Bad Batch Of Heroin

[thebees]

with thanks to BORAT

 

Nice...pause..not. Were you and Rog in that crowd scene at the Rodeo?

[feelslikeitshould]

Drug users fall into many categories, as it's pointed out by many others before, cigarettes and alcohol are drugs too and I believe alcohol is more likely to lead to taking illegal drugs (especially amoungst young people) than cannabis. Many of my drug taking acquaintances (I don't really count them as friends because it's highly unlikely I'll ever even think about them again after the end of May. And no, I don't take drugs) started out in clubs getting drunk but it doesn't really fit with the mood promoted in the clubs they frequent. So they moved on to pills and often there would be warnings on various websites as to which colour or design of pills to aviod, many of them being laced with heroin.

 

The majority of them do not drink alcohol once they get inside the clubs, relying solely on pills to get high so they can party right through until lunchtime the next day. I don't like drugs and I would never willingly take pills and I get on their case from time to time, it's not my place to tell them what to do and even they admit they don't know what's in the drugs they take but they "trust" their dealer. Which is astonishing really but I suppose if you've got a good client base you're going to make more money.

 

One or two of them who have more addictive personanlities will take anything put infront of them. They love coke because it's more of a clean high apparently. They'd never touch smack or crack because they see that as "dirty". One of the guys I know, seeing a line of something white being cut up for him, snorted it assuming it was coke, it was ketamine. They're stupid and irresponsible sometimes but they do what they want because they can. Make it free or clean or easy to get hold of, as has been suggested regarding diamorphine, and that removes the "dirtiness" and they WILL take it.

 

Last week, we were playing Singstar and one of them said how he couldn't believe you could have so much fun without drink or drugs....I've been out on the 'scene' with them a couple of times and I was treated like a freak because I didn't drink, want any drugs and turned down poppers. Lonan3 is right to feel sorry for the people who miss out on life by taking drugs and becoming substance addicts, my 'friends' have opened my eyes to a world I'm glad I have no part of and have no desire to enter.

[thebees]

unlikely I'll ever even think about them again after the end of May

 

Why? Did I miss something? You tolerate their choice though so you are not in the "Who do they think they are?" catergory with Rog and PK

[P.K.]

Nice...pause..not. Were you and Rog in that crowd scene at the Rodeo?

Unfortunately I wasn't there which is a shame as I would have found it absolutely hilarious! One of the few films that made me chuckle all the way through. Not just the toilet humour plumbing new depths but more for just how stupid and gullible the septics can be.

[cheeky boy]

Why do people talk about "experimenting" with drugs ?

 

Do they wear a lab coat and note down the effects ?

 

If so its no wonder they had a shite time

[sausage]

Okay I have read a lot of comments I agree with and lots I definitely dont. Will make my views as simple as possible

 

1. Cannabis = Gateway drug = Absolute bollocks.

 

As stated most youngsters start off with booze which is frequently rated much higher in league tables detailing the dangers of drugs than cannabis. I believe in the most recent study alcohol was right up there at number 5 just behind heroin and crack cocaine.

 

2. People talk about DRUGS as if they are all in one category and all evil terrible things that make people rob grannies

 

This is just not the case, time for a sensible debate about each type of drug, its effects on society, dangers, benefits etc.

 

Heroin and crack cocaine seem to be responsible for most of the DRUG related crime you hear about so these two need particular focus

 

3. Prohibition does not work.

 

Its clear from the millions and millions pounds in drug related crime that threatening to lock people up does not stop them from using drugs. Furthermore it puts young people at more risk because they genuinely do not know what they are ingesting

4. Many people can use some kind of drug in a controlled moderate way and never let their personal use impact anyone else or society in any way.

 

I speak as one who has worked and progressed in a professional environment successfully for twenty years and been a fully paid up member of society, been convicted of no crimes but occasionally may dabble in something soft !!

 

5. Some people are unfortunate enough to have addictive personalities.

 

In this case whether it be gambling, alcohol, some kind of drugs, this addictive personality may well cause them problems in life

 

Instead of being self righteous about this I am thankful that I am not one, speaking from close experience it is heartbreaking to witness

 

6. Rog is the fuckin scum on this debate,

 

A self righteous, unsympathetic cretin who thinks he is so much better than everyone else that he can feel comfortable in himself turning his back on his own family. Thank the lord prehistoric people like you are in a small minority in this day and age.

