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

MaxSteele

gara wrote: »

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

Touche.

Well we wouldn't have to watch such levels of smuggling if such supply and demand drugs were put into the hands of the government and not criminals from Crumlin/Drimnagh and Nigeria.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

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

Jesus wept.

Paparazzo

bohsboy wrote: »

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

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

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

I read your statement.

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

Why is it the Govt's fault and not the users? If the user wasn't buying it and demanding the supply then nobody would be shot.

paddyandy

A Drunk is predictable usually but drug takers are always a bizarre quantity to predict .

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

Jesus wept.

Oh FFS here we go with this ****e again. Actually read up on the subject before you come up with some schoolboy analysis about "Drugs r bad, ppl who sell dem should be locked up 4 life".

I likened it earlier to having a savings account with, let's say, Anglo. This is an optional choice on behalf of the consumer. By giving anglo this money you were enabling them to recklessly lend money to Irish property developers and home owners, thereby inflating the property bubble and causing immense damage to the Irish economy when it burst. So does every savings account holder in an Irish bank bear responsibility for the housing bubble? (The answer is no)

mackg

paddyandy wrote: »

A Drunk is predictable usually but drug takers are always a bizarre quantity to predict .

A drunk is predictable? What planet do you live on? No one will turn on you faster than a drunk. I've seen drunks attack people who were sticking in for them in a fight once who they were fighting was taken care of.

gara

MaxSteele wrote: »

Touche.

Well we wouldn't have to watch such levels of smuggling if such supply and demand drugs were put into the hands of the government and not criminals from Crumlin/Drimnagh and Nigeria.

How do you know? Can you say with absolute certainty that drug users won't wish to use above a potential legal quota of drugs that will stop them from smuggling entirely?

Or might they utilise above and beyond the potential legalised amount?

And then want more?

And maybe more again?

Because, you know, drugs are like, addictive and stuff and this thing called resistance development makes people need increased amounts to obtain the same hit.

But I'm sure all you drug experts in here already know that so maybe you could enlighten me as to how government policy may be implemented in a way that caters for increased individual tolerances that comes with regular usage without actually inadvertently killing people

M cebee

all this hype about seizures and street value is daft
like really-as if it makes any difference anyhow
Impossible to have any serious debate about anything here

bohsboy

grindle wrote: »

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

They would love you to think that they are avergae, everyday, normal people but i generally find if you scratch beneath the surface of these cretins, there is a reason why they smoke or snort crap and it usually isn't pretty and certainly doesnt involve the odd occasional "sociable" joint.

gaffer91

tayto lover wrote: »

Why is it the Govt's fault and not the users? If the user wasn't buying it and demanding the supply then nobody would be shot.

Nobody would be shot if government's hadn't made the spectacularly foolish decision of criminalising drugs, and just let it operate like any other business.

gaffer91

paddyandy wrote: »

A Drunk is predictable usually but drug takers are always a bizarre quantity to predict .

I'll say this much Paddy, you are some man to troll drugs threads with meaningless contributions.

gara wrote: »

How do you know? Can you say with absolute certainty that drug users won't wish to use above a potential legal quota of drugs that will stop them from smuggling entirely?

Or might they utilise above and beyond the potential legalised amount?

And then want more?

And maybe more again?

Because, you know, drugs are like, addictive and stuff and this thing called resistance development makes people need increased amounts to obtain the same hit.

But I'm sure all you drug experts in here already know that so maybe you could enlighten me as to how government policy may be implemented in a way that caters for increased individual tolerances that comes with regular usage without actually inadvertently killing people

This has been dealt with in threads only this week. I would advise reading them. Briefly, your main problem is focusing too much on addicts, which comprise a fairly small minority of most drug users.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

Oh FFS here we go with this ****e again. Actually read up on the subject before you come up with some schoolboy analysis about "Drugs r bad, ppl who sell dem should be locked up 4 life".

I have 13 years experience working firsthand with all sorts of drug users of varying degrees of addiction and believe you me sunshine, it gets pretty tedious listening to their tales about goofing off on the Boardwalk,etc.

So "actually", less of the holier than thou attitude and text speak.

gara

gaffer91 wrote: »

This has been dealt with in threads only this week. I would advise reading them. Briefly, your main problem is focusing too much on addicts, which comprise a fairly small minority of most drug users.

Oh I see -let's gloss over the small matter of addicts and the highly addictive nature of drugs when discussing drugs, shall we?

