Does an celebrity alco/drug user deserve to die?

faceman

Ok afterall all the frolics in the Katy french threads and variety of opinions, wanted or not, that surfaced, Ive decided to do something that is often suggested but never actioned.... Ive started a thread in humanities! Lets see how many people will bother their arse to post their opinions here and discuss it.

So what is your view? If someone young takes drugs or drinks heavily and dies, did they deserve it? Did their family deserve it? Is it the celebrities fault that the media cover the story? Are we as a people ignorant to unknowns dying the same way?

Without all jumping on the one recent event, try cite examples and opinions from multiple situations.

Sleepy

We are all responsible for our own actions. Whether we're 'celebrities' or not (being famous for being famous is not something anyone should be proud of imho).

In any decision: whether that be to take cocaine or not, to drive a car or not, to hit the prick in the pub who's annoying you or not you're responsible for the outcome of that decision. If the outcome of that decision is your own death, you've no one else to blame. I may not feel like you deserved the outcome of that but I'm not going to feel too sorry for you if you make a bad decision and things turn out badly. I'll save my sympathy for those that are negatively effected by other peoples bad decisions / acts of nature etc.

In the case of a 'celebrity' who has courted the media, it's the result of their own decisions if the media has a field day when they fall. Unfortunately in the case in question, I think they're going to place the girl on a pedastal and only further engender the idea that 'media-whore' is a valid profession.

doubledown

Anyone is this day and age who is DUMB enough to take drugs deserves whatever they get. My heart goes out to the families, sure, but I have zero sympathy for any individual who ends up dead as a result of their own actions, whether they are a "celebrity" or not.

Hopefully this recent spate of high profile deaths will make some people think twice the next time they are offered drugs on a night out, but I doubt it.

paulksnn

It is of course a terribly sad thing that a young person has died from cocaine consumption(allegedly).
What is worse is that the media have been all over it like a bad case of chicken pox. It really must be a slow news week.

Of course Kay courted the media, but I don't think that her family deserve to see the spotlight on their daughter like this. Whether it's true or not, it's hard enough to deal with the loss of a loved one, never mind admitting to yourself that the person may have done things you would be less than proud of.:(

While I do dislike all the media attention on Katy (which while a sad story) is still just another young person od'ing on cocaine, it does at least open up the debate on the rampant social drug usage in this country that most deny even happens.

Wacker

doubledown wrote: »

Hopefully this recent spate of high profile deaths will make some people think twice the next time they are offered drugs on a night out, but I doubt it.

I doubt it. Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrisson, Phil Lynnott etc. all died as a result of drugs. It has hardly slowed up the likes of Pete Doherty, has it? When it comes to excess, few people ever learn from the mistakes of others.

Regarding the original post, I don't believe anyone can deserve to die on account of drinking too much or taking too many drugs, etc. I might say that the likes of John Bonham or Bon Scott had it coming, but that is not the same thing. I don't really believe that anone deserves to die, but if anyone did, it would have to be someone like Bin Laden or Hitler or Harold Shipman.

Sleepy

doubledown wrote: »

Anyone is this day and age who is DUMB enough to take drugs deserves whatever they get.

That's an incredibly sweeping statement. Personally, I've tried a few 'soft' drugs and use some recreationally. That said, I know what I'm taking, I'm aware of the associated risks with taking them (both to my health and potential criminal charges etc.) and have decided that the risks associated with taking these drugs don't outweigh the benefits I receive in taking them. That's my concious decision and I'll accept the consequences if it proves to be a bad decision.

hottstuff

The issue is not if someone DESERVES to die after taking an illegal , unregulated substance , but if they deserve sympathy.
And i think you will find none from most people.

RE*AC*TOR

"Deserve" implies that their actions merit a certain result, that death is their punishment for taking drugs. In this case, I would say, "no", they do not deserve to die. When is punishment deserved? Under what criteria? Harm to others?

Whether the deserve our sympathy or not is another thing. If we accept that taking drugs is potentially dangerous, and this is "common knowledge", then we must assume that those partaking in these substances are either (a) unintelligent, (b) unbelieving of this "common knowledge" or (c) they don't care for their own well-being.

In the case of (a) or (b) - I would say yes they deserve sympathy, in the case of (c), I'm not so sure.

JC 2K3

If they took a reasonable dose in a reasonable setting and had thoroughly researched the drug beforehand and died then IMO it was a freak event. Responsible drug use usually doesn't cause death, no matter what the drug.

