Crime and punishment

[tomorton]

I quite agree, personal use is not possession with intent to supply, which attracts a higher punishment tariff. However the bar is set pretty low for possession with intent to supply vs personal use quantities. Now that UK police have higher priority items to deal with I agree that the number will be low and will continue to fall.



I think it would be approved. There is no known link to lung cancer by smoking cannabis as long as it is not mixed with tobacco. Cannabis can be ingested removing smoking altogether and is the primary method used for medical reasons in the UK. Cannabis doesn't cause people to commit crime either, probably has the opposite effect, unless driving is involved, cannabis doesn't kill, there are downsides for people who are susceptible to certain types of mental illness, but equally it appears to help people with certain types of mental illness, there are downsides for heavy users, the drug itself is not physically addictive although some people may have a psychological addiction to its effects. On balance I can't see a reason why it would be prohibited if discovered today.

Actually, the usual responsible medical approach to a new substance such as cannabis would be a precautionary ban on sales, because we know there are serious negative side-effects but we don't know that we have all of them identified and quantified. Research has been limited and politicians have to take some blame for this. Nor do we know that the medical benefits could not be obtained by other means (including use of refined cannabis derivatives) without harmful side-effects.

However, when new substances of any sort are submitted for approval and rejected, its rarely a police matter, especially not possession. So while I think we need to avoid legalisation as a precautionary measure and in order to avoid implying approval or absence of risk, I wish the damn criminal justice system wasn't involved at all. I'd rather this was dealt with by civil regulatory authorities than cops. I bet the cops wish the same thing......

 

[Pat494]

The nanny state lives on.
People should make personal decisions for themselves. Their health is their own business, not other people's.
A lot of trouble would be avoided if any " help " is limited to good advice.

 

[tomorton]

The nanny state lives on.
People should make personal decisions for themselves. Their health is their own business, not other people's.
A lot of trouble would be avoided if any " help " is limited to good advice.

I agree. People should take personal responsibility. Anyone who voluntarily subjects themselves to dangerous levels of known harmful substances should be excluded from NHS treatment for their side-effects.

 

[Signalcalc]

Actually, the usual responsible medical approach to a new substance such as cannabis would be a precautionary ban on sales, because we know there are serious negative side-effects but we don't know that we have all of them identified and quantified. Research has been limited and politicians have to take some blame for this. Nor do we know that the medical benefits could not be obtained by other means (including use of refined cannabis derivatives) without harmful side-effects.

However, when new substances of any sort are submitted for approval and rejected, its rarely a police matter, especially not possession. So while I think we need to avoid legalisation as a precautionary measure and in order to avoid implying approval or absence of risk, I wish the damn criminal justice system wasn't involved at all. I'd rather this was dealt with by civil regulatory authorities than cops. I bet the cops wish the same thing......

Legal highs and it’s many 100s of derivatives Is a recent example. Made illegal after at least a decade of being legally sold on the high street and online, I don’t believe the medical authorities were involved, there was no research or medical use determined. It was banned as a result of pressure by the police and criminal justice because of the problems being caused by it.

Not heard much of it since other than media reports of its widespread use in prisons ironically. There must be a black market, maybe users have switched back to cannabis as the only alternative which is possibly another reason why police have gone lax on personal possession as they would rather people use real weed than create a bigger black market of illegal legal highs.

 

[Signalcalc]

I agree. People should take personal responsibility. Anyone who voluntarily subjects themselves to dangerous levels of known harmful substances should be excluded from NHS treatment for their side-effects.

On this basis we would need to exclude people who abuse just about anything we eat, drink or breathe [emoji106][emoji2533][emoji16]

I wonder what the consequences of that would be, certainly would be a thriving private sector medical profession and high cost medical insurance.

 

[Signalcalc]

A lot of trouble would be avoided if any " help " is limited to good advice.

I doubt it, most people just don’t listen.

 

[tomorton]

Legal highs and it’s many 100s of derivatives Is a recent example. Made illegal after at least a decade of being legally sold on the high street and online, I don’t believe the medical authorities were involved, there was no research or medical use determined. It was banned as a result of pressure by the police and criminal justice because of the problems being caused by it.

Not heard much of it since other than media reports of its widespread use in prisons ironically. There must be a black market, maybe users have switched back to cannabis as the only alternative which is possibly another reason why police have gone lax on personal possession as they would rather people use real weed than create a bigger black market of illegal legal highs.

