Tarred & Feathered

[Jabba]

Just seen this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6966493.stm) on the BBC website.

Assuming that they got the right person, that he is a drug-dealer, and that the Police failed to act on information received, is this action justified?

Just wondering what folks on here think........

[SoulKiss]

Just seen this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6966493.stm) on the BBC website.

Assuming that they got the right person, that he is a drug-dealer, and that the Police failed to act on information received, is this action justified?

Just wondering what folks on here think........

Justfied - Yes

Acceptable - No

Inevitable - Yes

Crime is getting to the point that the Law is a joke. I believe the Police are doing a better job now that for years, but what happens once criminals are caught and sentenced is seen as a joke and not harsh enough by most.

So some people will deal with it themselves, which is not at all acceptable in a society which has laws and rules against that.

Oh I missed one

Funny - Hell Yes !!!

[Spiderman]

wow, and all he did was sell drugs! I say "all" meaning what would they have done with a convicted paedophile who was released to live in the community?

Personaly i'm all for action like this, as David said it shouldnt happend in a modern civilised democracy... but when the crooks get treated better than the victims which seems to be all too often the case then those of a moral mind will want retribution and natural justice.

And i cant say i blame them. Would i go out as part of a vilgilante gang and do that to someone tho? No!

Would i lift a finger to help the suspected crim? No!

The powers that be need to get a finger on this pulse of society before it all gets way out of hand.

[hovis]

but his face is covered up......so its a bit pointless IMO

[mac99]

I guess his crime was probably selling drugs without the permission of the local paramilitaries.

[timwilky]

He got away lucky. some of the paramilitary justice involves holes in kneecaps etc.

We were unfortunate enough to have a drug dealer and family living almost on our doorstep. The police raided him a few time but never found anything. One day his back door was kicked in, father stood up, and went down, then the dealer himself and 2 brothers came running down the stairs and went down.

So 4 scumbags. (yes the whole family were convicted burglars, known dealers etc) went off in an ambulance and the police investigated, refused to consider it may be drug related. Strange how when vicious attacks like this one happened. Nobody saw anything. I did however buy a couple of local lads of my acquaintance a few of pints a few days later.

Drug dealer got a second kicking about 3 months later and took up the advice to sell the house and get back under whatever stone they first crawled out from.

It took about 3 years in total from them first buying the house to them taking the first offer to buy the house. Cheeky beggars had also asked for police protection because of the harassment they had received

[RhythmJunkie]

I don't condone drug selling of any kind but we have to put this in perspective.....doctors and pharmacists sell drugs, they sell the really harmful ones which kill far more people than the illegal ones do.

The strongest argument against illegal drugs is the one in which families are broken down or destroyed by drug use but from what I've seen of illegal drug use alcohol breaks down more families, relationships and friendships and causes more anti-social behaviour than illegal drugs ever do and its legal...

It also kills more people!

The ones who make money from allowing the illegal drugs industry to flourish are the ones who should be tarred and feathered IMO!

[MiniMatt]

First off I'd say it's a pretty big assumption that they got the right person. That is "the police didn't do anything" could also be interpreted as "the police investigated and found he had no case to answer". So let's assume for a second he was completely innocent/mistaken identity and imagine how ****-scared and terrified he must be (especially given NI paramilitary's reputation as timwilky aluded to).

Also, what drugs? In my mind there's a world of difference between a heroin/crack dealer and someone who flogs a bit of weed. Anyone who went to college in the last fifty years is probably still friends with a weed dealer :D

Assuming they do have the right person, and assuming he's the type that sells crack to babies then...
Acceptable: No
Understandable: Yes
Ammusing: Yes
Justifiable: No (as if we're also assuming "the police did nothing", rather than "the police found nothing to act on", then it should be the chief constable publicly humiliated instead)

[SoulKiss]

You really should keep taking your medicine.

This isn't about whats right or wrong with regards to drugs taking, thats a topic for another thread.

This is about Vigilanteism, and how normal members of society are starting to feel that in order to get "Justice" they have to take matters into their own hand.

Oh and RhythmJunkie - THEY are behind you !!!!

I don't condone drug selling of any kind but we have to put this in perspective.....doctors and pharmacists sell drugs, they sell the really harmful ones which kill far more people than the illegal ones do.

The strongest argument against illegal drugs is the one in which families are broken down or destroyed by drug use but from what I've seen of illegal drug use alcohol breaks down more families, relationships and friendships and causes more anti-social behaviour than illegal drugs ever do and its legal...

It also kills more people!

The ones who make money from allowing the illegal drugs industry to flourish are the ones who should be tarred and feathered IMO!