If the person was hoovering up cocaine while drinking alcohol or taking anything but a calculated dosage of any drug, then they don't deserve any sympathy.

Therefore, in general, people who die from taking drugs probably don't deserve our sympathy due to not using them responsibly.

I don't believe anyone ever deserves to die though, especially for something like this.

axer

Nobody deserves to die unless they A) have taken another life (excluding self defence etc) or have effected another life negatively enough that the person/victim cannot live a normal healthy life (e.g. sexual abuse) in which case I say they deserve to die (there may be other cases that I cannot think of right now).

If a person takes risks (or even a risk) in life that have the potential to kill the risk taker (e.g. in this case possibly taking strong narcotics) then they must face the possible consequence of death. I would think "They took the risk, they suffered the consequences and died". No sympathy (except for the family as they are the ones most effected). Simple as.

Zombrex

To argue over whether or not she "deserved" to die one has to believe in concepts like karma, and then you are debating if the universe was too harsh in killing Katy French for taking drugs. Which is a bit silly.

Being an atheist and a humanist I don't believe in concepts like karma, or that the universe some how dishes out punishment to people based on some human moral code.

Without knowing the details I would guess French died as result of a chemical reaction of mixing cocaine and alcohol. This causes the liver to produce the particularly nasty chemical cocaethylene which has a number of seriously hazardous effects on the human body.

But this wasn't a punishment, it was simply a result of a very foolish decision on her part.

Its kinda like asking did the person who shot himself in the head deserve to have his brain detach from his body. Cause and effect. C follows B because of A. She took drugs, she died.

Obviously I doubt she knew this would happen. So it raised the question of how foolish she actually was. As doubledown says it is hard to believe that in this day and age someone wouldn't understand the risks involved in taking these drugs. But then I would imagine if someone truly understood the risks properly they wouldn't take the drug in the first place, so from that one could conclude that she didn't understand the risks, because she is dead.

faceman

What if the individual was taking drugs as an escapism from real life and they got addicted. (Some of you probably smoke and know how hard it is to give that up.) Maybe they want to give up but havent been able to.

It sounds like quite a few posters believe that with drugs, there is no possiblility for reform or redemption.

e.g. i know a former drunkie and alcoholic who both do fantastic work for addicts. If they had have died from the result of their addiction, they would fall into the category of "serves you right". however their survival has saved the lives of others to some degree.

Sleepy

Same thing, faceman, their addiction is a result of their decision to use a potentially addictive substance. It's no one else's fault but my own that I'm a nicotine addict. I can accept that. The problem is, most people don't like accepting responsibility for their own actions and seek to blame others.

I don't accept the ignorance argument either. If you take a drug into your body without a good idea of what it's going to do to you or what quantity of it is "safe" to consume, you're a bloody idiot and anything that happens you, happens as a result of you being too stupid/impatient to research it before taking it.

prendy

That's an incredibly sweeping statement. Personally, I've tried a few 'soft' drugs and use some recreationally. That said, I know what I'm taking,

Do you know what your taking tho???
i mean the drugs industry is run by criminals and your health is hardly their highest priority.
i thinks its both naive and foolish to say i know what im taking.
with alcohol and cigs yes you do...its right there on the label.
with a bag of anything bought off the side of the street you dont know!

i AGREE that noone deserves to die but these people know the risks just like i know that if i drive while drunk i may die..i choose not to.

nacho libre

i think she simply was like a lot of people - nothing will happen to me. call it the arrogance of youth or whatever. Her death will not change anything as this weekend around ireland it will be business as usual for those who take coke.

i wonder has any paper in their coverage referred to her as a junkie or an addict?

Vegeta

prendy wrote: »

Do you know what your taking tho???
i mean the drugs industry is run by criminals and your health is hardly their highest priority.
i thinks its both naive and foolish to say i know what im taking.
with alcohol and cigs yes you do...its right there on the label.
with a bag of anything bought off the side of the street you dont know!

i AGREE that noone deserves to die but these people know the risks just like i know that if i drive while drunk i may die..i choose not to.

Excellent point and I completely agree. No-one here can know the dose they are taking of illegal/ banned substances. Cocaine has been tested across the country and has a purity varying from 5-75% , that's huge.

Personally I don't drink, smoke or use banned substances/drugs as I see them as the same thing.

