prison without parole under their mandatory sentencing regime. Behind all of this, the numbers keep rising and it's shown that the law and sentencing aren't actually much of a deterrent.

Food for thought indeed.

[Scully]

9 hours ago, andrewluke said:

i'd like to see a mouth swab drug test by the FEO for every application/renewal

Ye Gods! 

[Lloyd90]

45 minutes ago, Scully said:

Ye Gods! 

How do you feel about that Scully? 

Apparently it’s ok, because the DNA never leaves your house ... unless you fail ... 

so it’s a non-invasive test that doesn’t breach any of your rights ... unless you fail the test ofcourse ... then it’s apparently ok that they did the test and your rights were breached... because you failed ... 

 

strange train of thought ?

Edited January 9, 2018 by Lloyd90