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

mike65

With the news that Grainne Kenny of Europe Against Drugs has written to the Garda Commissioner to seek investigation of taped evidence of a TD who admitted that he was a regular user of marching powder, do boardsies care that an elected representative is a user of a potentially dangerous and of course illegal substance?

I care and hope that the gardai take the appropriate action when the name is revealed.

I also imagine if the cops do get on this case the TD in question will be flushed out by tipp off by other TDs.

Mike.

PixelTrawler

Id be more concerned about the grossly inflated wages and increases, corruption, incompetence and inaction myself

This doesnt register very high on my list of irks about TD's and politicions

flogen

Joebloggs4817 wrote: »

Id be more concerned about the grossly inflated wages and increases, corruption, incompetence and inaction myself

This doesnt register very high on my list of irks about TD's and politicions

Well a TD being a regular cocaine user might theoretically go towards explaining the last three and the first one would to me only seem more unacceptable if the person getting the inflated wages from public money was spending it on drugs.

Yes, it's important to me and I'd hope any TD found to be breaking the law would be held accountable just like anyone else in the country - and would lose their job upon being found guilty (amongst other punishments).

I'd feel the same about drug use as I would about them being found drunk on the job etc.

Mick86

Having been recently subjected to a random drugs test in my employment I would demand the resignation of any TD found to have taken drugs. The test required me to suffer the indignity of having a witness to my urinating into a bottle and a positive test would have resulted in my losing my job. Since the test was sanctioned by a government department, I don't see why there should be one law for my fellow employees and I and another for the Minister who ordered the test.

Goldenquick

Imo he shouldn't be in the position he is in if he's taking drugs. I wonder what department he is in because he could be making decisions that affect a lot of people and cannot do this in a proper manner whilst on drugs.

Jackie laughlin

All of this interest started with a recent publication telling how the middle classes supported the drugs gangs by purchasing their wares. These same well off **** would never see themselves as allies of dealers and users. The possibility of emphasising this disgrace was sidetracked by diverting attention to the alleged activities of an unknown minister.

For the record, as long as there is a school in the country enduring random drug tests, then adults - in the Oireachtas, the airlines, the hospitals, the pubs, etc. etc. - should be similarly treated.

Tea drinker

Mick86 wrote: »

Having been recently subjected to a random drugs test in my employment I would demand the resignation of any TD found to have taken drugs. The test required me to suffer the indignity of having a witness to my urinating into a bottle and a positive test would have resulted in my losing my job. Since the test was sanctioned by a government department, I don't see why there should be one law for my fellow employees and I and another for the Minister who ordered the test.

Nasty. It would have taken half an hour from their day waiting for me to perform!

Anyway, you already know there is one law (and probably pay scale) for plebs like you and me. I have already stated on boards ages ago that the juduciary should be tested to ensure clrity and impartiality. Given the numerous revelations regarding politicians there is an absolutley definite and undeniable case for REGULAR testing. However it will never happen because the underclass cannot make such demands of their betters.

Antilles

Yes, I would be bothered if I found out that my TD was a regular user of cocaine, but the real zinger would be his previous/following stance on drug use. If the guy was a vocal proponent of anti-drug laws, then I'd be getting rid of him. If he was a supporter of legalisation and his use was consistant with previous statements and voting record, then I wouldn't see a major problem (aside, obviously, from any legal ramifications).

Drug use doesn't bother me, as long as the person can do their job properly. Hypocrisy on the other hand, majorly annoys me.

JC 2K3

As long as he's not using it on the job I don't see the problem. What he does in his spare time is not my business and drug use should not be a crime in the first place. What would annoy me, as the poster above me mentioned, would be if he took a hypocritical stance on drug laws.

Also, Gráinne Kenny is a misinformed, idiotic, overzealous nutcase.

Tea drinker

JC 2K3 wrote: »

As long as he's not using it on the job I don't see the problem. What he does in his spare time is not my business and drug use should not be a crime in the first place. What would annoy me, as the poster above me mentioned, would be if he took a hypocritical stance on drug laws.

