man blames drug problem issues on drug users

AllForIt

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/shaun-bailey-london-mayor-firm-drug-test-staff-a4531351.html

Shaun Bailey, London Mayoral candidate, a black man, in his *idea* to fix the London knife crime problem, has said that employers should test their employee's for drug use.

This is the way I look at it. No one wanted an iPhone until Apple pushed it on us. Apple is the pusher and you can hardly blame the consumers of it for what Apple pushed.

Basically, he's saying that the London black knife crime epidemic is due to the consumers of the product the knife crime enthusiasts push.

Anyone see anything wrong with this viewpoint? This is no different from saying that women were 'asking for it' when they were raped. It's the victims fault and not the person who raped is at fault.

In other words, yet another sinister politician that wishes to attribute all blame for the activities of the scummy classes on the people who aren't actually the problem.

Das Reich

What's the problem of he being black and having this view? Also what is wrong with his view? I am sure that if there were no people buying drugs there would no people selling it. And addicted people are not victim but perpetrators, many people in jail or lost their life because some privileged people are addicted to drugs.

begbysback

It’s actually more similar to the viewpoint that harsher sentences will reduce crime, yea like a criminal calculates the risk before they commit the crime. Same here like a recreational drug user will think about how many people will be stabbed over his half gram of coke. It’s fantasy land, I can picture the dude lying in bed one night and having a “eureka” moment with this nonsense, now he has convinced himself he’s a pioneer.

Junkyard Tom

Legalise weed and you take out a massive revenue stream for gangs. Decriminalise possession of drugs for personal use. Spend less on prisons and more on addiction services.

Literally do the opposite to the 'war on drugs people' catastrophe.

James Brown

Poor people commit the most blue collar crime.
There are numerous reasons.
Blacks and other minorities have a great deal of poor in their demographic.
'Black knife crime' is a misnomer and could be used as racist.
'Scummy classes' is a pig ignorant thing to say.

That said, yer man is talking ****e.

Irishman80

Basically he said that the middle/upper class is the biggest consumer of cocaine; therefore, their activity is a contributor to gang crime in London. That's objectively true.

His solution, which is debatable, is that large professional firms should introduce random drug tests to create a disincentive for these people to buy cocaine.

I'm not sure what the issue is with what he saying. We can agree/disagree on the solution he puts forward.

Eric Cartman

Bowie wrote: »

Poor people commit the most blue collar crime.
There are numerous reasons.
Blacks and other minorities have a great deal of poor in their demographic.
'Black knife crime' is a misnomer and could be used as racist.
'Scummy classes' is a pig ignorant thing to say.

That said, yer man is talking ****e.

Half agree, poor people commit the vast majority of crime, the majority of black people are poor, drug crime is a massive issue among poor communities so ofcourse its a massive issue among black communities. Drug use is also a major issue among poor communities, Drug testing employees will help very little. However where I suspect our opinions diverge is Towards battling the problem. Heavy minimum mandatory sentences for dealing and drug testing welfare recipients would have the ‘kids with knives’ / bottom end of the market dry within a week. These teens carrying knives arent selling coke to bankers, theyre selling weed to other disadvantaged youths and using knives to protect their stock and enforce on debts.

Im not saying put a kid in prison for a 50 bag, but you find a kid with a knife and an ounce split out and you lock him up for 10 years and youll make 10 kids think twice before doing the same

AllForIt

Das Reich wrote: »

What's the problem of he being black and having this view?.

What could be more obvious.

AllForIt

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Legalise weed and you take out a massive revenue stream for gangs. Decriminalise possession of drugs for personal use. Spend less on prisons and more on addiction services.

Literally do the opposite to the 'war on drugs people' catastrophe.

Yes, but that is slightly off-topic to the point of this thread. I actually think you have a point.

The pertinent issues is a specially black politician taking blame off their own social demographic and putting it on another. That's the point I am making.

Birneybau

AllForRacism

AllForIt

Bowie wrote: »

Poor people commit the most blue collar crime.
There are numerous reasons.
Blacks and other minorities have a great deal of poor in their demographic.
'Black knife crime' is a misnomer and could be used as racist.
'Scummy classes' is a pig ignorant thing to say.

