The 'Drug Pusher': An Urban Myth?

RussellTuring wrote: »

I suppose it comes down to how much you expect people to be responsible for their own actions. In this case, I would say that if they do just happen to find someone who is buying the drugs for their first time(which is not very likely, in my opinion), then it is just that they are fulfilling a desire of the buyer whereas others would say it is the dealer's fault for offering it.

But if somebody is particularly vulnerable and low and the dealer takes advantage of that by making them feel good and then offering them drugs to solve their problems then I put 80% of the responsibility on the drug dealer. He introduced them to a drug that at any other time they would most likely never have come into contact with.

It's like a conman manipulating someone into giving them their life-savings with promise of a profitable return. They take advantage of greed, the drug pusher takes advantage of some insecurity the person has but the victims in both cases are clear (in my opinion anyway).

Now if the person calls the dealer back to buy coke or ecstasy then they're making that choice, but for a more addictive drug like heroin or meth they essentially have no choice. They are now addicted.

Dublin drug pushers are too mean to share free drugs. Now country drug pushers.. generous to a fault.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

But you can take this "personal responsibility" thing too far. If you put too much cake around the place too much of the time and people keep telling you how delicious it is you're going to end up eating it. If that weren't the case, advertisers wouldn't spend millions per year on advertising slots. I'm not contradicting your post here, just trying to make a point.

I get you. But who should decide when someone is being manipulated and when they are doing something they want? I believe the best you can do is tell people the facts and let them form their own opinions. This idea that availability will inevitably lead to increased consumption is often trotted out by prohibitionists but the facts would indicate otherwise.

Seachmall wrote: »

But if somebody is particularly vulnerable and low and the dealer takes advantage of that by making them feel good and then offering them drugs to solve their problems then I put 80% of the responsibility on the drug dealer. He introduced them to a drug that at any other time they would most likely never have come into contact with.

Why 80%? The fact remains that they chose to take them. Unless the dealer creates the conditions that somehow compel them to take the drug, they are just a supplier no different than a publican or shopkeeper.

It's like a conman manipulating someone into giving them their life-savings with promise of a profitable return. They take advantage of greed, the drug pusher takes advantage of some insecurity the person has but the victims in both cases are clear (in my opinion anyway).

If the conman ever lies to the person then they are obviously at fault but if they only tell the truth then I don't see how they are. I don't see how taking advantage of someone's greed is a bad thing.

Now if the person calls the dealer back to buy coke or ecstasy then they're making that choice, but for a more addictive drug like heroin or meth they essentially have no choice. They are now addicted.

Why do you make an exception for the first time but not subsequent times? To put it another way, are you saying that the drug dealer is the guilty party until the customer calls back(in the case of less addictive drugs)?

Drug pushers are fictional characters.

Anyone I know who did any drugs was actively 'looking' for them. They probably even started out sniffing glue, aerosols and gas. (Legal and far worse)

Or it may happen that your friends offer it to you or talk you into doing something like magic mushrooms, "Ooooooh the bast**ds!"

RussellTuring wrote: »

Why 80%? The fact remains that they chose to take them. Unless the dealer creates the conditions that somehow compel them to take the drug, they are just a supplier no different than a publican or shopkeeper.

It's the extent and backhandedness of the manipulation they may go to to get the person to use. Take Scientologists, they pick those who appear to be low or lacking in confidence, they invite you in to take a personality test, they then tell you how flawed you are and recommend a few books to improve your life. This is a pretty scummy way to get money off people.

If the conman ever lies to the person then they are obviously at fault but if they only tell the truth then I don't see how they are. I don't see how taking advantage of someone's greed is a bad thing.

But will the drug pusher not lie to sell his product?

Why do you make an exception for the first time but not subsequent times? To put it another way, are you saying that the drug dealer is the guilty party until the customer calls back(in the case of less addictive drugs)?

Because in my example I was only low for half of that night. I'm typically a fairly confident guy but that night I was stuck with a broken rib and couldn't get to my mates in the mosh pit. I spent a good 1-2 hours hanging around the bar and smoking area on my own. The following morning if I had called the dealer that would've been on me but I think in my vulnerable state the dealer has to take some responsibility (it was his intent to manipulate me, I can't remember what he said [it was years ago and I was quite drunk] but I'd guess it was a combination of lies and smiles).

I think the comparison between a drug pusher and a conman is an apt one and I think there are victims in both cases (of course those victims are required to be gullible). I don't think you can say the person who loses money to the conman is a victim while claiming the new drug user is entirely responsible for falling prey to a sweet-talking scumbag.

Seachmall wrote: »

It's the extent and backhandedness of the manipulation they may go to to get the person to use. Take Scientologists, they pick those who appear to be low or lacking in confidence, they invite you in to take a personality test, they then tell you how flawed you are and recommend a few books to improve your life. This is a pretty scummy way to get money off people.

Scientology is also a pack of lies (in my opinion).

But will the drug pusher not lie to sell his product?

Not necessarily. If they do then obviously they are being manipulative.

Because in my example I was only low for half of that night. I'm typically a fairly confident guy but that night I was stuck with a broken rib and couldn't get to my mates in the mosh pit. I spent a good 1-2 hours hanging around the bar and smoking area on my own. The following morning if I had called the dealer that would've been on me but I think in my vulnerable state the dealer has to take some responsibility (it was his intent to manipulate me, I can't remember what he said [it was years ago and I was quite drunk] but I'd guess it was a combination of lies and smiles).

Well if he did tell you lies he was being manipulative, as above but if he was completely honest I don't see what he did wrong.

I think the comparison between a drug pusher and a conman is an apt one and I think there are victims in both cases (of course those victims are required to be gullible). I don't think you can say the person who loses money to the conman is a victim while claiming the new drug user is entirely responsible for falling prey to a sweet-talking scumbag.

Did I?

RussellTuring wrote: »

Not necessarily. If they do then obviously they are being manipulative. [...] Well if he did tell you lies he was being manipulative, as above but if he was completely honest I don't see what he did wrong.

Manipulation doesn't necessarily require lying. You could tell someone X will make the feel better when they're in a low which might be true but you're taking advantage of a weak moment for them in order to persuade them to do something they wouldn't otherwise do. In the case of a drug pusher they're taking advantage of you at a time when you are particularly vulnerable to such scum in an attempt to benefit themselves regardless of how it impacts upon you.

Given the right circumstances we could all be open to being manipulated (break up with your girlfriend/boyfriend, a loved one dies, etc.). These guys know how to use those low moments to benefit themselves. Maybe it won't work on everyone (it didn't on me but I've no doubt it could've) but some will fall prey, I see those people as victims.

We tend to think people are always in control of their own actions and while that is technically true it's far more complicated than that.