There's never been a war against possession of cannabis. Prosecutions used to be higher but even then when this was a Class B drug the first time round, if there was any "war" (debatable whether it was just a political headline anyway - as Sir Humphrey Appleby used to say, get rid of the awkward part in the title) - it was against suppliers.

 

[tomorton]

On this basis we would need to exclude people who abuse just about anything we eat, drink or breathe [emoji106][emoji2533][emoji16]

I wonder what the consequences of that would be, certainly would be a thriving private sector medical profession and high cost medical insurance.

The people who take dangerous levels of known dangerous substances for recreational purposes should be excluded from NHS treatment for the side-effects. I think a person should be free to do whatever harm they wish to their own body but in this regard I don't see why I should pay for them to be put back together again. I'm happy to fund the NHS to help accident victims or sufferers from infectious diseases and the like but why should you and I pay e.g. for repeated liver transplants so some pisshead can carry on with his bottle of vodka a day habit?

 

[Pat494]

There's never been a war against possession of cannabis. Prosecutions used to be higher but even then when this was a Class B drug the first time round, if there was any "war" (debatable whether it was just a political headline anyway - as Sir Humphrey Appleby used to say, get rid of the awkward part in the title) - it was against suppliers.

How the criminals must love the dummies in Parlt. Anything they are told to make illegal immediately reverts to black market and thrives. They just can't see what a load of clots they really are. Kissing babies and chasing votes ! duh

 

[Signalcalc]

The people who take dangerous levels of known dangerous substances for recreational purposes should be excluded from NHS treatment for the side-effects. I think a person should be free to do whatever harm they wish to their own body but in this regard I don't see why I should pay for them to be put back together again. I'm happy to fund the NHS to help accident victims or sufferers from infectious diseases and the like but why should you and I pay e.g. for repeated liver transplants so some pisshead can carry on with his bottle of vodka a day habit?

What about obesity/diabetes, sugar intake, carb intake, junk food, fast food.

What about breathing car fumes, industrial fumes, woodsmoke fumes and resulting diseases?

What about micro plastic ingestion and the yet to be discovered latent diseases that will cause (lower fertility rates)?

What about filling your vehicle at the petrol pump and the associated carcinogens?

What about fracking and poisoned water supplies as a result and the health effects?

What about 5G and potential harmful effects?

Who is to decided what is a known danger and what is not? And what is the criteria for those decisions?

Who exactly do we include and exclude from the NHS? We could go on here Ad infinitum.

Your morality is not the same as everyone else's, we have to accept that, so we vote for our morality and put politicians in control, we end up with a morality based on the voting system and the people that vote, our laws and constitution are supposed to provide the framework for them to work to, but it gets failed every so often, more often it seems nowadays, or they have always been failing us away from the public gaze, now exposed with the internet and social media :clap:

 

[tomorton]

What about obesity/diabetes, sugar intake, carb intake, junk food, fast food.

What about breathing car fumes, industrial fumes, woodsmoke fumes and resulting diseases?

What about micro plastic ingestion and the yet to be discovered latent diseases that will cause (lower fertility rates)?

What about filling your vehicle at the petrol pump and the associated carcinogens?

What about fracking and poisoned water supplies as a result and the health effects?

What about 5G and potential harmful effects?

Who is to decided what is a known danger and what is not? And what is the criteria for those decisions?

Who exactly do we include and exclude from the NHS? We could go on here Ad infinitum.

Your morality is not the same as everyone else's, we have to accept that, so we vote for our morality and put politicians in control, we end up with a morality based on the voting system and the people that vote, our laws and constitution are supposed to provide the framework for them to work to, but it gets failed every so often, more often it seems nowadays, or they have always been failing us away from the public gaze, now exposed with the internet and social media :clap:

This is all diversion. What about this, what about that...... Stop moaning just cos you're not getting your own way and respond on the subject under discussion.

 

[Signalcalc]

This is all diversion. What about this, what about that......

Not an argument

Stop moaning just cos you're not getting your own way and respond on the subject under discussion.

Not quite sure what I'm supposed to be moaning about to get my own way

It's not a diversion though is it - think about it - society is based on a philosophical set of values based on ideology and/or religion which then have provided a historically driven set of morals by which we judge each other.

From that we have developed a system of rules and regulations as a framework that controls our behaviour by a threat of punishment if we don't abide by those rules.

The vast majority find it difficult to follow those rules and are therefore punished at some point during their lifetime (think traffic offences). The vast majority are punished for minor offences deemed not to be criminal.

