Media 'slander' or 'support' for drugies

[pencil shavings]

Carring on from the Maddy thread, I think we all have to take into account that the media is very fickle and will do what ever it deems necessary to sell more papers/air time etc. I would be surprise if the media turn on the McCanns in the near future.

But the thing that gets to me is the disparity between how drug users are treated in the media.
SUPOSIDLY drugies are the bain of the world (which I dont agree with but thats a different topic) so why does the media suport Amy Whinehouse and say that its sad and she needs to get treatment and all that. Even Lilly Allen lends her suport to the star.
Then we have Pete Docherty who is a great example of a long term user in the media spot light, and while he isnt suported by the media they certainly arnt jumping down his mouth!
So these two 'stars' are high on illegal drugs in public (which I do have a problem with) yet there are little or no repercussion for them. wtf????

On the other hand we have (I for get his name) that East 17 member who had his whole carrer destroyed by commenting that he thought 'E's were safe to use. (they are actually one of the safer class A drugs) Then got trapped by a reporter when we was appoligising for that statement! At least he tried to make right his mistake.
He wasnt rampaging through the streets high as a kite or stumbling out of his house with blood on his feet from injecting between his toes.:smt013
He wasnt pulling out of gigs coz he was too high and his body couldnt take it, swearing at fans who have paid to watch him perform.

While im not condoning claiming they are safe to use, the punishment should fit the crime, and in a country where we suposidly have freedom of speech he is surly entitled to his oppinion?

It is a sad and cynical world we live in these days, and for what ever reason Amy Whinehouse fits the bill for needing 'help' and that East 17 guy needed to be crusified!

This is just a rant really about the crapness of the media and the willingness of the 'blind' members of our society to adopt the medias views without making their own informed desissions.

*sorry about the spelling*

[gettin2dizzy]

The goverment highlights two famous cases for the banning of weed.
1. 17yr old smoked it 'regularly', went out 'wanting to stab a black woman' and did.
2. 15 yr old had smoked it in his past, and knifed someone to death.

Both were attributed to marjuana, regardless of the alcohol in their system and psychosis.

The support for it causing schizophrenia was a study of 14 people in Russia, in a schizophrenic hospital where 8 of them had smoked it in their past. But of course this allowed the media to jump on and whinge. It's like saying it causes people to have legs as everyone who smoked it has them.

However I don't think it would do a lot of good if everything was available all of the time, but no worse than it is now - and allowing people to exercise some freedom. Alcohol is the biatch!

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Were E17 on the decline when he got crusified? I can't remember, but I suspect so. It's alot easier to attack people when they're not popular, and since Amy Winehouse is popular at the moment, that's probably why she's not getting it in the neck from the press.

[neio79]

agreed, why should celebs get away with blatently taking the P out of the law. Both Winehouse and that waste of space Dockerty should be banged up. There is enough evidence for possesin of class A's

[Jabba]

Both Winehouse and that waste of space Dockerty should be banged up.

Winehouse is young, misguided and talented. Docherty is none of these.

He has had more chances to reform his ways than most people deserve and wasted them all.

There's still hope for Winehouse and I hope she sorts herself out rather than waste her life. It is too late for Docherty and I have no sympathy because he's taken other people down with him.

Just my view ;)

[neio79]

Winehouse is young, misguided and talented. Docherty is none of these.



that maybe the case but she is still blatently breaking the law and making a mockery of it in the public eye, so she should be punnished like others. Why should she get away with it??

[Jelster]

That's the media all over though isn't it... Build somebody up, support them, then when it suits them, they'll be the first ones trying to knock them down...

Sorry, I don't have any time for repeat drug offenders. Lot's of many differing people fall into drugs habits, but many see the error of their ways, seek help and are "cured". Repeat offending is just negligence, and should be treated as such

To err once is a mistake, to do it again is abuse.

It's illegal, don't do it.

.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

that maybe the case but she is still blatently breaking the law and making a mockery of it in the public eye, so she should be punnished like others. Why should she get away with it??

To be fair, she's not hurting anyone else but herself. It's not like she's funding her habit through crime.

