Are'nt the Gardai great sure...

donegal__road · 16-08-2014 03:43PM

NipNip wrote: »

Blind eyes are turned every which way - particularly towards bankers!

Gardaí : we need the password to access the files on your pc.

Anglo : good luck with that.

Faux Socialist · 16-08-2014 03:47PM

This is great isn't it? Bad enough kids can't get jobs these days now cops are beating on buskers who are trying to earn a few quid?

Disgraceful

dissed doc · 16-08-2014 03:47PM

Hootanany wrote: »

He was suspended on full pay dont you just love our Public Service providers.

Well if he was private sector he would have gotten a few hundred k as a bonus and contracted back on consultancy fees. Let us not forget the hundred billion or so the private sector (i.e., banking, construction) in Ireland cost us in the financial crash. Wealth creators my ass.

steddyeddy · 16-08-2014 03:50PM

donegal__road wrote: »

Gardaí : we need the password to access the files on your pc.

Anglo : good luck with that.

That was gas though.

Skullface McGubbin · 16-08-2014 03:57PM

If it had been Cocaine or even Ecstasy instead of Cannabis, I'm sure the tone of this thread would be different.

steddyeddy · 16-08-2014 03:58PM

Skullface McGubbin wrote: »

If it had been Cocaine or even Ecstasy instead of Cannabis, I'm sure the tone of this thread would be different.

Or a much worse drug like alcohol.

omega man · 16-08-2014 04:16PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Or a much worse drug like alcohol.

Alcohol is legal so that's a stupid argument. The gardai aren't moral guardians. They also do arrest drug addicts regularly but I'm afraid that won't make the news as this case did. Of course some people on here obviously follow Gardai around all day long to see who they arrest or don't arrest as the case may be. They would also be very wary of the high risk of needle punctures etc. whatever you think of the gardai that's an awful part of the job.

On the subject matter I also believe anyone working in a safety critical role has no right to smoke cannabis and the likes. That goes for excessive alcohol intake also, legal or not.

Little CuChulainn · 16-08-2014 04:22PM

genericguy wrote: »

To be fair it's a cause/effect scenario both ways - he probably only ran because he knew that the penalty could be severe depending on the 'enthusiasm' of the police involved. Off the topic I'd say he was unlucky because a child could outrun most of the spud gobblers that wear the uniform.

For a first offence of simple possession with no previous convictions there is zero chance of any penalty that could be considered remotely severe.

steddyeddy · 16-08-2014 04:40PM

omega man wrote: »

Alcohol is legal so that's a stupid argument. The gardai aren't moral guardians. They also do arrest drug addicts regularly but I'm afraid that won't make the news as this case did. Of course some people on here obviously follow Gardai around all day long to see who they arrest or don't arrest as the case may be. They would also be very wary of the high risk of needle punctures etc. whatever you think of the gardai that's an awful part of the job.

On the subject matter I also believe anyone working in a safety critical role has no right to smoke cannabis and the likes. That goes for excessive alcohol intake also, legal or not.

I'm not criticising the gaurds for carrying out their jobs I'm criticising the laws.

steddyeddy · 16-08-2014 04:50PM

omega man wrote: »

Alcohol is legal so that's a stupid argument. The gardai aren't moral guardians. They also do arrest drug addicts regularly but I'm afraid that won't make the news as this case did. Of course some people on here obviously follow Gardai around all day long to see who they arrest or don't arrest as the case may be. They would also be very wary of the high risk of needle punctures etc. whatever you think of the gardai that's an awful part of the job.

On the subject matter I also believe anyone working in a safety critical role has no right to smoke cannabis and the likes. That goes for excessive alcohol intake also, legal or not.

By the way legality of something is no determination of it's effect on health and the effect it has on society.

srsly78 · 16-08-2014 05:09PM

Pretty sure drinking alcohol on the street is NOT legal

steddyeddy · 16-08-2014 05:18PM

srsly78 wrote: »

Pretty sure drinking alcohol on the street is NOT legal

No but my point was alcohol is far more dangerous and the venders and users have no right to take the moral high ground over this.

catallus · 16-08-2014 05:21PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

No but my point was alcohol is far more dangerous and the venders and users have no right to take the moral high ground over this.

The only ones I can see looking to take the "moral high ground" are those who are defending the actions of this drug-user and denigrating the police?

steddyeddy · 16-08-2014 05:23PM

catallus wrote: »

The only ones I can see looking to take the "moral high ground" are those who are defending the actions of this drug-user and denigrating the police?

A drug user is someone consuming a drug eg alcohol. There is no moral difference between that and cannabis and no I don't take cannabis.

catallus · 16-08-2014 05:25PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

A drug user is someone consuming a drug eg alcohol. There is no moral difference between that and cannabis and no I don't take cannabis.

WOW, something we agree on.