Also, Gráinne Kenny is a misinformed, idiotic, overzealous nutcase.

Well, what he does in his spare time goes to the core of who he is. You are promoting drug use as ok. Fine.
As long as you think it's ok for your parents to have been off their heads on any kind of drug while they were taking care of you? Or someone minding your kids while in a fit?
What about that kid that was mauled to death over a period of 15 minutes while the spaced out grandparent looked on in a haze.

I'm sorry, you make me sick.
You=consequence free society

murphaph

<raises hand>

It would indeed matter to me if any TD was a habitual drug user. The law is the law and as long as it is, I expect the law makers to set the highest example-if that's a problem, don't stand for election.

Even if cocaine were legal, I would be very wary of TDs being under its influence as much as I would if it was alcohol.

JC 2K3

Tea drinker wrote: »

As long as you think it's ok for your parents to have been off their heads on any kind of drug while they were taking care of you? Or someone minding your kids while in a fit?

Why would I have to think that?

Minding kids isn't the right time to use drugs. Are you for banning alcohol because parents could get drunk when they should be minding children?

You seem to have a very limited understanding of drugs....

SeanW

I am something of a libertarian so, similar to Antilles, it wouldn't bother me any what a TD does in their spare time, unless they were hooked on drugs while taking a completely opposite stance politically.

As for some of the politicians in service at the moment, it's debatable whether their performance would be any worse if they were high.

stovelid

Tea drinker wrote: »

What about that kid that was mauled to death over a period of 15 minutes while the spaced out grandparent looked on in a haze.

Are you a headline writer for the Sun?

Actually I was in the pub on Sunday, and there were a great many parents "off their head" minding their kids and watching the match.

Within reason, I couldn't care less what TD's do outside of office. I agree with the others who said they should just be subject to the laws they advocate themselves.

rmacm

murphaph wrote: »

It would indeed matter to me if any TD was a habitual drug user. The law is the law and as long as it is, I expect the law makers to set the highest example-if that's a problem, don't stand for election.

I'd agree with murphaph cocaine usage is illegal and as long as it is I'd expect the people we elect to set a pretty high example. Also if they were using it on the job I certainly wouldn't have any confidence in the decisions they were making and in the case of a minister these decisions could affect a large number of people negatively.

RedPlanet

Was the TD doing cocaine in Ireland or was he abroad?
If the former, than i'd be as concerned as i am when TD's break the law via drunk driving, speeding, illegal parking, back handers.
If the later, then it's nobody's business.
But i'd also probably expect the TD to be a proponent of decriminalising such drugs.

cranmore

SeanW wrote: »

As for ((some of)) the politicians in service at the moment, it's debatable whether their performance would be any worse if they were high.

personally i think this sentance is 2 words too long.

richard_b

I would not be very concerned about a TD taking illegal drugs. My only concern would be if the TD in question had made any public comments condemning illegal drug activity. Then I would consider his/her drug use to be unacceptable. Practice what you preach.
I would also be concerned about a TD who held a position, as an opposition spokesperson or government official in relation to the harmful effects of illegal drugs in relation to crime or health.

Wow, tea drinker your comments were a bit overboard. Maybe overboard is not the right description, but they were certainly sensational.

Carawaystick

Tea drinker wrote: »

Well, what he does in his spare time goes to the core of who he is. You are promoting drug use as ok. Fine.
As long as you think it's ok for your parents to have been off their heads on any kind of drug while they were taking care of you? Or someone minding your kids while in a fit?
What about that kid that was mauled to death over a period of 15 minutes while the spaced out grandparent looked on in a haze.

I'm sorry, you make me sick.
You=consequence free society

Tea Drinker, your user name suggests you drink tea. I'll assume this is the normal type Camellia sinensis. This beverage contains at least the following drugs caffeine and theobromine, both of these are stimulants.

Do you think drinking tea is drug use?

Do you think using drugs deemed to be illegal by the govt, often with no scientific basis whatsoever, is much worse than using legal drugs?

Do you think someone who took cannabis or heroin in 1976 to be a better person than someone who took cannabis or heroin in 1977 after these two drugs were made illegal under the misuse of drugs act?

Do you think someone who took magic mushrooms the day before Our minister for health banned them is a better or worse person than someone who took some this year?

Basically does your thinking on drug use come down to what the law is?


Like a lot of the posters, I'd prefer politicians firstly not to be hippocrates. the posters thinking of leaders in this country setting high examples are a bit idealistic, I mean the Taoiseach has if not lied, then told two incompatible stories about taking loans from friends. he then appointed friends who gave him other loans to state boards.

In fact, all long serving politicans in Ireland are probably guilty of drinking in an unlicensed premises, as the Dail bar only got it's bar license during the term of the last dail, never before having one.
Also the Dail completely disregarded the planning laws regarding the restoration of Leinster lawn
Also I've witnessed several ministers of enterprise let their state cars be parked on a clearway in rush hour on Kildare st, when there is a multistorey car park right beside their office.

Lastly when Grainne Kenny argues with any sort of rigour or even logic, supported with facts, and publishes a breakdown of Europe against drugs membership and accounts, then let her have her 15 mins of fame.

nesf

From a practical point of view: No, so long as it wasn't effecting his ability to do his job. Similar to my opinion on anyone else who uses the drug.

From a moral point of view: If you're into this sort of thing I can see why it might bother you but personally cocaine use doesn't rank very high on my list of things TDs shouldn't do.

Tea drinker

Carawaystick wrote: »

Tea Drinker, your user name suggests you drink tea. I'll assume this is the normal type Camellia sinensis. This beverage contains at least the following drugs caffeine and theobromine, both of these are stimulants.

Do you think drinking tea is drug use?

Do you think using drugs deemed to be illegal by the govt, often with no scientific basis whatsoever, is much worse than using legal drugs?

Do you think someone who took cannabis or heroin in 1976 to be a better person than someone who took cannabis or heroin in 1977 after these two drugs were made illegal under the misuse of drugs act?

Do you think someone who took magic mushrooms the day before Our minister for health banned them is a better or worse person than someone who took some this year?

Basically does your thinking on drug use come down to what the law is?


Like a lot of the posters, I'd prefer politicians firstly not to be hippocrates. the posters thinking of leaders in this country setting high examples are a bit idealistic, I mean the Taoiseach has if not lied, then told two incompatible stories about taking loans from friends. he then appointed friends who gave him other loans to state boards.

In fact, all long serving politicans in Ireland are probably guilty of drinking in an unlicensed premises, as the Dail bar only got it's bar license during the term of the last dail, never before having one.
Also the Dail completely disregarded the planning laws regarding the restoration of Leinster lawn
Also I've witnessed several ministers of enterprise let their state cars be parked on a clearway in rush hour on Kildare st, when there is a multistorey car park right beside their office.

Lastly when Grainne Kenny argues with any sort of rigour or even logic, supported with facts, and publishes a breakdown of Europe against drugs membership and accounts, then let her have her 15 mins of fame.

Well, I am certainly do not support the Dail bar etc, we really have to expect more from our ploticians (I spelled it wrong - but it's better for me)
I agree with the other comments regarding not expecting them to be hippocrites, but the system of goverment and spineless media we have encourage it.
But the thread here is about the ploticians use of serious drugs.
The other comments regarding drunk parents "in charge" of kids is off topic, and warrants a thread of it's own. Suffice to say if their kid is not being looked after, sees his parents drunk, becomes agitated and is off his head on coke (the bottled type!) and runs out in front of a car there will be more than one life ruined. Completely irresponsible indefensible behaviour.

My take on it is that the politicians are washing their hands of any responsible behaviour, when they should be stand up guys instead of a stand up joke. The government is in absolute crisis, I actually wonder is it crack they are on or what. Look at the L fiasco, the pay hikes for what?