You don't "deserve" to die if you take drugs but don't be surprised if it happens and don't expect many to have sympathy for you.

daveharnett

prendy wrote: »

Do you know what your taking tho???
i mean the drugs industry is run by criminals and your health is hardly their highest priority.

On the other hand, killing off one's customers with bad dope is hardly in a dealer's best interest. While the unknown provenence of 'synthetic' drugs, and the use of pesticides in weed has to be a concern, is there any evidence that it is actually a widespread problem? I have heard (admittadley, just watercooler talk) that the recent deaths were a result of cocaine that was less adulterated (ie stronger) than the invividuals were used to, resulting in a simple overdose.

While i'm no advocate for cocaine use, for me this argument only strengthens the case for legalisation of ALL recreational drugs. Take the drugs industry out of the hands of criminals - reducing gangland crime overnight, allowing customers to know what they are taking, and use the taxes to fund treatment and rehabilitation.

mike65

daveharnett wrote: »

On the other hand, killing off one's customers with bad dope is hardly in a dealer's best interest.

On the other hand the kind of people who sniff lines of stuff, of which they don't know the provenance of, are essentially stupid and desperate and so will buy the stuff anyway.

Mike.

hottstuff

mike65 wrote: »

On the other hand the kind of people who sniff lines of stuff, of which they don't know the provenance of, are essentially stupid and desperate and so will buy the stuff anyway.

Mike.

Agreed.
The dealers are willing to kill over debts as little as €5000 and or covering their turf , are the coke masses really that naive into thinking the dealer likes his/her customers and wants them to enjoy their dope?lol

JC 2K3

They kill them over debts because they've lost money from them and aren't going to get any more money off them. But why would they kill/hurt people who're giving them money by selling them bad coke?

mike65

There is always another customer. Its like ciggies, look how long it took for science and sense to get the upper hand and you still see 14 year olds smoking.

Mike.

JC 2K3

But why would they bother? They can cut coke with substances that won't kill/severely harm the user, so why would they cut it with something harmful?

hottstuff

Why would they bother handling the stuff at all ?
Just buy it and sell it....?

Because it's all about greed & money and nothing else matters to the dealer.

faceman

daveharnett wrote: »

While i'm no advocate for cocaine use, for me this argument only strengthens the case for legalisation of ALL recreational drugs. Take the drugs industry out of the hands of criminals - reducing gangland crime overnight, allowing customers to know what they are taking, and use the taxes to fund treatment and rehabilitation.

i disagree, legalising what is a harmful substance will increase the number of users, thus increasing the addiction and reliance problems thus putting more pressure on the HSE.

Now i understand your point about taxes but have we seen a material improvement in waiting times and treatments of alcohol abuse and smoking relating diseases in hospitals? no unfortunately. There was a HSE statistic earlier this year that showed heart disease was down 10% since the introduction of the smoke ban, although it hadnt been established whether it was linked but i think its fair to say that over time, a decline in usage leads to a decline in health related problems.

JC 2K3

hottstuff wrote: »

Why would they bother handling the stuff at all ?
Just buy it and sell it....?

Because it's all about greed & money and nothing else matters to the dealer.

Indeed, it is all about greed and money, so if they're going to cut the coke with something to maximise their profits, why would they cut it with something that's going to kill their source of money?

JC 2K3

faceman wrote: »

i disagree, legalising what is a harmful substance will increase the number of users, thus increasing the addiction and reliance problems thus putting more pressure on the HSE.

It might increase the amount of users, but how many of these users drink alcohol already? You see, legalisation isn't going to give people more time to be doing these other drugs as well as drinking, it's simply going to mean that instead of drinking some night, they might do some other drug instead. Why would they be any more likely to end up in hospital from taking other drugs rather than alcohol? I'd even go so far to say that potentially less people would end up in hospital due to them doing different drugs on different nights and hence not putting their bodies under pressure from doing too much of one drug. This could also lower the possibility of addiction.

Sleepy

prendy wrote: »

Do you know what your taking tho???
i mean the drugs industry is run by criminals and your health is hardly their highest priority.
i thinks its both naive and foolish to say i know what im taking.
with alcohol and cigs yes you do...its right there on the label.
with a bag of anything bought off the side of the street you dont know!

i AGREE that noone deserves to die but these people know the risks just like i know that if i drive while drunk i may die..i choose not to.