Now, try this: there is a legal difference.

yoyo · 16-08-2014 05:26PM

srsly78 wrote: »

Pretty sure drinking alcohol on the street is NOT legal

Drinking is public is completely legal, although may parts of the country have bye-laws prohibiting public drinking.

Nick

steddyeddy · 16-08-2014 05:35PM

catallus wrote: »

WOW, something we agree on.

Now, try this: there is a legal difference.

Yes there is but as I said law is no determinant of morality.

catallus · 16-08-2014 05:39PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes there is but as I said law is no determinant of morality.

Right.

So, it's those who are defending the drug-user that are seeking the moral high-ground!

Amirite?

Vandango · 16-08-2014 05:46PM

smash wrote: »

Yawn

Nothing worst than reading that kind of stupidity in a thread. Nobody forced you to post such nonsense. :rolleyes:

Rezident · 16-08-2014 08:44PM

It's obviously wrong to ruin someone's life for having a small part of a plant that naturally grows in nature and has never killed anyone. In fact, when cannabis is re-legalised in the future (it is only a matter of time), when we're a little bit less backward, our current legal stance will be viewed a bit like when women weren't allowed vote or when homosexuality was illegal.

It's a plant. It relaxes people. Either Mother Nature was wrong or the law is wrong, no brainer really.

tayto lover · 16-08-2014 08:54PM

Rezident wrote: »

It's obviously wrong to ruin someone's life for having a small part of a plant that naturally grows in nature and has never killed anyone. In fact, when cannabis is re-legalised in the future (it is only a matter of time), when we're a little bit less backward, our current legal stance will be viewed a bit like when women weren't allowed vote or when homosexuality was illegal.

It's a plant. It relaxes people. Either Mother Nature was wrong or the law is wrong, no brainer really.

I don't smoke but I agree it should be given a trial period at least.
Some states in America giving it a try.
Plus I don't agree with giving young (or old) people a criminal record for possessing a little either.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 16-08-2014 10:23PM

Ferris_Bueller wrote: »

In a lot of these threads it seems to come down to morals, what do people view as worse, someone smoking a joint or someone hitting someone else a box? I've no idea which in the view of the law is worse, but I would definitely think the second one is a lot worse, yet in most cases I'd imagine the punishment would be less severe.

It'd be interesting actually to go and do a search on AH for threads about people who had a run-in with the gards over not paying road-tax or injuring a burglar in their home or something. Can't imagine it'd be too long before people started popping up with "bloody scumbags dealing drugs on street corners and hassling people at the Luas and robbing from shops and they get no trouble from the gards rabble rabble hell in a handcart". I wonder if there's any overlap with those defending the gards here.

Esel · 16-08-2014 10:56PM

You can be sure this thread is being analysed over on the ES private forum(s).

Shakespeare's Sister · 16-08-2014 11:07PM

That doctor only has himself to blame for smoking cannabis in a public place. Even if it seems draconian (and even though I don't agree with it) the law is the law and he knew it. The guards can't be expected to let him off when he did knowingly break the law.
It'd be nice though if there was consistency by them.

Hootanany · 16-08-2014 11:34PM

dissed doc wrote: »

Well if he was private sector he would have gotten a few hundred k as a bonus and contracted back on consultancy fees. Let us not forget the hundred billion or so the private sector (i.e., banking, construction) in Ireland cost us in the financial crash. Wealth creators my ass.

No sorry in the real world he would be fired end off. This sickoning mentality must be stopped.
Thats why we are bankrupt cant you see.

dissed doc · 17-08-2014 02:31AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm known for being outspoken about police abuse but in this case I'm afraid I'd have to side with the Gardai. I find drug prohibition ridiculous and strongly believe that it - and all other victimless "crimes" - should be removed from the statute books ASAP, but the Gardai's job is to enforce the law, regardless of how asinine that law is. Fault in this case lies entirely with cowardly politicians who continue an outdated regime of prohibition amongst other things, not with the police whose job it is to enforce that ridiculous regime regardless of their own personal views.

Let me put it another way: Those who take a dim view of police scandals find it absolutely appalling when blind eyes are turned to crimes by people in high places - or when these crimes are actively protected, as in the Gardai going after someone for criminal damage to an illegal water pipeline instead of the people who built it, as reported a few days ago. I'm afraid it has to be all or nothing when it comes to demanding enforcement of the law - if we demand blind eyes are turned to "crimes" such as drug use, even if we approve of such drug use, what moral leg do we have to stand on when we lash out at blind eyes being turned to bankers and politicians who break the law?

Because it is not an all or nothing because life and society is not all or nothing. There is much greater degree of harm on society in general by the bankers and politicians, and it is not reasonable to go for an easy target while ignoring the hard drug users and related crime in the city centre.

