The murder of Keane Mulready Woods.

Boggles

easypazz wrote: »

This endless cycle of drug related violence is not going to stop.

Its been going on now for decades, and is getting worse.

Time to think outside the box, and try and cut off the source, increase searches and use the army as extra support if necessary.

For example increased searches at our ports.

By the way, have you a solution to end drug related violence in Ireland?

That isn't thinking outside the box, that is just repeating failed costly mistakes. Regan tried all that and more, it failed miserably.

But if it is solutions you are after, they are effective ones available that have proven to work.

Legalization, Education, decriminalization, addiction resources, etc.

Hand in hand with an effective well resourced please force and you will at best limit the damage.

The idea of just put the "army everywhere" is just absolute nonsensical folly.

kippy

begbysback wrote: »

You have a solution that can be practically applied? I’m all ears

In the short term,
More enforcement, more feet on the ground, more searches, stricter sentencing (I've a post a few pages back outlining what needs to be done).
In the medium to longer term, fire away with the other options, including limited legalisation if required.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Graces7 wrote: »

To put some fear into these violent and uncontrolled kids . They are out of control.
Gets done in other countries when a situation needs it.

As some others have said, when soldiers accompanied cash deliveries at banks that worked fine. Guns at the ready...

Why would these scumbags be afraid of the army? How will they scare them? "Bringing in the army" seems to be some magical fix everything solution but nobody has actually put any thought whatsoever into it. 4 Army personnel checkpoint so 1 Gardai can "do his work". Where is this checkpoint going to be? What's the point of the checkpoint? Is it stationary or does the "checkpoint" move with the Garda? There's not enough resources to hire more Gardai, but somehow there's buckets of cash to hire the 4 GI Joes...

kippy

Boggles wrote: »

That isn't thinking outside the box, that is just repeating failed costly mistakes. Regan tried all that and more, it failed miserably.

But if it is solutions you are after, they are effective ones available that have proven to work.

Legalization, Education, decriminalization, addiction resources, etc.

Hand in hand with an effective well resourced please force and you will at best limit the damage.

The idea of just put the "army everywhere" is just absolute nonsensical folly.

All of this, legalisation, education, decriminalisation, addiction resources etc isn't something that is going to happen tomorrow, nor is it practical to make it happen in the short term.
No one is saying "put the army everywhere" and we get that you think use of a force available to the state to protect the state is nonsensical.

kippy

Elaina Greasy Pug wrote: »

Why would these scumbags be afraid of the army? How will they scare them? "Bringing in the army" seems to be some magical fix everything solution but nobody has actually put any thought whatsoever into it. 4 Army personnel checkpoint so 1 Gardai can "do his work". Where is this checkpoint going to be? What's the point of the checkpoint? Is it stationary or does the "checkpoint" move with the Garda? There's not enough resources to hire more Gardai, but somehow there's buckets of cash to hire the 4 GI Joes...

The 4 "GI Joes" are already on the state payroll.

The army are at least "Armed" and more feet on the group to conduct checkpoints/house searches etc.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

kippy wrote: »

All of this, legalisation, education, decriminalisation, addiction resources etc isn't something that is going to happen tomorrow, nor is it practical to make it happen in the short term.
No one is saying "put the army everywhere" and we get that you think use of a force available to the state to protect the state is nonsensical.

The state isn't under attack. What are you talking about???

begbysback

kippy wrote: »

In the short term,
More enforcement, more feet on the ground, more searches, stricter sentencing (I've a post a few pages back outlining what needs to be done).

