A hundred police raid Southend nightclub (From Echo)

Brunning999 wrote:
Comments yet again made by morons!

In reality if no drugs were found then the Police should be asked 'what intelligence did you have for a prearranged operation like that.

If drugs are found either in possession of several people or abandoned on the floor then a job well done in their primary objective preventing crime and secondary objective of detection of crime.

If very few drugs were found with a comparison of the cost of the operation and consideration given to the draining of Police Officer from other areas that equally have a right to a Police presence then the Police must and should face justifiable criticism.

As for the uneducated comments above that gives everyone a view of the type of person the Police have to deal with these days.

It is just a fact of life these days that we must accept that moronic people who hate The Police so much are so thick or born criminal type thugs that they cannot see the wood from the trees.

Tulip44 wrote:
It's the innocent people I feel sorry for,.my daughter works hard all week, looked forward to her night out, and was dragged out and made to stand shivering, in a skimpy dress and no coat, for over an hour outside! They could have at least provided those tin foil blankets. Disgusting!

CALL ME CLINT wrote:

Tulip44 wrote:
It's the innocent people I feel sorry for,.my daughter works hard all week, looked forward to her night out, and was dragged out and made to stand shivering, in a skimpy dress and no coat, for over an hour outside! They could have at least provided those tin foil blankets. Disgusting!

Why was your daughter kept waiting on the street for so long? Obviously, had she been in possession of anything she shouldn't have been it would have been jettisoned long before she was searched- I assume that was the purpose of her detention. I have nothing against the police enforcing the law as it relates to drugs even though I believe the law to be wrong. The enforcement should however be carried out efficiently and in a manner likely to cause the minimum of distress, discomfort and inconvenience to (let's face it) the law-abiding people frequenting the club.

I think your daughter has good reason to feel aggrieved at her treatment but I'm sure you will do your best to help her understand that in general the police do a good job in difficult times with **** as political masters and that sometimes they get things wrong.

CALL ME CLINT wrote:

Tulip44 wrote:
It's the innocent people I feel sorry for,.my daughter works hard all week, looked forward to her night out, and was dragged out and made to stand shivering, in a skimpy dress and no coat, for over an hour outside! They could have at least provided those tin foil blankets. Disgusting!

Why was your daughter kept waiting on the street for so long? Obviously, had she been in possession of anything she shouldn't have been it would have been jettisoned long before she was searched- I assume that was the purpose of her detention. I have nothing against the police enforcing the law as it relates to drugs even though I believe the law to be wrong. The enforcement should however be carried out efficiently and in a manner likely to cause the minimum of distress, discomfort and inconvenience to (let's face it) the law-abiding people frequenting the club.

I think your daughter has good reason to feel aggrieved at her treatment but I'm sure you will do your best to help her understand that in general the police do a good job in difficult times with **** as political masters and that sometimes they get things wrong.

Basildon.lad.21 wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
Comments yet again made by morons!

In reality if no drugs were found then the Police should be asked 'what intelligence did you have for a prearranged operation like that.

If drugs are found either in possession of several people or abandoned on the floor then a job well done in their primary objective preventing crime and secondary objective of detection of crime.

If very few drugs were found with a comparison of the cost of the operation and consideration given to the draining of Police Officer from other areas that equally have a right to a Police presence then the Police must and should face justifiable criticism.

As for the uneducated comments above that gives everyone a view of the type of person the Police have to deal with these days.

It is just a fact of life these days that we must accept that moronic people who hate The Police so much are so thick or born criminal type thugs that they cannot see the wood from the trees.

No its just sad people like you that just have no life. I bet most people in that club were scared when 100 pigs came in. And it was all a big failed operation. Public 1-0 Pigs. No wonder why people are starting to undermine our useless police force now adays.

pembury53 wrote:

Basildon.lad.21 wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
Comments yet again made by morons!

In reality if no drugs were found then the Police should be asked 'what intelligence did you have for a prearranged operation like that.

If drugs are found either in possession of several people or abandoned on the floor then a job well done in their primary objective preventing crime and secondary objective of detection of crime.

If very few drugs were found with a comparison of the cost of the operation and consideration given to the draining of Police Officer from other areas that equally have a right to a Police presence then the Police must and should face justifiable criticism.

As for the uneducated comments above that gives everyone a view of the type of person the Police have to deal with these days.

It is just a fact of life these days that we must accept that moronic people who hate The Police so much are so thick or born criminal type thugs that they cannot see the wood from the trees.

No its just sad people like you that just have no life. I bet most people in that club were scared when 100 pigs came in. And it was all a big failed operation. Public 1-0 Pigs. No wonder why people are starting to undermine our useless police force now adays.

Agreed. What an absolute disgrace ! Police moaning about cuts and people being mugged in broad daylight with hardly ever an arrest. Anyone would think a terrorist cell had been uncovered. The only surprise is that armed response units were not deployed ! People do a few pills on a night out..... big deal. The so called 'war on drugs' is a scandalous waste of tax payers money and adults should be left to make adult choices, like if to smoke or drink and take the consequences. Why is it the sad people with no life of their own have be so interested in what other people choose to do all the time.....

Tsgarmy wrote:
Well done to the old bill making themselves look rather silly yet again, no arrests I take it? Why raid mayhem it's hardly know for its drug dealing revellers, most of its clientele are under 20s struggling to afford a few Smirnoff ices, surely the police could be spending more time looking for criminals rather than wasting tax payers money!!!!!

SpaffSpiff84 wrote:
Anybody who understands the club/drug scene knows how pointless this is. You can tell the comments that come from the over 35's and the ones from the people who actually know what they are talking about, all the old fogies think arrest everything that moves and that will put an end to drug use, the only people who deal in clubs are there with the permission of the door staff, there's no way you could deal in a club like mayhem without it, club/pub raids just take the personal gear from the lightweights who havent taken it all yet, its all about fanning their tail feathers like a peacock, it doesnt actually have any effect on the scene at all

leeroy5 wrote:

Tsgarmy wrote:
Well done to the old bill making themselves look rather silly yet again, no arrests I take it? Why raid mayhem it's hardly know for its drug dealing revellers, most of its clientele are under 20s struggling to afford a few Smirnoff ices, surely the police could be spending more time looking for criminals rather than wasting tax payers money!!!!!

muuuuuuuug!

Eugene Speed wrote:
Judging by the comments on here from the pro-drugs camp, you want to come live where I do on Marine Parade. Coke and M-Cat dealers squaring up to each other, little twunts who can't handle their gear, coked-up morons who have lost the plot. I'm no old fogey, I'm an ex-clubber (gave it up due to all the wallies in the clubs nowdays) and a club DJ who has been on the club scene since the late 80s, and have watched as clubbers and dealers have become less discrete in their dealing and consumption of their chosen chems, leading to greater public awareness of what is going on in the clubs. This leads to questions being asked of the police and licencing authority's drugs prevention policies, so the plod react in a big way, hitting a big name in the town to send out the biggest loudest message, and it appears to have worked. Do you think they would have got the same column inches for a raid on the Sunrooms, despite what might have been found? I seriously doubt it, the police know that by raiding the biggest club in the town with no mercy for any of the punters, that message will filter through to the other clubs and pubs in the town. You can bet that a lot of the dealers, doormen and anyone else involved in the distribution of recreational chemicals in Southend is now a little more nervous about their activities, and hopefully the dealers and users who think that being discreet in what they are doing is no longer necessary will either stay away, keep it under wraps, or get nicked. In twenty-two years of clubbing and DJing in many venues in the UK and abroad, I have never once been searched, detained or arrested, despite enjoying many levels of chemical excess in my more youthful years, and it's all down to not behaving like a d1ck regardless of how much gear I had scoffed! Also, the police used for this type of operation would not have been pulled from regular beat bobbies, so there were no less coppers on the regular rounds.

Tsgarmy wrote:
I'd take ur bet because I very much doubt any were made as a direct result of this raid

SpaffSpiff84 wrote:
asbo shouldnt you be eating shepards pie with the cat or something? yeah high five me asbo

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
if i were a betting man (which i am) i would bet on arrests being made after 1am. the echo would not have been briefed by the police unless there was solid intelligence.

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
if i were a betting man (which i am) i would bet on arrests being made after 1am. the echo would not have been briefed by the police unless there was solid intelligence.

Ha ha! Know nothing idiot, I am reliably informed by a number of young people that Mayhem is the club where you are least likely to find drugs, it's where young teens hang out trying to get drunk. Police intelligence is a joke.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote: if i were a betting man (which i am) i would bet on arrests being made after 1am. the echo would not have been briefed by the police unless there was solid intelligence.

