Wednesday, February 18, 2009

More cheery tales from Jolly Olde...

It appears that being a mensch is now worth two months in the slammer in the place where Great Britain used to be.
Father-of-three Peter Drummond was so angry when he discovered someone had sold heroin to his family that he took matters into his own hands.

He confronted John Nellies in his home and flushed five of the drug dealer's bags of heroin down the toilet.

But yesterday it was Drummond - not Nellies - who found himself being jailed in court.
Perhaps if he claimed he was following sharia law, they'd have let him off with a slap on the wrist out of cultural sensitivity.

(H/T to Bayou Renaissance Man)


EDITED TO ADD:

Les Jones makes a valid point in comments:
Tam, aren't you in favor of legalized drugs? If so, then why would you be in favor of beating up a guy who is just providing what the market wants?

Also, just to keep things in perspective the guy who is going to jail broke into the other guy's house and beat him up. Are we OK with going into people's houses and beating them up? I don't think expecting people to be secure in their homes and their physical safety from a drunken idiot is "PC".

Yeah, the guy's a drug dealer and I wouldn't want him around my family. But having had a sister who killed herself with drugs over the course of 15 years I can say that no one was "pushing" drugs to her. She was going out to find them all on her own. Beating up one of her rotating assortment of crack dealers wouldn't have solved her problems.

That's another problem with the Wo(S)D: Does being against Prohibition mean you have to cheer for Al Capone?

32 comments:

Turk Turon said...

Good point about Sharia Law. Apparently in the UK today you can vandalize (vandalise?) a bar which sells legal alcoholic beverages and escape punishment if you cite Sharia law, but if you destroy some doper's stash of [highly illegal] heroin, you're going to jail.

Noah D said...

"the place where Great Britain used to be"

Nanny Airstrip One, you mean?

Liberty Girl said...

Author Kage Baker has a series of books (The Company) that, aside from being darn good sci-fi yarns, also detail the inevitable result of this PC madness, in Britain and beyond. Terrifying reads.

"In the Garden of Iden" is the first in the series.

Les Jones said...

Tam, aren't you in favor of legalized drugs? If so, then why would you be in favor of beating up a guy who is just providing what the market wants?

Also, just to keep things in perspective the guy who is going to jail broke into the other guy's house and beat him up. Are we OK with going into people's houses and beating them up? I don't think expecting people to be secure in their homes and their physical safety from a drunken idiot is "PC".

Yeah, the guy's a drug dealer and I wouldn't want him around my family. But having had a sister who killed herself with drugs over the course of 15 years I can say that no one was "pushing" drugs to her. She was going out to find them all on her own. Beating up one of her rotating assortment of crack dealers wouldn't have solved her problems.

the pawnbroker said...

whatchoo talkin' 'bout, tam? those scamps willis and arnold are shootin' up the h now?

oh, wait...that would be peter's brother phillip drummond; damn wiki and how it messes up my fond recollects with accuracy...

jtc

wv: ophiess opie too? oh, woe to the world...

Tam said...

Touche.

And you're absolutely right on further reflection.

This, however, is another side-effect of the Wo(S)D. Make a substance illegal, and you kind of move the market downscale. Look at the kind of people who are willing to sell drugs and you won't find many Rotarians in the bunch.

Does being against Prohibition mean I need to cheer for Al Capone?

perlhaqr said...

I'm not sure it's "cheering" for Al Capone to recognize his right to be free of coercion from the state or other citizens, no matter how "icky" his means of support are, if they aren't legitimately hurting anyone involuntarily.

Many people would of course claim that heroin hurts people involuntarily. Many people would make precisely the same claim about handguns. Many heroin users go out and commit other crimes, generally to get more heroin. Some percentage of handgun owners commit crimes with them. But, of course, the "using heroin" or "owning a handgun" part aren't the actual assault against another person's sovereignity, it's the poor choices that come afterwards.

Substitute "handguns" for "heroin" in the story over there in Jolly Olde, and see how it plays to your sympathies then. (Ok, substitute "incinerator" for "toilet" also. ;) )

WV: "typediss" I assure you, my dear, my typing here is not intended as any sort of "diss".

staghounds said...

No, it doesn't, any more than being against Hitler means cheering for Stalin.

Frank W. James said...

About that comparison between 'handguns' and 'heroin' in the UK. Handguns ARE most definitely illegal, while being a drug addict is NOT. See many, many years ago the Nanny-state of UK removed drug addiction from the list of punishable offences.

