Largest on-land seizure of drugs in the history of the state.

Chuck Stone

Shakima Greggs: You rogue mother****ers kill me. Fighting the war on drugs, one brutality case at a time.

Det. Ellis Carver: You can't even call this **** a war.

Det. Thomas Hauk: Why not?

Det. Ellis Carver: Wars end.

The Wire.

Odysseus

RMD wrote: »

It's a basic part of intelligence gathering to determine prices. Reflects the availability and quality of the drugs being sold. Doesn't make you wonder, it's the basics of any police force.

Well the need to gather intelligence gathering, generally the police state the amount that have take off my clients is twice the price the client paid. These are small time users in most cases so the are not getting significant discounts.

CreepingDeath

BOHtox wrote: »

A waste of Garda resources.
Legalised it all! tax it all! create employment from it all! Let people choose what they do with their own bodies!

Do you think that current drug addicts are financially independent adults contributing to society who can be trusted to use drugs responsibly ?

No, I think a lenient liberal society has destroyed us all.
When a simple prison sentence doesn't deter someone from committing crime, then the application of more force is required to create fear and a deterrent.

How much crime is directly related to drugs?
I haven't a clue, but I'll hazard a guess at at least 50%.
That's for murders in drug feuds and muggings & burglaries from addicts.
I'd be for very harsh sentences for drug dealers, starting at hard labour camps and not excluding the death sentence.

Society has to protect itself, and if you compare where we are today with the pre-drug society bliss where people could leave their homes unlocked all day, we're really are in hell at the moment afraid to walk the streets at night and have to barricade ourselves into our homes.

Logical Fallacy

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Do you think that current drug addicts are financially independent adults contributing to society who can be trusted to use drugs responsibly ?

No, I think a lenient liberal society has destroyed us all.
When a simple prison sentence doesn't deter someone from committing crime, then the application of more force is required to create fear and a deterrent.

How much crime is directly related to drugs?
I haven't a clue, but I'll hazard a guess at at least 50%.
That's for murders in drug feuds and muggings & burglaries from addicts.
I'd be for very harsh sentences for drug dealers, starting at hard labour camps and not excluding the death sentence.

Society has to protect itself, and if you compare where we are today with the pre-drug society bliss where people could leave their homes unlocked all day, we're really are in hell at the moment afraid to walk the streets at night and have to barricade ourselves into our homes.

When was this pre-drug society bliss?

I'd also seriously doubt that 50% of all crime is related to drugs...you might be getting close to that if you lump both drugs and alchohol together but even then I'd say it's a bit high.

christmas2012

Drugs is more of a widespread problem now,it used to be just confined to inner city areas,but its everywhere,you cannot go anywhere without being hassled or nearly robbed, i know a neighbour of mine who had his car hijacked by a junkie and he ordered him to drive to a pub known as brannigans in limerick to meet some buds and do a favour,then he ordered him to drive to an atm at knifepoint..

Its a real problem and the fact there arent enough gards to man this problem has meant it has spiralled out of control to this point..

fasttalkerchat

Odysseus wrote: »

Well the need to gather intelligence gathering, generally the police state the amount that have take off my clients is twice the price the client paid. These are small time users in most cases so the are not getting significant discounts.

I always wondered about that. Could I get charges reduced if I had a receipt saying I paid £20 and not the £1000 for cocaine?

christmas2012

why would anybody pay 1000 for a small score of cocaine??

Jay D

Yeah big deal, since when was 350kg 200million? I seem to remember a few years ago one kilo being worth 70k. That's some jump for what would have then been 24.5m.

But it does give people who'll believe anything loads to jump around about. Even if you were to break it down to 1600 an ounce, it's still nowhere near 200million. Now run along sheep.

Chuck Stone

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Do you think that current drug addicts are financially independent adults contributing to society who can be trusted to use drugs responsibly ?

No, I think a lenient liberal society has destroyed us all.
When a simple prison sentence doesn't deter someone from committing crime, then the application of more force is required to create fear and a deterrent.

