Drug scanner checks public
 

According to the Oxford Mail, our socialist friends across the pond are saying.... sure, why not?[Vizzini] Inconceivable!! [/Vizzini]

I can think of several reasons, why not, but I doubt if they would understand why I feel that way.

Good night, did they goose-step to the pub?!

sorry for the pileon

Big Brother Britain: Government and councils to spy on ALL our phones

So funny how, when everyone was telling me, it would stop at quieting the BNP and the like... "just so we won't be like 'them".
Then the cameras...
ALWAYS, once you open that door, it never closes.

I'll pile on a little different move
 

Ontario has a new law.
Officer Law, stopping you for 30mph over the limit, which isn't hard when you exit a high speed highway and the limit suddenly becomes 25mph, may without appeal or hearing, suspend your driver's license on the spot for 7 days, impound your car for the same amount of time and hang you with a minimum fine of $2000.00. The fines can go as high as $10,000.00 and the license suspensions are up to 2 years on a 1st conviction and up to 10 for a subsequent one.

You don't have to be speeding, either.... same consequences for spinning your tires while turning, have someone in your trunk, making an improper lane change, cutting off another vehicle, tailgating and not driving to suit the conditions, such as going over the speed limit in a snowstorm, and a host of other indiscretions.

Basically they have taken the courts out of the loop and let the cop be judge and jury.
Canada, you're going the wrong way.... but I suspected that when you accepted sharia law.

Don't really have a problem with it. If we want/need to legalize pot, fine, so be it, but if the shit is illegal deal with it, or change the law. For the rest of it, crack, coke, etc., go fuck yourself. You are killing people.

So you piss a cop off all they have to do is "say" you did anything on the list...
That is screwed-up, serious Big Brother shit there man.
I would not blame anyone for leaving.

Regarding the mobile phone regulations: I don't see that it's all too different from many of the provisions in America's Patriot act.

I don't agree with it as a move, but it is following the same path that many western countries are following in their War on Terror.

rk, this is nothing whatsoever to do with the rules regulating the messages that political parties or individuals can put into the public domain. This is about 'homeland security' and is a response to having buses bown up in London. Again, I stress, I disagree with the move. I also stress, again, that your country and many others have instituted measures that other countries consider draconian: many of the security measures in air-travel for example, or the right to monitor email communications.

Regarding the drugs testing: again, not the way I would tackle the problem. What that is unlikely to be, however, is a top-down operation. Police forces are managed regionally and locally and in order to do that effectively, most hold regular 'Police Community Forums'. These are bi-weekly, or monthly meetings held in local community venues where residents from the local community can come along and air their grievances, get to know their local team, keep the Police uptodate on where trouble spots are developing and recieve feedback on police activity.

The police force which decided to utilise this testing method will have done so, in al probability because that particular pub had been mentioned regularly by residents as a source of fear and concern and will also have been a place of regular call-out activity. This is a local response to a local situation. It is no more of a 'Big Brother' move than State legislation which disallows under 21s from drinking, or Town bye-laws that won't allow people to drink alcohol in parks.

There is no difference between what those police have done and a police officer going to a known dealers pub and shaking people down....and that's been going on for as long as there've been dealers in pubs.

Drug prohibition kills more people than illegal drugs ever could.

I agree. Personally I'm for legalising, and then regulating drugs. Heroin only really became the dangerous drug it is when it was taken out o fthe hands of doctors and pharmacists and into the hands of smugglers and dealers. Absolutely no need to go sitting in a dangerous bloke's house buying stuff that's had God knows what added to it, when you can go spend five minutes in a doctor's surgery and get a prescription for the drug. Same goes for licensed bars. There should be places you can go to buy and consume your drug, safe in the knowledge that the product has been quality tested and with it costing far less, even with tax added, than if you were buying stuff that's been smuggled in and sold by people risking lengthy prison terms.

Why do you guys think illegal drugs haven't been legalized yet? No politician wants to risk votes by saying they are for it? The feds won't let them? Both? Other?

I am assuming that illegal drugs is huge business for the feds so I am guessing there is a lot of pressure from them to keep it illegalized.