Ha ha! Know nothing idiot, I am reliably informed by a number of young people that Mayhem is the club where you are least likely to find drugs, it's where young teens hang out trying to get drunk. Police intelligence is a joke.

oh dear oh dear. i thought that most inappropriate username had been jettisoned. you obviously didn't read the details of the other story. a quantity of pills were found and police are considering a review of the club's license. looks like your reliable informant is not so reliable.

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote: if i were a betting man (which i am) i would bet on arrests being made after 1am. the echo would not have been briefed by the police unless there was solid intelligence.

Ha ha! Know nothing idiot, I am reliably informed by a number of young people that Mayhem is the club where you are least likely to find drugs, it's where young teens hang out trying to get drunk. Police intelligence is a joke.

oh dear oh dear. i thought that most inappropriate username had been jettisoned. you obviously didn't read the details of the other story. a quantity of pills were found and police are considering a review of the club's license. looks like your reliable informant is not so reliable.

I am told that it's pounds to peanuts that any pills found will be the so-called "legal highs", some of which are much MORE dangerous than the illegal drugs. My post still holds true, you could go almost anywhere else in Southend and find a lot more drugs than you'll ever find in Mayhem. Fact is there would have been hundreds of clubbers in Mayhem but all they found were a few pills. Pathetic.
.
Part of the problem is idiots like you who bleat on that all drugs are dangerous. When the kids come across cannabis at school (as they all do) they discover that a bit of weed is actually pretty harmless so they think the same must be true of all the other drugs like heroin, crack etc. Stop posting about things you know absolutely nothing about.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote: if i were a betting man (which i am) i would bet on arrests being made after 1am. the echo would not have been briefed by the police unless there was solid intelligence.

Ha ha! Know nothing idiot, I am reliably informed by a number of young people that Mayhem is the club where you are least likely to find drugs, it's where young teens hang out trying to get drunk. Police intelligence is a joke.

oh dear oh dear. i thought that most inappropriate username had been jettisoned. you obviously didn't read the details of the other story. a quantity of pills were found and police are considering a review of the club's license. looks like your reliable informant is not so reliable.

I am told that it's pounds to peanuts that any pills found will be the so-called "legal highs", some of which are much MORE dangerous than the illegal drugs. My post still holds true, you could go almost anywhere else in Southend and find a lot more drugs than you'll ever find in Mayhem. Fact is there would have been hundreds of clubbers in Mayhem but all they found were a few pills. Pathetic. . Part of the problem is idiots like you who bleat on that all drugs are dangerous. When the kids come across cannabis at school (as they all do) they discover that a bit of weed is actually pretty harmless so they think the same must be true of all the other drugs like heroin, crack etc. Stop posting about things you know absolutely nothing about.

your grandchildren are obviously a chip off the old hadleigh clueless block

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
city highflyers lol. good luck with that.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
city highflyers lol. good luck with that.

jayman wrote:
though I am against drugs and the selling of illegal drugs i must say that the police got it so wrong on this one.

all police cars should have thermal cameras mounted on there roof to spot the high heat signature of cannabis factories in domestic properties.

nightclubs and bars should have chemically reactive surfaces (toilet seats, tables and sink units) that turn pink or blue when cocaine has come into contact with the surface.

passive electronic 'chemical noses' should be used by pubs and clubs (with government subsidy) to find the dealers in the crowd.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote: city highflyers lol. good luck with that.

mind you if they're coke fiends they might make it

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
city highflyers lol. good luck with that.

The will-be city high flyer also happens to be a national sports finalist and is top if his class at Uni. And good luck to him. So what have you ever done pea brain?

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
city highflyers lol. good luck with that.

The will-be city high flyer also happens to be a national sports finalist and is top if his class at Uni. And good luck to him. So what have you ever done pea brain?

Nebs wrote:

jayman wrote: though I am against drugs and the selling of illegal drugs i must say that the police got it so wrong on this one. all police cars should have thermal cameras mounted on there roof to spot the high heat signature of cannabis factories in domestic properties. nightclubs and bars should have chemically reactive surfaces (toilet seats, tables and sink units) that turn pink or blue when cocaine has come into contact with the surface. passive electronic 'chemical noses' should be used by pubs and clubs (with government subsidy) to find the dealers in the crowd.

A few good ideas there. Not too sure about the reactive surfaces, as their competitors would send in ringers to get the police to focus on everyone but their own place with the result that all the colours would have changed, everywhere, within 24 hours of being put in place. Like the other ideas though.

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote: city highflyers lol. good luck with that.

mind you if they're coke fiends they might make it

He is a very sensible chap so I doubt that but I wouldn't hold it against him if he has a few lines, probably do him less harm than drinking - rated as only slightly worse than alcohol by the Govts own Drug Abuse Advisory Committee, way below Heroin etc but the trouble with cocaine is that it can easliy be made into crack cocaine, which is much worse.

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote: if i were a betting man (which i am) i would bet on arrests being made after 1am. the echo would not have been briefed by the police unless there was solid intelligence.

Ha ha! Know nothing idiot, I am reliably informed by a number of young people that Mayhem is the club where you are least likely to find drugs, it's where young teens hang out trying to get drunk. Police intelligence is a joke.

oh dear oh dear. i thought that most inappropriate username had been jettisoned. you obviously didn't read the details of the other story. a quantity of pills were found and police are considering a review of the club's license. looks like your reliable informant is not so reliable.

I am told that it's pounds to peanuts that any pills found will be the so-called "legal highs", some of which are much MORE dangerous than the illegal drugs. My post still holds true, you could go almost anywhere else in Southend and find a lot more drugs than you'll ever find in Mayhem. Fact is there would have been hundreds of clubbers in Mayhem but all they found were a few pills. Pathetic.
.
Part of the problem is idiots like you who bleat on that all drugs are dangerous. When the kids come across cannabis at school (as they all do) they discover that a bit of weed is actually pretty harmless so they think the same must be true of all the other drugs like heroin, crack etc. Stop posting about things you know absolutely nothing about.

SpaffSpiff84 wrote:
2 comments, both mentioning users/dealers having small penises, asbo said the same thing in another story... now im no psychologist, but thats got some kind of imasculinity complex/feeling threatened as a man written all over it, of all things to insult, you went straight for the penis, its classic inferiority complex

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
'Those who deal drugs those who take drugs are as low life scum as peados.'

Are you fu*king serious?

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
'Those who deal drugs those who take drugs are as low life scum as peados.'

Are you fu*king serious?

looks like they'll need to add a few pages to the sex offenders' register

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
'Those who deal drugs those who take drugs are as low life scum as peados.'

Are you fu*king serious?

looks like they'll need to add a few pages to the sex offenders' register

Nonces often work in pairs!

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
'Those who deal drugs those who take drugs are as low life scum as peados.'

Are you fu*king serious?

looks like they'll need to add a few pages to the sex offenders' register

Nonces often work in pairs!

i bow to your superior knowledge on the subject

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
No point continuing this, you lot are completely brainwashed into believing that legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol are OK but illegal drugs are not. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the two legal drugs are the biggest killers wheras one of the illegal drugs has never killed anyone from an overdose.
.
When is it going to penetrate your thick skulls that illegal drugs are all different, some are virtually harmless compared to the legal drugs and some are much worse but there is no connection between them apart from the fact they are illegal. Talking of which the so-called "legal highs" are an even bigger worry as they are legally available but some are potentially even more dangerous.
.
Do you even know why alcohol is culturally acceptable in the west? It's because our ancestors were too stupid to realise that boiling makes water safe, the only way they knew to make water safe was by fermenting alcohol whereas in the east they did know that boiling makes water safe so they chose their recreational drugs more carefully and quite rightly rejected alcohol.

jayman wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
No point continuing this, you lot are completely brainwashed into believing that legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol are OK but illegal drugs are not. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the two legal drugs are the biggest killers wheras one of the illegal drugs has never killed anyone from an overdose.
.
When is it going to penetrate your thick skulls that illegal drugs are all different, some are virtually harmless compared to the legal drugs and some are much worse but there is no connection between them apart from the fact they are illegal. Talking of which the so-called "legal highs" are an even bigger worry as they are legally available but some are potentially even more dangerous.
.
Do you even know why alcohol is culturally acceptable in the west? It's because our ancestors were too stupid to realise that boiling makes water safe, the only way they knew to make water safe was by fermenting alcohol whereas in the east they did know that boiling makes water safe so they chose their recreational drugs more carefully and quite rightly rejected alcohol.

where did you learn that alcohol was 'originally' used to purify water???

yeast, sugar, heat and a fruity ect medium for flavour.

alcohol doesn't clean water as the purity of the alcohol to purify water would need to be at about 100% 'which would kill you or make you go blind if consumed..

where did you learn that alcohol was 'originally' used to purify water???

yeast, sugar, heat and a fruity ect medium for flavour.

alcohol doesn't clean water as the purity of the alcohol to purify water would need to be at about 100% 'which would kill you or make you go blind if consumed..