If a large number of people think differently in terms of their morals but it goes against the law, then they are able to get those laws changed by way of force or pressure, by voting or lobbying and persuasion.

So who ultimately decides those laws, whether new ones are introduced or old ones are scrapped or are amended, comes down to the moral values of those individuals gathered en-masse to force a change. The authorities do it on our behalf.

You have a moral viewpoint with regard to people doing themselves harm and not paying for their medical treatment. I share this viewpoint, but I don't see how this helps to lower crime or benefit society, it would just benefit your wallet. You are already paying for an ineffective policing and justice system when it comes to the drug/crime problem, why not suggest a way of solving it?

Ultimately large amounts of crime are driven by the drugs trade, no amount of effort over the last 50 years has lessened the problem, what other solutions are there that haven't been tried and why not?

 

[tomorton]

Not an argument



Not quite sure what I'm supposed to be moaning about to get my own way

It's not a diversion though is it - think about it - society is based on a philosophical set of values based on ideology and/or religion which then have provided a historically driven set of morals by which we judge each other.

From that we have developed a system of rules and regulations as a framework that controls our behaviour by a threat of punishment if we don't abide by those rules.

The vast majority find it difficult to follow those rules and are therefore punished at some point during their lifetime (think traffic offences). The vast majority are punished for minor offences deemed not to be criminal.

If a large number of people think differently in terms of their morals but it goes against the law, then they are able to get those laws changed by way of force or pressure, by voting or lobbying and persuasion.

So who ultimately decides those laws, whether new ones are introduced or old ones are scrapped or are amended, comes down to the moral values of those individuals gathered en-masse to force a change. The authorities do it on our behalf.

You have a moral viewpoint with regard to people doing themselves harm and not paying for their medical treatment. I share this viewpoint, but I don't see how this helps to lower crime or benefit society, it would just benefit your wallet. You are already paying for an ineffective policing and justice system when it comes to the drug/crime problem, why not suggest a way of solving it?

Ultimately large amounts of crime are driven by the drugs trade, no amount of effort over the last 50 years has lessened the problem, what other solutions are there that haven't been tried and why not?

I don't know what more I can say really. I think we were actually discussing the legalisation of cannabis. On this subject I am against legalisation for recreational use as a purely medical precaution but I have not advocated criminal prosecution for possession for personal use. I have expressed support for medicinal use in a safe form. I have expressed my preference that cannabis use was regulated rather than policed, i.e. dealt with by a regulatory authority, not the police.

I do not believe that the UK police have ever put serious resources into prosecuting a "war" against cannabis users. There's no evidence there was such a war, so the cited failure of a prohibition campaign that never happened in any serious way is hardly evidence for legalisation.

I don't believe its immoral to divert public resources to NHS patients who have suffered an accidental injury or infection, and away from persons who have taken a cavalier attitude by consumption of dangerous levels of known dangerous (or at least not known safe) chemicals. It could be argued that drug abusers are acting immorally, by taking a reckless decision and expected tax-payers to pay for their dimness or selfishness.

You might remember the outcry when Georgie Best received a liver transplant on the NHS and then proceeded to enjoy drinking himself to death - a fully justified outcry in my opinion. What do you think?

 

[Signalcalc]

I don't know what more I can say really. I think we were actually discussing the legalisation of cannabis. On this subject I am against legalisation for recreational use as a purely medical precaution but I have not advocated criminal prosecution for possession for personal use. I have expressed support for medicinal use in a safe form. I have expressed my preference that cannabis use was regulated rather than policed, i.e. dealt with by a regulatory authority, not the police.

Agreed.

I do not believe that the UK police have ever put serious resources into prosecuting a "war" against cannabis users. There's no evidence there was such a war, so the cited failure of a prohibition campaign that never happened in any serious way is hardly evidence for legalisation.

The 'war' on drugs as you quite rightly point in an earlier post is a soundbite, used mainly by the US authorities, but used by MSM on both sides of the pond. I understood that it included all illegal drugs. I think UK police may have prosecuted much harder in the past against personal use cannabis users, if nothing else other than they were easy targets, it would look good for the arresting/prosecution stats, possibly some racism involved (although that is up for debate). Obviously they have eased off as policing priorities have changed and maybe the attitude towards personal recreational cannabis use has changed, they did flip flop the legislation throughout the naughties, as it was downgraded and then upgraded again.

I don't believe its immoral to divert public resources to NHS patients who have suffered an accidental injury or infection, and away from persons who have taken a cavalier attitude by consumption of dangerous levels of known dangerous (or at least not known safe) chemicals. It could be argued that drug abusers are acting immorally, by taking a reckless decision and expected tax-payers to pay for their dimness or selfishness.

