Decriminalise Drug Use, Say Experts After Six-Year Study

[Pierrot Lunaire]

Bit of an eye opener and well worth a look.

 

Does that sum include the money wasted keeping people like your husband in employment?

[thebees]

Thats in America although, you only need watch Cops to see how everyone, in the whole of America, is on crack and weed.

 

I wonder, if it was not for drug convictions would many of the people in prison be there for something else? I often read about people getting caught for drugs and think "At least they can prove this" I suppose it's handy for the police, say they'd been trying to catch a buglar and he got off on technicalities, how well buzzin would you be to catch that person with a joint? (if you were a police man ofc, normal people might not be bothered in the slightest)

[tameelf]

the bees what if the goverment were supplying the drugs to make sure the private for profit companys prisons were full.

 

now the uk want to have the same jail system as usa

 

watch this eyeopener

 

then go look why the brits are in afgan

[thebees]

Did you read the letter in the link I posted? I already know. I have the badge, the T-shirt and the tote bag I'm not 2 hours worth of interested in America but if you read that link I posted you'll see the CIA let the man who stole loads of cannabis seeds from a research centre out of America, he then took them off to Holland, sold them, set up his own company, escaped the law with false names etc and now GW Pharma have all the licenses for cannabis derived medicines - in Canada you can grow weed but only the pharmas can make oil/resin - sold up the swannee for the capitalist massive - bastards.

 

And did you see that stupid bat who got caught with a load of weed over here saying "I was wrong to think it would ease my pain", stupid cow. Why lie? Do your research and stand up for yourself, while people are still wallowing in pathetic apologies for having weed, the courts will keep having to see them.

[manxy]

Bit of an eye opener and well worth a look.

 

Does that sum include the money wasted keeping people like your husband in employment?

Money wasted? As you seem to know a lot about the penal system, please enlighten us all, so explain your reasoning

[Pierrot Lunaire]

Money wasted? As you seem to know a lot about the penal system, please enlighten us all, so explain your reasoning

 

Don't mind if I do. It's perfectly simple. A large proportion of the inmates at the prison are there for recreational drug offences. There are the obvious ones which have been convicted of possession or dealing of said drugs. And then there are the not so obvious ones that might have been convicted of dishonesty arising from the need to finance the procurement of said drugs. So, it stands to reason that if said drugs were decriminalised, then the prison population would fall substantially. Thereby decreasing the demand for personnel connected with the incarceration of said convicts. So loads of said personnel could be laid off. Thus saving a fucking packet. See? Told you it was simple. As are you.... ; ))

[manxy]

Money wasted? As you seem to know a lot about the penal system, please enlighten us all, so explain your reasoning

 

Don't mind if I do. It's perfectly simple. A large proportion of the inmates at the prison are there for recreational drug offences. There are the obvious ones which have been convicted of possession or dealing of said drugs. And then there are the not so obvious ones that might have been convicted of dishonesty arising from the need to finance the procurement of said drugs. So, it stands to reason that if said drugs were decriminalised, then the prison population would fall substantially. Thereby decreasing the demand for personnel connected with the incarceration of said convicts. So loads of said personnel could be laid off. Thus saving a fucking packet. See? Told you it was simple. As are you.... ; ))

Are we talking about the same prison? How many percent do you think is a large proportion as I've heard something a little different to your supposed facts. Where did you get your information from?

 

Biggest problem is drink related offences or associated with drinking that includes violence and theft.

 

Forget the above as it's just tit for tat facts, but do take on board that my hubby will be very accurate and I wouldn't doubt him for a second in that area.

LOL, my hubs just seen what I've wrote, smiled and gave me the thumbs up, so I must be right.

 

All that said, I'm going to tackle your comment about reducing personnel.

If following your (incorrect) reasoning that a large proportion of prisoners were in for drug offences and were reprieved where they were no longer in jail,

1/ would you need prison staff to look after the remaining prisoners that were there?

2/ and if so, how many staff would you require for one wing in a 24 hour day?

 

Straight answer wanted, unless you were just jesting before and pulling my leg.