[SV225]

Is it justified? No, but only 'cos it's up to police to sort these people out. At least things like this will show the police/goverment/whoever that people aren't going to sit around doing nothing while criminals get away with anything.

[MiniMatt]

Ok sticking purely to vigilantism then :D Nope, not justifiable. And yes, I do consider myself normal :D The thing is, it's driven by the fear that there is more crime than "back when I were a lad" and punishments are softer than "back when I were a lad". The thing is, I remember my parents saying the exact same thing. And their parents probably said the same.

It's an inevitable effect of OLD AGE - you start getting more worried by crime and start getting more nostalgic about THE OLDEN DAYS.

The facts however are different, almost every conceivable crime survey has shown that overal crime levels are at the lowest they've ever been, and the prison population is currently at the highest it's ever been. Ergo, crime is not as bad as it used to be, and punishments are actually harsher than they used to be. What has gone up over the years however is media frenzy, and this is undoubtedly driving the feeling that things are getting worse and no-one's doing anything about it.

[philbut]

The facts however are different, almost every conceivable crime survey has shown that overal crime levels are at the lowest they've ever been, and the prison population is currently at the highest it's ever been. Ergo, crime is not as bad as it used to be, and punishments are actually harsher than they used to be. What has gone up over the years however is media frenzy, and this is undoubtedly driving the feeling that things are getting worse and no-one's doing anything about it.

Interesting point. I don't know about your stats there, but I totally agree with the statement about the media. good news never sells papers - tragedy and death does however. Look at the states. People are terrified of everyone, terrorists, minorities, junkies, blah blah blah, all these people are evil, blah blah - go buy a gun and take the law into your own hands quick...

People who do this sort of thing are making a mockery of the law. Yeah they might deter one or two criminals, but it makes the police look like mugs to the community as well - not good.

[timwilky]

the problem with "Back when I was a lad" is that in my youth, you went to borstal, several of my friend did and never offended again. Now it seems you get a caution, then another, then an asbo, then probation, then a suspended sentence and finally you may get locked up, but not for too long as three to a cell and doing your business in buckets is not nice.

People use the system and get away with things for far too long. criminal behaviour needs to be nipped in the bud, not allowed to florish

[MiniMatt]

Interesting point. I don't know about your stats there

Well spotted, I'm normally the one who bemoans people quoting statistics without citations to back up their claims :D

Home office report at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1107.pdf

Selected quotes:
•
Since 1995, all vehicle theft and domestic burglary have each fallen by over a half (61 per cent and 59 per cent respectively), and vandalism has fallen by 11 per cent, according to the BCS. Other household thefts have fallen by 47 per cent since 1995

The BCS shows violent crime has fallen by 41 per cent, with assault with minor injury falling by 58 per cent since 1995

[Ceri JC]

It's an inevitable consequence of our failing judicial system that people will take the law into their own hands. A large part of the "point" of law is that the victims feel justice has been done. If they don't feel this, it's hardly surprising (not that I condone it) they do something about it themselves.

[tinpants]

I don't condone drug selling of any kind but we have to put this in perspective.....doctors and pharmacists sell drugs, they sell the really harmful ones which kill far more people than the illegal ones do.

The strongest argument against illegal drugs is the one in which families are broken down or destroyed by drug use but from what I've seen of illegal drug use alcohol breaks down more families, relationships and friendships and causes more anti-social behaviour than illegal drugs ever do and its legal...

It also kills more people!

The ones who make money from allowing the illegal drugs industry to flourish are the ones who should be tarred and feathered IMO!

Firstly, just what f***ing planet are you on? If any doctor or pharmacist sells drugs where you live, you should report them. Also, if you are going to make wild claims like this then you should be able to name some of these killer drugs. So please do.

Secondly, are you implying that medical professionals are responsible for more drug related deaths than drug dealers? If so, I feel extremely insulted that you could think this. I have NEVER sold any prescription drugs to anyone. I've prescribed loads during my time in the ambulance service but never, ever sold any. Neither has anyone I know of. It may be your opinion which, of course, you are entitled to. However, in this instance, please stuff it up your fundamental orifice and disappear from whence you came.



Having said that, I do agree with your comment about alcohol.

[northwind]

Assuming that they got the right person, that he is a drug-dealer, and that the Police failed to act on information received, is this action justified?



Too much to assume. This is why we don't do vigilantiism- they have a depressing habit of getting it completely wrong and beating up podiatrists. And this is because vigilantes get to act on assumptions, instead of facts.

Also, if it was the UDA who did it as is suggested (since we're assuming), they weren't clamping down on "drug dealing scumbags", they were removing a competitor.

[RhythmJunkie]

Also, what drugs? In my mind there's a world of difference between a heroin/crack dealer and someone who flogs a bit of weed. Anyone who went to college in the last fifty years is probably still friends with a weed dealer

Followed by:

This isn't about whats right or wrong with regards to drugs taking, thats a topic for another thread.

