homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Why daddy's nose bleeds: responsibility and disease and addiction (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Why daddy's nose bleeds: responsibility and disease and addiction
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
There is an enormous difference in the scale of the offence being committed, but each is an offence.

If you feel that the only thing making you think the state ought not be involved in providing something to be used in rape is the illegality of rape, and the thing that stops you advocating saving lives of drug users is the illegality of their activity then that seems to me a profound overvaluing of legality as a guiding principle.
I most assuredly do not feel that nor is it a reasonable interpretation of what was I saying. The state does owe some duty and fulfills that by the pre-festival publicity about bad drugs as well as the signs there.

You know what I consider the correct approach. What do you consider that to be and why?

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6774 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The drug user is criminal and victim, both at once. You say that it is impossible to ignore the criminal even if doing so would prevent harm to the victim.
[x-posted with mdijon]

There are huge assumptions in your first sentence which I'm not prepared to make. A drug user is a voluntary user - certainly some illegal drugs are drugs of addiction, whether that be physical or psychological; there are also treatments available to deal with the addiction for a willing patient.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6774 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A bit like saying there are depression treatment services for suicide victims if only they would use them. The disease changes the sufferers insight.

That said most drug users at festivals are not addicts, just young people making an unwise choice.

My approach would be primarily utilitarian. Testing for drugs (or swapping dirty needles for clean) has potential good and bad effects. Good effects are reducing overdoses or HIV transmission, bad effects might be encouraging increasingly harmful drug use.

In the case of swapping dirty needles, it seems very likely that drug use hasn't risen in response to the service and that HIV transmission has been prevented. So I regard that as a net benefit.

In the case of testing drugs at festivals I think it unlikely that this will result in more drugs being bought, but it's possible and I'd want to monitor that. It may well result in fewer deaths, although deaths due to overdoses at festivals are pretty rare so the benefits may be slight.

There are considerations regarding harm to others, justice and fairness that influence the decision. So for instance if the cost of the service was very high and would have a disproportionate impact on other state services for the level of benefit that is important to me. Likewise if there are victims involved (people being raped for instance) then I'd absolutely want to take that into account in my decision. The practicality of intervention is also important.

So I'm very firmly in favour of needle exchange, interested in the drug testing idea but not sure, and very much against the state giving rapists condoms on that basis.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gee Dee:
quote:
There are huge assumptions in your first sentence which I'm not prepared to make.
You are evidently reading more into it than I intended.

The drug user is a criminal = the drug user is doing something illegal.

The drug user is a victim = their criminal act will (probably) only affect their own body.

Only the first statement would be true of a rapist.

Posts: 3954 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Gee Dee:
quote:
There are huge assumptions in your first sentence which I'm not prepared to make.
You are evidently reading more into it than I intended.

The drug user is a criminal = the drug user is doing something illegal.

The drug user is a victim = their criminal act will (probably) only affect their own body.

Only the first statement would be true of a rapist.

And only the first statement would be true of a drug user. A Drug user, as such, is not a victim - perhaps so in other matters but not in drug use, particularly of the sort of use we're speaking of here.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6774 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
My approach would be primarily utilitarian. Testing for drugs (or swapping dirty needles for clean) has potential good and bad effects. Good effects are reducing overdoses or HIV transmission, bad effects might be encouraging increasingly harmful drug use.
So I regard that as a net benefit.

I've deleted the rest inthe copy-over as this paragraph sets out the difference between us. I take a point of principle, that the state should not support an illegal activity. You (and I must say most others) take the utilitarian position you set out. I don't see that as principle.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6774 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
You (and I must say most others) take the utilitarian position you set out. I don't see that as principle.

You don't see minimizing harm as a principle, then? As I said earlier, I rank needle exchanges and the tolerance of drug-testing by charities at concerts alongside the provision of condoms to teenagers by family planning clinics and school nurses as things which minimize harm.

Presumably you don't support allowing children access to condoms either, as that would be condoning their crime?

What about the policy that some police forces have not to undertake high-speed pursuits of motorcyclists (because they usually end in the motorcyclist wiping out and killing himself)? Presumably you disapprove of that on the same grounds?

