Black tar Mexican heroin is also available readily on the internet, but that doesn't mean that if we legalised it then nobody else would try it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Offensive Weapons Bill
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
Black tar Mexican heroin is also available readily on the internet, but that doesn't mean that if we legalised it then nobody else would try it.
Uncle Wally One Ball
Well-Known Member
You think that if Boots sold Mexican black tar heroin from monday next week then non heroin users would pop along to get some and try it?Black tar Mexican heroin is also available readily on the internet, but that doesn't mean that if we legalised it then nobody else would try it.
You think that if Boots sold Mexican black tar heroin from monday next week then non heroin users would pop along to get some and try it?
Of course.
If restriction of the sale of drugs didn't make less people buy drugs, then what's the point of it?
Scottyboi
Well-Known Member
You think that if Boots sold Mexican black tar heroin from monday next week then non heroin users would pop along to get some and try it?
Meant to feel amazing why not have a little jab.
Banned Tosspot
Well-Known Member
Some would.You think that if Boots sold Mexican black tar heroin from monday next week then non heroin users would pop along to get some and try it?
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
I tend to agree with Trevor to be honest.That might be the worst argument ever, where does it end?
If you've nothing to hide then why on earth would you get so bothered about very occasionally being randomly stopped and searched? Ok, it's perhaps inconvenient and in an ideal world wouldn't be necessary. But isn't the inconvenience a small price to pay in return to stopping the levels of stabbings and other violent crimes? There's been 150+ murders in London this year already.
I tend to agree with Trevor to be honest.
If you've nothing to hide then why on earth would you get so bothered about very occasionally being randomly stopped and searched? Ok, it's perhaps inconvenient and in an ideal world wouldn't be necessary. But isn't the inconvenience a small price to pay in return to stopping the levels of stabbings and other violent crimes? There's been 150+ murders in London this year already.
Because human rights are supposed to be inalienable.
If your rights can be taken away at the convenience of the Police without just cause then you don't have a right, you have a privilege. And "human privileges that can be removed when the State fancies it" seems a bit of a mouthful. Plus a recipe for disaster.
This is why Tommy Robinson, Abu Hamza, Ian Huntley, Salman Albedi and Jimmy Saville all have the same rights as you including the right to a fair trial and the right to privacy. Because it's a right, a condition of existence, not a gift from the Government.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Because human rights are supposed to be inalienable.
If your rights can be taken away at the convenience of the Police without just cause then you don't have a right, you have a privilege. And "human privileges that can be removed when the State fancies it" seems a bit of a mouthful. Plus a recipe for disaster.
This is why Tommy Robinson, Abu Hamza, Ian Huntley, Salman Albedi and Jimmy Saville all have the same rights as you including the right to a fair trial and the right to privacy. Because it's a right, a condition of existence, not a gift from the Government.
Because human rights are supposed to be inalienable.
If your rights can be taken away at the convenience of the Police without just cause then you don't have a right, you have a privilege. And "human privileges that can be removed when the State fancies it" seems a bit of a mouthful. Plus a recipe for disaster.
This is why Tommy Robinson, Abu Hamza, Ian Huntley, Salman Albedi and Jimmy Saville all have the same rights as you including the right to a fair trial and the right to privacy. Because it's a right, a condition of existence, not a gift from the Government.
And what human rights are those, and what tablets of stone are they written on?
I don't disagree that interrupting people's lives when they've done nothing wrong is inconvenient and in principle undesirable. In a perfect world such intrusions would be unnecessary, but it is unfortunately not a perfect world and compromises are sometimes necessary. If randomly stopping and searching more people is what it takes to quell this terrible rise in stabbings and fatalities resulting from them, then imo that's reasonable and justified. I don't buy this transgressiin of some universal human rights argument, not that I even know which ones they are.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Like with the possession of firearms, there should be a statutory minimum sentence for the use of corrosive substances as a weapon; somewhere around 15 years would be appropriate (although unlike with firearms offences there should be credit for guilty pleas).
It's such an insidious and cowardly offence that deserves severe punishment and a robust agent of (hopefully) deterrence.
It's such an insidious and cowardly offence that deserves severe punishment and a robust agent of (hopefully) deterrence.
Banned Tosspot
Well-Known Member
There's a few weapons on here to be fair.