A rant about life in Frankfurt

Ami, I never took your comments personally...but I still think that when you said anyone with the view that beer is as bad as heroin is a moron included me also as I have that view.

Of course 1 beer compared to 1 shot of heroin is not as bad..but I am taking it as the bigger picture and basing my comments on alcholism compared to junkyism (new word) and stand by my opinion that it is just as bad.

The way I see it.. one glass of wine to steady your nerves could easily turn into 10 bottles a day if you are that way inclined...1 joint could easily turn into a shot of heroin...if you are that way inclined.


Yes I do have children...but often try to pretend I haven't . I can't do the comparison as you have..."1 pint or a shot of heroin"...it's not reality is it? Nobody goes straight to heroin and nobody goes straight to alcoholism...its a gradual process. A better comparison is "Mum I had a pint" or "Mum I had a spliff"...and if he did do that he would be grounded ( and I would confiscate his spliff ) but I'm not going to worry that he is turning into an alky or a druggie.

so that you could smoke it?
Sorry - I'm gone :excl:

A lot of people who use heroin have their habit under control. You take heroin and still do an honest days work. A heroin addict lying in the gutter is not a typical user. Just as the alcoholic lying in the gutter in not typical of people who drink.

Right I'm off for a quick stiff one. Cheers all!

At first I read "a quick spliff" !!


Just like Kate Moss and Boy George! Crikey, perhaps I should do a line of cocaine every morning, you know, to get me in the mood for work like those two do... :doh:

What else would one do with a good spliff?

I'm with Andrea on this one. There are people who use drugs, and people who don't, and it's irrelevant which drug that is. Of those who do, there are some who don't know when to stop.

The end result is the same. As far as prohibition is concerned: Just look at America in the 30's. Alcohol is the most widely used drug, it is socially accepted, and the statistics prove that the incidence of lifes ruined as a percentage of the population is much higher from alcohol than from all the forbidden drugs together. Merely because of the much wider use and misuse.

AMI: even if only 10% of those using alcohol are serious misusers (and the regular intake of more than 2 pints in one day is considered to be misuse medically), that is still more of the population than there are drug addicts.

Many people enjoy an occasional glass of wine, or a beer, others enjoy an occasional spliff. Some drink brandy, or whiskey, every day, others jack up on heroin, or coke..

It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it.

In that respect, there is very little difference between alcoholics and drug addicts, both have an uncontrolled addiction to their preffered drug. The end results in the extreme cases are indeed the same.

So what about uncontrolled eating? Or even uncontrolled not eating? Hypochondriacs? They are also addictions, as the definition of an addiction is a compulsive habit.

That is the result of a psychological deficiency, not an illness. It is irrelevant if that is alcohol, "drugs", medicine, chocolate, coffee or tea. Even salt and sugar, and chicken vindaloos, are habit building. As are fast cars, bungee jumping and parachuting, or even flying kites.

It is all just a question of your kick, and how well you can control it -- there will always be some who can't, and wreck at least their own and their family's lives, and maybe a few others as well.

As far as alcohol and hard drugs are concerned: alcoholics kill more uninvolved third parties than druggies do. That is a statistical fact. More families are destroyed by alcohol abuse than all other drugs together.

In line with this thread did anybody watch Pride of Britain last night where people get awards for acts of bravery.

What really peed me of was the guy who got an award for having a hard life, turning to alchohol and drugs, probably ruining other peoples lives along the way, then because he gets himself back on track he gets a bloody award...sorry but that really pisses me right off. What about kids that have a shit life but manage to get through it and come out the other end standing tall without resorting to drugs etc...

To me it sends out the message...go bad...get good...and get rewarded...What a heap of shit.

How the hell are you meant to teach your kids to stay out of trouble when they see others who cause havoc and then get a nice fat juicy prize.

Bloody nuts :doh:

...indeed ...nice if you can get one

Hmmm although I am not familiar with this particular award/person, to me it would seem that the message is "Sort your life out, get with the system and society will show it's appreciation"

What would you prefer, public burning of Junkies and Alkies while you sit and watch the show enjoying your G and T and drawing on the joint you just confiscated from your son?

While the kids that faced with the same problems as him managed to sort their lives out without the drugs get naff all...yeah nice one!!!


I wouldn't say public burning...but stick them on an island and let them ruin their own lives would get my vote.