Posts: 4898 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't see that as principle.

On what basis do you say it isn't a principle? It seems to meet the definitions to me. You may not agree with it but that doesn't entitle you to say it isn't a principle.

The rest of the paragraph you snipped balanced it, and set out conditions where other considerations might trump my utilitarian principle.

What conditions might trump your position regarding legality? If its nothing at all I think then that strikes me as rather Javertesque.

[ 21. July 2017, 04:18: Message edited by: mdijon ]

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A Drug user, as such, is not a victim - perhaps so in other matters but not in drug use, particularly of the sort of use we're speaking of here.

I would say they are a victim of a drug pusher who exposes them to harm, and may also be a victim of a form of addiction.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A Drug user, as such, is not a victim - perhaps so in other matters but not in drug use, particularly of the sort of use we're speaking of here.

I would say they are a victim of a drug pusher who exposes them to harm, and may also be a victim of a form of addiction.
Who forces them to go to the drug pusher? Surely people have to take some responsibility for their own conduct.

As to the principle - utilitarianism in this context seems to me to be too close to economic rationalism to be a matter of principle.


I can't follow what LC is getting at. As a parent, I'd be frowning on the free availability of condoms to underage children and given the horrors of child abuse which have emerged before the Royal Commission here I'd be even more against it. And there's no parallel at all in how high speed chases may be conducted. There's no action by the police which assists the commission of an offence - indeed, it's the opposite as the action is designed to call off the high speeding.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6774 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Surely people have to take some responsibility for their own conduct.

It seems rather binary to say that victim vs taking responsibility are the two options. I have no problem describing someone as a victim of drug addiction, or a smoker as a victim of smoking-related-disease. In both cases the victim needs to stop their self-harming behaviour. That's not a contradiction is it?

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As to the principle - utilitarianism in this context seems to me to be too close to economic rationalism to be a matter of principle.

And saving lives can be dismissed as simply economic rationalism?

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As a parent, I'd be frowning on the free availability of condoms to underage children and given the horrors of child abuse which have emerged before the Royal Commission here I'd be even more against it.

I can't think that making condoms inaccessible to 15 years olds is a smart idea if one cares about human suffering, or justified by fears of child abuse.

I agree high speed chases are something different.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I understood that victim was being used in the sense of a victim of a crime; you seem now to be using it in the sense of a victim of an illness and I don't disagree with that usage. That does not get your opposition to my argument anywhere though.

I still can't go for your saving lives argument though as a justification for drug testing - publicity and signage etc most definitely, but after that, it's the decision of the individual.

I don't understand your comments about child abuse. We have had chilling evidence of abuse come out before the Royal Commission. We need to drive home an acceptance that under-age children simply cannot consent to sexual activity. What you're suggesting cuts away at getting that message across.

Finally, you're the one promoting economic rationalism, not me. In its current usage, I'm dead against it.

[ 21. July 2017, 12:37: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6774 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I understood that victim was being used in the sense of a victim of a crime; you seem now to be using it in the sense of a victim of an illness and I don't disagree with that usage. That does not get your opposition to my argument anywhere though.

There are several elements to discuss, I'm pretty clear I'm not going to get anywhere in a knock-down-argument sense on any of this.

I would say though that a drug addict is also a victim of the drug pusher, who is committing a crime, in addition to their illness.

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I still can't go for your saving lives argument though as a justification for drug testing - publicity and signage etc most definitely, but after that, it's the decision of the individual.

Can you see how some might find that rather uncompassionate?

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't understand your comments about child abuse. We have had chilling evidence of abuse come out before the Royal Commission. We need to drive home an acceptance that under-age children simply cannot consent to sexual activity. What you're suggesting cuts away at getting that message across.

There's a big difference between 15 year olds having sex with each other and an adult having sex with an under-age child. I don't deny chilling evidence of child abuse, I do think though that the availability of condoms to 15 year olds is simply realistic if you don't want to see underage pregnancies and STDs, and I don't see that provision encourages paedophiles in any way.

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Finally, you're the one promoting economic rationalism, not me. In its current usage, I'm dead against it.