Sooooo, there should be NO illegal drugs, Right? Then WHY are illegal drug dealers?

Don't Tell me legalizing drug abuse doesn't work?

All The Best,
Frank W. James

Anonymous said...

Legalize the whole outlaw pharmacy, thru capitalistic enterprises,which pay tax and operating fees to revenue gathering agencies. Sell the whole spectrum, while certifying purity and quantity. Same procedure as alcohol.

Benefit one: cripples the whole criminal drug spectrum.

Benefit two: vastly reduces LE costs, and frees up LOTS of prison space. Also, wrecks the prison recruitment programs of criminal enterprises.

Benefit three: criminal drug enterprise as a career will have LOTS less appeal without outlaw profits to be obtained.

Benefit four: an overall reduction of recreational hard drug use, once there is no glam or rebellion to it. Sans the aura of illegitimacy, the use of killer habit-formers will eventually be seen by the survivors as the Darwinian process that they really are.

Benefit five: the substantial minority of the US population using soft drugs will quit thinking of themselves as outlaws and criminals, and quit acting like them. "Oh, hi there Jesse and Bob. How's the James family hemp crop this year? Aww, sorry to hear that the market is off, but y'know that ol' saturation point was sure to appear."

And infinitum, will go the arguments. As a 61 year old, I saw the present drug culture begin and grow under stormtrooper busts for seeds and twigs with five year hard time sentences, and then descend into huge money criminal madness.

I have former friends and acquaintances who never fulfilled their young promise, and spent a hazy half-life of what they could have been. As well,I have seen the dime-bag hippie dealer replaced with tattoo'd sociopaths, en masse.

However, I more than ever, believe that The War on Drugs, on the balance, has been a waste of people and time. De-profitize the criminal activity, legalize recreational amounts and use, use the tax revenue for some creative anti-drug education and treatment effort.

Yeah, I know, it's just my opinion. I personally have no use for drugs. Seen too much. But I will always think, even now, that putting the results of a legalization [into the hands of Darwin] would have forfended the drug sociopathy and sociology with which we are now burdened: both internally and and internationally.

The cartels and gangs would have died aborning, and the citizen/personnel damage prolly would have been less in the long run.

Feel free to argue, but I haven't the heart or time for that, anymore. The drug business is so hugely profitable, and the criminalization of it is so useful to the Leviathan of ever-expanding government, that a whole star fleet of Tam's flying magic unicorns couldn't fix the thing.

The currents of history, the tides of times, the unwashed [domestic] barbarians, the random chance, and above all the blind and stubborn mendacity of mankind insures that rational decision is nothing more than giving the Great Tidal Wave of Fate one last middle finger wave, as it rolls over and obliterates our own individual awareness.

John the Red AKA J t R AKA JohnM,
at the West End of Lake Erie

Anonymous said...

If you sell herion to my kids you are assuming the risk, I as a private citizen will drop you where you stand, no matter where I find you. Oh, and while I'm dispatching you to a higher or lower plane of existence, please fill the air with rantings about how I am violating your rights, and liberties, you should have stayed outta my family property.

Anonymous said...

Sorry anon, doesn't wash despite a certain empathy I have for your outpost on the porch. The same argument was used against miscegenation. Odd how the drugs one makes for a better movie.

Well, they hae Keith Richards, and we have Ted Nugent. Simple, really.

Armed Texan said...

Back to the OP. I say the right thing happened all around. Drummond committed a crime by breaking in and assaulting the dealer. The dealer needed an ass whopin' though. Sometimes the crime is worth the time. After all, aren't we gunnies always saying, "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"?

Frank W. James said...

Yeah well, I had a senior moment there, because I believe the UK is a perfect example of how legalizing drug abuse DOES NOT solve the problem.

A certain segment of every society will always involve themselves in the criminal drug trade and their customers will always involve themselves in criminal activity to pay for their criminal drug habits.

Seriously, look at UK and you will see it flat don't work.

(I should have been paying more attention to my typing on my first comment instead of multi-tasking at the time which I obviously don't do well.)

All The Best,
Frank W. James

the pistolero said...

If you sell herion to my kids you are assuming the risk, I as a private citizen will drop you where you stand, no matter where I find you.

Uh...who said anything about selling anything to kids? Do you honestly think any of us advocating that we be able to, say, peddle smack to middle-schoolers with no legal repercussions? Why do you nanny-state pricks keep going back to that straw man?