Brunning999 wrote:
It is quite astonishing how many people live in pathetic little lawless lives relying on either drugs, drink or a naughty little child law breaking life. This is an indication to the majority of hard working tax paying folk that we need to smother these morons before they grow to an unmanageable size. Well done Police for at least not giving up despite the fact the Criminal Justice System sadly seems to have done so. Transportation is the answer for anti social low life's or perhaps the increasing growth of Sharia Law demands might make them think.

Brunning999 wrote:
It is quite astonishing how many people live in pathetic little lawless lives relying on either drugs, drink or a naughty little child law breaking life.

This is an indication to the majority of hard working tax paying folk that we need to smother these morons before they grow to an unmanageable size.

Well done Police for at least not giving up despite the fact the Criminal Justice System sadly seems to have done so.

Transportation is the answer for anti social low life's or perhaps the increasing growth of Sharia Law demands might make them think.

Max Impact wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
It is quite astonishing how many people live in pathetic little lawless lives relying on either drugs, drink or a naughty little child law breaking life. This is an indication to the majority of hard working tax paying folk that we need to smother these morons before they grow to an unmanageable size. Well done Police for at least not giving up despite the fact the Criminal Justice System sadly seems to have done so. Transportation is the answer for anti social low life's or perhaps the increasing growth of Sharia Law demands might make them think.

It is good to see that there is another that has he same view as I do.

Just seen the wife and kids off through to the depatures lounge, and I am going to sit down and enjoy this Fry up that has just arrived, 2xbacon, 2xeggs, 2xsausage, beans, 2xhash brown, 2xfried slice, and a mug of tea.

Sundays were made for this.

Max Impact wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:
It is quite astonishing how many people live in pathetic little lawless lives relying on either drugs, drink or a naughty little child law breaking life. This is an indication to the majority of hard working tax paying folk that we need to smother these morons before they grow to an unmanageable size. Well done Police for at least not giving up despite the fact the Criminal Justice System sadly seems to have done so. Transportation is the answer for anti social low life's or perhaps the increasing growth of Sharia Law demands might make them think.

It is good to see that there is another that has he same view as I do.

Just seen the wife and kids off through to the depatures lounge, and I am going to sit down and enjoy this Fry up that has just arrived, 2xbacon, 2xeggs, 2xsausage, beans, 2xhash brown, 2xfried slice, and a mug of tea.

Sundays were made for this.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
if i were a betting man (which i am) i would bet on arrests being made after 1am. the echo would not have been briefed by the police unless there was solid intelligence.

Ha ha! Know nothing idiot, I am reliably informed by a number of young people that Mayhem is the club where you are least likely to find drugs, it's where young teens hang out trying to get drunk. Police intelligence is a joke.

oh dear oh dear. i thought that most inappropriate username had been jettisoned. you obviously didn't read the details of the other story. a quantity of pills were found and police are considering a review of the club's license. looks like your reliable informant is not so reliable.

the kracken wrote:
Drugs and Alcohol are the cause of some many social problems and crimes in society. In my opinion the liberalisation thinking of the use of all drugs has seriously blighted society. Our politicians have tried to emulate the continent in terms of 24 hour cafe culture.They are stupid and naive ,they do not live in the real world .

The british are a different kind of people from those on the continent and need a firm hand. That will be realised as society implodes in the decades to come, when riots, violence and general disorder will occur on a weekly basis,when the money runs out and morals sink further down the toilet.

A new kind of politician will bring the order the british people need and those who advocate liberalism are disinfected from the influential positions they hold in politics, education, and the justice system.

The only way to deal with the drugs problem is to eradicate the supply ,you do this by shooting all drug dealers and smugglers. Drug dealing will become a seriously unpopular 'profession' when you see people being herded into police vans in the early hours to experience instant justice of the people.

Drug users are a mix of adventurous youth and weak minded folk, the latter may well need a spell in special units to dry them out and put them to work ,hard manual labour working to build this country back up until what it used to be. Others can be conscripted into the army into penal battalions, where their debt to society will be repaid with interest.

We must get tough on alcohol as well, I advocate, much tougher licensing laws, and no longer will be under the influence of drug or drink be any kind of mitigating factor in the courts, in future it will be an aggravating factor,meaning a more severe punishment.An era of personal responsibility will occur as the social workers ,liberal yogurt weavers will no longer have any say in the justice system.

the kracken wrote:
Drugs and Alcohol are the cause of some many social problems and crimes in society. In my opinion the liberalisation thinking of the use of all drugs has seriously blighted society. Our politicians have tried to emulate the continent in terms of 24 hour cafe culture.They are stupid and naive ,they do not live in the real world .

The british are a different kind of people from those on the continent and need a firm hand. That will be realised as society implodes in the decades to come, when riots, violence and general disorder will occur on a weekly basis,when the money runs out and morals sink further down the toilet.

A new kind of politician will bring the order the british people need and those who advocate liberalism are disinfected from the influential positions they hold in politics, education, and the justice system.

The only way to deal with the drugs problem is to eradicate the supply ,you do this by shooting all drug dealers and smugglers. Drug dealing will become a seriously unpopular 'profession' when you see people being herded into police vans in the early hours to experience instant justice of the people.

Drug users are a mix of adventurous youth and weak minded folk, the latter may well need a spell in special units to dry them out and put them to work ,hard manual labour working to build this country back up until what it used to be. Others can be conscripted into the army into penal battalions, where their debt to society will be repaid with interest.

We must get tough on alcohol as well, I advocate, much tougher licensing laws, and no longer will be under the influence of drug or drink be any kind of mitigating factor in the courts, in future it will be an aggravating factor,meaning a more severe punishment.An era of personal responsibility will occur as the social workers ,liberal yogurt weavers will no longer have any say in the justice system.

aduksquack wrote:

the kracken wrote:
Drugs and Alcohol are the cause of some many social problems and crimes in society. In my opinion the liberalisation thinking of the use of all drugs has seriously blighted society. Our politicians have tried to emulate the continent in terms of 24 hour cafe culture.They are stupid and naive ,they do not live in the real world .

The british are a different kind of people from those on the continent and need a firm hand. That will be realised as society implodes in the decades to come, when riots, violence and general disorder will occur on a weekly basis,when the money runs out and morals sink further down the toilet.

A new kind of politician will bring the order the british people need and those who advocate liberalism are disinfected from the influential positions they hold in politics, education, and the justice system.

The only way to deal with the drugs problem is to eradicate the supply ,you do this by shooting all drug dealers and smugglers. Drug dealing will become a seriously unpopular 'profession' when you see people being herded into police vans in the early hours to experience instant justice of the people.

Drug users are a mix of adventurous youth and weak minded folk, the latter may well need a spell in special units to dry them out and put them to work ,hard manual labour working to build this country back up until what it used to be. Others can be conscripted into the army into penal battalions, where their debt to society will be repaid with interest.

We must get tough on alcohol as well, I advocate, much tougher licensing laws, and no longer will be under the influence of drug or drink be any kind of mitigating factor in the courts, in future it will be an aggravating factor,meaning a more severe punishment.An era of personal responsibility will occur as the social workers ,liberal yogurt weavers will no longer have any say in the justice system.

The Philippines and much of Malaysia have a death sentence for drug dealing and smuggling. Guess what? They still have a huge illicit drugs trade.

Prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition has never worked. All it does is put a drain on public finances and ties up law enforcement agencies preventing them from dealing with real crime.

bignosechaff wrote:
It about time the police showed the club owners that they will not tolerate drug and under-age drinking. If they raid pubs in the same way perhaps landlords would be more responsible

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

aduksquack wrote:

the kracken wrote:
Drugs and Alcohol are the cause of some many social problems and crimes in society. In my opinion the liberalisation thinking of the use of all drugs has seriously blighted society. Our politicians have tried to emulate the continent in terms of 24 hour cafe culture.They are stupid and naive ,they do not live in the real world .

The british are a different kind of people from those on the continent and need a firm hand. That will be realised as society implodes in the decades to come, when riots, violence and general disorder will occur on a weekly basis,when the money runs out and morals sink further down the toilet.

A new kind of politician will bring the order the british people need and those who advocate liberalism are disinfected from the influential positions they hold in politics, education, and the justice system.

The only way to deal with the drugs problem is to eradicate the supply ,you do this by shooting all drug dealers and smugglers. Drug dealing will become a seriously unpopular 'profession' when you see people being herded into police vans in the early hours to experience instant justice of the people.

Drug users are a mix of adventurous youth and weak minded folk, the latter may well need a spell in special units to dry them out and put them to work ,hard manual labour working to build this country back up until what it used to be. Others can be conscripted into the army into penal battalions, where their debt to society will be repaid with interest.

