Snort Snort Bang Bang

mike65

Its been a profitable week for undertakers and florists. However its proberly best that the former have more time on thier hands. Fat chance of that these days as Dublins two largest drug importing and distribution companies go head to head for control of the fast expanding Marching Powder market.

Is there a way to curtail this line of business or will it continue to thrive until
Dublin wakes up with a collective nose-bleed?

I dunno but as the violence becomes more intense and more gun weilding coked up nutters become involved we seem to be heading for a defining period - either the matter is taken seriously at a society level or Dublin
will be Bogata on Sea...

Mike.

Sounds like a great party!

legalimmigrant

mike65 wrote:

I dunno but as the violence becomes more intense and more gun weilding coked up nutters become involved we seem to be heading for a defining period - either the matter is taken seriously at a society level or Dublin
will be Bogata on Sea...

Quite right. Decriminalise, regulate and tax it. Dublin has enough consumers to raise enough for its new metro, Luas, whatever -- then the rest of us can use the money left over to get some decent public services. Wins all round!

magick

Quite right. Decriminalise, regulate and tax it. Dublin has enough consumers to raise enough for its new metro, Luas, whatever -- then the rest of us can use the money left over to get some decent public services. Wins all round!

yup with so many cases about pot , i think they should at least look closely at the issue, society is changing. Pot used to be an "evil drug" but its becoming more social these days, besides ive never met angry pot smoker, an angry drunk ive seen plenty of those!

Tha Gopher

Before anyone comes out with "let them all kill each other, all scum" kind of thing, its worth pointing out that if you ever once bought any amount of hash, coke, ecstasy you were lining the pockets of an armed criminal gang. Some of whom may be dead, some of whom are still out there pulling guns.

Anyway, tbh Dublin has had its gang wars and shootings since when, the 80s at least. It started with heroin, then shootings went up in the mid 90s as groups vied for control of what was then a hugely profitable ecstasy scene, and now coke has simply become the new big money drug. For the gangs, moving hash and ecstasy is like you or me having a Sunday job, just something for the extra money, but coke is where its really at. The fact is Dublin is awash with coke, in some areas from personal experience Id say 80% of young people use it at least fortnightly. And a small but significant percentage of those are problem users, or verging on problem use. The trade has simply exploded.

Probably a bit more of a humanities issue my next point, but today I was reading in The Star as to how the Clontarf guy was shot dead after being spotted by his rivals at a Phil Collins gig in The Point (though earlier reports suggested he had been drinking in a pub there)
Anyway, it got me thinking, if the guy had been shot dead after his rivals spotted him during, lets say, a 50 Cent gig in The Point, would we have a load of politico and parents groups blaming music for Dublins coke wars?

Ajnag

Anyway, it got me thinking, if the guy had been shot dead after his rivals spotted him during, lets say, a 50 Cent gig in The Point, would we have a load of politico and parents groups blaming music for Dublins coke wars?

Good point,
But...

the Clontarf guy was shot dead after being spotted by his rivals at a Phil Collins gig in The Point

It was probably a mercy killing

Sand

As long as theres money to made, someone will make it. Decriminalising it propably makes sense from a cost benefit analysis, as it turns the crinimals into legitimate business men overnight (no one else is going to be able to step up and supply without missing a beat) cutting the crime rate, boosting tax take and making us all feel trendy and progressive.

On the other hand, Id like to see medical cover removed from people who do something as stupid as hammering nails through their hands for kicks. People like that get locked up for their (and our) own good. Its the same sort of feeling that makes me want to see drink drivers charged with murder as a matter of course.

yup with so many cases about pot , i think they should at least look closely at the issue, society is changing. Pot used to be an "evil drug" but its becoming more social these days, besides ive never met angry pot smoker, an angry drunk ive seen plenty of those!

On the other hand Ive not seen any drunks missing their septums.

gurramok

Tha Gopher wrote:

Before anyone comes out with "let them all kill each other, all scum" kind of thing, its worth pointing out that if you ever once bought any amount of hash, coke, ecstasy you were lining the pockets of an armed criminal gang. Some of whom may be dead, some of whom are still out there pulling guns.

