Why are you obsessed with taking illegal drugs?uziq wrote:
what is your obsession with wars on china, wars on drugs, etc
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
you do realize that 95% of people who end up incarcerated or hopelessly addicted to drugs aren't recreational fun-types with jobs and stable lives, right?Dilbert_X wrote:
Grinding people down? Why don't they just find something else to do?
why do you take such pleasure in punching down on people who actually need help?
you sound like a reagan-era relic. 'people who take drugs make a choice, they get what they deserve'.
'public health people' are not in support of punishing drug addicts, by the way.
haven't taken an illegal drug in years and frankly doubt i will very often in the rest of my life. it's for young people, and good luck to them.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why are you obsessed with taking illegal drugs?uziq wrote:
what is your obsession with wars on china, wars on drugs, etc
do you really think i claim 'the war on drugs has failed' because i have a personal stake in it? my life has never been adversely affected by the war on drugs, dilbert. i don't have any skin in the game. as i've tried to point out to you, countless times, for middle-class white people the illegality of a drug is a near-irrelevance. they're going to take them anyway and they will never be the ones who lose their job, house, or freedom because of it.
yes that's why people are talking about a 'cocaine epidemic' in the 2000s and not an 'opioid epidemic'.Dilbert_X wrote:
Public health people care about total numbers, from your own chart cocaine deaths are a bigger problem than heroin deaths.uziq wrote:
there are way more casual cocaine users than heroin users. the death rate from heroin is not comparable. use your head for fuck’s sake.
from a public health point of view, the number of people being taken out by prescription drug addictions, due to the easy availability of dr's 'scrips, is a much more pressing issue than cocaine use. entire communities in america, especially in rust belt towns, are essentially benzo or opioid zombie towns. nobody is in work and everyone is on that good Sackler supply. that's a social blight. (yes, crack cocaine had a similar corrosive role in ghetto communities in the 1980s.)
https://www.cdc.gov/opioids/basics/epidemic.html
you should let the CDC know they're focussing on the wrong thing!The number of drug overdose deaths increased by nearly 5% from 2018 to 2019 and has quadrupled since 1999. Over 70% of the 70,630 deaths in 2019 involved an opioid. From 2018 to 2019, there were significant changes in opioid-involved death rates:
Opioid-involved death rates increased by over 6%.
Prescription opioid-involved death rates decreased by nearly 7%.
Heroin-involved death rates decreased by over 6%.
Synthetic opioid-involved death rates (excluding methadone) increased by over 15%2.
you should actually care about this one, because it affects white people, often-times middle-of-the-road worker types who fall into it because of a workplace accident or by putting too much trust in their physician. i realize you demonize other drugs pretty easily because they're used by black people or other undesirables.
Last edited by uziq (2021-11-30 21:18:36)
So why do you care?uziq wrote:
do you really think i claim 'the war on drugs has failed' because i have a personal stake in it? my life has never been adversely affected by the war on drugs, dilbert. i don't have any skin in the game. as i've tried to point out to you, countless times, for middle-class white people the illegality of a drug is a near-irrelevance. they're going to take them anyway and they will never be the ones who lose their job, house, or freedom because of it.
Most people who take illegal drugs and fuck up their lives would find a way to fuck up their lives if drugs weren't available.
They'd be sniffing petrol, or skateboarding into trucks, or doing some other stupid thing to wreck their own lives.
And generally its not the weight of the law coming down on them that fucks up their live, its the fact they can't function, hold down a job etc due to their drug use.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
OK, lets extradite those jews who caused it from Israel and strip them of their remaining multi-billion dollar fortunes, I'd be fine with this.uziq wrote:
you should let the CDC know they're focussing on the wrong thing!
you should actually care about this one, because it affects white people, often-times middle-of-the-road worker types who fall into it because of a workplace accident or by putting too much trust in their physician. i realize you demonize other drugs pretty easily because they're used by black people or other undesirables.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
i care because immense amounts of money and time are spent on a hopeless endeavour.
it pretty transparently immiserates people, for the sake of an easy news headline (‘tough on crime!’), to satisfy a basically religious moral impulse (‘drug users are sinful and self-indulgent!’) and, most pressingly, because it serves to support and enrich a vast fucking private prison industry.
i know it’s a hard concept for you to grasp dilbert, but not everyone’s position or opinion on something is motivated immediately by their own fEeLinGs and personal stake in the matter. i’ve never been afraid of losing my freedom or life because of drug use in the entirety of my 20s. it was a free for all. i don’t know a single person who had ever fallen foul of the law because of their recreational drug use. i don’t even know a drug dealer who has been locked up.
drug addicts are absolutely people who need help. the entire medical and public health community are clear on this. penalisation, making someone a felon and keeping them from getting a job in the future, or, worse of all, sending them to prisons where drugs are fucking easier to get in many cases than the outside, doesn’t fix shit. it’s a black hole of misery.
for a ‘STEM type’ you are weirdly moralistic and impervious to statistics.
it pretty transparently immiserates people, for the sake of an easy news headline (‘tough on crime!’), to satisfy a basically religious moral impulse (‘drug users are sinful and self-indulgent!’) and, most pressingly, because it serves to support and enrich a vast fucking private prison industry.
i know it’s a hard concept for you to grasp dilbert, but not everyone’s position or opinion on something is motivated immediately by their own fEeLinGs and personal stake in the matter. i’ve never been afraid of losing my freedom or life because of drug use in the entirety of my 20s. it was a free for all. i don’t know a single person who had ever fallen foul of the law because of their recreational drug use. i don’t even know a drug dealer who has been locked up.
drug addicts are absolutely people who need help. the entire medical and public health community are clear on this. penalisation, making someone a felon and keeping them from getting a job in the future, or, worse of all, sending them to prisons where drugs are fucking easier to get in many cases than the outside, doesn’t fix shit. it’s a black hole of misery.
for a ‘STEM type’ you are weirdly moralistic and impervious to statistics.
of course your takeaway from the immense issue of the US opioid epidemic, involving purdue pharma and an entire system of prescriptions and enablement, is bEcAuSE JeWz.Dilbert_X wrote:
OK, lets extradite those jews who caused it from Israel and strip them of their remaining multi-billion dollar fortunes, I'd be fine with this.uziq wrote:
you should let the CDC know they're focussing on the wrong thing!
you should actually care about this one, because it affects white people, often-times middle-of-the-road worker types who fall into it because of a workplace accident or by putting too much trust in their physician. i realize you demonize other drugs pretty easily because they're used by black people or other undesirables.
do you have any idea what a fucking crank you are? everyone on this forum points this out to you. you do know you have a screw loose, right? maybe all that alcohol had damaged your frontal lobes.
So does gambling, yet not a peep out of you.uziq wrote:
i care because immense amounts of money and time are spent on a hopeless endeavour.
Britain doesn't have a private prison industry yet plenty of people manage to die of drug overdoses.it pretty transparently immiserates people, for the sake of an easy news headline (‘tough on crime!’), to satisfy a basically religious moral impulse (‘drug users are sinful and self-indulgent!’) and, most pressingly, because it serves to support and enrich a vast fucking private prison industry.
People are going to immiserate themselves, typically its taking drugs that does it.
Look at the Ryan guy I posted earlier, probably earning $200,000 a year at a mine site, five years later he's addicted to meth and a vegetable.
iTs t3h m0RalIseRs w0t duN hiM In
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
No, thats what you said, try to keep up - with yourselfuziq wrote:
of course your takeaway from the immense issue of the US opioid epidemic, involving purdue pharma and an entire system of prescriptions and enablement, is bEcAuSE JeWz.
do you have any idea what a fucking crank you are? everyone on this forum points this out to you. you do know you have a screw loose, right? maybe all that alcohol had damaged your frontal lobes.
uziq wrote:
from a public health point of view, the number of people being taken out by prescription drug addictions, due to the easy availability of dr's 'scrips, is a much more pressing issue than cocaine use. entire communities in america, especially in rust belt towns, are essentially benzo or opioid zombie towns. nobody is in work and everyone is on that good Sackler supply. that's a social blight.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
gambling is legal? erm, what is your point? apply some logical consistency here, dilbert. if people want to harm themselves and take risks with gambling ... they are allowed to. get your head around that!
increasing numbers of people have been dying in the UK due to the policies of the tory government. they changed public health policy away from one of treatment and 'managing addict's lives' to one of punishment and demonisation. drug deaths have literally doubled in the last 10 years, immediately attributable to this change in policy. try reading some UK news sometime. it is the very definition of 'needless misery'. they changed the policy for a political reason and now more people are dying. very rational! very scientific!
i'll link this again. it's 10 minutes long and is specifically about the UK's approach to drug addicts.
if your takeaway from my mention of the Sacklers is that i was being anti-semitic or highlighting their jewishness ... then you are truly off the deep-end. my point was that the drugs are obtained perfectly legally from a major corporation/respected family.
increasing numbers of people have been dying in the UK due to the policies of the tory government. they changed public health policy away from one of treatment and 'managing addict's lives' to one of punishment and demonisation. drug deaths have literally doubled in the last 10 years, immediately attributable to this change in policy. try reading some UK news sometime. it is the very definition of 'needless misery'. they changed the policy for a political reason and now more people are dying. very rational! very scientific!
i'll link this again. it's 10 minutes long and is specifically about the UK's approach to drug addicts.
amazing. let's rely on an anecdote and a facebook profile you stalked whilst being a sad bastard to make a a claim about, erm, the opioid epidemic and drug addiction tout court. very god-brained STEM thinking. how would you know about his personal life or mental health? how would you know what led him to become a drug addict? you are literally just moralizing based off, erm, a facebook post and a news article. how wise and mature of you. you just get a thrill out of moralizing for its own sake, like any self-righteous person with confidence issues.Look at the Ryan guy I posted earlier, probably earning $200,000 a year at a mine site, five years later he's addicted to meth and a vegetable.
if your takeaway from my mention of the Sacklers is that i was being anti-semitic or highlighting their jewishness ... then you are truly off the deep-end. my point was that the drugs are obtained perfectly legally from a major corporation/respected family.
Last edited by uziq (2021-11-30 22:05:28)
The Sacklers pushed opioids and incentivised everyone in the supply chain to get them dispensed inappropriately - they aren't respected any more.
So we're talking about Britain now? I thought your gripe was with American policy.
Drug addicts dying is a relatively small problem compared with, say, the excess deaths caused by the NHS as a whole being in a parlous state.
Why do you always focus on drugs? The bottom line is you think everyone, especially you, should have access to all the drugs you want with no hindrance.
So we're talking about Britain now? I thought your gripe was with American policy.
Drug addicts dying is a relatively small problem compared with, say, the excess deaths caused by the NHS as a whole being in a parlous state.
Why do you always focus on drugs? The bottom line is you think everyone, especially you, should have access to all the drugs you want with no hindrance.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
'the war on drugs' was engaged in by the US and UK predominantly. the UK was the lapdog in this policy as the US 'pushed' it via her allies and international organizations like the UN.
i don't focus always on drugs? not sure how that's your takeaway from 10,000s of posts on any number of topics.
you have a weird moral fixation with drugs. i approach them with a sane and level-headed view. people are going to take drugs. it is one of the constants of human society, from the neolithic to now, from the mushroom-scoffing tundra heathens of scandinavia and siberia to the potion-brewing shamans of the amazon.
taking an excessive interest in what other people choose to do with their own bodies, like getting annoyed by their idea of identity or use of pronouns, is generally for thin-lipped and anal-retentive conservative types who can't bear to let people just live their lives as they want.
my generation are very casual about drugs. does that mean everyone takes them? no. but i would be willing to bet that most 20 and 30 somethings in the UK know someone who regularly takes drugs, or have been around them in recreational spaces like parties, bars, clubs, etc. they are not shocking and do not scandalize. they're really not that important, in the grand scheme of things.
the war on drugs, like the war on terror, is one of the biggest policy failures in recent memory. literally decades down the toilet and nothing achieved. that is something worth discussing. i don't see my 'obsession' with it any more than you have an obsession with pointing to the failures of the bush-blair years.
i don't focus always on drugs? not sure how that's your takeaway from 10,000s of posts on any number of topics.
you have a weird moral fixation with drugs. i approach them with a sane and level-headed view. people are going to take drugs. it is one of the constants of human society, from the neolithic to now, from the mushroom-scoffing tundra heathens of scandinavia and siberia to the potion-brewing shamans of the amazon.
taking an excessive interest in what other people choose to do with their own bodies, like getting annoyed by their idea of identity or use of pronouns, is generally for thin-lipped and anal-retentive conservative types who can't bear to let people just live their lives as they want.
my generation are very casual about drugs. does that mean everyone takes them? no. but i would be willing to bet that most 20 and 30 somethings in the UK know someone who regularly takes drugs, or have been around them in recreational spaces like parties, bars, clubs, etc. they are not shocking and do not scandalize. they're really not that important, in the grand scheme of things.
the war on drugs, like the war on terror, is one of the biggest policy failures in recent memory. literally decades down the toilet and nothing achieved. that is something worth discussing. i don't see my 'obsession' with it any more than you have an obsession with pointing to the failures of the bush-blair years.