Policing resources are limited, and an all or nothing approach consumes way more of those limited resources on crimes that simply have little or no impact on any victim or society; hence both selling cocaine or heroin is a crime, smoking a joint is a crime, money and resources are limited so what do you do? Arrest someone which a few grams of weed or fine the people doing 10kph over the limit?

Or use your resources to target crimes that have an actual impact on society and are dangerous? There is no black or white thinking that can be successful, but it is not possible to police every law for every person all the time. We would need a police officer following each of us around 24/7 if a true all or nothing approach is the only way.

All or nothing thinking is indeed the problem; the presumption that not arresting someone for possesion of a few grams of weed is "turning a blind eye". IN fact it simply needs to be acknowledged as a something that has x y or z consequence. Black/white all or nothing thinking is what leads to these situations. It is completely reasonable to not punish this crime and to target resources on more serious crime. It has in fact nothing to do with moral values, the law is the law, or all or nothing. You simply have x resources to accomplish y in the society. How we choose to spend the resources is our choice. It is completely impossible for every law to be policed 100% of the time; all or nothing fails by default as it is an impossibility.

hatrickpatrick · 17-08-2014 11:55AM

dissed doc wrote: »

Because it is not an all or nothing because life and society is not all or nothing. There is much greater degree of harm on society in general by the bankers and politicians, and it is not reasonable to go for an easy target while ignoring the hard drug users and related crime in the city centre.

Policing resources are limited, and an all or nothing approach consumes way more of those limited resources on crimes that simply have little or no impact on any victim or society; hence both selling cocaine or heroin is a crime, smoking a joint is a crime, money and resources are limited so what do you do? Arrest someone which a few grams of weed or fine the people doing 10kph over the limit?

My point is, it's not up to the police to make that choice. My position is that only actions which have a direct victim should be illegal, but it's not for the police to decide which laws are worthy of enforcement. You start down an extremely slippery slope if you allow that.

To make this absolutely clear, I am disgusted by drug prohibition and every other criminalization of victimless actions, but I think we would all agree that nobody wants to live in a world in which the Gardai make the law. Their job is to enforce it, not to decide on it. So while many will agree with me on victimless crime, it's for elected representatives to change the law, not unelected police officers.

Or use your resources to target crimes that have an actual impact on society and are dangerous? There is no black or white thinking that can be successful, but it is not possible to police every law for every person all the time. We would need a police officer following each of us around 24/7 if a true all or nothing approach is the only way.

Or else we need reform of the statute books to only criminalize actions which involve unwilling victims. Again, we cannot allow police to act as judges or law-makers. Their job is only to enforce what is written in black and white in the statute books, they do not have the right to write off some of them or create new ones.

All or nothing thinking is indeed the problem; the presumption that not arresting someone for possesion of a few grams of weed is "turning a blind eye". IN fact it simply needs to be acknowledged as a something that has x y or z consequence.

Absolutely, but it's politicians who should acknowledge that and only write laws to criminalize actions with consequences. Not police. They should never be afforded the right to make the law, this is exceedingly dangerous - as seen with the whole penalty points debacle.

Black/white all or nothing thinking is what leads to these situations. It is completely reasonable to not punish this crime and to target resources on more serious crime. It has in fact nothing to do with moral values, the law is the law, or all or nothing. You simply have x resources to accomplish y in the society. How we choose to spend the resources is our choice. It is completely impossible for every law to be policed 100% of the time; all or nothing fails by default as it is an impossibility.

Once again I agree with you, but it's for politicians to decide which laws should be there, not police. If we allow police to pick and choose which laws to enforce, we open the door to people who are high up in the political hierarchy to get away with serious crimes, because we accept in principle that the police should have discretion when it comes to enforcing the law. This is partly what led to this country being in such an unbelievable economic mess, and I don't believe we can demand 100% enforcement of the law against "important" people if we simultaneously demand that ordinary people do not have to follow it at all times.

hatrickpatrick · 17-08-2014 11:56AM

catallus wrote: »

WOW, something we agree on.

Now, try this: there is a legal difference.

And there shouldn't be. The government should not regulate what people can do with their own bodies. But the police should not have any say in what is and is not illegal.

nilsonmickey · 17-08-2014 11:57AM

Friend of mine got caught drinking driving last month. They let him off on condition he paid them 500E. He did that and all was sorted. Knock on the door last week. Same 2 cu*nts...looking for another 500.

hatrickpatrick · 17-08-2014 12:06PM

nilsonmickey wrote: »

Friend of mine got caught drinking driving last month. They let him off on condition he paid them 500E. He did that and all was sorted. Knock on the door last week. Same 2 cu*nts...looking for another 500.

That's something he should definitely report to GSOC as soon as is possible. That is 100% illegal and should be dealt with ASAP.
https://www.gardaombudsman.ie/complaints/form/onlinecomplaintform.html

Are'nt the Gardai great sure...

Comments