 

Over and out !

[zippy]

Sausage - sorry too much sense for one post I'm reporting it.

 

Where is your daily mail anger and rightous Christian fundamentalist scorn for the DRUGheads

 

bloody hippy

 

 

Oh and I agree except that :

 

Rog seems to need sympathy rather than scorn - glad I'm not on his planet

[ynsheltyn]

5. Some people are unfortunate enough to have addictive personalities.

 

In this case whether it be gambling, alcohol, some kind of drugs, this addictive personality may well cause them problems in life

 

Instead of being self righteous about this I am thankful that I am not one, speaking from close experience it is heartbreaking to witness

 

6. Rog is the fuckin scum on this debate,

 

A self righteous, unsympathetic cretin who thinks he is so much better than everyone else that he can feel comfortable in himself turning his back on his own family. Thank the lord prehistoric people like you are in a small minority in this day and age.

 

Over and out !

 

Reading the opinions on this thread, I find myself, rather unsettlingly, sliding along the see-saw towards Rog.

 

Why are drug users seen as poor unfortunates who must be cosseted by society and supported in their addiction?

Surely it is a matter of personal choice? No-one is tying them to a chair and forcing them to ingest hard drugs, nor creeping up behind them and sticking syringe needles in their veins. The opinion seems to be that the poor souls can't help it because they don't have the moral strength or willpower to help themselves.

Contrast this to the way that smoking tobacco has been dealt with. Smokers (I'm not one) have been shunned by society. Laws have been introduced that ban them from public buildings. The argument is that tobacco smokers harm others by passive inhalation.

Smokers are, literally and practically, pushed away from normal civil interaction. Why isn't this seen as 'heartbreaking'?

Can we say that hard drug users are somehow different? That their addiction has less effect on society than smoking or drinking does?

 

It seems to be OK for people to say "Don't come into my presence if you're a smoker" or "I don't wish to speak to you if you're a drunk" but any suggestion that you wish to similarly shun drug users is seen as some sort of moral decrepitude.

 

I know people who have extraordinarily strong opinions against smoking. That's seen as OK.

Why, then, is someone with similarly strong opinions against drugs so reviled?

[P.K.]

1. Cannabis = Gateway drug = Absolute bollocks.

 

As stated most youngsters start off with booze which is frequently rated much higher in league tables detailing the dangers of drugs than cannabis. I believe in the most recent study alcohol was right up there at number 5 just behind heroin and crack cocaine.

All you are doing here is just bleating on about alcohol as though it kind-of supports a nebulous position that cannabis is not a gateway drug. In some cases it is as the pushers want you hooked on their most profitable products. You do understand that don't you?

 

2. People talk about DRUGS as if they are all in one category and all evil terrible things that make people rob grannies

 

This is just not the case, time for a sensible debate about each type of drug, its effects on society, dangers, benefits etc.

 

Heroin and crack cocaine seem to be responsible for most of the DRUG related crime you hear about so these two need particular focus

I refer to my original post:

There are about 200,000 users of heroin and crack cocaine in the UK.... blah-di-blah-di-blah.....the junkies in the UK have to steal £15,000,000,000 worth of stuff every year to fund their habit.

And they DO nick stuff from grannies, the more defenceless the better. Dear me, exactly which planet are you on?

 

3. Prohibition does not work.

 

Its clear from the millions and millions pounds in drug related crime that threatening to lock people up does not stop them from using drugs. Furthermore it puts young people at more risk because they genuinely do not know what they are ingesting;

BS in it's purest form. They genuinely do not know just how high they can get and what a plague on society they can become. I'm also very happy for the jails to be full. I'd far rather they were in there and off the streets rather than preying on the rest of us to feed their habit.

 

4. Many people can use some kind of drug in a controlled moderate way and never let their personal use impact anyone else or society in any way.

 

I speak as one who has worked and progressed in a professional environment successfully for twenty years and been a fully paid up member of society, been convicted of no crimes but occasionally may dabble in something soft !!

