I find this tortuous logic deplorable but perhaps understandable in a very naive and simplistic way. What perplexes me however, is why this logic only ends up being deployed in relation to recreational drug use.Archbishop Diarmuid Martin today unleashed a scathing attack on recreational drug users, accusing of them of being inherently connected to gangland violence.
Maybe because he only values Irish lives? But I'm sure if we googled we'd find other acts made by him to show he does care about more people.For example, why are the same people not accusing purchasers of Chinese goods as being "inherently connected to" the genocide in Darfur, or why are buyers of American products never castigated for supporting to ongoing war and "ruination of lives, many of them young and vulnerable" in Iraq?
Can't disagree with that myself either. Consumers of illegal drugs are breaking the law and contributing to wider criminality. It's not rocket science.how do the drugs get here? organised criminals. who do they sell it to? drug users, 1+1=2. cant stand the bishop tbh but he is right on this occasion
Most Chinese goods (for better or worse) are not illegal to trade here so the comparison does not really hold up. Besides, I'm sure that the Catholic Church and other organizations who raised the issue of illegal drug dealing and use have also highlighted some of the human rights issues mentioned above too.What perplexes me however, is why this logic only ends up being deployed in relation to recreational drug use.
For example, why are the same people not accusing purchasers of Chinese goods as being "inherently connected to" the genocide in Darfur, or why are buyers of American products never castigated for supporting to ongoing war and "ruination of lives, many of them young and vulnerable" in Iraq?
Personally I can't see anything wrong even if they do get addicted and don't directly harm the person or property of non consenting others. However this is a Libertarian utopian (dystopian to some) vision that I don't really see happening any time soon. So as long as the law of the land deems the trafficking and use of certain drugs to be illegal then surely people should abide by the law? Those who disagree with the law in the first place should campaign for a change rather than conveniently just ignoring it.I can't see anything wrong if an adult wants to willingly use recreational drugs, as long as they are not addicted to them (eg alcoholic). There are many thing people get addicted to, sex, gambling etc.
I also can't see a problem with people growing or processing recreational drugs.
There's a big difference between recreational use of illegal and legal drugs.I was a recreational drug user and throughly enjoyed them. Among the best decisions I ever made. I still drink, so maybe this shouldn't be in the past tense.
This is simply not true. For example, never before (as far as I can see) has alcohol been so widely available and cheap to source in Ireland and yet I know alcoholics who still steal money from their nearest and "dearest" to fund their addiction.If we supplied, regulated and educated we would be much better off as a society and the Gardai would be free to focus their attention on other matters. Serious drug users would not be mugging and assaulting people (as they themselves said on Joe Duffy's show last week) in order to feed their massively overpriced and illegally supplied addiction. Alas this is the tough and unpopular route, and thus a route our government are sure not to take.
Why, exactly?I find this tortuous logic deplorable but perhaps understandable in a very naive and simplistic way.
Really? I don't think so. I myself would choose never to give custom to any business if I am aware that it was being owned, managed, or connected to, IRA or gangland figures. I don't think this sort of stance is particularly unusual. The phenomenon of the boycott has a long and not entirely dishonourable history in this country.What perplexes me however, is why this logic only ends up being deployed in relation to recreational drug use.
...and, following your logic, why were buyers of Irish goods in the UK never castigated for supporting the actions of the IRA in the 70s, 80s and 90s?For example, why are the same people not accusing purchasers of Chinese goods as being "inherently connected to" the genocide in Darfur, or why are buyers of American products never castigated for supporting to ongoing war and "ruination of lives, many of them young and vulnerable" in Iraq?
Yes, I don't disagree with this. However, I don't want to live in a sterile world, where all risks are assessed by government. I want to make my own choices and live with the consequences.In response to leghorn, there are other issues aside from addiction, that can arise from "recreational" use. Medication by doctors carries enough risks and they have a more qualified idea of the possible dangers and side-effects.
Most benefits in life are illusory and selfish.The "benefit" derived by most "recreational" drug users is illusory and selfish
Some people go to every festival just to listen to music - which to be honest is a bit pathetic.and knowing that he goes to every festival going just to score - to be honest is a bit pathetic - for a guy soon to be 40.
That not correct leghorn, plenty of lifes pleasures are not selfish - take shopping for one....!Most benefits in life are illusory and selfish.
This link is there largely because of government policy.The thing is with recreational drugs is yes there is a link between the user and the supplier (who is linked with gangland activity).. and please dont present the arguement for legalising coccaine,
Oh really? - so what's its LD50 (median lethal dose,50%) then? Compare this to alcohol. LSD is another interesting one.what ever about cannibas it is dangerous.
What is it that makes people think that their risk-taking is going to be so much different to other people's risk-taking? There is no shortage of literature and information in several formats (including first person accounts) available about the effects of drug abuse (and your "recreational" is an abuse of what is a medicine). So why does each new fool want to experience the same worn tread for themselves that others before them have learnt the hard way to dismiss and walk away from? We should be willing to learn from the experience of others and not so bent on experiencing it all ourselves. If you want to take a risk take a constructive one rather than a destructive one. Take a risk on a business venture, take a risk on a person as a friend, take a risk on a person as a partner. Humans are very poor risk assessors on the whole and place far too much importance on their own "control" of a situation, drug users are no different and are probably the worst offenders.Yes, I don't disagree with this. However, I don't want to live in a sterile world, where all risks are assessed by government. I want to make my own choices and live with the consequences.
Diarmuid Martin, I believe.Air travel is dangerous, bad for the environment, passengers get exposed to radiation etc. Planes also run on oil products, and we all know how much death and misery oil causes. Why doesn't bishop whateverhisnameis complain about that?
Most benefits in life have an element of illusion and selfishness otherwise it is difficult to incentivise people to engage in them. But most benefits have additional individual and/or communal benefits which drug abuse is wholly without. A pleasant meal is a delight to the palate and stimulus to the brain but it is also fuel for life. Drugs out of the context of medicinal purposes have no use. Abusers have to generate justifications for wholly pointless exercises in self-harm.Most benefits in life are illusory and selfish.
Funnily enough it is the purpose of a festival... the drug abuse isn't.Some people go to every festival just to listen to music - which to be honest is a bit pathetic.
No the link is largely there because the market is willing to buy off anyone at any cost (and I am not talking only monetary here).This link is there largely because of government policy.
So if it doesn't kill you it's alright?Oh really? - so what's its LD50 (median lethal dose,50%) then? Compare this to alcohol. LSD is another interesting one.
Yes - but show this lack of support by, for example, lobbying/campaigning for changes to the relevant laws but not by simply saying - "oh those laws are stupid or don't suit me personally so we should just ignore them"!If you don't think the drug user is more dangerous, then why support the established view that all users are criminals and they must be witch hunted as the law's top priority?
Yes - but show this lack of support by, for example, lobbying/campaigning for changes to the relevant laws but not by simply saying - "oh those laws are stupid or don't suit me personally so we should just ignore them"!
I have dabbled in almost all illegal drugs
Aha!! knew it !
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?