This is about Vigilanteism, and how normal members of society are starting to feel that in order to get "Justice" they have to take matters into their own hand.

Yes mate! :rolleyes:

Correct me if I'm wrong...I'm sure you'll try...but isn't the attack on a local drug dealer? Isn't that what the attack was all about? Isn't it the selling of drugs that's supposed to make it justified?

The local beat will have to find somewhere else to score a joint on a quiet night now won't they??? Welcome to the real world!!!:rolleyes:

[RhythmJunkie]

Secondly, are you implying that medical professionals are responsible for more drug related deaths than drug dealers?

Am I implying? Oh fer gawds sakes go do the research I did!
My son was doing some topic on drugs at school and I researched this stuff for weeks.

Whats the f***ing difference between a prescribed opiate pain killer from a doctor and an opiate high from a drug dealer? I'll tell you what...the pharmacy gets a bigger mark up!
Oh and you can thank Mr Bush for securing the future supply from Afghanistan.

You got magistrates doing coke and tv presenters on pills and the local beat having a crafty joint between shifts jeeeeezus I've seen it with my own eyes and you come back at me with..."are you implying"!

..and no I'm not paranoid I just walk around with my eyes open, unlike most people!

[RhythmJunkie]

Also, if it was the UDA who did it as is suggested (since we're assuming), they weren't clamping down on "drug dealing scumbags", they were removing a competitor.

Nail squarely whacked on head there mate! ;)

[Rog]

It's an inevitable consequence of our failing judicial system that people will take the law into their own hands. A large part of the "point" of law is that the victims feel justice has been done. If they don't feel this, it's hardly surprising (not that I condone it) they do something about it themselves.


I love this comment. Where exactly do you get your information from? Please tell me it's not the tabloids, as it sounds like a quote from the "Daily Mail" Im Sorry if this offends you but glib statements like this really annoy me.:mad: There are cases where the sentencing does appear to go wrong but for everyone one of these there are hundreds if not thousands that dont.

I respect your right to say it though. :)

back on subject, this sought of action really sends a chill down my spine and I do not condone it one bit. Its tar and feathers this time, but what if your son or daughter is caught scrumping and this particularly group decides that acid in the face is the order of the day on "their turf" for this particular offence.

Our whole system is innocent until proved guilty but this approach takes it to be the other way round!!!

[northwind]

This is about Vigilanteism, and how normal members of society are starting to feel that in order to get "Justice" they have to take matters into their own hand.

Eh... The person stating that this was the case was speaking on behalf of the UPRG, who're basically a front for the UDA- not that surprising that he'd deny their involvement. The BBC article didn't bother to mention that I notice. But since they're so heavily involved in drug trafficing and dealing- much more profitable than terrorism- they've got a huge amount to gain from competing dealers being taken off the street, so they're natural suspects. I bet you a pound this wasn't random members of the public.

Of course, setting yourself up selling drugs in competition to an irish paramilitary organisation isn't that bright.

[Cloggsy]

Taring & feathering is quite a 'light' punishment for NI :!:

The usual would be bullets through the ankles, knees and if you've really wound someone up... Well, lets not go into that :!:

[Ceri JC]

I love this comment. Where exactly do you get your information from? Please tell me it's not the tabloids, as it sounds like a quote from the "Daily Mail" Im Sorry if this offends you but glib statements like this really annoy me.:mad:

Nope, I'm a broadsheet man myself (The Times). Not that I'm not aware of the myriad of failings of the media. My girlfriend works in TV, so I daresay I have a better insight into the sort of misleading that goes on in the media as a whole (TV is not much better) than most.

Lets look at my statement again shall we and see which bits you actually disagree with?

"A large part of the "point" of law is that the victims feel justice has been done."

Hopefully it's not that. I hope you don't feel the victim has no right to expect a (just) degree of punishment for the person who wronged them. If you're questioning that this is the case, fair enough, I think it's an odd POV, but you're entitled to it. If, however, you're contesting the fact that part of the historical reason for law and order is to vindicate the feelings of the victim, you're not just of a different opinion, but you're wrong. Law was formed because people want those who do wrong to be punished, but at the same time, it's preferable to have justice meted out dispassionately by some third party (the courts and judicial system), rather than the victim/their friends or family who are likely to be incensed and retaliate disproportionately: mob rule, lynchings, not to mention them not being that bothered about evidence in the spur of the moment, etc.

"If they don't feel this, it's hardly surprising (not that I condone it) they do something about it themselves."