In 2005, Denver voters passed a law to legalize small quantities of marijuana (up to an ounce), but it's still against state and Federal laws, so the law is pointless. Localities can make a law stronger than state or Federal law, but not weaker.

I think Illinois has something like that too. I remember hearing about that from somewhere...

It's purely a number-of-votes play, and you have to remember in these cases that the number of votes swings elderly. The old folk vote more often and in large numbers. So politics protects their sensibilities... even when they aren't... sensible.

This is also true of the gay marriage issue. The young ppl are overwhelmingly in favor of it, the old ppl resent and hate it, the old ppl win.

Our only satisfaction then is that one day we will be the old people and we'll have it our way.

Also, the old people are going to die before we will. That's a little satisfying in and of itself, right?

Not so fast.

Only if you vote in large numbers. If you are in a large block, that's what counts.

The illegal Mexicans will be voting us out of a majority. After Congress imports 50 million more foriegners that is.

Also there is a recognised trend amongst many people that they flirt with left wing politics whilst young and move gradually to the right as they grow older. So.....they'll die off and we'll replace 'em, but we'll also turn into a bunch of reactionaries at the same time ;P

Sorry, honey, but... you are the old people.

That depends on if you reference the life we have lived or the life we have left.

You might be getting close to the end of yours right now.

lol!! Sorry....carry on... lol!!!

They've been testing drivers over here for various drugs using a similar (if not the same) machine.

I think it's a great idea because peopel should not be driving under the influence of any drugs or alcohol. In this way, it becomes a traffic offense and of course goes through the same chanels as drink driving does.

Street violence has become a big problem in some of the party areas of the city I live in. Most of the fights are because there aren't enough cabs though and drunk guys pick fights with each other. There have been a number of deaths and serious hospitalizations because of this issue. I don't think any drugs people are on are the main cause though. It's a transport issue and needs to be addressed.

I would have to disagree. Alcohol is legal and it's use and abuse kill thousands. I would agree to legalization of pot, but that is about it. We have a huge crack cocaine epidemic in the South. It is ruining lives.

Prohibition of alcohol didn't stop its abuse. It worsened it.

Crack was created as a result of drug prohibition. Prohibition encourages the development of stronger and more potent forms since they are easier to transport and transfer.

Inanimate objects don't ruin lives. People ruin lives.

I agree - anthropogenic emissions of methane through flatulence is one of the leading contributors to greenhouse gases, UT.

I completely agree. And guns don't kill people either. People kill people. Legalizing all drugs would be a huge mistake.

This seems like a non sequitur to me. To paraphrase: drugs don't ruin lives, people ruin lives. So legalizing drugs would be a mistake.
How does this follow?
Especially in the context of Undertoad's point that prohibition leads to stronger, more dangerous forms of existing drugs. This is true. Uncut heroin of reliable purity isn't likely to kill you. It may leave you glued to the couch gazing at nothing, but that's no-one else's problem. Its the petty-robbery-committing, dirty-needle-using, over-dosing-from-the-new-batch that is the problem for the rest of us, and this is caused, mostly, by prohibition.

Is this too far of thread? I'm an newbie here...

OMG, PEOPLE WHO SMOKE POT GO THERE? BURN IT TO THE GROUND!!!
So the cops decided it would be fun to go over there with their new toy and harass them and search them without probable cause? How fun!

Rk, yet again you entirely misrepresent the situation.

OOoh. people smoke pot? Yah. Except that the scanner detects more than just pot it tests for numerous illegal drugs incluing heroin.

The cops decided just for fun? I've just told you that the residents of that community more than likely have asked the police to tackle the drug-dealing which was common in that pub (dealing which brings with it violence and other types of crime). Are you suggesting that the police shouldn't listen to the residents they are there to serve?

If anyone wanted not to be tested they simply had to go to a different pub. There was no compulsion to be tested, it was merely a condition of entry to a private establishment, at the behest of the management.

Wow. You must really pity me, living as I do in a police state where people are tested positive for drugs but not arrested!

Goddamn overbearing police.

How totally unreasonable for the Police to test willing volunteers.

Rk, yet again you entirewly misrepresnt the situation.