We live on an island kid, practically manning all entry points to this country is impossible, sure we can’t even stop drugs getting into prisons. You can put as many feet on the ground as you like, it won’t make any difference, stricter sentencing has never been proven to prevent or reduce crime anywhere, I’m starting to think people who suggest this as a solution should be sent to prison, nothing major just a couple of weeks until they can see straight.

jimgoose

Elaina Greasy Pug wrote: »

Why would these scumbags be afraid of the army? How will they scare them? "Bringing in the army" seems to be some magical fix everything solution but nobody has actually put any thought whatsoever into it. 4 Army personnel checkpoint so 1 Gardai can "do his work". Where is this checkpoint going to be? What's the point of the checkpoint? Is it stationary or does the "checkpoint" move with the Garda? There's not enough resources to hire more Gardai, but somehow there's buckets of cash to hire the 4 GI Joes...

The Army Ranger Wing, like it's counterparts the SAS and the Delta Force, has a counter-terrorism role in which it may deploy with and assist the Gardaí. More generally, there is provision in legislation for the military to assist the civil power.

I can assure you, if the Rangers are ever deployed against these characters, the scutter will be running down heels to beat the band, as 'twere.

kippy

begbysback wrote: »

We live on an island kid, practically manning all entry points to this country is impossible, sure we can’t even stop drugs getting into prisons. You can put as many feet on the ground as you like, it won’t make any difference, stricter sentencing has never been proven to prevent or reduce crime anywhere, I’m starting to think people who suggest this as a solution should be sent to prison, nothing major just a couple of weeks until they can see straight.

Sound.

easypazz

begbysback wrote: »

Trying to cut off at source is hardly thinking outside the box, legalizing drugs, now that would be thinking outside the box - all other avenues have been exhausted kid.

So we can all just buy our cocaine down the corner shop with the milk and have an auld snort when we get home.

easypazz

Boggles wrote: »

That isn't thinking outside the box, that is just repeating failed costly mistakes. Regan tried all that and more, it failed miserably.

But if it is solutions you are after, they are effective ones available that have proven to work.

Legalization, Education, decriminalization, addiction resources, etc.

Hand in hand with an effective well resourced please force and you will at best limit the damage.

The idea of just put the "army everywhere" is just absolute nonsensical folly.

The only person saying put the army everywhere is you.

jimgoose

kippy wrote: »

The 4 "GI Joes" are already on the state payroll.

The army are at least "Armed" and more feet on the group to conduct checkpoints/house searches etc.

The army isn't needed against the kind of dildos we're dealing with here, the ARU will be quite sufficient.

easypazz

jimgoose wrote: »

The army isn't needed against the kind of dildos we're dealing with here, the ARU will be quite sufficient.

But gangland murders and assaults keep happening, and things appear to be getting worse.

jimgoose

easypazz wrote: »

But gangland murders and assaults keep happening, and things appear to be getting worse.

Indeed they are, and they'll get a lot more worser before this business is finished. But even so.

begbysback

easypazz wrote: »

So we can all just buy our cocaine down the corner shop with the milk and have an auld snort when we get home.

Not “all” as I won’t bother myself.

I know, the idea is up there with the faries in a lot of people’s minds unfortunately, the notion that the society we live in can decide for us what we can put into our own bodies is firmly and deeply grafted into the majority of heads.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

jimgoose wrote: »

The Army Ranger Wing, like it's counterparts the SAS and the Delta Force, has a counter-terrorism role in which it may deploy with and assist the Gardaí. More generally, there is provision in legislation for the military to assist the civil power and this has been used a few times, mainly against the Provisional IRA.

I can assure you, if the Rangers are ever deployed against these characters, the scutter will be running down heels to beat the band, as 'twere.

I am well aware of the ARW and their directives. Scaring scobies is not one of them. We are certainly not dealing with terrorists. How we have come from "bring in the army" to "bring in our special forces" is beyond me. You really think it's a good idea to bring in highly trained and highly skilled branch of the Army? What exactly are they going to be doing? Pointing their guns at suspected gang members? What a complete waste of resources. An insult to the ARW really.

The army have assisted the Gardai in the past, sure, against a terrorist organisation. Absolutely no need for military assistance here what so ever. Sort out the judicial process to start with. There wouldn't be a need for more Gardai if the scum that the Gardai investigate and arrest are dealt with properly.

