Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

godless

"dealer" Gets 2 Years

Recommended Posts

Eastbourne man dealt cocaine to keep on top of debts

2:00pm Tuesday 25th August 2009

comment Comments (1) Have your say »

By Alison Cridland »

A man turned to drug dealing after running up thousands of pounds of debts.

Nicholas Thomas was jailed for two years after admitted that he sold drugs to his friends.

The 25-year-old who has no previous convictions, pleaded guilty to possessing cannabis and cocaine with intent to supply when he appeared at Brighton Crown Court.

The court was told that police raided his home at Ensenada Reef, Eastbourne, in October last year and found cocaine worth about £500 and cannabis to the value of £2,000.

Paul Crampin, defending, said Thomas had been involved in low level supply of drugs to fund his own addiction.

He said Thomas had been running a restaurant with his father which was forced to close down. He said: "By that stage he was addicted to cocaine and then he had a habit he had to fund. He had run up credit card bills of £4,000.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4562184.Eas...n_top_of_debts/

Nice to see them cracking down on drug gangs. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dealing drugs is illegal; it is socially reprehensible.

Great if we all adopt the same excuse!

I robbed the bank to pay off my debts Guv!

My wife's gone on the streets to pay our debts.

And so on.

Should have got 20 years................

Same excuse as John Delorean: he wanted to keep his crap car company afloat for the sake of his ego mainly.

Never know, perhaps this will give Godron and Darling Darling ideas!

We only started shipping tonnes of coke and heroin on RAF transport aircraft to pay off the insane hundreds of billions of debt we saddled the state with!

The millions in th Swiss bank out of the deals?

Well, that's our pensions!

'Cos sure enough with the unholy fiscal disaster we've created, we doubt the country will be able to afford to pay us in 20 years time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dealing drugs is illegal; it is socially reprehensible.

Great if we all adopt the same excuse!

I robbed the bank to pay off my debts Guv!

My wife's gone on the streets to pay our debts.

And so on.

Should have got 20 years................

Why is it socially reprehensible?

He was providing goods to willing buyers for an honest sum. He wasnt hurting anybody and wasnt destroying anybody's property.

I really dont get the whole TEH DRUG DELERZ ARE TEH SATAN!!11! thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it socially reprehensible?

He was providing goods to willing buyers for an honest sum. He wasnt hurting anybody and wasnt destroying anybody's property.

I really dont get the whole TEH DRUG DELERZ ARE TEH SATAN!!11! thing.

Perhaps when your nasal cavities and septum have rotted away from snorting coke or you die prematurely from heart failre like James Hunt then, too late you might realise precisely why it is socially reprehensible.

Whilst Satan is selecting an unpleasantly warm position for your eternity.

They might even have English writing classes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps when your nasal cavities and septum have rotted away from snorting coke or you die prematurely from heart failre like James Hunt then, too late you might realise precisely why it is socially reprehensible.

Whilst Satan is selecting an unpleasantly warm position for your eternity.

They might even have English writing classes!

Firstly I'm not a christian so I dont believe in satan. That was a figure of speach.

Secondly, if I choose to snort whatever I want then thats my business*. If my septum melts and I have a heart attack, thats up to me.

And if I need medical treatment, looking at my tax demand, the NHS can f*cking well pay for it and the police can mind their own damn business.

*I do not currently take any illicit drugs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly I'm not a christian so I dont believe in satan. That was a figure of speach.

Secondly, if I choose to snort whatever I want then thats my business*. If my septum melts and I have a heart attack, thats up to me.

And if I need medical treatment, looking at my tax demand, the NHS can f*cking well pay for it and the police can mind their own damn business.

*I do not currently take any illicit drugs

Cold turkey relased the anger within ? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cold turkey relased the anger within ? :lol:

I should re-phrase to 'I have never taken anything illegal'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He was providing goods to willing buyers for an honest sum. He wasnt hurting anybody and wasnt destroying anybody's property.

I've always loved this sort of apologism!

Let's synthesise.

Arms Dealers: They aren't actually hurting anyone are they? Theya re supplying goods to buyers for an honest sum.

Same as human traffickers.

And those who deal in body parts, excised from the unwilling.

Etc.

Now the core problem with this falacious would-be argument is reality: it's people at the outer end of such supply chains who tend to be hurt.

And out of interest, the legal term is "Vicarious Liability".

Trouble with drugs is simply the people at the production end are invariably hurt: exploited by the drugs lords: like peasant indian farmers in such as Colombia, forced to tread coca leaves in vats of sulphuric acid in their bare feet and legs under automatic weapons.

