grant Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Troll. Every single thing you say is contry to the norm, the masses, common sense and common concensus.Troll? Because I disagree with previous comments painting the policeforce as a force for good? If I read comments I disagree with I put in my views. Simply because something is the norm and the masses agree with it doesn't mean it is right. Nothing common sense about it. I don't argue the toss for the sake of it, I have good reasons for how I think. I've said all this before.They don't protect because they deal with those who have already committed crimes and don't bring to them to any decent form of justice. And they can only serve the state, that is their purpose. We all know you think drug dealers are a poor hard done by bunch but the reality is they are not.No, they are not. But their situation is no more different from those who sell alcohol and nicotine. I really do think that the time has come to just give up Lala, you're fast running out of ideas and are just sounding more and more stupid with every post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 You don't sound like you have any - stupid to me is dismissing my post without explaining why my ideas so stupid. Do try and explain how drug dealers are in their manner of their trading and what they trade different from those who sell alcohol and tobacco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 I'm not entering into a discussion with you, you're like a dripping tap. Every thread you post on goes down the same track. Putting you on ignore doesn't help, as you're constantly being quoted in every thread. You're like an infection, painfully iritating and mind numbingly boring. I very much doubt I'm the only person that holds this view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 I doubt you are either, but people don't like their views to be questioned and challenged when they are taken for granted. (Every thread about the law, police, politicians, go does the same track based on the same general assumptions) My advice would be for you to stop wasting space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 You don't sound like you have any - stupid to me is dismissing my post without explaining why my ideas so stupid. Do try and explain how drug dealers are in their manner of their trading and what they trade different from those who sell alcohol and tobacco. I haven't read the whole thread (remiss I realise, but there you go), and am struggling to understand the question you have posed here - but I'll try and give you a response based on my understanding of what your question is asking. If you are seeking to discover how the drug trade differs from the sale of alcohol and tobacco, it is quite simple. The sale of alcohol and tobacco is regulated by legislation to ensure only people of certain ages can buy these products, that there are controls on where they may be used, that there are controls on how much - at least of alcohol - is sold (licensing laws make it illegal to serve a drunk person, for example). There is further legislation requiring those who produce these products to make potential customers aware of the possible dangers of the product - health warnings they are called. This allows people to make informed decisions. Plus, the manufacture of alcohol and tobacco products is strictyl regulated to ensure anti-freeze and cement dust aren't added. These measures are by no means perfect, as not everyone will obey the law, however, the legisaltion which exists allows people to make an informed choice and then be controlled as to what they imbibe or inhale, where and when. The drug trade is not subject to this legislation, meaning drugs are sold to people of all ages, anywhere, and can be made using whatever is to hand. That's one way the trades differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 I doubt you are either, but people don't like their views to be questioned and challenged when they are taken for granted. (Every thread about the law, police, politicians, go does the same track based on the same general assumptions)My advice would be for you to stop wasting space. I've actually found myself laughing out loud. You're telling me to stop wasting space. You have got a sense of humour after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chunkylover Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 I doubt you are either, but people don't like their views to be questioned and challenged when they are taken for granted. (Every thread about the law, police, politicians, go does the same track based on the same general assumptions)My advice would be for you to stop wasting space. I've actually found myself laughing out loud. You're telling me to stop wasting space. You have got a sense of humour after all. i don't think he realised the irony in his comment - there's quite a lot he doesn't seem to understand from what i can gather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Censorship - absolutely, it is the illegality where such differences arise. Where you talk of responsibility in respect of informed decisions, you responsibility lies with the State in not providing allowing those who partake in other drugs to have easy access to information. And such controls are clearly by-passed given the abuse of alcohol and tobacco by under-age people. Essentially, a drug is a drug, one group is legal and one is not. The dealing/trading is no different in purpose - making money out of addiction. Anyway, said this before. I don't see why so much acceptance of trading in alcohol and tobacco is passed without comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chunkylover Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Censorship - absolutely, it is the illegality where such differences arise. Where you talk of responsibility in respect of informed decisions, you responsibility lies with the State in not providing allowing those who partake in other drugs to have easy access to information. And such controls are clearly by-passed given the abuse of alcohol and tobacco by under-age people. Essentially, a drug is a drug, one group is legal and one is not. The dealing/trading is no different in purpose - making money out of addiction. Anyway, said this before. I don't see why so much acceptance of trading in alcohol and tobacco is passed without comment. perhaps they should read books and journals on it and not rely on what the state says - you can't believe them apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 No, Censorship doesn't need to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Censorship - absolutely, it is the illegality where such differences arise. Where you talk of responsibility in respect of informed decisions, you responsibility lies with the State in not providing allowing those who partake in other drugs to have easy access to information. And such controls are clearly by-passed given the abuse of alcohol and tobacco by under-age people. Essentially, a drug is a drug, one group is legal and one is not. The dealing/trading is no different in purpose - making money out of addiction. Anyway, said this before. I don't see why so much acceptance of trading in alcohol and tobacco is passed without comment. Like you, it is quite simple. Alcohol and tobacco were accepted as legal goods quite a long time ago and are now firmly engrained into the global economy. If we were to ban them outright - which given the dangers posed by both might not be a bad idea - companies would fall, societies be destroyed, hundreds of thousands left out of work and there would be a massive global impact. The result of such mass unemployment and damage to the economies of countries and societies which depend on tobacco and alcohol production would be to greatly increase poverty and, in all likelihood, crime. Plus, banning them would create an illegal trade in these goods, where consumers would not at least be partially protected. On balance, banning them now would be likely to cause more problems than it solves. HOWEVER - the fact these dangerous drugs are legal does not mean currently illegal drugs which do pose a threat to health and society should be legalise. Just because our ancestors made a mistake with alcohol and tobacco doesn't mean we should repeat that mistake with heroin, cocaine or ecstasy. We cannot ban alcohol and tobacco because such a sudden end to the industry would cause worldwide problems. Instead, lets continue to educate people about the dangers, introduce more and more restrictions to dissaude people, gradually increase taxes to dissaude people and work with communities which rely on alcohol and tobacco production to help them diversify their economies so that, as alcohol and tobacco use diminishes, they can switch to other products in a gradual way so the impact does not cause devastation to their society. With this approach, over time, we can put right the wrongs of our ancestors in allowing alcohol and tobacco to become legally and socially acceptable. Saying 'lets sell crack in corner shops cos you can get beer and fags in the offy' is the simplistic and demented argument of junkie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyNorth Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 You don't sound like you have any - stupid to me is dismissing my post without explaining why my ideas so stupid. Do try and explain how drug dealers are in their manner of their trading and what they trade different from those who sell alcohol and tobacco. I haven't read the whole thread (remiss I realise, but there you go), and am struggling to understand the question you have posed here - but I'll try and give you a response based on my understanding of what your question is asking. If you are seeking to discover how the drug trade differs from the sale of alcohol and tobacco, it is quite simple. The sale of alcohol and tobacco is regulated by legislation to ensure only people of certain ages can buy these products, that there are controls on where they may be used, that there are controls on how much - at least of alcohol - is sold (licensing laws make it illegal to serve a drunk person, for example). There is further legislation requiring those who produce these products to make potential customers aware of the possible dangers of the product - health warnings they are called. This allows people to make informed decisions. Plus, the manufacture of alcohol and tobacco products is strictyl regulated to ensure anti-freeze and cement dust aren't added. These measures are by no means perfect, as not everyone will obey the law, however, the legisaltion which exists allows people to make an informed choice and then be controlled as to what they imbibe or inhale, where and when. The drug trade is not subject to this legislation, meaning drugs are sold to people of all ages, anywhere, and can be made using whatever is to hand. That's one way the trades differ. I wouldn't bother reading the posts. LDV is Police bashing again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Censorship - for someone who believes that government should dictate (which I don't) what we can and cannot ingest, smoke, etc. your is a sensible argument. I don't agree at all about societies being destroyed but maybe I have misunderstood what exactly you meant. In any case, going back to what I was saying, I don't see any difference between the drug dealer and trader in alcohol and tobacco. The issue of difference is one of legality. Whether you see it as due to a mistake of ancestors or in my opinion that there simply a state that operates to regulate behaviour and control people like there is today the hypocrisy exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 I think it has already been said that Police pay for their own pensions. (11%?). This implies that there is no employer's contribution to their pension which would be a first in the public service. Are you sure the PS does not make a substantial contribution (normally the employee's contribution is less than the employer's) The average number of years a copper lives after retirement is 7 (yes - SEVEN). This figure is told to the Police when they start. You miserable bunch of bastards begrudging hard working men and women something in their short retirement that they've previoulsy paid for their whole working life. If this is correct then surely they should be out their enjoying those last few years not working still? Not sure if people are objecting specifically to policepersons retiring and taking jobs or to the wider issue of pensioners taking jobs that could be filled by the unemployed? IMO the priority in hard economic times needs to be to try and ensure that there are sufficient jobs for people who have not retired and who would otherwise be accused by certain people of being "spongers"... How does this issue play alongside our polticians who will get a taxpayer funded non-contributory pension and then go back to their shop or their office? In Ireland ex-Ministers get ministerial pensions whilst continuing to serve as members of the parliament. They have been asked to give this up but so far few have volunteered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.