Many people wouldn't have got the reference, so without any background context it was hardly an appropriate post.
What to do with a drug addict
- Thread starter LabR@t
- Start date
Soldato
ˆˆˆ fair play dude!
I would hate to imagine how many would end up dead if he/she's including casual cannabis smokers.
Social programs, charity support, drug policy, policing policy and education - one should always consider murder as a first resort right?
Social programs, charity support, drug policy, policing policy and education - one should always consider murder as a first resort right?
That doesn't sound like a fun experience, glad you turned your life around.
That last bit though, that's kind of an opinion based on your individual (albeit quite relevant) personal experience, I wouldn't necessarily then make the assumption that it would hold true for everyone. I'd be more inclined to go with whatever advice a local crisis team with experience of dealing with multiple addicts advises than to take anecdotal advice from a single former addict, not that I'd want to undermine your personal experience. It might well be the case that interventions aren't too successful, but I'd be wary about declaring something to be true in the general case based on anecdote/personal experience of an individual case - especially as there is seemingly a risk of suicide in this case.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,411
Not at all. Especially not murder.
But as my, now deleted post asserted, an actual WAR on drugs basically entails utterly disabling or even destroying your enemy. Some posters seem to have taken away that context and assumed it applied to every walk of life.
If you can get yourself sorted through the various rehab and support mechanisms, then great. I'd much rather we didn't need any of that in the first place, especially since this is all self-inflicted.
I mostly come (...mostly...) from the opposite side of the fence on that, having experienced, witnessed and occasionally suffered my own self the fallout from being around drug users. Having tried to help people on so many occasions, I have no more patience or tolerance left for it.
The best resort is always professional, structured intervention. Any personal involvement is problematic and messy, and the closer you are to those involved, the messier and the harder it becomes.
Wait what? Just because just because you failed to help SOME selected people, you have no more patience or tolerance left for anyone else who is suffering from the same thing.
Tell me, is there something wrong with letting people who do have patience, tolerance, and a better grasp of psychological theory; get on with trying to help drug addicts?
-
You are clearly not thinking correctly. You seem to have absolutely no understanding of how addiction works. No wonder you have failed to help people in the past. How did you even try to help these possibly vulnerable people, sorry but in my imagination I can just see you spending 3 or 4 minutes of talking nonsense, the poor fellow wondering what the heck you're on about, and then you losing all patience and going berserk, and then threatening to kill the poor guy LOL.
The emboldened part above makes it appear as if you assume that any child will never do drugs and everyone is grown up before they get addicted to drugs OR that there is some magic age where an addict magically grows up and finds himself magically not addicted anymore.
What a frankly absurd understanding you have.
I mean based on that understanding, I cant possibly expect you to be able to understand the workings of psychological, sociological, and criminological theory?
Not when it's government-sanctioned, it ain't. Even God says I can kill... Murder is illegal, but killing ain't.
On average, each individual wanting to 'enjoy themselves' is doing so at the considerable (and sometimes fatal) expense of several dozen other people. Numbers win. I won't cater to the minority, especially when they just want to **** up society so they can get their rocks off.
When they **** with me and mine in order to get it, you ******* bet I have a good enough reason.
I'll remind you of this statement of yours when you're lying in hospital, having had your sternum smashed in and your wallet stolen by some meth-head looking to "enjoy themselves".... I'm sure they won't mind if I take their dead crack baby and lay it at your side for company.
No, no... I'm quite happy for alcohol to be taken right off the recreational market, too.
If that's all they were doing, then there'd be no worries... But it's all the other things they do to other people while "enjoying" these drugs. People have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to use this **** responsibly.
Because of the immense suffering they cause everyone else along the way to killing themselves. This thread is a prime example. It's far cheaper to just remove them. No, really, it is - A single round to the head costs less than an eighth of green. If you don't have the stomach for it, step aside and I'll happily rid the world of them, for you.
Nope. There's always a cheaper and easier way. That's what helped Tik become so popular in South Africa.
Can you please explain what point you are trying to argue here?
Do you still think shooting people dead on sight for drugs will END the drugs market??? Is that what you are trying to push here? Or are you just here to vent some irrationality or something?
I have no doubt that shooting someone dead makes them stop what they are doing, but most people aren't extremists nor do they really enjoy killing people.
The fact remains though shooting people dead will absolutely not end the market for drugs, in fact it will make drugs EVEN MORE expensive and INFLATE the drugs economy EVEN FURTHER!
I mean seriously do have a monetary interest in drugs or something because your suggestion does the complete opposite of what you think it does!
