Illegal Drugs - What Have Taken?

ScumLord

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Scumbags preach about how it should be legalized and all the associated nastiness of the drug gangs will go away, maybe thats true, they then go out, buy drugs, and directly contribute to the untold suffering of people at the hands of drug dealing scum.

Scumbags don't want drugs legalised they'd lose all their profit.

If your calling anyone that uses drugs a scumbag your a fool.

Wolfe Tone

ScumLord wrote: »

Scumbags don't want drugs legalised they'd lose all their profit.

If your calling anyone that uses drugs a scumbag your a fool.

I'm calling anyone who buys drugs from criminal gangs, through subsidiaries or whatnot, a scumbag.


The lad who got stuff for EP at least sourced his stuff with a degree of responsibility.

charlemont

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

If only.

Well you should know then that lots of so called "drug related" killings are a result of personal scumbag feuds, Which really have very little to do with actual drugs but more about stupid pride. Fair enough drug seizures and allegations of ratting do result in severe retribution including murder.

Logical Fallacy

ScumLord wrote: »

Scumbags don't want drugs legalised they'd lose all their profit.

If your calling anyone that uses drugs a scumbag your a fool.

In fairness, he is offering a defined reason as to why.

And he is right. Many people will buy their drugs in a manner than funds the activities of illegal and violent gangs but will try and gloss over it.

It's not hard to accept that he has a valid point.

I know that everyone on AH seems to know a guy who grows his own stuff and works 9-5, looks after his sick Mum and volunteers for charity but i have to say, i reckon the majority of them are dreaming.

ScumLord

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The lad who got stuff for EP at least sourced his stuff with a degree of responsibility.

He didn't really, he just has friends in the drug production trade that may very well sell their drugs onto gangs. If they don't sell onto gangs now they will down the line when the gangs find out they're producing drugs.

It is still a double standard, we think nothing of the damage the rest of our purchases do, our electronics use slave and child labour from the point of taking the resources out of the ground, to the terrible conditions in Chinese factories. It just suits everyone to ignore the fact they support murder and slavery instead pointing the finger at people who use drugs, and even at their worst gangs in Ireland have nothing on the gangs that run mines in Africa or the Chinese state that force people to work their whole lives only to get the Chinese new year off.

wild_cat

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

If only.

I don't mean offence by this or to cause bother. But given your name I'd believe that to.

FlutterinBantam

wild_cat wrote: »

Go away you

Ok... you got other fish to fry;)

Mike 1972

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I'm calling anyone who buys drugs from criminal gangs, through subsidiaries or whatnot, a scumbag..

What do you call people who buy Oil, laptops, Mobile phones, Soft drinks or anything made in Columbia/Israel/China/etc ?

And do the "subsidaries" in questions include those whose names consist of three letter acronyms beginning with "I" ?

orangebud

PseudoFamous wrote: »

Serious question, what are they doing with all this cannabis when it's been finished in its use as evidence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v95JfMXUKok

yawha

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Yes.

Should homosexuals have not had relationships with people of the same sex when homosexuality was illegal?
Should people have not used contraception when it was illegal?
Should the Irish have not fought for freedom by violent means because it was illegal?

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Get this into your head, when you go out and buy drugs, YOU directly contribute to the problem, and fund these scumbags. The only way YOU can directly act to stop them is to stop giving them your fcuking money, but no, its easier to blame the government and absolve yourself of personal responsibility isnt it?

I really, really, really don't want to fund scumbags, but if I want to live my life the way I choose to, which involves putting what I want into my body, the act of which in itself does no harm to any other person, then I have no choice.

Every drug user could stop taking drugs. Drug gangs would go out of business and all the violence etc. would cease. But that's not going to get drugs legalised now is it? If that happened, the government would declare victory in the War on Drugs and our freedom to take drugs would continue to be curtailed.

It's a catch 22. I don't want to give money to scum, but I do want to take drugs and not submit to a ridiculous law.