How much crime is directly related to drugs?
I haven't a clue, but I'll hazard a guess at at least 50%.
That's for murders in drug feuds and muggings & burglaries from addicts.
I'd be for very harsh sentences for drug dealers, starting at hard labour camps and not excluding the death sentence.

Society has to protect itself, and if you compare where we are today with the pre-drug society bliss where people could leave their homes unlocked all day, we're really are in hell at the moment afraid to walk the streets at night and have to barricade ourselves into our homes.

I think this might just be the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read on the issue of drug prohibition.

That's quite an achievement considering the idiotic, ill-informed views people tend to come out with on the issue.

Burt Lancaster

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I think this might just be the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read on the issue of drug prohibition.

That's quite an achievement considering the idiotic, ill-informed views people tend to come out with on the issue.

Perhaps we might believe you if you were able to refute the points rather than hysterically attacking the poster.

Fenian Army

Funny how the so and sos who take drugs like to ignore how they are funding and encouraging criminality... Like that poor child who got his hand wrecked by a pipe bomb or the numerous other innocent people who get caught up in things...

Sure it might make you feel better when you knock back a tablet or shovel ****e up your nose to say "the war on drugs isnt working, if it were only legalized!!" and try to wash your hands of the responsibility you have for the criminal acts of the ruthless gangs.

People who take illegal drugs make me sick. They are simply scum, who don't care about the suffering of others, in Ireland, or abroad.

Then they try to take some sort of morally superior position pontificating about choice? Freedom? feck off.

I don't mind those who smoke stuff they grow themselves, as no third parties are hurt/effected.

SEPT 23 1989

Jay D wrote: »

Yeah big deal, since when was 350kg 200million? I seem to remember a few years ago one kilo being worth 70k. That's some jump for what would have then been 24.5m.

But it does give people who'll believe anything loads to jump around about. Even if you were to break it down to 1600 an ounce, it's still nowhere near 200million. Now run along sheep.

Its starts its life out as 1500 per kilogram

saywhatyousee

Cocaine has came back with a bang the past few months around here is absolutely saturated with the stuff.60 euro would by you a gram of very good quality cocaine compare that with 90 euro you would have paid around 2007 its suddenly a lot more affordable and stronger.

christmas2012

I wouldnt legalise cocaine,but i would legalise cannabis if i had to legailse one or the other..

saywhatyousee

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Its starts its life out as 1500 per kilogram

1000 actually and that is dollars so about 750 euro give or take

Chuck Stone

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

Perhaps we might believe you if you were able to refute the points

There's so much wrong with it that I'm not sure I could be bothered. Also, I find it difficult to believe that he actually believes any of it.

rather than hysterically attacking the poster.

I didn't attack the poster at all - I gave my opinion on his views.

For all I know he could be a wonderful human being.

I've had this prohibition versus legalisation argument before with many people so it gets a bit boring.

gaffer91

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Do you think that current drug addicts are financially independent adults contributing to society who can be trusted to use drugs responsibly ?

Most drug user are not addicts. I'd wager many users are contributing members of society as well.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

No, I think a lenient liberal society has destroyed us all.
When a simple prison sentence doesn't deter someone from committing crime, then the application of more force is required to create fear and a deterrent.

Or maybe just rethink that selling and consuming drugs should not be a punishable offence?

CreepingDeath wrote: »

How much crime is directly related to drugs?
I haven't a clue, but I'll hazard a guess at at least 50%.
That's for murders in drug feuds and muggings & burglaries from addicts.
I'd be for very harsh sentences for drug dealers, starting at hard labour camps and not excluding the death sentence.

f your figures are correct, you realise that is an argument in favour of legalisation if that level of criminal activity is due to criminalising a victemless crime (i.e drug consumption)

Harsh sentences don't work, look at the disastrous American example.

As for the death sentence- you realise that most people involved in the drugs trade are from underprivileged backgrounds and are only involved in the drugs trade because they had no other opportunities to make as much money?

CreepingDeath wrote: »

.

Society has to protect itself, and if you compare where we are today with the pre-drug society bliss where people could leave their homes unlocked all day, we're really are in hell at the moment afraid to walk the streets at night and have to barricade ourselves into our homes.