In the majority of cases, yes, I know what I'm taking e.g. the person who produced the drug was a friend or a friend of a friend or I bought the drugs in Amsterdam where they're legally produced etc. In the cases where I haven't been able to say with any clarity as to what might be in the drugs, I'm more cautious regarding quantities I'll imbibe and accept the risks I'm facing in doing them. This wouldn't be an issue were the drugs I like legal.

What strikes me is the relative ease people assume 'all drug dealers are evil'. There's not really such a thing as a purely evil person. Most drug "deals" in this country occur between friends rather than the televised 'crack head standing on a street corner' scenario.

Like many posters here have said, it's not in anyone's interest to kill their customers: whether your product is tobacco, alcohol, cars, fairy liquid, crack, peanuts, marijuana, cocaine, calpol, chocolate, burgers or even heroin. It doesn't make financial, moral or even plain common, sense.

At the end of the day, prohibition doesn't work. While there are drugs that I'd really rather no-one took and have no interest in taking them myself, making them illegal just means society is placing those people stupid enough to take them in more danger than they need otherwise be. We can't uninvent these things. We can't prevent them from being demanded or supplied. We may as well just be sensible and educate people as to how dangerous some of them are, try and ensure that what is out there is as harmless as possible (e.g. our alcohol laws forbid the sale of beverages over a certain perceentage of alcohol - cocaine laws could do the same) and levy a duty on these substances to pay for the treatment of those addicted to them.

axer

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Indeed, it is all about greed and money, so if they're going to cut the coke with something to maximise their profits, why would they cut it with something that's going to kill their source of money?

Because there are no health and safety checks. Who knows what people have dealt with the drug you are about to inject. Who knows where the drug has been stored. Who knows what has been mixed with the drug or what the drug has been in contact with. etc etc

Its not good business sense but then again I doubt that many of the drug dealers are actually good business men - a lot are scumbags just looking for some quick money at any possible cost.

axer

Sleepy wrote: »

In the majority of cases, yes, I know what I'm taking e.g. the person who produced the drug was a friend or a friend of a friend or I bought the drugs in Amsterdam where they're legally produced etc. In the cases where I haven't been able to say with any clarity as to what might be in the drugs, I'm more cautious regarding quantities I'll imbibe and accept the risks I'm facing in doing them. This wouldn't be an issue were the drugs I like legal.

You cannot know for certain if the friend of a friend that produced the drugs did not contaminate the drugs in anyway. That person may not know you. Even if it was your friend that produced the drugs then you still do not know for certain that the drugs are not contaminated in any way.

Sleepy wrote: »

Like many posters here have said, it's not in anyone's interest to kill their customers: whether your product is tobacco, alcohol, cars, fairy liquid, crack, peanuts, marijuana, cocaine, calpol, chocolate, burgers or even heroin. It doesn't make financial, moral or even plain common, sense.

It may not be in there interest but I doubt they have any quality assurance or health & safety checks in their production, transport and distribution lines. The ones in bold do or else they would not be allowed to be sold or would be taken of the market pretty quickly.

Sleepy wrote: »

At the end of the day, prohibition doesn't work. While there are drugs that I'd really rather no-one took and have no interest in taking them myself, making them illegal just means society is placing those people stupid enough to take them in more danger than they need otherwise be. We can't uninvent these things. We can't prevent them from being demanded or supplied. We may as well just be sensible and educate people as to how dangerous some of them are, try and ensure that what is out there is as harmless as possible (e.g. our alcohol laws forbid the sale of beverages over a certain perceentage of alcohol - cocaine laws could do the same) and levy a duty on these substances to pay for the treatment of those addicted to them.

Yes, prohibition does not work. I am all for legalising marijuana but the problem is that people have this stupid mindset that if it is legal then it must be okay to use (and abuse) e.g. tobacco, alcohol, prescription meds etc.

People know when they are taking a drug that it is illegal that there is a reason why it is illegal. It makes you think twice before using it but as I said I am all for legalising marijuana.

faceman

Sleepy wrote: »

What strikes me is the relative ease people assume 'all drug dealers are evil'. There's not really such a thing as a purely evil person. Most drug "deals" in this country occur between friends rather than the televised 'crack head standing on a street corner' scenario.

to be fair, that stigma is slowly fading in ireland as mroe and more real exposure to drug culture in ireland is given. However what most people do realise is regardless of whether a dealer is a nice person or not, they are part of a chain that includes other criminal activities. they are selling produce, that while it has risks associated that can be compared with alcohol, the seller cant give any guarantees around the content of the substance etc.