OOoh. people smoke pot? Yah. Except that the scanner detects more than just pot it tests for numerous illegal drugs incluing heroin.

The cops decided just for fun? I've just told you that the residents of that community more than likely have asked the police to tackle the drug-dealing which was common in that pub (dealing which brings with it violence and other types of crime). Are you suggesting that the police shouldn't listen to the residents they are there to serve?

If anyone wanted not to be tested they simply had to go to a different pub. There was no compulsion to be tested, it was merely a condition of entry to a private establishment, at the behest of the management.

Wow. You must really pity me, living as I do in a police state where people are tested positive for drugs but not arrested!

Goddamn overbearing police.

How totally unreasonable for the Police to test willing volunteers.

Question: are traffic police in America allowed to test drivers for alcohol consumption?

They were not tested positive for drugs. They were tested positive for having been near them, not illegal in any way even in the UK... yet.

You are right... people complied. I wonder what would have happened if someone had said what they should have "fuck you, I'm going in without you sniffing me, shove that thing up your ass"?

They are allowed to test drivers but not pedestrians unless they break a law.
Driving is a privilege, walking is a right. Cops cannot interfere with just anyone because they feel like it and never should be able to.

Agreed, which is why they weren't arrested.

Well as I've already said, the management of the privately owned pub decided to refuse entry to anyone who didn't agree to testing. Are you suggesting that the management of this privately owned establishment has no right to attach conditions to entry?

What if the driver is not breaking the law?

I see. So entry to a private establishment is a right, like walking on the street, rather than a privelege like driving a car?

Rk, honey I really like you, but sometimes you really are an utter cock. And not in a good way.

Sure, just not to involve the police.
If the driver is not breaking the law then they will not be pulled-over unless it is a sobriety check where all will be pulled-over. Again, driving is a privilege, walking is not.
I am a cock for liking freedom and wanting to fight against a police state... I see. Makes perfect sense.
The police work for us to do one thing, to enforce the law... if a law is not being broken leave us alone, don't search without probable cause, don't stop me unless I am doing something wrong already, do your job and stay out of the way of those who are not doing anything wrong regardless of what they are saying or what they look like. None of that is your place to comment on. That is not what cops get paid to do.

Okay. So the police have the right to test any and all drivers if it's a sobriety test.

And entry into a private establishment: privelege or right?

Then I suggest you start campaigning against sobriety tests which apparently can be forced upon any driver at any time.



[eta] y'know rk, I think you've decided that England is a police state and you are looking for evidence to support that fact. A more logical position would be to look at the evidence and then reach a conclusion. The thing about reaching a position first and then looking for evidence to support your position, is you end up with a really unimpressive argument.

They used this at a protest I was at in the United States without my, or any other member of the public's permission. I did not bring my vehicle but everyone else's that showed up was being swiped. Not sure which itemiser it was- but here it is from the sales web-site.


~Explosives and Narcotics Detection
Itemiser3

World's First Simultaneous Dual-Mode Detector
The desktop Itemiser3 is the world's first trace detector able to simultaneously detect both explosives and narcotics. As terrorists turn to narcotics for financing, the ability to test for both types of substances at once is a key security advantage as well as a major timesaver that reduces lines at checkpoints.

An operator simply swipes a "sample trap" on the surface of any item suspected of being contaminated with traces of contraband and inserts it for automatic analysis. Advanced software eliminates the need for data interpretation, freeing operators to concentrate on obtaining a good sample.

Extremely easy to operate, Itemiser3 delivers fast, simultaneous explosives and narcotics detection in a lightweight package that is ergonomic, robust and portable.

Next-Generation Detection Technology
Using GE Ion Track's patented Ion Trap Mobility Spectrometer (ITMS®) technology, Itemiser3 detects a wider range of explosives and narcotics with unprecedented sensitivity. It achieves this through a proprietary ion "trap" that increases ionization efficiency, the main factor determining detection sensitivity. Combining ITMS with a unique membrane filter that blocks contaminants, Itemiser3 delivers uninterrupted performance even in dirt, humidity and other "real world" conditions.


