Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by brap, Feb 10, 2005.
People are so great.
Apparently ignorance is bliss. So how long do you think she'd last in jail? Two, maybe three hours?
Well... having chopped out a few lines myself through the years it sounds to me that this 'Katy' is well on her way to a dependency, if not there already. She takes her drug use too lightly... coke can do ugly things to people.
Making something illegal never works, legalising wouldn't be great either.
I don't even pretend to know the answers...
I'm just fed-up with the pious hand-wringing and name-calling that comes from people calling people 'druggies'. It polarises the debate and lumps the occasional user in with people who have severe addiction problems.
Virtually everybody has a vice of some sort... people in glass houses etc.
I thought this was a telling remark
When you are missing 2 hours of a family wedding just to score a high, then it's more than just a casual social habit that doesn't impact your life.
Another facet to an already complex issue. I kinda have to admire the frankness of the woman and the real example she embodies as an imperfect individual making imperfect choices.
While I am sure some may choose to judge this woman, or users in general, I tend to look at this as an example of the fallacy of criminalizing pleasureable and addictive behavior. While there is no doubt that there are considerable social, human and financial costs in drug usage, it is abundantly clear that people will always make poor or foolish choices often based on their selfish interests.
Seems to me like this is another example of why most, if not all drugs, should be legalized, regulated and taxed, to at least eliminate some of the current abhorrent behavior in the black-market supply chain. Offer rehabilitation and treatment options to those who need or ask for it to be paid by the user or by the state, depending on circumstance. Is it a perfect solution? Of course not, but we hardly live in a perfect world. It seems the most preferable of available options.
To those that might think such a course of action would encourage further drug-use by the populace, it seems perfectly obvious that as this woman shows, it hardly matters to those who want to use it, regardless of penalties. As far as the decision to go after middle-class users, well at least it is a more fair approach, but it is likely to further expose the logical outcome of a criminalization policy on all users - failure. The costs are astronomical, and the benefits are short-lived and marginal at best.
I am sure some will disagree. It is only my opinion.
Is this as prolific as the article suggests, BV?
For reference, I wasn't namecalling, though like you saw worrying undertones in the 'diary'. Makes me stop and think, what will happen to this woman's children if (a) the money supply trickles out, or (b) the rozzers catch up with Mummy and Daddy.
Absolutely, not to mention the dangers of getting dangerous quality/cut stuff. I'd rather see taxes, regulation and research. Won't happen, ever.
In certain industries, particularly in London... yes.
Music, fashion, design, media, advertising... but it's easy to get hold of if you want it, it's not that expensive or exclusive any more... I only have it maybe one or twice a year now it can have some nasty side-effects if indulged in regularly well-documented elsewhere...
Edit: I also have been known to indulge in the occasional canape as well.
Who cares if people use drugs and kill themselves? It is a conscious decision after all. If they want it give it to them but have a minimum age for it, which should be enforced with drastic means.
The only problem I see is that people are so weak and they often succumb to peer pressure but then again, who wouldn't be proud to live in a drug using, will-free world?
It's that kind of statement that unnecessarily polarises the issue.
There are millions of people who take drugs every day, every weekend and have fulfilling and active lives... Still, alcohol-related deaths in the US have numbered over 100,000 every year since the 70's.
By your argument, I would have died a long time ago... it's not big, it's not clever, I'm not promoting anything but it's not a lie to say that I have had immensely enjoyable experiences whilst on a drug of some sort... many of them remembered fondly.
But that is the reason why they are prohibited. Because people die from it. I am not polarising nor trying to do so I am simply pointing out that those who are weak enough to overdose or take it at all or whatever are responsible for their own actions.
You don't prohibit knives in people's homes who cut themselves either, so why drugs? Because everybody can get addicted. It's to prevent people from harming themselves but then why aren't alcohol and cigarettes prohibited too? Because of the money. Wicked circle. Spend the tax money you make off of drugs to finance the fight against other drugs. If this isn't hypocritical then I don't know.
Some people die from it, not all. And nothing like the numbers from other risky pursuits...
The 'fight' on drugs, this war on drugs has been going on for years and has done nothing to curb drug use.
I am not sure it is as clear-cut as that. In the US, for example, many drugs were made illegal or classified as narcotics subject to stiff penalties due to economics, balance-of-power, or discrimation (the former relating to hemp, among others, the latter relating to asian immigrants/opium usage/trade).
Beyond that, it is because of the obvious costs to society, with the related violence, crime and instability caused by those whose primary focus is merely on getting high or making money of those who do. Death is cheap, comparatively. As for the money issue, then why not legalize? Government revenue. Also, alternately, prohibition in the US was moralistic, not economic in it's impetus.
In any case, good intentions do make a nicely paved road to...
I don't think that we should look at the issue as "drug users v.s. non-users" so much as society v.s. drugs. I suppose I support the concept of recreational drug use so long as it doesn't constitute a burden to society.
To be more clear: I do not and never have used any illegal drugs, and I drink only occasionally. I'm not going to pretend this makes me "better", but I have had some extremely bad experiences with friends doing various drugs, and have seen one person in particular all but destroy himself. Drug use can be horribly detrimental to a person, community or entire society's quality of life. I don't have figures to argue with or scientific proof, but I know what I have seen with my own eyes and it can be terrible.
Still, I'm not going to endorse every crackpot attempt by holier-than-thou types to stop drug use outright. Such attempts generally fail because they are short sighted / heavy handed. However I think we need to find a way to fit drug use into society so that while its use is not illicit or outlawed it can be regulated, much like alcohol. I don't understand the exact nature of drug use, so I can't say categorically that it is bad and should be stopped, but I do think that at present drug use is not properly dealt with by society and there needs to be a new paradigm for how society views the recreational use of drugs. Can it be done?
Aren't Canapés quite a fancy and expensive item Blue Velvet? Is it considered a normal item for the middle class to have on a daily basis?
I also think that the war on drugs make no sense. As long as a person isn't harming someone else, they should be left alone. The money used to fight the war could be better spent on drug rehabilitation. Many want to get off drugs, but a facility isn't available.
Haha... of course I come home from work every night and quickly rustle up some canapés to have with my Bloody Mary while playing with you guys on MR...
Occasionally, I have to go to publication launches or parliamentary group shindigs. The best canapés I ever had was at a friends graduation felt like asking for a doggy bag. Yum...
There are some 'functions' where a sausage-roll or a prawn wonton is considered a canapé. There are others where a blini with smoked salmon is too common. I have on occasion had blinis with smoked salmon for dinner with a vodka while reading Macrumors!
Having said that, I think the most ridiculous canapés I've been served were at a function held at the Science Museum where they were miniature portions of traditional English meals. Think - mini sausage with a twist of mash, mini fish with a few fries, mini steak pie