That said, yer man is talking ****e.

No. I believe there are 'scummy classes', white and black.

I believe that scummy classes are not a result of a failed capitalist system. I believe ppl are just scummy, end of, in the same way some societal demographics are really good.

I come from a 'poor' background by today's standard of poverty. So do a lot of people who grew up in rural Ireland decades ago. But we didn't use that as an excuse to turn out to be complete scumbags.

It's hugely interesting to me that you think I'm coming from the point of being racial, when all I'm criticising is scummy behaviour. It seems the zeigist now is no one is really bad, everyone is a victim of circumstances, and their behaviour can be excused in that regard.

I don't think anyone really believes that, rather what is going on, is opportunist people, including the politician I quoted, playing games with rhetoric for their own personal benefit and maybe even just for the hell of it.

Realt Dearg Sec

Eric Cartman wrote: »

lock him up for 10 years and youll make 10 kids think twice before doing the same

Hahahaha

Realt Dearg Sec

AllForIt wrote: »

No. I believe there are 'scummy classes', white and black.

I believe that scummy classes are not a result of a failed capitalist system. I believe ppl are just scummy, end of, in the same way some societal demographics are really good.

I come from a 'poor' background by today's standard of poverty. So do a lot of people who grew up in rural Ireland decades ago. But we didn't use that as an excuse to turn out to be complete scumbags.

It's hugely interesting to me that you think I'm coming from the point of being racial, when all I'm criticising is scummy behaviour. It seems the zeigist now is no one is really bad, everyone is a victim of circumstances, and their behaviour can be excused in that regard.

I don't think anyone really believes that, rather what is going on, is opportunist people, including the politician I quoted, playing games with rhetoric for their own personal benefit and maybe even just for the hell of it.

So these scummy classes, who are inherently scummy, have they always existed? What would your final solution be for this problem?

GSBellew

AllForIt wrote: »

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/shaun-bailey-london-mayor-firm-drug-test-staff-a4531351.html

Shaun Bailey, London Mayoral candidate, a black man, in his *idea* to fix the London knife crime problem, has said that employers should test their employee's for drug use.

This is the way I look at it. No one wanted an iPhone until Apple pushed it on us. Apple is the pusher and you can hardly blame the consumers of it for what Apple pushed.

Basically, he's saying that the London black knife crime epidemic is due to the consumers of the product the knife crime enthusiasts push.

Anyone see anything wrong with this viewpoint? This is no different from saying that women were 'asking for it' when they were raped. It's the victims fault and not the person who raped is at fault.

In other words, yet another sinister politician that wishes to attribute all blame for the activities of the scummy classes on the people who aren't actually the problem.

You're deluded.

No rape victim chooses to be raped.

Many / most (if not all) drug users make a conscious decision to consume drugs.
Addicts become addicts through an initial decision to consume drugs.

I've yet to hear of an individual becoming a habitual rape victim.

Sam Quentin

AllForIt wrote: »

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/shaun-bailey-london-mayor-firm-drug-test-staff-a4531351.html

Shaun Bailey, London Mayoral candidate, a black man, in his *idea* to fix the London knife crime problem, has said that employers should test their employee's for drug use.

This is the way I look at it. No one wanted an iPhone until Apple pushed it on us. Apple is the pusher and you can hardly blame the consumers of it for what Apple pushed.

Basically, he's saying that the London black knife crime epidemic is due to the consumers of the product the knife crime enthusiasts push.

Anyone see anything wrong with this viewpoint? This is no different from saying that women were 'asking for it' when they were raped. It's the victims fault and not the person who raped is at fault.

In other words, yet another sinister politician that wishes to attribute all blame for the activities of the scummy classes on the people who aren't actually the problem.

Nokias are better,.just saying like.
I know sheep 'need' to have the one you mentioned, but Nokias are the best. Thank You

Tokyo

Mod: Not sure what the man's race has to do with any of this, unless it's to load the question from the outset. Thread title updated accordingly.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Legalise weed and you take out a massive revenue stream for gangs. Decriminalise possession of drugs for personal use. Spend less on prisons and more on addiction services.

