Cocaine popularity on the rise

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

No you're still a loser if you do drugs. I knew many in my time in UL. They were losers then and losers now. Weak people doing Arts Degrees. I broke out of their word when I got sense. I wanted to be succesful in life not a dreamer or loser.

A real man drinks his beer, smokes his cig and goes to work in the morning to support his wife and children.

That's a man's function in life.

A junkie is nothing, a person who has failed at life.

Sarcasm or...?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The amount of people who don't know the difference between "use" and "abuse" - or indeed the definition of the word "drug" - but love to pontificate as if they're some kind of authority in this fourm is staggering.

twowheelsonly wrote: »

I presume you're stating that as a fact and didn't just make it up.

Alcohol destroys lives and families sure enough, but nothing like on the scale that drugs does. Through my work over the last 18 years I've known / known of literally a couple of hundred people, mostly, but not all, under 30 that have died as a result of drug use or associated gang violence. On top of that are others whose lives have been utterly destroyed by drugs and whose actions have dragged their families into a deep hole with them. That's just in this country obviously. Add in the misery, murder and mayhem in South America and further afield and your comparison just doesn't add up.

In the same time period I personally probably know of 15 to 20 people that died from Alcohol abuse. The effect on their families is the same but in most instances of death they're inevitably older.

I have to say that I find it quite interesting that despite your disdain for the drug that is alcohol you don't seem to be too bothered about 'occasionally' supporting criminal gangs and their activities.

It doesn't matter what the drug is, if you're going to abuse it then you're going to hurt yourself and your family.

buried

Them goddamn wraps. They'll be the death of me yet

scoey

I agree that "the war on drugs" has failed. In fact I don't believe any such war has been fought by Irish authorities.
A new approach is needed.

I suggest we follow the example of another island nation, Japan. Harsh penalties for possession of drugs as a deterrant against drug use. Don't see many junkies wandering the streets in Japan, funnily enough. Treat drug users as criminals exercising free will as opposed to victims of chance with no free will.

All well and good trying to stop supply, but that is futile. You have to deter demand. How about a concerted attempt to deter demand before we throw up our hands, admit defeat and let some people get rich off others misery (and that of their families) by selling legalised drugs.

Don't think that will satisfy those who peddle the easy answer of a free for all as the solution to drug problems.
I think the reality is that they just believe drugs should be legal because they think drugs are ok.

I don't believe drugs will be formally legalised in Ireland. My fear is that the real goal of people who espouse it is just the complete cessation of enforcement of penalties for drug possession and use resulting in de facto legalisation.

Judging by the number of junkies freely roaming the streets of Dublin daily, I'd say we are pretty close already.

War on drugs? Don't make me laugh.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

scoey wrote: »

I agree that "the war on drugs" has failed. In fact I don't believe any such war has been fought by Irish authorities.
A new approach is needed.

I suggest we follow the example of another island nation, Japan. Harsh penalties for possession of drugs as a deterrant against drug use. Don't see many junkies wandering the streets in Japan, funnily enough. Treat drug users as criminals exercising free will as opposed to victims of chance with no free will.

All well and good trying to stop supply, but that is futile. You have to deter demand. How about a concerted attempt to deter demand before we throw up our hands, admit defeat and let some people get rich off others misery (and that of their families) by selling legalised drugs.

Don't think that will satisfy those who peddle the easy answer of a free for all as the solution to drug problems.
I think the reality is that they just believe drugs should be legal because they think drugs are ok.

I don't believe drugs will be formally legalised in Ireland. My fear is that the real goal of people who espouse it is just the complete cessation of enforcement of penalties for drug possession and use resulting in de facto legalisation.

Judging by the number of junkies freely roaming the streets of Dublin daily, I'd say we are pretty close already.

War on drugs? Don't make me laugh.

Bush fought many wars, but he never fought a war on drugs. Some people call it a war on consciousness, some call it a war on personal liberties but whatever it was on (assuming there was a 'war' on anything), it wasn't drugs.

twowheelsonly

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It doesn't matter what the drug is, if you're going to abuse it then you're going to hurt yourself and your family.

Well the subject matter in this discussion is Cocaine and whether you're using it or abusing it still means that someone somewhere is getting hurt because of it. Might not be yourself or your family but it's someone else and their family. That's not 'pontificating' BTW, just pure ould statement of fact.

