Students hassling me.

[Desolation mkII]

Personally I have never seen the appeal of the 'we should legalise a harmfull substance because there are allready other harmfull substances legalised'

[greg]

Indeed.

 

*goes off to continue sniffing my lovely type 56's real steel smell*

 

sooo addictiveeeeeeeee..................

Does that count as solvent abuse?

 

Personally I have never seen the appeal of the 'we should legalise a harmfull substance because there are allready other harmfull substances legalised'

I was actually thinking the other way: If cannabis is illegal, how the hell can we justify legal tobacco????????

 

 

Greg.

[Habakure]

Stealth, we use to have a problem next door, not as serious as yours but it was a rent accommidation. They were moved on after several nieghbours constantly complained over a 3-4 month period (We never complained as we where always out when there was trouble). Keep ringing your council and getting incident numbers off police when ever you ring up about the noise. I have been told that if a called is logged after 11pm during the week, they will respond.

 

I know 3-4 months is a long time, but the problems did start to die down in the last month but by then it was too late. I hope you get this sorted, having to move should be a scondary consideration, though it is good advice if it is causing you illness with the stress.

[Chimpy]

Thing is, it's about more than scientific study. It's about what the society we live in, the society we elect politicians to run on our behalf, will tolerate.

 

Well in this case it was, the guy in charge of informing the government resigned over this as well as others. The case for moving cannabis from class C up to class B was not made and as greg said was entirely politically motivated. It's hardly the same as making the age of consent 12 years old it just increases the penalities for those dealing or caught in possession.

 

Doing something that is supported by facts is good. Doing something which is entirely opposite to the facts is bad.

 

I guess the problem is that there's a basic inertia with society. Society wants what it's always had and often doesn't want anything new.

I suppose it's easy to suggest that's a bad thing but, regardless, it it IS what the majority of society wants then I guess it's the way things have to be.

 

Actually those people are conservatives and society has changed markedly even in the last decade so I'm not sure they are particularly in the majority or that if such an inertia truly exists that it isn't overcome on a daily basis.

[Chimpy]

Personally I have never seen the appeal of the 'we should legalise a harmfull substance because there are allready other harmfull substances legalised'

 

Does anyone make such a dappy argument though?

 

The general pro-legalisation schtick is that it makes it easier to treat addicts (see Greece and decriminalisation there), makes the drugs themselves safer for users and allows governments to levy taxes on them which pays for the treatment of the ill effects and then some.

[greg]

Doing something that is supported by facts is good. Doing something which is entirely opposite to the facts is bad.

Do what you like. As long as it don't effect me (or society as a whole), I don't care.

 

Remember, 'illegal' just means, 'making sure you don't get caught'. It doesn't actually STOP you from doing any thing.

 

 

Greg.

[Chimpy]

I was talking from the POV of how government decision making on things like this should work (e.g. rational decision making versus irrational hoopla).

 

Maybe a ceremonial bong for the House of Commons.

[Stealthbomber]

Well in this case it was, the guy in charge of informing the government resigned over this as well as others. The case for moving cannabis from class C up to class B was not made and as greg said was entirely politically motivated. It's hardly the same as making the age of consent 12 years old it just increases the penalities for those dealing or caught in possession.

 

Doing something that is supported by facts is good. Doing something which is entirely opposite to the facts is bad.

As I said, facts aren't the full picture.

Facts might show that it's fine to have sex with a 12 year old but society is never going to accept that so it remains illegal.

Our politicians think society feels the same way about narcotics. I suspect they're right.

 

It's easy to dismiss stuff like the re-criminalisation of cannabis (or the VCRA) as a "vote winner" but the fact is that the people casting those votes are members of society and if a majority of them prefer for something to be illegal then that IS the way it should be, regardless of what scientific study would suggest.

[greg]

1, I was talking from the POV of how government decision making on things like this should work (e.g. rational decision making versus irrational hoopla).

 

2, Maybe a ceremonial bong for the House of Commons.

1, Maybe in a text book but in reality, the whole world rotates on a nod & a wink.

 

2, Now there's an image. Mind you, going on the decisions they make, they probably have one.

 

Stealth is of course right, although a government is there to steer society, it is also there to reflect it's perceptions.

 

At the end of the day, we do vote them in & will probably go for the one that we feel best represents out view point.

 

 

Greg.