The fact remains and my point still remains; ending the artificial inflation of the drugs will end the drugs market, and that is bought on by law itself.
I mean do you even understand what the word "criminal" means? It's someone who commits crimes, or is willing to, esp for monetary gain. Therefore your suggestion simply pushes it DEEPER underground and forces it to require deeper level crime. Do you not realise that as long as drugs are "criminalised" and enforced with set targets, it will cause the price of the drugs to remain at extremely inflated prices, thus enticing criminals to get their foot into the drugs game, you see because they are criminals they are willing to take the risk of enforcement action
. If drugs were still 1p per gram 95% of drug dealers would shut shop overnight because who in their right mind wants to be selling worthless vegetables and vegetable extracts for £20 a day, also 99% of all crime associated with drugs (including the extortion of the poor mother in the OP) would END immediately.I was going to make that joke yesterday, but decided it was in terrible, terrible taste
Good to know I'm not the worst person here
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,411
Having had to deal with: friends die from drug abuse; friends being killed by people abusing drugs; nearly being killed my own self by someone on drugs; known friends', family, neighbours' and work colleagues' lives be destroyed by other people's drug habits; having trained to go up against drug runners and dealers on a professional basis, and deal with the ... You're damn right, I have no more tolerance for this ****.
Other people shouldn't have to suffer for, pay for, and give their lives for your mistakes... not ever.
Letting, no.
Getting, yes.
In the meantime while we wait for them to arrive, the rest of us have to put up with dickheads ******* our lives over. You think when some coked-up waster breaks into my home and demands I give him money for drugs or he'll kill my kids, that I should just get all polite and understanding and have a nice sit down with him to discuss his issues? **** that - He's getting his head kicked in and the police can cart the remnants away.
As an addict myself and the child of an addict, I'd say I have some measure of understanding.
Oh, so now it's MY fault they couldn't get their lives in order???!!!!!
That's the talk of an addict right there...
Given how few of my friends got into drugs while still (barely) children and how good their parenting was, I'd say that's a reasonable presumption. Most didn't start until their late 20s, after years of exposure to adult culture. Those few who did generally grew out of it early enough, or kept a lid on it enough that it remained use and not abuse. Those adult friends I have who use drugs do so sparingly and do not let it control their lives, because many of them also understand what damage addiction does to both them and to other people.
Or at least realises how much damage he is/will be doing to other peoples' lives and sorts himself out before it's too late, which again does happen. I have personal experience on that one, too.
You're absolutely right - Addiction and drug problems are all the fault of the government, the police, the social workers, the parents and society as a whole, especially ME, for not pricing drugs sensibly ..... I'll go address that at my next House of Lords meeting, shall I, or will you be doing that?
Theory means and does absolutely ****-all when you're being strangled by someone right off their rocker, kid.
I don't expect you to be able to breathe, let alone lecture me on theories that might be of use if I were a psychologist talking in my nice comfy office to a calm, collected individual who smokes a bit of dope every once in a while.
WAR on drugs. See previous remarks and understand the context.
Sounds good to me.
I don't see that many people buying 130ft yachts, which are insanely expensive. How would it be a problem if you similarly outpriced users from the drugs market?
Absurd comparison, you think? They're already doing that with things like the sugar tax. It works the same.
Prove it.I mean seriously do have a monetary interest in drugs or something because your suggestion does the complete opposite of what you think it does!
Prove how killing off all my users and my suppliers would somehow make me more money? Because if that were true, it'd be happening already.
End?
Yeah, go look at Tik. That's so cheap and easy to make from household goods, it's practically free.... and look at how much of a problem it is in places like Cape Town. That's one hell of a swollen market for an entirely uninflated price...
Is child abuse a crime?
Child neglect?
Murder?
Theft?
Arson?
Assault?
Driving into someone with a car?
I could list any number of crimes (hideous and otherwise) committed by drug abusers as a direct result of their habits. None have anything to do with the price of drugs or the dealers that supply them.
They're willing to take a slapped wrist, some confiscated goods and a bit of prison time, sure. Will they be willing to risk the near certainty of a bullet through the head?you see because they are criminals they are willing to take the risk of enforcement action
Would you be willing?
And it hasn't occurred to you that 100% of dealers would just put their own prices up anyway in order to make a profit in the first place?
People have been dealing in drugs and making fortunes long before it was criminalised.
So at 1p per gramme of coke, you really think all those coke-heads will suddenly stop?
Tell me again about this addiction psychology theory you think you have such a keen grasp of....