BoxRec

Chambers2 wrote:Jizzle - I hope you've appreciated your free education this afternoon

Go f@ck yourself Chambers, I'm off to main line...

dookus wrote:

jizzle wrote:OK. Bullet point time.

1) You are flawed in the 'one crime is OK and one is not.' If it were OK, it wouldn't be a crime. There's your flaw. A crime is a crime. It's there in the definition.

2) The quote about dealers and organised crime. I can't make it any clearer. I said they were part of the same network, not the same organisation. Your supplier is at the bottom end, organised crime at the top. But part of the same network. I didn't think you're ever going to understand what I mean.

3) Should weed remain illegal because of a small minority (which equates to 10,000s of people in the UK)? Yes.

4) I didn't advocate alochol or nicotine in this argument. You're pulling in popularist argument and statements.

1) So I guess homosexuality was not OK, until the law was changed? That makes much less sense than the law just being wrong. It's far too simplistic to say a crime is just a crime: some are indictable, some are summary, some are routinely committed without the law ever being enforced (like taping radio/TV shows), some are enforced very harshly, and the levels of punishment are all different. On the flipside, walking past a dying person without helping them is most certainly not OK, but neither is it a crime.

2) Some of the weed in this country is not from the same network as those that deal in harder stuff, some of it's grown by people and sold on. Not all dealers are connected to the larger organised crime networks.

3) In that case, booze should be illegal because of the massive minority (close to a million alcohol-related hospital admissions a year) who bugger themselves and other people up on it. Oh wait, we live in a society where we accept some of the risks of freedom rather than trying to shut down everything risky. Except in the case of non-alcoholic drugs.

Who invited you?

1) We were talking about ex-cons.
2) ITS IN THE SAME NETWORK!!!!!!!!
3) I wasn't talking about booze.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:Even if weed is in the same network as heavier drugs it just makes a better case for decriminalisation in my opinion.

The world needs to be able to distinguish between BAD drugs (Crack, Heroine, Meth (more US)) and lovely drugs like weed and ecstacy

jizzle wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:Jizzle - I hope you've appreciated your free education this afternoon

Go f@ck yourself Chambers, I'm off to main line...

Have a Good Weekend

Chambers2 wrote:

The Dark Destroyer wrote:Even if weed is in the same network as heavier drugs it just makes a better case for decriminalisation in my opinion.

The world needs to be able to distinguish between BAD drugs (Crack, Heroine, Meth (more US)) and lovely drugs like weed and ecstacy

Which pile would you put coke?

jizzle wrote:OK. Bullet point time.

1) You are flawed in the 'one crime is OK and one is not.' If it were OK, it wouldn't be a crime. There's your flaw. A crime is a crime. It's there in the definition.

2) The quote about dealers and organised crime. I can't make it any clearer. I said they were part of the same network, not the same organisation. Your supplier is at the bottom end, organised crime at the top. But part of the same network. I didn't think you're ever going to understand what I mean.

3) Should weed remain illegal because of a small minority (which equates to 10,000s of people in the UK)? Yes.

4) I didn't advocate alochol or nicotine in this argument. You're pulling in popularist argument and statements.

You ought to think about reading 'The Politics of Heroin' by Alfred McCoy; your eyes will pop out.

'Good Drugs' and 'Bad Drugs' is crazy; read 'The Heroin Century' by Tom Carnwath and Ian Smith as a starter.

jizzle wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:

The Dark Destroyer wrote:Even if weed is in the same network as heavier drugs it just makes a better case for decriminalisation in my opinion.

The world needs to be able to distinguish between BAD drugs (Crack, Heroine, Meth (more US)) and lovely drugs like weed and ecstacy

Which pile would you put coke?

Crack is the same drug as Cocaine but it's smoked

jizzle wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:

The Dark Destroyer wrote:Even if weed is in the same network as heavier drugs it just makes a better case for decriminalisation in my opinion.

The world needs to be able to distinguish between BAD drugs (Crack, Heroine, Meth (more US)) and lovely drugs like weed and ecstacy

Which pile would you put coke?

Crack is obviously cocaine derived, but Cocaine as it is is difficult to classify IMO.

I believe in freedom of choice, so I'd probably put it in the weed group (I'm not personally a fan of it anymore, but if people enjoy it and can pay for it themselves then I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to snort it)

simon fox wrote:

jizzle wrote:OK. Bullet point time.

1) You are flawed in the 'one crime is OK and one is not.' If it were OK, it wouldn't be a crime. There's your flaw. A crime is a crime. It's there in the definition.

2) The quote about dealers and organised crime. I can't make it any clearer. I said they were part of the same network, not the same organisation. Your supplier is at the bottom end, organised crime at the top. But part of the same network. I didn't think you're ever going to understand what I mean.

3) Should weed remain illegal because of a small minority (which equates to 10,000s of people in the UK)? Yes.