I'm considering giving the joint back to him...let him get high go out and nick a few cars and then let the state pay for his driving lessons to help get him back on track...save me digging in my pockets wouldn't it?

haven't we already filled Australia?

@Mike_a: well said! Been trying to think how best to phrase my opinion on this and you have summed it nicely

Who said life was fair? I've never read that guarantee on the box it came in.

So how many award recipients were ex-drug addicts and how many were clean? If the majority were ex-addicts then your argument may have some substance, but as I get the impression that the person in question was unique then what's the problem?

I never said I agreed entirely with the giving of this award (especially as I dont know the details) but it seems to be a political message given out there and if it helps then so be it.


Point out an Island that would fit them all in then put your suggestion in the box, I'm sure it would work


Why not destroy it in front of him, it wouldn't smack so much of double standards then.

Not everybody's life comes in a box!


Most of the awards were given to people who had done something brave..like rescue someone from a burning building etc..more worthy in my eyes.

Depends what your idea of unique is...I would say that someone is unique by getting through the rough patches without the drugs!


This was hypothetical...my son wouldn't be stupid enough to go down that road!!

Well most seem to end it in one


I agree people who put themselves at risk to help others should be awarded, doesn't often happen though bit of a right place, right time thing. However maybe the person in question wasn't given the award for what he has done rather more for the message it would send out and the hoped for effect on those still in the gutter.

The word unique is applicable in this case if he was the only ex-junky given an award I suggest you look it up in a dictionary.


I really hope so for his sake, but famous last words and all that. It wouldn't be the first time.

Well obviously we'll have to agree to disagree on what our perception of the message is.


Yes Sir


I'm pretty positive I'm a better judge on that one than you.

If I may just dive in here. There has been an awful lot of rubbish talked here - mostly to defend or attack a ridiculous viewpoint which wasn't in fact expressed. Nobody (I hope) said "Heroin and Alcohol are just as bad as each other". I really hope nobody meant that, because it's so stupid it doesn't even merit discussion!

What was said is that addiction to alcohol is just as bad as addiction to heroin.
I am inclined to think it's not, but I can't really prove that - so let's leave that aside for the moment.

It is pretty much universally agreed that addiction to either is a 'bad' thing, so something should be done to reduce to a minimum the use of these 'drugs'. However, even if we agree that the effects of addiction to both are the same, that's not an argument for treating both drugs the same way. The argument "Alcohol causes just as much damage to society as heroin so they should either both be legal or both be illegal" is not a sensible viewpoint. As Mike_A has already pointed out, prohibition is a complete non-starter as the US proved between 1919 and 1933. It's pretty near impossible to enforce, costs a fortune and reduces government revenue from taxation.

So who wants to live in a society where heroin is legal? Not many people I shouldn't think. So of course it should remain illegal. It's an inconsistency, I'll grant you, but a necessary one.

Jean-Pierre

JP

Well done. At last, a sane voice.

Exactly what's happening with drugs now.

Bingo, eric. I often wonder what's wrong with simply legalizing drugs and then taxing the hell out of them. The revenue generated from taxes could then cover the drain that heavy drug users cause the economy, and could also be used to fund critical education programs to raise awareness of the consequences of drug use. The reason I've never tried 'hard' drugs is because my 7th grade health teacher scared the hell out of me, and I understand what could happen if I try something like heroin even just once. Also, I had the first hand example of Len Bias (does anyone here know who that is?? maybe you, Ami??).

I don't understand the reasoning behind criminilizing what is basically a victimless crime... Someone wants drugs, so they find someone who sells them. Period. There is no harm here, other than the harm to the person taking the drugs (and the user is obviously is unconcerned). I don't want drugs, so I don't buy them. Period. No one tries to talk me out of this position and no one tries to force them on me. People who want drugs will find a way to get them, regardless of the repercussions to self or society. There are no laws, no programs, no consequences you could invent that are strict enough to scare junkies away from their chosen addiction, be it drugs, alcohol, or nicotine. For example, I know that if they outlawed tobacco in Germany, I would be on the first train to Poland to load up on smokes!!

So, I'm off to have a few. Flame away, Britboarders!! Just try not to call me a moron, please. Thanks!

Cheers,
Rebecca

God bless you, my child.

I think that's an important point. Had the teacher not scared the hell out of you and instead said "It's legal, but dangerous. Try it if you want", your life (or indeed your death) may have been very different.