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

Nobody would be shot if government's hadn't made the spectacularly foolish decision of criminalising drugs, and just let it operate like any other business.

If it was legalised i'd say the situation would be much worse than it is now. You would probably have ten times as many junkies and the HSE, as bad as it is now, would not be able to cope. Who would fund the extra methadone clinics and needle exchanges? The drugs would still have to be paid for and crime would still be rampant. The dealers would just start selling stronger doses to maintain their market and the shootings would continue unabated.

Yamanoto

tayto lover wrote: »

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

The current policy has benefited no one more so than organised criminal gangs, who simply can't ignore the immense profit the importation of narcotics provides them with.

They don't give a damn about those they sell to and they certainly don't give a damn about the society that pays for the costs of their tax free business.

Chuck Stone

bohsboy wrote: »

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

As I said leave peaceful people alone. If you're being bothered by someone off their heads then they're not leaving you alone and should be dealt with accordingly.

tayto lover wrote: »

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

Why does this not happen with the alcohol, tobacco and coffee industry?

bohsboy

Paparazzo wrote: »

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?

Oh, I do.

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

I have 13 years experience working firsthand with all sorts of drug users of varying degrees of addiction and believe you me sunshine, it gets pretty tedious listening to their tales about goofing off on the Boardwalk,etc.

So "actually", less of the holier than thou attitude and text speak.

You are aware that pure heroin is infinitely less harmful than the muck being sold to junkies? Cut to pieces all because it is illegal.

Again, focusing on the addicts and not the bigger picture. There are alcoholics-should alcohol be illegal?

As for "holier than thou"- the liberal position is "People should be allowed to do what they want, most drugs are not particularly harmful and the associated murders and cost of pursuing this war are not worth it" vs the conservative one of "People are simply not responsible enough to be allowed to take drugs. Tougher sentences for these scum".

On top of all this the war on drugs has resulted in the virtual criminalisation of some of the most underprivileged areas of society; more so in the US but here as well. It has been an utter disaster from start to finish, which is a long way off because of people's close minded attitudes.

Jay D

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Its starts its life out as 1500 per kilogram

Yeah cool but I was talking street value, something else what it's being put at.

mackg

bohsboy wrote: »

I have 13 years experience working firsthand with all sorts of drug users of varying degrees of addiction and believe you me sunshine, it gets pretty tedious listening to their tales about goofing off on the Boardwalk,etc.

So "actually", less of the holier than thou attitude and text speak.

Genuine question, explain the varying degrees of addiction.

Yamanoto

bohsboy wrote: »

I have 13 years experience working firsthand with all sorts of drug users of varying degrees of addiction and believe you me sunshine, it gets pretty tedious listening to their tales about goofing off on the Boardwalk,etc.

Can I ask, is that in a law enforcement, medicare or social and /or community care capacity?

gaffer91

gara wrote: »

Oh I see -let's gloss over the small matter of addicts and the highly addictive nature of drugs when discussing drugs, shall we?

Well most people are not addicts so you can't focus on 10% of users or whatever and say because of this no one should be allowed take drugs.

The addictiveness of most illegal drugs is vastly overstated. Cannabis, LSD and MDMA, while retaining the potential for psychological addiction are not physically addictive. Nor is cocaine believe it or not.

tayto lover wrote: »

If it was legalised i'd say the situation would be much worse than it is now. You would probably have ten times as many junkies and the HSE, as bad as it is now, would not be able to cope. Who would fund the extra methadone clinics and needle exchanges? The drugs would still have to be paid for and crime would still be rampant. The dealers would just start selling stronger doses to maintain their market and the shootings would continue unabated.

You've obviously got no proof of that but even assuming it is:
1. Crime would not continue unabated if the illegal market ceased to exist.
2. Drugs would be safer and of much higher quality.
3.The income and money saved from drug legalisation would far outweigh any extra HSE strains.

Obviously heroin would be the last drug to be legalised, if ever. I'm willing to compromise on getting fairly harmless drugs like cannabis, MDMA and LSD legal first.

Paparazzo

bohsboy wrote: »

Oh, I do.

You've never met a peaceful stoner? But you know what you're talking about? Care to explain more? I mean, I know plenty of people who smoke. All very peaceful. Maybe you were very very very unlucky with the psycho stoners you managed to meet.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

You are aware that pure heroin is infinitely less harmful than the muck being sold to junkies? Cut to pieces all because it is illegal.

Yes, addicts can safely take clean heroin and actually maintain pretty normal lives.