4) I didn't advocate alochol or nicotine in this argument. You're pulling in popularist argument and statements.

You ought to think about reading 'The Politics of Heroin' by Alfred McCoy; your eyes will pop out.

'Good Drugs' and 'Bad Drugs' is crazy; read 'The Heroin Century' by Tom Carnwath and Ian Smith as a starter.

Weeds a Great drug, consumption should be forced IMO

Just a general thing to add to where the conversation has gone, laws change as morals change. Dookus brings up a great point about homosexuality previously being against the law, whereas now it's not. Laws are man-made and so some are not positive.

Chambers2 wrote:Weeds a Great drug, consumption should be forced IMO

No thanks. I like my mind clear. 8)

A self confessed pot head raving about the wonders of weed, whatever next D

jizzle wrote:

jBacca wrote:Generally the ex-con, unless he's been done for sexual assault or selling brown.

There has been the old busy who was spot on, and they've always been the older ones, but on the other hand I've met so many bullies in the force who like to abuse their powers.

I'd support Howard over any though.

I love these type of responses....'this crime is OK, but this one is bang out of order'...it's like cons who think that their crime is acceptable in comparison to others...How about 'they're all effing leeches on my tax??'

the drug laws are wrong as are the road laws, give us freedom then violence will subside.

the "war on drugs" is the greatest waste of money in history, governments will never will so they should give up.

If people want to use drugs then legislating against it is useless.

A bigger evil and drain on the 'public purse' is the military and wars waged for material gain and resources.

seems this thread has certainly changed since i last read it , a few points people have made have given me the urge to add my view .

As far as some crimes being ok whilst others arent , i completely agree , Raping a 4 year old kid for example deserves the death penalty , punching the guy who did it would also be illegal , but i would certainly be in the que to stick the boot in .

As far as drugs though i have to disagree , theres no such thing as a good drug , weed , pills , coke etc are all not good , anyone who believes weed is fine is extremely niave , ive seen the damage it can do first hand , people say its not addictive , well ill tell you that its bollox and that any drug is addictive , people who say they just have a spliff at night to get their self to sleep are verging on the addicted as it will only be a short while before they think they CANT sleep so well if theyve not had a smoke , if that happens then your dependent on it , you feel you need it to sleep , that means your addicted , in the same meaning as what alcoholism is to a drinker .
Someone from my own familly became reliant on weed and it made them mentally ill and almost cost them their mariage and career , and another member of my familly was told to stop smoking weed otherwise it would kill him due to some sort of reaction that lays dormant in most people but then triggers a similar type of reaction to a heart attack , i dont remember the name but its more common than people think

Now what makes this awkward is this , is it any more dangerous than Alcohol or Nicoteine , maybe not , but i think if it was legalised id be for it despite my anti drug views , simply because the tax the government would earn from it should in theory more than cover the cost thart the drug has on the nhs etc and it could be monitered more closely , proper support groups etc as one problem at the mo i feel is that if someone has a weed related problem then theres no real help , yes theres some groups but the fact its still illegal still puts a label on smokers its still got a taboo so the people needing help quite often either dont know who to ask for help or dont dare to ask , weed needs to be treated just like alcahol and nicoteine , in every way , legally and morally .

demolitiondaley wrote:

banjo wrote:I don't have a problem with coppers, it's more the laws they have to enforce that I have a problem with, ex-cons aren't always bad people either, i'm not saying I have sympathy for them but they're not all evil bastards.

Tough one this, depends on what the con has done I guess. 8)

This is a crazy ass thread Banjo that has got Me vs Richard Towers written all over it. I must say when I was in the job I was decent and proud. I never hurt anyone who wasn't trying to hurt me and 99% of all confrontation never got physical due to my ability to impose my presence on a man and make him realise he would lose. A lot of the time I was just nice enough to people for them not to want to fall out with me. I pride myself on my personal safety skills and taught others coppers for 5 years before I left. Cops are like anyone, there is a small percentage that give the rest a bad name, those are the only ones that you usually see because the decent ones are the ones that will prevent a situation happening rather than revel in dealing with the aftermath. I never used my baton or gas in anger in 8 years and can count on one hand the number of people I punched (trust me with 2years on the riot squad that is an achievement). I never had one complaint about my use of force. So anyone who reckons all cops are pricks can come and knock on my door and tell me that to my face, I would have been the one who helped your gran cross the road or stopped your little sister getting beat by her dick head boyfriend

Does that include all the real men you lost to in the ring as opposed to the 7 stone junkies, drunks and kids you and your ever so brave colleagues usually like to throw their weight around with? The police are bullies, and like all bullies they are cowards.

most crooks are generally scumbags making money out of someones misfortunes or misery.alot of cozzers are jobsworth's also

simon fox wrote:If people want to use drugs then legislating against it is useless.