It was your label not mine. I'm asking you to justify applying that label to an argument about saving lives.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

I can't follow what LC is getting at.

These are other examples of harm minimization that could be seen to condone lawbreaking.

quote:
As a parent, I'd be frowning on the free availability of condoms to underage children and given the horrors of child abuse which have emerged before the Royal Commission here I'd be even more against it.
Children are not being given condoms so that they can be raped by their abusers in "safety". Children are given condoms because in an environment where teenagers are having sex with each other, reducing the transmission of STDs and pregnancy seems like a good idea. And, AFAIK, there's no evidence that the provision of condoms increases the number of teens who have sex. (If there was, we'd have to balance increased teen sex against decreased teen pregnancy and STDs.)

quote:
And there's no parallel at all in how high speed chases may be conducted. There's no action by the police which assists the commission of an offence - indeed, it's the opposite as the action is designed to call off the high speeding.
The police are chasing the motorcyclist because he has committed a crime. Deciding not to pursue fleeing criminals does indeed assist in the commission of an offence, or at least the chance of the criminal getting away with it. The police have quite explicitly decided that they will discontinue pursuit, and accept that they might not identify or catch the criminals, rather than continue a pursuit that is likely to result in a death.
Posts: 4898 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Who forces them to go to the drug pusher? ...

Nobody. And yet they do. Why?

If you don't know - or don't want to know - why people abuse drugs, you're going to have a really hard time convincing them they shouldn't.

quote:
You didn’t wake up one day and decide to become an addict. More likely, if you have trauma in your history you woke up with the conscious or unconscious desire for what all trauma survivors want: safety and control. The good intention behind your addictive behavior, then, has its roots in positive outcomes, including relaxation from the hyper vigilance of fear; relief from the up swell of memories; restoration from the inability to choose your behavior.
Trauma and Addiction: 7 Reasons Your Habit Makes Perfect Sense

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5396 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
.... As a parent, I'd be frowning on the free availability of condoms to underage children and given the horrors of child abuse which have emerged before the Royal Commission here I'd be even more against it. ...

Yeah, because pedophiles prey on kids that can get them free condoms. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5396 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mdijon, to try and deal with all your points:

a. I don’t see the user as a victim of the pusher, but a customer. The user is at most a victim of the drug use.

b. Some obviously find that position as lacking compassion. I don’t and I don’t know that I’m alone in that. There is no compulsion on virtually anyone* to take these drugs, it is the free choice of the user.

c. The point is that even for a couple of 15 year olds, neither is in a position to consent. Young people need support in saying no to paedophiles, particularly at the grooming stage, and strengthening the general approach to under-age sex should help them.

d. I know that it was my term, but it is how I see and label your approach. You may prefer a different label.

To Leorning Cniht

e. Some examples please.

f. I don’t know from where you get the idea that I want children to be raped in safety. See what I’ve said above and in my early posts.

g. The chase may have ended, but by that stage, the police will know the vehicle being chased. Often an opportunity to set up a road block ahead. It does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that a person being chased does not later get arrested and charged.

To Soror Magna

h. I don’t know why people go to drug pushers. I don’t find that quotation at all convincing particularly of the people buying these dangerous drugs at festivals. In the tributes which flow (tributes always flow following one of these deaths, it’s a phrase which saves a journalist from decent thought) we’re told what upright pillars of society the deceased was, the great contribution being made, and to be made in the future etc.

i. Read what I’ve said above and in earlier posts of the reason behind the condoms/underage children/paedophiles etc. Most certainly miles from what you say.


* There may be instances of forced drug use as a part of some assault. I’m not aware of any here.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6774 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Unless usage has changed, "pusher" and "dealer" don't refer to the same person. A dealer sells drugs. A pusher forces or tricks people into using drugs, so as to create more business.

IMHO, a pusher's activities are much more vile.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18177 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That different usage makes sense, but AFAIK has not crept in here.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6774 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
By co-incidence this story was published today.

Personally I find it compelling, particularly the point about a possible bad batch of pills circulating at a festival possibly leading to many preventable deaths.

