grrclark Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 24 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said: It's not headlines, it's a 3 year factual study, as for what bit of the report backs up my stateent that those involved in cannabis growing having links with bad people how about this "Increased violence has been attributed to those involved in the cultivation of cannabis, including aggravated burglaries and ‘taxation’ of rival gangs." So taking that example where there is a direct reference to rival gangs, absolutely that infers a link with bad people, as it should as the comment is implicitly in reference to organised criminal gangs. Now explain how that quote, which is a headline summary statement taken from the report, means that anybody who might grow a plant will through a friend of a friend know bad people and they are likely to have a tooled up gangster at their door to nobble their stash? That in essence is what you said. In philosophy and logic what you have done is described as being deductively illogical and invalid. You have conflated two entirely different things and applied the same argument to both expecting the outcome to be the same in both cases, it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 3 minutes 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. Very true that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, grrclark said: So taking that example where there is a direct reference to rival gangs, absolutely that infers a link with bad people, as it should as the comment is implicitly in reference to organised criminal gangs. Now explain how that quote, which is a headline summary statement taken from the report, means that anybody who might grow a plant will through a friend of a friend know bad people and they are likely to have a tooled up gangster at their door to nobble their stash? That in essence is what you said. In philosophy and logic what you have done is described as being deductively illogical and invalid. You have conflated two entirely different things and applied the same argument to both expecting the outcome to be the same in both cases, it isn't. The study was in reference to those who grow over a certain number of plants, off the top of my head I can't say exactly how many but it was a small number and certainly few enough to constitute personal use. You seem to be splitting hairs as you don't appear to like the picture the report has painted. Nowhere have I said all who grow cannabis are linked to crime but many many are, you can't make a rule for one and not the other, the law doesn't work like that, so if you let one drug grower off you'd have to let them all off meaning the vast number of growers with links to crime would be able to get their hands on firearms, do you think that would end well? It's hard enough to stop gun laws becoming tighter as is, without the added problem of allowing drug users to own firearms would bring, do you think joe public would stand for that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 Just now, 12gauge82 said: The study was in reference to those who grow over a certain number of plants, off the top of my head I can't say exactly how many but it was a small number and certainly few enough to constitute personal use. You seem to be splitting hairs as you don't appear to like the picture the report has painted. 1. Nowhere have I said all who grow cannabis are linked to crime but many many are, you can't make a rule for one and not the other, the law doesn't work like that, so 2. if you let one drug grower off you'd have to let them all off meaning the vast number of growers with links to crime would be able to get their hands on firearms, do you think that would end well? It's hard enough to stop gun laws becoming tighter as is, 3. without the added problem of allowing drug users to own firearms would bring, do you think joe public would stand for that? 1. Can you back that statement up or just another throwaway comment? 2. Again how on earth do you leap to that conclusion? We have already established that a grant of a firearm is based on a subjective assessment of the applicant and a measurement of potential risk and not based on any absolute or fully objective criteria. 3. It is a question I asked earlier, can you give an objective and reasoned argument as to why someone who smokes a joint now and again is a heightened risk and should not be in possession of a gun licence? Oh and I would strongly suspect that the organised criminal gangs who are in to racketeering, human trafficking, large scale cannabis farming, exploitation, etc are already rather well tooled up and not with sporting firearms either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 Just now, grrclark said: 1. Can you back that statement up or just another throwaway comment? It comes from personal experience and is backed up by studies as I've already stated. 2. Again how on earth do you leap to that conclusion? We have already established that a grant of a firearm is based on a subjective assessment of the applicant and a measurement of potential risk and not based on any absolute or fully objective criteria. Partly true but if you let one grower off you can't stop others without further evidence or the police would breach thier own guidlines. 3. It is a question I asked earlier, can you give an objective and reasoned argument as to why someone who smokes a joint now and again is a heightened risk and should not be in possession of a gun licence? I already have, you obviously disagree with my opinion of objective and reasoned. Oh and I would strongly suspect that the organised criminal gangs who are in to racketeering, human trafficking, large scale cannabis farming, exploitation, etc are already rather well tooled up and not with sporting firearms either. You'd be suprised, real viable firearms well not uncommon are not that prevalent either, many are conversions which are unreliable, the biggest shortage is with the ammunition, it would only take a couple of rotten Apple's to supply their mates with ammunition. I and I would guess the vast majority of how public don't want to arm criminals with guns, allowing drug users firearms would vastly heighten that risk and destroy our sport, if people want to use illegal drugs they should hand their tickets in first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 Studies that make no reference to your claims so basically you offer no empirical evidence for your facts, ergo they are not facts just opinion. So just say it is an opinion. Your next answer I cannot even be bothered to try and debate, i feel it will be an exercise in futility. Where did you highlight in a reasoned and objective way what the heightened risk is for a user of drugs to own a gun? Apologies if I missed it. Whilst we are at it please do back up why allowing someone who smokes a spliff is likely to result in guns and ammunition being made available to criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said: I don't want to derail a thread by going back and fore over a set of facts. I've given my view, I've backed it up with a small part of a study conducted by police over 3 years using arrest and intelligence reports, your welcome to ignore or disagree with it, but to my mind it remains a fact. If the police were to allow those found growing cannabis to keep their gun licences, it wouldn't be long before hardened criminals were granted licences or very bad people got hold of guns, if that were to happen I'm sure everyone on here would agree that would be very bad for our sport and the wider public. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 15 minutes ago, grrclark said: Studies that make no reference to your claims so basically you offer no empirical evidence for your facts, ergo they are not facts just opinion. So just say it is an opinion. Your next answer I cannot even be bothered to try and debate, i feel it will be an exercise in futility. Where did you highlight in a reasoned and objective way what the heightened risk is for a user of drugs to own a gun? Apologies if I missed it. Whilst we are at it please do back up why allowing someone who smokes a spliff is likely to result in guns and ammunition being made available to criminals. And that is all your opinion which of course you are entitled, I've been open and attempted to back up my own personal experience with fact and what I see as logic, you are obviously free to make your own mind up. Again I've not said every drug user is a risk but allowing drug users access to firearms would substantially raise risk to the public which I beleive our sport could do without. Anyone smoking illegal drugs knows what they're doing is illegal, if they get caught, they've made their choice and know the consequences, so there's no point crying about it after they lose their ticket, just my opinion of course. 5 minutes 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. It actually deals with anyone who cultivates 25 plants or more which is well within the remit of a small time dealer who only deals with "friends" ect. I have personally dealt with people who have been caught with far less than that who are wrapped up in seriously dodgy stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 10 minutes ago, Mungler said: 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. The differece is drinking is legal and therfore the stats don't show anywhere near as many drinkers having criminal links or being the target of burglars and criminal gangs, that said being of tepid nature would be a reason you could be turned down for a gun licence and I personall don' think heavy drinking and guns should mix either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said: And that is all your opinion which of course you are entitled, I've been open and attempted to back up my own personal experience with fact and what I see as logic, you are obviously free to make your own mind up. Again I've not said every drug user is a risk but allowing drug users access to firearms would substantially raise risk to the public which I beleive our sport could do without. Anyone smoking illegal drugs knows what they're doing is illegal, if they get caught, they've made their choice and know the consequences, so there's no point crying about it after they lose their ticket, just my opinion of course. Good lord man, you just cannot help yourself can you!! Why would it? Sorry to labour on about this and it will be the last time that I will, but you have not backed anything up with fact. What you have done is cited some information that is on a similar subject and conflated that with your own opinion and presented it as a fact, but it really isn't. I'm not saying this because we may have a differing stand point in this debate. If i am very blunt, it is actually ignorance that you are promoting and wilful ignorance at that and I can't be bothered disappearing down that rabbit hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 12 minutes ago, grrclark said: Good lord man, you just cannot help yourself can you!! Why would it? Sorry to labour on about this and it will be the last time that I will, but you have not backed anything up with fact. What you have done is cited some information that is on a similar subject and conflated that with your own opinion and presented it as a fact, but it really isn't. I'm not saying this because we may have a differing stand point in this debate. If i am very blunt, it is actually ignorance that you are promoting and wilful ignorance at that and I can't be bothered disappearing down that rabbit hole. Again all your own opinion which I have no problem with, just as i have given my opinion and backed it up with what I beleive to be fact, the establishment also obviously has the same opinion hence why they do not usually allow drug users to own firearms. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 24 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said: The differece is drinking is legal and therfore the stats don't show anywhere near as many drinkers having criminal links or being the target of burglars and criminal gangs, that said being of tepid nature would be a reason you could be turned down for a gun licence and I personall don' think heavy drinking and guns should mix either. Isn’t that saying that a cannabis user is breaking the law and is therefore a criminal and more likely to associate with criminals? If it were legalised then why would a criminal gang want to burgle someone because they may have 2 plants in their loft? I think it would be easier and less risky for them to board out their own lofts and have a go (if they’ve not doing that already). I think growers being targetted by burglars relates to commercial large scale growing - even with legalisation that’s still going to be illegal unless under specific government licence and with that will come mandatory cctv and a red care Alarm (as is the case in the States). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, Mungler said: Isn’t that saying that a cannabis user is breaking the law and is therefore a criminal and more likely to associate with criminals? If it were legalised then why would a criminal gang want to burgle someone because they may have 2 plants in their loft? I think it would be easier and less risky for them to board out their own lofts and have a go (if they’ve not doing that already). I think growers being targetted by burglars relates to commercial large scale growing - even with legalisation that’s still going to be illegal unless under specific government licence and with that will come mandatory cctv and a red care Alarm (as is the case in the States). Alot of what you say is true, unfortunately the law doesn't always discriminate and has to make some generalisations, I know of criminal gangs that will target growers as they beleive they will find cash, drugs and growing equipment, they don' always get what they're looking for but they'll take a chance as they feel there's a bettr chance of walking away with something they want than randomised burglaries, it's like setting a speed limit on a road there are better and worse drivers but they can't give everyone their own individual speed limits, drug users are more likely to be involved in crime and with other criminals, generally speaking and allowing drug uses to keep guns would open the door to more bad guys getting hold of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 But you’re missing the key ingredient of legalisation - with that everything you say goes out the window. Granted that’s not what the law says now. Nevertheless the galactic jump between 2 plants in the loft and criminal activity is just not made out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Mungler said: But you’re missing the key ingredient of legalisation - with that everything you say goes out the window. Granted that’s not what the law says now. Nevertheless the galactic jump between 2 plants in the loft and criminal activity is just not made out. So why is it the police will revoke a licence because 1 tiny growing plant is found in the loft and a personal amount in the gun safe. They obviously feel it poses a risk, I also think joe public would not be happy either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 You’ve ignored what I said and 75% of what’s been debated. The law as it is, is as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 It is well documented that drug use goes hand in hand with criminal activity, it is the number one indicator for all convicted criminals and I am glad the law takes a dim view of drug users having access to firearms, I don't beleive that will ever change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) Well we’re rught back at the beginning then I wonder how the law deals with firearms owners in Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, India, Israel, Jamaica, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Uruguay, and some U.S. States who legally use Cannabis? Because what you are saying is that they are all criminals on a like for like basis. Indeed, if you add the list of countries where the use of cannabis has been ‘decriminalised’ then that list quadruples. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country Edited January 9, 2018 by Mungler Grabbing a list off Wikipedia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said: So why is it the police will revoke a licence because 1 tiny growing plant is found in the loft and a personal amount in the gun safe. They obviously feel it poses a risk, I also think joe public would not be happy either. The police must follow the law and as that currently stands someone growing even one plant is breaking the law. Therefore the grower is going to lose his SGC. However I doubt that most coppers would consider that person "a risk". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 12 minutes ago, Mungler said: Well we’re rught back at the beginning then I wonder how the law deals with firearms owners in Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, India, Israel, Jamaica, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Uruguay, and some U.S. States who legally use Cannabis? Because what you are saying is that they are all criminals on a like for like basis. Indeed, if you add the list of countries where the use of cannabis has been ‘decriminalised’ then that list quadruples. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country Yep, I knew this debate would go in circles 12 minutes ago, Danger-Mouse said: The police must follow the law and as that currently stands someone growing even one plant is breaking the law. Therefore the grower is going to lose his SGC. However I doubt that most coppers would consider that person "a risk". Right and wrong in this case, the police have a set of guideines and the chief constable of each area set their own guide lines, I would suggest they would view a drug user with a gun a risk. It is of course politicians that make statute law and I'm positive they to would not wish drug users to have access to guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriBsa Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 14 minutes ago, Mungler said: Well we’re rught back at the beginning then I wonder how the law deals with firearms owners in Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, India, Israel, Jamaica, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Uruguay, and some U.S. States who legally use Cannabis? Because what you are saying is that they are all criminals on a like for like basis. Indeed, if you add the list of countries where the use of cannabis has been ‘decriminalised’ then that list quadruples. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country In the US, Federal Law trumps State Law. The Federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms States: “Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, TriBsa said: In the US, Federal Law trumps State Law. The Federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms States: “Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.” Ah but that’s the same Federal law that still makes it illegal to buy use / cannabis in Colorado and which no one in Colorado enforces or pays any attention to. There’s an interesting and on going debate and legal battle http://www.coloradoindependent.com/161008/guns-marijuana-colorado-pot-firearms I didn’t appreciate that Colorado is open carry too. So the Feds say no, but in state everyone is cracking on Edited January 9, 2018 by Mungler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriBsa Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 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. Edited January 9, 2018 by TriBsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 11 minutes 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. Very true, drugs like spice are a whole differet ball game to a bit of bud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 5 minutes 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. 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. 4 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said: Very true, drugs like spice are a whole differet ball game to a bit of bud Spice is an artificially created compound that has nothing to do with marijuana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.