drug dealers and drug dealings

shellby · 14-09-2005 12:47PM

Blisterman wrote:

Obviously some drugs like Crack are too dangerous to legalise.

why so when smoking kills far more people a year?

Cianos · 14-09-2005 01:35PM

shellby wrote:

why so when smoking kills far more people a year?

This is a silly argument...I hate when people try excuse drugs by saying "but booze and cigs kill way more people a year". The ratio of users to death rate is what should be looked at, not the overall number of deaths per year. If people used crack as much as people used booze and cigarrettes, there would be a lot more deaths.

Neuro · 14-09-2005 02:13PM

Bluetonic wrote:

One word.

Inflation.

Any resultant inflation would be negated by an increase in productivity as the labour and resources once used to combat drugs and related crimes could now be used to generate more goods and services. Technically, all members of the economy would become richer. The probable increase in wealth is difficult to quantify; it could add as little as $100 to GDP, or as much as $10,000.

zinc · 14-09-2005 02:51PM

Whatever your arguments, the war on drugs is being lost and they will never go away.

In fact Ireland hasnt even seen any RC's hitting the streets, it hasnt even really got a Ketamine scene going for Christs sake.

We should be teaching harm reduction first of all in relation to drugs.

We should have things to do in this country rather than smoke spliff, buts it is easier to look at a adrug dealer and say he is scum than address real issues.

What somebody puts in their body is their own choice and it simply cannot be controlled, hell who in Ireland isnt one or two people away from buying spliff if they really wanted it.

rubadub · 14-09-2005 02:53PM

Tha Gopher wrote:

tbh though, I am of the belief that people who never smoke hash are far less likely to try another drug.

Thats the same faulty logic as the now gladly defunct "gateway drug" theory.

People who are of the mindset likely to take drugs are.... likely to take drugs. End of story.

I am of the belief that people who never kill spiders are far less likely to torture a dog...
makes perfect sense, if somebody does not have a natural tendency towards performing and enjoying violence or seeking and enjoying mind altering states then sure enough they will tend not to.

I would be shocked if a heroin user had not tried hash before heroin.
I would be shocked if a hash user had not tried caffeine before hash.
I would be shocked if a guy done for serious GBH had not been in a few fights in school.

Neuro · 14-09-2005 03:04PM

reversed wrote:

1)
Since the dawn of time, human beings are using drugs.
People will always use them.
Maybe it's better to teach people, how to use drugs in a safe, responsible way, than to restrict adult people in living their lifes.

People are not perfectly rational free agents; this is a hangover of European Enlightenment thinking. People are, for the most part, emotional and irrational. Any education on how to use drugs safely would be futile.

reversed wrote:

2)
Prohibiting drugs creates a black market with no control over the substances and no crontrol at all.
If drugs would be legal, the substances would be more pure and much safer, because no one would buy *dirty* drugs.
Also see the 20ies in the USA, where alcohol was prohibited. The Mafia made the money, because alcohol was illegal.

By making drugs illegal we, to a certain degree, control their availability. The average heroin addict, for example, has no job, no home, poorly functioning relationships etc., all of which are by-products of the drug's effects, not the drug's price or purity. In fact, it could be argued that if purity were enhanced the problems would only be magnified.

reversed wrote:

3)
Everybody is responsible for their own health.
As long as alcohol and tabacco are legal, there's no reason to prohibit other drugs.
Note: on the first hand, the government launches anti-smoke-campains, on the other hand, it earns billions with tabacco-taxes. How weird is this?
If you think dealers are scum, so would be all the merchants who sell cigarettes and alcohol.

People are, to a limited degree, responsible for their own health. One counter-argument is children born with a hereditary disease; how can those individuals be held responsible for their own health? Regardless, this issue has been covered in my response to your first point.

As for Alchohol/Tobacco, they are an historic aberration that predate the advances in health science in the 20th century; the damage caused by tobacco was only recognised in the last 70 years. If any of these substances were introduced as new products today, they would be banned immediately.

As you said alchohol/tobacco are heavily taxed products. But the state does not make a profit per-se from this taxation. Users who pay these taxes are simply 'investing' in the healthcare they will require at a later date as a result of cancers, liver problems and so on. The reason we cannot ban these products outright is because many of health problems caused by them are delayed; if smoking was banned today, lung cancer cases would continue to rise for 10 to 15 years before trailing off, but during that time there would be no income from tax on cigarettes. In other words, non-smoking members of society would have to bear the burden of smokers' 'rational' choice to smoke for 20 to 30 years.

reversed wrote:

4)
The dealers don't make people addicted to drugs.
People get addicted to drugs.