Mikee said...

What is missing between Anonymous' strong support for parental rights and Tam/Les/etc. strong revulsion at the present state of abusive drug laws, may be the need to strongly prosecute the unacceptable actions of those who would choose to use drugs under a libertarian program of legalized drug use.

I think they forgot that part in England, so the little darlings can huff glue and then sport about vandalizing at will, with no recourse to those who would prefer their homes, streets, cars, businesses, family members and pets to be left unvandalized. Kind of like the Dems forgot to reduce spending after Reagan got them to cut taxes, because revenue went up.

Kelly said...

Had the dealer been selling drugs to the guy's kid, I'd find his actions a lot more acceptable. But I doubt his brother-in-law is a kid. (Could be, but you'd think the article would have mentioned it.) Even so, I think he's getting a harsher sentence than he deserves. Yes, shoving your way into someone's home... even a bad guy... so that you can beat and threaten him is a no-no. But the man expresses remorse for his actions and admits he should have gone to the police instead. Considering how often drunk drivers can get out of anything harsher than a stint in rehab by saying something to that effect, couldn't a man who was worried about his family be cut a little slack? Make him spend a couple of weeks in jail, then go for anger management counseling for another couple of weeks, or something. He was wrong, but watching out for your family shouldn't be considered a terrible crime.

As for how "okay" one who supports drug legalization is expected to be with drug use... I don't think one would have to be okay with it at all. Just because someone doesn't think the government should be involved doesn't mean they think the situation is all good. And then there are varying degrees of being "okay" with it. I have no problem with people drinking. I drink on occaision. On the other hand, my mother-in-law is an alcoholic who refuses to stop. If she goes to a store or bar, I don't blame those people for selling to her. They don't know she shouldn't be drinking. I do blame family members who have been known to provide her with alcohol, even convincing themselves that it won't matter "just this time" since they wanted to go out drinking but didn't want to leave her at home. That is inexcusable to me. How many heroin dealers don't know what the heroin is doing to their buyers? Even if it were legal, that wouldn't make it right.

rickn8or said...

"...the criminalization of it is so useful to the Leviathan of ever-expanding government..."

Which is precisely the reason that the Wo(S)D will continue, not to mention that there is a percentage of the drug cops that love getting all ninja'd up, kicking in doors and hardassing people.

ScottW said...

Personally, I could give a shit what any adult does in thier free time. Including drugs...That being said, If I were to find any adult selling my kids drugs, I would first kick my kids ass, then I would deal harshly with the dealer. Not many 12 year olds wake up thinking about "Hey, today I think I am going to go buy some meth..Yah", most are introduced to it from either a peer or an adult. One needs a butt thumping, the others needs killing... Just my two cents worth..

mts said...

He should behead the dealer (yelling allahu akhbar all the while) and call himself a Muslim. Then he can skate from prosecution, saying they're discriminating, and interfering with his cultural traditions, if they try to prosecute.

The new sharia. Make it work for you!

Ben said...

Hmmm, interesting debate of course.

What I found most interesting though was the 3rd comment down after the article about Peter Drummond. DaveB commented that Peter was lucky not to have gotten shot barging into the dealer's flat like that. But that's not possible is it? I mean aren't guns outlawed in the UK? There's no way a criminal could have one right?

Just wanted to point that one out.

BryanP said...

On the one hand I want to cheer this guy. On the other hand, thinking purely objectively, he should have gone to the police.

If I were to go to the Wrong Part of Nashville and set a crack house on fire I'd still be an arstonist, and possibly a murderer. The same holds true for assault, no matter how much I smile when I think of this guy flushing the smack.

*sigh*

Anonymous said...

One problem with legalization is government tax. Theres a huge black market here in tabacco because of the high taxes. Another problem with legalization isn't that how the kennedy clan got a start to power after prohibition?

half

John B said...

Dude got off lucky! I mean the court probably could have made him pay restitution for the smack he flushed

tickmeister said...

I hope dope is never legalized. If I ever decide to grow some, I want it to be worth something.

Hell, I wish the govt. would ban chickens, then I could make some bucks instead of Tyson sucking it all up.

Anonymous said...

"I'm not sure it's "cheering" for Al Capone to recognize his right to be free of coercion from the state or other citizens, no matter how "icky" his means of support are, if they aren't legitimately hurting anyone involuntarily."

