If a TD was snorting cocaine would it matter to you?

kh22587

well i guess it depends on how often he uses it, if its only the one time every now and again i guess its not going to affect his job, sure how many of the ruling class back in the day use it and managed to continue. cocaine is everywhere and i would be a lot more worried if the td was on something like heroin. anyways thats only part of the argument, i just think people dont really need to know this and dont know the whole story.

JC 2K3

Mick86 wrote: »

I bow to your greater experience of the trade in illegal narcotics.

It always amuses me when people use the word "narcotic" as a substitute for "drugs" in order to sound smart. The problem is, they don't actually know what a narcotic is. Cocaine is not a narcotic.

oscarBravo

kh22587 wrote: »

well i guess it depends on how often he uses it, if its only the one time every now and again i guess its not going to affect his job... i just think people dont really need to know this and dont know the whole story.

If a TD only drives drunk every once in a while, or only beats his wife once in a while, and neither affects his job - should we shrug and say we don't really need to know about it?

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Drug use exists in every class of society and I don't think any one class views it as any more excusable than another. Why single out the middle class?

I said "I expect everyone to be law-abiding, Middle class, working class; I don't care." You even quoted me.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Also, I'd like to ask you, is all the coffee, chocolate etc. you buy fair trade? Are none of the clothes you buy made in sweatshops? Much of our money ends up in the hands of exploititive organisations anyway(unless you're very careful about what you buy, which most people aren't), what makes purchasing drugs so different?

This is yet another example of the kind of intellectual laziness that pervades this thread, and the wider debate that surrounds it. Using the existence of third world sweatshops to pretend it's ok to finance the massive increase in gun- and gang-related crime in this country is simply reprehensible.

nesf

oscarBravo wrote: »

If a TD only drives drunk every once in a while, or only beats his wife once in a while, and neither affects his job - should we shrug and say we don't really need to know about it?

There's a privacy question there. Does someone, upon entering public office, forgo all right to privacy about themselves? Should they be punished for the above? Sure. Does the public have to be told about it? I'm not so sure about that one.

oscarBravo

nesf wrote: »

There's a privacy question there. Does someone, upon entering public office, forgo all right to privacy about themselves? Should they be punished for the above? Sure. Does the public have to be told about it? I'm not so sure about that one.

If I did either of the above - or was caught snorting cocaine, for that matter - it would be all over the local papers. Why should a TD be any different?

JC 2K3

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is yet another example of the kind of intellectual laziness that pervades this thread, and the wider debate that surrounds it. Using the existence of third world sweatshops to pretend it's ok to finance the massive increase in gun- and gang-related crime in this country is simply reprehensible.

Where did I say any of it was ok? Neither the existence of sweatshops nor the existence of gangsterism are right, but it's hypocritical for someone who financially supports sweatshops to condemn someone who's financially supporting gangsterism, don't you think?

nesf

oscarBravo wrote: »

If I did either of the above - or was caught snorting cocaine, for that matter - it would be all over the local papers.

That's what I'm questioning (i.e. I'm not saying that just TDs should be allowed off the hook).

simu

I think the public have a right to know if the representatives they elected break the law. And no, I would not like the idea of a TD taking drugs of any kind. That said, I could accept a TD who had been a drug-user in the past being in office, once it was clear that they no longer engaged in that or any other illegal activity.

SeanW

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is yet another example of the kind of intellectual laziness that pervades this thread, and the wider debate that surrounds it. Using the existence of third world sweatshops to pretend it's ok to finance the massive increase in gun- and gang-related crime in this country is simply reprehensible.

But it's a valid argument.

Many of our cheap clothes and branded goods are made in 3rd world sweatshops. In some of these places it borders on slavery.

Heck, any time you go and grab a cheeseburger, you're probably supporting the exploitation of migrant workers in meat factories right here in Ireland.

There's more than one way to finace evil-doing. And many of them are perfectly legal and socially accepted.

