The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Are Drug Dealers at fault or Drug Addicts?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
Original post by Peter Mondragon
You are a ****ing fascist, it is none of your or anyone else's business how others may or may not wish to alter their brain chemistry, now **** off like a nice little obedient ruminant and live your life exactly as you are told to by the malevolent late capitalist system, buy some overpriced **** and never dare question one single thing. Prohibition is coming to and end in the West, and all you uptight petty moralising groupthought mutha****as will just have to deal with it...

**** y'all, I'm wasting no more time on ground down compliant Logan's Run style people


hun, no-one is stopping you taking drugs, but make a decision drug addicts or drug dealers who's fault is it, if you think there shouldn't even be a question, just say so
Reply 81
Original post by SugarCoatedCart
What??


ceebs tbh.
Reply 82
I'd say the addict Is to blame because like the McDonald's reference and obesity, lots of people go to McDonald's sometimes and their fine but if someone chooses to go their everyday then they get fat, it's up to them how often they go. This is the same with drugs, lots of people try drugs, but if you choose to buy them often then you become addicted. The dealers just giving you that choose
Reply 83
Original post by 04MR17
Both activities are illegal and therefore both parties are at fault.


Yes, but following the discussion on facebook it was condemning the mother for saying drug dealers need to realise what they're doing because it's not the drug dealers fault.

Obviously, I think both and it is both but who do you think is overall responsible - majority said drug addicts.
Reply 84
Original post by TheIr0nDuke
Which is a totally absurd comparison. Legal and beneficial vs illegal, addictive and damaging.

Starting to think it's just a troll. No one can be that retarded.


Haven't touched aspirin once so idk wtf they're talking about lol
They're both *****.
Original post by elmosandy
Yes, but following the discussion on facebook it was condemning the mother for saying drug dealers need to realise what they're doing because it's not the drug dealers fault.

Obviously, I think both and it is both but who do you think is overall responsible - majority said drug addicts.
Yes but social media does not dictate the law. They are both at fault end of.
Reply 87
Original post by 04MR17
Yes but social media does not dictate the law. They are both at fault end of.


Yes, but i'm asking what do you think - who do you think solely responsible? Pick a choice- and state which side.
Reply 88
Original post by ivybridge
They're both *****.


But if you had to choose once- dealers or addicts?
Original post by elmosandy
But if you had to choose once- dealers or addicts?


I wouldn't. They are both little shits.
I don't think you need to assign fault and don't think either of them are 'in the wrong'.

Any activity has risks to it. Horse riding is apparently more dangerous than MDMA. Would you say that those paralysed from horse riding are at fault or the stable owners? It doesn't have to be either of their faults, it can just be an unfortunate event. The rider isn't at fault even though they were fully aware of the risk of injury when they got the leg up.

Everyone has different attitudes to risk. I would ride a horse but I wouldn't ride in the Isle of man tt. But people choose to ride in the TT knowing full well that they are putting themselves at high risk of death and decide that for them, it is worth the risk. Everyone is different and as long as people are informed of the risks, that is fine.

Alcoholism runs in my family so I know that if I drink alcohol, there is a fairly high chance of me becoming an alcoholic. I have decided that is a risk I'm willing to take. If I become an alcoholic in the future, I'm not going to blame the shop keepers or the alcohol manufactures but i'm not going to say I was in the wrong either. I am taking the choice to drink and if it turns out with hindsight to be a bad choice then that's life. Everyone makes bad choices.

Anyone who takes addictive drugs eg cocaine and heroin knows that they are risking addiction. Personally, I would take the risk for cocaine but not for heroin but others will think neither is worth the risk and others will think that both are worth it. Out of the people who take those drugs, some will end up addicts. They are responsible for their own choices in the sense that they shouldn't feel sorry for themselves and blame others, like dealers, for the situation they are in. They made their own choice. But at the same time they were not 'wrong' and they don't need to justify their choices to anyone.
Original post by elmosandy
Yes, but i'm asking what do you think - who do you think solely responsible? Pick a choice- and state which side.
I think the law is correct. Is that enough for you? Nobody is solely responsible for anything.
Original post by elmosandy
But if you had to choose once- dealers or addicts?
But you don't need to choose do you?
Reply 92
Original post by 04MR17
I think the law is correct. Is that enough for you? Nobody is solely responsible for anything.But you don't need to choose do you?