We must get tough on alcohol as well, I advocate, much tougher licensing laws, and no longer will be under the influence of drug or drink be any kind of mitigating factor in the courts, in future it will be an aggravating factor,meaning a more severe punishment.An era of personal responsibility will occur as the social workers ,liberal yogurt weavers will no longer have any say in the justice system.

The Philippines and much of Malaysia have a death sentence for drug dealing and smuggling. Guess what? They still have a huge illicit drugs trade.

Prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition has never worked. All it does is put a drain on public finances and ties up law enforcement agencies preventing them from dealing with real crime.

real crime like this drug related incident?
http://www.echo-news

.co.uk/news/local_ne

ws/southend/9928504.

Tower_block_killing_

and_robbery__2_jaile

d/

they don't call you the shoebury clown for nothing.

aduksquack wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

aduksquack wrote:

the kracken wrote:
Drugs and Alcohol are the cause of some many social problems and crimes in society. In my opinion the liberalisation thinking of the use of all drugs has seriously blighted society. Our politicians have tried to emulate the continent in terms of 24 hour cafe culture.They are stupid and naive ,they do not live in the real world .

The british are a different kind of people from those on the continent and need a firm hand. That will be realised as society implodes in the decades to come, when riots, violence and general disorder will occur on a weekly basis,when the money runs out and morals sink further down the toilet.

A new kind of politician will bring the order the british people need and those who advocate liberalism are disinfected from the influential positions they hold in politics, education, and the justice system.

The only way to deal with the drugs problem is to eradicate the supply ,you do this by shooting all drug dealers and smugglers. Drug dealing will become a seriously unpopular 'profession' when you see people being herded into police vans in the early hours to experience instant justice of the people.

Drug users are a mix of adventurous youth and weak minded folk, the latter may well need a spell in special units to dry them out and put them to work ,hard manual labour working to build this country back up until what it used to be. Others can be conscripted into the army into penal battalions, where their debt to society will be repaid with interest.

We must get tough on alcohol as well, I advocate, much tougher licensing laws, and no longer will be under the influence of drug or drink be any kind of mitigating factor in the courts, in future it will be an aggravating factor,meaning a more severe punishment.An era of personal responsibility will occur as the social workers ,liberal yogurt weavers will no longer have any say in the justice system.

The Philippines and much of Malaysia have a death sentence for drug dealing and smuggling. Guess what? They still have a huge illicit drugs trade.

Prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition has never worked. All it does is put a drain on public finances and ties up law enforcement agencies preventing them from dealing with real crime.

real crime like this drug related incident?
http://www.echo-news


.co.uk/news/local_ne


ws/southend/9928504.


Tower_block_killing_


and_robbery__2_jaile


d/

they don't call you the shoebury clown for nothing.

How many people get killed over alcohol and tobacco selling? None.
How much tax do alcohol and tobacco generate? £billions.

Let government legalise, produce, regulate, and tax all recreational drugs, and the associated crime practically disappears, as do the enormous policing costs, while at the same time creating a whole new revenue stream.

How much did that waste of time raid on Mayhem cost? 100 police officers, on overtime, bet that wasn't cheap, and to do what? Catch a few kids with a few quids worth of cannabis? Talk about a monumental waste of the taxpayers' coin!

Your way leaves an enormous multi-billion pound industry in the hands of criminals and terrorists. Prohibition of drugs is directly funding terrorism and crime. Meanwhile government throws £billions down the drain each and every year trying to stop something that is unstoppable.

But it's a waste of time explaining any of this to you. You're too busy having your knees jerked by the Daily Mail.

I'll leave you to post more insults now.

aduksquack wrote:
QED.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

aduksquack wrote:
QED.

the truth? you can't handle the truth.
btw with the resurrection of this username do we need any more evidence of your use of simultaneous, multiple echo usernames?

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

the kracken wrote:
Drugs and Alcohol are the cause of some many social problems and crimes in society. In my opinion the liberalisation thinking of the use of all drugs has seriously blighted society. Our politicians have tried to emulate the continent in terms of 24 hour cafe culture.They are stupid and naive ,they do not live in the real world .

The british are a different kind of people from those on the continent and need a firm hand. That will be realised as society implodes in the decades to come, when riots, violence and general disorder will occur on a weekly basis,when the money runs out and morals sink further down the toilet.

A new kind of politician will bring the order the british people need and those who advocate liberalism are disinfected from the influential positions they hold in politics, education, and the justice system.

The only way to deal with the drugs problem is to eradicate the supply ,you do this by shooting all drug dealers and smugglers. Drug dealing will become a seriously unpopular 'profession' when you see people being herded into police vans in the early hours to experience instant justice of the people.

Drug users are a mix of adventurous youth and weak minded folk, the latter may well need a spell in special units to dry them out and put them to work ,hard manual labour working to build this country back up until what it used to be. Others can be conscripted into the army into penal battalions, where their debt to society will be repaid with interest.

We must get tough on alcohol as well, I advocate, much tougher licensing laws, and no longer will be under the influence of drug or drink be any kind of mitigating factor in the courts, in future it will be an aggravating factor,meaning a more severe punishment.An era of personal responsibility will occur as the social workers ,liberal yogurt weavers will no longer have any say in the justice system.

a bleak but likely accurate assessment. the solution? exit (the joke that is) europe, take back a vice like grip on our borders and end the rights of all the eastern european drug dealers and somalians (floating prisons if we can't deport) to reside here.

E-Types... wrote:

Basildon.lad.21 wrote:

mouthend on trout wrote:

Max Impact wrote:
Those who deal drugs those who take drugs are as low life scum as peados.

Strange how many new posters have poped up prehaps they did not get their hit last night and are just about in the real word to be able to sting a few words together.

Anyone found with Class A should face 2 years for the first offence 4 for the second 8 for the third and so on, dealers have double that.

The only males that take drugs have small **** and the gils are all shemaes!

****

Max impact. Congratulations you have won the award for the most stupid comment ever posted in the Echo history. 'Low life scum as peados'. So alcohol is a drug, those who drink are low life scum? Many famous and respected people have had drug problems through their careers, like Whitney Houston, Robbie Williams, Eminem. And thats only naming 3. I bet your a very sad sad person.

You mean because some pop singers (mimers) have drug problems that legitimises drugs?

What does Whitney?

aduksquack wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

aduksquack wrote:
QED.

the truth? you can't handle the truth.
btw with the resurrection of this username do we need any more evidence of your use of simultaneous, multiple echo usernames?

I see you have no answer to a cogent argument. What a surprise coming from Evilc, Shoebury asbo, churchofasbo, and now beyond the valley of the asbos.

I've never yet seen you do anything other than troll and post insults on this website.

E-Types... wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

the kracken wrote:
Drugs and Alcohol are the cause of some many social problems and crimes in society. In my opinion the liberalisation thinking of the use of all drugs has seriously blighted society. Our politicians have tried to emulate the continent in terms of 24 hour cafe culture.They are stupid and naive ,they do not live in the real world .

The british are a different kind of people from those on the continent and need a firm hand. That will be realised as society implodes in the decades to come, when riots, violence and general disorder will occur on a weekly basis,when the money runs out and morals sink further down the toilet.

A new kind of politician will bring the order the british people need and those who advocate liberalism are disinfected from the influential positions they hold in politics, education, and the justice system.

The only way to deal with the drugs problem is to eradicate the supply ,you do this by shooting all drug dealers and smugglers. Drug dealing will become a seriously unpopular 'profession' when you see people being herded into police vans in the early hours to experience instant justice of the people.

Drug users are a mix of adventurous youth and weak minded folk, the latter may well need a spell in special units to dry them out and put them to work ,hard manual labour working to build this country back up until what it used to be. Others can be conscripted into the army into penal battalions, where their debt to society will be repaid with interest.

We must get tough on alcohol as well, I advocate, much tougher licensing laws, and no longer will be under the influence of drug or drink be any kind of mitigating factor in the courts, in future it will be an aggravating factor,meaning a more severe punishment.An era of personal responsibility will occur as the social workers ,liberal yogurt weavers will no longer have any say in the justice system.

a bleak but likely accurate assessment. the solution? exit (the joke that is) europe, take back a vice like grip on our borders and end the rights of all the eastern european drug dealers and somalians (floating prisons if we can't deport) to reside here.

Politicians are only puppets of those who make the rules into which way a country will go.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

aduksquack wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

aduksquack wrote:
QED.

the truth? you can't handle the truth.
btw with the resurrection of this username do we need any more evidence of your use of simultaneous, multiple echo usernames?

I see you have no answer to a cogent argument. What a surprise coming from Evilc, Shoebury asbo, churchofasbo, and now beyond the valley of the asbos.