As for tea - it has many health benefits, and cannot be seriously compared to coke. I take the point that we can stray into a grey area regarding drug use (anti depressants, sleeping tablets all sorts of medicines) but we are talking cocaine here, so clearly a serious, illegal drug.

oscarBravo

I've seen several comments to the effect that a TD should only be condemned for using cocaine if s/he has publicly spoken out against the use of such drugs.

I think that's letting them off the hook too easily. Given the illegality of drug use, any TD who has not spoken out in favour of it should be censured for doing so on the sly.

Mr.Micro

Perhaps if some of them were using coke we might get a bit more work and cognitive processes out of them .

Carawaystick

People loose their "Common Sense" very easily about illegal Drugs, Me included. In the bigger scheme of things, taking illegal drugs has caused very little incident amoung our TD's. I mean No President has resigned after a Minister abused them while under the influence.

My take is until someone else is harmed, you are free to do whatever you want.
If you harm any other person or thing, you must answer for your sins.
The thing is people don't answer for their sins.
this is why I think the Idea of wiping a criminal record after X years is a good Idea. It means well to do people who commit crimes ( assault, Drunk & Dis, etc) will be convicted just the same as everyone else.


One last take on the evil of Cocaine.
On Shakleton's Endurance expedition, cocaine was used as a local anesthetic to prevent snow blindness. In a time when Life was much cheaper, Shackleton got every man under his command back alive to America. cocaine use wasn't abused. Like everything, cop on/commonsense/the right thing happened. I'm saying drug( or anything) use isn't bad per say, abuse is bad.

mike65

taking illegal drugs has caused very little incident amoung our TD's.

How on earth did you reach that conclusion? Some of the decisions taken by successive governments could only be explained by a Minister or three being "out of it"

Sins? You're on the wrong board for that sort of language!

Mike.

oscarBravo

Carawaystick wrote: »

My take is until someone else is harmed, you are free to do whatever you want.
If you harm any other person or thing, you must answer for your sins.

Given that there's no legal way to procure cocaine for recreational use in this country, it's fair to assume that a TD who routinely uses cocaine is supporting criminal gangs.

But hey, maybe some people don't see that as "harming" anyone.

JC 2K3

IMO it's the fact that drugs are illegal rather than the fact a person makes a choice to use a certain drug that supports criminal gangs.

oscarBravo

That's convenient.

JC 2K3

Works both ways, it's convenient to use the "it supports criminal gangs" argument from your side of the fence.

oscarBravo

My side of the fence?

Let's say a TD decides to use cocaine. He buys it from a local scumbag, who in turn buys it from a gang member. That gang member uses the proceeds to buy a Glock, which is used to kill a rival gang member - oh, and a passerby who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Now, you can argue that the TD should work towards legalising cocaine, which may have the effect of taking the armed scumbags out of the picture. I, however, would argue that as long as the armed scumbags are in the picture, the TD is complicit in the murder of the innocent bystander.

Whatever side of the fence I'm on, if your lawbreaking is financing murder, it's wrong. If and when it becomes completely legal to use cocaine, and none of the proceeds finance murder, then I'll have a different attitude to it.

nesf

oscarBravo wrote: »

Whatever side of the fence I'm on, if your lawbreaking is financing murder, it's wrong.

People will use these drugs regardless of whether they are legal or not, legalising them just creates a new tax stream out of what used to be paid to criminals. You can take the view that it is the law that provides the environment for these criminals to flourish rather than the users themselves if you take the view that people will not obey the law absolutely.

It's like taxing cigarettes up to 20 euro a packet, you'd just be creating a ready to go black market that would generate huge sums of money for criminals. As is, black market cigarettes are a nice little earner for them.

Jackie laughlin

Look, Oscar is raising THE issue and it was the point of the book which initiated this public controversy until the gutter press hi-jacked it and turned it into a story about a politician.