Are you contesting that it's surprising that people do things themselves when they feel the authorities are failing in their duties? As I have said, this doesn't mean you condone it: I don't. What I mean is, why is anyone surprised by this- you don't need a doctorate in psychology or an in-depth understanding of human behaviour to work out that people will do this, the history of vigilanteism in almost all cultures in the world shows us that people do this.


back on subject, this sought of action really sends a chill down my spine and I do not condone it one bit. Its tar and feathers this time, but what if your son or daughter is caught scrumping and this particularly group decides that acid in the face is the order of the day on "their turf" for this particular offence.

This probably is the UDA removing a competitor, rather than a group of men in the neighbourhood concerned with the well being of their kids. As I said in my post, I do not approve of this sort of vigilanteism (even if it is 'legitimate' vigilanteisim rather than a criminal turf war as this probably is). In a similar vein, if you leave a bike with the keys in the ignition in a rough bit of town, it's unsurprising when it is stolen. That doesn't mean you approve of those who steal it, merely that you have a modicum of empathic ability and can understand that some people might.

There are cases where the sentencing does appear to go wrong but for everyone one of these there are hundreds if not thousands that dont.


Let's be generous and say you meant the minimum ('hundreds', so a ratio of 1:200). You're saying that for every 200 inmates, only one is given a "wrong" sentence? So what about the small (generally estimated at 2-3%) number of people wrongfully imprisoned. That's 5 people for every 200 who got a "wrong" sentence alone. Then look at the people who were given a disproportianately light (or harsh) sentence. Precise figures for this are impossible (who, other than a judge/magistrate decides with authority what is harsh/light?), but let's be conservative and say perhaps 1 in 100 prisoners are given an unduly harsh sentence and 4 in 100 are given an unduly light sentence (due to a very good lawyer, pressure due to overcrowing in prisons, soppy judges giving an unduly light sentence due mitigating circumstances, or just a simple poor decision by a judge). Even with those extremely narrow estimates, we're looking at 7/8% of the prison population who received unjust sentences. I'd say that's a lot more than "one in hundreds or thousands" of cases.

Still, statistics are often abstract things and seldom convey the real meaning of what's going on. Now, let me tell you a true story and you tell me if the sentence was fair:

A lad from our school was attacked by a rival school. A few lads from our school arrived and fought them off, taking the injured boy to safety. We were all around 16/17 - school kids being kids you might say. What makes it a bit nasty is one of the elder brothers of the rival school (a man in his mid 20s with a history of violent crime and previous convictions) was watching the fight from out of his house which overlooked the street concerned. He went upstairs, got a samurai sword down from his bedroom. He came out of the house, conceleing the sword. He brandished the sword feet away from my friend (who, incidentally, hadn't thrown a punch and merely held back the man's younger brother who was trying to attack someone) and swung for my friend's head, quite clearly intending to strike a killing blow. My friend put his hands up and had his hands severely cut, tendons severed and profuse bleeding. The crowd froze in shock and surprise. My friend turned to run away through the crowd, the man tried to strike him in the head again (this time from behind). Luckily, as my friend ran he almost got outside his reach and even more luckily he had a leather jacket on, so the blade merely marked the back of his jacket where it landed.

The crowd surged forwards, protecting my friend, and swarming the man, pinning him down whilst the police were called. My friend, even years later, still lacks fine motor control in some fingers due to the damaged tendons, not to mention the visible scarring. He works in prop making, so it effects his work, not to mention the lack of dexterity works against him in his favourite hobby, DJing.

The police arrived, carted the man off, they found him with the sword, his prints on it, the victim's blood on it, dozens of witnesses. There was no doubt as to the man's guilt. How long did he get for (what should have been) attempted murder? 6 months. Somehow the court appointed lawyer managed to convince the court that this man was acting to defend his younger brother, that he happened to have the sword next to him and grabbed it without thinking, that he never intended to do anything other than scare my friend by "waving it about menacingly" and 'accidentally' caught him with the blade (twice)!

Unsurprisingly with the man out so soon, people were unhappy. People who saw what had happened wanted to kill the man, or at the very least, firebomb his house and then beat him senseless. It was only the good sense and intervention of the victim that prevented this from happening. I don't approve of what they wanted to do and I applaud my friend for stopping them from doing it, but that doesn't mean I cannot understand why they wanted to. They wanted to because they felt justice had not been served. Do you think they would have wanted to kill him if he had been imprisoned for 5+ years instead?


Our whole system is innocent until proved guilty but this approach takes it to be the other way round!!!

Certainly. This is one of the prime reasons why mob rule is wrong and undesireable. People see the red mist, act as part of a mob rather than individuals and make rash (and often wrong) decisions. Going back to my point about why the law exists, this is why it is preferable to have people feeling that the law does a good job, to avoid this sort of thing occuring.