Completely wrong. The same people who supply soft drugs usually supply hard drugs as well, or at least their organisation does. So over the last 20 years you've been financially supporting their efforts. Well done, something to be proud of not.

 

5. Some people are unfortunate enough to have addictive personalities.

 

In this case whether it be gambling, alcohol, some kind of drugs, this addictive personality may well cause them problems in life

I wonder about this as I just don't know. I suspect the jury is still out on this one. However I DO know that an overdose of fruit machines is probably not going to put you in the morgue with all the associated costs that we will have to pay for out of our taxes.

 

6. Rog is the fuckin scum on this debate,

 

A self righteous, unsympathetic cretin who thinks he is so much better than everyone else that he can feel comfortable in himself turning his back on his own family. Thank the lord prehistoric people like you are in a small minority in this day and age.

A cretin he most certainly is not. In my experience hop-heads are not the person/friend/family member that you once knew anyway. Perhaps folks like him are not in the minority you claim they are either. After all with age comes experience. However I would say it IS cretinous to financially support a pusher and be smug about it.

[Rog]

6. Rog is the fuckin scum on this debate,

 

A self righteous, unsympathetic cretin who thinks he is so much better than everyone else that he can feel comfortable in himself turning his back on his own family. Thank the lord prehistoric people like you are in a small minority in this day and age.

 

Over and out !

 

I’m going to step above the silly insults.

 

Let’s ask the age old question ‘Is there such a thing as absolute, i.e. culture and custom free, good morality?

 

I argue that there is.

 

Putting aside Christianity and the Tanakh and even the existence or otherwise of God, just looking at what they contain as rules. In essence

 

Don’t steal

Don’t kill

Don’t lie

Don’t be envious

Don’t be licentious

Take a regular break

 

Then look at what they recommend.

 

Give a person a chance. In fact give him two. No mention of any more though.

Some things are just plain nasty like cooking an animal in its mothers milk, eating things that eat carrion, eating things that can be at times poisonous, and don’t abuse your body.

 

OK, they’re muddled up in all sorts of ‘religious’ bits and pieces but the underlying message is one that results in behaviour that is overall good for the individual and good for the community.

 

There’s a whole lot more, especially if you plough through Deuteronomy and even worse if you wander into the Mishneh Torah and the 613 Mitzvot but that adds a whole lot of commandments that are too close to being culture related than absolute and culture free directions.

 

So on that basis, that there IS an absolute morality, is it really so wrong to condemn those who fall short of it? Especially when in doing so they cause so much harm to those around them? And if a society moves its culture to one in which the absolute moral rules are secondary does that mean that it is right to respect that society or sub culture, for a sub culture is what the use of presently illegal drugs is.

 

What’s more if society has decided that some harmful drugs are not to be prohibited does that make them OK? Not in MY book. Should people have the freedom to ruin themselves? That’s a different question but with freedom comes responsibility. If they choose to wreck their health should the rest of society pay for the results?

 

Categorically no.

 

That is one reason why I detest seeing money being poured into research to find a cure for the immorality plague, AIDS, when people are dying from the lack of investment into treatment for amongst other diseases of misfortune such as most forms of cancer.

 

So what options exist. Prohibition doesn’t work. It can’t. Tolerance and extended support for the people who do abuse themselves is morally wrong, far better simply let nature take its course, let the junkies get whatever they want, and leave them to rot.

 

There is an old Dutch proverb, ‘Een schip op het strand is een baken in zee’ It figuratively translates into ‘a ship on the beach is a lighthouse for others.’

 

The sight or knowledge of a few dead druggies or those on their last legs would do wonders when it comes to stopping people starting down the slope to ruin.

 

And should junkies be warned of bad batches of drugs. Hell no.

[Lonan3]

Let’s ask the age old question ‘Is there such a thing as absolute, i.e. culture and custom free, good morality?

 

I argue that there is.

 

Putting aside Christianity and the Tanakh and even the existence or otherwise of God, just looking at what they contain as rules. In essence

 

Don’t steal

Don’t kill

Don’t lie

Don’t be envious

Don’t be licentious

Take a regular break

 

Unfortunately Rog, the rules are not always as clear as that.