I'm sorry, but if you think about it seriously you'll realise this is cloud-cuckoo land. For a start it's not a decision one or two countries could take in isolation. The relaxed attitude towards drugs in the Netherlands has a big impact on the drugs available in other European countries (without their consent) - imagine what legalisation would do. Legalising something sends out completely the wrong message to impressionable people, particularly children. The state does have a duty of care for the more vulnerable in our society and it seems to me that legalising class A drugs is not the best way carry out that duty.

Although drugs being illegal is not ideal, it's probably the least worst option.

Jean-Pierre

A feisty thread this one. Does Frankfurt have this effect on everyone :doh:

Tempted to fan the flames by suggesting some of the contributors should drink less coffee, but instead try this on ZERO TOLERANCE and how it worked in NY (though the economy there probably has something to do with it - but certainly their approach towards drug addicts has been instrumental) ...

ZERO TOLERANCE

Sorry to quote again from the article I posted earlier but it seems to fit here.

"Scrap the nonsense of trying to obliterate drugs and acknowledge their presence in our society as we have with alcohol and tobacco. Legalization would result in:

1. purity assurance under Food and Drug Administration regulation;
2. labeled concentration of the product (to avoid overdose);
3. obliteration of vigorous marketing ("pushers");
4. obliteration of drug crime and reduction of theft crime
5. savings in expensive enforcement and
6. significant tax revenues.

Effort and funds can then be directed to educating the public about the hazards of all drugs. "

OK, those are the positives of legalising Class A drugs. Don't you see any negatives? If so, try to list them.

Jean-Pierre

Actually, now I think about it, it's not really fair for me to ignore your points (even though you ignored mine!) and try to get you to post contrary points. I do, however, feel that you are taking an astonishingly one-sided view of the issue. Legalising hard drugs and taxing them heavily will not eradicate (why use the word "obliterate"?) illegal drug supply. Presumably illegal drug supply would be cheaper because it's not taxed.

So to tackle the points you've raised:
1. True to an extent, but as I said, illegal activity would undoubtably continue. There is illegal tobacco smuggling now.
2. Labelling concentration does not prevent overdosing. It may reduce it, but I doubt it would make a large impact. Overdosing is usually caused by abstinence and then returning to your original dose without realising that your body no longer has the tolerance it had.
3. Vigourous marketing? What could be a better marketing strategy than seeing all your mates doing drugs? And if you think that the companies who get involved in legal drug trafficking are going to benevolently avoid using marketing which may inadvertently increase the sales of their product, you're a gooey-eyed virgin.
4. Well there certainly would be a reduction in drug crime if drug use is no longer a crime. Just as making rape legal would reduce rape crime.
5. See above for savings in prosecuting rape cases.
6. Oh yes, I like to get tax money on the backs of other people's suffering. If addiction really is an illness (as you suggested) and you're taxing the medication the sufferer needs, let's tax cancer treatments really, really heavily. Oh what a lot of money we've suddenly got. Whoopee.

From the sublime to the ridiculous.

Jean-Pierre

Maybe you could number yours for clarity

It would actually, as "true" overdosing is very rare as the LD50 of the addict is prohibitively high. The vast majority of reported heroin overdoses are actually adulterant poisonings or fatal interactions with alcohol or methadone.


If a person chooses to take drugs then he is the one injecting into his right arm with his OWN left arm, or visa verse...however with rape he's sticking his dick where it isn't wanted...both pricks...but oh so different!!!


I for one don't think it is an illness and I would rather see them suffer then the people they make suffer at the moment.

@ JP: Aren't all those things already happening??

While I am neither gooey-eyed nor a virgin (sorry, boys), I do know that this already takes place. Most people start drinking, smoking, or doing drugs as teenagers because their friends do.

From the National Institute on Drug Abuse (US):
No one wants to be the only one not participating. No one wants to be left out. So sometimes they make bad decisions, like taking drugs, to cover-up their insecurities. They don't think about how drugs can isolate you from your friends and family. They forget to look past that one party to see how things could turn out. Or maybe they just don't see the people around them who aren't using drugs.


As a smoker, I know that 70% of the cost of cigarettes is taxes, which are used to fund health care for us folks that can't read 'RAUCHEN STERBT FRÃœHER' on each pack that we buy. This system makes sense, because you force those that will be cared for later pay up-front in the form of taxes. Why couldn't the same system work for drugs?

