Bigotry towards drug users.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 120

Underscore__

Original post by dingleberry jam

Wish I could. I have crohn's, alcohol ****s me up and I never found it a particularly enjoyable drug.

Well you can still get drunk if you wish, it'd just have some more negative consequences

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 121

dingleberry jam

Original post by Underscore__

Well you can still get drunk if you wish, it'd just have some more negative consequences

Posted from TSR Mobile

I guess but it'd be a bit like a straight guy taking a massive cock up the arse, loads of pain, no pleasure.

Reply 122

KingBradly

Original post by Underscore__

You can 'get high' from alcohol which is legal, has virtually no stigma and is the 'drug' of choice for the vast majority of people. Acting on your desire to get high doesn't force you to break the law

I'd also be interested to see a source for that if you have one

What is inherently unethical about breaking the law or doing something which is stigmatized?

Reply 123

Underscore__

Original post by KingBradly

What is inherently unethical about breaking the law or doing something which is stigmatized?

What's unethical about breaking the law? Was that a serious question? I wasn't on an anti-drug tirade if you read back through the conversation

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 124

Drunk Punx

Original post by Pegasus2

1) It's not wrong if they chose to do it thmeselves.

However, medium to long term misuse of drugs overwhelmingly have a very negative effect on individuals and society as a whole. That's why they are illegal.

2) THey're harming themselves and society. By buying drugs, they support drug dealers and other forms of criminal behaviour. It's a revenue stream for criminals.

Harm to the individual:
Drugs are addictive and cause people to spend all their money on them. They face ficancial ruin because they spend all their money on drugs, drugs and more drugs.

I beg to differ; there are many drugs that aren't addictive (LSD and psilocybin being the two most recognisable) and yet are still illegal. Generalising the many many many drugs out there by placing them under one umbrella term is ignorant.

Harm to society:
They then steal to fund their habbit. I think it's not far wrong to say that a reasonable abount of theft is the result of drugs, especialy in things like bicycles. Steal a £500 bike and sell it for £20 to someone so they can then buy their day's worth of drugs, same again tomorrow and the day after. They become unproductive members of society.

I don't think anyone, else they're literally climbing the walls, is going to steal a bike worth half a grand and then sell it for a score. There's stupidity, and there's that. Even the most jonesing junkie will realise that he can get more for "his" bike than an afternoons worth of nodding.

They pay their dealer, a drugdealer then pays a bigger dealer for his supply of drugs and so on and so forth. The payment of drugdealers funds larger, more serious criminals that persue other avenues of criminality that damages society.

You think I don't know how it works? Dude, you're talking to a stoner. You remind me of another user on here who thinks that all drugs users, regardless of where they actually get their drugs from, are funding cartels. That kind of blind ignorance gets real tiring after a while.

I'd wager that most cannabis smoked on this island is actually grown on this island, and a large amount comes from people that the dealers know. So in those cases... how does the money go to "serious criminals"?

Growing a plant shouldn't be illegal, neither should the selling or the burning of it (especially when it's got more health benefits than the 3 biggest legal drugs).

By your logic, pub owners should be prosecuted for giving someone the means with which to get intoxicated and then engage and anti-social behaviour.

You then get rival drug gangs that intimidate, bully and generally claim 'power' over areas and reduce the quality of life for all the people within it.

You might say "oh but for weed this isn't the case, you're crazy" but soft drugs can offen lead to harder drugs.

You're right; they can. Just like smoking, which last time I checked was legal, can lead to harder drugs. Same with alcohol. Weak argument.

I'm deliberately ignoring the gang reference, it's another weak argument that isn't always true.

As a side-note, did you know that some cartels are now getting into the avocado business? I guess everyone should stop buying avocados, because we're directly funding cartels by doing so... :rolleyes:

Dealers live off other people's suffering, because what they are selling is addictive, that is wrong.

