Paolini done for cocaine
Comments
-
Do you wanna explain why they re not the same?
Legalisation
So passage of time basically?We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I drink alcohol therefore it is not a drug and I am not a hypocrite.0
-
Not sure why people are throwing around 'moralist' as a negative. Quite laughable really. Again probably just a defence mechanism from those lacking in several areas of their life.
Thanks for all the facts and figures pinarello. I am well aware of all of them and more.
I have deliberately not gone into the hashing out of the question as think that is better served elsewhere on this forum.
I see what you did here
ddraver wrote:Do you wanna explain why they re not the same?
Alcohol is a drug, cocaine is a drug... but they are different drugs with different effects. Weed is different, heroin is different, MDMA is different.
Because they're different drugs they're treated in different ways.. really not that hard to understand?0 -
Not sure why people are throwing around 'moralist' as a negative. Quite laughable really. Again probably just a defence mechanism from those lacking in several areas of their life.
Thanks for all the facts and figures pinarello. I am well aware of all of them and more.
I have deliberately not gone into the hashing out of the question as think that is better served elsewhere on this forum.
I see what you did hereddraver wrote:Do you wanna explain why they re not the same?
Alcohol is a drug, cocaine is a drug... but they are different drugs with different effects. Weed is different, heroin is different, MDMA is different.
Because they're different drugs they're treated in different ways.. really not that hard to understand?
Except it's far more complicated than that isnt it...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Not sure why people are throwing around 'moralist' as a negative. Quite laughable really. Again probably just a defence mechanism from those lacking in several areas of their life.
Thanks for all the facts and figures pinarello. I am well aware of all of them and more.
I have deliberately not gone into the hashing out of the question as think that is better served elsewhere on this forum.
The most common use of the word "moralist" is entirely negative. It's someone who attempts to enforce their morality on others. Any use of the word to denote someone who is moral is largely antiquated.
Moreover, when applied to matters of personal choice, "morals" are usually taken to be a manifestation of personal preference masquerading as rigid rules for others. This is contra ethics, which is concerned largely with general principles, such as freedom (noticeably absent in your own moralising).
I'm glad you know all the facts and figures though. Please refer to them in future arguments, they're useful.
I'm not sure where else on this forum would be better suited to arguing about the morality of taking drugs.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Alcohol is a drug, cocaine is a drug... but they are different drugs with different effects. Weed is different, heroin is different, MDMA is different.
Because they're different drugs they're treated in different ways.. really not that hard to understand?
Oh they're all different, and should be treated in different ways. You shouldn't try and smoke beer, for instance. Unless you're German.
The point was, though, that according to FF, all drugs are "drugs" and should be treated the same, while alcohol isn't a drug, and should therefore be treated differently. Which raises the obvious question: what is it about all the other drugs that makes them in some way the same, which doesn't apply to alcohol?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Alcohol is a drug, cocaine is a drug... but they are different drugs with different effects. Weed is different, heroin is different, MDMA is different.
Because they're different drugs they're treated in different ways.. really not that hard to understand?
Oh they're all different, and should be treated in different ways. You shouldn't try and smoke beer, for instance. Unless you're German.
The point was, though, that according to FF, all drugs are "drugs" and should be treated the same, while alcohol isn't a drug, and should therefore be treated differently. Which raises the obvious question: what is it about all the other drugs that makes them in some way the same, which doesn't apply to alcohol?
They're all illegal in the UK.
Hmmm... there's just a hint of tautology there.... If only I wasn't a brain-melted junkie no-life, I might be able to work it out....Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
I do like the 'You shouldn't do that and I don't do that brigade'. According to the ONS:
8416 deaths by alcohol in 2013 (latest figures).
2955 deaths by drug poisoning in 2013.
1713 deaths by all user groups involving cars in 2103, just to put it into some kind of context.
Alcohol is legal yet causes 3 times the number of deaths than drug addiction. The difference is an odd quirk of moral relativism. In Holland, hard drug abuse peaked sightly after legalisation but soon fell back to the same levels before it was legalised (0.5%, compared to 1.5% in the US). So, legalising it would allow us some control. Drug trafficking is associated and funds a myriad of other crimes, so separating illegal drug trafficking from other illegal activities would go a long way to reducing other crimes.
