Home Drink & Drugs
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options

Are dealers the devil incarnate?

Following on from THIS, its an important question to ask. Are dealers evil, or just out to let people have a good time?

*throws in his 2p-worth*

Small dealers who get a few pills for their mates on a Friday night are nothing but people out to have a good time, and should be treated as such. A jail sentence is probably a bit harsh, but a punishment should be dealt out...drugs are illegal, therefore breaking the law like that needs punishment.

But big dealers quite probably are, if not evil, very very cynical. Noone should try to pretend that they have any regard for anyone but themselves...if someone like Leah Betts dies because the pill she took is badly contaminated, they dont care. Its just money to them, and for that they should be sent down for a very long time.

Its about time the drugs debate became sensible again, though...drugs screening should be available so that you can tell that your pills clean, and a company shouldnt be able to sack you for taking illegal drugs. And the punishments for taking them shouldnt be there at all...when a small dealer out for a good time with his mates gets more jail time than a mugger/burglar/drunk-driver, then someones got a very fucked up idea of justice.

Mind, having said all that, maybe it would be better if some recreational drugs, like cannabis, were legalised...its safer than smoking, for fucks sakes. But since when has there been logic in government <IMG alt="image" SRC="mad.gif" border="0">
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course they're not. We choose to buy from them so we're as much at fault, not that there is any fault with buying drugs, as you are.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dealers are just people filling a demand.

    Sure what they do is illegal, but in a lot of cases should it be?

    Bootleggers during Prohibition were doing the same thing, but there was and is no stigma towards them...one of my friends is really proud that his great-grandfather did it.

    People who take drugs make their own choice to do it, if every dealer out there stopped right now, I guarantee the would be a million people out there ready to take over.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit:
    <STRONG>Following on from THIS, its an important question to ask. Are dealers evil, or just out to let people have a good time?

    if someone like Leah Betts dies because the pill she took is badly contaminated, they dont care. </STRONG>

    I beg to differ, they do not set out to be murders, if they sell a contaminated pill then they will hurt somebody and as a result the police will be informed of there name. I think there is a mis-conception over dealers, they aren't pleasent people on the whole, but they aren't vicious heartless people.

    Secondly Leah Betts did not die from a contaminated pill, she did not even die from ecstasy or its direct effects, she died as a result of drinking far too much water and flooding her brain, a very stupid thing to do drugs or no drugs.

    Most dealers work on demand and deal in weed some more deal in pills, speed maybe acid at a push. It wouldn't be accurate to suggest that every dealer deals in everything. I think it is your dealers selling heroin and crack which get people addicted, that are the shady unpleasent types, most weed, pills etc changes hands in fairly small amounts between friends/dealers.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Secondly Leah Betts did not die from a contaminated pill, she did not even die from ecstasy or its direct effects, she died as a result of drinking far too much water and flooding her brain, a very stupid thing to do drugs or no drugs.

    Intercranial Pressure and it was too much alcohol and water combined, ecstasy being a anti-duretic and alcohol being a duretic, you think your thristy when your not and can't release all the liquid you are comsuming hense the intercranial pressure...

    Another reason she drank so much was due to the treatment her friends recommended when she felt a bit iffy being drink water... that of course is down to LACK OF EDUCATION which lets face it if the govenment really cared about people then they would tell and inform people what to do in those kind of situations instead of doing the 'Drugs are badd.. mmmmkay' and punishing people all the time....

    Ohhh well.. </rant>
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Justin Credible:
    <STRONG>Secondly Leah Betts did not die from a contaminated pill, she did not even die from ecstasy or its direct effects, she died as a result of drinking far too much water and flooding her brain, a very stupid thing to do drugs or no drugs.

    Intercranial Pressure and it was too much alcohol and water combined, ecstasy being a anti-duretic and alcohol being a duretic, you think your thristy when your not and can't release all the liquid you are comsuming hense the intercranial pressure...</STRONG>
    Yeah Justin's pretty much right there. People tend to dance lots on E and therefore get thirsty. They then go an drink vast quantities of water which flood the circulation causing all sorts of physiological effects which result in an increase in pressure in the skull, which sqishes the brain etc --> death.

