Neighbours Smoke

VfM4meplse

One summer evening several years ago, I came back from a trip to the supermarket. Walking home, I did not expect the fire engine that whizzed past me to be parked outside my home.

My rear garden backs onto a wooded area, and a fire had started behind my neighbour's fence and spread to mine. My neighbour blamed kids but we live in a very enclosed spot, and have never had any trouble before or since. The truth of the matter - not that my former neighbour will ever admit it - is that he had a cigarette and threw the stub behind the fence. It hadn't rained for weeks, and the trees were tinder just waiting to be set alight. Muppet.

GlynD

Gavin83 wrote: »

Care to expand?

Without doing any research at all: every young person I talk to now is involved in drug taking in some way, with few exceptions. I've seen so many whose lives have been ruined by the highly addictive properties of the harder drugs. I know alcohol is a problem for every generation but I've never seen alcohol issues be as prevalent as drugs. Bear in mind I live in a fairly rural (or at least semi-urban) environment.

I hate sounding like my father's generation but that's how it appears to me. Would you concur? Where's the Weegie when you need him?

esuhl

GlynD wrote: »

Thank you for pointing out the inadequacies of my prose. I take it you got my point?

Not really - you contradicted yourself by saying that you don't understand why people would take recreational drugs (implying that you are a better person than recreational drug users - "why can't everyone be just like me?" you seem to be saying)... And then you say that you use recreational drugs!

It's that kind of arbitrary thinking, "I'm right in my recreational drug choices; other people are immoral" that makes a mockery of the drugs debate.

People will always engage in risky, perhaps fundamentally unwise behaviour. The role of society must surely be either to protect the freedom of the individual to do as he/she likes with their life inasmuch as it doesn't interfere with others OR to ensure that the individual is protected from harming themselves even if they choose to do so (depending on your political/ethical ideologies).

The criminalisation of personal drug use means that users are less likely to seek help due to social stigma and fear of prosecution. It also means that the contamination and purity issues of black market supplies will cause more harm.

onlyroz wrote: »

At least you don't have to buy them from a drug baron in a back-alley, and you know exactly what's in them and who made them.

Which is exactly the kind of reason that drug possession ought to be legalised.

At the moment, a huge proportion of shoplifting is done by heroin addicts stealing to provide for their next fix. They often sell the items that they have stolen for far less than their retail value, meaning that if they have a £100/day habit, they may need to steal £1000/day to fund that. And what happens when they are caught for the 43rd time? A caution or a conditional discharge or a tiny fine (judging by the little snippets of information I glean from TV programmes).

Wouldn't it be better if problematic drug users could receive the heroin they needed under medical supervision, with an enforced rehabilitation/counselling program, and far stricter sentences for shoplifting?

It would certainly be an expensive welfare program, but we currently spend billions on a daft, sanctimonious "war on drugs" and lose billions due to drug-related crime. We create a black market where organised crime and terrorism can flourish because of illicit demand and still we keep fighting the losing battle and moralising that this is the only "right way" to tackle the problem.

I don't know exactly what the answer is, because you can't force people to act rationally or minimise the harm they do to themselves, but if we can cultivate a society where addicts are helped with their addictions at an early stage, and are directed to healthcare services before they make the situation worse, then hopefully we can reduce the number of addicts, the amount of drug-related crime, and the profits of organised crime.

Anyway, I've just realised how off-topic this is getting, so I'll shut up now!

olibrofiz

Crikey, this has gone mad since I read and ran yesterday. I was going to post....

I smoke, but am considerate to my neighbours & people & situations.

The other week there was a lot of smoke wafting through my open back door, I looked over next doors fence to be faced with 5 teenagers looking like rabbits caught in headlights, and I asked them to smoke their fags down the garden.

Not cos the smoke bothered me, but it smelled funny, and I was starting to feel light headed and a bit like an extra in the Matrix

Thanks for the tip on windchimes, next time I might throw some over the fence

GlynD

esuhl wrote: »

Not really - you contradicted yourself by saying that you don't understand why people would take recreational drugs (implying that you are a better person than recreational drug users - "why can't everyone be just like me?" you seem to be saying)... And then you say that you use recreational drugs!

It's that kind of arbitrary thinking, "I'm right in my recreational drug choices; other people are immoral" that makes a mockery of the drugs debate.

People will always engage in risky, perhaps fundamentally unwise behaviour. The role of society must surely be either to protect the freedom of the individual to do as he/she likes with their life inasmuch as it doesn't interfere with others OR to ensure that the individual is protected from harming themselves even if they choose to do so (depending on your political/ethical ideologies).

The criminalisation of personal drug use means that users are less likely to seek help due to social stigma and fear of prosecution. It also means that the contamination and purity issues of black market supplies will cause more harm.



Which is exactly the kind of reason that drug possession ought to be legalised.

At the moment, a huge proportion of shoplifting is done by heroin addicts stealing to provide for their next fix. They often sell the items that they have stolen for far less than their retail value, meaning that if they have a £100/day habit, they may need to steal £1000/day to fund that. And what happens when they are caught for the 43rd time? A caution or a conditional discharge or a tiny fine (judging by the little snippets of information I glean from TV programmes).