4068ac1elhodqr

Elaina Greasy Pug wrote: »

4 Army personnel checkpoint so 1 Gardai can "do his work". Where is this checkpoint going to be? What's the point of the checkpoint? Is it stationary or does the "checkpoint" move with the Garda?

It worked in the North for checkpoints (for decades), if you've ever seen one, it was one cop for the public interaction, and 4 army lads in the background.

Anyone with a whiff of sense, for whatever reason whatsoever, isn't going to barge through (like last week, x3 cars rammed), and expect to get far on flat tyres.

Or if a sniffer dog comes out (for search), it isn't going to get kicked about by car load of thugs.

jimgoose

Elaina Greasy Pug wrote: »

I am well aware of the ARW and their directives. Scaring scobies is not one of them. We are certainly not dealing with terrorists. How we have come from "bring in the army" to "bring in our special forces" is beyond me. You really think it's a good idea to bring in highly trained and highly skilled branch of the Army? What exactly are they going to be doing? Pointing their guns at suspected gang members? What a complete waste of resources. An insult to the ARW really.

The army have assisted the Gardai in the past, sure, against a terrorist organisation. Absolutely no need for military assistance here what so ever. Sort out the judicial process to start with. There wouldn't be a need for more Gardai if the scum that the Gardai investigate and arrest are dealt with properly.

I haven't for a moment suggested that deploying any military unit against the current crop is a good idea - I refer you to my post abiove where I say "The army isn't needed against the kind of dildos we're dealing with here, the ARU will be quite sufficient.". You can have the First Recon Battalion rolling into town led by the rotting corpse of Iron Balls Patton himself, and the first thing a solicitor will tell you is the whole thing is illegal, inadmissible and ridiculous.

Boggles

kippy wrote: »

All of this, legalisation, education, decriminalisation, addiction resources etc isn't something that is going to happen tomorrow, nor is it practical to make it happen in the short term.
No one is saying "put the army everywhere" and we get that you think use of a force available to the state to protect the state is nonsensical.

Sorry protect the state? What?

Duke of Url

The only people who can answer if the rest of AGS should be armed is the AGS members through a vote.

If the vote reflex the will of the AGS to be armed with sidearms then it should be pushed through Government.

Boggles

It's been tried, it has failed and failed miserably.

In 1986, the US Defense Department funded a two-year study by the RAND Corporation, which found that the use of the armed forces to interdict drugs coming into the United States would have little or no effect on cocaine traffic and might, in fact, raise the profits of cocaine cartels and manufacturers. The 175-page study, "Sealing the Borders: The Effects of Increased Military Participation in Drug Interdiction", was prepared by seven researchers, mathematicians and economists at the National Defense Research Institute, a branch of the RAND, and was released in 1988. The study noted that seven prior studies in the past nine years, including one by the Center for Naval Research and the Office of Technology Assessment, had come to similar conclusions. Interdiction efforts, using current armed forces resources, would have almost no effect on cocaine importation into the United States, the report concluded.[148]

During the early-to-mid-1990s, the Clinton administration ordered and funded a major cocaine policy study, again by RAND. The Rand Drug Policy Research Center study concluded that $3 billion should be switched from federal and local law enforcement to treatment. The report said that treatment is the cheapest way to cut drug use, stating that drug treatment is twenty-three times more effective than the supply-side "war on drugs"

Ardillaun

easypazz wrote: »

Its far more than "a handful of scum"

There are drugs everywhere. The day you can't get cocaine in Ireland is the day the Gardai have won.

That day will never come. The war on drugs was lost long ago - take a look at Narcos or our own history - and now the big question is how much violence should the country tolerate while trying to restrict their supply. There’s only so much the state can do to protect people from themselves. One modest first step would be to legalize cannabis as Canada has done and at least take that out of the hands of the gangs to some extent. Recreational drug use should be decriminalized, and discouraged, as much as possible because prohibition isn’t working. The key goals should be to minimize harm to users and reduce the level of violence associated with this trade. Unfortunately, it’s not going away.

easypazz

Boggles wrote: »

It's been tried, it has failed and failed miserably.