I don't have a fixation, you keep bringing them up out of the blue and whining about legalisation - you're the obsessive.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
i was posting in response to people being angry at injection sites, i.e. things that help addicts with measurably good outcomes.
it's weird that religious conservatives (and you, a man of science who seems somewhat out of place amongst the moral crusaders) want drug addicts to suffer more or die out of sight or something.
it's weird that religious conservatives (and you, a man of science who seems somewhat out of place amongst the moral crusaders) want drug addicts to suffer more or die out of sight or something.
I've made no comments on injection sites, I don't care, no-one wants an injection site near them including you, injecting drug addicts should be in a hospital really.
When have I said I want drug addicts to "to suffer more or die out of sight" ?
You're obsessed and incoherent.
When have I said I want drug addicts to "to suffer more or die out of sight" ?
You're obsessed and incoherent.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
you seem to take a basically prurient pleasure in watching drug addicts suffer and get their 'just deserts', even going so far as to spend your spare time stalking rando's facebook profiles. and i'm obsessed? i don't see myself stalking random people from news articles. weirdo.
i have no problem with injection sites in city centres or in hospitals or wherever they made need to be. not typical that someone proposes building an injection site in the middle of a well-to-do suburb. there aren't many homeless drug addicts there.
there's already medical facilities in the centre of bristol centre, there to be used by whomever gets in trouble on a saturday night. 99% of them are drunks, of course.
as with injection sites and facilities for drug addicts, the idea is to keep them away from hospitals which could be putting their resources towards other, more pressing forms of emergency care. seems sensible chap!
i have no problem with injection sites in city centres or in hospitals or wherever they made need to be. not typical that someone proposes building an injection site in the middle of a well-to-do suburb. there aren't many homeless drug addicts there.
there's already medical facilities in the centre of bristol centre, there to be used by whomever gets in trouble on a saturday night. 99% of them are drunks, of course.
as with injection sites and facilities for drug addicts, the idea is to keep them away from hospitals which could be putting their resources towards other, more pressing forms of emergency care. seems sensible chap!
Last edited by uziq (2021-12-01 00:38:43)
I suppose you mean just desserts, and no, I don't take pleasure in sick and mentally ill people suffering.uziq wrote:
you seem to take a basically prurient pleasure in watching drug addicts suffer and get their 'just deserts'
Took literally 10 secondseven going so far as to spend your spare time stalking rando's facebook profiles. and i'm obsessed? i don't see myself stalking random people from news articles. weirdo.
Nowhere near you in other words.i have no problem with injection sites in city centres or in hospitals or wherever they made need to be.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
it's just deserts, as in 'he got what he DESERVED', not 'he got a delicious banoffee pie for his troubles'. you can check the OED if you need an authoritative source (you have to pay a subscription though).
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti … st-deserts
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti … ish/desert
same reasoning as for allowing nightclubs and music festivals to have drug-testing facilities and 'safe spaces' with qualified personnel. people are going to take drugs one way or other: you can moralize about, wait for the inevitable medical emergency, and place stress on the emergency services and hospitals, or, you know ... you can get pragmatic about it and let people test their drugs for purity in the fucking spaces they're going to take them in.
of course, that upsets the cultural conservatives who have a moral problem with people having fun in whichever particular form that takes.
SCIENCE !!!
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti … st-deserts
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti … ish/desert
anyway, tomato/tomahhhto. good job though! do you want me to put you on for a couple quid a hour? i'll delegate you some edits. i heard you're in need of a job and i hate to see a man down and out on his luck in middle-age. you 'desserve' a second chance!desert
in British English
(dɪˈzɜːt )
NOUN
1. (often plural)
something that is deserved or merited; just reward or punishment
2. the state of deserving a reward or punishment
3. virtue or merit
Word origin
C13: from Old French deserte, from deservir to deserve
my apartment is in a city centre, rofl. literally within a 5 minute walk of where that mobile 'drunk tank' is parked every weekend. good job chap!Nowhere near you in other words.
same reasoning as for allowing nightclubs and music festivals to have drug-testing facilities and 'safe spaces' with qualified personnel. people are going to take drugs one way or other: you can moralize about, wait for the inevitable medical emergency, and place stress on the emergency services and hospitals, or, you know ... you can get pragmatic about it and let people test their drugs for purity in the fucking spaces they're going to take them in.
of course, that upsets the cultural conservatives who have a moral problem with people having fun in whichever particular form that takes.
