h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have to admit that i knew very little about the laws in the UK regarding the use of drugs.

But after watching one of those fly on the wall police programs, i was shocked at what i saw.

There were two police officers walking their beat in Liverpool (I think) and they came across a guy sitting in a subway, shooting up. There were needles all around him on the floor. One of the officers told the guy to remove the needle from his arm and place it on the floor, which he did. Upon questioning the guy answered that he was shooting crack cocaine.

It was at this point that i got confused, because instead of arresting the drug user, they told him to clean up the discarded needles, and dispose of them properly, and that was it. Nothing else. No warning, no slap on the wrist, they just walked away.

Now i know in the real world, a blind eye is often turned on certain things, but surely something like this should be stamped on. Not only was the guy in breach of the misuse of drugs act 1971 (Posession of a class A drug - which carries a maximum sentance of 7 yrs in prison), but lets face it he most probably used foul means to obtain the money to purchase said drugs.

I believe that the powers that be are banning the consumption of alcohol in public places, more and more, and yet drug use seems to be tollerated.

One last point, i regularly have drug users, from a shelter in my town, calling at my door trying to sell me their stolen goods, so that they can purchase their next fix.

This i have reported to the police several times, and to date have not had a visit from them to investigate. Now i know the boys in blue are not at my beck and call, but if they followed up on one of these calls, they could probably cut shoplifting figures and who knows, maybe if they did a bit of detective work, they could catch a dealer or two.

I await your comments.

What is the point?

The addicts are the victims.

The police are after those who are the suppliers.

To make addicts clear away their mess is stopping youngsters coming across their paraphenalia and innocently infecting themselves with HIV or AIDS.

Until the Courts give the police their full backing, there is no point in them fighting a losing battle against the addicts.

Thats not necessarily true though...The addicts may be the victims, but they're the ones who end up doing anything they can to get hold of money, so that they can buy the drugs.
But again, I guess the police are mainly interested in suppliers.

Point taken on clearing away their discarded needles, but i doubt that they will continue to do so when there isn't a copper around to tell them.

As for what is the point?... Are you telling me that you believe the police should have the choice of which laws they enforce?. Surely if they witness a crime (whatever it is) they should act on the law and use the power of arrest attached to it.

Until relatively recently, doctors could write prescriptions for heroin for drug addicts. Addicts could hold down jobs and buy their drugs at the local chemists.

Now that Prohibition is in effect, surprise! surprise! a new generation of Al Capones are supplying the drugs at prices that force addicts into a life of crime to pay for their fix.

Legalize marijuana, cocaine, crack and heroin and the whole problem will just die away.

The crime is the possession of ...not the use of...

The police can't do anything with addicts. Before they can make a charge the addict needs to be seen by a doctor, to be declared fit for interview. If they are taken in to custody and allowed to sleep it off, they are also declared unfit for interview, because they are waiting for their next fix.

The police are then tied up with paperwork when they could be out looking for criminals in the act of their crimes.

With all due respect that is a nonsense.

If you legalise the drugs, innevitably someone, somewhere is still making money out of it. And when your next fix goes up in price, due to inflation, and you can no longer afford it. Or when you lose your well paid job because you are a danger to yourself as well as others when you are high. The only option left for you to get your fix is to turn to crime.

Society suffers once more.

Hmm, interesting subject.

You can follow a New-York-style zero-tolerance approach, and arrest everyone for every little wrongdoing. Including taking illegal drugs.

Whilst it's well-known that drug addicts will steal to get their next fix, the police do actually have to catch them at it before they arrest them for it...it's a small problem called "proof". So yes, I'd rather the police went around arresting burglars than drug addicts, even though they turn out to be the same person. But the police efforts in arresting burglars are woefully inadequate, about all they seem to be good for is giving you a crime reference so you can claim on your insurance.

If you want to follow the zero-tolerance approach, firstly the police forces around the country will need to be resourced to deal with it, and secondly, a vast prison-building programme would need to be undertaken to lock everyone up in. Even then, it's going to be many years before you see any putative benefits. And to do that, you need the political will and staying power. It's the sort of thing that "new" Labour could have dealt with in their first term*, but, as with so many things, failed to do so.

RF

* In the expectation of winning 2, possibly 3 terms, as has indeed turned out to be the case.

Yes the crime is posession, not using. But surely you have to be in posession to be able to use. And whichever way you dress it up you are commiting an offence.