Anyway, tbh Dublin has had its gang wars and shootings since when, the 80s at least. It started with heroin, then shootings went up in the mid 90s as groups vied for control of what was then a hugely profitable ecstasy scene, and now coke has simply become the new big money drug. For the gangs, moving hash and ecstasy is like you or me having a Sunday job, just something for the extra money, but coke is where its really at. The fact is Dublin is awash with coke, in some areas from personal experience Id say 80% of young people use it at least fortnightly. And a small but significant percentage of those are problem users, or verging on problem use. The trade has simply exploded.

Agree with you bar the 80%
Anyway, innocent people have been caught up in gangland slayings.
Remember that middle aged lady in Tallaght who was murdered because the killers couldn't find her son on the time of the intended hit?
At least the guards caught them(rare catch) and they are serving time.
It is interesting to note about 18 gangland killings this year, about 70 unsolved in last 6 years, most in dublin..alot of gunmen out there who have not been apprehended.
Drug gangs are the biggest threat to the stability of the state IMHO.

Ajnag

As long as theres money to made, someone will make it. Decriminalising it propably makes sense from a cost benefit analysis, as it turns the crinimals into legitimate business men overnight (no one else is going to be able to step up and supply without missing a beat) cutting the crime rate, boosting tax take and making us all feel trendy and progressive.

Decriminalisation is meant only to protect the user from criminalisation and not the dealer. The sale and import remains Ilegal. Portugal has a full spectrum decriminalisation system, Where those caught get sent for treatment. As you said tho the problem still remains with the health aspects involved, which makes this all the trickier, adding in the addictive propertys of coccaine to add further complication. I'd prefer to maybe try and isolate potential user's from the black market.

Normalising drug information to tell the truth based on the latest scientific studies and legalising cannibis could be a start towards that. In holland, people look at you strange if you ask for pill's and politely tell you its a hard drug, Here no one bat's an eyelid. And thats where our problems start with drug policy in Ireland.

But in any case, It's time to stop the scare mongering tabloid raving loony drug policy that is utter failure. It's time to become more scientific and less emotive on the issue.

On the other hand Ive not seen any drunks missing their septums.

Nope just teeth, Homes and hygene.

Sand

Decriminalisation is meant only to protect the user from criminalisation and not the dealer. The sale and import remains Ilegal. Portugal has a full spectrum decriminalisation system, Where those caught get sent for treatment. As you said tho the problem still remains with the health aspects involved, which makes this all the trickier, adding in the addictive propertys of coccaine to add further complication. I'd prefer to maybe try and isolate potential user's from the black market.

TBH thats removing any benefit from decriminalisation. If wasters want to burn their nostrils out with coke, best of luck to them. I and the gardai cant stop them, no more than if they wanted to drink domestos. I dont see why we should make it okay to do drugs, but illegal to supply them as Gardais time is still wasted trying to protect idiots from themselves, no more than prosecuting Domestos because people think drinking bleach is a good idea.

If people want to be stupid, the government should at least turn a profit from it, and the Gardai should spend their time protecting people who want to be protected or it should take the moral point of view and act as if it has a duty to protect people from their own silliness.

But in any case, It's time to stop the scare mongering tabloid raving loony drug policy that is utter failure. It's time to become more scientific and less emotive on the issue.

Agreed, let Darwin sort them out. Less crinimals, less twits. Win, win.

Nope just teeth, Homes and hygene.

And thats something you could never say about junkies.

Ajnag

TBH thats removing any benefit from decriminalisation. If wasters want to burn their nostrils out with coke, best of luck to them. I and the gardai cant stop them, no more than if they wanted to drink domestos. I dont see why we should make it okay to do drugs, but illegal to supply them as Gardais time is still wasted trying to protect idiots from themselves, no more than prosecuting Domestos because people think drinking bleach is a good idea.