[neio79]

To be fair, she's not hurting anyone else but herself. It's not like she's funding her habit through crime.
true yes but so do other normal drug users but they get banged up and they dont do it in full view of everyone. So again what makes her so special??

[pencil shavings]

To be fair, she's not hurting anyone else but herself. It's not like she's funding her habit through crime.

Does that meen its ok for the wealthy to break the law?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

true yes but so do other normal drug users but they get banged up and they dont do it in full view of everyone. So again what makes her so special??

When was the last time you heard of a drug user being given a streach behind bars? Normaly get let off with a warning.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Does that meen its ok for the wealthy to break the law?

Not because they're wealthy, but because if they're not hurting anyone why care? Think of it like speeding.

[neio79]

When was the last time you heard of a drug user being given a streach behind bars? Normaly get let off with a warning.
True.
Not because they're wealthy, but because if they're not hurting anyone why care? Think of it like speeding.

Again i agree to a point.

but still they should be treated like others

[gettin2dizzy]

Not because they're wealthy, but because if they're not hurting anyone why care? Think of it like speeding.
+1

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Again i agree to a point.

but still they should be treated like others

Perhaps. Bare in mind that lots of people are getting hurt all the time from taking legal drugs (alcohol). So really, someone who takes a different type of drug that just happens to be illegal but hurts no-one simply isn't worth worrying about.

[thedonal]

Perhaps. Bare in mind that lots of people are getting hurt all the time from taking legal drugs (alcohol). So really, someone who takes a different type of drug that just happens to be illegal but hurts no-one simply isn't worth worrying about.

I agree with this- people often don't take into account the similarities between recreational use of illegal drugs and socially acceptable ones like alcohol.

For occasional and moderate users of some drugs, it's not ncessarily worse, physiologically or socially (meaning behaviour) than having a few pints or sambuccas. However, again, there is the other side of illegal drugs- the trade and abuse and violence that is associated with this. Someone who's going to act like an ***hole after a few puffs/lines/pills is exactly the sort of person who will do the same after a few pints.

And also, people can be a little unsympathetic to alcoholics or people who are addicted to illegal drugs- they are suffering from an illness that needs help and support. However, addicts are often difficult socially and have to get to a point where they 'want' to get better. So again, there are many sides to it.

So many people only see the one side of these things and the media, in particular, as with everything else that is covered, chooses to portray only one aspect of a situation.

EVERY story has a slant and you NEVER hear either the WHOLE story or the whole TRUTH in the media. This may sound a little paranoid, but I prefer to be healthily skeptical these days...

[neio79]

Perhaps. Bare in mind that lots of people are getting hurt all the time from taking legal drugs (alcohol). So really, someone who takes a different type of drug that just happens to be illegal but hurts no-one simply isn't worth worrying about.

Yes i suppose you are right, very good point of view.

[SoulKiss]

To be fair, she's not hurting anyone else but herself. It's not like she's funding her habit through crime.

Have you heard her songs :P

[Ceri JC]

The main reason I object to drug use is when it results in the user having to resort to other criminal activity (eg housebreaking) which does effect me, to pay for it. The chances of Winehouse etc. having to break into my house to fund their habits are slim, hence I'm not half as bothered about them getting off their t1ts, as some scumbag down the towerblock of flats less than a mile away from my house. Winehouse and co. were getting monged then crashing their cars/attacking people, that's a different matter, but if they are just sat in their house staring at the walls, it's a bit sad, but not anything that bothers me.

[gettin2dizzy]

The main reason I object to drug use is when it results in the user having to resort to other criminal activity (eg housebreaking) which does effect me, to pay for it. The chances of Winehouse etc. having to break into my house to fund their habits are slim, hence I'm not half as bothered about them getting off their t1ts, as some scumbag down the towerblock of flats less than a mile away from my house. Winehouse and co. were getting monged then crashing their cars/attacking people, that's a different matter, but if they are just sat in their house staring at the walls, it's a bit sad, but not anything that bothers me.