It just sparked a thought in me, I never really thought about the risks of drugs or even whose fault it is, just a discussion. Everyone is free to say what they think
Reply 93
Original post by Sternumator
I don't think you need to assign fault and don't think either of them are 'in the wrong'.

Any activity has risks to it. Horse riding is apparently more dangerous than MDMA. Would you say that those paralysed from horse riding are at fault or the stable owners? It doesn't have to be either of their faults, it can just be an unfortunate event. The rider isn't at fault even though they were fully aware of the risk of injury when they got the leg up.

Everyone has different attitudes to risk. I would ride a horse but I wouldn't ride in the Isle of man tt. But people choose to ride in the TT knowing full well that they are putting themselves at high risk of death and decide that for them, it is worth the risk. Everyone is different and as long as people are informed of the risks, that is fine.

Alcoholism runs in my family so I know that if I drink alcohol, there is a fairly high chance of me becoming an alcoholic. I have decided that is a risk I'm willing to take. If I become an alcoholic in the future, I'm not going to blame the shop keepers or the alcohol manufactures but i'm not going to say I was in the wrong either. I am taking the choice to drink and if it turns out with hindsight to be a bad choice then that's life. Everyone makes bad choices.

Anyone who takes addictive drugs eg cocaine and heroin knows that they are risking addiction. Personally, I would take the risk for cocaine but not for heroin but others will think neither is worth the risk and others will think that both are worth it. Out of the people who take those drugs, some will end up addicts. They are responsible for their own choices in the sense that they shouldn't feel sorry for themselves and blame others, like dealers, for the situation they are in. They made their own choice. But at the same time they were not 'wrong' and they don't need to justify their choices to anyone.


Original post by ivybridge
I wouldn't. They are both little shits.


Harsh

fairs
Original post by elmosandy
Everyone is free to say what they think
And I think this is silly. You've asked your question, it has a straight and uncomplicated answer. The question you wanted to ask was 'Do you agree with this part of the law?' which you didn't ask but should of asked and that's your fault. I've answered that second question and still you try and turn it into a pointless discussion. There you go I've said what I've thought. Good day.
Reply 95
Original post by 04MR17
And I think this is silly. You've asked your question, it has a straight and uncomplicated answer. The question you wanted to ask was 'Do you agree with this part of the law?' which you didn't ask but should of asked and that's your fault. I've answered that second question and still you try and turn it into a pointless discussion. There you go I've said what I've thought. Good day.


What????

I just asked a question - do you think drug dealers are responsible for the deaths of peoples lives or drug addicts?

I don't know what agree with this part of the law you speak of?? we both know they're both wrong but who is in your opinion more responsible?

Original post by 04MR17


I've answered that second question and still you try and turn it into a pointless discussion. There you go I've said what I've thought. Good day.


Tbh with you, my question has nothing to do with the law - we both know the drug dealers and drug addicts are responsible equally in the eyes of the law - but outside in reality things are way more complex, there's been debates whether the drug dealer or drug addict is more responsible. WHo do you think is more responisble? The drug addict or the drug dealer? Which one would you say? If you had to put a blame on one of them overall? Just that,

Nah just say what you think if you're undecided ( and believe it's both ) then you have a right to say it. It is not being turned into a pointless discussion. You said your answer, you said is it enough and I'm simply saying it just sparked an thought in me and respected your opinion. Everyone is free to say what they think. Jesus
Original post by elmosandy
I just asked a question - do you think drug dealers are responsible for the deaths of peoples lives or drug addicts?
That was not the title of the thread.