When was this "pre-drug society bliss"?

Fenian Army wrote: »

Funny how the so and sos who take drugs like to ignore how they are funding and encouraging criminality... Like that poor child who got his hand wrecked by a pipe bomb or the numerous other innocent people who get caught up in things...

That is the governments fault that the money goes to the criminal, not the user.

It was not the users who set the pipe bomb or shot anyone.

Fenian Army wrote: »

Sure it might make you feel better when you knock back a tablet or shovel ****e up your nose to say "the war on drugs isnt working, if it were only legalized!!" and try to wash your hands of the responsibility you have for the criminal acts of the ruthless gangs.

So you think the war on drugs is working? Most illegal drugs are not particularly harmful and should be legal. It is their illegality that makes them more dangerous and results in all the murders etc.

Fenian Army wrote: »

People who take illegal drugs make me sick. They are simply scum, who don't care about the suffering of others, in Ireland, or abroad.
.

Says the IRA fanboy FFS.:rolleyes:

Fenian Army wrote: »

Then they try to take some sort of morally superior position pontificating about choice? Freedom? feck off.

Care to elaborate on this?

The war on drugs has been a complete disaster. End of. It has been debated on countless threads and it is generally accepted that the problems from criminalisation far outweigh any dangers associated with the drugs themselves.

Fenian Army

Yeah I agree that it has been a failure, but that doesn't take away from the fact that when you buy drugs you fund the gangs and thus have a responsibility for what those gangs do.

Yamanoto

Fenian Army wrote: »

Funny how the so and sos who take drugs like to ignore how they are funding and encouraging criminality... Like that poor child who got his hand wrecked by a pipe bomb or the numerous other innocent people who get caught up in things...

People who take illegal drugs make me sick. They are simply scum, who don't care about the suffering of others, in Ireland, or abroad.

Then they try to take some sort of morally superior position pontificating about choice? Freedom? feck off.

I don't mind those who smoke stuff they grow themselves, as no third parties are hurt/effected.

I find your moral indignation bewildering, coming as it does from a supporter of the Provisional IRA.

gaffer91

Fenian Army wrote: »

Yeah I agree that it has been a failure, but that doesn't take away from the fact that when you buy drugs you fund the gangs and thus have a responsibility for what those gangs do.

Not really. I didn't shoot/assault/threaten anyone.

It's like saying a savings account holder is responsible for bankers gambling.

Fenian Army

gaffer91 wrote: »

Not really. I didn't shoot/assault/threaten anyone.

It's like saying a savings account holder is responsible for bankers gambling.

lol.

Try to intellectualize your crime all you want, the fact remains is that you, and other people who buy illegal drugs keep the cycle of violence going.

Fair enough if you want them to be legalised. But they arent, thinking they should be legalised doesnt justify perpetuating the situation we have now with drug gangs running amok.

Fenian Army

Yamanoto wrote: »

I find your moral indignation bewildering, coming as it does from a supporter of the Provisional IRA.

Best thing the IRA ever did was keep heroin of the streets in nationalist areas.

BOHtox

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Do you think that current drug addicts are financially independent adults contributing to society who can be trusted to use drugs responsibly ?

No, I think a lenient liberal society has destroyed us all.
When a simple prison sentence doesn't deter someone from committing crime, then the application of more force is required to create fear and a deterrent.

The argument I'm making is that taking drugs shouldn't be a crime. The same way drinking isn't a crime. Over-drinking is treated as a medical issue, why can't excessive drug usage be treated as a medical issue rather than a criminal one?

Most people realise that taking marijuana isn't bad for you. Overdosing is bad for you. But so is over-eating, over-drinking, over-smoking. Should the government ban these substances because over-usage is bad foor you?

The point I'm making is that adults should have the right to choose what they use to their own body regardless of how bad it may be for you.
Who's more innocent? An idiot who fully knows how bad drugs are yet takes them anyway or the guy who is killed in a case of mistaken identity by a drug cartel?
This is a real issue we're dealing with!