A bigger evil and drain on the 'public purse' is the military and wars waged for material gain and resources.

What about tax-dodging-wealth-creators who get up before dawn and go out and clean windows?

Teddy's Toupee wrote:

demolitiondaley wrote:

banjo wrote:I don't have a problem with coppers, it's more the laws they have to enforce that I have a problem with, ex-cons aren't always bad people either, i'm not saying I have sympathy for them but they're not all evil bastards.

Tough one this, depends on what the con has done I guess. 8)

This is a crazy ass thread Banjo that has got Me vs Richard Towers written all over it. I must say when I was in the job I was decent and proud. I never hurt anyone who wasn't trying to hurt me and 99% of all confrontation never got physical due to my ability to impose my presence on a man and make him realise he would lose. A lot of the time I was just nice enough to people for them not to want to fall out with me. I pride myself on my personal safety skills and taught others coppers for 5 years before I left. Cops are like anyone, there is a small percentage that give the rest a bad name, those are the only ones that you usually see because the decent ones are the ones that will prevent a situation happening rather than revel in dealing with the aftermath. I never used my baton or gas in anger in 8 years and can count on one hand the number of people I punched (trust me with 2years on the riot squad that is an achievement). I never had one complaint about my use of force. So anyone who reckons all cops are pricks can come and knock on my door and tell me that to my face, I would have been the one who helped your gran cross the road or stopped your little sister getting beat by her dick head boyfriend

Does that include all the real men you lost to in the ring as opposed to the 7 stone junkies, drunks and kids you and your ever so brave colleagues usually like to throw their weight around with? The police are bullies, and like all bullies they are cowards.

What a pathetic comment and Howard who I know personally will probably ignore it - what kind of society do you actually want to live in? one without the Police? because with your obvious lack of a fully functioning brain you wouldnt last 5 minutes and more importantly would your loved ones? You might have had bad experiences or whatever tall tale you want to tell and have these ridiculous conclusions you want to draw. But to call an officer a coward when you havnt the slightest idea as to what their work entails on a day to day business is pathetic and you need to grow up you sound like a 14 year old with an attitude problem??!!! Everyone has good and bad in ALL walks of life because unfortunately that is life and sometimes the system fails however the majority of the time it works. Would you really want a key in your hand to let out all the paedos, thieves and scum housed in our prisons - put there by the police you find so easy to slag off? I bet you wouldnt. Grow up you silly silly man.

when howard said he never hurt anyone, was he talking about his boxing career D

@hurlock pmsl any Daley what's your problem with me ? Just because I said they're both idiots so I'd support neither? What's wrong with that? I am entitled to a bloody opinion you know! Stupid Pratt

demolitiondaley wrote:

damianhucker1 wrote:

lefty wrote: Yeah it was a great job mate and I loved it. The truth mate I'm not taking your bait, can't believe I'm even wasting the one calorie it has taken to type this

Taking my bait?!I seriously i dont know what you mean.I can be serious on here unlike alot of the other wind up merchants on here!Ha

look directly below your post that howard replied to , it was a post by someone called thetruth

He's right Lefty that was aimed at "TheTruth"[/quote]

hurlock wrote:when howard said he never hurt anyone, was he talking about his boxing career D

Daley v audley that would be a laugh

Teddy's Toupee wrote:

demolitiondaley wrote:

banjo wrote:I don't have a problem with coppers, it's more the laws they have to enforce that I have a problem with, ex-cons aren't always bad people either, i'm not saying I have sympathy for them but they're not all evil bastards.

Tough one this, depends on what the con has done I guess. 8)

This is a crazy ass thread Banjo that has got Me vs Richard Towers written all over it. I must say when I was in the job I was decent and proud. I never hurt anyone who wasn't trying to hurt me and 99% of all confrontation never got physical due to my ability to impose my presence on a man and make him realise he would lose. A lot of the time I was just nice enough to people for them not to want to fall out with me. I pride myself on my personal safety skills and taught others coppers for 5 years before I left. Cops are like anyone, there is a small percentage that give the rest a bad name, those are the only ones that you usually see because the decent ones are the ones that will prevent a situation happening rather than revel in dealing with the aftermath. I never used my baton or gas in anger in 8 years and can count on one hand the number of people I punched (trust me with 2years on the riot squad that is an achievement). I never had one complaint about my use of force. So anyone who reckons all cops are pricks can come and knock on my door and tell me that to my face, I would have been the one who helped your gran cross the road or stopped your little sister getting beat by her dick head boyfriend

Does that include all the real men you lost to in the ring as opposed to the 7 stone junkies, drunks and kids you and your ever so brave colleagues usually like to throw their weight around with? The police are bullies, and like all bullies they are cowards.

Ooooh - thats a bit uncalled for - what about a 'real man' like you going in and showing him how it is done?