I cannot see one iota of positivity that drugs can bring to our nation. Im all for freedom of choice, but come on, would you like to think that your kids or future kids could have an option of buying heroin or coke legally?

Ive seen firsthand the hardship and devestation that smack brings to families, it wipes out generations.

To blame the government for their stance on drugs as being responsible for the 14,000 zombie addicts that roam the streets daily is a bit harsh.

It has to be opposed and stamped out, just keep handing out ten year sentences for possession of anything over 50k worth. I couldnt care less if 20000 end up being jaiked.

Cork boy 55

To those who say that drugs prohibition does not work

what about Singapore?

Very tough law enforcement combined with other measures worked.

According to the 2008 World Drug Report by the United Nations office on drugs and crime 8.2% of the UK population are cannabis abusers; in Singapore it is 0.005%.

For ecstasy, the figures are 1.8% for the UK and 0.003% for Singapore; and for opiates –

such as heroin, opium and morphine – 0.9% for the UK and 0.005% for Singapore.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay

Having said I am in favor of drugs legalisation for most drugs.

As for the worst of the hard drugs i.e. those that are highly addictive and destructive to the user like (meth cracK , heroin) I am not so sure.
to legalize them would write off a whole section of community to
vegetation and an early death in an opium den in some inner city sink estate. For those substances I think the Singapore model would be more effective, maybe maybe.

Both these arrested chaps had they been arrested with that amount in Singapore would be hanged , a few years back anyway I believe they are cutting back on capital punishment lately
not good press.

bohsboy

Yamanoto wrote: »

Can I ask, is that in a law enforcement, medicare or social and /or community care capacity?

Prefer not to say here, but PM if you wish.

VEN

Sappa wrote: »

with cooperation from the Irish gangsters.

i wonder how they will co-operate with this nigerian gang now :cool: i don't hear of any their gang been killed here.

Yamanoto

bohsboy wrote: »

Prefer not to say here, but PM if you wish.

I think it's pertinent to some of what you've posted, but that's ok, understand your reticence.

VEN

mikemac1 wrote: »

Should be deported when his sentence is over

but... but... he could be a new citizen

PucaMama

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

To those who say that drugs prohibition does not work

what about Singapore?

Very tough law enforcement combined with other measures worked.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay

Having said I am in favor of drugs legalisation for most drugs.

As for the worst of the hard drugs i.e. those that are highly addictive and destructive to the user like (meth cracK , heroin) I am not so sure.
to legalize them would write off a whole section of community to
vegetation and an early death in an opium den in some inner city sink estate. For those substances I think the Singapore model would be more effective, maybe maybe.

Both these arrested chaps had they been arrested with that amount in Singapore would be hanged , a few years back anyway I believe they are cutting back on capital punishment lately
not good press.

pity ireland cant follow singapores steps

BraziliaNZ

People who buy the odd bit of coke or weed are never going to care where it comes from really. Same way you don't care about bloody animal welfare when you're buying factory chicken from KFC or cheap runners made in sweatshops. Unless there's some kind of moral or ethical worldwide revolution you better get used to it, not caring about what is out of sight and mind is just human nature.
I've taken this and that but I really couldn't care less where it came from, being honest, as I'm sure 99% of other recreational drug users don't either.
So I don't care, there's lots of money to be made importing drugs but there's an awful lot of risk too, if you get caught you're going to jail and you know that when you get into it. They're never going to make it legal for someone like me to buy a little weed or charlie every now and again so nothing is ever going to change, but your average recreational drug user couldn't care less because the stuff is still available. It hasn't changed since these laws started and it never will, let's just accept it the way it is and let the police and dealers to it.

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

Yes, addicts can safely take clean heroin and actually maintain pretty normal lives.

I cannot see one iota of positivity that drugs can bring to our nation. Im all for freedom of choice, but come on, would you like to think that your kids or future kids could have an option of buying heroin or coke legally?

Ive seen firsthand the hardship and devestation that smack brings to families, it wipes out generations.

To blame the government for their stance on drugs as being responsible for the 14,000 zombie addicts that roam the streets daily is a bit harsh.

It has to be opposed and stamped out, just keep handing out ten year sentences for possession of anything over 50k worth. I couldnt care less if 20000 end up being jaiked.

I don't have any kids, but I'd encourage them not to and then leave them to their own devices once they were independent. But that would apply for things like alcohol or gambling or things like that as well.