Just to get back on topic re my original post, i was hoping someone else would raise the point before me but as it hasnt I will do so.

When speculation was ripe about whether or not cocaine had a part to play in katy french's tragic death, there was a sense of "i told you so" and "serves you right" that people were almost dying to say. now im a big music fan, and the likes of jimi hendrix, jim morrison, johnny cash, all had their drug problems in their life. Some died as a result of it, some didnt. Some, as we discovered from biographies and interviews with their families, struggled hard to get off drugs but never did, resulting to tragic downward spirals leading to their deaths. You dont often hear, "jimi hendrix/kurt cobain serves you right" etc etc. are the rules different for them?

btw, thanks to all for discussing the matter without the need for some of the pettiness we often see in other threads, particularly where the self righteous hijack threads in an immature fashion.

hottstuff

axer wrote: »

Because there are no health and safety checks. Who knows what people have dealt with the drug you are about to inject. Who knows where the drug has been stored. Who knows what has been mixed with the drug or what the drug has been in contact with. etc etc

Its not good business sense but then again I doubt that many of the drug dealers are actually good business men - a lot are scumbags just looking for some quick money at any possible cost.

Agree totally.
I think a few on here are trying to put a friendly (caring lmao) face on drug dealers.:rolleyes:

hottstuff

axer wrote: »

People know when they are taking a drug that it is illegal that there is a reason why it is illegal. It makes you think twice before using it but as I said I am all for legalising marijuana.

Agree.
Taking this out of the hands of the drug dealers will certainly help to put a stop to this "gateway" excuse.

JC 2K3

axer wrote: »

Because there are no health and safety checks. Who knows what people have dealt with the drug you are about to inject. Who knows where the drug has been stored. Who knows what has been mixed with the drug or what the drug has been in contact with. etc etc

Firstly, I wouldn't inject anything personally. Yes, you don't know exactly what's in what you're taking, but have a serious think about it, what exactly could the drug possibly come in contact with or what could it be mixed with that could potentially kill you? Unless there's malicious intent by the dealers, then what you buy probably isn't lethal. There are further precautions you can take, however, such as testing kits and purifying what you buy by washing it with water/acetone/alcohol/another solvent

axer wrote: »

Its not good business sense but then again I doubt that many of the drug dealers are actually good business men - a lot are scumbags just looking for some quick money at any possible cost.

Most people who use drugs have a regular dealer. The drugs black market would hardly be worth billions if the majority of dealers had no business sense and just sold random lethal chemicals to different random people every night.

Crumble Froo

a very interesting thread. i have to say, as someone with somewhat of a large, bright shiny self destruct button, i have never taken coke, though that did take some amount of self restraint on some occasions. but i have frequently turned to various substances in an effort to deal with issues both affecting me in my head, and issues stemming from my surroundings. knowing what it's like to sometimes just need that escape from reality, and feeling and responsibility, i can empathise with people who take drugs such as cocaine for that reason. i've spent time with doctors showing me test results, telling me i should be dead, and i need to change the way i live my life, and you know what? it just doesn't sink in sometimes. unless, as mentioned before, the person in question was guilty of murder etc, i don't think i could ever say that someone dying from an overdose was smoeone who 'deserved' it. that's bull****. whatever happened to cheering for the underdog? personally, there are some musicians mentioned on here that, to me, seem like good enough people, and, i believe that their writings do give insights into tehir headspace, and yeah, id love to see them beat addictions, and get their lives back together.

it always just amkes me so angry to hear people going takign the black and white opinions of 'drugs=bad, so people who do drugs=bad people'. bull. ****.

/rant.

sorry

axer

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Firstly, I wouldn't inject anything personally. Yes, you don't know exactly what's in what you're taking, but have a serious think about it, what exactly could the drug possibly come in contact with or what could it be mixed with that could potentially kill you? Unless there's malicious intent by the dealers, then what you buy probably isn't lethal. There are further precautions you can take, however, such as testing kits and purifying what you buy by washing it with water/acetone/alcohol/another solvent

Awh come on.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

what exactly could the drug possibly come in contact with or what could it be mixed with that could potentially kill you?

are you being serious?

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Most people who use drugs have a regular dealer. The drugs black market would hardly be worth billions if the majority of dealers had no business sense and just sold random lethal chemicals to different random people every night.