A study from 1986 in a totally different country.

thegetawaycar

I'm not sure people have actually looked into "legalizing drugs" this has happened in very few countries that I'm aware of.

In some countries they have decriminalized those having drugs for personal consumption, these are NOT the same thing and very few states allow the sale of drugs (outside of Marijuana/medicinal marijuana).

If we did this it would still leave all other drugs illegal and the person selling the drugs (the gangs) still as criminals. It would just mean the addict would be seen as a person with a medical issue as opposed to a criminal.
In what way do people expect this to have a major impact on the gangs or are people really expecting/looking for all drugs to be legal?

Boggles

easypazz wrote: »

A study from 1986 in a totally different country.

What factors of the study would no longer apply to this country or time?

jam_mac_jam

Portugal's recent decimalization has been successful. Society hasn't collapsed and people aren't on coke every day. Its something we need to consider. We cannot win the drug war. There is too much money in it. Decriminalize it. It takes the market away. The majority of the market would be grass I would imagine which should be fully legal anyway.

jam_mac_jam

thegetawaycar wrote: »

I'm not sure people have actually looked into "legalizing drugs" this has happened in very few countries that I'm aware of.

In some countries they have decriminalized those having drugs for personal consumption, these are NOT the same thing and very few states allow the sale of drugs (outside of Marijuana/medicinal marijuana).

If we did this it would still leave all other drugs illegal and the person selling the drugs (the gangs) still as criminals. It would just mean the addict would be seen as a person with a medical issue as opposed to a criminal.
In what way do people expect this to have a major impact on the gangs or are people really expecting/looking for all drugs to be legal?

Marijuana would be a large part of the illegal market, you legalize that and you have taken a lot of the money out of it. Its not all coke they are selling.

Duke of Url

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Portugal's recent decimalization has been successful. Society hasn't collapsed and people aren't on coke every day. Its something we need to consider. We cannot win the drug war. There is too much money in it. Decriminalize it. It takes the market away. The majority of the market would be grass I would imagine which should be fully legal anyway.

So where does the average joe buy coke in Portugal? In the pharmacy?

Ardillaun

thegetawaycar wrote: »

I'm not sure people have actually looked into "legalizing drugs" this has happened in very few countries that I'm aware of.

In some countries they have decriminalized those having drugs for personal consumption, these are NOT the same thing and very few states allow the sale of drugs (outside of Marijuana/medicinal marijuana).

If we did this it would still leave all other drugs illegal and the person selling the drugs (the gangs) still as criminals. It would just mean the addict would be seen as a person with a medical issue as opposed to a criminal.
In what way do people expect this to have a major impact on the gangs or are people really expecting/looking for all drugs to be legal?

Canada has legalized marijuana. Implementation has not been without its problems, particularly on supply which has failed to meet demand and the illegal market has not disappeared. There’s been an increase in users, esp. over 45. One worry is the effect of the drug on the brains of those under 25 and teenagers even more so.

https://www.ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2019-10/CCSA-Synthesis-Canada-Cannabis-Legalization-First-Year-Policy-Brief-2019-en.pdf

In Canada, keeping heroin illegal has pushed dealers to smuggling more potent and dangerous opioids like fentanyl and carfentanil which can be concealed in smaller containers. This has led to a sharp spike in overdoses and deaths across the country. We have safe injection sites already where users can shoot up drugs they have bought elsewhere. The next step would be for the state to allow the legal sale of heroin, at first perhaps to registered addicts.

easypazz

Boggles wrote: »

What factors of the study would no longer apply to this country or time?

It was only a study, they didnt actually try it, which is what you claimed.