But never mind my family; what about the families of people who are being destroyed by their kids being incarcerated or killed just because he was trying to make a quick buck selling some drugs? Or people O/Ding from unsafe drugs? Or people forced into robbing money for drugs, by virtue of the fact that because its on the black market it is so expensive and because drug use is treated as a criminal matter and not a medical one?

Ive seen firsthand the hardship and devestation that the war on drugs brings to families, it wipes out generations.

Handing out 20 year sentences is just unaffordable, not to mention unfair. These are the people who need help as well, not some 'scum who made their decisions' like the likes of the indo would have you believe.

And anyway, ignoring the cocaine and heroin for the moment- would you be in favour of legalising softer drugs like cannabis, MDMA and LSD?

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

To those who say that drugs prohibition does not work

what about Singapore, An island nation of some 5 million?

Very tough law enforcement combined with other measures worked.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay

Having said I am in favor of drugs legalisation for most drugs.

As for the worst of the hard drugs i.e. those that are highly addictive and destructive to the user like (meth cracK , heroin) I am not so sure.
to legalize them would write off a whole section of community to
vegetation and an early death in an opium den in some inner city sink estate. For those substances I think the Singapore model would be more effective, maybe maybe.

Both these arrested chaps had they been arrested with that amount in Singapore would be hanged , a few years back anyway I believe they are cutting back on capital punishment lately
not good press.

Singapore is a nanny state with draconian punishments being handed out. Not a model we aspire to be like.

And again, I think killing people who feel their only way to make money is by selling drugs is not the way to go.

bohsboy

Yamanoto wrote: »

I think it's pertinent to some of what you've posted, but that's ok, understand your reticence.

My taciturnity is necessary but feel free to pm.

PucaMama

gaffer91 wrote: »

And again, I think killing people who feel their only way to make money is by selling drugs is not the way to go.

maybe they could get a real LEGAL job like the rest of us have to. cleaning toilets is better than being a drug dealer.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

would you be in favour of legalising softer drugs like cannabis, MDMA and LSD?

Possibly hash but I cant understand what good LSD could do even if it was legalised. Its brain frying stuff.

Ecstacy? Another ten years at least until we see the effects its had on the brains of the 90's ravers. I can see this being a problem in the future as that generation gets older. Could be some serious long term effects.

Chuck Stone

bohsboy wrote: »

would you like to think that your kids or future kids could have an option of buying heroin or coke legally?

Of course not but do you think making criminals out of people helps? Imagine if your kid did get addicted and then got involved with sellers at a higher level and ended up losing ten years of his life - that's before we even talk about the cost of incarceration.

Ive seen firsthand the hardship and devestation that smack brings to families, it wipes out generations.

Legalisation =/= free for all.

To blame the government for their stance on drugs as being responsible for the 14,000 zombie addicts that roam the streets daily is a bit harsh.

Not for the addicts because addiction is ultimately a personal issue but for treating people as criminals rather than addicts - yes.

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

To those who say that drugs prohibition does not work

what about Singapore, An island nation of some 5 million?

Singapore is effectively a police state - you can be detained without trial there. Saudi Arabia is pretty good at preventing people from being free too but you could hardly describe how they deal with drugs etc as 'working'.

Logical Fallacy

PucaMama wrote: »

pity ireland cant follow singapores steps

It won't happen, the system in Singapore works there because of community involvement. For it to work here all the moaners and whingers would need to get off their holes and get involved.

gaffer91

PucaMama wrote: »

maybe they could get a real LEGAL job like the rest of us have to. cleaning toilets is better than being a drug dealer.

Right. So if you grew up in area with terrible schools, irresponsible parents, widespread anti social behaviour and powerful gangs, with zero opportunities, you'd rather clean toilets rather than take what you see as a multi million euro opportunity staring you in the face. All you need to be is tough, which most of these guys because of their upbringing. Get real.

allthedoyles

Its the weight of 9 bags of coal -

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

Right. So if you grew up in area with terrible schools, irresponsible parents, widespread anti social behaviour and powerful gangs, with zero opportunities, you'd rather clean toilets rather than take what you see as a multi million euro opportunity staring you in the face. All you need to be is tough, which most of these guys because of their upbringing. Get real.

Multi million euro opportunity? More like a gilly cycling and low level dealing around estates for a bag of gear for himself off the higher level in the pyramid of scum.

Clean a toilet? He's got my respect, the grudging respect of these dealers and he can look his family and friends in the eye.

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

Possibly hash but I cant understand what good LSD could do even if it was legalised. Its brain frying stuff.

Ecstacy? Another ten years at least until we see the effects its had on the brains of the 90's ravers. I can see this being a problem in the future as that generation gets older. Could be some serious long term effects.

You vastly overestimate the dangers with those drugs. Neither LSD or MDMA are particularly harmful.

Evidence 1
Evidence 2

PucaMama

gaffer91 wrote: »

Right. So if you grew up in area with terrible schools, irresponsible parents, widespread anti social behaviour and powerful gangs, with zero opportunities, you'd rather clean toilets rather than take what you see as a multi million euro opportunity staring you in the face. All you need to be is tough, which most of these guys because of their upbringing. Get real.

yet again "oh they had a rough start the poor things"
give me a break. they can do what i did move out of the area to find work.

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

Multi million euro opportunity? More like a gilly cycling and low level dealing around estates for a bag of gear for himself off the higher level in the pyramid of scum.

Clean a toilet? He's got my respect, the grudging respect of these dealers and he can look his family and friends in the eye.

I said its what they see as as a multi million euro opportunity. You see the likes of the Dundons driving around in BMWs and what are you going to think? Or John Gilligan with his big house and all the horses?

As for having the "grudging respect of these dealers", what a load of guff. I think people would prefer luxury to the respect of people who consider them scum.

Logical Fallacy

bohsboy wrote: »

Possibly hash but I cant understand what good LSD could do even if it was legalised. Its brain frying stuff.

Ecstacy? Another ten years at least until we see the effects its had on the brains of the 90's ravers. I can see this being a problem in the future as that generation gets older. Could be some serious long term effects.

You are aware that MDMA has been around for a century and has been studied extensively since the mid 60's?

Shryke

bohsboy wrote: »

Possibly hash but I cant understand what good LSD could do even if it was legalised. Its brain frying stuff.

Ecstacy? Another ten years at least until we see the effects its had on the brains of the 90's ravers. I can see this being a problem in the future as that generation gets older. Could be some serious long term effects.

LSD is completely non-toxic (it's cleaner and safer to take than alcohol) and is currently being looked at as a cure for alcoholism. There would be far more progress on the front of drug treatments if it wasn't for the outright outlawing of these substances.

MDMA in most recent studies, and there have been long term studies, shows no negligible effect on the brain. Some tests that showed there was a detrimental effect were later shown to be poorly done. The people that took pills tended to live rougher life styles all round to the control group, with alcohol and drug use being mixed with a lot of dancing/raves. Less bias tests show MDMA as one of the safest things to take full stop. - Safer to use occasionally than regular drinking and smoking.

Now if you take MDMA everyday then you'll have problems, but that's neither here nor there. People destroy themselves with alcohol and it's not being made illegal.
MDMA is also being looked at to treat post traumatic stress/depression and a host of other psychological disorders, again something that was set back decades be ridiculous laws.

gaffer91

PucaMama wrote: »

yet again "oh they had a rough start the poor things"
give me a break. they can do what i did move out of the area to find work.

Some people are unable to move out. And if people had a rough start, then yes they will find life a lot tougher. I don't need to point out how poor social circumstances force people into a life of crime. People are attracted to money- with drugs they see an easy way for them to do it.

gara

gaffer91 wrote: »

Right. So if you grew up in area with terrible schools, irresponsible parents, widespread anti social behaviour and powerful gangs, with zero opportunities, you'd rather clean toilets rather than take what you see as a multi million euro opportunity staring you in the face. All you need to be is tough, which most of these guys because of their upbringing. Get real.

Yes we know, it's always somebody else's fault -the poor drug dealers, if only Mammy had have gotten him that Meccano set in 1979. Does the concept of personal responsibility mean anything to you? Because I know several people with irresponsible parents who went to terrible schools and none of them are drug dealers

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

You vastly overestimate the dangers with those drugs. Neither LSD or MDMA are particularly harmful.

Evidence 1
Evidence 2

I knew many people who if they were alive would disagree with you.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

I said its what they see as as a multi million euro opportunity. You see the likes of the Dundons driving around in BMWs and what are you going to think? Or John Gilligan with his big house and all the horses?

As for having the "grudging respect of these dealers", what a load of guff. I think people would prefer luxury to the respect of people who consider them scum.

What I see:
John Gilligan - jailed.
Dundons - jailed.

Ask any of these big dealers, they're screaming to get off the rollercoaster but cant, they are in too deep and you cant just opt out at that stage. They just wish for normality when they dont know if their friends are really friends.