    So actually her death was the direct result of her taking E without knowing what she should do (lack of education).

    But the government can't educate us about drugs because that would be near enough condoning drug use. So charities like YouthNet are left to do that. And sometimes the information doesn't get through.

    It's a difficult one.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>

    It's a difficult one.</STRONG>

    decriminlise recreational drugs, thats how 'difficult' it is, there is no logical reason why not
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by eb:
    <STRONG>decriminlise recreational drugs, thats how 'difficult' it is, there is no logical reason why not</STRONG>
    Oh come on. There are plenty of reasons why not. Cannabis when smoked is worse than tobacco (and look at the problems tobacco causes nowadays), and can cause short-term memory problems. Ecstasy, hmmm, we don't really know long-term effects yet because it hasn't been around long enough but amphetamines affect brain function and that can't be good. And LSD is hallucinogenic, nuff said.

    Don't get me wrong, if you want to take drugs then do it, I don't care. But we can't just legalise drugs willy nilly. Think about the massive trials medicinal drugs have to go through. If any of the recreational drugs went through the same process, none would be licensed. Alcohol wouldn't.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>
    Oh come on. There are plenty of reasons why not. Cannabis when smoked is worse than tobacco (and look at the problems tobacco causes nowadays), and can cause short-term memory problems. Ecstasy, hmmm, we don't really know long-term effects yet because it hasn't been around long enough but amphetamines affect brain function and that can't be good. And LSD is hallucinogenic, nuff said.

    Don't get me wrong, if you want to take drugs then do it, I don't care. But we can't just legalise drugs willy nilly. Think about the massive trials medicinal drugs have to go through. If any of the recreational drugs went through the same process, none would be licensed. Alcohol wouldn't.</STRONG>


    But people are allowed to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, so possible health affects aren't a legitimate reason, thats double standards. If recrational drugs are to remain illegal on that theory the surely the government should look at making alcohol and tobacco illegal ? of course that won't happen.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by eb:
    <STRONG>But people are allowed to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, so possible health affects aren't a legitimate reason, thats double standards. If recrational drugs are to remain illegal on that theory the surely the government should look at making alcohol and tobacco illegal ? of course that won't happen.</STRONG>
    This argument is used all the time. But you must see it is the most ridiculous argument for the legalisation of drugs.

    You are effectively saying that alcohol and tobacco are terrible (fair enough), so therefore we should legalise even more drugs which have to potential to be terrible too. It's absurd.

    We can't ban alcohol or tobacco. It simply can't be done. But that doesn't mean we have to un-ban illegal drugs for the sake of a bizarre equality in drugs. The country can't afford it.

    All drugs are bad, but at least we have the chance to reduce the effect of the 'worst' drugs by keeping them illegal. Otherwise in 50 years time we'll be asking ourselves what could we have been thinking be legalising harmful chemicals. And half the population over 60 will have mush for brains.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    On the occasions I have taken E I was told to drink water, but not too much. Very complicated, how are you supposed to know how much, especially when you are hot and sweaty from dancing?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>
    This argument is used all the time. But you must see it is the most ridiculous argument for the legalisation of drugs.

    You are effectively saying that alcohol and tobacco are terrible (fair enough), so therefore we should legalise even more drugs which have to potential to be terrible too. It's absurd.

    We can't ban alcohol or tobacco. It simply can't be done. But that doesn't mean we have to un-ban illegal drugs for the sake of a bizarre equality in drugs. The country can't afford it.

    All drugs are bad, but at least we have the chance to reduce the effect of the 'worst' drugs by keeping them illegal. Otherwise in 50 years time we'll be asking ourselves what could we have been thinking be legalising harmful chemicals. And half the population over 60 will have mush for brains.</STRONG>
    Firstly you mention the 'worst' drugs, well i think when you analyse the facts, perhaps the two worst are legal, certainly alcohol rivals heroin in the cold light of day.