ScumLord

scoey wrote: »

I suggest we follow the example of another island nation, Japan. Harsh penalties for possession of drugs as a deterrant against drug use. Don't see many junkies wandering the streets in Japan, funnily enough. Treat drug users as criminals exercising free will as opposed to victims of chance with no free will.

All well and good trying to stop supply, but that is futile. You have to deter demand. How about a concerted attempt to deter demand before we throw up our hands, admit defeat and let some people get rich off others misery (and that of their families) by selling legalised drugs.

Most countries brought in pretty severe laws to try and deter demand for drugs. All it seemed to do was promote drugs. It went from a situation where most people didn't really know much about drugs to now every knows what the illegal drugs are, where they come from, what they do, a rough idea of cost and where to get them.

The bottom line is you will never stop the demand for drugs. The vast majority of drug experiences are positive, only a small minority have issues. People pass on those positive experiences, others want to try it the demand continues. You can't convince people with experience that you know better than them when you don't actually know what your talking about. Most people that have never used drugs still think that the people who do use drugs do so because they have mental health issues and are taking drugs to avoid that internal pain. It's rubbish, that's not why most people use drugs, most people use drugs because they're fun, they're cheap, and have a comedown that's less painful than alcohol.

The issue of addiction is not solved by making drugs illegal, it's made worse. There is no valid argument for prohibition, it makes everything worse. If addiction is the issue, deal with addiction.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Well the subject matter in this discussion is Cocaine and whether you're using it or abusing it still means that someone somewhere is getting hurt because of it. Might not be yourself or your family but it's someone else and their family. That's not 'pontificating' BTW, just pure ould statement of fact.

I don't know if you know what a statement of fact is, but if you can then I'd love to know where this fact is coming from. Nor do you know the difference between use and abuse. As Scumlord above posted: "You can't convince people with experience that you know better than them when you don't actually know what your talking about.

I know plenty of people who take cocaine on ab occasional basis and both and they and their families are completely fine.

twowheelsonly

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I don't know if you know what a statement of fact is, but if you can then I'd love to know where this fact is coming from. Nor do you know the difference between use and abuse. As Scumlord above posted: "You can't convince people with experience that you know better than them when you don't actually know what your talking about.

I know plenty of people who take cocaine on ab occasional basis and both and they and their families are completely fine.

Ok, I take it all back and apologise for being so naive. Nobody anywhere ever in the history of the world has ever been hurt because of the distribution or use of cocaine. :rolleyes:

I'm more than well aware of the difference between use and abuse as well - more aware than you'll ever know. That's another statement of fact BTW.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Ok, I take it all back and apologise for being so naive. Nobody anywhere ever in the history of the world has ever been hurt because of the distribution or use of cocaine. :rolleyes:

I'm more than well aware of the difference between use and abuse as well - more aware than you'll ever know. That's another statement of fact BTW.

Not sure what you're trying to do here: hide the fact that you know your "facts" are way off the mark and your opinions are flawed by fighting an argument no-one presented....?

ScumLord

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Well the subject matter in this discussion is Cocaine and whether you're using it or abusing it still means that someone somewhere is getting hurt because of it.

True, but... The same could be said about the oil in your car, the phone in your pocket, the TV in your sitting room, the coffee in your cup, etc, etc..

Do you look at your phone and think, hundreds of Chinese people could be overworked and underpaid to make this device, hundreds of African people get taken advantage of and one of their children died to get the minerals needed to make it. That when you throw it in the bin Indian children will be affected by the toxic breakdown of that phone for it's minerals?


We can't control the markets. The government does that. So in reality the government creating that black market has more blood on it's hands than the end user. The end user would buy legally given the chance, but the government insist on sending that money into criminality instead.

twowheelsonly

ScumLord wrote: »

True, but... The same could be said about the oil in your car, the phone in your pocket, the TV in your sitting room, the coffee in your cup, etc, etc..

Do you look at your phone and think, hundreds of Chinese people could be overworked and underpaid to make this device, hundreds of African people get taken advantage of and one of their children died to get the minerals needed to make it. That when you throw it in the bin Indian children will be affected by the toxic breakdown of that phone for it's minerals?