Gee D, it seems impossible, morally, to me to walk past someone dying. They might be dying due to their own stupid fault, I may have no legal obligation of care to them, but if they are dying and I can do something I personally feel compelled to act, and if enough of a consensus exists in society that we should act then the state has every business enacting that.

The fact that some interpret this as condoning illegality isn't enough to stop me.

It would be nice if you could extend the courtesy of regarding that as a principle worthy of the name.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ecstasy is an unpredictable drug. It's really difficult to teach about the risks because young people hear and see it's harmless, until it's not.

One of my cautionary tales, I have a lot, is about a young lad I worked with, who took a couple of ecstasy tablets with a friend. The friend took a double dose, so 4 or 5 tablets. The lad I worked with survived, just, after some time in intensive care, left with permanent heart damage and life time medication to keep his kidneys working (iirc). (He was on the prayer list here for a bit.) The friend was totally unscathed, even called the ambulance.

Yes, it's illegal. But young people see others taking ecstasy harmlessly and, anyway, young people believe they're invincible

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13597 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Yes, I do think it the same if you carefully read what I said. The condom was to be used to protect not the victim of the rape but the perpetrator. Here, the test is to protect the person committing a criminal offence - admittedly one of much less seriousness.

As to the first, I do think it's axiomatic. While the action remains a criminal offence, such matters as your perception of harm reduction do not come into it. That equally deals with your last paragraph.

Perhaps you think you are making a cogent point. But, so far, your argument is an idiot. A drooling, brain-damaged idiot. Your statement is worthy of a Hell call, but I shall address it here because you do not appear to be an idiot, or IMO a troll.
Rape and paedophilia are always harmful acts for the victims. The legality of a drug has nought to do with its ability to harm. Alchohol is the most costly drug, in terms of damage, in the history of human drug use. This is not due only to its legality but to the way it works.
Your analogy is not only a poor one but one that cannot but fail to make your intended point.
Which, from observation, appears to be that the law is infallible and must be applied with no concern as to harm.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What the fuck is axiomatic legality? Is this a posh phrase for no compassion?

Pretty much. Jesus would be soo proud.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Unless usage has changed, "pusher" and "dealer" don't refer to the same person. A dealer sells drugs. A pusher forces or tricks people into using drugs, so as to create more business.

IMHO, a pusher's activities are much more vile.

IMO, this is a false dichotomy developed to justify, not delineate. Steppenwolf notwithstanding, it is typically more complicated than that.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17109 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
where you get the idea that I want children to be raped in safety. See what I’ve said above and in my early posts.

Because in response to my raising the issue of children being given condoms, you started talking about inquiries into institutional child abuse.

There is no evidence, as far as I am aware, that preventing children from accessing condoms supports them in saying no to sex at all, let alone in resisting paedophiles.

I understand why you could think that it might help, but as far as I know, all the evidence suggests otherwise - children with easy access to condoms are not more likely to have underage sex, but they are less likely to get pregnant.

Posts: 4898 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here is a program which appears to be frequently successful.

This is for people who would have died without timely treatment with naloxene. Apparently the close call makes them more open to offers of help.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20258 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Gee D, it seems impossible, morally, to me to walk past someone dying. They might be dying due to their own stupid fault, I may have no legal obligation of care to them, but if they are dying and I can do something I personally feel compelled to act, and if enough of a consensus exists in society that we should act then the state has every business enacting that.

Nor would I walk past someone dying and that is a genuine moral principle. I don't see the analogy that you seem to though, in helping those dying and providing tests for illegal drugs. As I keep saying, the state fulfills its moral duty by substantial publicity about the dangers of using the drugs on sale at these events. I've read what Curiosity Killed posted after you and that highlights the problem. The ecstasy tablets may have been poison-free but an overdose will kill - and should the state send people around watching consumption and saying not to have a second or third tablet?

lilbuddha - Rape and paedophilia are always harmful acts for the victims. - I totally agree. My post very carefully did not give rise to any contrary reading. I repeat it: giving a condom to a rapist to stop his possibly contracting something from his victim is always wrong and could never be right. I see that as a valid analogy with the state testing illegal drugs at these events.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6774 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, then.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17109 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I've read what Curiosity Killed posted after you and that highlights the problem. The ecstasy tablets may have been poison-free but an overdose will kill - and should the state send people around watching consumption and saying not to have a second or third tablet?

