Bad Batch Of Heroin

[Lonan3]

There’s far far more involved than the physical effects of the drugs themselves, there’s also the nature of the ‘people’ who use the stuff.

 

It’s very true that if you lay with dogs you will get fleas.

 

Come to think of it they probably wouldn’t give a damm. Such is the nature of addicts. And those are the kind of ‘people’ that you would want to mix with? The world would be far better off without them.

 

I agree that they probably wouldn't be my ideal choice of company. At the same time, a heartless, self-opinionated, right-wing bigot wouldn't exactly be my first choice either.

[Rog]

There’s far far more involved than the physical effects of the drugs themselves, there’s also the nature of the ‘people’ who use the stuff.

 

It’s very true that if you lay with dogs you will get fleas.

 

Come to think of it they probably wouldn’t give a damm. Such is the nature of addicts. And those are the kind of ‘people’ that you would want to mix with? The world would be far better off without them.

 

I agree that they probably wouldn't be my ideal choice of company. At the same time, a heartless, self-opinionated, right-wing bigot wouldn't exactly be my first choice either.

 

One mans heartless, self-opinionated, right-wing bigot is another mans decent person who lives in the real world and is willing to call scum scum.

[slinkydevil]

One mans heartless, self-opinionated, right-wing bigot is another mans decent person who lives in the real world and is willing to call scum scum.

 

I' sure I have said this before but anyone who says 'lives in the real world' loses all credibility instantly. What a cock of a phrase....

[Lonan3]

One mans heartless, self-opinionated, right-wing bigot....

 

One man's? Really, Rog, you do yourself an injustice. I'm sure I'm not the only person who reads your posts!

[Chinahand]

One mans heartless, self-opinionated, right-wing bigot is another mans decent person who lives in the real world and is willing to call scum scum.

Rog, can you have a guess at estimating the percentage of the population below 25 that you consider scum?

 

If your parents had been asked the same question when they were your age (assuming they lived to that age!) what percentage do you think they would have considered scum - higher or lower? I'm guessing your parent were about your age now in the 60s so they probably had a bit of a culture shock relating to the youth of the day!

 

Do you think your estimates have increased or decreased over the last 20 or so years - what percentage of this increase is down to "Grumpy old man syndrome".

 

Sincere questions!

[Rog]

Rog, can you have a guess at estimating the percentage of the population below 25 that you consider scum?

 

What percentage engage in illegal activities. I consider people who engage in illegal activities scum.

 

Those who live a lifestyle that I do not think of as being good, decent, wholesome, that’s another matter altogether. That’s a very subjective thing, and that is usually very age and culture related.

 

IF drugs were legalised, as I wish they would be for a number of reasons, then as the act of using banned substances would no loner be illegal my condemnation would remain but change in focus from that of people being criminal to being immoral. There can be and often is a difference.

 

If your parents had been asked the same question when they were your age (assuming they lived to that age!) what percentage do you think they would have considered scum - higher or lower? I'm guessing your parent were about your age now in the 60s so they probably had a bit of a culture shock relating to the youth of the day!

 

I don’t think that culture shock is involved in this.

 

Of course what I knew in my 20’s was very different from the world that a person in their 20s experiences today

 

Same with my parents, my mother for example was born in 1912 and to a very different world from mine, but there are some things that transcend both age and culture. As to the question of percentages? The answer is in the percentage of people engaging in illegality.

 

Do you think your estimates have increased or decreased over the last 20 or so years - what percentage of this increase is down to "Grumpy old man syndrome".

 

As the basis of my condemnation of people as being scum is determined by the number of people breaking the law, and as that percentage probably remained the same over the last 20 years I would expect that there has been no change.

 

This isn’t ‘grumpy old man syndrome’ at all. Or at least I don’t THINK it is, it’s about common decency, people obeying the law, and living good and decent lives.

[Chinahand]

What percentage engage in illegal activities. I consider people who engage in illegal activities scum.

 

Erm ok - I'd got the wrong end of the stick - I incorrectly thought you called people who are immoral scum. But clearly not as you've explained.

 

How about replacing scum with immoral in all the questions asked.

 

I would have thought you'd be more concerned about the "moral" trajectory of our society rather than just illegality.

[Rog]

Replace scum with immoral? Wow! As that’s going to be hard as the Actress said to the bishop!

 

Rog, can you have a guess at estimating the percentage of the population below 25 that you consider immoral?

 

Based on my definition of immorality, that is to say a thing that is not wholesome, my guess is probably around a third.

 

Based on my SON’S definition of immorality which is more along the lines of the Witches rede, probably around 10 % or so.

 

If your parents had been asked the same question when they were your age (assuming they lived to that age!) what percentage do you think they would have considered immoral - higher or lower? I'm guessing your parent were about your age now in the 60s so they probably had a bit of a culture shock relating to the youth of the day!

 

I’m guessing that my old Mum would have said around 15% or half the figure that I would estimate and using my definition of wholesomeness. being the root of moral behaviour.

 

Do you think your estimates have increased or decreased over the last 20 or so years - what percentage of this increase is down to "Grumpy old man syndrome".

 

Over the past 20 years? Increased. The basis for this is the amount of under age drinking and the far wider use of drugs and I think none down to ‘Grumpy Old Man’ syndrome aka envy!

[cheeky boy]

Study comissioned by the Royal Society of Arts found that LSD & extasy were less dangerous than tobacco & alcohol

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6173272.stm

[ans]

^^ Merged this new topic into this one as there's no point having two ongoing drug discussions.

[hboy]

There’s far far more involved than the physical effects of the drugs themselves, there’s also the nature of the ‘people’ who use the stuff.

 

Stick this up your arse you sad old Curmudgeon

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6429239.stm

 

Would like to hear your arguments against proven medical research.

 

Alcohol and tobacco would be rated higher than most "illegal" drugs if there true potential to cause long term damage was taken into account.

 

The index of most harmful substances

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6429239.stm#drugs

[nessa]

When the cases are being reported of young children or even teetotallers having freebies laced into other products - and thus they became immediately vulnerable to either pyschosis or robbery or assault and worse and of course later addiction problems sometimes.... and then sliding down the slippery slope into crime activity themselves ... becomes a vicious circle imho

I am not sure if you were joking here. People aren't going to become thieves or violent from having from the occasional, unwanted addition of another drug to their drink or other drug.

 

not sure that I am joking LDV - well not when I read some of the media reports here nor participate in convos with local youngsters

 

I guess it depends very much whether it depends on a rich yuppie target or young person perhaps??

 

Most likely I feel that when any business man or woman who has been hit with a mickey [or whatever they call] it may mean that this adult may not slide into the world of crime but I doubt they recover easily ie some of these raped or robbed men and women may have a different recovery struggle &/or their victimisation will influence their view of the world imho

 

However if its a young girl or boy who is the target for the predator - then the use of drugging seems part of the SOP sadly - and after they have been touched ... well looks there have been some very disturbing and distressing crimes committed and yeah which all involve the use of multiple substances & violence too

 

this be a whole different topic though imho so aside from my quick sidetrack - I gotta say that I too am hoping to see more critical analysis with the Lancet report as well Chinahand

[Rog]

There’s far far more involved than the physical effects of the drugs themselves, there’s also the nature of the ‘people’ who use the stuff.

 

Stick this up your arse you sad old Curmudgeon

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6429239.stm

 

Would like to hear your arguments against proven medical research.

 

Alcohol and tobacco would be rated higher than most "illegal" drugs if there true potential to cause long term damage was taken into account.

 

The index of most harmful substances

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6429239.stm#drugs

 

I have no problem with the legalisation of all substances and would be delighted to see this done. In my opinion the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks.

 

If people are stupid enough to get involved with a thing that will kill them, then more power to their elbow. The sooner they are out of the gene pool the better.

 

Not only that, but once the thrill of the illegality of taking drugs was replaced with the knowledge that taking the filth will kill there’s more than a few who today quite willingly start with the most common gateway drug, and cannabis IS a gateway drug as are the amphetamine derivatives, who would at least think twice and more likely decide that it was not a path they wanted to progress.