I've never yet seen you do anything other than troll and post insults on this website.

haha evilc - you really have no clue or cogent arguments. lol.

Druggie Scumbag wrote:
@the kracken who said:

"The only way to deal with the drugs problem is to eradicate the supply ,you do this by shooting all drug dealers and smugglers. Drug dealing will become a seriously unpopular 'profession' when you see people being herded into police vans in the early hours to experience instant justice of the people."

Thaksin tried that in Thailand some years ago. Didn't work.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

E-Types... wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

the kracken wrote:
Drugs and Alcohol are the cause of some many social problems and crimes in society. In my opinion the liberalisation thinking of the use of all drugs has seriously blighted society. Our politicians have tried to emulate the continent in terms of 24 hour cafe culture.They are stupid and naive ,they do not live in the real world .

The british are a different kind of people from those on the continent and need a firm hand. That will be realised as society implodes in the decades to come, when riots, violence and general disorder will occur on a weekly basis,when the money runs out and morals sink further down the toilet.

A new kind of politician will bring the order the british people need and those who advocate liberalism are disinfected from the influential positions they hold in politics, education, and the justice system.

The only way to deal with the drugs problem is to eradicate the supply ,you do this by shooting all drug dealers and smugglers. Drug dealing will become a seriously unpopular 'profession' when you see people being herded into police vans in the early hours to experience instant justice of the people.

Drug users are a mix of adventurous youth and weak minded folk, the latter may well need a spell in special units to dry them out and put them to work ,hard manual labour working to build this country back up until what it used to be. Others can be conscripted into the army into penal battalions, where their debt to society will be repaid with interest.

We must get tough on alcohol as well, I advocate, much tougher licensing laws, and no longer will be under the influence of drug or drink be any kind of mitigating factor in the courts, in future it will be an aggravating factor,meaning a more severe punishment.An era of personal responsibility will occur as the social workers ,liberal yogurt weavers will no longer have any say in the justice system.

a bleak but likely accurate assessment. the solution? exit (the joke that is) europe, take back a vice like grip on our borders and end the rights of all the eastern european drug dealers and somalians (floating prisons if we can't deport) to reside here.

Politicians are only puppets of those who make the rules into which way a country will go.

or puppets of their masters in brussels.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Druggie Scumbag wrote:
@the kracken who said:

"The only way to deal with the drugs problem is to eradicate the supply ,you do this by shooting all drug dealers and smugglers. Drug dealing will become a seriously unpopular 'profession' when you see people being herded into police vans in the early hours to experience instant justice of the people."

Thaksin tried that in Thailand some years ago. Didn't work.

thailand is frankly lawless. redundant comparison

John the resonator wrote:

bignosechaff wrote:
It about time the police showed the club owners that they will not tolerate drug and under-age drinking. If they raid pubs in the same way perhaps landlords would be more responsible

So 100 police and some dogs and they found no drugs and made no arrests, what exactly are they 'not tolerating?'

mouthend on trout wrote:

John the resonator wrote:

bignosechaff wrote:
It about time the police showed the club owners that they will not tolerate drug and under-age drinking. If they raid pubs in the same way perhaps landlords would be more responsible

So 100 police and some dogs and they found no drugs and made no arrests, what exactly are they 'not tolerating?'

traffic warden in the making!

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
Excellent Work by our finest, should be a regular thing and can only send out a clear message to those that they where targeting...job done.

Druggie Scumbag wrote:
Jayman says:

"the law is there to protect everyone's basic liberty and relative freedom."

Can freedom be relative?

jasper2013 wrote:
9 marked vehicles I walked pass and counted 26 police cars and vans 2 mounted officers and an ambulance

bignosechaff wrote:
It about time the police showed the club owners that they will not tolerate drug and under-age drinking. If they raid pubs in the same way perhaps landlords would be more responsible

Druggie Scumbag wrote:
Jayman says:

"the law is there to protect everyone's basic liberty and relative freedom."

Can freedom be relative?

aduksquack wrote:
"the law is there to protect everyone's basic liberty and relative freedom."

So how is your liberty and freedom infringed by someone smoking cannabis?

SpaffSpiff84 wrote:
There is no point arguing with old people, they have no idea what they are talking about, they will be dead in 20 years and then we will have this gaff to ourselves

jayman wrote:

Druggie Scumbag wrote:
Jayman says:

"the law is there to protect everyone's basic liberty and relative freedom."

Can freedom be relative?

yes it can be relative.

you have the freedom to swim the English channel if you want to. No one would stop you. its your right to swim in English waters.

problem is, you probably couldn't swim that far. you would then become distressed and start to drown. At this point you would then be hoping that the RNLI rescue you. So your freedom has become relative to a bad decision you have made. Your freedom to make a bad choice has resulted in the your life being in the hands of someone on the shore spotting you and recognising that you are in distress. In other words at that point.. you have no freedom.

this can be applied to drug misuse..

Basildon.lad.21 wrote:

CALL ME CLINT wrote:

Tulip44 wrote:
It's the innocent people I feel sorry for,.my daughter works hard all week, looked forward to her night out, and was dragged out and made to stand shivering, in a skimpy dress and no coat, for over an hour outside! They could have at least provided those tin foil blankets. Disgusting!

Why was your daughter kept waiting on the street for so long? Obviously, had she been in possession of anything she shouldn't have been it would have been jettisoned long before she was searched- I assume that was the purpose of her detention. I have nothing against the police enforcing the law as it relates to drugs even though I believe the law to be wrong. The enforcement should however be carried out efficiently and in a manner likely to cause the minimum of distress, discomfort and inconvenience to (let's face it) the law-abiding people frequenting the club.

I think your daughter has good reason to feel aggrieved at her treatment but I'm sure you will do your best to help her understand that in general the police do a good job in difficult times with **** as political masters and that sometimes they get things wrong.

The government are usually wrong mate 99% of the time.

Druggie Scumbag wrote:

jayman wrote:

Druggie Scumbag wrote:
Jayman says:

"the law is there to protect everyone's basic liberty and relative freedom."

Can freedom be relative?

yes it can be relative.

you have the freedom to swim the English channel if you want to. No one would stop you. its your right to swim in English waters.

problem is, you probably couldn't swim that far. you would then become distressed and start to drown. At this point you would then be hoping that the RNLI rescue you. So your freedom has become relative to a bad decision you have made. Your freedom to make a bad choice has resulted in the your life being in the hands of someone on the shore spotting you and recognising that you are in distress. In other words at that point.. you have no freedom.

this can be applied to drug misuse..

I quite like your example of the freedom to swim the channel. You see, that is absolute freedom. I may or may not choose to do it. There are no qualifiers, nobody is saying "You can only do that if....". Anything short of that unqualified right is not freedom.

There is no such thing as "Relative freedom".

jayman wrote:
furthermore any interdependent factors on freedom would require individuals to be 'reasonable' with there freedom, this would require a utopia society.

'this is what the cannabis culture and its activism for legalisation promote in a very naïve fashion'

to understand your own argument better and better understand how to present it i recommend you read the works of Isaiah Berlin

"Berlin notes that historically positive liberty has proven particularly susceptible to rhetorical abuse; especially from the 18th century onwards, it has either been paternalistically re-drawn from the third-person, or conflated with the concept of negative liberty and thus disguised underlying value-conflicts."

perhaps this will enable you and your like minded friends to present you argument in a better way.

jayman wrote:

aduksquack wrote:
"the law is there to protect everyone's basic liberty and relative freedom."

So how is your liberty and freedom infringed by someone smoking cannabis?

the law will not be amended at cost to the taxpayer and forsaking large amounts of parliamentary and lords time the could be used for other causes just because you want to legitimise another harmful habit..

aduksquack wrote:

jayman wrote:

aduksquack wrote:
"the law is there to protect everyone's basic liberty and relative freedom."

So how is your liberty and freedom infringed by someone smoking cannabis?

the law will not be amended at cost to the taxpayer and forsaking large amounts of parliamentary and lords time the could be used for other causes just because you want to legitimise another harmful habit..

That doesn't answer my question.

How does someone else smoking cannabis, either legally or illegally, infringe on YOUR liberty and freedom?

jayman wrote:

aduksquack wrote:

jayman wrote:

aduksquack wrote:
"the law is there to protect everyone's basic liberty and relative freedom."

So how is your liberty and freedom infringed by someone smoking cannabis?

the law will not be amended at cost to the taxpayer and forsaking large amounts of parliamentary and lords time the could be used for other causes just because you want to legitimise another harmful habit..

That doesn't answer my question.