Nixon declared a war on drugs way back in 72(?) and it has never worked all because he tried to capture the support of the do-gooding bible bashing moralists. Mexico is a mess because of North America's now insatiable appetite for drugs. The harder the Americans try to outlaw and increase the penalties, the worse the problem gets.
Drug abuse is a symptom of modern life and a sad indictment of it.
Cocaine has no long term performance enhancing properties, quite the opposite in fact. So for Paolini, he is just a silly boy and it is sad that he took cocaine and felt the need to. To make huge moral judgements and conclusions about him is just plain hypocrisy.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/cocaine/what-are-short-term-effects-cocaine-use
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health4/alcohol-related-deaths-in-the-united-kingdom/2013/stb---alcohol-related-deaths-in-the-united-kingdom--registered-in-2013.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health3/deaths-related-to-drug-poisoning/england-and-wales---2013/stb---deaths-related-to-drug-poisoning-in-england-and-wales--2013.html
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Netherlands_v_US#sthash.ztoLR1XI.dpbs
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make above. You're a sensible person so I doubt anyone needs to explain that comparing something that is legal and widely consumed (albeit with known health damaging effects) and something that is used far less commonly is a bit pointless. If the same number of people regularly used drugs as use alcohol then there'd be some relevance in comparing death rates.0 -
Not sure why people are throwing around 'moralist' as a negative. Quite laughable really. Again probably just a defence mechanism from those lacking in several areas of their life.
Thanks for all the facts and figures pinarello. I am well aware of all of them and more.
I have deliberately not gone into the hashing out of the question as think that is better served elsewhere on this forum.
The most common use of the word "moralist" is entirely negative. It's someone who attempts to enforce their morality on others. Any use of the word to denote someone who is moral is largely antiquated.
Moreover, when applied to matters of personal choice, "morals" are usually taken to be a manifestation of personal preference masquerading as rigid rules for others. This is contra ethics, which is concerned largely with general principles, such as freedom (noticeably absent in your own moralising).
I'm glad you know all the facts and figures though. Please refer to them in future arguments, they're useful.
I'm not sure where else on this forum would be better suited to arguing about the morality of taking drugs.
Nicely worded response.
You are however missing the point with your attack on 'morals'. I am not saying it is immediately immoral to take drugs - you can easily be a 'good' person and take drugs, my points related to those who want to disparage those who haven't taken drugs in addition to the removal of drugs being a net positive to the World in my view. That the use of drugs by an individual lowers my estimation of them is another aspect entirely. Note that there is a huge range of what can be termed 'drug' use, going from possibly acceptable to abhorrent.
I don't discount the negative affects of alcohol as I have mentioned already. For similar levels of usage however, drugs are significantly more detrimental and they are associated with significant more amounts of criminality etc. The problem alcohol has over drugs is scale.
As an aside, as I can see it is causing you a lot of consternation, I understand alcohol can be easily categorized as a drug yet my usage of the word 'drugs' relates to what 9/10 people in the street would understand by it. As you do too.
Furthermore, to refer to the changing use of the word moral is a ridiculous notion. Morals are not transitory, yet the increasing lack of their prevalence in society can most certainly explain the many of the ills we can see. By the sounds of things, no doubt you are one of the culprits of this slackening of morals thus contributing to the deterioration of societal values.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Not sure why people are throwing around 'moralist' as a negative. Quite laughable really. Again probably just a defence mechanism from those lacking in several areas of their life.
Thanks for all the facts and figures pinarello. I am well aware of all of them and more.
I have deliberately not gone into the hashing out of the question as think that is better served elsewhere on this forum.
The most common use of the word "moralist" is entirely negative. It's someone who attempts to enforce their morality on others. Any use of the word to denote someone who is moral is largely antiquated.
Moreover, when applied to matters of personal choice, "morals" are usually taken to be a manifestation of personal preference masquerading as rigid rules for others. This is contra ethics, which is concerned largely with general principles, such as freedom (noticeably absent in your own moralising).
I'm glad you know all the facts and figures though. Please refer to them in future arguments, they're useful.