:cheers:

Same applies to alcohol, just drink it have a good night. When you start causing trouble you can go on holiday with the McCanns ;)

[The Basket]

Drug taking is not a victimless crime and involves organised crime on a large scale. Not nice people who can do not nice things.

Heavy Cannabis usage is certainly linked to mental illness. The old phrase...in moderation....I suppose.

Can't put druggies in jail because they can get drugs there too. Shocked I was when I learnt that first hand.

[gettin2dizzy]

Drug taking is not a victimless crime and involves organised crime on a large scale. Not nice people who can do not nice things.

Heavy Cannabis usage is certainly linked to mental illness. The old phrase...in moderation....I suppose.

Can't put druggies in jail because they can get drugs there too. Shocked I was when I learnt that first hand.

and very easily too.

Most grass is grown locally nowadays. Lots of students do it :)
Maybe they should be encouraging us to do it to rid the organised crime ;)

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Drug taking is not a victimless crime and involves organised crime on a large scale. Not nice people who can do not nice things.

Although, the organised crime only exists because drugs are illegal. Legalise it and the illegal drug trade disapears.

The battle to stop the illegal drug trade is also one that the authorities can't win. The more drugs are stopped, the smaller the volume of drugs available for supply. Smaller supply means higher prices and the more profitable smuggling becomes. It becomes more appealing for criminals to try smuggling because of this, as drugs become more expensive then it's easier to transport because you need less of it to make a huge wadge of cash.

If legalised, drugs could be made safer and they would become alot cheaper too, meaning the need for addicts to commit crime to obtain funds for their habit would fall.

Whether the reasons above would offset any possible negative consiquences, or indeed have quite the positive effects listed above, who knows. It's certainly a complex problem though, but the 'ban it!' response is certainly not necessarily the best one.

[neio79]

and very easily too.

Most grass is grown locally nowadays. Lots of students do it :)
Maybe they should be encouraging us to do it to rid the organised crime ;)

You could argue the case for legalising certain drugs as well.

for example if the govenment banged out E at pharmicitical pure quality in a medium dose say 100mg per pill and at a price equal to the street pice say £1-2 would that not ensure it was consumed safely.

I know that if i was out for some pill action one wekend and i had the choice of Grade a good stuff or dealer cut cr8p claming to be pure i know what i would take.

As in most cases of people dying from E its pecause they drink too much water (Leah Betts) or the stuff they have is cut with Wafrine and other poisens etc.

People will take them regardless if they are legal so in some cases why not have it safly and more tightly controlled.

The same could be said for Canabis, in moderation its no worse than a pint and a fag.

Yes i agree some people will kick the ar*e out od it but people already do that with the other legal drug Alcohol. Which causes more problems than the current illigal use of recriational drugs.

It would also mean the government could tax them to earm income and might, help reduce some organised crime??

Just out of interest how many of us on here have at one time or another used these type of drugs?? Before i joined the army i took Speed, Pills, LSD and Canabis for recriational use.

[Biker Biggles]

Neio-----While I agree with what you just wrote,it seems dramatically at odds with some of your views on recent threads about other aspects of law and order in this country.Not trying to run with the fox and the hounds are you?;)

[Jelster]

It effects everybody who pays taxes....

Why should my money go towards supporting repeat drug addicts when it can be used for much better things ?

Like I said, I have no real problem with people that fall into the "drug scene" and try to get themselves out of it. But those who are "cleaned up" and then do it again should be put in an environment where they can't get access to drugs.

Yes, that will come out of my taxes too, but they should be forced to stop. Maybe I have a very blinkered view, but I just do not understand why people take drugs (but then I don't understand why people smoke either).

.

[Biker Biggles]

Ill drink to that.

Hang on :rolleyes:

[neio79]

Neio-----While I agree with what you just wrote,it seems dramatically at odds with some of your views on recent threads about other aspects of law and order in this country.Not trying to run with the fox and the hounds are you?;)

full of contradictions me.

Yes i am fuly aware that it goes agains some of the things i have said before:rolleyes:.