And the consumers: and those they rob to pay for their habit.

And those like myself, forced to pick up the increasing tax and social cost of addicts.

Just for a few examples, you understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trouble with drugs is simply the people at the production end are invariably hurt: exploited by the drugs lords: like peasant indian farmers in such as Colombia, forced to tread coca leaves in vats of sulphuric acid in their bare feet and legs under automatic weapons.

And the consumers: and those they rob to pay for their habit.

And those like myself, forced to pick up the increasing tax and social cost of addicts.

Just for a few examples, you understand.

Oh, and why are they forced to do that? Are kentish men and men of kent forced to trudge in mash tuns in bare feet and climb dangerous hop vines at gun-point?

No. Why? Because beer is legal. So the entire process is subject to controls and oversight and not left to the most ruthless criminals to profit from.

And why do addicts steal and rob? Could it be because the price of their poison is grossly inflated by the enforcement action that our tax money pays for? Yes it could. The cost of legally producing any given drug is likely to be a fraction of a percent of its current street value. Whenever there is a large drugs bust or concentrated enforcement action, the level of drug related crime rises in proportion to the resulting increase in street value and therefore the increased criminal profits.

Why do people take drugs? Could it be because the current anti-drug campaigns are ludicrously dishonest and therefore transparently ineffective to anyone with an ounce of common sense and no Daily Mail? Could it be that to tell the truth about MOST drugs would be to admit that they arent so bad as to warrant massive jail terms, and hey! maybe they might be fun?

Best way to do away with drug related crime? De-criminalise the drug supply! Its so blatantly obvious!

The prohibitionista argument is morally and intellectually bankrupt. You force the market into the hands of criminals and then moan that it generates criminality. Well no f*cking shit sherlock! By making it illegal you create a lucrative criminal market that generates crime and subsidises god alone knows how much collateral criminality.

Look at the examples of history. Of prohibition in the USA and the ban on whisky stills in Scotland.

Nothing bad happened there now did it? No increase in organised criminality at all, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theboltonfury
I've always loved this sort of apologism!

Let's synthesise.

Arms Dealers: They aren't actually hurting anyone are they? Theya re supplying goods to buyers for an honest sum.

Same as human traffickers.

And those who deal in body parts, excised from the unwilling.

Etc.

Now the core problem with this falacious would-be argument is reality: it's people at the outer end of such supply chains who tend to be hurt.

And out of interest, the legal term is "Vicarious Liability".

Trouble with drugs is simply the people at the production end are invariably hurt: exploited by the drugs lords: like peasant indian farmers in such as Colombia, forced to tread coca leaves in vats of sulphuric acid in their bare feet and legs under automatic weapons.

And the consumers: and those they rob to pay for their habit.

And those like myself, forced to pick up the increasing tax and social cost of addicts.

Just for a few examples, you understand.

I read a very interesting article that before the state got involved to try and control drugs, the trade was full of high quality, pure product, which is safe. Only when did the gov try to control in after Reagans hard lines of the 80's did it become forced underground to the extent that the product started getting cut with ketamine and harmful stuff.

I think the website that has the full story is www.flatearthnews.net

It's certainly the book I read that explains how drugs and street crime and social costs became interlinked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and why are they forced to do that? Are kentish men and men of kent forced to trudge in mash tuns in bare feet and climb dangerous hop vines at gun-point?

No. Why? Because beer is legal. So the entire process is subject to controls and oversight and not left to the most ruthless criminals to profit from.

And why do addicts steal and rob? Could it be because the price of their poison is grossly inflated by the enforcement action that our tax money pays for? Yes it could. The cost of legally producing any given drug is likely to be a fraction of a percent of its current street value. Whenever there is a large drugs bust or concentrated enforcement action, the level of drug related crime rises in proportion to the resulting increase in street value and therefore the increased criminal profits.

Why do people take drugs? Could it be because the current anti-drug campaigns are ludicrously dishonest and therefore transparently ineffective to anyone with an ounce of common sense and no Daily Mail? Could it be that to tell the truth about MOST drugs would be to admit that they arent so bad as to warrant massive jail terms, and hey! maybe they might be fun?

Best way to do away with drug related crime? De-criminalise the drug supply! Its so blatantly obvious!

The prohibitionista argument is morally and intellectually bankrupt. You force the market into the hands of criminals and then moan that it generates criminality. Well no f*cking shit sherlock! By making it illegal you create a lucrative criminal market that generates crime and subsidises god alone knows how much collateral criminality.

Look at the examples of history. Of prohibition in the USA and the ban on whisky stills in Scotland.