I'm not sure where else on this forum would be better suited to arguing about the morality of taking drugs.
Nicely worded response.
You are however missing the point with your attack on 'morals'. I am not saying it is immediately immoral to take drugs - you can easily be a 'good' person and take drugs, my points related to those who want to disparage those who haven't taken drugs in addition to the removal of drugs being a net positive to the World in my view. That the use of drugs by an individual lowers my estimation of them is another aspect entirely. Note that there is a huge range of what can be termed 'drug' use, going from possibly acceptable to abhorrent.
I don't discount the negative affects of alcohol as I have mentioned already. For similar levels of usage however, drugs are significantly more detrimental and they are associated with significant more amounts of criminality etc. The problem alcohol has over drugs is scale.
As an aside, as I can see it is causing you a lot of consternation, I understand alcohol can be easily categorized as a drug yet my usage of the word 'drugs' relates to what 9/10 people in the street would understand by it. As you do too.
Furthermore, to refer to the changing use of the word moral is a ridiculous notion. Morals are not transitory, yet the increasing lack of their prevalence in society can most certainly explain the many of the ills we can see. By the sounds of things, no doubt you are one of the culprits of this slackening of morals thus contributing to the deterioration of societal values.
Likewise, nice to see a little more nuance in your argument, even if it does have the faint whiff of backtracking and goalpost-shifting.
When you say that use of drugs lowers your estimation of an individual, do you mean use of drugs "as understood by 9/10 people in the street" or use of drugs defined as a chemical substance that alters mood or perception? And what is your sliding-scale off drug use acceptability based on? Most people have one, but mine is based on damage caused to one's self and others, not what the name of the drug is.
Incidentally, 9/10 people on the street would recognise that alcohol was a drug, if you asked them, and they weren't completely pissed. It's not surprising that criminalising drug use increases criminality, really. One might be tempted to point out a direct, literal and tautological correlation....
As for the non-transitory nature of morals, that's just nonsense. Morals are inherently transient, which is why half a century or so ago you could be thrown in prison for being gay, but now you can get married. Your earlier moralising pointed directly to this morality of the private sphere, what one does in one's own home, and was little short of a character assassination of anyone that's ever smoked a spliff, dropped an E or picked a magic mushroom. In that sense it was in line with the prying, prudish, Victorian morality, where sexual mores were legislated against. That saw unwed mothers institutionalised in asylums, persecution of homosexuals, and all sorts of assaults on personal freedoms. The intrusion of morality into the private sphere saw judgements like yours handed out to women who didn't stay at home doing the housework, women that didn't "save themselves" for their wedding night etc. Personally, I'm glad morality and morals have changed.
Incidentally, if you really want to look at the collapse of social cohesion, have a look at the gap between the rich and the poor and remember which sector you work in - its prime job is to funnel money in one direction only.
As I said earlier, take drugs or don't, but don't moralise either way.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor, alcohol and drugs are not the same and have different impacts, despite the former having serious social and economic negatives.
Lumping them together is just another justification used by druggies to make themselves feel better about their weaknesses.
Brass Eyeamendous: "Some people say alcohol is a drug. It's not a drug, it's a drink""In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
As a libertarian, my attitude is that you are free to put whatever you like into your body and it shouldn't be illegal. It is, after all, your body. The point I start to get annoyed is when you nick my telly to pay for it."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Likewise, nice to see a little more nuance in your argument, even if it does have the faint whiff of backtracking and goalpost-shifting.
When you say that use of drugs lowers your estimation of an individual, do you mean use of drugs "as understood by 9/10 people in the street" or use of drugs defined as a chemical substance that alters mood or perception? And what is your sliding-scale off drug use acceptability based on? Most people have one, but mine is based on damage caused to one's self and others, not what the name of the drug is.
Incidentally, 9/10 people on the street would recognise that alcohol was a drug, if you asked them, and they weren't completely pissed. It's not surprising that criminalising drug use increases criminality, really. One might be tempted to point out a direct, literal and tautological correlation....