Problem with that is that Al can coerce to his heart's content (as criminals are not bound by any law), and the law abiding may not..... those are unacceptable ROE, if winning is the goal. When it comes to matters involving the well being of my kids, FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. Karl Krackdealer can sell all the drugs he wants to, and that is fine and dandy, and between him and the seller..... unless he involves my kids: at that point, he will find out what I will kill and die for. Firsthand.

tanksoldier said...

Legalizing drugs is one thing. Until that happens the pushers are still criminals and the dregs of our society.

If drug DO become legal they will just move on to some other criminal activity.

Turk Turon said...

There's a joke making its way around the Net: "You Might Be A Taliban"

#4: If you produce heroin for a living, but you think alcohol is immoral, you might be a Taliban.

Or heroine. Whatever.

Les Jones said...

Tam, kudos to you for reconsidering things.

In light of my family history my view on drugs is more nuanced than most and (I hope) more enlightened, though that may not mean what you assume.

I think marijuana should be legal. That's based on what I think is the veracity of this statement:

"Plenty of people smoke marijuana and still manage to graduate high school, graduate college even, hold down a job, raise kids, and take the garbage cans to the curb on Tuesday. In short, to do everything we expect of responsible adults.

"In light of that, it's unreasonable for the government to criminalize marijuana. It's particularly unreasonable to break down people's doors, point guns at them, shoot their gos, and send them to jail for years."

Now take that same statement and try to apply it something like crack cocaine. Clearly the statement isn't true anymore. A person addicted to crack can't act as a responsible adult. They'll become wards of the state and/or parasites on everyone around them. I don't say that based on reading. I've seen a crack addict kill herself up close.

There are some drugs that should be illegal. Any drug that turns a grown adult into a simpering parasite is not to be taken lightly. Bear in mind that crack cocaine was only invented three decades ago. No doubt we'll see worse in the years to come. If you support the blanket right of people to put whatever they want into their bodies then you're supporting their right to use crack times 100. It will be here. It's only a matter of time.

Will you invite those poor unfortunates to live in your home? Will you support their right to do as they want until they're broken shells in need of societal support paid for by your taxes? If not, then abandon your wild libertarian fantasies of letting people do with their bodies as they please, unencumbered by government's icky laws.

There are societal consequences when people turn themselves into broken shelves. My sister was on Tenncare and Social Security disability. I saw the hospital bills your tax money paid for her drug use. After spending months in intensive care because she smoked crack instead of taking antibiotics she spent her last six months in a nursing home and died at age 45.

I know. If you're the purest of libertarians you don't think taxpayers and the welfare state should be supporting the broken shells of crack times 100. Congratulations on your purity. I'll make you a deal, o purest of libertarians. I'll support the right of people to take crack times 100 as soon as you convince your fellow voters to get rid of the welfare state through the method of democracy. Deal?

Tam said...

I have no trouble admitting that a lot of my view on politics involve aiming for the stars in hopes of hitting the moon. ;)

Sigboy said...

He makes it to my blog as the 'role model of the week'. I have no qualms about somebody protecting their family.
http://thesigboychronicles.blogspot.com/2009/02/role-model-of-week-part-v.html

Anonymous said...

Wait a minute. Is this argument about drugs, or vigilantism? Les' impassioned argument is about what should be illegal. He states his case profoundly--as any substance partisan must--but it's a "for the children" argument, and he makes the Tory error of equating the extreme undesirability of an act with the justice of The State controlling it. We all do this with our pet projects, pet peeves and pet hatreds, because we all have the ultimate addiction, to the power of the State. SOme of us have it worse than others.

All the rest of the arguments have to do with the propriety of busting a pusher's ass your own self, which is different from Les' approach, and requires a taste for a whole different can of worms.

That's a pretty good microcosm of the difference between a limited-state libertarian and an anarcho-capitalist. Ironic that they are both at odds in this case with the ultimate syndicalists, the drug economy.

Les' argument would be countered by heroin fans with their observation of the occasional junkie who manages to live; they believe the addiction can be managed once the burden of illegality and prohibition-inflated price is dealt with.

Crack cocaine differs from traditional narcotics in that its use was not introduced by government and the medical profession.

I think a ltd-govt conservative libertarian would simply label crack a poison, cite examples like Les' to prove it, and go back to quibbling over pot, LSD and white powder. Which is what you've done.