Really? You surprise me. Aspirin has been labelled for years, but that doesn't seems to "prevent" overdosing.

I never said they were the same thing. I said if you make something legal then of course you reduce crime. To use another example, making burglary legal reduces "burglary crime". I'm not really sure why I had to clarify that point - it seemed fairly simple to me.


I don't either. But I would rather neither of us sufferred. And I certainly don't want to tax other people's sufferring.

Jean-Pierre

True, but legalisation would increase availability, increase consumption and therefore increase peer pressure.
With regard to the gooey-eyed bit, I was referring to anyone who thinks that legal drug pushing companies would market their products in a responsible and restrained way - that would be naive. And I know you're not naive either.


Rebecca, you've got a smashing pair of lungs. I would be prepared to forgoe your tobacco tax contributions and pay more income tax, if it meant they were kept in pristine condition, and you had a longer and less smelly life.

Jean-Pierre

But I would bet it has reduced it though!!! Which I think was the point.


I know what you said! Just taking drugs is a victimless crime, but leads to all the other crimes. Rape, murder, burglary etc aren't. In fact, legalising drugs would probably reduce half of those crimes as well...(reduce not prevent)!!


But don't you think they are already paying over the odds for their hit anyway, except the moneys going to the big boys so they can drive round in the sports cars and buy bling.

I found this article interesting:

http://leap.cc/publications/ellison/wantalldrugs.htm

had a quick read through this thread... trying to join in and found this comment on page 6
no but how many of you have seen 4 seven year olds in Germany pushing your car up the road, stealing it. This happened to a mate of mine in Liverpool!!

I think most countries have a problem with drug addicts, apart from Holland

If you scroll up, you will find that was what I said to contradict the assertion that it would prevent overdosing.


Now that's true and it's a problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think saying "Why should the drug barons make all the profits, let's have some go to the state" is a rational argument. I don't want that kind of blood money. I don't want my government funded by the misery of others.


Yes, it is an interesting article. There are however two point I'd like to make and I'll number them for those whose can't pick points out of prose.
1. Edward Ellison is pretty much a lone voice among law enforcemet agents. It reminds me of the Intelligent Design debate, where 100 scientists put there name to a document espousing ID. Those who believed in evolution gathered 3000 sgnatures from scientists called either Stephen or Stephanie who did not believe in ID. (I may have the figures slightly wrong - they are from memory)
2. For a man who talks about a "broad debate" he puts forward a remarkably narrow view on the subject. There's no chance that increasing availability will increase use? Sure? There's no chance that no matter how much you educate children they will still try things if they're available? Sure? There's no chance you might open up a Pandora's box which is impossible to shut? There's no chance you might be wrong?

Jean-Pierre

Hmm, I lived in Amsterdam for 18 months. That statement is rather like saying the only country that doesn't have a problem with torture is Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

Jean-Pierre

By the way, It's "The Netherlands" otherwise you'll get Heddwen (Kez) all worked up!

We obviously both read the original point differently then:


I read that as it would go some way to reducing overdoses not stopping them all together.

Not on its own perhaps not...but as a contribution to the overall argument..its a fair point.


A high percentage of government funding is created by someone elses misery anyway. Alcohol is taxed and some poor kid will be getting beaten to a pulp by his/her drunken father/mother...bet he/she isn't exactly living a misery free life.

That's not an argument! Something immoral happens so it doesn't matter if we do more immoral things!


No, we both read it the same. You chose to interpret the word 'avoid' as 'reduce'. I had already pointed out that 'reduce' would have been the correct word to use and now you're trying to tell me that I should have read 'avoid' as 'reduce' in the first place! Gadzooks! Try to admit it if you make a mistake!

Jean-Pierre

Err...no we didn't!!! I took the original "avoid" as "reduce" and you took it as "stop" and then gave the quote below, which shows clearly what you interpreted avoid as. I never told you what you should have read it as, I said that we may have read it differently.


And as I then stated...of course it would reduce it, no MAY about it..as true overdoses are rare...and most "overdoses" are caused by the mix, so to speak.


If someone chooses to take drugs...what's immoral about it? And I mean in the grand scheme of things...I don't agree with drug taking...(well not all ) but it's a choice. Based on my previous comments regarding alcohol...having a beer could be classed as immoral to some.