[Butterflies]

Pierre has a valid point, the simple fact is that many people are kept in employment by the illegality of drugs, that includes police, lawyers, court staff, prison officers etc. Combined with the obvious fact that anything is dangerous if provided only by criminals then it's a no-brainer. Legalize everything. Now.

[kokorito]

is there a right to trial by jury in IOM?

 

Are the manx people as forward thinking as those in Colorado in that they know its against the (federal) law but simply refuse to convict?

How many expensive jury trials would it take for the government to stop try and listen to the people they govern?

[Pierrot Lunaire]

Are we talking about the same prison? How many percent do you think is a large proportion as I've heard something a little different to your supposed facts. Where did you get your information from?

 

It was a guess. But according to this source it was a pretty accurate guess. I don't know how to paste excerpts from pdf files accurately into posts but the information is pretty clear if you scroll down to page 91 of the linked report. It pertains to the offences of sentenced male prisoners and is a 2011 report. This is the gist of it:

 

Violence against the person - 8.42%

Sexual Offences - 7.47%

Burglary - 3.74%

Theft And Handling - 2.8%

Fraud And Forgery - 4.68%

Drugs Offences - 45.79%

Other Offences - 26.17%

Civil Offences - 0.93%

 

Biggest problem is drink related offences or associated with drinking that includes violence and theft.

 

Not according to my link it isn't. Nearly half of the inmates are inside for directly applicable drugs offences. I'd hazard that a few of the dishonesty offences were committed with a view to financing the procurement of drugs as well. But I could be wrong.

 

Forget the above as it's just tit for tat facts, but do take on board that my hubby will be very accurate and I wouldn't doubt him for a second in that area.

 

Really? ; ))

 

LOL, my hubs just seen what I've wrote, smiled and gave me the thumbs up, so I must be right.

 

Are they visibly opposable? ; ))

 

All that said, I'm going to tackle your comment about reducing personnel.

If following your (incorrect) reasoning that a large proportion of prisoners were in for drug offences and were reprieved where they were no longer in jail,

1/ would you need prison staff to look after the remaining prisoners that were there?

 

I'd guess you'd need about half of the current staff. And that's just on the post conviction side. If my reasoning is, as you say, incorrect (and they're not my figures, I'm just assuming they're accurate coming as they do from a pretty solid source) then perhaps you could give the actual breakdown in percentage terms of the current prison population and the nature of their crimes?

 

2/ and if so, how many staff would you require for one wing in a 24 hour day?

 

Fuck knows.

Straight answer wanted, unless you were just jesting before and pulling my leg.

 

I'm certainly not jesting. I wouldn't want to chafe my delicate hands.

[manxy]

Are we talking about the same prison? How many percent do you think is a large proportion as I've heard something a little different to your supposed facts. Where did you get your information from?

 

It was a guess. But according to this source it was a pretty accurate guess. I don't know how to paste excerpts from pdf files accurately into posts but the information is pretty clear if you scroll down to page 91 of the linked report. It pertains to the offences of sentenced male prisoners and is a 2011 report. This is the gist of it:

 

Violence against the person - 8.42%

Sexual Offences - 7.47%

Burglary - 3.74%

Theft And Handling - 2.8%

Fraud And Forgery - 4.68%

Drugs Offences - 45.79%

Other Offences - 26.17%

Civil Offences - 0.93%

 

Biggest problem is drink related offences or associated with drinking that includes violence and theft.

 

Not according to my link it isn't. Nearly half of the inmates are inside for directly applicable drugs offences. I'd hazard that a few of the dishonesty offences were committed with a view to financing the procurement of drugs as well. But I could be wrong.

 

Forget the above as it's just tit for tat facts, but do take on board that my hubby will be very accurate and I wouldn't doubt him for a second in that area.

 

Really? ; ))

 

LOL, my hubs just seen what I've wrote, smiled and gave me the thumbs up, so I must be right.

 

Are they visibly opposable? ; ))

 

All that said, I'm going to tackle your comment about reducing personnel.

If following your (incorrect) reasoning that a large proportion of prisoners were in for drug offences and were reprieved where they were no longer in jail,

1/ would you need prison staff to look after the remaining prisoners that were there?