Literally do the opposite to the 'war on drugs people' catastrophe.

Yep, that would reduce the amount of drug users you see on O'Connell street off their heads and mugging people to pay for it.

Of course, drug dealers would absolutely vanish if it was legalised because they stopped smuggling alcohol and tobacco, right?

And of course being legal means that people don't consume too much, don't cause social and health issues and absolutely 100% don't still tie up revenue, Gardai and paramedics time.

Niner leprauchan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Yep, that would reduce the amount of drug users you see on O'Connell street off their heads and mugging people to pay for it.

Of course, drug dealers would absolutely vanish if it was legalised because they stopped smuggling alcohol and tobacco, right?

And of course being legal means that people don't consume too much, don't cause social and health issues and absolutely 100% don't still tie up revenue, Gardai and paramedics time.

Why the extreme? Drug dealers aren't going to disappear because there will always be some drugs which society deems unacceptable, and therefore illegal. However, legalising the lesser drugs which, typically, don't directly put peoples lives in danger, such as weed, would go a long way towards reducing the power of drug dealers. Weed is, after all, by far the most common drug in use anywhere.

Before the massive tax hikes on tobacco, dealers wouldn't have tried selling tobacco, except for hard to find brands, because there was no profit in it. The government created a market for the dealers to sell tobacco because people feel persecuted over their tobacco habit. A legal high, but taxed excessively for dubious reasons.

As for health, that's easily fixed. Establish a private health coverage which is realistically priced for people who engage in such drug usage, which would be a requirement before drugs being sold to them. Most people would accept that, if it was remotely reasonable in price. However, that won't happen because we're to be punished for doing something that others don't.

The funny thing is that I've always had private health coverage, and every instance of my paying for services has come out of my own pocket... People like to harp on about smokers or drug users being a heavy burden for the State, but there's little actual evidence of this, since those statistics usually include people with other health issues.

If the intent was that smokers, and others who engage in dubious activities (such as drugs) were to cover the costs themselves, then we'd have more emphasis on private health coverage, although, they're paying multiple times, since they're already being taxed for the State coverage, which pays for obesity related problems, or any number of other conditions which are on the rise, but unconnected with drugs.

suicide_circus

Employers forcing their staff to piss in a cup and then analysing said piss always struck me as a gross overstepping of authority if not downright creepy. It's not the role of businesses within society to police their employee's private activities.

Thelonious Monk

I saw this idiots tweet yesterday. I lived in London for a few years and cocaine use was endemic among people of all classes from my experience. Local black youths used to offer it to me on the streets, sometimes hand me a business card with their phone number, but at the same time I could be doing lines with privately educated Tarquin later on in a disabled pub toilet. You can't pick out any particular class as being the problem, he's just trying to demonise middle class white people. Everyone is at it over there, and over here really. The war on drugs will never be won if they continue with their current policies.

CrankyHaus

AllForIt wrote: »

The pertinent issues is a specially black politician taking blame off their own social demographic and putting it on another. That's the point I am making.

In a funny way he has a point though. Drugs are criminalised. The law is disregarded across the board, but the lower classes generally involved in the trade suffer the vast majority of the resulting violence and incarceration, while say bankers doing cocaine several times a week never face any consequences.

He fails to make the logical leap towards decriminalisation. But by highlighting the injustice of the current situation he's half way there.

Good look persuading British employers to go for this though. Cocaine is endemic in British culture at this stage. Even here, where it's shockingly common, we're way behind the Brits. Financial employers working their new hires like mad in the first few years are going to have no interest in humouring him.

CrankyHaus

CrankyHaus wrote: »

In a funny way he has a point though. Drugs are criminalised. The law is disregarded across the board, but the lower classes generally involved in the trade suffer the vast majority of the resulting violence and incarceration, while say bankers doing cocaine several times a week never face any consequences.

Sure, they do. However the consequences are less apparent. Cocaine has it's positives, but it also has it's negatives, which can affect their work. Some people can take cocaine for a long time without side-effects, but they're a minority. You don't hear about the bankers or professionals who lose their jobs due to their drug habits because it's simply not news, and the companies themselves prefer to keep it quiet.