How does someone else smoking cannabis, either legally or illegally, infringe on YOUR liberty and freedom?

i didn't imply that it did.

what I did imply is that you should not assume that it is your right or your freedom 'within the realms of law' to be in possession of cannabis or to sell cannabis,

we already have two main drugs (tobacco and alcohol) that are legal and cause massive problems.

its a soup of social issues and health problems caused by two drugs that are difficult to outlaw and readily available. We cannot have a third drug readily available to the masses as the majority of people are habitual in nature and irresponsible.

that's what I implied..

aduksquack wrote:

jayman wrote:

aduksquack wrote:

jayman wrote:

aduksquack wrote:
"the law is there to protect everyone's basic liberty and relative freedom."

So how is your liberty and freedom infringed by someone smoking cannabis?

the law will not be amended at cost to the taxpayer and forsaking large amounts of parliamentary and lords time the could be used for other causes just because you want to legitimise another harmful habit..

That doesn't answer my question.

How does someone else smoking cannabis, either legally or illegally, infringe on YOUR liberty and freedom?

i didn't imply that it did.

what I did imply is that you should not assume that it is your right or your freedom 'within the realms of law' to be in possession of cannabis or to sell cannabis,

we already have two main drugs (tobacco and alcohol) that are legal and cause massive problems.

its a soup of social issues and health problems caused by two drugs that are difficult to outlaw and readily available. We cannot have a third drug readily available to the masses as the majority of people are habitual in nature and irresponsible.

that's what I implied..

Whatever. Just answer the question. How does someone else smoking cannabis, either legally or illegally, infringe on YOUR liberty and freedom?

I'll tell you why you don't answer the question, it's because the answer is 'Someone else smoking cannabis does not infringe on your liberty or freedom'.

aduksquack wrote:

jayman wrote:

aduksquack wrote:

jayman wrote:

aduksquack wrote:
"the law is there to protect everyone's basic liberty and relative freedom."

So how is your liberty and freedom infringed by someone smoking cannabis?

the law will not be amended at cost to the taxpayer and forsaking large amounts of parliamentary and lords time the could be used for other causes just because you want to legitimise another harmful habit..

That doesn't answer my question.

How does someone else smoking cannabis, either legally or illegally, infringe on YOUR liberty and freedom?

i didn't imply that it did.

what I did imply is that you should not assume that it is your right or your freedom 'within the realms of law' to be in possession of cannabis or to sell cannabis,

we already have two main drugs (tobacco and alcohol) that are legal and cause massive problems.

its a soup of social issues and health problems caused by two drugs that are difficult to outlaw and readily available. We cannot have a third drug readily available to the masses as the majority of people are habitual in nature and irresponsible.

that's what I implied..

Whatever. Just answer the question. How does someone else smoking cannabis, either legally or illegally, infringe on YOUR liberty and freedom?

I'll tell you why you don't answer the question, it's because the answer is 'Someone else smoking cannabis does not infringe on your liberty or freedom'.

aduksquack wrote:

jayman wrote:

aduksquack wrote:

jayman wrote:

aduksquack wrote:
"the law is there to protect everyone's basic liberty and relative freedom."

So how is your liberty and freedom infringed by someone smoking cannabis?

the law will not be amended at cost to the taxpayer and forsaking large amounts of parliamentary and lords time the could be used for other causes just because you want to legitimise another harmful habit..

That doesn't answer my question.

How does someone else smoking cannabis, either legally or illegally, infringe on YOUR liberty and freedom?

i didn't imply that it did.

what I did imply is that you should not assume that it is your right or your freedom 'within the realms of law' to be in possession of cannabis or to sell cannabis,

we already have two main drugs (tobacco and alcohol) that are legal and cause massive problems.

its a soup of social issues and health problems caused by two drugs that are difficult to outlaw and readily available. We cannot have a third drug readily available to the masses as the majority of people are habitual in nature and irresponsible.

that's what I implied..

Whatever. Just answer the question. How does someone else smoking cannabis, either legally or illegally, infringe on YOUR liberty and freedom?

I'll tell you why you don't answer the question, it's because the answer is 'Someone else smoking cannabis does not infringe on your liberty or freedom'.

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
No point continuing this, you lot are completely brainwashed into believing that legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol are OK but illegal drugs are not. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the two legal drugs are the biggest killers wheras one of the illegal drugs has never killed anyone from an overdose. . When is it going to penetrate your thick skulls that illegal drugs are all different, some are virtually harmless compared to the legal drugs and some are much worse but there is no connection between them apart from the fact they are illegal. Talking of which the so-called "legal highs" are an even bigger worry as they are legally available but some are potentially even more dangerous. . Do you even know why alcohol is culturally acceptable in the west? It's because our ancestors were too stupid to realise that boiling makes water safe, the only way they knew to make water safe was by fermenting alcohol whereas in the east they did know that boiling makes water safe so they chose their recreational drugs more carefully and quite rightly rejected alcohol.

Tulip44 wrote:

CALL ME CLINT wrote:

Tulip44 wrote:
It's the innocent people I feel sorry for,.my daughter works hard all week, looked forward to her night out, and was dragged out and made to stand shivering, in a skimpy dress and no coat, for over an hour outside! They could have at least provided those tin foil blankets. Disgusting!

Why was your daughter kept waiting on the street for so long? Obviously, had she been in possession of anything she shouldn't have been it would have been jettisoned long before she was searched- I assume that was the purpose of her detention. I have nothing against the police enforcing the law as it relates to drugs even though I believe the law to be wrong. The enforcement should however be carried out efficiently and in a manner likely to cause the minimum of distress, discomfort and inconvenience to (let's face it) the law-abiding people frequenting the club.

I think your daughter has good reason to feel aggrieved at her treatment but I'm sure you will do your best to help her understand that in general the police do a good job in difficult times with **** as political masters and that sometimes they get things wrong.

They kept them all in 'holding areas' and then walked them past the sniffer dogs. My daughter said it all took ages. The girls who had coats weren't allowed to get them, even afterwards, they were told to go back for them today!
My daughter had nothing bad to say about the police, she has been brought up to be respectful, but she was a little upset at the way they'd been treated

jayman wrote:

Druggie Scumbag wrote:

jayman wrote:

Druggie Scumbag wrote:
Jayman says:

"the law is there to protect everyone's basic liberty and relative freedom."

Can freedom be relative?

yes it can be relative.

you have the freedom to swim the English channel if you want to. No one would stop you. its your right to swim in English waters.

problem is, you probably couldn't swim that far. you would then become distressed and start to drown. At this point you would then be hoping that the RNLI rescue you. So your freedom has become relative to a bad decision you have made. Your freedom to make a bad choice has resulted in the your life being in the hands of someone on the shore spotting you and recognising that you are in distress. In other words at that point.. you have no freedom.

this can be applied to drug misuse..

I quite like your example of the freedom to swim the channel. You see, that is absolute freedom. I may or may not choose to do it. There are no qualifiers, nobody is saying "You can only do that if....". Anything short of that unqualified right is not freedom.

There is no such thing as "Relative freedom".

hmm.. "there is no such thing as relative freedom" hmm..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/pubmed/19091

602

http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/On_the_Free

dom_of_the_Will

http://nimis540.word

press.com/2009/02/10

/limits-on-freedom-o

f-expression/

or that little known author 'George Orwell' was perhaps talking rubbish then.

http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Outer_Party



yes. absolute and relative freedoms do exist. sometimes co-existing within personal choice 'a series of events may change an absolute freedom to a relative freedom and visa versa' but in society they are completely opposite elements of choice that exist within the Paradigm of vast and complex non dependant factors.

examples

some people will remain poor without any hope of gaining wealth.

some people will remain rich without any effort to maintain there wealth.

governments will lie to maintain power and influence for there own personal gain.

individuals will resent governments for corruption and lack of absolute freedom and grow weary of relative freedom offered by governments to the people as absolute freedom.

i sort of do this sort of thing as a job,

are you not swimming the channel yet?

rodgdodge wrote:

jayman wrote:

Druggie Scumbag wrote:

jayman wrote:

Druggie Scumbag wrote:
Jayman says:

"the law is there to protect everyone's basic liberty and relative freedom."

Can freedom be relative?

yes it can be relative.

you have the freedom to swim the English channel if you want to. No one would stop you. its your right to swim in English waters.

problem is, you probably couldn't swim that far. you would then become distressed and start to drown. At this point you would then be hoping that the RNLI rescue you. So your freedom has become relative to a bad decision you have made. Your freedom to make a bad choice has resulted in the your life being in the hands of someone on the shore spotting you and recognising that you are in distress. In other words at that point.. you have no freedom.

this can be applied to drug misuse..

I quite like your example of the freedom to swim the channel. You see, that is absolute freedom. I may or may not choose to do it. There are no qualifiers, nobody is saying "You can only do that if....". Anything short of that unqualified right is not freedom.