[Chimpy]

As I said, facts aren't the full picture.

 

Well yeah there are peoples irrational boobleheadedness, which I'm saying is an impediment.

 

Facts might show that it's fine to have sex with a 12 year old but society is never going to accept that so it remains illegal.

 

Never is a long time and in some parts of the world it is legal AFAIK (e.g. Spain pre-1999). There is a gulf of difference between the ideas of how dangerous cannabis is (something very easy to quantify) and whether or not its okay to have sex with a 12 year old (which is very hard to quantify).

 

Our politicians think society feels the same way about narcotics. I suspect they're right.

 

It's easy to dismiss stuff like the re-criminalisation of cannabis (or the VCRA) as a "vote winner" but the fact is that the people casting those votes are members of society and if a majority of them prefer for something to be illegal then that IS the way it should be, regardless of what scientific study would suggest.

 

Cannabis wasn't recriminalised it was moved from class C to class B it was never decriminalised. Secondly we didn't have a referendum about it so we don't know what the voting populations views on it are.

[Chimpy]

1, Maybe in a text book but in reality, the whole world rotates on a nod & a wink.

 

Yes I know, hence why I'm complaining about it!

[greg]

we didn't have a referendum about it so we don't know what the voting populations views on it are.

I think it's a fair assumption, that as misguided as voters are, the c to b move would have won at the poles.

 

'Cos the stoners & students wouldn't have bothered to show. & if they did, they would have probably ticked the wrong box. & even if they got the right box, they are in the minority.

 

& that's why the government did it. Because they truly believe that it's a vote winner.

 

 

Greg.

[greg]

Yes I know, hence why I'm complaining about it!

I used to complain about it.

 

A lot.

 

& sometimes I still do.

 

But it got tired a long time a go.

 

& nothing. NOTHING. Is going to change.

 

 

Greg.

[Chimpy]

I think it's a fair assumption, that as misguided as voters are, the c to b move would have won at the poles.

 

'Cos the stoners & students wouldn't have bothered to show. & if they did, they would have probably ticked the wrong box. & even if they got the right box, they are in the minority.

 

 

Greg.

 

Perhaps but it's still an assumption rather than actually having any real bearing.

 

Obviously very few people vote on a single issue especially one as minor as reclassification of a drug so assessing the overall impact on the voting population is kinda hard.

 

As a non-student, non-stoner I thought it was gash and attracted the government a lot of negative publicity with the high profile resignations over it.

[Stealthbomber]

Well yeah there are peoples irrational boobleheadedness, which I'm saying is an impediment.

I see, so holding an opinion contrary to yours is "boobleheadedness"?

 

Never is a long time and in some parts of the world it is legal AFAIK (e.g. Spain pre-1999). There is a gulf of difference between the ideas of how dangerous cannabis is (something very easy to quantify) and whether or not its okay to have sex with a 12 year old (which is very hard to quantify).

The fact that it IS legal in a lot of countries and yet we put people in jail for it would seem to suggest this is more "boobleheadedness" and yet you're arguing one thing as as a quantifiable fact and the other thing as some sort of vague, intangible moral issue.

 

Something of a double standard there.

[greg]

Perhaps but it's still an assumption rather than actually having any real bearing.

That's what the word 'assumption' can mean.

 

But, I'll escalate that to,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 'My personal opinion' if you like.

 

I'll even go as far as 'if I was a gambling man', if really pressed.

 

I'm going to go right out on a limb for ya now: I believe, that if put to a vote, 'c - b' would win in favor of 'leave it as c'.

 

Despite all the facts that make this completely irrational, more voters will tick the 'c - b' box than, 'leave as c'.

 

Either way it's irrelevant. Our democratic system, empowers the government to make these decisions on our behalf, without the need for costly referendums. If folk really felt that bad about it, there are plenty of systems in place to get it changed.

 

 

Greg.

[Chimpy]

I see, so holding an opinion contrary to yours is "boobleheadedness"?

 

No holding one contrary to established fact is.

 

The fact that it IS legal in a lot of countries and yet we put people in jail for it would seem to suggest this is more "boobleheadedness" and yet you're arguing one thing as as a quantifiable fact and the other thing as some sort of vague, intangible moral issue.

 

Something of a double standard there.