Nothing bad happened there now did it? No increase in organised criminality at all, eh?

There seems to be a naïve assumption shared by all proponents of decriminalisation of drugs that one decriminalised then the current covert global network of drugs producers and distributors will sort of melt into the forest like morning mist……………..

Such assumptions are similar to Government’s myopic belief that passing legislation to ban legally owned handguns and certain types of rifles post the Dunblane and Hungerford tragedies would solve gun crime.

Now the main singular difference between the drugs of choice and alcohol (invariably used as the primary benchmark) are that alcohol in moderate quantities does not drastically change behaviour: neither is it addictive, per se.

Alcohol is a poison: and it acts as a depressive, contrary to many people’s belief.

Nicotine, taken by way of smoking, is hugely addictive: more addictive in fact than Heroin. However, once again, tobacco consumption doesn’t particularly alter behaviour.

Increasing numbers of Western people suffer Addictive Personality: and this reality is worsened by a sort of frenetic synthetic lifestyle, detached from core human values and benefits and suffering increasing imposed stresses from work, debt, frustration and social aggression of many forms.

Assuming currently proscribed drugs were to be legalised for both supply and possession, then the whole supply chain from growers to retail suppliers would be formalised. Most present drugs growers (i.e. those which cultivate raw feedstock) would find their rudimentary production methodologies outlawed, with the core exception, perhaps of poppies grown for raw opium.

Government departments such as the FDA in the USA and Defra and NICE in the UK would formalise guidelines for production and purity.

All suppliers in the chain would need to be licensed to ensure both purity and product marketing.

Of course, Big Pharma would take over the business of production and supply through extant distributors, licensed wholesalers and similarly licensed retailers.

Naturally, government would add on whopping taxes, similar to tobacco products: Excise Duty plus VAT on total retail cost.

Thus end product would not be cheap.

Perhaps the largest hurdle to overcome is testing and approval: and every company in the supply chain sharing product liability.

The finally successful multi-billion class actions against US tobacco corporations are the benchmark.

Which major suppliers do you honestly believe would market a product range that they very well knew was highly addictive and ruined the health of the consumer? And would allow an open door to a flood of claims in this highly litigious age?

The alternative – believing that if currently proscribed drugs were to be de-criminalized, then all in the supply chain would not cut marginally pure product in order to maximise profits – is simply cloud cuckoo land!

How in any case, would addicts fund their habit? Working? Honest endeavour?

Of course not: they have sunk to the pits of social and personal despair only and purely because of their addiction: as any case worker involved in drugs counselling could tell you. They have become so socially dysfunctional, that work is simply not tenable: thus women sell their bodies and men steal.

In order to support this dysfunction, wherein the only focus of concern is obtaining the next fix, it would matter not whether their chosen poison or poisons are illegal or legal: their behavioural pattern dictates sacrifice to their pre-eminent and compelling need.

Why is it that those wishing to sanitize deviant habit use fuzzy cuddly and warm descriptors in the vain attempt of trying to legitimise aberrant behaviour? An example being the telling phrase, “Recreational Drugsâ€!

If a person needs drugs, in order to “enjoy†themselves, then clearly, something is sadly amiss with their psyche.

Would major drugs traffickers simply sit and watch their cash cow vanish?

Of course they would react by trying, as do all businesses, to create competitive advantage: and the one major weapon they have is price: since they would be free of all the added layers of cost.

As government increased and increased tobacco taxes, the direct result was en epidemic rise in smuggling.

Same with alcohol.

De-Criminalizing drugs would be no different.

http://www.drinkanddrugs.net/backgroundinf...undbriefing.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There seems to be a naïve assumption shared by all proponents of decriminalisation of drugs that one decriminalised then the current covert global network of drugs producers and distributors will sort of melt into the forest like morning mist……………..

Such assumptions are similar to Government’s myopic belief that passing legislation to ban legally owned handguns and certain types of rifles post the Dunblane and Hungerford tragedies would solve gun crime.

Now the main singular difference between the drugs of choice and alcohol (invariably used as the primary benchmark) are that alcohol in moderate quantities does not drastically change behaviour: neither is it addictive, per se.

Alcohol is a poison: and it acts as a depressive, contrary to many people’s belief.

Nicotine, taken by way of smoking, is hugely addictive: more addictive in fact than Heroin. However, once again, tobacco consumption doesn’t particularly alter behaviour.

Increasing numbers of Western people suffer Addictive Personality: and this reality is worsened by a sort of frenetic synthetic lifestyle, detached from core human values and benefits and suffering increasing imposed stresses from work, debt, frustration and social aggression of many forms.