There is no such thing as "Relative freedom".

hmm.. "there is no such thing as relative freedom" hmm..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.


nih.gov/pubmed/19091


602

http://en.wikipedia.


org/wiki/On_the_Free


dom_of_the_Will

http://nimis540.word


press.com/2009/02/10


/limits-on-freedom-o


f-expression/

or that little known author 'George Orwell' was perhaps talking rubbish then.

http://en.wikipedia.


org/wiki/Outer_Party




yes. absolute and relative freedoms do exist. sometimes co-existing within personal choice 'a series of events may change an absolute freedom to a relative freedom and visa versa' but in society they are completely opposite elements of choice that exist within the Paradigm of vast and complex non dependant factors.

examples

some people will remain poor without any hope of gaining wealth.

some people will remain rich without any effort to maintain there wealth.

governments will lie to maintain power and influence for there own personal gain.

individuals will resent governments for corruption and lack of absolute freedom and grow weary of relative freedom offered by governments to the people as absolute freedom.

i sort of do this sort of thing as a job,

are you not swimming the channel yet?

RNLI is not run by the Government, so no tax-payers money ect. It is a volunteer -staffed charity service, originally set-up by relatives of those who worked on the sea.
The coastguard service is the tax-payer funded one!

rodgdodge wrote:

jayman wrote:

Druggie Scumbag wrote:

jayman wrote:

Druggie Scumbag wrote:
Jayman says:

"the law is there to protect everyone's basic liberty and relative freedom."

Can freedom be relative?

yes it can be relative.

you have the freedom to swim the English channel if you want to. No one would stop you. its your right to swim in English waters.

problem is, you probably couldn't swim that far. you would then become distressed and start to drown. At this point you would then be hoping that the RNLI rescue you. So your freedom has become relative to a bad decision you have made. Your freedom to make a bad choice has resulted in the your life being in the hands of someone on the shore spotting you and recognising that you are in distress. In other words at that point.. you have no freedom.

this can be applied to drug misuse..

I quite like your example of the freedom to swim the channel. You see, that is absolute freedom. I may or may not choose to do it. There are no qualifiers, nobody is saying "You can only do that if....". Anything short of that unqualified right is not freedom.

There is no such thing as "Relative freedom".

hmm.. "there is no such thing as relative freedom" hmm..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.


nih.gov/pubmed/19091


602

http://en.wikipedia.


org/wiki/On_the_Free


dom_of_the_Will

http://nimis540.word


press.com/2009/02/10


/limits-on-freedom-o


f-expression/

or that little known author 'George Orwell' was perhaps talking rubbish then.

http://en.wikipedia.


org/wiki/Outer_Party




yes. absolute and relative freedoms do exist. sometimes co-existing within personal choice 'a series of events may change an absolute freedom to a relative freedom and visa versa' but in society they are completely opposite elements of choice that exist within the Paradigm of vast and complex non dependant factors.

examples

some people will remain poor without any hope of gaining wealth.

some people will remain rich without any effort to maintain there wealth.

governments will lie to maintain power and influence for there own personal gain.

individuals will resent governments for corruption and lack of absolute freedom and grow weary of relative freedom offered by governments to the people as absolute freedom.

i sort of do this sort of thing as a job,

are you not swimming the channel yet?

RNLI is not run by the Government, so no tax-payers money ect. It is a volunteer -staffed charity service, originally set-up by relatives of those who worked on the sea.
The coastguard service is the tax-payer funded one!

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
how about all those cannabis dependents sucking the state dry by living as benefit junkies. that impinges on my liberty and freedom.

Alekhine wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
how about all those cannabis dependents sucking the state dry by living as benefit junkies. that impinges on my liberty and freedom.

What about the much larger problem of alcohol dependent benefit junkies and well.....just your common or garden lazy @rce benefit junkie. The tories have got their work cut out.

If the financial element bothers you, why are you not arguing for legalisation and taxation? A fine is effectively a tax anyway.

Alekhine wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
how about all those cannabis dependents sucking the state dry by living as benefit junkies. that impinges on my liberty and freedom.

What about the much larger problem of alcohol dependent benefit junkies and well.....just your common or garden lazy @rce benefit junkie. The tories have got their work cut out.

If the financial element bothers you, why are you not arguing for legalisation and taxation? A fine is effectively a tax anyway.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
how about all those cannabis dependents sucking the state dry by living as benefit junkies. that impinges on my liberty and freedom.

What about the much larger problem of alcohol dependent benefit junkies and well.....just your common or garden lazy @rce benefit junkie. The tories have got their work cut out.

If the financial element bothers you, why are you not arguing for legalisation and taxation? A fine is effectively a tax anyway.

that is a myth i'm afraid. cannabis is easily produced at home. why on earth is anyone going to pay tax on it? even i, a vehement opponent, would grow it - or get a illegal immigrant lackey to do it - and flog it to the losers on the street corners and outside the dole office

Diannah wrote:

aduksquack wrote:

jayman wrote:

aduksquack wrote:

jayman wrote:

aduksquack wrote:
"the law is there to protect everyone's basic liberty and relative freedom."

So how is your liberty and freedom infringed by someone smoking cannabis?

the law will not be amended at cost to the taxpayer and forsaking large amounts of parliamentary and lords time the could be used for other causes just because you want to legitimise another harmful habit..

That doesn't answer my question.

How does someone else smoking cannabis, either legally or illegally, infringe on YOUR liberty and freedom?

i didn't imply that it did.

what I did imply is that you should not assume that it is your right or your freedom 'within the realms of law' to be in possession of cannabis or to sell cannabis,

we already have two main drugs (tobacco and alcohol) that are legal and cause massive problems.

its a soup of social issues and health problems caused by two drugs that are difficult to outlaw and readily available. We cannot have a third drug readily available to the masses as the majority of people are habitual in nature and irresponsible.

that's what I implied..

Whatever. Just answer the question. How does someone else smoking cannabis, either legally or illegally, infringe on YOUR liberty and freedom?

I'll tell you why you don't answer the question, it's because the answer is 'Someone else smoking cannabis does not infringe on your liberty or freedom'.

How about today's pot head is tomorrow's heroin addict who could potentially break into my house or mug my kids to get the money for their next fix.

That would infringe on my liberty and freedom.

E-Types... wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
how about all those cannabis dependents sucking the state dry by living as benefit junkies. that impinges on my liberty and freedom.

What about the much larger problem of alcohol dependent benefit junkies and well.....just your common or garden lazy @rce benefit junkie. The tories have got their work cut out.

If the financial element bothers you, why are you not arguing for legalisation and taxation? A fine is effectively a tax anyway.

The Hadleigh stoner has finally got wind of the weed debate and staggers in to add his muddled voice to the call to legalise the weed...which he does by smoking it till his eyes rotate in his head like lotto balls.

Alekhine wrote:

E-Types... wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
how about all those cannabis dependents sucking the state dry by living as benefit junkies. that impinges on my liberty and freedom.

What about the much larger problem of alcohol dependent benefit junkies and well.....just your common or garden lazy @rce benefit junkie. The tories have got their work cut out.

If the financial element bothers you, why are you not arguing for legalisation and taxation? A fine is effectively a tax anyway.

The Hadleigh stoner has finally got wind of the weed debate and staggers in to add his muddled voice to the call to legalise the weed...which he does by smoking it till his eyes rotate in his head like lotto balls.

Do you miss my company or are you just not busy enough calling people racist and proclaiming ginger to be a different race? I have had several discussions with Asbo on the subject of cannabis and he, at least can discuss the issue properly and is not just a lying tart like yourself.

FYG Im not the Hadleigh stoner, you pillock.

I will post no more on this string as a do not want to see it hijacked.

Alekhine wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
how about all those cannabis dependents sucking the state dry by living as benefit junkies. that impinges on my liberty and freedom.

What about the much larger problem of alcohol dependent benefit junkies and well.....just your common or garden lazy @rce benefit junkie. The tories have got their work cut out.

If the financial element bothers you, why are you not arguing for legalisation and taxation? A fine is effectively a tax anyway.

that is a myth i'm afraid. cannabis is easily produced at home. why on earth is anyone going to pay tax on it? even i, a vehement opponent, would grow it - or get a illegal immigrant lackey to do it - and flog it to the losers on the street corners and outside the dole office

We will have to differ on the economics. If it was legal its value would be very low indeed. it would be grown in bulk by licenced companies and quality checked. Growing a few plants at home would not be worth the electric.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
how about all those cannabis dependents sucking the state dry by living as benefit junkies. that impinges on my liberty and freedom.

What about the much larger problem of alcohol dependent benefit junkies and well.....just your common or garden lazy @rce benefit junkie. The tories have got their work cut out.