But i have hada mis spent youth and i like many am no angel. LOL

[Flamin_Squirrel]

It effects everybody who pays taxes....

Why should my money go towards supporting repeat drug addicts when it can be used for much better things ?

Like I said, I have no real problem with people that fall into the "drug scene" and try to get themselves out of it. But those who are "cleaned up" and then do it again should be put in an environment where they can't get access to drugs.

Yes, that will come out of my taxes too, but they should be forced to stop. Maybe I have a very blinkered view, but I just do not understand why people take drugs (but then I don't understand why people smoke either).

.

I'm afraid it's not that simple. Hard drug addiction isn't just a problem on it's own, it's a symptom of more serious social problems. Of course, it's possible that recreational drug users might find themselves in a deep spiral that, if helped they could escape. But in the main, the hard drug users are poor, possibly homeless and very likely unemployed.

Their unpleasant existances is the reason for their drug use as it provides their only escape. To clean them up, get them off drugs then send them back onto the street wouldn't solve anything.

As is often the case, identifying problems is easy, identifying their root causes is difficult, and solving them often impossible.

[pencil shavings]

Heavy Cannabis usage is certainly linked to mental illness. The old phrase...in moderation....I suppose.

well, just to point out somthing, you might actually be aware of this, im not trying to make anyone suck eggs.

It has been shown that heavy cannabis use increases your chance of certain mental illness by 40%!!
Now while this seems like alot, it isnt. You have a 0.1% chance of becoming schizophrenic if you have no family history of it from excessive use of cannabis.
So this meens that a 40% increace in your risk equates to you haveing a 0.14% of become schizophrenic. That 4 more people per 1000.
The old phrase.... there are lies, damn lies, and statistics....... I supose :p

Another example of the media making things to be worse than they are :smt120


I know this topic has gone off the media and onto drugs in general and I am of the view......
Legalise it all becasue:
1)removal of the illegal drug trade
2)less money for organised crime = less organised crime
3)police have X more free time because they dont have to deal with drugs = more police on the beat.
4)money generated by tax of the now legal drugs
5)the tax money can be used for education and rehabilition on a much larger and more effective scale than at pressent.
6)Amsterdam proves that it is possible
7)im sure there are more i cant think of ATM

It wont happen becasue:
1)people are scared of fundamental changes (we've always been taught that drugs are wrong, but alcihol is ok)
2)many people are controlled and manipulate by the illegal drug trade (think the USA in Afghainstan pre 9/11)
3)many jobs would possibly be lost, the DEA would not need to exisit anymore.
4)im sure there are more I cant think of ATM

I know alot has been not said in this post and merly implied and what has been said might not have been said well.
:smt109

[pencil shavings]

I'm afraid it's not that simple. Hard drug addiction isn't just a problem on it's own, it's a symptom of more serious social problems. Of course, it's possible that recreational drug users might find themselves in a deep spiral that, if helped they could escape. But in the main, the hard drug users are poor, possibly homeless and very likely unemployed.

Their unpleasant existances is the reason for their drug use as it provides their only escape. To clean them up, get them off drugs then send them back onto the street wouldn't solve anything.

As is often the case, identifying problems is easy, identifying their root causes is difficult, and solving them often impossible.

couldnt agree with you more. I think drugs are used as a scape goat, its the drugs that are the problem. while not addressing the socail issues that are there to give rise to the problem in the 1st place.

I think the soical issue isnt poverty.

I grew up on a rough estate in London, drug use was obvious and everywhere.
I moved to Guildford, drug use isnt obvious, but it is everywhere!! People have much more disposable income so are able to have and, to a degree, control it much more effective than some one who is craving their next hit.

I wish i knew what the route problem was :(

[thedonal]

well, just to point out somthing, you might actually be aware of this, im not trying to make anyone suck eggs.