CreepingDeath wrote: »

How much crime is directly related to drugs?
I haven't a clue, but I'll hazard a guess at at least 50%.
That's for murders in drug feuds and muggings & burglaries from addicts.
I'd be for very harsh sentences for drug dealers, starting at hard labour camps and not excluding the death sentence.

Do you realise prisons are completely over-crowded?
Do you know that prisoners are released early due to crowding problems?
80% of people in Portlaoise prison are there for drug-related offences. Here it costs 250k a year to keep a prisoner. We could free up so much space by not imprisoning those for personal drug usage. And if all the drugs were sold in cafes, you wouldn't have as big of an illegal drug industry. Therefore crime figures are reduced. Saving prison space for violent, dangerous criminals!

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Society has to protect itself, and if you compare where we are today with the pre-drug society bliss where people could leave their homes unlocked all day, we're really are in hell at the moment afraid to walk the streets at night and have to barricade ourselves into our homes.

Drugs have been around longer than you obviously think. I presume you'd think that even a few decades ago we'd be more safe.
I'm pretty sure you'll find that close to when the war on drugs started!
Again I pose the question of who is more innocent...
Society should look at who it's protecting. Currently it's the drug cartels!

gaffer91

Fenian Army wrote: »

lol.

Try to intellectualize your crime all you want, the fact remains is that you, and other people who buy illegal drugs keep the cycle of violence going.

Fair enough if you want them to be legalised. But they arent, thinking they should be legalised doesnt justify perpetuating the situation we have now with drug gangs running amok.

Not really a refutation but whatever. Buying drugs is a way of voting with your wallet against the failed prohibition policies.

For the record I rarely take drugs beyond the odd spliff or whatever.

Fenian Army

gaffer91 wrote: »

Not really a refutation but whatever. Buying drugs is a way of voting with your wallet against the failed prohibition policies.

For the record I rarely take drugs beyond the odd spliff or whatever.

Keep buying in the hope the gangs get so bad the govt have choice but to legalize?

gaffer91

Fenian Army wrote: »

Keep buying in the hope the gangs get so bad the govt have choice but to legalize?

Well you're not abiding by the law so that's a finger to the government. I suppose one could say that buying them isn't a successful policy either given that they are still illegal despite all the problems with prohibition! Still though a drug user never put a gun to anyone's head. (I hope)

Shryke

Fenian Army wrote: »

Yeah I agree that it has been a failure, but that doesn't take away from the fact that when you buy drugs you fund the gangs and thus have a responsibility for what those gangs do.

It's not right to lay all of the blame for criminals acting in a criminal manner on normal members of society who are persecuted for enjoying themselves while singlehandedly absolving governments of responsibility for waging a completely useless and farcical decades long war on their own citizens who might prefer to smoke a joint or take a pill rather than get locked.

It's not right to fund criminal activity but then you do that if you pay taxes. Not everyone in the drug trade is some kind of violent loony. This isn't Mexico or anything. Criminals are always going to be running rackets. Whether its drug smuggling, prostitution, cigarettes, green diesel, protection money. The state could and should be pulling in tax on substances but instead its going to criminals, and the state is responsible for that happening through inaction.

Chuck Stone

It's a simple as this.

Peaceful, responsible people should be allowed to purchase and consume drugs without being molested by the agents of the state or any other group.

In other words - leave people doing you no harm the fuck alone.

bohsboy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Peaceful, responsible people

Ive yet to meet a peaceful, let alone responsible junkie/stoner/crackhead etc.

gara

What kind of bullsh1t logic is it to suggest changing the law to accommodate current druggie law-breakers -are people really naive enough to believe that these lawless hazards will suddenly be willing to play by the rules if we bend the rules to suit them?

These people don't give a fig whether the law tells them they can have all the Coke in the world or none at all, they'll do what they like and the less green lights we give them to do so, the better -zero tolerance is what we should be aiming for, not this pseudo-liberal nonsense

tayto lover

mikemac1 wrote: »

Should be deported when his sentence is over

Should be dropped home from 50,000 feet without a parachute.

gaffer91

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's a simple as this.

Peaceful, responsible people should be allowed to purchase and consume drugs without being molested by the agents of the state or any other group.