SCIENCE !!!
Last edited by uziq (2021-12-01 01:23:56)
People are going to rape and murder, maybe they need support vans too.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
except drug taking is a personal choice with personal risks and doesn't harm any other person.
rape and murder tend to involve victims, other persons, who have things done to them that isn't their wish.
you weren't part of your school debating club, were you?
equating people taking an MDMA pill and feeling euphoric whilst dancing, or, alternatively, a heroin addict who is homeless with ... a murderer. OK dilbert. go and have a lie down.
rape and murder tend to involve victims, other persons, who have things done to them that isn't their wish.
you weren't part of your school debating club, were you?
equating people taking an MDMA pill and feeling euphoric whilst dancing, or, alternatively, a heroin addict who is homeless with ... a murderer. OK dilbert. go and have a lie down.
I'll accept that the drug enforcement policies have not produced the desired result, though the chart you linked about cocaine prices is only up to 1994. I wonder what it's like today.
Anyhow as far as cocaine and opium goes legalisation is out of the question. All you will achieve is legitimation of cartels in south america, or parties like the Taliban during the occupation of Afghanistan, and their business models. These are also terrible drugs; everyone dislikes people on coke highs, nevermind the effects of opium based drugs.
The question I would ask is: how can we reform drug enforcement to be more effective? Should the focus exclusively be on tracking and stopping transport as our technological tools are getting better? Should our approach vis-a-vis south america change? Do users need to be held accountable? Esp. in the case of cocaine, it's often the high income individuals subsidising the trade and funneling money to murderous organisations.
Anyhow as far as cocaine and opium goes legalisation is out of the question. All you will achieve is legitimation of cartels in south america, or parties like the Taliban during the occupation of Afghanistan, and their business models. These are also terrible drugs; everyone dislikes people on coke highs, nevermind the effects of opium based drugs.
The question I would ask is: how can we reform drug enforcement to be more effective? Should the focus exclusively be on tracking and stopping transport as our technological tools are getting better? Should our approach vis-a-vis south america change? Do users need to be held accountable? Esp. in the case of cocaine, it's often the high income individuals subsidising the trade and funneling money to murderous organisations.
Last edited by Larssen (2021-12-01 01:41:56)
But duuuuude rape and murder have been around for like 1000s of years man!uziq wrote:
except drug taking is a personal choice with personal risks and doesn't harm any other person.
rape and murder tend to involve victims, other persons, who have things done to them that isn't their wish.
Indian mystics raped people, south american shaman like murdered people all the time!
Its like totally traditional!
Drug taking involves victims, they're just remote from you so you don't care.
You can nicely rationalise it as 'well if drugs were legal this wouldn't happen' but they are illegal and it does - you don't care.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2021-12-01 01:48:04)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
truly one of your finest arguments, this. you are on magnificent form dilbert.
agree re: heroin/cocaine. as dangerous and deleterious to health as alcohol and nicotine. which, it must be said as a matter of form, are very fucking bad for you and, wrt cartels, have even been involved in slavery as a crop (tobacco).Larssen wrote:
I'll accept that the drug enforcement policies have not produced the desired result, though the chart you linked about cocaine prices is only up to 1994. I wonder what it's like today.
Anyhow as far as cocaine and opium goes legalisation is out of the question. All you will achieve is legitimation of cartels in south america, or parties like the Taliban during the occupation of Afghanistan, and their business models. These are also terrible drugs; everyone dislikes people on coke highs, nevermind the effects of opium based drugs.
The question I would ask is: how can we reform drug enforcement to be more effective? Should the focus exclusively be on tracking and stopping transport as our technological tools are getting better? Should our approach vis-a-vis south america change? Do users need to be held accountable? Esp. in the case of cocaine, it's often the high income individuals subsidising the trade and funneling money to murderous organisations.
they should be decriminalised, though. it’s senseless to punish drug addicts. no one gets addicted to heroin for fun.