Drug addicts versus drug users

utick

which do you think cause the most harm to society?
My own personal opinion is that they are the same, they feed off each other, without the user there will be no deaer, and without the dealer there will be no user. While a small proportion of dealers murder each other, there is also users violently robbing and assaulting people. So i guess in a way the average person is more at risk from drug users than dealers because the dealers tend to target other criminals, while the users will target anyone (innocent or crimianl) to get the money to feed there filthy habbit

MagicMarker

Well, i'm neither, so i don't give a fúck.

Dave!

What's filthy about their habit?

Karoma

Was the title meant to be "Drug addicts versus drug users" or 'Drug addicts versus drug dealers"?

constitutionus

DaveMcG wrote: »

What's filthy about their habit?

well the hep b and c aint exactly good for ya

Dave!

Karoma wrote: »

Was the titles meant to be "Drug addicts versus drug users" or 'Drug addicts versus drug dealers"?

I've read that post 5 times and still don't see a difference between the 2

constitutionus wrote: »

well the hep b and c aint exactly good for ya

Can you get hepatitis from a rolled up 5er? (probably can now that I think of it!)

Earthhorse

Well drug addicts are a subset of drug users so technically drug users do more harm.

Karoma

Well, it's simple: Not all users are addicts and not all addicts are dealers and of course not all dealers are users or addicts.

Earthhorse wrote:

Well drug addicts are a subset of drug users so technically drug users do more harm.

Going by the OP's logic: Fallacy? There could be drug users who can afford their habit and don't "violently" go "robbing and assaulting people".



/wanders off for a while until he can muddy more waters

utick

yeah i meant to say drug users or drug dealers

Dudess

And the people who moan all the time about drug use (which doesn't usually affect them) are probably just jealous a lot of the time that they're not having such fun.

andyl222

Karoma wrote: »

Well, it's simple: Not all users are addicts and not all addicts are dealers and of course not all dealers are users or addicts.

thats a fair point, although what does that have to do with anything. He simply asked which was more detrimental to society, he didnt ask for some sort of relational breakdown of drug dealers and drug users.

constitutionus

DaveMcG wrote: »

I've read that post 5 times and still don't see a difference between the 2


Can you get hepatitis from a rolled up 5er? (probably can now that I think of it!)

if ya listen to the gov you'll never **** in a public toilet again (im not kidding some twat was baning on about exactly what you just posted in terms of the fiver.)

Mr. CooL ICE

utick wrote: »

which do you think cause the most harm to society?
My own personal opinion is that they are the same, they feed off each other, without the user there will be no deaer, and without the dealer there will be no user. While a small proportion of dealers murder each other, there is also users violently robbing and assaulting people. So i guess in a way the average person is more at risk from drug users than dealers because the dealers tend to target other criminals, while the users will target anyone (innocent or crimianl) to get the money to feed there filthy habbit

Depends on the drug. Which are you talking about?

Earthhorse

utick wrote: »

yeah i meant to say drug users or drug dealers

In that case I'll have to go with drug users because techncially without them the drug dealers wouldn't have anyone to sell to and wouldn't exist. It's all about the technicalities you see. I'd've made a good lawyer.

Karoma

andyl222 wrote: »

thats a fair point, although what does that have to do with anything. He simply asked which was more detrimental to society, he didnt ask for some sort of relational breakdown of drug dealers and drug users.

It's obviously in response to DaveMcG: "Ive read that post 5 times and still don't see a difference between the 2" and inspired by Earthorse's post too. Do try to keep up.

andyl222

Earthhorse wrote: »

In that case I'll have to go with drug users because techncially without them the drug dealers wouldn't have anyone to sell to and wouldn't exist. It's all about the technicalities you see. I'd've made a good lawyer.

its the chicken or the egg scenario, without dealers there would be no users, without users there'd be no dealers.

Earthhorse

In the chicken and egg situation I would have to say chickens are more dangerous becaulse not only can they carry salmonella but they can peck out your eyes if you anger them.