If the financial element bothers you, why are you not arguing for legalisation and taxation? A fine is effectively a tax anyway.

that is a myth i'm afraid. cannabis is easily produced at home. why on earth is anyone going to pay tax on it? even i, a vehement opponent, would grow it - or get a illegal immigrant lackey to do it - and flog it to the losers on the street corners and outside the dole office

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Tsk tsk! I turn my back for a few days and you’re off again Asbo - making fast and loose with the facts, confusing pedantry and anecdote with bona fide arguments, insulting and abusing people, and ranting on about things you know nothing about. If you don’t start playing nicely with the other children I’ll have to have a word with your Mum again. What makes you such a sad, sour little man Asbo? Has life been unkind to you? Tough. Grow up and get over it.
.
Let’s try and explain the facts of weed to you again, households I know who toke regularly spend between £15 and £30 per week on it. In my world that’s barely enough for a bottle of wine (you’d probably prefer Asda cider). In physical terms we’re talking about as much as you could fit into one or two quails eggs but this stuff grows like tomatoes and yields about as much as my (poor)attempts to grow tomatoes so plain common sense should tell you that there is a huge tax potential. Since when did tomatoes cost £50 each, including an extortionate level of tax that people would be happy to pay? It could save your care in the community being axed.
.
When you consider that something like 7 million people toke - every tenth household? - the tax potential is mind boggling. Yes some people would grow it in greenhouses or cupboards but people can brew their own wine and beer too - but how many bother? Btw, sorry to destroy your aspirations to become Southends top drug overlord but the polytunnel in your back garden would probably only be big enough to supply a few households, if that - think of how many tomatoes you could grow in it - so you’d better cancel the Ferrari.

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Tsk tsk! I turn my back for a few days and you’re off again Asbo - making fast and loose with the facts, confusing pedantry and anecdote with bona fide arguments, insulting and abusing people, and ranting on about things you know nothing about. If you don’t start playing nicely with the other children I’ll have to have a word with your Mum again. What makes you such a sad, sour little man Asbo? Has life been unkind to you? Tough. Grow up and get over it.
.
Let’s try and explain the facts of weed to you again, households I know who toke regularly spend between £15 and £30 per week on it. In my world that’s barely enough for a bottle of wine (you’d probably prefer Asda cider). In physical terms we’re talking about as much as you could fit into one or two quails eggs but this stuff grows like tomatoes and yields about as much as my (poor)attempts to grow tomatoes so plain common sense should tell you that there is a huge tax potential. Since when did tomatoes cost £50 each, including an extortionate level of tax that people would be happy to pay? It could save your care in the community being axed.
.
When you consider that something like 7 million people toke - every tenth household? - the tax potential is mind boggling. Yes some people would grow it in greenhouses or cupboards but people can brew their own wine and beer too - but how many bother? Btw, sorry to destroy your aspirations to become Southends top drug overlord but the polytunnel in your back garden would probably only be big enough to supply a few households, if that - think of how many tomatoes you could grow in it - so you’d better cancel the Ferrari.

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
How does 52 x £15 equal over a grand? Can't even be bothered to explain that cannabis is non addictive, again. Shame there is no cure for imbecility and bigotry.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote: How does 52 x £15 equal over a grand? Can't even be bothered to explain that cannabis is non addictive, again. Shame there is no cure for imbecility and bigotry.

50 minus 15 is 35 multiplied by 52. do i need to post the link about cannabis shrinking the iq again?

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote: How does 52 x £15 equal over a grand? Can't even be bothered to explain that cannabis is non addictive, again. Shame there is no cure for imbecility and bigotry.

50 minus 15 is 35 multiplied by 52. do i need to post the link about cannabis shrinking the iq again?

What has 50 got to do with anything? Can't you read plain English? You should go back to Junior School. £15 per week multiplied by 52 weeks is well under a grand per year. Got it dumbo?
.
And do I have to repeat again that the study only says it affects kids brains and similar studies have shown exactly the same effect on kids from alcohol use. Still, you obviously don't care about what it does to young people cos if you did you would support decriminalisation because that is the only sure fire way proven to reduce usage by kids. Fact.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
How does 52 x £15 equal over a grand? Can't even be bothered to explain that cannabis is non addictive, again. Shame there is no cure for imbecility and bigotry.

50 minus 15 is 35 multiplied by 52. do i need to post the link about cannabis shrinking the iq again?

E-Types... wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
How does 52 x £15 equal over a grand? Can't even be bothered to explain that cannabis is non addictive, again. Shame there is no cure for imbecility and bigotry.

50 minus 15 is 35 multiplied by 52. do i need to post the link about cannabis shrinking the iq again?

Yes! TWPs IQ has shrunk since you last advised him of the matter.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

E-Types... wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote: How does 52 x £15 equal over a grand? Can't even be bothered to explain that cannabis is non addictive, again. Shame there is no cure for imbecility and bigotry.

50 minus 15 is 35 multiplied by 52. do i need to post the link about cannabis shrinking the iq again?

Yes! TWPs IQ has shrunk since you last advised him of the matter.

i'd noticed but it's not my style to be impolite

squarewheels. wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

E-Types... wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote: How does 52 x £15 equal over a grand? Can't even be bothered to explain that cannabis is non addictive, again. Shame there is no cure for imbecility and bigotry.

50 minus 15 is 35 multiplied by 52. do i need to post the link about cannabis shrinking the iq again?

Yes! TWPs IQ has shrunk since you last advised him of the matter.

i'd noticed but it's not my style to be impolite

Nice!.

Sadly ET will have to get a dictionary out to look up what style is, then get it out again to look up what impolite means.- And then he still won't get you point.

Pearls before swine..

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote: How does 52 x £15 equal over a grand? Can't even be bothered to explain that cannabis is non addictive, again. Shame there is no cure for imbecility and bigotry.

50 minus 15 is 35 multiplied by 52. do i need to post the link about cannabis shrinking the iq again?

What has 50 got to do with anything? Can't you read plain English? You should go back to Junior School. £15 per week multiplied by 52 weeks is well under a grand per year. Got it dumbo? . And do I have to repeat again that the study only says it affects kids brains and similar studies have shown exactly the same effect on kids from alcohol use. Still, you obviously don't care about what it does to young people cos if you did you would support decriminalisation because that is the only sure fire way proven to reduce usage by kids. Fact.

i know cannabis causes amnesia but didn't realise it was that severe. 3 posts ago you talk about £50 being the level with tax on it that people would be prepared to pay as opposed to it costing 15-30 now. 50 - 15 = 35. got that truthy?

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Oops sorry, whacked it out so quick I typed in 13 instead of 15 which is just under £800 not £700. Can't be bothered to waste energy on fools but no doubt the small minded trolls will blow my error up. Who cares, they will make no difference.

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Oops sorry, whacked it out so quick I typed in 13 instead of 15 which is just under £800 not £700. Can't be bothered to waste energy on fools but no doubt the small minded trolls will blow my error up. Who cares, they will make no difference.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote: Oops sorry, whacked it out so quick I typed in 13 instead of 15 which is just under £800 not £700. Can't be bothered to waste energy on fools but no doubt the small minded trolls will blow my error up. Who cares, they will make no difference.

so explain "Since when did tomatoes cost £50 each, including an extortionate level of tax that people would be happy to pay?" addled state or memory loss?

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Truth Will Prevail wrote: Oops sorry, whacked it out so quick I typed in 13 instead of 15 which is just under £800 not £700. Can't be bothered to waste energy on fools but no doubt the small minded trolls will blow my error up. Who cares, they will make no difference.

so explain "Since when did tomatoes cost £50 each, including an extortionate level of tax that people would be happy to pay?" addled state or memory loss?

Idiot, if something the size of a qualis egg is worth £15 then something the size of an average tomato would be worth about £50. It's not rocket science, unless you are mentally defective. Learn to read!

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

Nebs wrote:

jayman wrote: though I am against drugs and the selling of illegal drugs i must say that the police got it so wrong on this one. all police cars should have thermal cameras mounted on there roof to spot the high heat signature of cannabis factories in domestic properties. nightclubs and bars should have chemically reactive surfaces (toilet seats, tables and sink units) that turn pink or blue when cocaine has come into contact with the surface. passive electronic 'chemical noses' should be used by pubs and clubs (with government subsidy) to find the dealers in the crowd.

A few good ideas there. Not too sure about the reactive surfaces, as their competitors would send in ringers to get the police to focus on everyone but their own place with the result that all the colours would have changed, everywhere, within 24 hours of being put in place. Like the other ideas though.

You would. You also know nothing about this subject. Only large commercial cannabis "farms" make large heat signatures, 150 and 75 watt bulbs are no different from loads of ordinary domestic devices and there must be dozens if not hundreds of smaller growers for every commercial grower (look at the "grow" shops). As for testing and reactive surfaces, cocaine is only one drug, there are loads more and all would require their own specific tests, completely impractical, as usual from you two.