It has been shown that heavy cannabis use increases your chance of certain mental illness by 40%!!
Now while this seems like alot, it isnt. You have a 0.1% chance of becoming schizophrenic if you have no family history of it from excessive use of cannabis.
So this meens that a 40% increace in your risk equates to you haveing a 0.14% of become schizophrenic. That 4 more people per 1000.
The old phrase.... there are lies, damn lies, and statistics....... I supose :p

Another example of the media making things to be worse than they are :smt120


I know this topic has gone off the media and onto drugs in general and I am of the view......
Legalise it all becasue:
1)removal of the illegal drug trade
2)less money for organised crime = less organised crime
3)police have X more free time because they dont have to deal with drugs = more police on the beat.
4)money generated by tax of the now legal drugs
5)the tax money can be used for education and rehabilition on a much larger and more effective scale than at pressent.
6)Amsterdam proves that it is possible
7)im sure there are more i cant think of ATM

It wont happen becasue:
1)people are scared of fundamental changes (we've always been taught that drugs are wrong, but alcihol is ok)
2)many people are controlled and manipulate by the illegal drug trade (think the USA in Afghainstan pre 9/11)
3)many jobs would possibly be lost, the DEA would not need to exisit anymore.
4)im sure there are more I cant think of ATM

I know alot has been not said in this post and merly implied and what has been said might not have been said well.
:smt109

I'm generally of the same opinion. Though how much would the govt's swallow, rather than putting back into education/rehab?!!

One small note though- the DEA would still exist-they deal with more than just the illegal drugs- they also control and regulate legal trading of controlled drugs. Much the same as the Home Office do the same over here. And lets face it- the illegal drug trade is not going to give up it's business that easily and there will always still be crime.

In fact, doing so would probably contribute to the legal export of the starting materials for developing countries.

[pencil shavings]

I'm generally of the same opinion. Though how much would the govt's swallow, rather than putting back into education/rehab?!!

One small note though- the DEA would still exist-they deal with more than just the illegal drugs- they also control and regulate legal trading of controlled drugs. Much the same as the Home Office do the same over here. And lets face it- the illegal drug trade is not going to give up it's business that easily and there will always still be crime.

In fact, doing so would probably contribute to the legal export of the starting materials for developing countries.

my bad, I ment the part that deals with ilegal drugs.

and I know governments are notoriously bad at transfering revenue to results but at least are arnt Zim!

I think that could also be another issue with the legalisation of drugs, the legal revenue that would then be open to governament who have the conditions to grow the raw crops could cause politial issues.

Ever heard of the hemp car?
http://www.hempcar.org/

who needs oil really???

ford did a hemp car in 1941!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rgDyEO_8cI

without wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, why isnt this been viewed as a real alternative to oil?

[The Basket]

don't use stats me old chum. I speak to doctors and friends of.

I suppose I've lost all sympathy for drug users but then I am rather an unsympathetic fellow.

I agree that the issues and problems are not going to be solved. So a way to control it is needed.

It is good that this debate is realistic and not moralistic.

[grh1904]

On the other hand we have (I for get his name) that East 17 member who had his whole carrer destroyed by commenting that he thought 'E's were safe to use. (they are actually one of the safer class A drugs)

:confused: - Eh?????

Try telling that to the family of Leah Betts, remember her.

She only ever took one "E" in her life, and it killed her.

I've been to lots of heroin overdoses, and due to excellence and skill of paramedics, coupled with some "wonder" drugs, an overdoser with a heart beat of less than 10 beats a minute gets brought back to life - not so with "E".

[RhythmJunkie]

...and the smokescreen continues.

http://kevinbraddock.com/features07.php

http://ecstasy.org/info/jim.html

....just so you know the facts behind this and not the media hype! Yes...bang on topic for once!:p

The above links were selected on a 'first come first click' basis.
A quick glance to prove to myself that the subject matter was what I intended and the decision was made to use the link.

I have no professional, friend or family links to the writers nor have I done any googling of their biographies to check out any credibility issues. Facts are facts no matter who writes them. IMHO :rolleyes:

pencil shavings I can't fault your views mate....spot on!:cool:

[RhythmJunkie]

Paramedics have helped me before and I'm eternally grateful.
I also know a Paramedic who goes home from work and beats up his wife and kids!

Now how do you explain that?

The world is a messed up place indeed! :(

[thedonal]

:confused: - Eh?????