 

At the very least the legalisation of drugs, especially the less dangerous ones, would mean that the weak willed fools who need to resort to what amounts to nothing more than chemical masturbation would not need to buy their ‘gear’ from the scum that presently deal in the stuff. That cannabis is a gateway drug is certain, what is not certain is if the drug is the gateway or if the scum who deal it use their marketing skills form the gateway.

 

My personal opinion is that it is probably 10% cannabis itself being the gateway, 90% the dealers exploiting an established market. A 90% reduction in people progressing (?) from cannabis would in itself be a worthwhile thing.

 

I still maintain that what is overlooked, or worse ignored, by those who do use the filth is that there IS far more involved than the physical effects of the drugs themselves.

 

There IS also the nature of the ‘people’ that they buy the filthy stuff from, the nature of their idiotic peers, the amount of criminality that drug use involves and creates, in short what is colloquially referred to as The Drug Scene to be taken into account.

 

After all, you lay with dogs, you get fleas.

 

I just wonder what the girls and women on the forum think about the way that so many young (and not so young) men use drugs today and if they would be comfortable about their kids coming in from a night out stinking of burning haystacks.

[nessa]

... That cannabis is a gateway drug is certain, what is not certain is if the drug is the gateway or if the scum who deal it use their marketing skills form the gateway.

 

My personal opinion is that it is probably 10% cannabis itself being the gateway, 90% the dealers exploiting an established market......

 

I think this is probably part of the difficult aspect I struggle with Rog perhaps.... especially when I try to find my way through the many different arguments and issues for and against the legalisation of different drugs etc So my first and foremost biggest worry is *The Drug Scene* .... as the criminal worlds are horrendous imho ...and then yeah the physical effects of the drug itself eg Amotivational syndrome with cannabis perhaps or alcoholism problems etc etc

 

For example, when Ritalin was first promoted as a medication for ADHD in children way back - I has some alarm bells ring I guess - and yeah did a little bit of research where I could etc I wont go into all of that ancient history Rog but the worry for me was using these types of drugs on a developing brain - as well as its long term impact on what could or should still be hopefully a maturing mind and responsible adult member of society etc

 

The very young children I saw placed on this prescription medication IRL in the early 90s have had to struggle with all sorts Rog - and sadly I consider most of them as being all high risk delinquents &/or damaged now To my mind its like once this new drug hit the shelves - then it was dished out way too easily imho, and any other assessments or supports were overlooked in the race for quick fixing results etc I suppose its partly that I feel I have seen this drug used inappropriately imho Rog so that probably influences my thinking here eg the children of widows or parents seriously injured so child grief undiagnosed perhaps - and what I feel were normal behaviours were viewed as abnormal and this led to ritalin for child and oft something like prozac for adult etc

[Rog]

The effects of drugs on kids really is still quite unknown territory.

 

I remember when aspirin was the thing if a child had a headache, you could even buy junior aspirins, and now the potential hazard for pre-pubescent kids seems to be quite significant, more so in some kids than others.

 

Ritalin may also turn out to cause damage, time will tell. It does seem strange that a stimulant should act as it does on kids with ADHD but it does and it seems empirically right that a thing that affects brain function should affect the growth and development of a persons brain in some manner.

 

It’s the same with other things, Remember ‘Fennings Fever Cure’ anyone? A quinine stuff that tasted beyond foul (as quinine does) but that was common place to bring down an elevated temperature in the case of ‘flu or a bad cold. Allegedly! And yet quinine has some rather nasty side effects but nonetheless it was regularly given to kids.

 

Then there’s alcohol, people often don’t realise the damage alcohol actually does to a developing brain or for that matter that it causes brain damage at all.

 

But there’s a skew ball in all this involving cause and effect and that is typified with the question of how many kids diagnosed with ADHD really do have that (very real) condition, and how many are undisciplined ill behaved spoiled brats who it is easier to give a label to and so an excuse and an alibi for bad parenting.

 

Bad parenting that results in ill behaved teenagers and adults in later life resulting from a lack of discipline as an infant and child.

 

Personally I feel that there are far too many parents who simply don’t know or understand what their duties and responsibilities to their offspring are and the real effects of Ritalin may be being masked by them.