I've known professionals with drug habits, and typically, they don't last. Considering the high stress and demands of such positions, people burn out often...

He fails to make the logical leap towards decriminalisation. But by highlighting the injustice of the current situation he's half way there.

Not really, he's seeking to justify a victim complex. Reinforcing the belief that society is unfair to certain groups, irrespective of personal responsibility for life choices. By picking something like race, or economic backgrounds, he can dismiss personal choice, and blame something that people generally have little choice about.

Good look persuading British employers to go for this though. Cocaine is endemic in British culture at this stage. Even here, where it's shockingly common, we're way behind the Brits. Financial employers working their new hires like mad in the first few years are going to have no interest in humouring him.

I wouldn't be too sure. Drug checks have been brought into many companies over the years, and there is less tolerance for people who fail at their responsibilities. Lower profit margins due to Brexit, and the flimsy global economy, will have board members seeking to minimize exposure, and the lower employees who fail to meet targets will be scrutinized, with drug usage being a factor.

The truth is inconvenient though. Many companies already have a low tolerance for drug usage by their employees, and many suggestions that drug usage is commonplace, are based on stereotypes from the 80s/90s or during the economic booms. That's not to say that people don't do it, but it's not quite as widespread as people want to believe. I've noticed that the perceptions people have about a particular industry don't tend to update as society and the world changes... often they're using impressions gained about how an environment was in the past, rather than the present.

CrankyHaus

Deleted User wrote: »

The truth is inconvenient though. Many companies already have a low tolerance for drug usage by their employees, and many suggestions that drug usage is commonplace, are based on stereotypes from the 80s/90s or during the economic booms. That's not to say that people don't do it, but it's not quite as widespread as people want to believe. I've noticed that the perceptions people have about a particular industry don't tend to update as society and the world changes... often they're using impressions gained about how an environment was in the past, rather than the present.

Fair enough. My opinion's based on a friend who went over to work in a high end finance job over there straight out of college in the last ten years. The culture was disgraceful. They seemed to have a model of burning them out until a few got a rung or two up the ladder and calmed down.

Over here I've had scheduled inductions with senior HR making jokes about how much cocaine we'd be doing at staff events and there are plenty of people in the professions, high and low, openly doing tons of bag.

If I represented a low income community torn apart by drugs and the violence and incarceration it engenders I'd find stuff like this galling.

https://m.herald.ie/news/courts/solicitor-caught-with-cocaine-on-mountjoy-visit-spared-conviction-36576279.html

https://www.thesun.ie/news/2163682/solicitor-found-with-cocaine-in-his-wallet-at-mountjoy-prison-is-one-of-best-paid-criminal-legal-aid-solicitors-in-ireland-with-his-practice-earning-e1m-from-state/

Ash.J.Williams

AllForIt wrote: »

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/shaun-bailey-london-mayor-firm-drug-test-staff-a4531351.html

Shaun Bailey, London Mayoral candidate, a black man, in his *idea* to fix the London knife crime problem, has said that employers should test their employee's for drug use.

This is the way I look at it. No one wanted an iPhone until Apple pushed it on us. Apple is the pusher and you can hardly blame the consumers of it for what Apple pushed.

Basically, he's saying that the London black knife crime epidemic is due to the consumers of the product the knife crime enthusiasts push.

Anyone see anything wrong with this viewpoint? This is no different from saying that women were 'asking for it' when they were raped. It's the victims fault and not the person who raped is at fault.

In other words, yet another sinister politician that wishes to attribute all blame for the activities of the scummy classes on the people who aren't actually the problem.

i can safely say workplace drug testing works!

CrankyHaus

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Fair enough. My opinion's based on a friend who went over to work in a high end finance job over there straight out of college in the last ten years. The culture was disgraceful. They seemed to have a model of burning them out until a few got a rung or two up the ladder and calmed down.

It's the model and it's a well known model. People know, going into that industry that the work environment is awful.. which is why people get paid so much.

Over here I've had scheduled inductions with senior HR making jokes about how much cocaine we'd be doing at staff events and there are plenty of people in the professions, high and low, openly doing tons of bag.