Also, the point's already been made on here about a huge amount of consumer products having direct links with slave and child labour, conflict minerals etc., which IMO are much, much more damaging than drug gangs. Next to no one cares about these things and buy the products anyway, so why should drug users be held to a higher standard of morality?

mikom

yawha wrote: »

Also, the point's already been made on here about a huge amount of consumer products having direct links with slave and child labour, conflict minerals etc., which IMO are much, much more damaging than drug gangs. Next to no one cares about these things and buy the products anyway, so why should drug users be held to a higher standard of morality?

Tony Montana said it best....

"What you lookin' at? You all a bunch of fuckin' assholes.
You know why? You don't have the guts to be what you wanna be?
You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy."

So... what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie.

So say good night to the bad guy! Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on. Make way for the bad guy. There's a bad guy comin' through! Better get outta his way!"

Logical Fallacy

yawha wrote: »

Every drug user could stop taking drugs. Drug gangs would go out of business and all the violence etc. would cease. But that's not going to get drugs legalised now is it? If that happened, the government would declare victory in the War on Drugs and our freedom to take drugs would continue to be curtailed.

A couple of points.

If all the users stopped using the gangs would simply move on to providing something else and would make profits in further areas of crime. I feel this is an important point that often gets missed in the debate. The fact is that many criminals make money from drugs. The legalisation of said drugs would certainly put a huge hole in their earnings and improve safety for users but it wouldn't eradicate the gangs at all.

Secondly, you have no freedom to take drugs. You live in a country with laws and you are bound to obey them. That's just how it is. This concept of "the freedom to take drugs" is silly and damaging to the pro-legalisation argument because it comes across as whiny and childish.

Unless we come up with a recognised religion where the odd doob and pill is sacrosanct and then we can work it under a freedom of religious expression angle.

Pace2008

yawha wrote: »

So should those of us who want to take drugs, and have no other means of getting them bar buying them off drug gangs, just not take them and campaign for their legality for our whole lives in futile hope that they might be legalized at some point?

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Yes.

The fact that people are giving money to criminal gangs, who are enabled by our legislation, is a lobby in and of itself for legalisation. If, in an alternate universe where curiosity and the desire to alter one's conciousness did not exist, people stopped taking drugs, the government would not just turn around and say "Thank you for cooperating, we have now considered your reasoned arguments and will commence the introduction of soon-to-be-legal psychoactives, deemed to be of less relative harm than their currently legal counterparts, on to the market. Free smiley badges and a complementary packet of rizlas for the first 1000 customers."

I'm sure you'll see this as another pathetic at self-justification on the part of the scumbag drug users, which will come as no surprise since it appears there are absolutely zero parallels between people purchasing goods that may have been have been acquired through violence and/or exploitation, and people purchasing goods that may have been acquired through violence and/or exploitation:

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

It makes me laugh, the feeble attempts people make to try to justify drug use to themselves.

But then I have to wonder if your opposition to drug use is based entirely on the fact that it fuels organised crime, or if there is some level of distaste with the act itself. I mean, when someone detailed the reasonable amount of music-enhancing drugs - allegedly sourced from non-violent parties - they were taking to a music festival, you labelled them as "sad:"

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks its a bit sad that you require so much substances in order to have a good weekend?

Apologies if I'm off on the last, but you can see where I'm coming from based on the above.

Pace2008

yawha wrote: »

Should homosexuals have not had relationships with people of the same sex when homosexuality was illegal?
Should people have not used contraception when it was illegal?

The analogy doesn't really hold here - the poster claims their problem with drug use is not in the fact an extant law is being broken, but that the purchasing of the illegal substances funds organised crime.

yawha

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

If all the users stopped using the gangs would simply move on to providing something else and would make profits in further areas of crime. I feel this is an important point that often gets missed in the debate. The fact is that many criminals make money from drugs. The legalisation of said drugs would certainly put a huge hole in their earnings and improve safety for users but it wouldn't eradicate the gangs at all.