    How is this argument absurd ? if person x decides he wants to go out and intoxicate himself, how does the government have the right to dictate with what, when they are of equal danger ? If you take j the old tart, he doesn't touch alcohol because of its dangers, it has landed him in trouble with the police and fighting both a direct result of alcohol, now does this mean he must go out and remain sober ? his sensible decision and yet he finds himself at a disadvantage, so he chooses to take e, is of far less danger to himself and others as a result, has a better night out and goes about his life. Now the law says he is a criminal as a result and the government would happily lock him up for doing it, is this really fair ? and thats what the argument boils down to, if my mate can go out, get pissed, start fights, be sick, damage property, drink drive, collapse, get his stomach pumped then why can't i go out and do none of these alcohol related negativities, have an enjoyable night and go home ? of course there is a small risk in what i'm doing there, but then can i not decide if its a worthwhile one ? especially watching my pissed mate.

    I see how your argument is based, but you have to look at what a problem alcohol is to society and individuals, and realise alot of 'e' users are escaping those troubles, should they not be allowed to do so, even at there own risk ?

    Although ecstasy may be a menace to the individual, thats up to them, it is far less of a menace than alcohol to society which is imposed on people.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by RNT:
    <STRONG>It's more likely when the people die from ecstasy they are allergic to them rather than the substances contained within them. </STRONG>

    Not true. Most deaths are form hyperthermia and dehydration. I'll think you'll find that nobody has ever been found to be allergic to MDMA. As for adding rat poison to pills that is a urban myth created by the media who also like to think that there's glass in pills and heroin to get the 'little kids' addicted and coming back for more. The worst thing that i've heard that have found to be true was fishtank oxygenating tablets sold as ecstasy which caused the death of two clubbers.

    I used to deal pills and know plenty of dealers myself yet I don't think of them any differently then a landlord selling his customer beer. Now I'm a bit older and already been in trouble with the old bill I am far less willing to go about with 100's of pills in my pocket anymore but all it means is that there's someone taking my place.

    Have a look at this article which says what I want to say, only it's written a hell of a lot better http://ecstasy.org/info/dangers.html
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by eb:
    <STRONG>Although ecstasy may be a menace to the individual, thats up to them, it is far less of a menace than alcohol to society which is imposed on people.</STRONG>
    We're not going to agree on this. I respect your decision to take drugs. It's your life, your risk.

    But the alcohol argument doesn't stick. Alcohol is with us whether we like it or not. It's part of the culture just like bread is. But illegal drugs aren't. We have a choice whether to legalise recreational drugs or not. It is a very important issue and not one to solve quickly.

    You must see that using alcohol as the basis of an argument for the legalisation of soft drugs, whilst stating how bad alcohol is doesn't make any sense. You are arguing for the legalisation of something that you know is harmful.

    I don't mean to put words into your mouth here, but it seems to me like you are saying that alcohol should never have been legalised. Am I right? If so, that is an argument against drug legalisation. Do you see what I mean?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>
    We're not going to agree on this. I respect your decision to take drugs. It's your life, your risk.

    But the alcohol argument doesn't stick. Alcohol is with us whether we like it or not. It's part of the culture just like bread is. But illegal drugs aren't. We have a choice whether to legalise recreational drugs or not. It is a very important issue and not one to solve quickly.

    You must see that using alcohol as the basis of an argument for the legalisation of soft drugs, whilst stating how bad alcohol is doesn't make any sense. You are arguing for the legalisation of something that you know is harmful.