They're providing a service, it's up to the individual whether they want to make use of that service or not. No-one's forcing them to buy what's on offer, they do so willingly. And if that person wants to suffer, then who are you to say that they shouldn't? It's their business, not yours.

3) They shouden't but dealers should be treated harshly.

If you look at what alcohol addiction does, it's much the same. People do all sorts of silly and disruptive things when they're drunk. Assault, battery, theft, criminal damage, vandalism, domesic violence, child abuse, child neglect, intimidation, anti-social behaviour etc etc.

The only difference is alcohol is sold legally and it still causes problems.

See point above, RE: criminalising pub owners.

(edited 7 years ago)

Original post by Drunk Punx

********; if that was the actual reason then booze and **** would be included, which they're not.

Edit: why is **** starred? Christ on a bike Mods, sort it out.
In case you're confused, I'm referring to cigs.

I beg to differ; there are many drugs that aren't addictive (LSD and psilocybin being the two most recognisable) and yet are still illegal. Generalising the many many many drugs out there by placing them under one umbrella term is ignorant.

I don't think anyone, else they're literally climbing the walls, is going to steal a bike worth half a grand and then sell it for a score. There's stupidity, and there's that. Even the most jonesing junkie will realise that he can get more for "his" bike than an afternoons worth of nodding.

You think I don't know how it works? Dude, you're talking to a stoner. You remind me of another user on here who thinks that all drugs users, regardless of where they actually get their drugs from, are funding cartels. That kind of blind ignorance gets real tiring after a while.

I'd wager that most cannabis smoked on this island is actually grown on this island, and a large amount comes from people that the dealers know. So in those cases... how does the money go to "serious criminals"?

Growing a plant shouldn't be illegal, neither should the selling or the burning of it (especially when it's got more health benefits than the 3 biggest legal drugs).

By your logic, pub owners should be prosecuted for giving someone the means with which to get intoxicated and then engage and anti-social behaviour.

You're right; they can. Just like smoking, which last time I checked was legal, can lead to harder drugs. Same with alcohol. Weak argument.

I'm deliberately ignoring the gang reference, it's another weak argument that isn't always true.

As a side-note, did you know that some cartels are now getting into the avocado business? I guess everyone should stop buying avocados, because we're directly funding cartels by doing so... :rolleyes:

Regardless of what you 'think', previous bike thieves and, funnly enough, drug addicts have come forward saying they steal bikes just to fund their habbit. They don't care how much they get. All they care about is getting their next hit, it completely dominates their lives.

A very large proportion of other crime is related to drugs. I think any in depth analysis concludes this. Alcohol itself causes huge amounts of crime.

You might chose to ignore the 'gang' argument, but that is certinly true, just look at the Mexican drug catels. This isn't the same in the UK, but there are gangs that operate to import, farm and sell drugs. They themselves exploit vulnerable people to work for them, such as in drug farms.

Pub owners ARE prosecuted for serving already intoxicated patrons. They're also strictly bound by law and have to be licenced. They can also lose their licence in an instant. I noticed you removed the entire reference in my previous post to alcohol having the exact negative effects you mention. Alcohol would certinly be made illegal if it was discovered in modern times.

You say it's people's choice. Yeah, maybe at first but they become dependant upon it, the MUST buy it. See my point about it dominating their lives. It's the same with alcohol addiction, people literally drink themselves to death. People also smoke themselves to death, Nicotene is the most addictive substance around. Why do you think it's in cigs? So people have to keep buying it.

Laws are there to protect the public from harm, this is why drugs are illegal. The very existance of drug in an area has a negative effect on neighbourhoods. Like I said, it generally leads to other crime.

Things start becoming other peoplse business when they start to be harmed by them. Because of all the crap that comes with drug addiction, drug use affects others, not immediately but eventually. Bloke X has his bike stolen to fund bloke Y's drug habbit. X has been negatively affected by drug addiction in his area.

You know very well that both alcohol and cigs would be made illegal if developed today.