As for the non-transitory nature of morals, that's just nonsense. Morals are inherently transient, which is why half a century or so ago you could be thrown in prison for being gay, but now you can get married. Your earlier moralising pointed directly to this morality of the private sphere, what one does in one's own home, and was little short of a character assassination of anyone that's ever smoked a spliff, dropped an E or picked a magic mushroom. In that sense it was in line with the prying, prudish, Victorian morality, where sexual mores were legislated against. That saw unwed mothers institutionalised in asylums, persecution of homosexuals, and all sorts of assaults on personal freedoms. The intrusion of morality into the private sphere saw judgements like yours handed out to women who didn't stay at home doing the housework, women that didn't "save themselves" for their wedding night etc. Personally, I'm glad morality and morals have changed.
Incidentally, if you really want to look at the collapse of social cohesion, have a look at the gap between the rich and the poor and remember which sector you work in - its prime job is to funnel money in one direction only.
As I said earlier, take drugs or don't, but don't moralise either way.
The first two paragraphs I don't care to bash out anymore.
On the third, my morals and principles don't change from year to year or even decade to decade. They are the same now as they were 15 years ago and I strongly suspect they will be the same in 15 years time. I was against gay 'marriage' before it was legalized and I am against it since it has been legalized etc etc. Don't confuse morals with Rights. Lots of things you suggest are largely down to lack of education and access to information rather than people being entirely informed then changing from ABC is 'bad' to now I think ABC is 'good'. The two things are utterly different.
I agree that the increase in the rich poor gap doesn't help things but when you see an increase in 'immorality' across the entire wealth spectrum then you know you have not put your finger on the correct trigger. So I stick to my points there. Before you judge me for being a trader I would hope you would inform yourself properly about the industry, don't clutch at stereotypes and know that you can get moral and immoral people in the majority of sectors.
I will continue to stick to my morals and perception of drug users.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Do you wanna explain why they re not the same?
Legalisation
So passage of time basically?
If you believe that heroin will one day be available off the shelf in Sainsbury's, than yes I suppose you're right.
A lot of reductio ad absurdum going on in this thread...
In the last years of W. Bush's presidency would you have bet that there would be states in the US were you can legally buy Cannabis in 2015?We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
On the third, my morals and principles don't change from year to year or even decade to decade. They are the same now as they were 15 years ago and I strongly suspect they will be the same in 15 years time. I was against gay 'marriage' before it was legalized and I am against it since it has been legalized etc etc. Don't confuse morals with Rights. Lots of things you suggest are largely down to lack of education and access to information rather than people being entirely informed then changing from ABC is 'bad' to now I think ABC is 'good'. The two things are utterly different.
I will continue to stick to my morals and perception of drug users.
Well we've never accused you of being flexible in your thinking.... I hope you get some of the access to information and education you apparently so sadly lack.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
By all means let your opinions and perceptions change but there is no need to drop your morals and principles as those around you seem to do so often, crumbling to social pressure, greed and weakness. Only the insecure and immoral require that recourse. I do not make up their number.
You finish on an insult. Demonstrating your weaknesses again. I would ask you to elaborate but clearly there is nothing worthwhile you can proffer.Contador is the Greatest0 -
On the third, my morals and principles don't change from year to year or even decade to decade. They are the same now as they were 15 years ago and I strongly suspect they will be the same in 15 years time. I was against gay 'marriage' before it was legalized and I am against it since it has been legalized etc etc. Don't confuse morals with Rights. Lots of things you suggest are largely down to lack of education and access to information rather than people being entirely informed then changing from ABC is 'bad' to now I think ABC is 'good'. The two things are utterly different.
I will continue to stick to my morals and perception of drug users.
Well we've never accused you of being flexible in your thinking.... I hope you get some of the access to information and education you apparently so sadly lack.
Just read this thread and agree with everything No tA has said. It's the individual's choice to take drugs, and let's not moralise on how much better the world could be, you can say exactly the same about religion, about companies using child labour blah blah blah.
If you want to take drugs then do, it doesn't mean you are a bad person. I regularly drink alcohol and smoke fags and I occasionally take banned substances if it will enhance the evening. Coke isn't a particular favourite to be honest, but MDMA can be quite exceptional.0 -
It's easy to turn the blind eye to the ills it causes the World; much like the majority of of our immoral society do on many matters. The route of the weak, insecure and selfish.
