Jump to content

Query: drug deals in Underhill Rd


IlonaM

Recommended Posts

Thank God I changed from the Science to the Social Science faculty at uni :))


(I was the only person in first year chemistry who not only got none of their deposit back, but I broke so much stuff I had to pay more. Happy days :)) :)):)) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ;/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.


:)) :)) :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • FH is so much greener and IMO nicer than ED, sorry. Less commercialised.  The Great North Wood, Hornimans Gardens, Brenchley Gardens, One Tree Hill ) yep, some of that borders ED, so split between the two) 
    • Tesco sell pudding rice https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/254877391   And as for olive oil, my preference is the Spanish 2L cans in Sainsbury, it has a real nice peppery taste, not bland like the Italian one's I've tasted, but that's personal preference I suppose. 
    • It feels like a group who don't believe that private motoring should be discouraged and have no answers to the air quality problem, whereas the original Cleanairdulwich are campaigning to reduce pollution. Sadly we live in a world where if you are rich, you will generally live in nicer houses, have nicer environments and cleaner air.  That is capitalism for you, but I doubt whether there would be greater health equality in the former Soviet Union either.  Dulwich village was once full of industrialists and the like who didn't want to live in polluted central London where most would have made their money.  I will contact Cleanairdulwich and hopefully provide a better perspective.  Whether it is one individual or a whole community I support agree with what they are doing.  
    • ??? When they refer to "all Dulwich", I took that to mean including the residents of the streets where the traffic has been directed into due to the LTNs, which are presumably experiencing greater pollution/stress,  whereas the "privileged few" in the LTN areas are experiencing lower pollution due to less traffic. Hence the reference to inequality. Sorry if I've got the terminology wrong.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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