All of the "terribly respectable" middle class people who purchase drugs for use at dinner parties etc. are contributing to gangsterism in Ireland.

The legalisation of drugs is a separate debate.

Carawaystick

Mike,
maybe sins wasn't the correct word. I meant if, from your actions taking mind altering substances, harm is directly caused to another person, you should be punished.

I can think of one major political incident caused by an alcoholic minister - Thundering disgrace etc.

can you think of any illegal drug related incident or even any incident caused by abuse of controlled drugs?


oscarBravo, how many degrees of separation are you going to go back to tie a cocaine user to a murderer?
would you blame all drivers for road deaths?
would you say td's who allow us troops transit through the country en route to Iraq bear any responsibility for war crimes committed by these same american troops?

What about if a TD financially supported the Catholic church while clergy were raping and abusing people - any responsibility attatching to the TD in this case?
Or publican TD serving someone drink knowing the drunk was going to drive home and potentially kill someone?
Or a public representative raising money for terrorist organisations - the goal of which is to kill people - drug dealers are in it for the money, the murder is a an unacceptable side effect of course.
There are ways to link everyone to a crime - not all as blatant as drug dealing but results are as bad or worse- like propping up Sadam Hessein by selling meat to Iraq when he was gassing kurds and generally being a nice guy or selling arms to the IRA to point out activities of two men elected Taoiseach after the fact.

Realpolitik kicks in at some stage with every one. where your personal line is is for you to decide.

On a lighter note, just think how much corruption we wouldn't have exposed if a certain supermarket/gym owner didn't take some cocaine and get paranoid...
every cloud a silver lining and all that.

oscarBravo

Carawaystick wrote: »

oscarBravo, how many degrees of separation are you going to go back to tie a cocaine user to a murderer?
would you blame all drivers for road deaths?

With all due respect, that's the most pathetic argument imaginable. It's effectively saying "the money I gave a criminal scumbag for my cocaine might not fund guns that could get someone killed, so my conscience is clear". It's also not even a particularly useful analogy, even given the inherent weakness of analogies.

Jackie laughlin

Caraway,
A more appropriate comparison would be the purchase of stolen goods. Many middle class **** support criminality by opting for a cheap TV, others do it by buying drugs.

Gonzo_Fiend

oscarBravo wrote: »

My side of the fence?

Let's say a TD decides to use cocaine. He buys it from a local scumbag, who in turn buys it from a gang member. That gang member uses the proceeds to buy a Glock, which is used to kill a rival gang member - oh, and a passerby who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Now, you can argue that the TD should work towards legalising cocaine, which may have the effect of taking the armed scumbags out of the picture. I, however, would argue that as long as the armed scumbags are in the picture, the TD is complicit in the murder of the innocent bystander.

Whatever side of the fence I'm on, if your lawbreaking is financing murder, it's wrong. If and when it becomes completely legal to use cocaine, and none of the proceeds finance murder, then I'll have a different attitude to it.

Thats like saying people who go to church are supporting paedophiles.

JC 2K3

As a matter of interest, what would your views be if the TD in question was cultivating Coca plants and manufacturing his own cocaine for personal use?

(yes, I know it's not a realistic situation)

nacho libre

to answer the op question: yes it would.

mike65

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Caraway,
A more appropriate comparison would be the purchase of stolen goods. Many middle class **** support criminality by opting for a cheap TV, others do it by buying drugs.

If the Celtic Tigers middle classes are buying knock off tellys out the back of a Hiace van then I must be in a different country.

Simple chain really

Grower-refiner-distributor-buyer/wholsaler-buyer/local-seller/local-user.

Mike.

the_syco

Carawaystick wrote: »

Mike,
harm is directly caused to another person, you should be punished

So if you voted labour, and people died cos you voted labour, you should be punished?

=-=

Oh, and Mike: what's the best way to combat the lack of drugs (read: price increase) coming into the country?