You kinda missed my point. Wolfe Tone was saying that no one should buy drugs off drugs gangs because of the violence etc. associated with them. I said that if drug users ceased to buy drugs off drug gangs, the government would declare the War on Drugs a success and legalization would be much less likely. What gangs would do without a market of drug users is entirely tangential.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Secondly, you have no freedom to take drugs. You live in a country with laws and you are bound to obey them. That's just how it is. This concept of "the freedom to take drugs" is silly and damaging to the pro-legalisation argument because it comes across as whiny and childish.

I said my freedom to take drugs is being curtailed, i.e. I don't have the freedom to take drugs. I'm not entirely sure what your point is here.

Pace2008 wrote: »

The analogy doesn't really hold here - the poster claims their problem with drug use is not in the fact an extant law is being broken, but that the purchasing of the illegal substances funds organised crime.

True. But I used the examples moreso to illustrate that it's unrealistic to expect that everyone would ever just stop taking drugs.

Chuck Stone

People want drugs. Others will supply them. It's a fact of life.

How drugs are supplied is up to you and I and If you support prohibition you are effectively choosing scumbags and supporting state violence in a failed war* against people who are 'committing' victimless 'crimes'.


*and paying for the privilege

sbsquarepants

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Yes.
Get this into your head, when you go out and buy drugs, YOU directly contribute to the problem, and fund these scumbags. The only way YOU can directly act to stop them is to stop giving them your fcuking money, but no, its easier to blame the government and absolve yourself of personal responsibility isnt it?.

People have already shown that they would much rather buy from a shop, but Joe Duffy fuelled moral outrage closed the shops and now we're back to square one.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Or, acknowledge the destruction that drugs and the criminal carnival that surround them have done..

You can say the same about tea, coffee, oil, shoes, ipods....... in fact half the products in the world have a trail of misery and exploitation behind them. I guarantee that you personally use dozens if not hundreds of products that have been produced using the cruel and inhumane suffering of others. That doesn't mean it's right to exploit people for drugs but it's not right to exploit them for starbucks either - open your eyes to the world around you, it's a shítty fúcking place for most!

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I think some drugs should be legalized sure, I would in all likelihood give some of them a bash myself, but they are not legal are they? And I'll be fcuked if I will give those scumbags my money and perpetuate a cycle of violence and suffering. Getting high isn't worth the human cost, but shure thats the govts fault ain't it? FFS.

Is having a cappucino worth the human cost? Is sitting at a teak dinning table worth the human cost? Giving the love of your life a diamond neclace for christmas? Where do you draw the line?
If prohibition came in tomorrow, would you stop drinking? Maybe you would maybe you wouldn't, but the vast majority wouldn't, they'd buy their drug off scumbags for the very reason that they'd be the only ones selling it. They'd rather go to the pub or the supermarket but that choice wouldn't be there!

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I'm calling anyone who buys drugs from criminal gangs, through subsidiaries or whatnot, a scumbag.
The lad who got stuff for EP at least sourced his stuff with a degree of responsibility.

How so?
He bought them off "criminals" just like everyone else does. They were produced illegally, smuggled into the country and sold illegally. Everyone involved is a criminal and could be sent to jail for their actions. Hardly the model of responsibility!
I think the point your trying to make is that he WANTED to act responsibly but idiotic laws forced him to act criminaly instead.

Wattle

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You don't see the difference between giving the govt money and drug gangs money? You don't see the difference in the activities of both which your money will fund? Really?

I'm no fan of the blueshirts but even they aren't as bad as the drug gangs and the damage they do in this country!

I'm saying that a government that deals drugs itself and makes huge profits from them, that has the gall to lecture the rest of us on our own drug taking and who we buy from while pumping beer commercials at us every ten minutes hasn't really got a leg to stand on morally.

You really must stop thinking that the government is your friend. They're not.