 

I'd guess you'd need about half of the current staff. And that's just on the post conviction side. If my reasoning is, as you say, incorrect (and they're not my figures, I'm just assuming they're accurate coming as they do from a pretty solid source) then perhaps you could give the actual breakdown in percentage terms of the current prison population and the nature of their crimes?

 

2/ and if so, how many staff would you require for one wing in a 24 hour day?

 

Fuck knows.

Straight answer wanted, unless you were just jesting before and pulling my leg.

 

I'm certainly not jesting. I wouldn't want to chafe my delicate hands.

That was 2011, this is 2012

[manxy]

Are we talking about the same prison? How many percent do you think is a large proportion as I've heard something a little different to your supposed facts. Where did you get your information from?

 

It was a guess. But according to this source it was a pretty accurate guess. I don't know how to paste excerpts from pdf files accurately into posts but the information is pretty clear if you scroll down to page 91 of the linked report. It pertains to the offences of sentenced male prisoners and is a 2011 report. This is the gist of it:

 

Violence against the person - 8.42%

Sexual Offences - 7.47%

Burglary - 3.74%

Theft And Handling - 2.8%

Fraud And Forgery - 4.68%

Drugs Offences - 45.79%

Other Offences - 26.17%

Civil Offences - 0.93%

 

Biggest problem is drink related offences or associated with drinking that includes violence and theft.

 

Not according to my link it isn't. Nearly half of the inmates are inside for directly applicable drugs offences. I'd hazard that a few of the dishonesty offences were committed with a view to financing the procurement of drugs as well. But I could be wrong.

 

Forget the above as it's just tit for tat facts, but do take on board that my hubby will be very accurate and I wouldn't doubt him for a second in that area.

 

Really? ; ))

 

LOL, my hubs just seen what I've wrote, smiled and gave me the thumbs up, so I must be right.

 

Are they visibly opposable? ; ))

 

All that said, I'm going to tackle your comment about reducing personnel.

If following your (incorrect) reasoning that a large proportion of prisoners were in for drug offences and were reprieved where they were no longer in jail,

1/ would you need prison staff to look after the remaining prisoners that were there?

 

I'd guess you'd need about half of the current staff. And that's just on the post conviction side. If my reasoning is, as you say, incorrect (and they're not my figures, I'm just assuming they're accurate coming as they do from a pretty solid source) then perhaps you could give the actual breakdown in percentage terms of the current prison population and the nature of their crimes?

 

2/ and if so, how many staff would you require for one wing in a 24 hour day?

 

Fuck knows.

Straight answer wanted, unless you were just jesting before and pulling my leg.

 

I'm certainly not jesting. I wouldn't want to chafe my delicate hands.

If there was three staff per wing to look after 40 prisoners or so, do you think that there should be more or less?

[manxy]

Just because you take out a certain type of prisoner, it does not lessen the fact that for safety reasons alone (as in the hospital), you need staff to assist; for instance, If a fight or riot occurs, where do the staff come from? Calling the Police station in Douglas won't be of any help and it's not as if there's other jails on the island to use other staff.

 

Cut the number of wings down, then you'll have extra staff, but first you'd have to make the wings longer first and that won't happen as the tax payers paid enough for the place already.

[Pierrot Lunaire]

That was 2011, this is 2012

 

So my figures are a statistical anomalous blip? Show me the current statistics then. 2011 is pretty recent as samples go.

 

If there was three staff per wing to look after 40 prisoners or so, do you think that there should be more or less?

 

I don't have an opinion on that.

[manxy]

That was 2011, this is 2012

 

So my figures are a statistical anomalous blip? Show me the current statistics then. 2011 is pretty recent as samples go.

 

If there was three staff per wing to look after 40 prisoners or so, do you think that there should be more or less?

 

I don't have an opinion on that.

But you did:

So, it stands to reason that if said drugs were decriminalised, then the prison population would fall substantially. Thereby decreasing the demand for personnel connected with the incarceration of said convicts. So loads of said personnel could be laid off. Thus saving a fucking packet.

I understand that there's normally only two staff looking after a wing, which in my opinion, is pretty uncomfortable anyway. So reducing it like you said would make it one prison officer per wing?

Would you like to re-evaluate your statement?