Sure, I appreciate that. I've seen the same... although generally not while they're actually working. Such events are seen as recreation or downtime. Just as I've been to clubs in the UK, where everyone was high as a kite. Drugs are part of our society... high and low. But there are consequences for both high and low. They might not be the same consequences, but that's more the case for the individual and their circumstances than a group of people.

If I represented a low income community torn apart by drugs and the violence and incarceration it engenders I'd find stuff like this galling.

https://m.herald.ie/news/courts/solicitor-caught-with-cocaine-on-mountjoy-visit-spared-conviction-36576279.html

https://www.thesun.ie/news/2163682/solicitor-found-with-cocaine-in-his-wallet-at-mountjoy-prison-is-one-of-best-paid-criminal-legal-aid-solicitors-in-ireland-with-his-practice-earning-e1m-from-state/

Just as we all find it frustrating that many who break the law get really light sentences or commit crimes while out on bail?

You can pick out examples to show the unfairness of any viewpoint.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why the extreme? Drug dealers aren't going to disappear because there will always be some drugs which society deems unacceptable, and therefore illegal. However, legalising the lesser drugs which, typically, don't directly put peoples lives in danger, such as weed, would go a long way towards reducing the power of drug dealers. Weed is, after all, by far the most common drug in use anywhere.

Before the massive tax hikes on tobacco, dealers wouldn't have tried selling tobacco, except for hard to find brands, because there was no profit in it. The government created a market for the dealers to sell tobacco because people feel persecuted over their tobacco habit. A legal high, but taxed excessively for dubious reasons.

As for health, that's easily fixed. Establish a private health coverage which is realistically priced for people who engage in such drug usage, which would be a requirement before drugs being sold to them. Most people would accept that, if it was remotely reasonable in price. However, that won't happen because we're to be punished for doing something that others don't.

The funny thing is that I've always had private health coverage, and every instance of my paying for services has come out of my own pocket... People like to harp on about smokers or drug users being a heavy burden for the State, but there's little actual evidence of this, since those statistics usually include people with other health issues.

If the intent was that smokers, and others who engage in dubious activities (such as drugs) were to cover the costs themselves, then we'd have more emphasis on private health coverage, although, they're paying multiple times, since they're already being taxed for the State coverage, which pays for obesity related problems, or any number of other conditions which are on the rise, but unconnected with drugs.

That's neither easier nor resolves the issues as you say yourself, junkies shall still exist and revenue and Gardai enforcement still needed. No legal option will be cheaper than smuggled and smuggling has existed since the foundation of the state.

By all means push for legalisation if you so desire but don't roll out the tired and misguided argument that it will somehow solve all the issues.

Niner leprauchan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

That's neither easier nor resolves the issues as you say yourself, junkies shall still exist and revenue and Gardai enforcement still needed. No legal option will be cheaper than smuggled and smuggling has existed since the foundation of the state.

By all means push for legalisation if you so desire but don't roll out the tired and misguided argument that it will somehow solve all the issues.

Except I didn't. You're the one rolling out that tired objection. Nobody is stupid enough to make the case that legalising weed would solve all problems associated with drug use. Instead, in these topics, some posters claim as you did, that people are making such a claim when they're not.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Legalising weed is half hearted. The cocaine trade is the most damaging, and efforts to stop it have been disastrous. Legalise coke.

Eric Cartman

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Legalising weed is half hearted. The cocaine trade is the most damaging, and efforts to stop it have been disastrous. Legalise coke.

when I was in college everyone was on the legalise weed 'buzz' , a load of people celebrated Canada, some US states etc.. legalising it, the detractors said it was a slippery slope, now that cocaine has come back with an absolute vengance there is a small but vocal movement to legalise cocaine, the slippery slope was definitely real.

I can't wait to see protests of finance lads listening to house tunes bopping down the street with placards saying 'sure nothing wrong with a few lines on a Friday'

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

There are lots of things wrong with a few lines on a Friday night, but there's a lot more wrong with massacres in Colombia or Mexico.

Eric Cartman

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

There are lots of things wrong with a few lines on a Friday night, but there's a lot more wrong with massacres in Colombia or Mexico.

coca leaves aren't like cannabis plants, the price of cocaine would be astronomical to produce in the western world unless you stripped away all of the workers rights and gave them a pittance.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Eric Cartman wrote: »

coca leaves aren't like cannabis plants, the price of cocaine would be astronomical to produce in the western world unless you stripped away all of the workers rights and gave them a pittance.

So? Produce it in Colombia, Peru or Bolivia and let those countries export cocaine legally.

Eric Cartman

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

So? Produce it in Colombia, Peru or Bolivia and let those countries export cocaine legally.

the cartels own those countries. You'd end up with 20x the bloodshed.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the cartels own those countries. You'd end up with 20x the bloodshed.

You're talking out of your hole. Why do you think large cartels emerged outside the law? It's because those countries happen to be able to provide a service the rich world wants, but is also determined to punish them for providing.

tayto lover

suicide_circus wrote: »

Employers forcing their staff to piss in a cup and then analysing said piss always struck me as a gross overstepping of authority if not downright creepy. It's not the role of businesses within society to police their employee's private activities.

What about if those same workers are drivers, machine operators or in charge of children? Do you want them as high as kites?
What if Insurance companies insisted on it being done in factories or other workplaces?

Junkyard Tom

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Yep, that would reduce the amount of drug users you see on O'Connell street off their heads and mugging people to pay for it.

Mugging is mugging. Vagrancy is vagrancy. Deal with each accordingly. Personally I think aggressive-begging and being off-your-box in a public place should be dealt with swiftly and decisively and those apprehended should be banned from the city centres.

Of course, drug dealers would absolutely vanish if it was legalised because they stopped smuggling alcohol and tobacco, right?

Nirvana fallacy.

And of course being legal means that people don't consume too much, don't cause social and health issues and absolutely 100% don't still tie up revenue, Gardai and paramedics time.

That's drug abuse which should be dealt with as a health issue.

I used to debate these issues on boards but gave up and now I remember why, it's tedious trying to reason with people who refuse to be reasoned with.

AllForIt

I don't mind that a mod edited the thread title if they felt it was a bit too clickbaity or contentious. I have already explained my reasoning for the original title though, i.e. because one can't but think that the politician is defending his own demographic because he is part of it, and shifts blame to a demographic of which he is not part. I think it's obvious he's not middle-class (read middle-class-white).

Could have at least capitalised man though : ) or put his name in instead. Thanks.

Eric Cartman

tayto lover wrote: »

What about if those same workers are drivers, machine operators or in charge of children? Do you want them as high as kites?
What if Insurance companies insisted on it being done in factories or other workplaces?

id agree with drug testing those workers, but until they drug test all welfare recipients I think it should be banned.

AllForIt

tayto lover wrote: »

What about if those same workers are drivers, machine operators or in charge of children? Do you want them as high as kites?
What if Insurance companies insisted on it being done in factories or other workplaces?

What about alcohol. Working with a hangover if not drunk would equally be disruptive to one's ability in those jobs.

But of course where Bailey is coming from has nothing to do with those kinds of concerns. He's shifting blame for his own political advantage.

AllForIt

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

So these scummy classes, who are inherently scummy, have they always existed? What would your final solution be for this problem?

I don't think killing them is the solution. They'll just resurface again, if we encourage it, and by encouraging it I mean by taking blame off them and putting it on someone else.

Realt Dearg Sec

AllForIt wrote: »

I don't think killing them is the solution. They'll just resurface again, if we encourage it, and by encouraging it I mean by taking blame off them and putting it on someone else.

That would seem to imply that you think there are social causes for the emergence of a given class behaviour, rather than seeing it as something inherent to people.

But it's weird that someone can see themselves as a good person, while also believing the only reason not to kill an entire social class is because they'll "resurface again".

suicide_circus

tayto lover wrote: »

What about if those same workers are drivers, machine operators or in charge of children? Do you want them as high as kites?
What if Insurance companies insisted on it being done in factories or other workplaces?

Perhaps in special circumstances operating heavy machinery i can understand it but for your average office/shop grunt it's crossing all kinda boundaries, the state cant even drug test you unless you're driving, no way should a private corporation be permitted to do so.