Logical Fallacy

yawha wrote: »

I said my freedom to take drugs is being curtailed, i.e. I don't have the freedom to take drugs. I'm not entirely sure what your point is here.

My point is that you don't have a freedom to take drugs.

I'll concede the point if you can find me a list of Human Rights that includes taking drugs.

Wattle

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You don't see the difference between giving the govt money and drug gangs money? You don't see the difference in the activities of both which your money will fund? Really?

I'm no fan of the blueshirts but even they aren't as bad as the drug gangs and the damage they do in this country!

I'm saying that the government makes huge profits from potentially deadly products. It then has the gall to lecture us about our own drug taking should we dare to step outside of their little legal bubble of cigarettes and alcohol while beaming beer commercials at us every ten minutes. Morally I don't think they have a leg to stand on.

You really should stop thinking of the government as your friend. They're not.

lastlaugh

I did indeed have a misspent youth, I tried everything except for the last two.

flag123

Coke, Heroin and Crack...

whatever about the rest, these three are just depressing...I can't see how anyone would do them. There's no excuse for anyone to do them.

There's a reason why they're are illegal. Not to "ruin the buzz" or some conspiracy CIA bollocks.

Logical Fallacy

flag123 wrote: »

Coke, Heroin and Crack...

whatever about the rest, these three are just depressing...I can't see how anyone would do them. There's no excuse for anyone to do them.

There's a reason why they're are illegal. Not to "ruin the buzz" or some conspiracy CIA bollocks.

Never did heroin or crack. Did coke a few times but found it just made me way too relaxed and sleepy.

Hollywood had me expecting so much more.

Is mise le key

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

My point is that you don't have a freedom to take drugs.

I'll concede the point if you can find me a list of Human Rights that includes taking drugs.

Will you accept medical drugs in order to ease pain when suffering from cancer? Morphine based types for this are derived from opium, its your human right not to needlessly suffer & the provision of morphine can help in that regard........roll out the heroin:D

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Never did heroin or crack. Did coke a few times but found it just made me way too relaxed and sleepy.

Hollywood had me expecting so much more.

You certainly got ripped off so.

lastlaugh

Is mise le key wrote: »

You certainly got ripped off so.

Sleepy is the last thing you should be if you take coke all the same.

Logical Fallacy

Is mise le key wrote: »

You certainly got ripped off so.

Not at all, it was great coke on all occasions.

I just get sleepy when I take it. Sure, i would get a little buzz for a while but i was never the kind of person to endlessly bang lines in order to chase the buzz.

Is mise le key

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Not at all, it was great coke on all occasions.

I just get sleepy when I take it. Sure, i would get a little buzz for a while but i was never the kind of person to endlessly bang lines in order to chase the buzz.

Your doing it wrong:)

http://static.lolstream.com/images/733_rI8rP9k.gif

lastlaugh

Anytime I've taken ecstasy, I've felt really uneasy and kind of paranoid. I'd get rushes and like music alright, but it just made me feel really fake, seeing people hugging and all that sh!te.

I was always emotionally drained after it, never really enjoyed it tbh...

I used to enjoy taking LSD in my teens, I don't think I could ever take it again though. I reckon if I did I would be headed for a very bad trip.

yawha

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

yawha wrote: »

I said my freedom to take drugs is being curtailed, i.e. I don't have the freedom to take drugs. I'm not entirely sure what your point is here.

My point is that you don't have a freedom to take drugs.

Seriously confused here

You seem to think that I'm arguing for an innate human right to take drugs or something, and I can't figure out where you're getting that from...

Logical Fallacy

yawha wrote: »

Seriously confused here

You seem to think that I'm arguing for an innate human right to take drugs or something, and I can't figure out where you're getting that from...

Well yes, when people talk about their freedom to do something i would normally consider it to be a human rights issue. Freedom to vote, freedom of religious expression etc etc.

What you mean to say is your desire to take drugs is being curtailed?

Apologies if i am getting hung up on the use of the word freedom.