So, that only leaves the following bit of my statement, "It's an inevitable consequence of our failing judicial system that people will take the law into their own hands."

Again, I hope you now see that I don't approve of it, but that I do believe our judicial system fails (far too often) to do justice and people (wrongly) choose to take action to rectify this themselves.

Wow, that was a long one!

[Rog]

So, that only leaves the following bit of my statement, "It's an inevitable consequence of our failing judicial system that people will take the law into their own hands."

Again, I hope you now see that I don't approve of it, but that I do believe our judicial system fails (far too often) to do justice and people (wrongly) choose to take action to rectify this themselves.

Wow, that was a long one!

you see this is what I like about this forum, no flaming but a complete and well thought out rebuttal.

Anyway, Ceri I think that you may have misinterpreted what I was getting at. I dont disagree that there are many cases where the sentencing/punishment metered out seems to us disproportionate to the crime. But I stand by what I said, as your statement above, to me, suggests that our judicial system is failing wholesale, which I dont believe is the case.

I never thought you approved of it and I apologise if you thought this is what I was saying.

On the point of your friend, the way you describe it would appear that the sentence was totally unacceptable. But this is only on your statement, the whole point of the judicial system is that as much relevant evidence and witnesses are brought forward, presented and cross examined. It is then up to the jury to make a decision on the guilt or not of that person. No system is without flaws and whether you agree with it or not, the jury obviously felt this was the right decision.

In short, the media as always, only concentrate on those flaws giving a false picture of the true day to day workings of our system of Justice.

[tinpants]

Am I implying? Oh fer gawds sakes go do the research I did!
My son was doing some topic on drugs at school and I researched this stuff for weeks.

Whats the f***ing difference between a prescribed opiate pain killer from a doctor and an opiate high from a drug dealer? I'll tell you what...the pharmacy gets a bigger mark up!
Oh and you can thank Mr Bush for securing the future supply from Afghanistan.

You got magistrates doing coke and tv presenters on pills and the local beat having a crafty joint between shifts jeeeeezus I've seen it with my own eyes and you come back at me with..."are you implying"!

..and no I'm not paranoid I just walk around with my eyes open, unlike most people!

First off, you obviously need to do more thorough research than you did initially. Methinks you know not of what you speak.

The difference between an opiate painkiller and some gear bought on the street is, I would have thought, fairly obvious. Prescription drugs are given for a reason; a specific complaint. Not just because some scrote wants a quick hit. What an individual does with said 'script once they get the drug from the chemist is out of the hands of the Dr AND the pharmacist so I fail to see how you can say its down to medical professionals. As a matter of interest, I've been to dozens of opiate overdoses in my paramedic career and none, thats NONE of them have been due to prescription drugs. Indeed, when it is highlighted that a particular analgesic drug is dangerous, its use is closely monitored and can, in the case of Co-proxamol, be withdrawn in some area. The active opiate in co-prox is dextropropoxyphene, a rather strong opiate that can depress respirations from a relatively small dose especially if mixed with alcohol.

Drugs bought on the street are invariably cut with other substances to make it go further. Its these additives that are a large part of the problem. I've heard of heroin being cut with brick dust, Vim, car body filler, talcum powder, animal excrement and salt to name but a few.



Btw, the muffled voices you can hear are due to the fact that you have your head jammed firmly up your @rse. Remove it or leave it there. Its up to you, but don't EVER accuse me ( either directly or indirectly) of selling drugs.

[Ceri JC]

you see this is what I like about this forum, no flaming but a complete and well thought out rebuttal.

Yes, me too. This is the most "grown up" forum by a long way and I like that (most! :))people here can have differing points of view without it degenerating into slagging each other off and wandering off topic.


Anyway, Ceri I think that you may have misinterpreted what I was getting at. I dont disagree that there are many cases where the sentencing/punishment metered out seems to us disproportionate to the crime. But I stand by what I said, as your statement above, to me, suggests that our judicial system is failing wholesale, which I dont believe is the case.

I never thought you approved of it and I apologise if you thought this is what I was saying.

On the point of your friend, the way you describe it would appear that the sentence was totally unacceptable. But this is only on your statement, the whole point of the judicial system is that as much relevant evidence and witnesses are brought forward, presented and cross examined. It is then up to the jury to make a decision on the guilt or not of that person. No system is without flaws and whether you agree with it or not, the jury obviously felt this was the right decision.

In short, the media as always, only concentrate on those flaws giving a false picture of the true day to day workings of our system of Justice.