Way to miss the point. The point was that ecstasy is unpredictable. The lad who survived unscathed took way more. According to the article mdijon posted,
quote:
Measham is at pains to point out that testing alone can’t remove all danger. “Five friends go out one night and take ecstasy; one doesn’t come home. They’ve all had the same drug in the same venue. There’s an X factor here that we’ve still not really pinned down.”
That X factor is what affected the young man I used to work with. There have been other cases, and it was suggested that it was what killed Leah Betts, although that is disputed.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13597 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That quotation gets to what I've been saying. Taking drugs is a dangerous and illegal activity. Those who take them should be made aware of the danger and at festivals, there's ample signage to try to make the point. But some just don't read.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6774 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ri-i-ight. As someone who has taught drugs education to teenagers, it's very difficult to persuade them of the dangers of a drug when they see their friends having no problems. Particularly when, as all teenagers, in their minds they are invincible. Blaming young adults for this is unreasonable as research is showing that the way teenagers and adults think about intentions changes as their brains develop.
2007 paper

One of the reasons teenagers and young adults are high risk is that their brains rewire through adolescence and that maturation is believed to cause the immature and impulsive behaviours often observed in young people.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13597 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gee D--

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
That different usage makes sense, but AFAIK has not crept in here.

One or two posts mentioned "pusher", when it seemed "dealer" was meant. I'm not very drug savvy, but that usage has been in the news and media since I was a child. There may well be a lot of people who are both pushers and dealers.


lilBuddha--

That's also in response to you. I'm not defending either pushers or dealers--but I think there's a big difference between filling an existing need, and forcing/tricking someone into getting hooked.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18177 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Curiosity killed ... so what would you do? If they can't be taught of the real dangers of drugs, how can they be taught to take them to testing when they already ignore the danger signs? And how do you get them the message in that linked article about the inherent dangers of even pure drugs?

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6774 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I talk to young people about ecstasy in terms of it being unpredictable, that they probably know people who use it and are fine, but they won't know if they are one of the people who it affects badly and they need to be aware of the dangers. I'll use real stories of kids I knew and taught. I'll also direct them to sites like Talk to Frank if the net nanny will let us use it. If it won't I'll print the information off.

But it's difficult. The law and Government make it harder to have honest discussions about drugs: Professor David Nutt was appointed as the Government adviser on drugs in 2009 and sacked following publication of a paper that categorised drugs using a measured scale, both legal and illegal, in terms of psychological, physical and societal harm. The UK classifies drugs somewhat arbitrarily as Class A, Class B, Class C and unclassified. Nutt's categorisation put ecstasy and cannabis as Class C, alcohol in Class A and tobacco in Class B. Cannabis is Class B and Ecstasy is Class A.

Depending on the students I am working with, I am prepared to discuss that categorisation and the law as part of the drugs unit. It depends if they are mature enough to understand that the paper was disputed and to engage with some of those arguments.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13597 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I still don't understand how what you try to teach can get through if other messages can't.

I gather that the drugs being sold at festivals here range from cannabis to methamphetamines to more that I don't really understand. The deaths have resulted from the sale of "little tablets" which could mean a whole range.

As an interesting aside, the recent death of a young woman came about because her best friend had bought some little tablets and gave her one. The friend was charged with the supply, pleaded guilty and was given some sort of bond. She was very lucky not to have been charged with something much more serious.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6774 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The problem with taking the stance of considering legality and illegality for drugs is that that line is arbitrary with respect to the harm that those drugs cause. When kids* grow up seeing adults abuse alcohol with the inherent damage and violence that regularly accompanies alcohol abuse, it's very difficult to convince them that cannabis and ecstasy are worse. Because actually, dispassionately, alcohol is more harmful. Alcohol just happens to be legal, so the supply is supervised and monitored.

The issue with many of the illegal drugs is not the harm they do, but the lack of checking of purity of what is supplied. Often what kills is either the impurities and/or that what is being sold is not what is described, or that the strength is unpredictable.