It's just a point of technicality really, what your thinking of is legalisation. But decriminalisation narrow's the guard's focus, as opposed to pissing their time on harassing domestos drinkers, they would be able to focus on criminal's who more then likely would be doing something else illegal and profitable if drugs were legal.

If people want to be stupid, the government should at least turn a profit from it, and the Gardai should spend their time protecting people who want to be protected or it should take the moral point of view and act as if it has a duty to protect people from their own silliness.

Well if you want to be really cynical, we could stop destroying the drugs the guards confiscate and sell them on
As for the moral thing......Dont encourage them!. :eek:

And thats something you could never say about junkies.

Cokehead's seem to get off a little lighter in comparison to crackheads and heroin junkie's. Intresting fact to note here is that britian maintained the habit of 30'000 or so opiate addicts post world wars, Those people managed to live out normal productive healthy live's. Treating the problem as a health issue, Might go someway to addressing the associated problems.

klong

gurramok wrote:

It is interesting to note about 18 gangland killings this year, about 70 unsolved in last 6 years, most in dublin..alot of gunmen out there who have not been apprehended.
Drug gangs are the biggest threat to the stability of the state IMHO.

Genuine question: why is there not the media hysteria there was over the Limerick feud? Why are there no calls for the ARW to patrol the streets, declare martial law and whatnot?

Sand

It's just a point of technicality really, what your thinking of is legalisation. But decriminalisation narrow's the guard's focus, as opposed to pissing their time on harassing domestos drinkers, they would be able to focus on criminal's who more then likely would be doing something else illegal and profitable if drugs were legal.

TBH Id imagine most possession charges come from a random stop/search rather than a directed effort to bust 80% of uni students and 60-70% of teenagers. I dont think much Garda effort would be saved.

Well if you want to be really cynical, we could stop destroying the drugs the guards confiscate and sell them on
As for the moral thing......Dont encourage them!.

Well, if they were legal, it would be legal for the guards to sell them on (they auction cars they sieze). Mind you, if it was legal they probably wouldnt be seizing them anyway other than for smuggling.

As for the moral thing, I think it does come into it from one side or the other. The argument for decriminalisation is confused in my mind "Im an adult, and if I want to drink domestos, then let me drink it. You cant stop me anyway, and medical research shows that drinking domestos is much safer for you than hydrocholoric acid. BUT - I want you to go after those people who sell me Domestos, because actually on some level I accept drinking domestos isnt all that good an idea, and thus whilst I should be okay in drinking it, its bad to sell it to me."

Thats the attitude of a child tbh, wanting rights without having to accept responsibility. The Gardai are vastly undermanned to deal with "victim" crime without wasting time trying to protect people who sneer at the idea they need to be protected. For me, the issue has to be addressed in an either or manner - either theres a victim, the druguser, or theres a responsible adult who knows exactly what hes getting himself into and doesnt need a nanny state running his life for him. Society tends to take the latter attitude with alcohol, if drug use is better for people than alcohol then surely this is the route to take?

Ajnag

TBH Id imagine most possession charges come from a random stop/search rather than a directed effort to bust 80% of uni students and 60-70% of teenagers. I dont think much Garda effort would be saved.

The stop/search thing is a bit of a grey area, because afaik the guard's have to suspect you of having commited a crime. But the guards do have to direct resources towards searchs aimed at users at public events like concerts and so on. But another aspect to consider is the pressure targeting users place's on the court systems. The dpp issued a complaint about 2 or 3 years ago after the guards got something like 200/800(big difference, but forgive me as this is from memory.) at oxygen or some large event. The dpp was not impressed with having to prosicute a few hundred non-violent offenders when there were bigger fish to fry.

Well, if they were legal, it would be legal for the guards to sell them on (they auction cars they sieze). Mind you, if it was legal they probably wouldnt be seizing them anyway other than for smuggling.