 

No, it's very easy to quantify the dangers of cannabis. It's hard to quantify the dangers of sex on young people for a variety of reasons and yes bobbleheadedness plays a part in deciding where the age of consent should be. The questions are also of an entirely different magnitude.

 

So no, no double standard.

[Chimpy]

Turns out David Nutt was sacked for speaking out against the government line he didn't quit. Although others did in protest. Anyway here's him having a say:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...-classification

[Danke]

Perhaps being in Scotland they've had other more pressing manners? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8521868.stm

 

 

 

[Punkypink]

Thats not a flying tolberone, that's a flying fried mars bars!

[Elias]

The point is nothing to do with the difference between houses and cars.

 

It's simply that the cops can stop and search a car driver without any reason.

They don't have the same right to stop and search a suspected person for drug related offences unless they have proof.

 

Are we really suggesting that car drivers are a bigger threat to society than illegal drugs?

 

As someone pointed out, police can stop and search cars, but not without reason. The powers didn't quite come from the Terrorism Act, there are already rules in place under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, that dealt with searching cars and people. Car's, as well as people, can be checked if it is believed they are about to commit a crime, are committing or have committed a crime, be it the person who has done so or the vehicle which was used.

 

The police can also enter and search your house without a warrant if they reasonably believe that there is some form of important evidence located on the property in relation to the offence and that it is impracticle to perform the search later.

 

As far as your predicament stands, you might want to consider suing the landlord for private nuisance under trespass, assuming all the legal details were sorted, you might get some money and the landlord would be told to sort it out pronto or face more court action.

 

J

[Stealthbomber]

As far as your predicament stands, you might want to consider suing the landlord for private nuisance under trespass, assuming all the legal details were sorted, you might get some money and the landlord would be told to sort it out pronto or face more court action.

 

J

TBH, I really don't want to have anything to do with the landlord.

He is, frankly, a bit of a thug.

His missus bought the house with her ex-husband and then took possesion of it when they split up.

When his parents died they moved into the parents house and have rented the other house out ever since.

 

As I said, on previous occasions he's shown absolutely no interest in maintaining the house.

On one occasion the hot water boiler rusted all the way through and caused a flood.

The landlord "fixed" that by pumping silicone sealant into the split and left it at that, even though our living room carpets were getting soaked every couple of days, as were the carpets of the guy renting the house.

Fortunately, he was a decent guy and, coincidentally, the council were installing new hot water tanks in council houses close-by.

He had a word with them and they supplied and fitted a new boiler cash-in-hand at the same time they were doing the council work and he ended up paying them about £100.

In return, we took him out for a meal at a local restaurant to say thanks.

 

At the moment I'm just gonna go by the book.

We've got some "Nuisance logs" from the council and we're supposed to fill in every hassle we have.

 

It's not just the music.

It's like right now. There's a bunch of chav's on the pavement outside having an argument with a guy who's hanging out of one of the bedroom windows.

 

Worst thing is, they're all skinny little runts and I'd be quite happy to go in and "modify" his stereo with a baseball bat but you can bet your donkey that the police would be quick to deal with me over that.

 

Funny but a week of hassle and very little sleep and my brain is totally fried.

[Xaccers]

We have a "mad old woman" over the road in the council flats. She'll stand at her window with her music right up trying to get peoples attention to "perform" for them.

It'd be alright if she could actually sing.

I've wondered about getting her on X-factor just for the comedy value.

Anyway, normally its not a problem, she does it during the day, and not often after 7pm, but last year she started doing it much later (and had the audacity to moan at me for closing my car door and making a noise one evening! Told you she was mad).

I politely asked her to turn it down and recieved a barrage of verbal abuse and "it's alright for you, you don't live on a council estate"

Contacted the council, kept a record, and they sent her a letter informing her that there had been another complaint (she's got history).

Result?

She went back to doing it less frequently and at earlier times, and a lower volume.

 

 

[Habakure]

Whooopps sorry wrong thread, but on topic:-

 

Has anything else happened stealth, and have you started a log of all the incidents involving the students next door, hope it gets sorted out for you soon.

[Stealthbomber]

Oddly enough, it's all gone very quiet since the last police visit on Saturday night.

 

Had a phone-call from the anti-social behaviour department of the local council yesterday.

They're going to send somebody out to talk to me but, apparently, there's half a dozen people been complaining so they're trying to organise a visit that everybody can attend.