The question it comes down to is this: is the only moral barometer that you hold, the one of the law?

juuge

A very high proportion of TD’s are pub owners. Just look at the amount of TD’s clinics that are held in or over licensed premises. Look at the powerful clout they have over proposed government legislation as in the café bars idea that never got off the ground. Look how non drinkers are penalised as I was lately in a well known TD’s pub by being charged 2.60 for a bottle of orange. We know now of the devastating effects alcohol has on our society and let’s face it alcohol is a drug with a proven record. So the notion of a TD snorting cocaine really pales into insignificance.

mike65

The High Society tv series based on the book starts Thursday at 10.15 pm, should be interesting. Something I've noticed about media discussion on this subject is how assembled TDs and hacks tend to dissmiss the possibility of a coke snorting minister.

Part of me is wondering if Justine Delany Wilson is setting up deniers for a big embarrassing fall.

Mike.

Jackie laughlin

JC 2K3,
If anyone had said that if you are middle class you are expected to be more law abiding than anyone with less money than you, it might argued that it is a form of prejudice. The thing is that no one said that. The point rather is that drug crime is seen as the preserve of gangsters who prey on the poor but the reality is that it is funded by the middle classes too. Moreover, these are not the sort of people who readily accept that they are funding gangsterism and the crimes that it produces.

One feature common to bad argument in Boards is that in reply to a point about one subject, it is almost inevitable that someone will get into the nonsense of "whatabout?" Here it is "what about third world exploitation?" or "what about alcohol?" (Yes, of course I have views on both of those issues.)

Mike,
I don't think that any journalist or politician would dismiss the notion of a drug-taking minister. The problem rather is that the media, wishing to dumb down a real issue, want to reduce it to a question of a ministerial scandal.

Nesf,
If there is a privacy issue involved, it must apply to all. There are schools performing random drug testing.

JC 2K3

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

One feature common to bad argument in Boards is that in reply to a point about one subject, it is almost inevitable that someone will get into the nonsense of "whatabout?" Here it is "what about third world exploitation?" or "what about alcohol?" (Yes, of course I have views on both of those issues.)

That someone should not take drugs because the only way to obtain them is by funding gangsterism is a bad argument to start with. By bringing up sweatshops and exploititive industries I'm not trying to say buying drugs off gangsters is ok, I'm merely exposing hypocrisy.

Put it this way, doing drugs doesn't directly harm anyone but the person doing the drug. Buying drugs on the black market because there is no other option might be harmful as it's probably funding gangsterism, but the fact that this would not exist if proper, logical drug laws were in place and the fact that many people fund exploititive industries by buying various different common products means that the reason gangsterism gets funded in this manner is a lot to do with flawed laws and most people who condemn drug users for funding gangsterism are being quite hypocritical.

Tea drinker

JC 2K3 wrote: »

That someone should not take drugs because the only way to obtain them is by funding gangsterism is a bad argument to start with. By bringing up sweatshops and exploititive industries I'm not trying to say buying drugs off gangsters is ok, I'm merely exposing hypocrisy.

JC, you make it sound like everyone involved in drug trafficking is being looked after. I seriously doubt that.
A lot of these drug gangsters are involved in the sex trade, human traffic etc. Do you know what the good thing about keeping sex slaves over drug trafficking? You can sell the drugs once, but you can sell the girl (or boy) over and over.

nacho libre

Mick86 wrote: »

I bow to your greater experience of the trade in illegal narcotics.

Cocaine is not a narcotic.

The word "narcotic" is more often used incorrectly than it is used correctly. A quick method of telling whether someone actually knows anything about this subject is to listen to their use of this word. If they tell you that , cocaine is a "narcotic" then count them among the vast legions of totally clueless people on this subject.

the word "narcotic" comes from the Greek word "narkos", meaning sleep. Therefore, "narcotics" are drugs that induce sleep. Specifically, that means the opiates such as heroin, morphine and related drugs.