    I don't mean to put words into your mouth here, but it seems to me like you are saying that alcohol should never have been legalised. Am I right? If so, that is an argument against drug legalisation. Do you see what I mean?</STRONG>


    I'm arguing on the basis that alcohol is more harmful, if e was legalised i guarantee alcohol consumption would be reduced greatly and with it, all the violence etc etc etc and would therefore be of benefit to society. A country full of loved up, happy youths on a saturday night is a much safer, relaxed atmosphere for society. If you legalise pills you give people the chose, if they prefer alcohol fair enough, i would never want alcohol illegal, i enjoy drinking it. I just can't accept any sensible arguments for pills remaining illegal when i look at the damage of a legal drug. I know you are in effect just introducing more problems, but people would be in an either / or situation, you wouldn't double the problems, just re-arranging them.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by 'Skive:
    [QBhttp://ecstasy.org/info/dangers.html[/QB]
    Seems OK so long as you know it is heavily biased pro-ecstasy. Most of the info seems accurate though.
    And he's trying to sell a book <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>
    Seems OK so long as you know it is heavily biased pro-ecstasy. </STRONG>

    or maybe its the facts presented as they are, before the government and media twist them to leah betts dying of a 'bad pill'
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by eb:
    <STRONG>I know you are in effect just introducing more problems, but people would be in an either / or situation, you wouldn't double the problems, just re-arranging them.</STRONG>
    Yeah I can see that. But also remember that alcohol has been around forever, and ecstasy for decades. In other words, we don't know the long-term effects.

    The older generation and alcoholics you refer to in your alcohol deaths stats have been using/abusing alcohol for many years. Generally it's not teenagers out getting bladdered and dying of alcohol poisoning.

    We do not know what MDMA is doing to your body over the years of ecstasy use. Maybe something, maybe nothing. But it's worth waiting so we don't end up with a whole generation of sick people in 50 years time.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>

    The older generation and alcoholics you refer to in your alcohol deaths stats have been using/abusing alcohol for many years. Generally it's not teenagers out getting bladdered and dying of alcohol poisoning.

    We do not know what MDMA is doing to your body over the years of ecstasy use. Maybe something, maybe nothing. But it's worth waiting so we don't end up with a whole generation of sick people in 50 years time.</STRONG>

    Alot of youths die every year, from alcoholic poising, choking on vomit asleep, commiting suicide, and beyond that they are those who will become alcoholics.

    The fact we don't really know the long-term risks of mdma is because the government won't do detailed, honest studies into long term use. When you consider people have been taking pills for 20 years, the predidcted health consequences of the 'rave' culture have failed to bare fruit. The fact there is no evidence of long term health problems is in itself an indication there aren't any, the government would be very quick to point even the smallest problem out given a shread of evidence. What is ceratin is long term health trouble is unlikely to rival that caused by excessive alcohol consumption / fags, as ecstasy only really 'attacks' the brain, whereas alcohol attacks every organ in your body shows us the difference, and that attack on the brain isn't as dangerous as it could be, so seretonin levels may be 'fiddled' with, that happens to people whom haven't indulged.

    The problem lies in society that we as people are willing to compromise our health for a better time, whether it be e, alcohol, tobacco, weed etc...... that will always be the case, the levels of damage we do due to the varying levels of danger from each drug seems to be irrelevant to the government. Alcohol i love, its fun and if used instead of abused isn't going to wreck your life, however i feel that people should be presented with real facts on each substance, and then be allowed to decide what level of risk they take up, baring in mind alcohol is probably the greater risk.

    Its all very well saying alcohol has been around for ages and its part of the culture, that doesn't excuse the effects it has on culture - you look at alot of crimes and i bet alcohol are behind a fair few, go to any casualty department over a week and see what percentage of those admitted are alcohol related, suicides, domestic violence, losing jobs, losing family friends all of these can happen and yet you say 'its part of our culture' well i'm not sure its a welcome addition.