For example, envy and licentiousness exist; they are part of human nature and, although it may be beneficial to everyone if they are resisted - they are not always either visible or measurable.

Don't kill? Isn't there a problem here when it comes to warfare or defence of those we love? And isn't there also an ambiguity between the OT ''eye for an eye' and the NT 'love thy enemy'?

Don't lie? If you tell the truth in every case you could probably start an infinite number of battles!

 

Then look at what they recommend.

 

Give a person a chance. In fact give him two. No mention of any more though.

And no mention, either, of not just giving a chance but of actually extending a helping hand when its needed. You seem to have let that bit slip by you.

 

Some things are just plain nasty like cooking an animal in its mothers milk, eating things that eat carrion, eating things that can be at times poisonous, and don’t abuse your body.

 

OK, they’re muddled up in all sorts of ‘religious’ bits and pieces but the underlying message is one that results in behaviour that is overall good for the individual and good for the community.

 

Everything can 'at times' be poisonous. The original inhabitants of Easter Island - once it had been deforested (not entirely through their own fault) had to use rats to supplement their diet. Should they have simply lain down to die rather than do that?

 

 

So on that basis, that there IS an absolute morality, is it really so wrong to condemn those who fall short of it?

There is no absolute morality. There are moral standards that can be applied, possibly, to the majority of circumstances and civilisations - but not absolutely and in every case.

 

And if a society moves its culture to one in which the absolute moral rules are secondary does that mean that it is right to respect that society or sub culture, for a sub culture is what the use of presently illegal drugs is.

 

The moral rules that applied fifty years ago had already undergone from the moral code that existed fifty years before that and was vastly different from the moral codes of previous ages. Like everything else, morality has to develop in line with the changes that happen within societies. New technologies create new circumstances and everything - including what were previously regarded as moral certainties - have to be examined, questioned and, where they fail to cater for present circumstances, undergo some adjustments.

We may not like it. People of our generation may find it reprehensible and look upon it as a decline in standards etc - but our parents and grandparents looked upon our mores in much the same way.

 

What’s more if society has decided that some harmful drugs are not to be prohibited does that make them OK? Not in MY book. Should people have the freedom to ruin themselves? That’s a different question but with freedom comes responsibility. If they choose to wreck their health should the rest of society pay for the results?

 

Categorically no.

 

No treatments, then, for alcoholics? Prohibition was tried - and that didn't work. And let's not forget that many of the people who are addicted to drugs are wealthy enough to afford them - we only tend to see the people at the bottom of the pile, not the stockbrokers, bankers, lawyers, surgeons etc who are able to fund their habits. So, it's okay for the rich, but god help anyone who can't afford it?

 

That is one reason why I detest seeing money being poured into research to find a cure for the immorality plague, AIDS, when people are dying from the lack of investment into treatment for amongst other diseases of misfortune such as most forms of cancer.

And do you really think that if that research was stopped, all the funds would suddenly be diverted into finding cures for cancer etc?

 

So what options exist. Prohibition doesn’t work. It can’t. Tolerance and extended support for the people who do abuse themselves is morally wrong

 

Even if it works and enables even a small percentage to become useful citizens?

[Rog]

It’s an interesting area to debate as there are deep philosophical issues involved that have certainly baffled far better brains than mine.

 

What I sugested as the basis of absolute morality I did write was not inclusive but representative. Helping your neighbour? Certainly, that is a thing captured in a number of religious codes that many people mistake for being the source of good morality rather than just the repository for some good morality, but help?

 

At what point does help extend into support and then into encouragement.

 

Personally I think there IS a fault line and that is the point when behaviour becomes immoral and in my opinion doing a thing that is overtly harmful to ones self or to others or that breaks the high morality of not stealing / killing / etc is on the far side of that line.

 

The moral codes of fifty years ago? Here again are we not dealing then with the SOCIAL codes rather than the real moral codes? After all, if a thing is permitted or even fashionable it doesn’t automatically become right --- or good and wholesome. I think that there is a very close tie between good morality and wholesomeness in its broader sense but that’s just a straw man.

 

New technologies? Such will I am sure present quite an issue in the coming years. I can look into blue skies and foresee the direct stimulation of the pleasure centers of the brain for example. Never mind ‘in-car entertainment’, we’ll be dealing with in BODY entertainment! And it WILL come, not for years but I have little doubt that on present trends it will come.

 

But will it be moral to engage in? Maybe the answer to that will be found in answering the questions first is it wholesome and secondly will it cause harm to others.

 

Then there is the very good point that you raise about the generation gap and what is or is not reprehensible. Here again I think the risk is in confusing fashion plus custom with basic right morality. Take the birth control pill and what that heralded.

 

Is free from the risk of an unwanted pregnancy casual sex a good thing to engage in?

 

Is a sexual relationship reduced to simple gratification rather than the means of expressing the deepest attachment that two people can engage in and a special thing for a special relationship a positive step? Personally I think not.

 

Is underage drinking an acceptable thing that should be catered for by a reduction in the age at which alcohol cab be bought and consumed just the law following a changing society? Again I think not.

 

But then there is the question is it that I think not because of my age and my values. Here again I think not (well, I would, wouldn’t I!) because the test that I apply is that of is a thing conducive to good absolute morality and of wholesomeness and I still believe that there IS absolute morality.

 

Alcoholics and treatment for them? Personally I would stick to the three strikes principle for any form of addiction to legal drugs. Help them overcome their addiction twice, third time, let ‘em rot. Drugs and the ability of the junkies to apy for them without resorting to crime? Again there are many very well off people in the professions who can afford to buy the filth but there again, all they are doing is supporting the price which in turn increases the need for the usual scum who want their ‘gear’ to turn to crime. That’s why I am in favour of decriminalising drugs.

 

Bring down the price, reduce the crime people engage in to get their filth, and let ‘em die sooner as a result of more intake.

 

It’s akin to a self cleaning electric oven. It gets messy in use, belt up the heat and it burns the grease off.

 

I know it must be hard for the weak willed hedonistic fools and scum who are reading that they ARE weak willed hedonistic and scum because they make use of illegal drugs but basically tough titty. If you think it’s OK to smoke a joint or pop a couple of ‘E’s or have discovered the effects of ‘crystal meth’ or see cocaine as a harmless means of permitting your true self to emerge then guess what.

 

You’re kidding yourselves.

[Snaipyr]

Smokers are, literally and practically, pushed away from normal civil interaction.

 

 

What?! Or is that just in Shetland?

 

If I want 'normal' (whatever you mean by that) civil interaction I can go wherever I please to get it. If it's in a non smoking environment I just don't smoke. If I can smoke I will - and still manage a bit of normal civil interaction in between puffs.

 

I've also witnessed many very UNcivil interactions between non-smokers!I

[Declan]

Don't steal

Don't kill

Don't lie

Don't be envious

Don't be licentious

Take a regular break

 

I envy the licentious, does that mean I'm going to hell?

[sausage]

ynsheltyn

 

Dont think I said drug users were poor unfortunates who must be cossetted. In fact I talked about having sympathy for people with addictive personalities, in my opinion very similar to suffering a mental illness.

 

However once again you generalise about DRUG users sticking needles in their arm. I dont want innocent peoples lives blighted by robbery and burglary any more than you but lets get it straight, people dont go out and rob houses to fund a cannabis or mushroom habit !! And as long as heroin and crack cocaine are illegal and underground then these addicts will break the law to fund their cravings.

 

And on your comments regarding feeling hard done by for smoking. Ever been locked up for smoking ? ever got a criminal record ? No ? So why should you be allowed to smoke legally yet someone else who sits at home and smokes a spliff in front of the TV at the weekend be criminalised, despite the fact that tobacco once again is deemed more dangerous than cannabis in latest scientific studies ? Level playing field is needed when it comes to the law on these issues.

 

You said yourself its a matter of personal choice, the only issue that needs to be addressed is when peoples personal choice impacts others, and when it comes to heroin etc how many times do we want to lock people up for heroin possession and related crime before we admit it doesnt work ?!!

 

Once again I implore you stop fuckin generalising about DRUG use, then finally the debate might move forward.