Jump to content

Recommended Posts

shoshntosh Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Does it really help to report these?? (It's a

> genuine question -- not being snarky!) I have seen

> two in the decade I've lived in Dulwich and I

> didn't report either because it all happened

> quickly and they were gone!


Exactly, sometimes wish they'd just legalise them, if only to stop the curtain twitching neighbours moaning about it.

Legalising Marijuana would bring about a Huge drop in street crime.

It would help to STOP young Kids being forced to becoming Drug Mules and getting involved with gangs and weapons.


It would reduce the use of seriously dangerous Drug sustitutes like 'SPICE' and other unknown substances.


DulwichFox

I think the gated bit is of Belvoir road that leads to the flats, the carpark entrance is off Underhill. At night one end of it is quite secluded & dark, was back there looking for our cat when I saw all the little canisters, I only knew what they were as a friend who lives in Shoreditch told me there was now a curfew imposed on all the drinking places there, they have to shut at midnight, in the hope people leave the area earlier as the streets are littered with hundreds of these things in the morning and was costing the council fortune to clean up..... I am more concerned with the gangs hiding stolen motor bikes at the back of our house & wondered was else probably goes on there after dark ;/

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Legalising Marijuana would bring about a Huge

> drop in street crime.

> It would help to STOP young Kids being forced to

> becoming Drug Mules and getting involved with

> gangs and weapons.

>

> It would reduce the use of seriously dangerous

> Drug sustitutes like 'SPICE' and other unknown

> substances.

>

> DulwichFox


Trouble is the stuff today is so strong in THC (i.e. 'skunk') that legalising it would be unlikely.

https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx

There's a very strong argument for legalising cannabis and I would fully support it. It's shown to reduce violent crime. The effects of the underground drug racket is incredibly damaging on families and our young. There are pros and cons but I think the balance is weighted in favour.


Not sure about the canisters. How likely is it that someone will inhale it long enough to die from lack of oxygen?

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There's a very strong argument for legalising

> cannabis and I would fully support it. It's shown

> to reduce violent crime. The effects of the

> underground drug racket is incredibly damaging on

> families and our young. There are pros and cons

> but I think the balance is weighted in favour.

>

> Not sure about the canisters. How likely is it

> that someone will inhale it long enough to die

> from lack of oxygen?


I thought Cocaine was the big recreational drug - but what would I know (Alcohol only - So many people say that's the worst)

Asset Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

OMG, I'm agreeing with DulwichFox!

>

> I used to work in a kitchen and the NOS canisters

> were a fun way to pass the time occasionally

> despite the resulting headache :-)


Lots of people agree with The Fox on many Topics.

Its just that most people will not openly admit to it on here.

They only ever post when they disagree.


Fact.


Foxy

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Not sure about the canisters. How likely is it

> that someone will inhale it long enough to die

> from lack of oxygen?


From 1993 to 2013 nitrous oxide was mentioned in 15 E&W death certificates (Excel file http://qna.files.parliament.uk/qna-attachments/93585/original/PQ210810%20data.xlsx), and on 8 in 2016, according to https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4947846/Laughing-gas-killed-8-people-year-figures-show.html. I'm wondering why you didn't do the search yourselves. You seem aware of the slightly unusual way it causes death.


Its not an absolutely new phenomenon. Here for example is a 1992 paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1506823.


Perhaps users should be advised not to indulge (1) if alone or unmonitored -- and preferably to so when there's someone present capable of applying artificial respiration; or (2) if they're possibly vitamin B12 deficient and want to avoid the risk of lasting neurological damage.


Last ETA: Actually, include helium in (1). It seems to account for about ten times the number of nitrous oxide deaths. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/more-than-500-deaths-are-linked-to-helium-misuse-226h83spt

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Asset Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> OMG, I'm agreeing with DulwichFox!

> >

> > I used to work in a kitchen and the NOS

> canisters

> > were a fun way to pass the time occasionally

> > despite the resulting headache :-)

>

> Lots of people agree with The Fox on many Topics.

> Its just that most people will not openly admit to

> it on here.

> They only ever post when they disagree.

>

> Fact.