    If the government decide they want pills illegal full stop, then we have to accept it, but its the penalties of getting caught that must be reviewed, at present it is classed along with heroin and crack, there is no way it is as bad as either of these on any level, yet it carries the same penalties. Common sense policies are neccessary, if a couple o lads ouit on a saturday get caught with a couple of pills each, confiscate them, ask where they bought them, bollock them and send them on there way, but up to 7 years in prison ? hardly justice
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cigarettes cause cancer, of the mouth/lungs/throat, whatever... usually lungs. I seem to remember hearing recently that lung cancer has become the UK's number one killer. Cigarettes are sold legally in any shop to anyone who's 16. Of every 1000 18 year olds who smoke, over half will die from it.

    Ecstasy has no proven long term effects, memory loss is a possible one, depression is another. Not major killers, as far as I am aware. The maximum jail sentence for dealing E is life. 27 people died from it last year, a figure which could be reduced with education and regulation of output.

    The difference is quite striking.

    Oh, and of course dealers aren't all evil. Somne of my friends do, and they just do it to let people have a good time. They test all the pills they sell, and the prices are reasonable. Its just the bastards selling duds that get me. <IMG alt="image" SRC="mad.gif" border="0">
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I happen to agree with the idea that soft drugs should be legalised, because drugs like cannabis and possibly e (though Im not convinced) are less harmful that tobacco or alcohol. Drugs like heroin, LSD, etc, shouldnt though, as they are incredibly addictive and very dangerous.

    Yeah, I agree with the media being full of bullshit, and it is a hell of a lot better to tell people about how to look after themselves rather than tell them drugs are bad and leave it at that. I knew Betts died because of a water overdose, and that it was not a 'bad' pill, but I was putting across the Daily Mail view of society. *likes being the Devil's advocate*

    Just interesting to finmd out what people think, I agree more with the drug-users viewpoint than the other point. Although the irony in arguing that booze is awful so drugs as bad as it should be legalised is incredibly amusing <IMG alt="image" SRC="tongue.gif" border="0">
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit:
    <STRONG>I happen to agree with the idea that soft drugs should be legalised, because drugs like cannabis and possibly e (though Im not convinced) are less harmful that tobacco or alcohol. Drugs like heroin, LSD, etc, shouldnt though, as they are incredibly addictive and very dangerous.</STRONG>

    LSD is not physically addictive or dangerous. If your not convinced that e is safer than alcohol or fags then just look at the number of deaths related each year to all three substances.
    Originally posted by Kermit:
    <STRONG> Although the irony in arguing that booze is awful so drugs as bad as it should be legalised is incredibly amusing <IMG alt="image" SRC="tongue.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

    Drinkers are quick to preach the dangers of e to others when alcohol is the more damaging and harmful substance. Thats ironic.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit:
    <STRONG>

    Although the irony in arguing that booze is awful so drugs as bad as it should be legalised is incredibly amusing <IMG alt="image" SRC="tongue.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

    some drugs aren't as bad as booze, thats the point
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by eb:
    <STRONG>


    But people are allowed to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, so possible health affects aren't a legitimate reason, thats double standards. If recrational drugs are to remain illegal on that theory the surely the government should look at making alcohol and tobacco illegal ? of course that won't happen.</STRONG>

    The Government will never ban tobacco or alcohol, cos they make money from the taxes that they shove on 'em...if fags or alcohol were introduced in this era, they would be made illegal!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The only problem with that theory about death tolls equating to safety is that e users number in their thousands, maybe a couple of million at most, whereas drinkers number 40 or 50 million people in the UK alone.

    Personally, Im unsure as to how safe e is, so I wont take it, but its probably no worse than alcohol.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit:
    <STRONG>The only problem with that theory about death tolls equating to safety is that e users number in their thousands, maybe a couple of million at most, whereas drinkers number 40 or 50 million people in the UK alone.

    Personally, Im unsure as to how safe e is, so I wont take it, but its probably no worse than alcohol.</STRONG>

    The percentage of deaths to users is higher for both alcohol and tobacco than ecstasy, and it is about 2 million people who currently use ecstasy, more including those who've given up !

    Cannabis kills hardly anyone just for the record
Sign In or Register to comment.