This reasoning is flawed; you've committed the fallacy of Reverse Causation. The drug dealer might not make the user addicted, but they certainly knowingly facilitate it. Before a person can become addicted to a drug they must consume it, before they consume it they must purchase it, and to purchase it they must go to a drug dealer.

reversed wrote:

5)
Get informed before you judge.

You would do well to head your own advice.

14-09-2005 03:10PM

Every single drug stereotype has raised their tired old heads in this thread.

The "Hurr hurr drugs are bad" crowd should do a little reading up on the subject.

14-09-2005 03:32PM

Neuro wrote:

People are not perfectly rational free agents; this is a hangover of European Enlightenment thinking. People are, for the most part, emotional and irrational. Any education on how to use drugs safely would be futile.

That is rubbish. People can choose to drugs safely. I would have thought thats how the majority of people do it..

By making drugs illegal we, to a certain degree, control their availability. The average heroin addict, for example, has no job, no home, poorly functioning relationships etc., all of which are by-products of the drug's effects, not the drug's price or purity. In fact, it could be argued that if purity were enhanced the problems would only be magnified.

*edit* I totally misread the above.*edit*

As for Alchohol/Tobacco, they are an historic aberration that predate the advances in health science in the 20th century; the damage caused by tobacco was only recognised in the last 70 years. If any of these substances were introduced as new products today, they would be banned immediately.

They would be banned because of the pure virtue that they are drugs. Simple.

This reasoning is flawed; you've committed the fallacy of Reverse Causation. The drug dealer might not make the user addicted, but they certainly knowingly facilitate it. Before a person can become addicted to a drug they must consume it, before they consume it they must purchase it, and to purchase it they must go to a drug dealer.

Urg I hate people who use these dumb debating arguments.
For the majority of drugs, people choose to do them because they like doing them. As long as there is a demand for them, people will sell them.
Not all drugs are addictive so don't tar them all with the same brush.

rubadub · 14-09-2005 03:34PM

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

When you smoke, every day, 3 times a day and become aggressive when your rutine is interrupted you have an addiction. .

Are you talking about pure cannabis, tobacco, or IMO the most addictive combination commonly smoked by irish people, the "irish joint", a highly addictive combination of tobacco and low quality contaminated so called "hashish".

I know a lot of cannabis users and over 95% mix it with tobacco. Most medical texts and journals cite nicotine as the most addictive drug known (yes more than heroin). The only real pleasure in tobacco is the relieving of its withdrawl syptoms. When you combine the most addicitive drug known with another substance that acutally gives a pleasureable effect, it is going to be even more addicitive than tobacco on its own.

I hate seeing friends hooked on the combination, it really occurs when they try to convince themselves that they have given up cigarettes, and "just smoke joints". They end up smoking lots of this crap hash every day to feed their nictoine habit, and wont dare smoke just a cigarette since then they will be back "real smoking". There must be 10,000's of "tobaccannabis" addicts out there.

If people tended to mix nictoine pills with their pints of beer, there would be far more alcoholics out there too

fade · 14-09-2005 03:45PM

Kaptain redeye, lol @ your name, how fitting for a discussion which has since become centred on hash

god how the redeye effects me!!!!

Tusky · 14-09-2005 03:50PM

Drug pushers are a myth. IF people want drugs, they will get them. Dont blame it on the dealers.

Neuro · 14-09-2005 04:24PM

ronoc wrote:

Urg I hate people who use these dumb debating arguments.

You may be interested in the Ad Hominem fallacy.

Gazza22 · 14-09-2005 04:43PM

They are complete scum, and yes community destroyers...

I've recently heard kids in my area on their way home from school arranging where they are going to get their blow tonight...all i can say is it's disgraceful, and the dealers selling it to them are just scum.

People who sell hard drugs are the creme of scum imo. It's money money money for them but a life could be easily lost.

rubadub · 14-09-2005 04:59PM

Cianos wrote:

"but booze and cigs kill way more people a year". The ratio of users to death rate is what should be looked at, not the overall number of deaths per year.

ehhh, thats what they are referring to, a higher % of legal drug users/abusers die per year.

I've recently heard kids in my area on their way home from school arranging where they are going to get their blow tonight...all i can say is it's disgraceful, and the dealers selling it to them are just scum.

I hope you view off-licence and cigarette sellers the same way

Catsmokinpot · 14-09-2005 05:31PM

i know a fair few dealers, some are out and out scum some are honest as they were the day god made them its all about the type of person they are, you can have a boss at work or a person you know who is a scumbag. i dont think drug dealers are essentially wrong they supply a service, i would rather the government or a legally sanctioned company supplied that service, but c'est la vie.

i know some pushers, very few mind you and they dont always actually push its my scumbag drugdealer term more than anything (pushers are the worst they aren't your friends, they're usually dangerous and they'll screw you over) so if you want crushed up lightbulbs instead of speed and if you want dickheads coming round to your sessions asking your mates to try some wierd **** and bringing their scumbag mates along go to them.

i know some dealers (aquaintances that sometimes screw you over but others are sound out)i remember this one feller who had his operation sorted, he had everything you'd need, accept for any of the intravenous ones and crack - both of which are scummy and turn you scummy (i wouldnt go near anyone like that) hed always be fair bout a tenner lower than the competition, and his stuff was always good. + if you had a problem even if you had gone home he'd take it back, no questions asked. most honest of the dealers i ever met. also the most lucrative.

and i know mates who just sort all of their mates out (best people to go to, always buys in bulk sells it off for near enough cost price never screw you over) wouldnt go to em anymore theyre taking too much risks just to sort me out.

in conclusion drug dealers provide a service, some of them are honest, some arent, some of them are scum and some are sound. they see a market that needs suppliers, because unfortunate as it may seem to some of you people are going to take drugs weather they are legal or not.

Edit: oh and by the way, you get scumbags who rip you off and dont give a **** about you in any business, weather it be telecoms, grocers, publicans, lawyers, doctors (the list is endless). anyone who says otherwise is a fúckin clown!

scojones · 14-09-2005 05:51PM

It's very hard to comment on this without generalising. I will just comment on the dealers that I know. Of the dealers I know, everyone of them do it for the money. It's easy money, and the drugs sell themselves. One of the dealers I know makes so much money, he had to take on an extra job to cover up where he was getting all of his money from.

I also think there is an element of power to it. They like feeling powerful, people asking them for drugs, they control when these people have their fun.

case n basket · 14-09-2005 07:09PM

Tusky wrote:

Drug pushers are a myth. IF people want drugs, they will get them. Dont blame it on the dealers.

Hurrah for supply and demand!

All the coke dealers I know are nice guys. They'd be very low on the food-chain though... fortunately I don't need to climb it any.

the_syco · 14-09-2005 07:43PM

CiaranC wrote:

Wont somebody think of the children!?!

Are you talking about the children who deal, the children who are mules for the dealers, the children who buy the stuff, or the children who mug other children to fund their habit?

Tusky wrote:

Drug pushers are a myth. IF people want drugs, they will get them. Dont blame it on the dealers.

If a person wants drugs, they can get them off a dealer. If you get drugs off a pusher, tho, they'll give you something for free to get you hooked. And once they push it on you, they start to charge. After a while, you take it to feel "normal". Like the having a cig, they do it to stop feeling the withdrawal. symptons.

I used to know lots of dealers. Most of them gave it up. They got jobs, and no longer needed the money. The few remaining only sell to their friends. And even then, some are giving it up.

And thats the difference.

For the dealer, its a bit on the side. Give it up when they get bored.

For the pusher, its a job. Make as much profit as possible. And some of them are addicted to their own stuff, so they must make enough to support their lifestyle, habit, and to live. Also, to make a profit. These are the true low-lifes, as they'll do anything, screw over anyone, mix salt or sugar with your heroin, to get their fix.

4Xcut · 14-09-2005 08:14PM

drug dealers are only above rapists and peadophiles on the scum ladder and i include murders on that ladder

Dar · 14-09-2005 09:18PM

Selling drugs does not automatically qualify one for membership of the National Union of Utter Scumbags. I've known plenty of sound guys who sell a bit of grass to pay the bills, and I've known some utter scumbags who have done the same. Generisations are bad - take a step off your high horse and look at reality before making such sweeping statements.

Nightwish · 15-09-2005 02:45AM

someone very close to me was a drug addict and I saw how it destroyed their life. so I have no tolerance whatsoever for people who peddle drugs, even just "to pay the bills". What they are doing is a criminal act, and its a criminal act for a reason

rubadub · 15-09-2005 12:58PM

sjones wrote:

Of the dealers I know, everyone of them do it for the money. .

same with most dealers I know, be they antique dealers, vegetable dealers, shoe salesmen. All the greedy bastards seem to be in it for the money, you'd think they would just do it out of the goodness of their heart, but oh no, greedy bastards want a profit.

If you get drugs off a pusher, tho, they'll give you something for free to get you hooked.

Sounds like something I heard on bosco once.
Where are these mythological pushers, have you got their number?
They are probably out riding bareback on their flying unicorns injecting unsuspecting toddlers with heroin.

Ishmael · 15-09-2005 01:46PM

I know one or 2 guys that peddle small amounts of drugs and they're sound enough guys and everything, but if they should be caught i will have absolutly no sympathy for them. They are breaking the law"." Selling drugs to pay the rent is only a small step away from selling drugs to pay for a new Ipod or whatever and still doesn't justify breaking the law. A Thief or a Pimp could say they same thing.

reversed · 15-09-2005 02:33PM

Neuro wrote:

People are not perfectly rational free agents; this is a hangover of European Enlightenment thinking. People are, for the most part, emotional and irrational. Any education on how to use drugs safely would be futile.

If you know about something, you can judge for yourself. Not-knowing makes you open for propaganda.
What do you think is better:
Seeing your children trying illegal drugs and die, because they don't know about the stuff?
Or have them educated in a good way, that they can judge, what they are doing? That they know how the different drugs work and what their dangers are?
Remember: even if drugs are illegal, they are still there!

Neuro wrote:

By making drugs illegal we, to a certain degree, control their availability. The average heroin addict, for example, has no job, no home, poorly functioning relationships etc., all of which are by-products of the drug's effects, not the drug's price or purity. In fact, it could be argued that if purity were enhanced the problems would only be magnified.

Where is the control over availibility? I don't see any. You don't have control over illegal things. If you mean, the "lucky hits" of customes against drug traffickers, yeah, much control here!
On the purity topic: see down below.

Neuro wrote:

As for Alchohol/Tobacco, they are an historic aberration that predate the advances in health science in the 20th century; the damage caused by tobacco was only recognised in the last 70 years. If any of these substances were introduced as new products today, they would be banned immediately.

As you said alchohol/tobacco are heavily taxed products. But the state does not make a profit per-se from this taxation. Users who pay these taxes are simply 'investing' in the healthcare they will require at a later date as a result of cancers, liver problems and so on. The reason we cannot ban these products outright is because many of health problems caused by them are delayed; if smoking was banned today, lung cancer cases would continue to rise for 10 to 15 years before trailing off, but during that time there would be no income from tax on cigarettes. In other words, non-smoking members of society would have to bear the burden of smokers' 'rational' choice to smoke for 20 to 30 years.

Do you think, that this tax money goes into a fond for the diseases caused by smoking/ drinking? The health insurance companies pay for this, and that's not tax money.
If you want all other drugs to be illegal, smoking and drinking also have to be illegal. They're highly addictive and destructive.

Neuro wrote:

This reasoning is flawed; you've committed the fallacy of Reverse Causation. The drug dealer might not make the user addicted, but they certainly knowingly facilitate it. Before a person can become addicted to a drug they must consume it, before they consume it they must purchase it, and to purchase it they must go to a drug dealer.

Again, it's not the drug or the dealer who makes you addicted, but you yourself.
If you're addicted to something it's your responsibility to get a cure and be healthy again. You get addicted to drugs, if you have a problem with yourself. No one's pushing you to become addicted. Unless you take those urbane legends "drugs into the cocktail on the party" and stupid stories in tabloids for true. People who believe in those stories shouldn't take drugs at all, that's true... because they don't know a sh*t.
And nobody would mention the idea to ban chocolate, just because there're people out there, who are addicted to chocolate. And this is unhealthy, too!

Neuro wrote:

You would do well to head your own advice.

Ok, then tell me, why years or better decades of drug prohibition obviously haven't solved the problem?
Millions of $$$ are spend each year on the "war on drugs", laws become stricter, but there are still people using drugs. Hmm, how to explain that?
It seems, that this strategy doesn't work at all.
Maybe it's time to try a different approach. If this doesn't work, the law-and-order fraction could try again...

Here again for short, why to legalize drugs:

-> black market shrinks, because legal stuff has to be sold cheaper (no additional "illegal" charge). Drugs aren't expensive, because it's expensive to produce them, but because illegal ops always cost money...
E. g. a gram coke costs about 5 EUR on the street in Peru!
Here in Amsterdam it's about 70-80 EUR.

-> when the substance is legal, you have the possibility to legaly have the quality checked. No one would buy your stuff, if it is dirty.
E. g. here in the Netherlands, you could have legally tested Extasy pills.
If a lab finds out, that it's bad or dangerus quality, there's ads in newspapers to warn consumers. Or if the dose is to high, there are also warnings in the newspapers, that the producers takes them of the market to halve them and sell them again. Note: XTC is still not legal in the Netherlands.

-> pure, clean drugs are better for your body than thinned dirt.
Take it or not. The junkies at the station are only what you see of heroine addictives. People who have the money to afford quality H don't live at the station but at home, have a job, etc. Same for coke.

Regards,
Reversed

the_syco · 15-09-2005 02:52PM

rubadub wrote:

Sounds like something I heard on bosco once.
Where are these mythological pushers, have you got their number?
They are probably out riding bareback on their flying unicorns injecting unsuspecting toddlers with heroin.

When I was in college, and the usual dealers are short, not dealing due to the law, etc, I sometimes would goto other dealers. This other dealers I would be carefull around. I would buy hash, and hash only. I have been offered crack, speed, ecasty, pills, etc, for free as they "have a few left over". I said no thanks, just hash. Never tried any harder drugs, never will. But a few people I know have tried it. But those people quickly run out of money, due to going from hash to a more expensive habit. Some would quit, but some wouldn't and then their lives would start to go downhill.

Call Me Jimmy · 15-09-2005 02:59PM

Dar wrote:

I've known plenty of sound guys who sell a bit of grass to pay the bills,

Heh, I am not saying that selling hash is the worst of all sins or anything, but to justify breaking the law by saying that it was only to pay the bills is the most ridiculous thing I've heard today.

Btw Dar, I'm gonna steal your TV so I can sell it so I can pay for my bills for a month, I'll be back next month for something to cover next month's bills too, that's ok right? Coz I'm not stealing your TV for a silly reason, I just gotta pay my bills.

reversed · 15-09-2005 03:33PM

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

Heh, I am not saying that selling hash is the worst of all sins or anything, but to justify breaking the law by saying that it was only to pay the bills is the most ridiculous thing I've heard today.

Btw Dar, I'm gonna steal your TV so I can sell it so I can pay for my bills for a month, I'll be back next month for something to cover next month's bills too, that's ok right? Coz I'm not stealing your TV for a silly reason, I just gotta pay my bills.

Selling drugs is not stealing...

Catsmokinpot · 15-09-2005 04:31PM

rubadub wrote:

same with most dealers I know, be they antique dealers, vegetable dealers, shoe salesmen. All the greedy bastards seem to be in it for the money, you'd think they would just do it out of the goodness of their heart, but oh no, greedy bastards want a profit.

Sounds like something I heard on bosco once.
Where are these mythological pushers, have you got their number?
They are probably out riding bareback on their flying unicorns injecting unsuspecting toddlers with heroin.

ROFL

its funny cause its true
infact ive seen more heartless, ruthless people working in aol and tesco than i have ruthless drugdealers.

Catsmokinpot · 15-09-2005 04:44PM

Nightwish wrote:

someone very close to me was a drug addict and I saw how it destroyed their life. so I have no tolerance whatsoever for people who peddle drugs, even just "to pay the bills". What they are doing is a criminal act, and its a criminal act for a reason

i had one of the most ****ed up upbringings with no father and a seriously alcoholic mother i still go out and drink. its your friend who ruined their own life not the drugs, or the drug dealers, the dealer didnt put a gun to your friends head and "take these drugs NOW!" same as the barman at my local didnt put a gun to my mothers head and say the same, thats a very narrowminded opinion to have.

Call Me Jimmy · 15-09-2005 04:54PM

reversed wrote:

Selling drugs is not stealing...

Of course, but I was using stealing as another example of breaking the law.

drug dealers and drug dealings

Comments