And make sure you pay your own f*cking bill when you end up in the Maudsley.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Im always wary of anyone who speaks in absolute terms"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Still think Frenchie is joking anyone?
Joker rather than joking. How can anyone against gay marriage start offering moral advice about the ills of the world. I'm sure we could find many many more instances of his morals not actually being real.0 -
Still think Frenchie is joking anyone?
Joker rather than joking. How can anyone against gay marriage start offering moral advice about the ills of the world. I'm sure we could find many many more instances of his morals not actually being real.
You can have morals that don't agree with the current zeitgeist and still be moral. It's possible to disagree with somebody respectfully. I'm not going to cast FF as an evil person because he opposes gay marriage."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Wow, serious empathy failure on planet Frenchie...0
-
We could discuss gay 'marriage' but I guess this is not the place. I am not against gay people, I just dont like its deliberately overt display in some places and I am not against civil unions for them but I am against gay 'marriages' and yes they are very different.Contador is the Greatest0
-
Wow, serious empathy failure on planet Frenchie...
Do you mean sympathy?
Also if you elaborate I can address your distress?
Fyi I vote Labour.Contador is the Greatest0 -
By all means let your opinions and perceptions change but there is no need to drop your morals and principles as those around you seem to do so often, crumbling to social pressure, greed and weakness. Only the insecure and immoral require that recourse. I do not make up their number.
You finish on an insult. Demonstrating your weaknesses again. I would ask you to elaborate but clearly there is nothing worthwhile you can proffer.
How about crumbling to rational discourse, logical argument and people that actually know what they're talking about? No, you don't do that either.
Ironic that I end on an insult, where you started with one. Let's not forget, you look down on me because I've done drugs, you hold me responsible for the decaying fabric of society, you regard me as mentally addled, ugly and physically decrepit, weak, bad teeth....It's easy to turn the blind eye to the ills it causes the World; much like the majority of of our immoral society do on many matters. The route of the weak, insecure and selfish.
And make sure you pay your own f*cking bill when you end up in the Maudsley.
Do you have something against the weak and insecure? How Nietzschean.
It's also easy to turn a blind-eye to the ills caused by the corporate greed of the financial sector, when you're un-selfishly raking it in. The failed war on drugs has become a literal war in many countries. These wars aren't caused by drugs, they're caused by their prohibition. Your stance turns a blind eye to the immeasurable harm done by the policies you support.
As for paying my own hospital bill, I pay over half my (pretty decent) wages in tax without complaint, donate to charity, occasionaly invest some time in political activism and have around six months full time voluntary conservation work under my belt, plus numerous other things I've done to rip the moral fabric of society asunder (e.g. a few years of 15hr a week minimum training my son's football team), I think I'm in credit when it comes to a hospital bed.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Re. alcohol Vs drugs... something has been missed. Nobody drinks alcohol... I drink wine and beer because I like the taste, in fact alcohol free beer is getting better and I can see myself moving to it "full time"... in fact I do if I drive to the pub/party and don't miss the alcohol
I don't think anyone snorts cocaine for any other reason than seeking a high and that's the main difference. If you only drink to get drunk, then you have a problem and yes, I agree there is no differenceleft the forum March 20230 -
We could discuss gay 'marriage' but I guess this is not the place. I am not against gay people, I just dont like its deliberately overt display in some places and I am not against civil unions for them but I am against gay 'marriages' and yes they are very different.
Ah, so it's a bit icky and not your cup of tea and should be banned. How very enlightened, and not at all indicative of your personal preferences reaching into other people's private sphere, dressed up as morality.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
It's about time this thread got moved to Cake Stop. It ceased to have anything to do with pro cycling pages ago.0
-
It's about time this thread got moved to Cake Stop. It ceased to have anything to do with pro cycling pages ago.
This is actually a verbatim transcription of an argument Chris Froome and Bradley Wiggins had in 2012. We're just re-enacting it.
Back on topic: I don't condemn Luca for liking a bit of whizz, but he's a daft bugger to get caught.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