But do the drugs always come from the same source? Are they always transported the same way? Are they always stored the same way? etc

axer

faceman wrote: »

When speculation was ripe about whether or not cocaine had a part to play in katy french's tragic death, there was a sense of "i told you so" and "serves you right" that people were almost dying to say. now im a big music fan, and the likes of jimi hendrix, jim morrison, johnny cash, all had their drug problems in their life. Some died as a result of it, some didnt. Some, as we discovered from biographies and interviews with their families, struggled hard to get off drugs but never did, resulting to tragic downward spirals leading to their deaths. You dont often hear, "jimi hendrix/kurt cobain serves you right" etc etc. are the rules different for them?

Nope, the same rules. The same risk.

I think the told you so is justified to some extent i.e. you take hard drugs - there is an increased risk of health problems or death. Everyone knows this so they have been told. I have no sympathy for her - just her family.

faceman

axer wrote: »

Nope, the same rules. The same risk.

I think the told you so is justified to some extent i.e. you take hard drugs - there is an increased risk of health problems or death. Everyone knows this so they have been told. I have no sympathy for her - just her family.

so you dont feel death is too high a price to pay regardless of whether or not you want to come off drugs? Is it on an bar with, for example, sentencing someone to death for murdering someone?

axer

faceman wrote: »

so you dont feel death is too high a price to pay regardless of whether or not you want to come off drugs? Is it on an bar with, for example, sentencing someone to death for murdering someone?

Nope - totally different to sentencing someone to death for murdering someone. She knew the risks - she took the risk - she died. Why would I feel sympathy for her then. I am not saying she deserved it. If I jumped off of a 15 story building and died - I would not expect sympathy because it would be a stupid thing to do and I knew the risks before I jumped. Just like health problems and smoking. You take the risk you could pay the price.

As I said earlier:
Nobody deserves to die unless they A) have taken another life (excluding self defence etc) or have effected another life negatively enough that the person/victim cannot live a normal healthy life (e.g. sexual abuse) in which case I say they deserve to die (there may be other cases that I cannot think of right now).

hottstuff

faceman wrote: »

so you dont feel death is too high a price to pay regardless of whether or not you want to come off drugs? Is it on an bar with, for example, sentencing someone to death for murdering someone?

Death is too high a price to pay for people killed in car accidents , assaults , disease and all the other unfortunate (out of the persons hands) deaths around the country week in , week out.
Why all of a sudden everyone feels pity in this circumstance?

I'll tell you why , because so many people use it and would like to continue doing so.

JC 2K3

axer wrote: »

are you being serious?

Yes. If there's no malicious intent by the dealers, it's not all that likely that the drug will become contaminated with something lethal. I'm not in any way saying that using certain drugs is safe, just that it's not in the drugs industry's interest to be selling drugs that may kill paying customers and therefore, they're generally not lethal. Of course I support legalisation to eliminate the small chance that you might get something lethal(which does, admittedly, happen on the odd occasion, like when PMA was found in a number of pills in Australia earlier this year) and so people have a better idea of what dose they're taking.

JC 2K3

hottstuff wrote: »

I'll tell you why , because so many people use it and would like to continue doing so.

Exactly.

axer

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Yes. If there's no malicious intent by the dealers, it's not all that likely that the drug will become contaminated with something lethal. I'm not in any way saying that using certain drugs is safe, just that it's not in the drugs industry's interest to be selling drugs that may kill paying customers and therefore, they're generally not lethal. Of course I support legalisation to eliminate the small chance that you might get something lethal(which does, admittedly, happen on the odd occasion, like when PMA was found in a number of pills in Australia earlier this year) and so people have a better idea of what dose they're taking.

Are you telling me that illegal drugs are as safe to use as legal drugs from the point of view of quality assurance (or that there is very little difference)? (i'm not talking about what the drugs do themselves which is bad enough)
It is possible that all the drug dealers in the world are possibly good businessmen who care about the safety of their users - it is highly unlikely though and I for one am not willing to take that risk of death to find out.

Sleepy

I in now way believe that there's no chance a drug I take will be 100% safe - whether it's legal or not. Personally, my drug of choice is marijuana and like I said above, I try to source it from as close to the producer as I can (typically someone growing a small amount for their own personal use that will sell a small amount to friends to cover their costs). This is in no way supporting 'drug lords', 'sex traffickers' or anything that harms someone. Sure, I could find that there's a toxic fertilizer being used to grow the weed but that's equally true of buying carrots at a farmers' market.