Spoiler


Original post by elmosandy
We both know they're both wrong
Then why did you ask?
Original post by elmosandy
but who is in your opinion more responsible?
Now we're finally getting to a proper question, responsible for what and to whom?
Original post by elmosandy
To be honest with you, my question has nothing to do with the law
I completely disagree, it has everything to do with the law because the law is the measure of someone being 'at fault' or 'responsible'
Original post by elmosandy
- we both know the drug dealers and drug addicts are responsible equally in the eyes of the law
And now you've answered your own question. I'm still at a loss as to what you would like to know.
Original post by elmosandy
- but outside in reality things are way more complex, there's been debates whether the drug dealer or drug addict is more responsible.
Responsible for what and to whom? I believe decisions such as these should be settled on a case-by-case basis.
Original post by elmosandy
Who do you think is more responsible? The drug addict or the drug dealer? Which one would you say? If you had to put a blame on one of them overall? Just that,
Now you're repeating yourself. No one person usually holds blame for something and as I just said, it would be judged on a case-by-case basis. You can start throwing scenarios at me if you want but I can't see what it would achieve
Original post by elmosandy
Nah just say what you think if you're undecided ( and believe it's both ) then you have a right to say it. It is not being turned into a pointless discussion.
And what happened to say what you think? Do I have a right to say what I don't think? You're starting to talk in riddles.
Original post by elmosandy
You said your answer,
There you go then, stop asking me for it.
Original post by elmosandy
you said is it enough and I'm simply saying it just sparked an thought in me
a thought, a thought in you. Well if I said it is enough what are you arguing with me for then?
Original post by elmosandy
and respected your opinion. Everyone is free to say what they think. Jesus
And why are you bringing Jesus into this discussion? Your arguments here do seem to be somewhat disjointed. But I enjoy working on so many levels.
Reply 97
Original post by 04MR17
That was not the title of the thread.

Spoiler


Then why did you ask?Now we're finally getting to a proper question, responsible for what and to whom?I completely disagree, it has everything to do with the law because the law is the measure of someone being 'at fault' or 'responsible'And now you've answered your own question. I'm still at a loss as to what you would like to know.Responsible for what and to whom? I believe decisions such as these should be settled on a case-by-case basis.Now you're repeating yourself. No one person usually holds blame for something and as I just said, it would be judged on a case-by-case basis. You can start throwing scenarios at me if you want but I can't see what it would achieveAnd what happened to say what you think? Do I have a right to say what I don't think? You're starting to talk in riddles.There you go then, stop asking me for it.a thought, a thought in you. Well if I said it is enough what are you arguing with me for then?And why are you bringing Jesus into this discussion? Your arguments here do seem to be somewhat disjointed. But I enjoy working on so many levels.


You're the one who's arguing mate.

Original post by 04MR17



And why are you bringing Jesus into this discussion?


next level trolling. not worth a reply. christ.
Original post by Peter Mondragon
If you want to live in a land of evil dystopian fear, where everyone is terrorised into bland conformity, then yes. Duarte is a common murdering thug scumbag who deserves the same bullet to the back of the head that he has condemned thousands to without trial. Use your imagination you cretin, it could be anyone, your family, you, anyone, death squads care about the terror, not accuracy.


calling someone a cretin is not very nice you moron
The drug addicts create the demand for drugs, and no matter how many drug dealers you'll waste, new ones will come if they can profit. The root of the problem are drug addicts. Right now in the Philippines, drug dealers along with drug users face zero-tolerance shoot-to-kill punishment, and it's an amazing success with thousands of arrests and/or executions since it's start 6 months ago, and drug cartels are cracking, to the extent that very rich and powerful mayors and politicians who have links to them have surrendered to the police.

From a moral perspective, the drug addicts committed the sin of indulgance, the drug dealers of violence and greed. In democracy, indulgance is not considered bad, so according to our society, you can only blame the drug dealer, and that should be our policy if we want it to be consistent with our other laws. Whether you think indulgance should be punished or not is what separates ideologies.
(edited 7 years ago)

Latest