Nickona Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Accidental double post Link to post Share on other sites
AceOfSkulls Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 said different things but same applies. Its not the case that minorities get stopped more but rather that they get stopped disproportionately more Eh im not going to read the statistics you posted but the one i usually here is; a dispreportionally high level of minoritys are stopped in london, of which 90% are let go without charge. To me i see that figure as 1 in 10 searches yield a result, which is extremely high. Come to my town and youll find the majority of people stop and searched were wearing track suits, my locals must be track suitist. Targeted policing has been PROVEN to work. God forbid they stop three black people in a row, in a high crime neighborhood in gang colours or loitering or who are known criminals or acting suspiciously. NO thats racist, they should drive around searching people of all creeds and ages. Link to post Share on other sites
AceOfSkulls Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 You raise a good point AceOfSkulls It would something that would need to be considered. I'd argue that it will be easier to put restrictions/regulations into place, as this is an industry which is currently undeveloped - i.e. not an industry that's got roots within government, hundreds of years old (Tobacco, Alcohol) - There are hardly any lobbyists to campaign against "tight" restrictions if they were ever put into place. Hopefully , though a home grow law would be safer and keep profit mongering out. Link to post Share on other sites
DrAlexanderTobacco Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 While the thread's in its infancy I'd like to point out it will be really really interesting to read through the thread in a year's time. Colorado is really the first big case study we've got at the moment and it's early days yet. I'd be interested to see what it's like a year down the line, whether people are still buying from dealers, the quality of weed etc. Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 That still doesn't make stop and search racist.. like I said with the New York case, Its true that a lot of crime is committed by minorities (i am not saying white people don't commit crime they do) especially in densely populated, poorer urban areas where there are typically more minorities. Even if there is a disproportionately high number of migrants stopped is doesn't make stop and search racist all it means if that on average the person a policeman stops for acting suspiciously or looking suspicious is a minority, whether race is something a policeman considers is up to him and is obviously not a part of the policy. Also I am a believer in if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear, if I was a minority and was conscious and apparent racism I firstly wouldn't go around with a hood up looking suspicious etc and I would also prove to the policeman I was law abiding and cooperate to try and show that if there was any prejudice in my being stopped it was unfounded. When people complain about stop and search and claim its racist and should I find it tends to make them look rather suspicious (not directed at you Skarclaw, just speaking in generalities)  Just to get it out of the way "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is the mantra of the stasi but that's by the by - nothing personal!  Stuff like " I firstly wouldn't go around with a hood up looking suspicious etc " is absurd and you seem to be implying that if you a conscious of racism you should change your behaviour rather then the racist changing theirs'.  I've put up two fairly indepth studies into racism and stop and search and the results are as clear as day. If you don't believe them - take it up with them, not me!  Eh im not going to read the statistics you posted  well you've got me there - you win the argument! Link to post Share on other sites
shmook Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I wouldn't call myself a pothead. Haven't smoked it in about 4 years, and even that was at a festival - not out in the real world. SILENCE, HIPPIE, Link to post Share on other sites
hitmanNo2 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Download 2006. Most drugs I have ever seen in real life lol. Link to post Share on other sites
scorch Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Download 2006. Most drugs I have ever seen in real life lol.  Reading '07.   Got so stoned I wandered around the campsite hugging a boombox for four hours talking to random people while my mate slept with his head hanging out of the tent and the zip done up to his chin.   Forgot to pick up a decent CD before going for said walk, so had Bjork on repeat.   ALSO: It's just dawned on me how long ago that was. Link to post Share on other sites
heroshark Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 As regards to health ,you can always eat it or get a vaporiser . Infact it was smoking joints that got me hooked on the much more evil weed ,tobacco . I recently quit tobacco for the 2nd time and got myself a vaporisor pipe. Decriminalise it is what I would say. Link to post Share on other sites
TheFull9 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Never touched it, can't in this job, won't touch it once I'm out. Â But as with a thousand other things I cannot see the overall quality of society worsening by decriminalisation or legalisation. Â The tax revenues etc have all been mentioned already and I think that applies to a lot of drugs; people are going to buy them one way or another. Â I'd infinitely prefer those funds were going in to my pay packet than in to some shady dealers' and the quality/additives would then be fairly well controlled, certainly more so than currently. Â As long as the locations were kept specific (i.e. your house or a licensed cafe with a good air filtration system) then you get high as a kite for all I'm concerned, but the laws with regards intoxicated driving would need a buff IMO. Â You get anywhere near a car either drunk or seriously stoned you're a *fruitcage* scum bag of a particularly *suitcase* kind, you want to kill yourself that's your choice, but it's the lives of complete strangers you're putting at serious risk. Â None of this temporary bans BS, you're found driving under the influence, you never drive again; combined with heavy fines and jail sentences. Â As per the handguns thread however, I don't personally see any of the big parties going for it because they'd probably lose more votes than they'd gain. Â At least at this juncture, whether things might change remains to be seen. Link to post Share on other sites
Nickona Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Just to get it out of the way "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is the mantra of the stasi but that's by the by - nothing personal!  Stuff like " I firstly wouldn't go around with a hood up looking suspicious etc " is absurd and you seem to be implying that if you a conscious of racism you should change your behaviour rather then the racist changing theirs'.  I've put up two fairly indepth studies into racism and stop and search and the results are as clear as day. If you don't believe them - take it up with them, not me!    Firstly I should have said within reason.. stop and search fine - abducting people in the middle of the night to face secret trial no okay  What I was trying to say was that I wouldn't want to appear suspicious at all regardless of the race and that if I know that in the area I am a lrge number of people who fit my description (same race, age etc) I wouldn't want to give the police a reason to stop me.  The results of stop and search may be considered racist by some but the idea and law backing it certainly isn't. As AceofSkulls said, targeted poling work is proven to work so why no use it Link to post Share on other sites
Habakure Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I find it smells bad. To my sense of smell, it bloody well stinks. Each their own, but I find it smells worse (a lot worse) than cigarettes or cigars. Also, you can't smoke in doors anymore, so the idea of a smoking cafe wouldn't take off. Could still bake I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites
Azubi Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 You can hardly compare the Metropolitan Police to the Stasi! Link to post Share on other sites
TheFull9 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Well I was just throwing out ideas. Â I won't be participating so I don't care where exactly people do it as long as it's thoroughly segregated. Â Also don't see any reason not to change the law such that people can smoke in certain public buildings if it's a building where every single person accepts that fact before they go in (and would presumably be doing the same). Â Be it cigarettes or anything else. Link to post Share on other sites
hitmanNo2 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 If you wanted some kind of public smoking area, it would have to be seasonal open air garden type affairs you get with some bars. Link to post Share on other sites
AceOfSkulls Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Arent there smoking clubs now? Like mens club, not night club. Link to post Share on other sites
hitmanNo2 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I thought they were all outside with coverings e.t.c.  I'm not a smoker but when I was in Barbados last month I went to a cigar/whiskey shop/bar and chilled for a couple of hours. You pick from the walk in humidor and then a glass of whiskey. Very sophisticated heh. Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 You can hardly compare the Metropolitan Police to the Stasi!  I assume this was in response to my comment - in which case I wasn't. (I have plenty of unflattering things to say about the met however another discussion for another time). It was in strict reference to the idea of "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" which is exactly the attitude that led to *suitcase* like zersetzung. If I had it my way anybody who said that would have to accompany it with a photo of their penis against a ruler  I am 100% in favour of targeted policing and 100% against racial profiling. I've said my bit as to why I think stop and search is racist (even if it wasn't the intention) - yet to be convinced otherwise however I will keep an open mind!  as for the actual topic decriminalisation is better then prohibition however I think legalisation is preferable Link to post Share on other sites
AceOfSkulls Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I thought they were all outside with coverings e.t.c. Â I'm not a smoker but when I was in Barbados last month I went to a cigar/whiskey shop/bar and chilled for a couple of hours. You pick from the walk in humidor and then a glass of whiskey. Very sophisticated heh. I dunno i cant imagine a bunch of Lords out under a tarp. Â I dont know what the weed equivilent would be? Grab a spliff and a big bag of crisps? Link to post Share on other sites
hitmanNo2 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 A very, very nice tarp heh. Link to post Share on other sites
Azubi Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I assume this was in response to my comment - in which case I wasn't. (I have plenty of unflattering things to say about the met however another discussion for another time). It was in strict reference to the idea of "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" which is exactly the attitude that led to *suitcase* like zersetzung. I beg to differ. Zersetzung was used against dissidents, those perceived by the government to be working against the State. It was also used against those reluctant individuals that they wanted to work as informers against people who were suspect. In that regard, if you refused, then you worked against Der Republik and therefore a criminal anyway. In most cases, usually those in Western nations, you really don't have much to fear if you have done nothing wrong. In the case of the DDR you are right in that innocents had right to be afraid of the State security. But then again that was a Nation that built it's borders to keep people in just as much as it was to keep people out.  I am 100% in favour of targeted policing and 100% against racial profiling. Would pulling a scouser over for being a scouser in an area where there had recently been a spate of robberies* be considered targeted policing? If so, how would that be any different from a 'racist' view of pulling over a black person for the same reason? Not being argumentative, just interested. Someone can't help where they were born anymore than they can help the colour of their skin and in both cases, there are stereotypes of being a criminal element.   *Genuinely happened to us in Bradford. Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Azubi - I think the key bit of the post was "perceived by the government to be a threat" - have you seen the gear the cops pull out when there is a protest? Cameras to record those attending and so forth. I think its a spurious notion to think that "most western nations" cannot be compared to whatever regime you deem fit - just yesterday we heard about witnesses to hillsborough being threatened by the police.  as for the second bit -  I would say that that example is the opposite of targeting policing! Sounds a bit thick really. Link to post Share on other sites
Azubi Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Recording protests is hardly a bad thing. When people do cause trouble, it's handy to have video evidence of who did it, and the events leading up to it occurring, nor is it anything compared to East Germany. For start, just because you are at a protest in the UK, doesn't mean the police can take your job away from you and make sure your kids cannot ever be admitted to a university. It doesn't put in into prisons without trial that don't appear on any maps. Go look at older maps of Berlin and you'll notice unlabelled blank spots, there were Stasi buildings. Link to post Share on other sites
hitmanNo2 Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Considering the state of our overstepping surveillance. I would be surprised if they weren't running facial recognition through all the video, keeping a record of potential trouble makers. Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Azubi - you must remember shewsbury 24! And yeah our spy infrastructure far larger then ddr apparatus thanks to those dirty rotters at gchq Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.