You might remember the outcry when Georgie Best received a liver transplant on the NHS and then proceeded to enjoy drinking himself to death - a fully justified outcry in my opinion. What do you think?

I am of the same opinion, but as my list earlier alludes to, where do you draw the line with who is abusing what and who is therefore responsible and deserves treatment and who does not? There are millions of obese, diabetic people that have not followed government health advice (if govt advice is to be believed) that should fall into the same category as drug and alcohol abusers, why not let them die a painful death without treatment as a punishment, we obviously don't allow that to happen because....? It's not against the law, should there be a law? Or it's not moral to do so?

Hypothetically speaking - as for govt advice on health, what if the low fat diet propaganda is incorrect and is causing the obesity epidemic? What if after 60-70 years of 'eat low fat' advice it turns out incorrect and we should have been eating a high fat diet after all? A high fat diet we have always eaten for millions of years, but was changed post-war when the food lobbysist (grains, sugar and cereals) put forward some pseudo-scientific advice about high fat and heart health to the authorities who adopted it on behalf of the food industry for profit?

Who would be culpable then? Govt or food industry? Meanwhile millions die early from obesity and to take it a step further, die in pain and without tax payer funded treatment.

Crime and punishment can take many forms it seems :smart:

 

[Pat494]

Well here is the Government's approach to crime.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...kle-youth-violence/ar-BBPxjMh?ocid=spartanntp

Just the usual " kick the problem into the long grass " answer I regret to say.

This is not the answer. If Javid and co. can't see that then they really should not be ministers at all.

 

[tomorton]

Thought I'd take a look at the convictions reported round here recently - see what sort of sentences come down for what sort of crime. Some reports cover several offences so sometimes hard to see which are the sentences for which crimes but here we go. Decide if you think this adds up to effective justice -

Harassment. Possession of amphet.
Community order. Fine

Assault.
Community order. Rehabilitation Activity Requirement for 20 days. Fined and surcharge £105.

Assault.
Community order. Rehabilitation Activity Requirement for 12 days. Curfew for three months. Restraining order made. Surcharge to fund victim services of £85.

Shoplifting. Breach of a suspended sentence for battery.
Community order. Curfew. Rehabilitation. Compensation of £235. Fined £50.

Driving while disqualified, no insurance, breach of suspended sentence for driving while disqualified.
26 weeks inside. Surcharge £115. Disqualified from driving for 12 months.

Prisoner assaulted prisoner custody officer
15 weeks. Compensation of £115.

Driving while disqualified etc.
12 weeks.

Assault
Discharged conditionally for 12 months. Compensation of £100.

Burgled shop. Breached a conditional discharge imposed for drug possession.
18 weeks.

Destroyed TV, damaged property and car
Discharged conditionally for 12 months. Compensation of £100. Surcharge and costs £105.

Assaulted police officer
Discharged conditionally for 18 months. Surcharge £20.

Drunk & disorderly.
Fined £50. Surcharge £30.

Company fly-tipped soil and hardcore
Fined £7,000. Surcharge to fund victim services of £170. Costs of £3,306.

Failure to keep dog under control.
Fined £100. Surcharge £30.

Driving without due care and attention.
Fined £230. Surcharge and costs of £105.

Possession of cannabis resin.
Discharged conditionally for six months. Surcharge £20. Costs £85.

Assaulted and ABH.
Damaged windows at pub.
Breach of conditional discharge for criminal damage and theft.
Committed to prison for eight weeks suspended for six months. Compensation of £300.

Possession of MDMA, ketamine, cannabis. Driving without licence, insurance.
Fined £500. To pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £30. To pay costs of £85. Driving record endorsed.

Assault x 2. Damaged property. Child neglect.
Community order made. Rehabilitation Activity Requirement. To pay compensation of £100. To pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £85. To pay costs of £330.

Shoplifting. Failure to surrender to custody while on bail.
42 weeks. To pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £115.

Harassment.
Discharged conditionally for 12 months. Restraining order made. To pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £20. To pay costs of £85 to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Threatening language/behaviour.
Community order made. Rehabilitation Activity Requirement. Unpaid Work Requirement: Carry out unpaid work for 200 hours within the next 12 months. Restraining order made. To pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £85. To pay costs of £85 to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Assault.
Community order made. Rehabilitation Activity Requirement. Restraining order made. To pay compensation of £150. To pay costs of £200 to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Driving on bald tyres plus related offence.
Fined £225. To pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £30. To pay costs of £300. Driving record endorsed.