Try telling that to the family of Leah Betts, remember her.

She only ever took one "E" in her life, and it killed her.

I've been to lots of heroin overdoses, and due to excellence and skill of paramedics, coupled with some "wonder" drugs, an overdoser with a heart beat of less than 10 beats a minute gets brought back to life - not so with "E".

The Leah Betts case was another example of a media circus around an event and I think her case is often used in the wrong context when mentioning recreational drug use. With no disrespect to her memory or family, Leah Betts is not the only person to have died from actions relating to taking drugs- she clearly heeded warnings to consume water to avoid dehydration, but didn't understand that drinking too much water is just as dangerous. And the number of ecstasy related deaths still remains relatively small- probably far less than heroin, for instance and it is a far less addictive drug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Betts

So, I believe that ecstasy is one of the less dangerous drugs, if taken in moderation and being a little educated about it's effects and how to take care of yourself.

I'm neither condoning or recommending popping "pills" or stating that E (or MDMA) is harmless, but I think that people should actually understand what they're letting themselves in for before going for it. Once you've swallowed that little pill, you're in for the ride, no matter what. Assuming that you know for sure what the ingredients are, of course.

[pencil shavings]

I'm neither condoning or recommending popping "pills" or stating that E (or MDMA) is harmless, but I think that people should actually understand what they're letting themselves in for before going for it. Once you've swallowed that little pill, you're in for the ride, no matter what. Assuming that you know for sure what the ingredients are, of course.

And proper education is the only way this is possible. I had an appallingly bad drug education at school and an even worse sex education. Both of theses things seriously need to be addressed, both I believe are core problems with our society which alot could be fixed with abit of education.

*just a little note*
thanks to everyone who took part in the discussion, kept it friendly despite it being a contensious area :smt023 (Im not trying to end it btw lol)

[RhythmJunkie]

Yes it is a nice friendly discussion.......I've been away for most of the week and I've got some catching up to do so a friendly discussion is the order of the day!
I just took me 3 hours to read Shadowangels thread. What a terrible situation. I think I'd be chewing through a tree with fury if it was my house! Its hard to believe someone can get away with all that!

Any road up...

The majority of drugs are taken in moderation by sensible people to unwind from their hectic daily lives and from observing the drug scene for several years I think the vast majority of those people are better for it. The drugs were originally developed at the turn of the century to treat mainly mind disorders such as sleep problems or anxiety, depression and anger management. Its no surprise to me that today these same drugs are being used to 'chill out' the hard working mortgage payers in their recreational hours!

I know lots of drug users. Gardeners, estate agents, merchant bankers, taxi drivers, computer systems analysts, nurses, they are not all dole scroungers as the media would have us believe! ;)

Myself....I don't drink, smoke or do drugs....junkie by name not by nature. Bet that raised a few eyebrows!! ;)

They still use ecstacy to treat depression especially the terminally ill...

[The Basket]

Yes it is a nice friendly discussion.......I've been away for most of the week and I've got some catching up to do so a friendly discussion is the order of the day!
I just took me 3 hours to read Shadowangels thread. What a terrible situation. I think I'd be chewing through a tree with fury if it was my house! Its hard to believe someone can get away with all that!

Any road up...

The majority of drugs are taken in moderation by sensible people to unwind from their hectic daily lives and from observing the drug scene for several years I think the vast majority of those people are better for it. The drugs were originally developed at the turn of the century to treat mainly mind disorders such as sleep problems or anxiety, depression and anger management. Its no surprise to me that today these same drugs are being used to 'chill out' the hard working mortgage payers in their recreational hours!

I know lots of drug users. Gardeners, estate agents, merchant bankers, taxi drivers, computer systems analysts, nurses, they are not all dole scroungers as the media would have us believe! ;)

Myself....I don't drink, smoke or do drugs....junkie by name not by nature. Bet that raised a few eyebrows!! ;)

They still use ecstacy to treat depression especially the terminally ill...

You no junkie? Boy that false advertising.

[RhythmJunkie]

:smt023