In other words - leave people doing you no harm the fuck alone.

Chuck I know we tend to disagree on the SF thing but that is the liberal position summed up very well.

bohsboy wrote: »

Ive yet to meet a peaceful, let alone responsible junkie/stoner/crackhead etc.

gara wrote: »

What kind of bullsh1t logic is it to suggest changing the law to accommodate current druggie law-breakers -are people really naive enough to believe that these lawless hazards will suddenly be willing to play by the rules if we bend the rules to suit them?

These people don't give a fig whether the law tells them they can have all the Coke in the world or none at all, they'll do what they like and the less green lights we give them to do so, the better -zero tolerance is what we should be aiming for, not this pseudo-liberal nonsense

To both of these posts: This kind of nonsense has been debunked on countless other threads including a few this week. I suggest you look them up.

Logical Fallacy

gara wrote: »

What kind of bullsh1t logic is it to suggest changing the law to accommodate current druggie law-breakers -are people really naive enough to believe that these lawless hazards will suddenly be willing to play by the rules if we bend the rules to suit them?

These people don't give a fig whether the law tells them they can have all the Coke in the world or none at all, they'll do what they like and the less green lights we give them to do so, the better -zero tolerance is what we should be aiming for, not this pseudo-liberal nonsense

I am not sure you understand the concept of legalisation, or how a Government would put into place and carry out such, or indeed the massive benefits that several other countries have seen from doing so and the relevant dangers and risks of doing so.

I'd suggest reading up on the subject before discussing it further as you seem to have some enormous gaps in your knowledge.

gara

gaffer91 wrote: »

To both of these posts: This kind of nonsense has been debunked on countless other threads including a few this week. I suggest you look them up.

Boards threads are bastions of truth now, are they?

Shryke

bohsboy wrote: »

Ive yet to meet a peaceful, let alone responsible junkie/stoner/crackhead etc.

You've never met a peaceful stoner? I just peed myself.

You have met many normal responsible people from all walks of life who like to smoke a joint or have been to some raves or had some crazy nights on charlie and you will continue to do so.

Logical Fallacy

gara wrote: »

Boards threads are bastions of truth now, are they?

Not really, but some decent discussions play out there than can be worth looking at for information when these cyclical debates come up.

You strike me as the kind of guy who doesn't want to do that though.

mackg

bohsboy wrote: »

Ive yet to meet a peaceful, let alone responsible junkie/stoner/crackhead etc.

Yeah you have probably met loads but they more than likely didn't tell you about their hobby because of your views.

gaffer91

gara wrote: »

Boards threads are bastions of truth now, are they?

Not always. And there is no single opinion on any given thread anyway, that is what boards is about, people voicing different views. You just get bored with having to debunk the same old rubbish again and again. Especially when they still repeat it ad nauseum after they've been proved wrong.

gara

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

You strike me as the kind of guy who doesn't want to do that though.

Girl -one who tends to favour more legitimate sources than the aggregated views of random strangers when forming substantial opinions -but don't let that stop you assuming ignorance on my behalf, it basically reinforces my point

gaffer91 wrote: »

Not always.

Boards isn't always a bastion of truth huh -just 99% of the time?

Logical Fallacy

gara wrote: »

Girl -one who tends to favour more legitimate sources than the aggregated views of random strangers when forming substantial opinions -but don't let that stop you assuming ignorance on my behalf, it basically reinforces my point

Well no offence, but nothing in the post that I originally replied to implied any kind of research on the subject at hand. I imagine if you review the post you will come to the conclusion that it doesn't accurately reflect the apparent depth of your knowledge on the subject.

I would be interested in links to your sources as I personally like reading information from people on all sides of the debate.

Also, because I am in the mood, your Logical Fallacy was an Appeal to Authority with no actual appeal to authority which is a first for boards in my experience. Well played.

grindle

bohsboy wrote: »

Ive yet to meet a peaceful, let alone responsible junkie/stoner/crackhead etc.

Really? Not one average, everyday, normal person who smokes weed?

I know plenty.

Most of them are working professionals, from teachers to software developers to store-owners.