Nah I was saying that as if drugs remained illegal, hence the nod to being cynical

As for the moral thing, I think it does come into it from one side or the other. The argument for decriminalisation is confused in my mind "Im an adult, and if I want to drink domestos, then let me drink it. You cant stop me anyway, and medical research shows that drinking domestos is much safer for you than hydrocholoric acid. BUT - I want you to go after those people who sell me Domestos, because actually on some level I accept drinking domestos isnt all that good an idea, and thus whilst I should be okay in drinking it, its bad to sell it to me."

But the thing is your addressing it from a personal perspective, whereas this is an issue that has to be dealt with from a societal perspective. No matter what happens in drug law changes you cant be seen to encourage drug use, Decriminalisation is a matter of harm reduction and reallocating how resources are used. Basicly you still discourage the user, but instead of using criminalisation for discouragement, you try and address the health issues. The approach taken towards smoking is a good example of this approach.

Thats the attitude of a child tbh, wanting rights without having to accept responsibility. The Gardai are vastly undermanned to deal with "victim" crime without wasting time trying to protect people who sneer at the idea they need to be protected.

Agreed that from a personal perspective this is somewhat irresponsible.

For me, the issue has to be addressed in an either or manner - either theres a victim, the druguser, or theres a responsible adult who knows exactly what hes getting himself into and doesnt need a nanny state running his life for him. Society tends to take the latter attitude with alcohol, if drug use is better for people than alcohol then surely this is the route to take?

Either/or is so restrictive
We have to be pragmatic in our approach to this, and open to differing solutions which imo has been the problem with attempts to control drugs up until now.
But the responsiblity route is the way to go, One thing about my experiances from holland are that their is a large emphasis on personal responsiblity there. And this is certainly something most would agree worth fostering within our own society, especially in approaching the problems with drink and attitudes. Sadly our own politicians sense of personal responsiblity ends with public appearances

Victor

Tha Gopher wrote:

the Clontarf guy was shot dead after being spotted by his rivals at a Phil Collins gig

Well he was shot in the middle of the road.

Zebra3

Legalise it.

Just look at the Prohibition period in America.

There was a great series about it on one of the history channels recently.

RainyDay

Tha Gopher wrote:

Before anyone comes out with "let them all kill each other, all scum" kind of thing, its worth pointing out that if you ever once bought any amount of hash, coke, ecstasy you were lining the pockets of an armed criminal gang.

Indeed, and the same probably applies if you purchased pirate DVDs or cheap cigarettes.

Ajnag wrote:

It was probably a mercy killing

Excellent......

Victor

Zebra3 wrote:

Legalise it.

And then what? Its bad enough when Anto and Deco get into a fight over Jacinta when they are drunk another when the start fighting over Charlie.

FTA69

Ajnag wrote:

In holland, people look at you strange if you ask for pill's and politely tell you its a hard drug,

Funny, I was offered ecstacy, crack, cocaine and heroin more than 20 times when I was in Amsterdam! But I see what you're getting at though, in Holland cannabis is not smoked by many at all (except tourists), they also give free heroin to junkies instead of throwing them in Mountjoy where they come out worse than were before. The statistics speak for themselves, the average age of a smackhead in Holland is around 40, in Ireland it's 19.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

And then what? Its bad enough when Anto and Deco get into a fight over Jacinta when they are drunk another when the start fighting over Charlie.

well, most people wouldn't do coke without drinking .. I hear the two go quite well together. And the current system does absolutely nothing to stop this anyway, coke is already in nearly every town in the country.. anto and deco are probably the ones making all the money from selling it, which would I suppose lead to more arguments about how to spend that money and divide it up.. which could be why they are fighting in the first place. jacinta could be nothing more than an excuse.

Sand

But the guards do have to direct resources towards searchs aimed at users at public events like concerts and so on.

More than likely they would have to continue those sort of stop and searches for under-age users, or simply to support whatever low quality "official pusher of Slane 2008" monopoly is there to complement that toliet water Heineken imposes on people every year.

But another aspect to consider is the pressure targeting users place's on the court systems. The dpp issued a complaint about 2 or 3 years ago after the guards got something like 200/800(big difference, but forgive me as this is from memory.) at oxygen or some large event. The dpp was not impressed with having to prosicute a few hundred non-violent offenders when there were bigger fish to fry.

Problem solved then I would have thought - the guards know not to bother arresting middle class kids who take drugs and instead concentrate on others. But one thing I like about keeping possession illegal is that it gives the guards a fallback when it comes to arresting scumbags - they mightnt be able to prove Anto burgled 3 houses over the bank holiday weekend, but if they catch him possessing, then they dont need to to get him off the streets and behind bars.

But the thing is your addressing it from a personal perspective, whereas this is an issue that has to be dealt with from a societal perspective. No matter what happens in drug law changes you cant be seen to encourage drug use, Decriminalisation is a matter of harm reduction and reallocating how resources are used.

The argument for decriminalisation is usually based most convincingly on a personal perspective - "You think drugs are the work of the devil, I think theyre okay, you live your life, Ill live mine - arrest me only when I start stealing car stereos". From a societal perspective, decriminalisation only means harm reduction when you dont take into account the fact that the decriminalised users are providing the demand that the illegal drug pushers satisfy. I would hesitate to throw out predictions of what decriminalisation would do for the profitability of their business but I doubt it would drive away customers, nor reduce gang violence. That violence is fine in sofar as it only eliminates scumbags (they reported the letter the last dead guys grandmother wrote him, she basically begged him to get out of what he was doing before he got hurt - I feel sorry for the grandmother, not for the scumbag before anyone gets all high and mighty), but one of these days some innocent passerby is going to get caughtup in an assassination attempt.

And from a harm reduction perspective, surely a legal, regulated supply is safer for all drug users?

Either/or is so restrictive

Maybe, but I just cant help feeling that good arguments for decriminalisation are good arguments for legalisation. Theres a real contradiction in the "its okay for me to use drugs, its wrong for anyone to sell me drugs" line.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

The argument for decriminalisation is confused in my mind

It could also be that decriminalisation is simply a more politically-sellable idea, and therefore, from the person who stands to benefit from same (and perhaps others), a good starting point.

One other thought on the decriminalisation thing. Particularly when it comes to marijuana, there is typically a limit defined on plant-growing where it becomes production, just as there is a limit on the amount being carried before possession becomes intent to deal (from my understanding).

It does offer a completely non-criminal route, but I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that it does open a whole new (and possibly larger) can o' worms.

It just occurred to me cause I was told recently that prior to criminalisation in '76, it was (allegedly) quite common for the Swiss farmers to enjoy a pipe of home-grown of an evening...and they weren't growing baccy.

Victor

Sand wrote:

And from a harm reduction perspective, surely a legal, regulated supply is safer for all drug users?

Like alcohol?

Its not as simple as regulating supply, you also need to regulate environment, which is probably impractical.

Zebra3

Victor wrote:

And then what? Its bad enough when Anto and Deco get into a fight over Jacinta when they are drunk another when the start fighting over Charlie.

True, but at least there won't be vast amounts of illegal money to be made by it which leads to people blowing other people's heads off.

Sand

Like alcohol?

Its not as simple as regulating supply, you also need to regulate environment, which is probably impractical.

Better than trying to brew your own and ending up with alcohol poisoning or worse. As for enviroment, there is no place where its a good idea to get completely rat arsed.

It could also be that decriminalisation is simply a more politically-sellable idea, and therefore, from the person who stands to benefit from same (and perhaps others), a good starting point.

Well, its open to the same propaganda/warnings of doom and the perversion of the innocent children of Ireland, wont somebody think of the children. Might as well go all the way and get it all done and over with. And personally, I think the "If you want to waste your life, off you go, just dont come crying when you end up giving handjobs for crack" line will be more convincing to the opposition. The junkies will be all for it to start with so the hard sell is to the people who think drugs are evil. Trying to persuade them drugs are actually great and use correlates with good teeth, successful careers and personal bliss arent going to be effective.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

Well, its open to the same propaganda/warnings of doom and the perversion of the innocent children of Ireland, wont somebody think of the children.

Exactly. This is why politicians aren't scared of decriminalisation. The doomsayers still get to foretell doom, and the government isn't reversing position on them at all.

Might as well go all the way and get it all done and over with.

Which whole way?

Properly enforced prohibition, which will inevitably fail?

Or full legalisation, which involves telling the moral majority that you've changed your mind, decided they're spouting rubbish, and have decided to throw yoru lot in with the stoners and junkies?

Decriminalisation, on the other hand, can be sold as an admission that going after the user on criminal grounds is a waste of time, money and effort. With the exception of the home-grown scenario, if you get rid of the dealers, you get rid fo the users anyway, so its not like you're backing away from dealing with the problem.

And personally, I think the "If you want to waste your life, off you go, just dont come crying when you end up giving handjobs for crack" line will be more convincing to the opposition.

Replace "giving handjobs for crack" with "dying of enphyzema or lung cancer at my expense" and see how effective that argument has been in swaying the entire smoking debacle.

The junkies will be all for it to start with so the hard sell is to the people who think drugs are evil.

Y'huh. And saying that being able to redirect the resources entirely to the supply-side which will ultimately imrpove results should be enough to at least give a chance of selling to the "all drugs are evil, where 'all' means 'illegal'" crowd.

There's nothing about the message thats confused. Its simply a better strategy for almost everyone to follow.

Sand

Or full legalisation, which involves telling the moral majority that you've changed your mind, decided they're spouting rubbish, and have decided to throw yoru lot in with the stoners and junkies?

Full legalisation, whereby you tell the "moral majority" that drug use is a matter of personal responsibility, and that if people want to mess themselves up its impossible to stop them. The "moral majority" also favoured prohibition, but the view of personal responsibility in the use of that drug won out.

With the exception of the home-grown scenario, if you get rid of the dealers, you get rid fo the users anyway, so its not like you're backing away from dealing with the problem.

Bonkey, give me 10 divisions of Colonel Kurtz's ideal soldier and complete legal immunity along with a Papal pardon (no harm hedging your bets) and our drug gang troubles here would be over very quickly. And our unemployment rate would be halved, but thats another story.

Seeing as thats legally, logistically and morally impossible, dealers will not vanish, regardless of what shiny new policing schemes are introduced. For as long as people are willing to pay for illegal drugs, someone will supply them. Arrest a dealer and you only leave a gap in the market place for another pusher or gang to expand into.

Replace "giving handjobs for crack" with "dying of enphyzema or lung cancer at my expense" and see how effective that argument has been in swaying the entire smoking debacle.

Well, theres two options, make drug use legal but only after signing a waiver that goes something along the lines of "I know drug use is allegedly stupid and illadvised, but what do doctors know? If theyre so smart how come people die? I can never get addicted, only losers do. Hence I will never need my medical bills due to drug related illness covered by the state. etc, etc."

I favour that option, but even if some people oppose that on the grounds of it being wrong and selective in providing a universal right under the social contract (Id argue the social contract includes a clause about not wasting societys money doing stupid things like drugs, but hey) I think the tax take from our new billion euro drug supply industry along with the savings in anti-supply budgets will more than make up for junkies dying. I mean, theyre still dying now. Under decriminalisation theyll still be dying. Only under full legalisation will the state be compensated for providing medical care to junkies. We might as well make some money of the back of these idiots to my mind. And we can feel trendy and progressive whilst doing so.

Victor

But what about the social or physical victims of these new, better, more available users?

Sand

But what about the social or physical victims of these new, better, more available users?

The families of alcoholics and smokers get by. Seeing as drugs are better for you than either of those two, Im sure that itll all work out fine. The impact wont change regardless of whether its legal or decriminalised. At least legalised they can pick up their fix from Tescos rather than less...wholesome venues.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

and at least ID will have to be presented to get them, saving all the innocent children.
You see? Sand is thinking of the children