We can't control the markets. The government does that. So in reality the government creating that black market has more blood on it's hands than the end user. The end user would buy legally given the chance, but the government insist on sending that money into criminality instead.

Good points, well made but I'd have to still disagree with the last couple of lines.
IMO the black market was created by criminals and not by the Government. No one Government can really decriminalise recreational drugs without it happening globally. The drugs (product??) has to be freely available on open markets for it to be truly decriminalised - otherwise most of it, as things stand, would still have to be sourced illegally and our Government can't be seen to be condoning that unless all other States are singing from the same hymn-sheet.

I'd also have to disagree with your last bit - "The end user would buy legally given the chance, but the government insist on sending that money into criminality instead...." - It's the end user makes that decision. He / She has the choice on how to spend their own money, whether on a legal product or an illegal one. As it stands that end user is making the choice to go ahead and give that money to the criminals (The ones without the suits... )

EDIT: P.S. A good example of the Government 'creating' a Black Market would be the tobacco industry - A legal product that they've taxed beyond the limits of practicality, supposedly on 'health grounds' but in reality based on the (incorrect) belief that they'd take in more money themselves. They've handed that market over to criminals, opportunists and holiday makers and I have no doubt they'd do the same with a recreational drugs market.

FTA69

Cocaine can be such an insidious, ruinous drug. A lad I used to be great friends with, someone who put me up in his gaff when I split with my missus and a fella I went on holiday with is now all over the papers over here for robbing an elderly person with a weapon. This is a fella who had a great job, career prospects, a partner etc and ended up the lowest of the low - all due to being addicted to booze and drugs. It's a curse.

Wanderer78

FTA69 wrote:

Cocaine can be such an insidious, ruinous drug. A lad I used to be great friends with, someone who put me up in his gaff when I split with my missus and a fella I went on holiday with is now all over the papers over here for robbing an elderly person with a weapon. This is a fella who had a great job, career prospects, a partner etc and ended up the lowest of the low - all due to being addicted to booze and drugs. It's a curse.

Did he show signs of any mental health issues before?

melekalikimaka

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Sure thing, the bloodshed that comes with it, especially in the source countries. An example of this being over 100,000 people have been murdered in Mexico by cartels since 2007. The most high profile gang in Ireland source their coke from Mexico. Users here are creating the market for this indirectly whether they want to believe it or choose not to. They are playing a part.

The images from Mexico are harrowing. Kids getting murdered, busloads of students killed for protesting against cartels, whole families wiped out because one member had a drug debt etc.

Thats why I buy fair trade

valoren

I wouldn't even know where to go or who to talk to about getting cocaine.
Or any 'hard' drugs.

I suppose it's a case of you getting what you focus on.
If you want to use it, you'll figure out where to get it, who to contact.

FTA69

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Did he show signs of any mental health issues before?

No, I haven't seen him in nearly a year like but I knew him well. He was a normal well adjusted man in most senses who had a great standard of living, educated and travelled etc with a good trade. He clearly just went off the wall on the substance abuse, why else would you be robbing pensioners? I'm bewildered over it like, such a waste.

Wanderer78

FTA69 wrote:

No, I haven't seen him in nearly a year like but I knew him well. He was a normal well adjusted man in most senses who had a great standard of living, educated and travelled etc with a good trade. He clearly just went off the wall on the substance abuse, why else would you be robbing pensioners? I'm bewildered over it like, such a waste.

It's very likely he has developed some complex issues such as mental health issues. That's sad alright

nacho libre

FTA69 wrote: »

No, I haven't seen him in nearly a year like but I knew him well. He was a normal well adjusted man in most senses who had a great standard of living, educated and travelled etc with a good trade. He clearly just went off the wall on the substance abuse, why else would you be robbing pensioners? I'm bewildered over it like, such a waste.

Maybe he has gambling debts too. Then the stress of it all caused him
to lose all sense of perspective and resort to robbing.
Perhaps his problem to begin with, like others, was he had too much disposal income and turned to drugs for excitement.

I knew a guy like that, he eventually ended up homeless, but thankfully managed to quit drugs with help from a London based charity. He actually took a less well paid job, as he was afraid he would go back to the way was if he had a surplus of money.