Yes, I think you're right, in light of that, my original post does make it sound like our judicial system is completely hopeless and no sentences are just, hence people resorting to vigilanteism. I hope my (rather lengthy) post clarifies my POV that a lot of the time, the system gets it right, but that I do feel:
a) There are a (not insignificant) number of cases where it gets it wrong.
b) An unfortunate knock-on effect of the judicial system getting it wrong is that otherwise very reasonable, decent people decide to take the law into their own hands (although as mentioned, I don't think that's the case here).

What a pleasure to debate something civily, as you no doubt would face to face, without someone hiding behind the anonymity of the internet and being a total **** about it. :smt045

[RhythmJunkie]

:)
See I'm cool.
Always am.
Tongue in cheek.
Until insulted.
:smt094

but don't EVER accuse me ( either directly or indirectly) of selling drugs

Good job you're not a pharmacist then! :rolleyes:
I'd like you to concentrate here on the word "selling"!

What an individual does with said 'script once they get the drug from the chemist is out of the hands of the Dr AND the pharmacist so I fail to see how you can say its down to medical professionals

Not sure what that has to do with my argument! My point was that a doctor, specialist nurse, psychiatrist, pharmacist can "supply" opiates legally with no fear of being victimised for "supplying" drugs! No tarring and feathering in the street etc..
As for the statement "out of the hands of the doctor", how often do we read of celebrities hooked on "prescription painkillers" (opiates?) in rehab clinics. They didn't get that way buying from a dealer....they got that way by a doctor allowing them to get that way!!!:rolleyes:
No vigilante mothers protecting their kids there then, banging on the doctors door demanding they stop supplying their kids with drugs?

Its the same...whether you like it or not...its the same!!!!!

However much 'you' hate the word 'sell', in the eyes of the law, 'supply' is the same as 'sell'.

The dealer supply's an opiate to a customer and the doctor supply's an opiate to a customer, that's what we patients are called these days "customers"!

The customer asks the doctor for the opiate and the doctor agrees to allow the supply of that opiate to the customer using a receipt called a prescription and a middleman called a pharmacist.
I can be jailed for "supplying" that same opiate even though no money changes hands even for pain relief? So 'supply' and 'sell' are the same you have to agree! I cannot spell it out any simpler than that!

I find it quite alarming that a person can hide behind the fact that someone else actually does the hands on selling bit and so feel completely dis-connected from the supply process somehow.

British law....supply...sell....the same thing!

What the customer does with the drugs is arbitrary to the discussion. Two people supply the same product to customers one legally protected the other is not. Forget the talcum powder which can be found in many prescription medicines, its the main ingredient the opiate that I'm refering to here!

First off, you obviously need to do more thorough research than you did initially. Methinks you know not of what you speak.


That kind of remark is why I come back at you. Nothing but insults! I can do insults!

I recommend you start and end with the governments own statistics then come back on this thread and duly apologise.
You are the one who knows not of what they speak!

As for the head up the @rse insult....my kids are much better at winding someone up!
Get some practice! :p

Oh one more important query. You said...
I've been to dozens of opiate overdoses
in my paramedic career and none, thats NONE of them have been due to
prescription drugs

So what do people OD on for suicide these days? Just curious! ;)

[RhythmJunkie]

Yes, me too. This is the most "grown up" forum by a long way and I like that (most! )people here can have differing points of view without it degenerating into slagging each other off and wandering off topic

I'm ok until someone starts having a go making out I'm feckin stupid!
I'm not going to sit here and take it!

You are right Ceri most people on here are respectful but some are just downright rude!
Like I said..."I can do insults"! :)

[RhythmJunkie]

my original post does make it sound like our judicial system is completely hopeless and no sentences are just

I don't think using 60 year old men from middle class backgrounds, who have little or no idea at all of the scumbag world we have to live in to judge people is a good idea.

We need younger judges who live in the real world, people who understand what its like living on a council estate.

I think a black person should only be judged by black jurors! That way racial bias is totally eliminated whether deliberate or otherwise!

Maybe young jurors (over 18 of course) should judge young people for a fairer trial.

I don't think the present system is 100% efficient it needs tweaking!

[northwind]

I think a black person should only be judged by black jurors! That way racial bias is totally eliminated whether deliberate or otherwise!


Was this a joke :confused:

[Dan]

The dealer supply's an opiate to a customer and the doctor supply's an opiate to a customer, that's what we patients are called these days "customers"!


********. You're called 'Service Users', or 'Patients'.

I have 350 doctors on my books who'd be happy to discuss your conspiracy theory further, I'm sure.

They're not handing out opiates willy-nilly as you imply, rather prescribing them for illnesses.

Might I suggest that you don't discuss your attitude to the medical profession with your GP? If you do, you may find that he's reluctant to help if you ever get ill.

[RhythmJunkie]

Here we go with the insults again..:rolleyes:

I thought this was a grown up forum for grown up people who debate instead of resorting to schoolyard name calling?