Answer: raise your salery by €38,000. He looks too happy most of the time, esp doing such a sh|te job

mike65

I have no idea how much talc 38k will buy an inner city Dub this weather.

Mike.

oscarBravo

Gonzo_Fiend wrote: »

Thats like saying people who go to church are supporting paedophiles.

No, it's not. Going to church isn't illegal. Churches (for all their faults) are not organisations that exist primarily to support paedophiles.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

As a matter of interest, what would your views be if the TD in question was cultivating Coca plants and manufacturing his own cocaine for personal use?

It wouldn't be as serious an issue. I'd still have reservations about it - if I discovered that one of my employees was a habitual cocaine user, I'd fire him.

Jackie laughlin

Syco,
That's an interesting way of stating the question.

If a person voted Labour knowing that some harm would come of it, then of course that person is responsible.

Anyone who buys illegal drugs knows perfectly well that they are financing gangsterism and they are responsible.

Mike,
Do you really think that the purchasers of stolen goods are all poor? The hi ace seller has largely disappeared. The deals on stolen goods are now done in pubs, restaurants, at parties, in work etc. It's quite pervasive. I'm surprised you are unaware of it.

mike65

I move in different circles to you. Clearly not posh enough!

Mike.

Tea drinker

the_syco wrote: »

So if you voted labour, and people died cos you voted labour, you should be punished?
/

Well, to certain extent, yes.
Look at it another way, if you voted for the Nazi party and people got killed?????????

edit: Most rational people, If having found people got killed because of their vote, they would probably change their vote next time

Carawaystick

So if you voted labour, and people died cos you voted labour, you should be punished?

I said direct harm - I mean if person A drinks a load of vodka, starts a fight and injures a person or person B takes a load of coke and starts a fight and injures a person or person C takes no drugs and is just a badly inclined person, starts a fight - punish them with the full force of the law for fighting and injuring another person

If personA and personB manage to take the drug of their choice but through taking the drug, no harm comes to another person/property/etc. then concentrate resources on the harm-to-others-causing-people.

If you mean the british labour party... well quite a lot of people have been killed from the policies they hold.
They have also helped increase the world's supply of heroin by invading and removing the govt of the country who were eradicating it....

There's murdering gangsters everywhere. only some of them are selling drugs.

Corega

Yes, it would matter to me, I'd find it comforting to know that politicians are normal too, and not a bunch of holier than thou panderers. I've found in all of my 22 years on this planet that coke, smack and a plethora of other illegal niceties are both used and abused by every cross-section of society, so I would neither be surprised or outraged if a politician was found to be doing it. If he or she is however stupid enough to be caught sniffing the magic vicks then they should be prosecuted like everybody else. It's risk versus reward baby.

oscarBravo

Carawaystick wrote: »

I said direct harm - I mean if person A drinks a load of vodka, starts a fight and injures a person or person B takes a load of coke and starts a fight and injures a person or person C takes no drugs and is just a badly inclined person, starts a fight - punish them with the full force of the law for fighting and injuring another person

If you knew that person A had a habit of beating people up when drunk, but bought him a load of drink anyway, would you feel the teeniest bit responsible?

Carawaystick wrote: »

If personA and personB manage to take the drug of their choice but through taking the drug, no harm comes to another person/property/etc. then concentrate resources on the harm-to-others-causing-people.

You really think TDs source their cocaine from guaranteed-not-to-lead-to-gangland-murder sources?

Jackie laughlin

Mike,
Yeah, that's probably true.

Mick86

mike65 wrote: »

I have no idea how much talc 38k will buy an inner city Dub this weather.

Mike.

Apparently One Gramme of Cocaine (75%-87% pure) fetches between €60 and €80.

€38,000 will get you about 1.5 Kgs.

http://www.smm.org/buzz/blog/cocaine_prices_around_the_world

Gonzo_Fiend

Mick86 wrote: »

Apparently One Gramme of Cocaine (75%-87% pure) fetches between €60 and €80.

75% - 87% talcum powder???


Sounds about right...