But avoid doesn't mean reduce. However prevent is a synonym of avoid.
You made a genuine mistake. Just accept it. Don't worry about it.

Jean-Pierre

Yes but sometimes it's a good idea to open your eyes and read between the lines.

I think most people reading what he said would know he didn't mean it would stop overdoses altogether and would have come to the assumption he meant reduce.

It was a genuine misunderstanding. Jus accept it. Don't worry about it.

Er, not necessarily true here. Go into one of your local discos (or maybe this kind of thing only happens in my part of the world) and leave your drink half-drunk standing around while you go to the loo. I would seriously recommend you don't touch it again.

Are there a set of dentures in your glass when you come back from the loo, Archie?

JP, I can't help observing there seems to be a lack of love in your posts. I had a similiar problem a while back now until the Bishop bought me a jumbo pack of viagra. They soon put a bit of zip back in my life again. I'll send you a couple for you to try. See if they do the same for you. Don't worry, it's perfectly normally for a man approaching 40 to have the odd hiccup now and again.

This is very disturbing indeed. The other day my friend's daughter was out at a bar nearby, had 2 small beers. The next thing she knew she was waking up in hospital. Apparently someone had spiked her drink. The scary thing is that the docs said that it was probably one of the substances which you can't detect in the body. They ran various tests and found nothing. She has an idea who it might have been that spiked her drink but of course there's no proof. I just don't know what is so funny about spiking someone's drink. What if she'd been allergic to something and died!!!

Even scarier is that this thing isn't just confined to big cities. Where I live is very rural...and now it seems you can't go down to the local for a few bevvies without someone trying to drug you, and that's here in peaceful and tranquil Sweden...a beacon of Europe (supposedly!)

I was told about this by the girls at work after I mentioned that my daughter had started to go to the discos in town. The first few times she went I sat at home worrying that she would come back OK. It is a serious problem but thankfully, the kids who go seem to know the rules of what not and what to do.

@Eric the Vicar: isn't it way past your bedtime?

Yes, I think I read about that story in the papers. Those poor choirboys. Still I suppose the two of you believed you were doing the right thing.
Thanks for the kind offer, but I will keep it natural if it's all the same to you.

Jean-Pierre

Incidentally, while we're on the subject, a good friend of mine was drugged and raped. Not really very funny at all.

Jean-Pierre

Sorry about that :$

Now then John-Pierre - I do hope you're not indulging in a bit of Bishop bashing?

It's amazing what you can find on the internet. I don't know who it's by, but I thought this seemed quite appropriate to the subject

Jean-Pierre

The Lord moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform

He sometimes sees a sleeping child, peaceful in her bed
Her skin is soft, her hair is gold, her lips are tender red.
With gentle hands he blocks her mouth and holds her little nose
He whispers to her as she kicks, "Be quiet my little rose"
And when she stops he knows she's gone. He rapes her in her bed.
He leaves her there, alone and cold. Mummy's angel's dead.

The Lord moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform

He often goes to Africa to get a bit of sun
He walks around the little towns greeting everyone
He sees the coming famine and ponders for a while
"Another year of drought, I think" he orders with a smile
He listens to the screams of babes and children wafer thin
And when the meagre crops are ripe he sends the locusts in

The Lord moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform

Every now and then he likes to chill and have a lark
He packs in work, takes it easy, hangs out in the park
He lights a spliff and from his mates he scores a little speed
He shares a needle spiked with AIDS to satisfy their need
And when he has no money left he steals from all his friends
To buy the crack and heroin on which his life depends

The Lord moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform

He smiles upon the evil, and smiles upon the good
He doesn't help the righteous, as you might think he would
He sometimes kills a virgin and sometimes saves a whore
He doesn't differentiate between the ones who love him more
So if you think you'll pray to God, think once again because
He doesn't care, he isn't there, and probably never was

But don't be fooled and think you might as well be bad
There's pride in looking back upon the honest life you've had
And saying that I never caused a total stranger pain
By stealing everything they had for my own selfish gain
I never made another human cry themselves to sleep
Because she'd never read her daughter, the rhyme about Bo Peep

Amen!

Interesting thread.

Just a pity I wasn't around at the right time to post my own opinions, although at least 90% of my opinions have been covered by other posts, would have been nice to have been able to post at the appropriate point.

It's a hard life being stuck on site comissioning!

Isn't that German word order?