Karoma

Earthhorse wrote: »

In the chicken and egg situation I would have to say chickens are more dangerous becaulse not only can they carry salmonella but they can peck out your eyes if you anger them.

not to mention bird flu - they're the suicide bombers of the avian world.

andyl222

Earthhorse wrote: »

In the chicken and egg situation I would have to say chickens are more dangerous becaulse not only can they carry salmonella but they can peck out your eyes if you anger them.

I'd agree with that, I mean eggs are essentially baby chickens that just didn't make the cut, so who are they a threat to?

constitutionus

andyl222 wrote: »

I'd agree with that, I mean eggs are essentially baby chickens that just didn't make the cut, so who are they a threat to?

youve obviously never froze em and used them as make shift weapons

foxface

andyl222 wrote: »

thats a fair point, although what does that have to do with anything. He simply asked which was more detrimental to society, he didnt ask for some sort of relational breakdown of drug dealers and drug users.

OP's title- drug addicts vs drug users
OP's question- drug dealers vs drug users.

quite the difference, i think anyway





ok, back to chicken and egg syndrome

Dave!

Karoma wrote: »

Well, it's simple: Not all users are addicts and not all addicts are dealers and of course not all dealers are users or addicts.

Ah I meant I could not see the difference between the 2 sentences! Now I do, lol

connundrum

I blame the parents. And the Celtic Tiger

RealJohn

Drug users and drug dealers alike damage society as a whole.

The users create the market, the dealers exploit it and this creates more users.
Those who claim drug use doesn't do any harm (or only minor harm) are the ones who do most damage though because it is this viewpoint that speads the culture of acceptance we see so much of these days.

Karoma

DaveMcG wrote: »

Ah I meant I could not see the difference between the 2 sentences! Now I do, lol

Oh, I kind of figured. I don't take things as literally and seriously as certain others or as others think I do. I just like an excuse to muddy waters.

Trojan911

Drug dealers or drug addicts or drug users..... All scummy types ... They all contribute to the death & misery in our society in my opinion and deserve all they get... even death. They also drain our defunct health system and take up valuable HDU bed space, because they think they are cool when they take drugs...

foxface

Trojan911 wrote: »

Drug dealers or drug addicts or drug users..... All scummy types ... They all contribute to the death & misery in our society in my opinion and deserve all they get... even death. They also drain our defunct health system and take up valuable HDU bed space, because they think they are cool when they take drugs...

do you think the same of alcoholics, drinkers, or pubs? im just questioning whether its drugs thats the problem or the illegality. im not being snappy or having a dig. i just think maybe its a point that needs to be claer for a valid discussion

Trojan911

foxface wrote: »

do you think the same of alcoholics, drinkers, or pubs? im just questioning whether its drugs thats the problem or the illegality. im not being snappy or having a dig. i just think maybe its a point that needs to be claer for a valid discussion

No, and I see your point. It is the illegality of it that promotes the violence, murder & misery.

Alcoholics drain the health system just as easily and I hold them in the same view also.. however it is not illegal to consume alcohol....

constitutionus

yup, remember when alcohol was illegal it resulted in the mafia being formed. not to mention the number of people who went blind or died from hooch.

johnnyskeleton

Earthhorse wrote: »

In that case I'll have to go with drug users because techncially without them the drug dealers wouldn't have anyone to sell to and wouldn't exist. It's all about the technicalities you see. I'd've made a good lawyer.

But without dealers the users wouldn't have anyone to buy off, d'ya see?

Or we could all grow our own drugs, whatever.

utick

constitutionus wrote: »

yup, remember when alcohol was illegal it resulted in the mafia being formed. not to mention the number of people who went blind or died from hooch.

yup and to this day some people die from bad choices.

foxface

Trojan911 wrote: »

No, and I see your point. It is the illegality of it that promotes the violence, murder & misery.

Alcoholics drain the health system just as easily and I hold them in the same view also.. however it is not illegal to consume alcohol....

and perhaps if drugs were regulated there wouldnt be so much violence, murder and misery?

not that i sign up fully for that way of thinking, and again, YOU make a valid point, i just think it deserves to be questioned way more than it seems to be.

Trojan911

foxface wrote: »

and perhaps if drugs were regulated there wouldnt be so much violence, murder and misery?

There probably would be just as much but on a lower level i.e equivalent to the misery alcohol brings to some people/families, however I cannot see drugs being made legal.

If drugs were to be regulated they would not have have the diluted ingredients in them that is killing people, but could still kill people, just like alcohol can & does.

foxface wrote: »

YOU make a valid point, i just think it deserves to be questioned way more than it seems to be.

No prob. As always, I'm open to discussion and /or correction.

event

Dudess wrote: »

And the people who moan all the time about drug use (which doesn't usually affect them) are probably just jealous a lot of the time that they're not having such fun.

well drug use affects a lot of people, either directly or indirectly, dont think otherwise

and yeah, jealous cos im not smacked off my head talking ****e

christ almighty

JC 2K3

Trojan911 wrote: »

they think they are cool when they take drugs...

I don't think many have ever taken drugs simply because they think they're cool for doing so, I also don't think I've heard that argument since I was in primary school being taught about the evils of drug use and peer pressure....

What age are you? 12, having just got your certificate for completing a "Drugs Awareness Program"?

foxface

Trojan911 wrote: »

There probably would be just as much but on a lower level i.e equivalent to the misery alcohol brings to some people/families, however I cannot see drugs being made legal.

If drugs were to be regulated they would not have have the diluted ingredients in them that is killing people, but could still kill people, just like alcohol can & does. indeed,so what do you do?


No prob. As always, I'm open to discussion and /or correction.

i agree with all of the above actually. perhaps my hackles were up because of the "drugs are bad, simply beacause theyre illegal, but drink and smoke away all you want, simply because theyre legal" argument that seems to be floating about, and seems to be flawed in the extreme

what do you think? whats your best solution?

JC 2K3

event wrote: »

and yeah, jealous cos im not smacked off my head talking ****e

Sensibility is boring. Expand your mind.

Jim

I enjoy a couple of drinks most nights of the week, and so one of my house mates calls me an alcoholic, even though he himself can't go 8 hours without a joint, but claims my habit is worse than his. (even though I don't shake with cravings when I go without)

JC 2K3

That's nice.

Trojan911

foxface wrote: »

i agree with all of the above actually. perhaps my hackles were up because of the "drugs are bad, simply beacause theyre illegal, but drink and smoke away all you want, simply because theyre legal" argument that seems to be floating about, and seems to be flawed in the extreme

Drinking & smoking are just as bad healthwise & are just as resource draining to the health system, however, for the foreseeable future they will not be banned altogether.

For example: I drove a friend of mine into the A&E of a hospital in Ireland. She had just recently had keyhole surgery done to remove something and one of the cuts started to bleed badly. We got there & there were no beds available for her to lie on. She was in pain & still bleeding. I pointed out to a doctor that there was a drunk lying on a nearby bed (who was shouting drunken obscenities and also laughing & joking) and could he not be moved. The doctor refused to move him.

The A&E was filled with drunken & druggie scuts with self inflicted injuries and here was a genuine person unable to get a proper service because of the "life achievers" that surrounded her. It was like a circus in there.

foxface wrote: »

what do you think? whats your best solution?

More education in the schools, harder punishments and mandatory rehabilitation in prisons and a stricter prison regeime.

foxface

Trojan911 wrote: »

Drinking & smoking are just as bad healthwise & are just as resource draining to the health system, however, for the foreseeable future they will not be banned altogether.

For example: I drove a friend of mine into the A&E of a hospital in Ireland. She had just recently had keyhole surgery done to remove something and one of the cuts started to bleed badly. We got there & there were no beds available for her to lie on. She was in pain & still bleeding. I pointed out to a doctor that there was a drunk lying on a nearby bed (who was shouting drunken obscenities and also laughing & joking) and could he not be moved. The doctor refused to move him.

The A&E was filled with drunken & druggie scuts with self inflicted injuries and here was a genuine person unable to get a proper service because of the "life achievers" that surrounded her. It was like a circus in there.



More education in the schools, harder punishments and mandatory rehabilitation in prisons and a stricter prison regeime.

i agree with your first point. and though, i had a friend who caught onto drugs and was treated like **** in the hospital ( i agree your friend should have had preference, btw). i think that goes above this, and is a problem with hospitals.i have to say stricter punishment etc ... id be of the thinking that if if its the type thatll do it, theyll do it no matter what.