Assuming currently proscribed drugs were to be legalised for both supply and possession, then the whole supply chain from growers to retail suppliers would be formalised. Most present drugs growers (i.e. those which cultivate raw feedstock) would find their rudimentary production methodologies outlawed, with the core exception, perhaps of poppies grown for raw opium.

Government departments such as the FDA in the USA and Defra and NICE in the UK would formalise guidelines for production and purity.

All suppliers in the chain would need to be licensed to ensure both purity and product marketing.

Of course, Big Pharma would take over the business of production and supply through extant distributors, licensed wholesalers and similarly licensed retailers.

Naturally, government would add on whopping taxes, similar to tobacco products: Excise Duty plus VAT on total retail cost.

Thus end product would not be cheap.

Perhaps the largest hurdle to overcome is testing and approval: and every company in the supply chain sharing product liability.

The finally successful multi-billion class actions against US tobacco corporations are the benchmark.

Which major suppliers do you honestly believe would market a product range that they very well knew was highly addictive and ruined the health of the consumer? And would allow an open door to a flood of claims in this highly litigious age?

The alternative – believing that if currently proscribed drugs were to be de-criminalized, then all in the supply chain would not cut marginally pure product in order to maximise profits – is simply cloud cuckoo land!

How in any case, would addicts fund their habit? Working? Honest endeavour?

Of course not: they have sunk to the pits of social and personal despair only and purely because of their addiction: as any case worker involved in drugs counselling could tell you. They have become so socially dysfunctional, that work is simply not tenable: thus women sell their bodies and men steal.

In order to support this dysfunction, wherein the only focus of concern is obtaining the next fix, it would matter not whether their chosen poison or poisons are illegal or legal: their behavioural pattern dictates sacrifice to their pre-eminent and compelling need.

Why is it that those wishing to sanitize deviant habit use fuzzy cuddly and warm descriptors in the vain attempt of trying to legitimise aberrant behaviour? An example being the telling phrase, “Recreational Drugsâ€!

If a person needs drugs, in order to “enjoy†themselves, then clearly, something is sadly amiss with their psyche.

Would major drugs traffickers simply sit and watch their cash cow vanish?

Of course they would react by trying, as do all businesses, to create competitive advantage: and the one major weapon they have is price: since they would be free of all the added layers of cost.

As government increased and increased tobacco taxes, the direct result was en epidemic rise in smuggling.

Same with alcohol.

De-Criminalizing drugs would be no different.

http://www.drinkanddrugs.net/backgroundinf...undbriefing.pdf

An excellent post again Prescience. I usually agree with most of the stuff you write but for me there is a distinct difference between an 'addict' and someone who uses 'recreationally'.

In my experience there are people who can take or leave drugs, use it at their own discretion and never ever have a problem with them.

On the other hand as you well put some people are more inclined to become addicted, dependant on the drug itself they choose to use and the extenuating circumstances in their lives that can lead to addiction eg: to escape reality, depression etc.

Now, you have said that tobacco does not affect behaviour, I as a smoker would diagree with this, because if I haven't had a fag for a while I can get pretty ratty, short with people and generally moody, and can impact negatively on other people. This I would suggest is a withdrawal symptom no? Now the heroin addict, who is clucking for a fix will also get withdrawal symptoms, and change behaviour accordingly to sort it eg: stealing to fund the habit if they can not afford it, therefore impacting on other people's lives. Now, once the junkie has got his fix, what does he do? Is he a problem for me or you, or is he too monged out to do anything! It's only once the withdrawals kick in he becomes a problem.

Alcohol addiction is particularly nasty and cold turkey can kill, whereas you will not die from going cold turkey from heroin, this is PHYSICALLY a big difference between a legal drug and an illegal one. Also we all know what happens to some people when they get drunk, and what crimes are committed by pissheads!

Humans have used drugs since time began and the majority of them grow out of the ground from mother nature. It's only after humans mess with them they can become significantly more dangerous. You will never stop people from experimenting with drugs, period.

For me there is some merit to the argument for de-criminalisation of some drugs, and even the control and supply of them to eradicate criminal activity.

People will always take drugs, the question is how do we stop those that become addicted from impacting upon the lives of those who don't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An excellent post again Prescience. I usually agree with most of the stuff you write but for me there is a distinct difference between an 'addict' and someone who uses 'recreationally'.

In my experience there are people who can take or leave drugs, use it at their own discretion and never ever have a problem with them.