Product Highlights

• Tests skin, baggage, cargo, vehicles, tickets, containers ID cards
• Three detection modes (explosives/narcotics or both)
• Extended range of detection includes TATP, barbitals and amphetamine sulfate
• Touchscreen control in virtually any language
• Maintenance-free regenerative dryer
• Ethernet, IrDa and serial port connections
• Unparalleled transportability-26lbs/12kg with fold-down touchscreen
• 115/230 VAC, 12 VDC cigarette lighter adapter, 60-minute internal backup battery~

We were just trying to figure out what in the heck they were doing.......That is an illegal search in the United States. Well it used to be illegal.

For good reason if you ask me.

I agree. If it's without either permission, or reasonable cause for suspicion it should not be possible for the police to test.

So, just to be clear: you were not informed of the fact that you were being tested? Your permission was not sought?

Yeah- when the police start randomly rubbing your things with what looks like white patches of material- it makes you a little uneasy. Swabbing the decks.......
Damn Pirates.....................................'RRRRRRRRRRR'

A little swab and seizure never hurt anyone.......right?

Oh well, Cicero. I'm sure the storm troopers would say that they had probable cause since the occasion you describe was a protest meeting of some sort. Its not nice to question the status quo. I bet you carry an AK47 and deal in opium to finance whatever your nefarious little cause might be.

Why don't you forget all that stuff and join the young Republicans or the DAR or some other worthy group?

Since you are a bit of a rapscallion, I suppose you might join the Daughters of the Confederacy if you really want to go out on a limb. Don't you qualify to be among their genteel number?

Anywhere I show up is probable cause. Don't you get it?!? lol!!!

I'm going to join the Young Gay Republicans of the Confederate Confedralist Confederacy and get certifiably certified.

They call this a YGRCCC license. It comes in handy at work. (you know, real estate)

How does it feel to live in a Police State Cicero? :P

At least here it is not legal and we have the law on our side and can take that cop's job and should.
Here we don't roll-over and say "sure Mr. Nazi-man test away!" they have force us to comply or we tell them to shove their swabs up their ass where they belong.
I carry a .45 or .38 & a combat dagger, depending on what I am wearing, BTW. My chair has a taser on it.
If I get swabbed I will own the cop, his house, the department and their car. What can you do in the UK?

Yeah. You and Rodney King.

I agree, some are trying to head us in that direction... that is why I am so concerned with the apathy in the UK and England.
I don't want to see that here.
When those laws pass I want to see outrage and people saying "Fuck-You... NO! I see what happened to the UK! I know where you are trying to take this!"

What law? What are you talking about? There is no compulsion to submit to such a swab test. It was a voluntary test.


Right. I'm not doing this any more. There is no difference whtsoever between what you are doing on here, and what Duck Duck was doing a few months ago. You post a single story which says very little about anything except what's happening in one small town (and with the full agreement of the townspeople) and spin that into a descent into fascism. This is absoutely the equivalent of Duck Duck posting some example of a crime and then insisting that the US is a crime ridden hell hole.

Fuck you rk, I am tired of being reasonable. You're a troll.

If I get swabbed I will own the cop, his house, the department and their car. What can you do in the UK?

Well I don't know about the UK, but there's dicks over here that feel good about themselves when they make these empty threats.

*chuckles* well said my antipodean friend:P

I had the exact same thought, but had not found a polite way to say it.

Wow, you don't really want to know....but if you are really interested PM me sometime. I'll be more than happy to give you the long and detailed skinny.
I hope you are not being sarcastic.....I've had to work pretty hard and long to help the situation.

As for RK- lets go open that Meta thread up again.

Oh sweet irony.

Not really......but maybe I need troll defined again:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

:D

Good reading.

Maybe RK needs to know the definition of "irony."

Now if you'll excuse me, I think the police are knocking at my door. Gotta find my taser. :rolleyes:

Ahuh. Ok.

checks public
 

Can't we all just get along?:headshake

How many times do you think the cops have heard someone they were busting say that?

I read this thread title wrong every time.....

I have the time and resources, it is important enough to me.
Protect and serve used to mean the people they work for, not the system/other cops. Any cop out of uniform that has forgotten that, who violates probable cause, which is now treated like a joke, is a service to humanity.