I don't believe that all drug "dealers" are nice people - nor do I believe that all policemen / teachers / farmers / businessmen / politicians / doctors or nurses are nice people. On the flipside, I don't assume they're all horrible people either. I think it's naieve to assume that *all* drug dealers are wannabe John Gilligans just as I believe it's naieve to asssume that all priests are child molestors or all nurses are akin to Mother Theresa.

When you do anything in life, you must accept the risks that come with it. Getting out of bed you may stub your toe. Crossing the street you may get knocked over etc. etc. etc.

faceman - you make an interesting point regarding the difference of public attitude towards the likes of Kurt Cobain or Jimi Hendrix's self-destruction. I think this is in part down to the media. The likes of Katy French / Glenda Gilsen / <insert other Irish c-lister here> were usually portrayed as displaying themselves as the epitomy of what Irish people should appear to be. Perhaps this was genuinely their personality, perhaps it was the persona created for them by the tabloid press. Either way, it's how the public at large perceived them and many didn't like the arrogance of that position.

Cobain/Hendrix/Joplin etc. never held themselves in this regard nor were they ever portrayed as having such an opinion. Nobody likes someone who regards themselves as being above the observer (or is portrayed to have this opinion). As such, I think the public at large is going to have less sympathy for those they perceive to feel this way than those that don't.

There's also the matter of self-promotion. French was the epitomy of this. She wasn't particularly talented in the arts, nor indeed was she a particularly striking model. She did, however, use (manipulate?) the media very effectively to (over?)promote the brand of 'Katy French'. Most people find this distasteful and it's pretty difficult to summon up sympathy for someone who you find distasteful, particularly when it's their own actions which lead to the harm done to them.

JC 2K3

axer wrote: »

Are you telling me that illegal drugs are as safe to use as legal drugs from the point of view of quality assurance (or that there is very little difference)?

Simple answer: no.

This is too off topic and petty to continue discussing.

Dave!

axer wrote: »

Nope - totally different to sentencing someone to death for murdering someone. She knew the risks - she took the risk - she died. Why would I feel sympathy for her then. I am not saying she deserved it. If I jumped off of a 15 story building and died - I would not expect sympathy because it would be a stupid thing to do and I knew the risks before I jumped. Just like health problems and smoking. You take the risk you could pay the price.

That's a silly analogy, because you will more likely than not die if you jump off a 15 story building. It's suicide, not a calculated risk. A better analogy would be, say, skiing down a steep slope. It's alot of fun, usually safe enough, but there are definite risks involved, one of which is death. Do you have no sympathy if someone dies in a skiing accident?

I put that point to someone in another thread about Katy French, and no response. At the end of the day, we take risks every day in the name of a good time (among other things). Sky-diving, bungee-jumping, boxing, unprotected sex, dangerous jobs like firefighting, or mining........ Most firemen don't die on the job, and most drug users don't die from using them. A small percentage do. It is a small risk, but a real one.

Do firemen not deserve our sympathy? Of course you could argue that firemen are necessary; so how about miners -- do they deserve our sympathy if they're crushed to death?

dspikey

of course, it was all her own fault smart people doing stupid things as usual the gob****e deserved it, also she was no ****ing angel she wore fur and said she didnt care about the animal cruelty involved what a bitch **** you burn in hell katy

Venom

faceman wrote: »

When speculation was ripe about whether or not cocaine had a part to play in katy french's tragic death, there was a sense of "i told you so" and "serves you right" that people were almost dying to say. now im a big music fan, and the likes of jimi hendrix, jim morrison, johnny cash, all had their drug problems in their life. Some died as a result of it, some didnt. Some, as we discovered from biographies and interviews with their families, struggled hard to get off drugs but never did, resulting to tragic downward spirals leading to their deaths. You dont often hear, "jimi hendrix/kurt cobain serves you right" etc etc. are the rules different for them?

The lack of sympathy is due to her talking up herself for quiting drugs on the late late show two weeks before she died. While I dont agree she deservied to die for talking drugs the media needs to act properly and admit she wasnt a victim but foolish in her choice of lifestyles so at least her death might act as a warning to others.

axer

DaveMcG wrote: »

That's a silly analogy, because you will more likely than not die if you jump off a 15 story building. It's suicide, not a calculated risk.