This is not my conspiracy theory I'm refering to the governments own statistics on drug related deaths.

They're not handing out opiates willy-nilly as you imply, rather prescribing them for illnesses

Illnesses? They are pain killers. Mildly addictive ones and very easy to procure from your doctor...far easier in fact than from a dealer. The mucky opiates full of talc ;) you have to pay for whereas many people don't have to pay for prescriptions.

Anyway... I'm getting led away from my original post here...I mention opiates and the whole thread turns into a argument about opiates!!!

My original post was about the fact that the dealer gets tarred and has probably never killed anyone yet prescription drugs kill many people. I'm not going to start handing figures out, go find the figures for yourself....I've already done that groundwork! No-one gets tarred for those deaths! They are simply swept under the carpet as a necessary evil of taking modern medicines!

I'm just stating that to put the tarring into some perspective (remember my original post?) the dealers kill far less people with drugs than....erm...how can I put this without upsetting any paramedics or doctors out there....than the medical profession....I think thats the term usually used by legal teams so its good enough for me! That way I'm not pointing the finger at any individuals! :rolleyes:

As for the ******** bit.....read this and feel the anger! :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6225716.stm

[Dan]

Some conspiracy theory ********....

Illnesses? They are pain killers. Mildly addictive ones and very easy to procure from your doctor...far easier in fact than from a dealer.

More conspiracy theory ********...


As for the ******** bit.....read this and feel the anger! :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6225716.stm

I did read that, and read many similar stories. I for one agree that friendlier staff and better customer service are good things for the NHS, which is why my organisation strives to improve on the already good 98% of patients rating our services as 'satisfactory' or better.

However, if it comes down to it, I'd rather be treated properly by an ******** and cured, than treated by ever such a nice chap who's no use at all.

I really hope you never get terminal cancer, or you may find yourself on the receiving end of those dangerous opiates. I assume you'll be choosing pain instead of comfort?

Oh, and BTW. There were no insults in my post. Read it again. You're clearly just paranoid.

[Jester666]

Btw, the muffled voices you can hear are due to the fact that you have your head jammed firmly up your @rse.

Winning comment of the whole debate!! :thumbsup: :D

[MiniMatt]

I'm just stating that to put the tarring into some perspective (remember my original post?) the dealers kill far less people with drugs than....erm...how can I put this without upsetting any paramedics or doctors out there....than the medical profession....I think thats the term usually used by legal teams so its good enough for me! That way I'm not pointing the finger at any individuals! :rolleyes:


To be honest, I took your original post as simply pointing out that more people die (almost always by their own hand) via legally obtained drugs than illegally obtained ones. I don't know the stats but my hunch would be that's correct.

But you've taken it way too far in my opinion. There's a key difference between illegal drug dealers and the medical profession. The intent of the medical profession is to save lives and prevent pain and suffering. The intent of the drug dealer is to make money even if that costs the health of their "customers". You may think it's too easy to legally obtain strong drugs but that's besides the point - in prescribing those drugs the medical personel involved use their experience and education to make the very best decision they can in the very best interest of their patient. The illegal drug dealer makes no such decision.

As for black people should only be judged by other black people, I think that's completely bonkers, and by inference I think that makes you a little bit bonkers :D Take it as an insult if you wish... Surely by extension criminals should only be judged by other criminals? That way we'd avoid any bias and prejudice the law abiding have toward criminality?

[Spiderman]

To be honest, I took your original post as simply pointing out that more people die (almost always by their own hand) via legally obtained drugs than illegally obtained ones.

See thats what i thought you were getting at ... as well as the major hypocracy that is the alcohol and cigerette industries.

Legal prescription drugs are way off my personal radar.

But if you'd kept the "why not burn down the beer factories instead of tarring this one guy?" line going i dont so so many peeps would be jumping at you on this issue.

Whats makes me laugh is the NHS having to spend our taxes on TV adverts telling us not to smoke. Any idea how much a TV ad costs? Aint cheap and i'm sure its money the NHS could use better elsewhere.
If the Govt really want peeps to stop smoking then why dont they close the fag factories and ban all tobbaco sales?
Why wont they? The billions in taxes they get is the ONLY reason why...but they have to be seen to pretend to care for our welfare by "encouraging" us not to smoke.

Lets all tar the fag company directors instead i say!!

[northwind]

If the Govt really want peeps to stop smoking then why dont they close the fag factories and ban all tobbaco sales?
Why wont they? The billions in taxes they get is the ONLY reason why...but they have to be seen to pretend to care for our welfare by "encouraging" us not to smoke.

Lets all tar the fag company directors instead i say!!