Driving whilst unfit through drugs.
Fined £80. To pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £30. To pay costs of £85 to the Crown Prosecution Service. Disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 month.

Towing trailer not equipped to catch debris thrown up by wheels.
Fined £76. To pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £30. To pay costs of £85 to the Crown Prosecution Service.


Its just a short-term random sample, but -

Three people convicted of possession of drugs, none went to prison, not even the guy with class A.

Eight people convicted of violence against another - the only one who went to prison was the guy who was already inside and had assaulted a guard. Even the one who assaulted a police officer got a conditional discharge.

 

[Pat494]

I suggest that VR is used in a therapy session of question and answer,
For instance a convicted paedophile might be taken in VR for a walk in the park. As he is walked near a group of children playing his reactions would be monitored and flash up his excitement level. He has control over direction and speed and if he doesn't turn away a small electric jolt is applied plus loud noise and a flashing screen. And so the walk continues. Every test he fails he gets an increasing jolt.
A can of beer for a clear round.

 

[barjon]

I don't know what more I can say really. I think we were actually discussing the legalisation of cannabis. On this subject I am against legalisation for recreational use as a purely medical precaution but I have not advocated criminal prosecution for possession for personal use. I have expressed support for medicinal use in a safe form. I have expressed my preference that cannabis use was regulated rather than policed, i.e. dealt with by a regulatory authority, not the police.

I do not believe that the UK police have ever put serious resources into prosecuting a "war" against cannabis users. There's no evidence there was such a war, so the cited failure of a prohibition campaign that never happened in any serious way is hardly evidence for legalisation.

I don't believe its immoral to divert public resources to NHS patients who have suffered an accidental injury or infection, and away from persons who have taken a cavalier attitude by consumption of dangerous levels of known dangerous (or at least not known safe) chemicals. It could be argued that drug abusers are acting immorally, by taking a reckless decision and expected tax-payers to pay for their dimness or selfishness.

You might remember the outcry when Georgie Best received a liver transplant on the NHS and then proceeded to enjoy drinking himself to death - a fully justified outcry in my opinion. What do you think?

Customs spent an awful lot of money trying to stop the stuff coming in only to be often frustrated by police inaction.

So far as denying NHS treatment as you suggest, where do you stop? A&Es round the country are often packed out on Saturday afternoons with those who have come a cropper playing “dangerous” games like rugby. Should treatment of those injuries be denied?

 

[Atilla]

I would decriminalise all drugs. Period.

Create a whole new industry.

Suppliers in the chain would become respected businessmen.

New solutions and fixes and industry would mushroom all over the world. No pun intended.

Be great to employ people and receive tax revenue.


I think tobacco and alchol are just as dangerous if not more so.


People are smart. They know what's good for them and what's bad. Anyone who goes to the doctor for supplies will look bad. Risk and escapism would lose their appeal.

World is over populated anyhow. What a way to reduce population by tripping out. Yay.

Anyhow, I do feel a whole new era of creative drugs will dawn and even the A-class drugs can be modified to reduce harmful effects whilst extolling the benefits.

Pretty much now anyone can get whatever they want. Simply that life will continue without the criminal and 2ndary crime elements.


People are stupid and always bark on about what they know or think they know. Passing and extending their morality in circumventing and criminalising other people. You can't do this or you can't do that? Eating too much chocolate is bad for you as well.

Sh!t they put in fizzy drinks, inject animals with growth hormones and feed them antibiotics to prevent them catching viral infections coz they are maintained in filthy dirty faeces infected cages and then sell them to make profit. That's capitalism for you. The billionaire is considered delivering a service to Joe public and given a sir title. On the other hand someone peddling some light drugs or heavy drugs considered a demeanour.

If you are someone like a rock star or famous rich trader and you have a coke party, your doing alright, we must do that again.

We make mountains out of all these minor issues whilst all the big issues we do have like sh!t desperate lives that lead to drugs to forget how miserable our existence are we criminalise adding fuel to the fire.

Life is a paradox sometimes. :whistling

 

[tomorton]

Customs spent an awful lot of money trying to stop the stuff coming in only to be often frustrated by police inaction.

So far as denying NHS treatment as you suggest, where do you stop? A&Es round the country are often packed out on Saturday afternoons with those who have come a cropper playing “dangerous” games like rugby. Should treatment of those injuries be denied?

No.