Cocaine is not a "narcotic". It is a "stimulant" the exact opposite of a "narcotic". Stimulants cause people to be more awake and more active, not sleepy. Calling them "narcotics" makes as much sense as calling coffee a "narcotic".

enda1

Is booze a narcotic? And what about sex (for guys)?

mike65

I think we can all thank nacho libre for his elucidation on the etymology the word narcotic, don't you?

Mike.

Jackie laughlin

I thought the way to spot a clueless person was to wait for them to say, "going forward", "ramp up" or "roll out"!

JC 2K3,
You are not exposing hypocrisy; you are avoiding the issue.

Firstly, it is commonplace to try to undermine an argument by dubbing as hypocrisy any failure to support at least one other worthy cause. Moreover, even if it were hypocritical to support argument A but not support argument B, that would not in any way undermine argument A.

Secondly, no one is making an argument of direct harm to others from drug use. That would be crazy. Harm is a relative term. Indirect harm may be far more serious than direct harm; an accessory to murder would and should be far more harshly treated than someone guilty of a technical assault or even a minor assault. The point is that a large number of people, who see themselves as decent and having nothing to do with lowlife, decide that their enjoyment of drugs is more important than the predictable consequences of their putting money into the hands of drug dealers.

It may certainly be argued that the law as it stands facilitates or even guarantees gangsterism in the supply of drugs but as an argument it has no place here. It is merely an evasion. The moral reasoning of a drug purchaser tonight is this: "I feel like getting some stuff to liven the dinner party on Saturday. I know full well that in the present situation my purchase will contribute to the income of gangsters. I will buy anyway."

JC 2K3

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Firstly, it is commonplace to try to undermine an argument by dubbing as hypocrisy any failure to support at least one other worthy cause. Moreover, even if it were hypocritical to support argument A but not support argument B, that would not in any way undermine argument A.

I never denied this. Purchasing drugs is wrong given the current legal status.

However, if someone can live with purchasing goods which fund exploititive industries, they can live with purchasing goods that fund gangsters. I'm merely saying that the indifference that exists regarding the negative consequences of purchasing drugs is the same as the indifference that exists regarding the purchase of any other product in which the money goes to irreputable sources.

nesf

nacho libre wrote: »

Cocaine is not a narcotic.

The word "narcotic" is more often used incorrectly than it is used correctly. A quick method of telling whether someone actually knows anything about this subject is to listen to their use of this word. If they tell you that , cocaine is a "narcotic" then count them among the vast legions of totally clueless people on this subject.

the word "narcotic" comes from the Greek word "narkos", meaning sleep. Therefore, "narcotics" are drugs that induce sleep. Specifically, that means the opiates such as heroin, morphine and related drugs.

Cocaine is not a "narcotic". It is a "stimulant" the exact opposite of a "narcotic". Stimulants cause people to be more awake and more active, not sleepy. Calling them "narcotics" makes as much sense as calling coffee a "narcotic".

That would be the first definition of narcotic.

The second being:

2. A drug affecting the mind and widely prohibited or controlled, but still sold and used illegally. Freq. in pl., illegal drugs. Orig. US. E20.

Etymologies aren't "binding" as definitions either. Nice troll though.

Jackie laughlin

JC 2K3,

It simply doesn't necessarily follow that if someone can live with purchasing goods which fund exploititive industries, then they can live with purchasing goods that fund gangsters. You cannot logically reach that conclusion.

You might be able to argue plausibly that people who buy drugs also support expoitation in industry or indeed that people who refuse to buy drugs frequently buy goods and effectively support exploitation. Either argument would require data but both arguments would be side issues here.

Liam Byrne

Not sure if it's what the thread says, but Fianna Fail must be on something given their current levels of decision-making (and the follow-up excuses) and their supporters must have been on it too on polling day.....