On the other hand as you well put some people are more inclined to become addicted, dependant on the drug itself they choose to use and the extenuating circumstances in their lives that can lead to addiction eg: to escape reality, depression etc.

Now, you have said that tobacco does not affect behaviour, I as a smoker would diagree with this, because if I haven't had a fag for a while I can get pretty ratty, short with people and generally moody, and can impact negatively on other people. This I would suggest is a withdrawal symptom no? Now the heroin addict, who is clucking for a fix will also get withdrawal symptoms, and change behaviour accordingly to sort it eg: stealing to fund the habit if they can not afford it, therefore impacting on other people's lives. Now, once the junkie has got his fix, what does he do? Is he a problem for me or you, or is he too monged out to do anything! It's only once the withdrawals kick in he becomes a problem.

Alcohol addiction is particularly nasty and cold turkey can kill, whereas you will not die from going cold turkey from heroin, this is PHYSICALLY a big difference between a legal drug and an illegal one. Also we all know what happens to some people when they get drunk, and what crimes are committed by pissheads!

Humans have used drugs since time began and the majority of them grow out of the ground from mother nature. It's only after humans mess with them they can become significantly more dangerous. You will never stop people from experimenting with drugs, period.

For me there is some merit to the argument for de-criminalisation of some drugs, and even the control and supply of them to eradicate criminal activity.

People will always take drugs, the question is how do we stop those that become addicted from impacting upon the lives of those who don't?

Sound points: thank you.

I'll offer my additional comments.

but for me there is a distinct difference between an 'addict' and someone who uses 'recreationally'.

In my experience there are people who can take or leave drugs, use it at their own discretion and never ever have a problem with them.

I agree: in the same way some people can pick up smoking here and there and drop it instantly: same with alcohol.

Unfortunately for Western society, those with discretion, discernment and strong willpower would seem to form a minority: it's the majority who become the problem.

If one uses say Washington DC as a sort of Benchmark, then it is pretty easy to see how continuing social deprivation, poverty and despair and increasing supplies of varieties of cheap and hugely addictive substances (Crack e.g.) have created a descending spiral of even greater deprivation, poverty, homelessness and crime.

For many it would seem, it is not addiction the drug per se, which is the problem: it is addiction to the temporary eupohoria and release from reality.

Many people can and do drink to excess but are not alcoholics: they are perhaps alcohol dependant, again, since it forms an escape route from whatever angst ails them. I have known many.

I have also known very few alcoholics: and they are different, entirely: one small drink after a long period of abstention and they are instantly hooked once more.

Now, you have said that tobacco does not affect behaviour, I as a smoker would diagree with this, because if I haven't had a fag for a while I can get pretty ratty, short with people and generally moody, and can impact negatively on other people. This I would suggest is a withdrawal symptom no?

Agreed.

That said, the withdrawal symptoms are a reverse effect rather than a direct effect: and this is so with any drug or chemical substance which alters human metabolism and bio-balance.

Those who became addicted, for example, to prescribed Benzodiazepines (Diazepam, Lorazepam, Attivan etc) suffered severe extended withdrawal problems.

My - poorly exppressed - expressed comment on smoking, was meant to suggest that smoking does not instantly tend to create adverse mood changing swings: one doesn't light up a fag and decide one can fly and leap out of a window shouting "Geranimo!", for example!

:lol:

Angel Dust (PCP) can turn a taker into a berserker almost instantly: Methamphetomine (Normally taken with other substances) again has a savage effect on the brain.

Skunk does: so can Es; Cocaine can too. Crack as well: and this, of course, is instantly addictive.

It takes some serious effort to become seriously drunk!

It doesn't take much effort to take drugs: and as with crack, it is instantly hugely addictive. Most learner boozers tend to honk up well before they are paralysed!

Unfortunately, drugs abusers invariably smoke: and booze too.

People will always take drugs, the question is how do we stop those that become addicted from impacting upon the lives of those who don't?

Ah!

The Million Dollar Question!

The only solution (and it wouldn't work in the real World) would be to only supply legal substances to those who have a consumption license: and part of the process for obtention of such license would be a battery of physical, mental and psychometric evaluations!

Unfortunately, it must also be accepted that those suffering fom an addictive personality, tend to enter into a self-destructive loop and turn to other more powerful and more addictive substances when the original thing fails to provide the instant "Hit" they crave.

In the same way that inveterate boozers switch from pints to shorts, firstly with some mixer: and then neat.

My deep concern in all this is simply as British society declines into evermore troubled economic and structural problems, then legalising any drugs would simple turbocharge the already serious negative affects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.