* particularly when those children have symptoms of foetal alcohol syndrome.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13597 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189

 - Posted      Profile for anoesis   Email anoesis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The drug user is criminal and victim, both at once. You say that it is impossible to ignore the criminal even if doing so would prevent harm to the victim.
[x-posted with mdijon]

There are huge assumptions in your first sentence which I'm not prepared to make.
Speaking of assumptions -

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A drug user is a voluntary user

Assumption. There are many reports by women of having been forcibly injected by men who they were in [admittedly dysfunctional] relationships with, who go on to develop a habit. And that's leaving aside the question of whether or not such things are ever entirely voluntary after the first imbibing has affected some neural pathways.

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
there are also treatments available to deal with the addiction

Assumption. There might be some treatments, at some level, for some addictions, in some districts/areas. Some of them might even be funded.

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
for a willing patient.

Can you not see the circularity of all this? The fact that some people manage to stop taking drugs proves both that drug use is voluntary and that treatments are efficacious and sufficient? What about the fact that most people (including most people who take part in a program) don't have this outcome?

--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --

Posts: 990 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Nor would I walk past someone dying and that is a genuine moral principle. I don't see the analogy that you seem to though, in helping those dying and providing tests for illegal drugs. As I keep saying, the state fulfills its moral duty by substantial publicity about the dangers of using the drugs on sale at these events.

The analogy is that fulfilling moral duty by publicity is walking past if there's something more that could be done.

Maybe the person is lying there dying, they need food and water to survive the night. Giving them the water in your bag might fulfil a moral duty, but you could also go and buy them food and bring it back you could do more. I want to do the more. You don't want to do it because something they are doing something illegal which is connected to their risk of death.

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I've read what Curiosity Killed posted after you and that highlights the problem. The ecstasy tablets may have been poison-free but an overdose will kill - and should the state send people around watching consumption and saying not to have a second or third tablet?

As CK says that is missing the point. There are things that can be done to reduce the risk of drugs, but we can't eliminate all the risk. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Nor would I walk past someone dying and that is a genuine moral principle. I don't see the analogy that you seem to though, in helping those dying and providing tests for illegal drugs. As I keep saying, the state fulfills its moral duty by substantial publicity about the dangers of using the drugs on sale at these events.

The analogy is that fulfilling moral duty by publicity is walking past if there's something more that could be done.

Maybe the person is lying there dying, they need food and water to survive the night. Giving them the water in your bag might fulfil a moral duty, but you could also go and buy them food and bring it back you could do more. I want to do the more. You don't want to do it because something they are doing something illegal which is connected to their risk of death.

It may be because it's latish on a Sunday evening, but I can't see that analogy at all - in fact, I don't really understand the sentence. Has something fallen out of it?

From what do you derive the very last sentence? I can't think of anything I've said that could suggest not providing help to a person dying, regardless of any illegality they may have committed.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6774 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The point is that there are a certain number of young people every year who take dodgy drugs at events where we could, with resources available, provide a testing service that might stop them taking those dodgy drugs. Those are the dying people.

You say we have done enough already by trying to get through their thick skulls that drugs might kill them.

I say that there's something more that we can do to prevent death and we should do it. You think we should walk past on the basis that the young people are involved in illegality, the thing we could do would involve us to some extent in that illegality, and you think that is a barrier.

And the reason that is a barrier is simply axiomatic. It doesn't seem to derive from any other principle such as autonomy, beneficence, etc.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Every day people use illegal drugs. Some of those people go have a good time and then use the drugs occasionally. Some drugs are worse than others in this respect, but even Heroin can be stopped voluntarily by some people. Look at the results of Heroin using soldiers in Vietnam stopping when they got home. If you have ever had a surgery and walked out of the hospital free of opiate addiction you have experienced drug use without addiction.

Other people can use those drugs and they quickly become incapable (so they experience) of stopping using those drugs and more like them.

Treating addiction by telling people they are doing the wrong thing and hurting themselves may feel morally correct and superior. I have a lot of experience with addicts. My experience suggests that telling an addict they are doing something wrong is about as useful as trying to stop a tiger rushing at you with a feather. But then I suspect the people touting the lecture method have either not experienced life with an addict, or prefer to keep things purely academic as real life tends to be too messy.