Ok, maybe was a bit of an exaggeration but maybe jumping off of 5/6 story building might be a more realistic analogy.

DaveMcG wrote: »

A better analogy would be, say, skiing down a steep slope. It's alot of fun, usually safe enough, but there are definite risks involved, one of which is death. Do you have no sympathy if someone dies in a skiing accident?

If a skier tried to ski down a sleep slope that they could not handle they are bringing it on themselves if they die. If a person is prepared to take a risk then why should someone have sympathy if and when they have to face the consequences?

DaveMcG wrote: »

I put that point to someone in another thread about Katy French, and no response. At the end of the day, we take risks every day in the name of a good time (among other things).

Yes we do take risks everyday but the risk of taking a drug that has absolutely no health & safety or quality control checks is a completely unnecessary and stupid risk to take and that is before factoring the risk in what the drug can do to you.

DaveMcG wrote: »

Sky-diving, bungee-jumping, boxing, unprotected sex, dangerous jobs like firefighting, or mining........ Most firemen don't die on the job, and most drug users don't die from using them. A small percentage do. It is a small risk, but a real one.

Everyone is responsible for their actions. If a person is willing to take the risk then they must be willing to accept the outcome.

DaveMcG wrote: »

Do firemen not deserve our sympathy? Of course you could argue that firemen are necessary; so how about miners -- do they deserve our sympathy if they're crushed to death?

In fairness fire fighters are highly trained in what they do. Of course I would have sympathy for them if one died as they are helping other people - not doing it for selfish reasons.

For miners, it depends on whether they were forced to work in the mine for economic reasons - the majority of the deaths in the work in relation to mining happen in developing countries where the people are forced to choose between not having food etc and working in a mine. Why would you become a miner if you didnt have to?

Katy French did not deserve to die but she took a risk and suffered the consequences of her choice to take drugs. I have absolutely no sympathy for her. I'm sure it is an awful thing for her family to deal with. My sympathys are with them.

silverharp

Deserve is a meaningless word in this context, however actions have consequenses and responsibilities and if somebody engages in risky behaviour then a bad outcome becomes more inevitable. Contrast her death with say the two fireman in Bray - Tragic , or that girl in Cork who was bullied into commiting suicide again tragic, In the KF case I'd call it pointless , banal but not tragic.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote: »

If you take a drug into your body without a good idea of what it's going to do to you or what quantity of it is "safe" to consume, you're a bloody idiot and anything that happens you, happens as a result of you being too stupid/impatient to research it before taking it.

That could be expanded to "if you take a drug into your body you are bloody idiot" since no one knows how a specific instance of drug taking will effect them. I doubt there has been many drug users who knew that taking the drug that time would harm or even kill them. Most illegal drugs don't exactly get FDA approval.

This naive idea that there is a load of clued in drug users who understand what each drug does and they know how to be careful is simply as much a drug myth as the myth that every drug deal is part of the Russian mafia. I knew people like that in college and they were just as clueless as everyone else. They used to give lectures to my friends about how to "safely" use drugs :rolleyes:

Its pretty sad really.

JC 2K3

Wicknight wrote: »

That could be expanded to "if you take a drug into your body you are bloody idiot" since no one knows how a specific instance of drug taking will effect them. I doubt there has been many drug users who knew that taking the drug that time would harm or even kill them. Most illegal drugs don't exactly get FDA approval.

Ah come on now. If scientific medical data is inconclusive, inductive reasoning based on looking at decades, centuries and in some cases millenia of use of certain drugs is surely a valid method of determining if a drug is safe to take or not and what dosage is safe to take.

Wicknight wrote: »

This naive idea that there is a load of clued in drug users who understand what each drug does and they know how to be careful is simply as much a drug myth as the myth that every drug deal is part of the Russian mafia. I knew people like that in college and they were just as clueless as everyone else. They used to give lectures to my friends about how to "safely" use drugs :rolleyes:

Surely you acknowledge that there's a massive difference in safety between someone who knows about what they're taking and won't mix it with other drugs, will test it with a testing kit, will use purification techniques on the drug such as washing the drug in alcohol/acetone/an appropriate solvent, will drink enough fluids during the course of their high, will take protection products(such as anti-oxidants) with the drug and/or will do their best to ensure they take a safe dosage as opposed to someone who just gets the drug and pops a random quantity of it?