All peaceful (never seen or heard of one of them in a fight, unless taking a beating constitutes a fight), and certainly responsible enough to be able to function and provide worth.

jack presley

Do we ever find out in the end how much these drug seizures are actually worth? They always say up to €100m or whatever at the start but it depends on purity etc. It reminds of of Brendan Gleeson in the Guard saying the figure given in the press is never the real amount.

MaxSteele

gara wrote: »

What kind of bullsh1t logic is it to suggest changing the law to accommodate current druggie law-breakers -are people really naive enough to believe that these lawless hazards will suddenly be willing to play by the rules if we bend the rules to suit them?

These people don't give a fig whether the law tells them they can have all the Coke in the world or none at all, they'll do what they like and the less green lights we give them to do so, the better -zero tolerance is what we should be aiming for, not this pseudo-liberal nonsense

"Druggie law breakers," " lawless hazards". Call them all the over dramatic names you want, but that's just such a simpleton, sweep it under carpet statement, heard time and time again by the prohibitionist brigade. Meritless.

Personal, victimless habits have never been effectively or realistically enforced. It has and never will be the government's business what goes on between consenting adults. But feel free to bury your head in the sand and believe today's bust was anything but a waste of resources, time and effort.

Your in LaLa land gara.

Shryke

gara wrote: »

Girl -one who tends to favour more legitimate sources than the aggregated views of random strangers when forming substantial opinions -but don't let that stop you assuming ignorance on my behalf, it basically reinforces my point



Boards isn't always a bastion of truth huh -just 99% of the time?

Do you understand that the war on drugs is a failure and has been roundly denounced as one from all quarters? Do you understand that zero tolerance does not work? Have you ever so much as read up on the subject before posting in here?

Legitimate sources, what? We don't have to assume ignorance, your entire point on the issue is one of ignorance.

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

Not really a refutation but whatever. Buying drugs is a way of voting with your wallet against the failed prohibition policies.

For the record I rarely take drugs beyond the odd spliff or whatever.

What a statement !!!
It is probably more of about trying to justify what you're doing and ignoring criminality.

tayto lover

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's a simple as this.

Peaceful, responsible people should be allowed to purchase and consume drugs without being molested by the agents of the state or any other group.

In other words - leave people doing you no harm the fuck alone.

And what about the gangs who are shooting each other for the right to supply those "responsible people" ?

gara

MaxSteele wrote: »

"Druggie law breakers," " lawless hazards". Call them all the over dramatic names you want, but that's just such a simpleton, sweep it under carpet statement, heard time and time again by the prohibitionist brigade. Meritless.

Personal, victimless habits have never been effectively or realistically enforced. It has and never will be the government's business what goes on between consenting adults. But feel free to bury your head in the sand and believe today's bust was anything but a waste of resources, time and effort.

Your in LaLa land gara.

Make all the dramatic claims you want, that's just a simpleton statement against my point -meritless!

Find where I claimed today's bust wasn't a waste of resources, time and effort -as long as there are people, there will be crime -it doesn't mean we sit idly by and watch

Markcheese

christmas2012 wrote: »

its good that they are seizing such quantaties of drugs,it means their task force is working,but the thing is i dont think these types of seizures are regular,and drugs on the street can be bought regularly so they are not seizing them all from coming in to ireland..

there should be more gards employed,i think the idea from our government to freeze garda recruitment is madness..

there should be loads of gard recruited to tackle all this crime from drugs and whatever else..

Now that is an innocent stance....yup drugs are bad ok..... The Gardai reckon they get less than 10% way less ... You could double resources to Garda drug squad/ customs and navy and the drugs would still get through , look how much the US spends at home and abroad ... And it's still freely available there ......

gaffer91

tayto lover wrote: »

What a statement !!!
It is probably more of about trying to justify what you're doing and ignoring criminality.

Read my posts before and after to get a better understanding of what I was saying.

tayto lover wrote: »

And what about the gangs who are shooting each other for the right to supply those "responsible people" ?

That is the government's fault, not the users. As stated previously, the drug user never shot anyone.

1ZRed

http://i.imgur.com/xBVai.jpg


What he said! :pac: