The party's over

Earthhorse · 11-03-2008 01:26PM

By extension of that logic I can't rail against anything unethical if I've done anything unethical myself. There are degrees of ethical behaviour. If you really believe that the chocolate, tea or whatever industry is daubed in as much blood as drug cartels then I suggest you boycott them. I've never seen anything to suggest that that's the case.

Dudess · 11-03-2008 01:29PM

But the point is, those who rail against cocaine users for funding murderous scumbags are being selective about whose unethical behaviour they rail against.

Earthhorse · 11-03-2008 01:37PM

Yes, and I'm saying they have the right to be selective.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 11-03-2008 01:38PM

why? because they like coffee, tea and coca cola?
or is it because the violence these industries sometimes lead to is kept out of the sight of western consumers?

Earthhorse · 11-03-2008 01:42PM

No. It's to do with scale and intent.

iguana · 11-03-2008 01:45PM

Trojan911 wrote: »

No, simply because chocolate, tea and coffee industries & clothing stores are not illegal organisations, so why should they be rallied against?

Because the actions of tea, coffee, chocolate and oil companies are every bit as despicable as the actions of those involved in the drugs trade. What they are doing may not be illegal but they are every bit as immoral. It is not excusable to say well it's legal so it's ok.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/28/017.html

http://www.teaandcoffee.net/0102/special.htm

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/OgoniFactS.html

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 11-03-2008 01:45PM

o.0

all industries intend to make money, lots and lots of money. illegal industries are no different, they just don't have shareholders in the traditional sense and of course there is no legal oversight.

also scale? the reason the drug business is so ****ing huge is because there are millions of us, perhaps billions all around the planet who enjoy taking drugs. It's not up to you, any government or any crackpot godhead to tell us to stop. The proper thing to do is to bring the drugs business under the same legal protections as other businesses, so they can go to court to settle disputes over money instead of resorting to shootings and beatings.

Kold · 11-03-2008 01:46PM

Mordeth wrote: »

why?

how does the fact that they use cocaine detract from the fact that they are pretty clothes hangers?

they are not moral leaders, and it is the fault of parents if their children see them as such.

+1

Who the f*ck cares what these chicks are doing in their private lives. The simple fact is that anyone who holds them as a role model is a f*cking moron.

And if vacuous whores stopped buying Heat magazine noone would have a clue what they were doing.

Degsy · 11-03-2008 01:49PM

Kold wrote: »

+1

Who the f*ck cares what these chicks are doing in their private lives. The simple fact is that anyone who holds them as a role model is a f*cking moron.

And if vacuous whores stopped buying Heat magazine noone would have a clue what they were doing.

Because these fools can afford the fees the drying-out clinics charge to get them off it.The average working stiff has no idea the hassle a drug problem is going to cause untill it happens to them.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 11-03-2008 01:49PM

Kold wrote: »

+1
And if vacuous whores stopped buying Heat magazine noone would have a clue what they were doing.

+1

marry me.

Trojan911 · 11-03-2008 01:54PM

Dudess wrote: »

Yep, do they boycott Coca-Cola?

That's why it's hypocritical of those who use that argument not to rail against the exploitative, cruel and even murderous behaviour that goes on in the tea, coffee and chocolate industries, and in sweatshops around the world and Coca Cola in South America.

I couldn't give a monkeys what goes on around the world in the tea, coffee and chocolate industries. I'm concerned about what goes in in Ireland. Drugs are a drain to the system and a scourge to society.

Dudess wrote: »

So what if those are legal industries? Does that somehow legitimise the practice of employing five-year-olds to work six days a week in horrific conditions, for next to no pay, and meting out physical punishments if they do anything wrong?

Again, it's not my concern. It's not here.

faceman · 11-03-2008 01:57PM

I think this thread went off topic 50 posts ago!

Anyway, i dont think there is a "right" campaign to combat the harmful effects of drugs or even drinks or cigarettes.

you will always get the losers anyway who will go against the recommendations for spite rather than make an educated decision.

When compared with the ads for drink driving though, where images or horrific crashes etc are portrayed, perhaps thats the slant that should be used? Take a camera through the wards of hospital or something, i dont know.

Ultimately it comes down to education and empowering people to make an educated decision but unfortunately people just dont seem to want to do that.

Drink, drugs et all are a huge drain on the tax payers money and HSE resources so unfortunately this issue really effects us all.

Trojan911 · 11-03-2008 02:03PM

iguana wrote: »

Because the actions of tea, coffee, chocolate and oil companies are every bit as despicable as the actions of those involved in the drugs trade. What they are doing may not be illegal but they are every bit as immoral. It is not excusable to say well it's legal so it's ok.

That is completely your opinion, not mine nor do I share it.

Earthhorse · 11-03-2008 02:09PM

Mordeth wrote: »

all industries intend to make money, lots and lots of money. illegal industries are no different, they just don't have shareholders in the traditional sense and of course there is no legal oversight.

But not all businesses intend to do so at any and all costs.

Mordeth wrote: »

also scale? the reason the drug business is so ****ing huge is because there are millions of us, perhaps billions all around the planet who enjoy taking drugs.

Whereas you are talking about the scale of the market and the business I'm talking about the scale of the ethical and unethical behaviour. There may well have been murders in some of the legal industries mentioned already on this thread but not to the same extent that there have been in the drugs trade. People are allowed to differentiate based on that.

Mordeth wrote: »

It's not up to you, any government or any crackpot godhead to tell us to stop.

It's not up to me or any crackpot godhead but it is up to the government, sorry to be the one to break that to you.

Also, am I to take it from your post that you agree with the legalisation of all drugs for recreational purposes including heroin, LSD etc.?

Kold · 11-03-2008 02:16PM

Mordeth wrote: »

+1

marry me.

Maybe. Let's just snort some charlie off eachother for now?

Trojan911 wrote: »

I couldn't give a monkeys what goes on around the world in the tea, coffee and chocolate industries. I'm concerned about what goes in in Ireland.

Your interests in this aren't particularly... moral, are they?

Degsy wrote: »

Because these fools can afford the fees the drying-out clinics charge to get them off it.The average working stiff has no idea the hassle a drug problem is going to cause untill it happens to them.

I think most drug takers know the cost of drugs. They find out when they, you know... buy them. The media don't seem to know judging from their estimated street values. If they can afford rehab then they can afford rehab. That's the thing about money, it gets you better treatment.

Again, I'm not for legalizing coke or smack (hell yes to weed), I'm just saying some of these arguments are pretty dumb. The main problem being grouping 'illegal drugs' into one bundle. The Government don't know how to make a f*cking slogan that isn't utterly retarded, they may know better than you but they sure as hell don't know better than me.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 11-03-2008 02:20PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

But not all businesses intend to do so at any and all costs.

yes they do, but instead of being forced to resort to guns and violent beatings most industries can turn to the law and violent imprisonment.

Whereas you are talking about the scale of the market and the business I'm talking about the scale of the ethical and unethical behaviour. There may well have been murders in some of the legal industries mentioned already on this thread but not to the same extent that there have been in the drugs trade. People are allowed to differentiate based on that.

*yawn*

and sensible people are allowed to yawn.

It's not up to me or any crackpot godhead but it is up to the government, sorry to be the one to break that to you.

.....

Also, am I to take it from your post that you agree with the legalisation of all drugs for recreational purposes including heroin, LSD etc.?

yes, if an adult wants to do something they should be allowed so long as their doing so doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. it's pretty simple.

iguana · 11-03-2008 02:35PM

Trojan911 wrote: »

That is completely your opinion, not mine nor do I share it.

And my opinion is that selective morality is worth very, very little.

Degsy · 11-03-2008 02:37PM

It makes me smile to hear these weekend coke-warriors talking as if they're some sort of expert on the subject of drug taking.The fact is that its impossible to get pure cocaine in Ireland unless you're buying the stuff by the kilo.Anybody who buys 100 quids worth in a pub and says its "good coke,man" is talking out thier arse.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 11-03-2008 02:39PM

Degsy wrote: »

It makes me smile to hear these weekend coke-warriors talking as if they're some sort of expert on the subject of drug taking.The fact is that its impossible to get pure cocaine in Ireland unless you're buying the stuff by the kilo.Anybody who buys 100 quids worth in a pub and says its "good coke,man" is talking out thier arse.

which is exactly why legislation would help, because the people producing the substances would be held to certain standards of production. Thank's for agreeing with us.

Remember kids, bathtub alcohol is dangerous.. buy from an off license, the products they sell are held to such standards.

Trojan911 · 11-03-2008 02:41PM

Kold wrote: »

Your interests in this aren't particularly... moral, are they?

If you mean what goes on in other countries, then, no. I do not see why I should poke my nose into business that doesn't concern me or interest me.

The current drug/gang murders etc in Ireland concerns me enough to voice an opinion.

JC 2K3 · 11-03-2008 02:41PM

Trojan911 wrote: »

I couldn't give a monkeys what goes on around the world in the tea, coffee and chocolate industries. I'm concerned about what goes in in Ireland.

That's a disgusting attitude. How could you not care about millions of starving people around the world? People who're denied basic human rights? Simply because they're not in close proximity to you....

Anyway, this latest "Drug users are funding criminals" angle to discouraging drug use seems a bit like the anti-drug lobby clutching at straws for some excuse to demonise drugs. It's still an anti-drugs policy, the same anti-drugs policy that this nation has always had, only now they've realised that people are a bit more intelligent/better informed nowadays than to believe exaggerations about the risks of drugs like; "One line of coke will get you hooked for life", One joint is very likely to induce permanent schizophrenia" or "Just one E tablet can kill you", so they've changed their angle and tried something different. Unfortunately, the glaring hole in this argument is that many legit industries are rife with corruption and human rights abuses, which means they're not arguing morality, it's just something that's been used in an attempt to continue the demonisation of drugs.

Dudess · 11-03-2008 02:42PM

Trojan911 wrote: »

I couldn't give a monkeys what goes on around the world in the tea, coffee and chocolate industries. I'm concerned about what goes in in Ireland. Drugs are a drain to the system and a scourge to society.

What a load of cock that post is. You're clearly clutching at straws. This is your original post:

Trojan911 wrote: »

A person buying drugs gives the dealer business, the dealer gives the importer business. Drug users keep the market in demand.... Everyone who buys from a dealer or is offered free drugs is contributing to the drugs trade.

Where's the mention of Ireland? You've only brought that up now because it's a nice convenient line to back up your argument. Anyway, Ireland is part of a globalised economy now.

They are are all scummy lowlife contributers to murder, misery

Yes, you could say that about the overlords in the coffee, tea and rag trades. But then you trotted out the "it's not illegal" argument as I knew you would. I find it rather shocking of you to be ok about 3-year-olds being abused in factories. But I'm sure you're not ok with it, you just need to back up your argument.
And the "misery" you talk about in relation to the drug lords? Whose misery? Yes, there is the very occasional killing of a person who's in the wrong place at the wrong time, but the vast majority of the time, the misery is of the addicts, yet you just said you don't feel sorry for them, that they're taking up hospital beds etc...

Earthhorse · 11-03-2008 02:43PM

Mordeth wrote: »

yes they do, but instead of being forced to resort to guns and violent beatings most industries can turn to the law and violent imprisonment.

No, they don't. Many companies make ethical decisions when it would be more expedient to do otherwise, they just tend not to make the headlines. Indeed, many companies today, such as Google, are trying to build goodwill specifically based on their ethical record.

No one is forcing these people to engage with an industry that involves guns and violent beatings either, there are plent of livelihoods available to them elsewhere and I'm going to suggest that the industry attracts people with slightly looser morals than the majority.

Mordeth wrote: »

yes, if an adult wants to do something they should be allowed so long as their doing so doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. it's pretty simple.

Well, I don't think it's that simple when we're talking about mood altering substances that could cause people to behave in pretty extreme ways or even simply irresponsible ways, such as driving while high, particularly when we don't seem to be able to properly cope with people already doing so with legal substances.

Freedom and the rights of the individual are fine but we have a duty of care to others too.

Degsy · 11-03-2008 02:45PM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

That's a disgusting attitude. How could you not care about millions of starving people around the world? People who're denied basic human rights? Simply because they're not in close proximity to you....

Anyway, this latest "Drug users are funding criminals" angle to discouraging drug use seems a bit like the anti-drug lobby clutching at straws for some excuse to demonise drugs. It's still an anti-drugs policy, the same anti-drugs policy that this nation has always had, only now they've realised that people are a bit more intelligent/better informed nowadays than to believe exaggerations about the risks of drugs like; "One line of coke will get you hooked for life", One joint is very likely to induce permanent schizophrenia" or "Just one E tablet can kill you", so they've changed their angle and tried something different. Unfortunately, the glaring hole in this argument is that many legit industries are rife with corruption and human rights abuses, which means they're not arguing morality, it's just something that's been used in an attempt to continue the demonisation of drugs.

Well then **** it they should go for Zero Tolerance,stop and search powers,prosecute people even for small amounts,sniffer dogs in pubs and outside clubs.Get busted with a small amount-they raid your house.I reckon that might pull a few nobheads out of the game!

Kold · 11-03-2008 02:49PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

Well, I don't think it's that simple when we're talking about mood altering substances that could cause people to behave in pretty extreme ways or even simply irresponsible ways, such as driving while high, particularly when we don't seem to be able to properly cope with people already doing so with legal substances.

You seem to be implying that THC has more effect on your driving than alcohol because alcohol is legal...

Kold · 11-03-2008 02:50PM

Degsy wrote: »

Well then **** it they should go for Zero Tolerance,stop and search powers,prosecute people even for small amounts,sniffer dogs in pubs and outside clubs.Get busted with a small amount-they raid your house.I reckon that might pull a few nobheads out of the game!

Why stop there? Let's hunt commies and free thinkers too. Just a question, do you value free will at all?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 11-03-2008 02:52PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

Freedom and the rights of the individual are fine but we have a duty of care to others too.

freedom and the rights of the individual are more than "fine".

my god, did I wake up in china this morning?

Earthhorse · 11-03-2008 02:52PM

Kold wrote: »

You seem to be implying that THC has more effect on your driving than alcohol because alcohol is legal...

Not what I'm saying. To clarify; we aren't able to sufficiently dissuade people from engaging in undesirable behaviour with substances that are currently legal e.g. drink driving so I hold little hope of us being able to do so with any other substance to be legalised.

JC 2K3 · 11-03-2008 02:52PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

Well, I don't think it's that simple when we're talking about mood altering substances that could cause people to behave in pretty extreme ways or even simply irresponsible ways, such as driving while high, particularly when we don't seem to be able to properly cope with people already doing so with legal substances

Yes, but how does legalising certain substances higher the liklihood of someone driving whilst under the influence of a drug?

I mean "people act irresponsibly while drunk, how can we cope with other drugs" isn't a logical argument. Legalising other drugs isn't going to magically create more free time for people in which to do these new drugs. They'll just have the option of alternating between different drugs every weekend. Explain to me how this presents more problems or increases the chances of someone driving while under the influence of a drug?

Trojan911 · 11-03-2008 02:52PM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

How could you not care about millions of starving people around the world? People who're denied basic human rights? Simply because they're not in close proximity to you....

People have been starving & dying all around the world since I can remember, it is a fact of life, it's not going to change in my lifetime. We will all die at some stage whether it is accelerated by starvation or natural causes. Life is cruel at the best of times.

The party's over

Comments