Wouldn't it be better if problematic drug users could receive the heroin they needed under medical supervision, with an enforced rehabilitation/counselling program, and far stricter sentences for shoplifting?

It would certainly be an expensive welfare program, but we currently spend billions on a daft, sanctimonious "war on drugs" and lose billions due to drug-related crime. We create a black market where organised crime and terrorism can flourish because of illicit demand and still we keep fighting the losing battle and moralising that this is the only "right way" to tackle the problem.

I don't know exactly what the answer is, because you can't force people to act rationally or minimise the harm they do to themselves, but if we can cultivate a society where addicts are helped with their addictions at an early stage, and are directed to healthcare services before they make the situation worse, then hopefully we can reduce the number of addicts, the amount of drug-related crime, and the profits of organised crime.

Anyway, I've just realised how off-topic this is getting, so I'll shut up now!

I'm a little bit perplexed. I am only making passing (and informed) comment. I'm not being sanctimonious. If I were to take the time and trouble to write a thesis on it you'd understand perfectly where I'm coming from. In fact I suspect you actually do.

Anyway, you've had your rant and I hope it's made you feel better.

Drugs are bad m'kay - drink is good for you.

spadoosh

olibrofiz wrote: »

Crikey, this has gone mad since I read and ran yesterday. I was going to post....

I smoke, but am considerate to my neighbours & people & situations.

The other week there was a lot of smoke wafting through my open back door, I looked over next doors fence to be faced with 5 teenagers looking like rabbits caught in headlights, and I asked them to smoke their fags down the garden.

Not cos the smoke bothered me, but it smelled funny, and I was starting to feel light headed and a bit like an extra in the Matrix

Thanks for the tip on windchimes, next time I might throw some over the fence

Lol, i very much doubt you were getting high of their joint

GlynD

olibrofiz wrote: »

Thanks for the tip on windchimes, next time I might throw some over the fence

A half brick would be more effective, unless you can get a particularly large set of windchimes - like a couple of organ pipes.

olibrofiz

:D the large windchime variety was what I was considering

Spadoosh - tounge in cheek :rotfl:

adouglasmhor

esuhl wrote: »

Not really - you contradicted yourself by saying that you don't understand why people would take recreational drugs (implying that you are a better person than recreational drug users - "why can't everyone be just like me?" you seem to be saying)... And then you say that you use recreational drugs!

It's that kind of arbitrary thinking, "I'm right in my recreational drug choices; other people are immoral" that makes a mockery of the drugs debate.

People will always engage in risky, perhaps fundamentally unwise behaviour. The role of society must surely be either to protect the freedom of the individual to do as he/she likes with their life inasmuch as it doesn't interfere with others OR to ensure that the individual is protected from harming themselves even if they choose to do so (depending on your political/ethical ideologies).

The criminalisation of personal drug use means that users are less likely to seek help due to social stigma and fear of prosecution. It also means that the contamination and purity issues of black market supplies will cause more harm.



Which is exactly the kind of reason that drug possession ought to be legalised.

At the moment, a huge proportion of shoplifting is done by heroin addicts stealing to provide for their next fix. They often sell the items that they have stolen for far less than their retail value, meaning that if they have a £100/day habit, they may need to steal £1000/day to fund that. And what happens when they are caught for the 43rd time? A caution or a conditional discharge or a tiny fine (judging by the little snippets of information I glean from TV programmes).

Wouldn't it be better if problematic drug users could receive the heroin they needed under medical supervision, with an enforced rehabilitation/counselling program, and far stricter sentences for shoplifting?

It would certainly be an expensive welfare program, but we currently spend billions on a daft, sanctimonious "war on drugs" and lose billions due to drug-related crime. We create a black market where organised crime and terrorism can flourish because of illicit demand and still we keep fighting the losing battle and moralising that this is the only "right way" to tackle the problem.

I don't know exactly what the answer is, because you can't force people to act rationally or minimise the harm they do to themselves, but if we can cultivate a society where addicts are helped with their addictions at an early stage, and are directed to healthcare services before they make the situation worse, then hopefully we can reduce the number of addicts, the amount of drug-related crime, and the profits of organised crime.

Anyway, I've just realised how off-topic this is getting, so I'll shut up now!

Even when the junkies are given a "substitute" narcotic at public expense they want more to get a buzz and top up with Valium, smoke smack or drink on top of it, they then act like nutters, losing all sense of proportion and to get in this state they commit petty crimes, or worse end up selling themselves for money or carry out crimes of violence when going through withdrawal symptoms.
I spent many leaves when in my early twenties being told the butchers bill of friends from school or from Scouts or just local kids I and my brothers played with growing up, who had died, been sectioned, been jailed, got the virus etc. Once they have a habit risk taking behaviour and diminished judgement come knocking.

spadoosh

olibrofiz wrote: »

:D the large windchime variety was what I was considering

Spadoosh - tounge in cheek :rotfl:

Not joint in mouth!