As for paperwork, that is nothing to do with the letter of the law, i mean you may as well say that the police should not arrest anyone at all so they do not have to complete paperwork. The problem there is the way in which the police duties are designated. I don't know but there must be some way of cutting the paperwork.

And the business of an addict seeing a doctor etc... yes agreed they need some protection and if one died in a cell all hell would break loose if procedure hadn't been followed.

But once again i ask, are all these real reasons to ignore the fact that a law has been broken

There is no evidence once it has been used. It is a catch 22 situation. Have you seen the mountain of paperwork for just arresting a person? As the police are not office workers, nor trained in touch typing.. can you imagine how long it would take one office to type up, edit and amend one piece of paperwork for the CPS or the Courts?

At this point i should say that i realise there will never be an answer to this problem. And i too would rather see the police catching real criminals rather than drug addicts, who for whatever reason, must be living some kind of hell.

I just cannot get my head around an idea that some laws can be ignored, or who has the right to decide which ones.

And surely how much paperwork they generate should not be a deciding factor.

Well, laws get broken all the time. Every time someone drives over the speed limit, for example.

With the limited resources at their disposal, police officers on the beat have to make a decision whether prosecuting someone for drug use is actually going to be a productive use of their time. Or whether they should just give them a caution and get them to clean up their mess.

In the good old bad old days, policemen used to be able to give juvenile delinquents a slap upside the head. Now they can't. They have to arrest them, follow the Children's Act procedures, and basically have the piss taken out of them.

RF

Ahhh the good old days.

Hmmm.... been on the receiving end of those days

Dad was a policeman.. and if I was where I wasn't suppose to be.. you were guaranteed Dad would find me!

To me it's soothing to know that the UK hires and trains men and women that it can trust to use their judgement, as there's no perfect means of dealing with criminal situations.

Don't get me wrong, i have the utmost respect for the boys in blue, and i realise that their job must be almost impossible sometimes.

As for using their judgement on which laws to enforce, that cannot be part of their responsibility. If it were at their descretion who to arrest and who not to arrest, the whole system is just asking to be abused.

A police persons duty is to uphold the law of the land without prejudice. It is far too much responsibility for them to decide which crime should be upheld and which shouldn't.

Driving offences, for example, were mentioned in an earlier post. well these are more and more being upheld by means of speed cameras etc.

My partners 10 year old daughter got into a fight a few months back with another girl a bit older than herself. We had 2 Police cars sent to our house and a further 3 visits to the police station to sort it out. Originally i thought it was a bit of overkill, but the police were in fact doing their job and enforcing laws of assault. (I would just add that both girls were given a telling off and thats the end of it). But when i spoke to the lady officer, she agreed that it was a waste of time, but they had to follow procedure.

I cannot believe that seeing a user shooting up in the street is in any way less a crime that two children bickering.

Which would you prefer?

Nipping in the bud?

or

Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted?


You must remember, that what starts in the states, is on our doorstep within six months these days.

Clearing the mess takes longer..

As for using their judgement on which laws to enforce, that cannot be part of their responsibility. If it were at their descretion who to arrest and who not to arrest, the whole system is just asking to be abused.'

erm..isn't that a necessary evil of the system? the thing to hope for is that duty will be executed with wisdom. it's no different that judges using their discretion in sentencing. there has to be a measure of a reaction to a crime being appropriate to the crime.

'you must remember, that what starts in the states, is on our doorstep within six months these days.'

dear god no, that's why i left!

"erm..isn't that a necessary evil of the system? the thing to hope for is that duty will be executed with wisdom. it's no different that judges using their discretion in sentencing. there has to be a measure of a reaction to a crime being appropriate to the crime."

Judges may be able to use their discretion in sentencing, but thats irrelevent to my point. Criminals first have to be found guilty by a jury (If it goes that far), and then the judge can impose a sentence that falls within guidelines, and takes all circumstances into account.

But before any of this can happen, it falls on the police to actually arrest the criminals. Something that just is not happening in the case of drug users.

I am not a heartless tyrant, i realise that drug users are victims to some extent, and most of them need help (wether they accept it is a different matter).

But after thinking about this, i still believe that as a law is being broken in the posession of the drugs, if the police started enforcing the law, the very least we could expect is for the users to stop shooting up in public places (which was part of my original point), the knock on effect of this would be that less needles etc would be found in public parks and childrens sand pits and so on.