With tar scraped from dead smoker's lungs :mrgreen:

Thing with a totla ban is, the smokers wouldn't be too pleased, look how pi**sed off they are about the pub bans. Box is open, demon is out. Prohibition doesn't really work, just drives it underground, introduces extra risks, puts the profits in the hands of criminals, etc. See also: cannabis, MDMA.

[Spiderman]

Ah, so we dont ban something we know is a killer because we fear the backlash from the users?

Then by that argumnet ALL drugs should be decriminalsied, including tobacco and alcohol, so the govt make no money from it and the suppliers have a responsibility to make sure the gear is half decent... or risk losing customers.

Imagine if the govt got hold of the sale of all drugs. The price would skyrocket overnight and there would just be worse quality gear on the streets.

DECRIMINALISE is the only sensible way forward. Oh and no NHS treatment of the after effects either. if you take it...take responsibility for yourself too. or dont take it. i'd apply that to drink too btw. far too much of the NHS resources are taken up by drunks or the long term or weekend variety and no one seems upset by that. But mention the NHS giving out too muchmethadone and everyone goes a bit nuts about it.

Alcohol is the biggest killer drug in this country for sure.

[northwind]

Alcohol is the biggest killer drug in this country for sure.

Yup, and the most harmful thing in a joint is the tobacco you roll it with :mrgreen:

Still, I don't agree with withdrawing care, last time I looked tobacco tax more than covers tobacco treatment, and the same for alcohol.

[Spiderman]

Yup, and the most harmful thing in a joint is the tobacco you roll it with :mrgreen:

Still, I don't agree with withdrawing care, last time I looked tobacco tax more than covers tobacco treatment, and the same for alcohol.

So true about the first comments Northy.

And i thought that they only spent a proportion of the tax raised for treatment and the rest went into the govts coffers for illegal wars etc.

[Viney]

Ban smoking and it means that every man woman and child would have to pay £140 each to cover the tax loss (8.4billion at the last count apprently)

I dont drink, smoke, take drugs, never have done, never will. So at the end of the day ban the whole bloody lot and that be the end of it.

Yup, and the most harmful thing in a joint is the tobacco you roll it with :mrgreen: Hmmmm, yeah uh ok. The second ingedient isnt exactly harmless though is it?

[Wester]

The most harmful thing in a joint is often whats hidden in the second ingredient.
I've seen the decline of somebody who smoked it like ciggarettes. I choose to listen to the medical research aswell.
Both are as bad as eachother.

[Spiderman]

ANY drug affects diffrent people in diffrent ways peeps. I have a couple of beers and i'm silly, others i know have a couple of beers at lunchtime and it refreshes and recharges them.

Same with fags, there was a lady on the news the other day celebrating her 100th birthday. She smoked since the age of 11 and on average 4 a day. And she has no type of cancer in her whatsoever.

Weed is highly dangerous to those who have the right type of chemical make up and not so dangerous to those with a diffrent make up. You gotta try something before you know if you like it or not or if its good for you. Sadly society sees weed as "harmless" which is a long, long way from the truth for some.

[northwind]

I've seen the decline of somebody who smoked it like ciggarettes

If you overdose on anything, it's bad for you, too much water kills you. One glass of red wine a day is good for the heart, one bottle of red wine causes your body and brain to collapse. Going on the internet to book a holiday saves you money, going on the internet as much as I do TAKES OVER YOUR ENTIRE LIFE :mrgreen:

Certainly not implying that weed's not bad for you, but it's illegal, and the other weed isn't, and that sort of double standard in law creates a credability gap. If it were legalised, then you'd have better controls on strength and quality, but also better support for those who take it to excess- bring it out of the closet. Pers'nally I think that cannabis overuse tends to be as much a mental issue as a chemical abuse, just like withdrawing into daytime TV, online computer games or drink, or joining the foreign legion... Better to get at the root, which you can't do while it's a dirty secret.

[slark01]

ANY drug affects diffrent people in diffrent ways peeps. I have a couple of beers and i'm silly, others i know have a couple of beers at lunchtime and it refreshes and recharges them.

Same with fags, there was a lady on the news the other day celebrating her 100th birthday. She smoked since the age of 11 and on average 4 a day. And she has no type of cancer in her whatsoever.

Weed is highly dangerous to those who have the right type of chemical make up and not so dangerous to those with a diffrent make up. You gotta try something before you know if you like it or not or if its good for you. Sadly society sees weed as "harmless" which is a long, long way from the truth for some.
Perfect and correct!
I have serious side affects from weed and actually ended up in hospital for 3 days, 2 of which was in a state of oblivion.
Any as for the main subject!
I understand the feelings of people wanting justice, on a few occassions i've actually taken the law into my own hands.

[Spiderman]

Perfect and correct!


:takeabow: eye fang you.