>

> Foxy


And when, as with his assertion about N2O cylinders not being used for whipped cream makers above (with a big capital NOT), he's completely factually incorrect.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Lots of people agree with The Fox on many Topics.

> Its just that most people will not openly admit to

> it on here.

> They only ever post when they disagree.

>

> Fact.

>



And your evidence for this "Fact" is what, exactly?

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DulwichFox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Lots of people agree with The Fox on many

> Topics.

> > Its just that most people will not openly admit

> to

> > it on here.

> > They only ever post when they disagree.

> >

> > Fact.

> >

>

>

> And your evidence for this "Fact" is what,

> exactly?



Find me 5 posts where someone has agreed with me. That sould keep you busy.


It will take you a lot longer than finding 5 posts where someone is disagreeing.


Anyway I have better things to be getting on with. Like Life.


Everyone should get one.



DF.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Eh? More people disagree with me than agree with

> me which proves that lots of other people agree

> with me but don't say so?


EDF is not the place where people agree with others..

Its a place of conflict.. and getting one up one other people.


Bit like Parliament.


Foxy

I've always thought that legalising cannabis was an obvious step to reducing crime especially when the police don't respond to any crimes anyway. Legal, controlled quality and taxed. Skunk as you say would never be legalised due to it's strength but maybe, just maybe, it would stop some progression to illegal mixes if a legal one were available. I was forced into seriously rethinking this approach though when I was reading an article recently (don't ask me where because I have no idea) where they interviewed some street gangs peddling dope. When asked what they would do if cannabis were legalised they said they would have to start mugging people instead. Somewhat dystopian when the illegal selling of recreational drugs is actually the recreation that is stopping even more violent crime.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Eh? More people disagree with me than agree with

> me which proves that lots of other people agree

> with me but don't say so?



Logic is not one of DF's strong points, clearly.


Fact.


:)) :)) :))

Logic not one of my strong points.. ??


Thats why I spent over 35 years in telecoms fault finding on a Special Faults investigation team

dealing with in depth Telecom Problems.


The strange thing about Logic is that most problems are resolved by stepping outside Logic.

You have to understand Logic to do so.


Fox

bargee99 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've always thought that legalising cannabis was

> an obvious step to reducing crime especially when

> the police don't respond to any crimes anyway.

> Legal, controlled quality and taxed. Skunk as you

> say would never be legalised due to it's strength

> but maybe, just maybe, it would stop some

> progression to illegal mixes if a legal one were

> available. I was forced into seriously rethinking

> this approach though when I was reading an article

> recently (don't ask me where because I have no

> idea) where they interviewed some street gangs

> peddling dope. When asked what they would do if

> cannabis were legalised they said they would have

> to start mugging people instead. Somewhat

> dystopian when the illegal selling of recreational

> drugs is actually the recreation that is stopping

> even more violent crime.



That's interesying. Maybe on factor to consider but other countries that have legalized have reported a decrease in violent crime.

Zig-Zag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not yet convinced that legalising cannabis

> will make a huge difference to the drug

> mules/county lines drug crime as surely a lot of

> that is crack and heroin? I may be wrong though




Must admit I thought the same, but did not want to antagonise DF yet further .....

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • A friend has asked me to recommend Juliene for regular cleaning as she has some slots available. Her phone number is 07751426567
    • I'd put short odds on that but who would be his likely successor?
    • Hi, I went to the council's planning portal to look at the application, and I encourage others to look at it. It looks like a pleasant building, with thoughtful landscaping. as Pugwash said, the big oak would be retained, only two smaller trees are supposed to be cut, one of which is already dead according to the Tree Survey. It sounds like 38 people in great need of it will gain supported housing thanks to this development, a very positive change. Of course a solution has to be found for the 3 who will need to find other accommodation during the works, but that doesn't seem enough of a reason to oppose the development. The current building is 4 stories, so I would be surprised if one extra storey was considered objectionable, especially considering the big oak stands between the building and the neighbours' back gardens and the fact that the neighbours it's backing onto are all 5 stories houses themselves or only have blank walls facing the building. In the context where affordable housing is sorely missing, a 100% supported housing development is great news. Personally I've never seen a less objectionable planning request
    • I also wonder if all this, recently events and so many u turns is going to also be the end of Kier Starmer.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...