Jim

JC 2K3 wrote: »

That's nice.

I thought so.

Mr. CooL ICE

Trojan911 wrote: »

More education in the schools

Like what? get the same drugs awareness guys to come twice a year and say the same thing as opposed to once a year?

Trojan911 wrote: »

harder punishments

Again, like what? Make minor possession cases a jailable offence? Good luck enforcing that.

Trojan911 wrote: »

mandatory rehabilitation in prisons

Unoriginal idea, but still a good one, and I have no idea why it isn't there. But it is kinda pointless for anyone who is jailed for being a user of a non-addictive drug. Also, it cures the symptom, not the source of the problem, assuming there is a problem.



Please expand. These ideas are so damn clichéd that it seems like your thinking is so far inside the box that is creating a massive black hole that sucks everything in, possibly including all the drugs in the world. Maybe that's what you were planning all along... Oh... my... god...


*coughs*
*passes to the left*
*gets distracted by something shiny in the distance and wanders off*

Mr. CooL ICE

Jimeatsmenu wrote: »

I enjoy a couple of drinks most nights of the week, and so one of my house mates calls me an alcoholic, even though he himself can't go 8 hours without a joint, but claims my habit is worse than his. (even though I don't shake with cravings when I go without)

Pics or it didn't happen . Seriously, I have been through a fair few droughts, as have all my mates, and I have never seen anyone come close to stereotypical withdrawal symptoms such as this. The only thing that comes close is occasional moaning about being bored

Trojan911

LordChessington wrote: »

*coughs*
*passes to the left*
*gets distracted by something shiny in the distance and wanders off*

Your concentration span doesn't merit a reply.

Trojan911

foxface wrote: »

i agree with your first point. and though, i had a friend who caught onto drugs and was treated like **** in the hospital ( i agree your friend should have had preference, btw). i think that goes above this, and is a problem with hospitals.i have to say stricter punishment etc ... id be of the thinking that if if its the type thatll do it, theyll do it no matter what.

Yep, stricter prison regeimes would help, however prison officers are wary of reprocussions should they try & go about their daily business. This is what they are up against.

How is your friend? Getting help I hope.

Dave!

Trojan911 wrote: »

Your concentration span doesn't merit a reply.

Perhaps his points merit one

You Suck!

More education in the schools, harder punishments and mandatory rehabilitation in prisons and a stricter prison regime.

Well it's been done, countless times and always with an end result that didn't do much in the way of solving the problem. America now has a quarter of the worlds prison population, and a system that produces horror storys of miscarriages of justice on a regular basis. Instead of reducing drug use, it has increased, drugs are now more freely available and cheaper then ever. How is that a positive result?

Fundamentally, the solution lies in getting society to adopt a responsible attitude. Most Dutch don't use cannibis, and even fewer will do Illegal drugs because the consider them to be hard drugs including ecstasy. Add to that that Holland is a Calvinist(with a big emphasis on personal responsibility) society with a liberal outlook, and you start to see why the Dutch have less problems then we do with our approach and society.

But that's just one of many facets of the whole issue, the complexity of which is staggering. But one truth prevails, the country's with a more nuanced approach seem to be doing better in dealing with the issue.

Trojan911

DaveMcG wrote: »

Perhaps his points merit one

Maybe it does, but why type up a lengthy reply on for him to,

*gets distracted by something shiny in the distance and wanders off*

Waste of time.

ScumLord

There is no chicken and egg scenario when it comes to drugs, there are people who want drugs and the people who are prepared to get them for them.

The dealer - user relationship is new and created by prohibition. People that don't do drugs seem to have this black and white view and think as soon as you try one illegal drug your an addict and take to crime immediately to support your habit.

Ops argument is like a comic book view of the world, it's not that simple.

Earthhorse

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But without dealers the users wouldn't have anyone to buy off, d'ya see?

Or we could all grow our own drugs, whatever.

Oh my God! I never thought about it that way before!

MIND BLOWN!