Addicts can get over their addiction. There may be some who can do it all on their own. I have never seen that happen, but you never know. Everyone I have seen recover not only wants to quit; they also accept the help of others who have experienced addiction themselves.

Yes, the long term recovery rate for addicts (again, alcohol is a drug, so alcoholics are just garden variety addicts whose drug of choice is alcohol) is depressingly low. As a friend of mine says "You step over a lot of dead bodies if you stay in AA for very long."

Judging addicts helps them not at all. Telling them drugs are bad helps them not at all. If that is all you are capable of by way of helping addicts it is probably for the best if you stay away from them as horseshit like that will merely give them another excuse to use.

Neither should you enable an addict by making life easier for them in their addiction. An addict has to hit whatever their personal bottom is to find the need to change. No one, not even the addict, knows what that bottom is.

Posts: 6902 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Top post by that man. Moralizing about drugs is as useful as sugar on shit.

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9707 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And addicts are the majority population for needle exchange. For testing ecstasy in clubs and festivals, we are mostly not dealing with addicts but mainly with young people who like the occasional hit at a club.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Rather similar discussion going on about morning after pill, where Boots have said that keeping a high price on it, stops 'inappropriate use'. Eh?

Is this some kind of strange idea that stopping women having recourse to MAP promotes moral virtue, and if that means there are more unwanted babies, never mind, the sluts shouldn't be having sex?

Although, postscript, Boots have apologized for their language.

[ 23. July 2017, 15:12: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9707 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Keeping a high price on it encourages profits for Boots. They have a range of cheap generic drugs that now have over-the-counter licenses and charge a fortune for them in Boots-branded versions. They then don't stock the cheaper generics in the same line.

It's predatory pricing and anti-competitive practice. They got caught with a bullshit excuse, but the whole range of over-the-counter stuff needs looking at, not just the morning-after-pill.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Rather similar discussion going on about morning after pill, where Boots have said that keeping a high price on it, stops 'inappropriate use'. Eh?

It's that gang of ne'er-do-wells that gather behind the bike sheds to chase the Plan B.

That's what they mean, right?

Posts: 4898 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think they crush the tablets up, and snort them. Somebody has to be vigilant, so it's Boots.

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9707 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Look at the results of Heroin using soldiers in Vietnam stopping when they got home. If you have ever had a surgery and walked out of the hospital free of opiate addiction you have experienced drug use without addiction.

So those are two, almost completely different examples you realise?

quote:

Neither should you enable an addict by making life easier for them in their addiction. An addict has to hit whatever their personal bottom is to find the need to change. No one, not even the addict, knows what that bottom is.

Supplying clean needles isn't helping addicts stay addicted, it is helping them stay alive.
Testing festival drugs is doing the same and many of the users are not, and will not become, addicts.
I think you likely understand this, but not everyone on this thread appears to.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17109 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
NSS
Posts: 6902 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
NSS

Cute. But given the bollocks for argument on this thread thus far, it isn't unreasonable to check.
However a reasonable reading of your words should be obvious, it should be equally obvious that not everyone here will see that.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17109 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The point is that there are a certain number of young people every year who take dodgy drugs at events where we could, with resources available, provide a testing service that might stop them taking those dodgy drugs. Those are the dying people.

You say we have done enough already by trying to get through their thick skulls that drugs might kill them.

I say that there's something more that we can do to prevent death and we should do it. You think we should walk past on the basis that the young people are involved in illegality, the thing we could do would involve us to some extent in that illegality, and you think that is a barrier.

And the reason that is a barrier is simply axiomatic. It doesn't seem to derive from any other principle such as autonomy, beneficence, etc.

I now understand what you were trying to say. What I'm saying is that we are doing the most that we need to do, and it's now up to them. Some may die from impurities in what they take; others because they take too much of something which would pass any testing - how do you stop that? It's something I've raised before and which you have yet to answer.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6774 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What I'm saying is that we are doing the most that we need to do, and it's now up to them.

And Jesus said: Do only the barest minimum and fuck them if they if they do not manage to fall in line with our expectations.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17109 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools