Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/29/drugs-cocaine-environment-fair-trade
He goes a bit loopy towards the end, but basically he’s got it nailed. You’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
I've never done the stuff personally, or any drug barring alcohol for that matter, but I generally find the sort of people this article describes who do indulge in it to be very tedious indeed.
That 'Amazon' episode which highlighted how cocaine was made and the issues around it was amazing.
while reading the paper, whistling.
especially with the whistling...tsk
(and cos its pretty skanky, yo)
and i know what you mean, cant be bothered to read the article though, i've read up on this type of stuff before and seen a few docs. BUT STILL isn't it better to buy fairtrade and do bad drugs (though a bit ridiculous/very hypocritical - though i still dont think thats the right word, its only hypocritical if you preach about it) than do bad drugs and buy non-fairtrade from bad companies?
mmm.i often think if everyone was worried about being a hypocrite to that extent nobody would have any principles at all.
that proclaim themselves to be anarchists, are vegans, buy ethically, and preach to anyone unfortunate enough to be caught within earshot, and yet who still can’t see the hypocrisy involved when taking copious amounts of drugs at their psi-trance parties or when they’re ‘finding themselves’ doing an acid trip in south america or something.
Instead of Glastonbury*.
* Massive 'vamos' generalisation & stereotyping alert
i know where i'd rather have been.
come to think of it, i know someone who pretty much fits that description. might subtly start a conversation next time i see him.
It's not the correct term for it, but I can't think of a better one.. But yeah, risk compensation is where people take risks in some areas when they're consciously avoiding risks in others; perhaps to the point where the undertaken risk vastly outweighs the avoided one(s).
I don't think that 'risk' has anything to do with it.
'Ethic' compensation, maybe?
only said 'risk' because that's the effect that I've seen discussed in research findings. Surprisingly I don't recall ever reading anything being done about other types of compensation; you'd imagine it could be a factor in, say, drinking too ('rewarding' yourself for a day of abstinance with a drink). It's easy to imagine people saying to themselves, "well, I do so much more than other people in other ways that I've earned a little sniff every now and then.."
“Ooo… I’ve been good today, I’ll have a slice of cheesecake.”
Just sees cake and is prepared to eat it without excuse. Which reminds me, there's some chocolate cake in the fridge, brb :P
but there definitely is an attitude towards drugs amongst groups of people particularly middle-class casual (if every weekend is casual use) users that their drug take is justified by the fact their lifestyle/life in general is 'healthy' and 'productive' and they are not mugging/stealing/directly committing any other crime in order to consume - therefore they can put themselves in a bubble about the impact they have on society as a whole (because in other ways they contribute to society so much). Also, i guess this is why the recent talking mule ads attempted to show users how their actions impact globally
related to risk - well, in a society where most activities, even eating has an element of risk, then i guess there is a search for transcendent experiences, which drugs provide?
But do you think that it’s unreasonable to expect free-thinking adults in the west, especially those that advocate fairtrade etc., to consider the source of their recreational drugs?
ethical within this society, i.e. it isnt possible without doing stuff that causes harm due to unfairness spread by systems.
WHich is why it is really only sensible to be angry at really preachy ones, but the thing is that the preachy ones get like that cos they're frustrated that systems that are extant dont change to make things fairer to certain disadvantaged people.
The only way to not be hipocritical is to maintain yourself directly from the land in a way that is not exaustive to the land for the future and which does not use up too much land.
Unfortunately that ideal is impossible to achieve in this country as one would need capital to initially buy the land to do so, and then regulations will interfere too much, trade would need to be done to exchange things that you cannot produce yourself (unless you scavange stuff that society discards) and authority tends to frown on trade without involving taxes.
Where he talks about the damage a drop in the price of drugs caused by global legalization would cause to people in poor countries.
and looking at their paraphenalia (not a euphimism)
and literally everyone i know does drugs 24 hours a day
are more boring than people talking about the last dream that they had.
I always thought that Poppy farmers in Afghanistan/cannabis growers in Morocco etc were happy to have something to farm as its means they are able to feed their families.
pretty easily; I don't do coke, heroin or any drug other than the odd spliff but I eat meat and buy various different consumer goods without being entirely clued up on where they come from.
The only discernable difference really is that the casual link between purchasing cocaine (not using, although they are effectively the same thing) and the nefarious activities of those in the production and trafficking industries is patently clear; absolutely no-one with half a brain can plead ignorance.
So yeah, to me taking coke is a worse thing to do than eating meat, but if I'm completely honest, a big part of the reason I think that is because I eat meat but don't take coke. That and the fact that coke turns even the most pleasant of people into unberable wankers for a few hours after they've taken it.
where has the paper you use come from?
do you ever get in someones car?
do you walk aorund at all?
i mean we could go on forever here.
sound like something a pimp might ask at an interview
^ sorry i'm totally binned on ecstacy tablets
(and i don't do drugs so this isn't an attempt to make excuses)
people doing coke, they're not thinking 'well oh, if i give this up the whole coke trade is going to fall apart'. it isn't. so maybe they just think, well all that shit is gonna happen anyway, so make merry
does that make sense or am i talking shit?
about a lot of things.
I'm totally with Mobiot on not decriminalising cocaine use, just not down with the vilifying cocaine users. Well, not them in particular anyway
but I’ve never seen you preaching to others about the environmental impacts/ethical concerns about eating meat, the working conditions of coffee farm labourers, or declaring yourself an anti-capitalist.
I’m criticising those that do, and yet still think that taking drugs is somehow consequence-free or striking a blow against The Man.
This thread isn’t aimed at anyone on these boards, I just read an article that echoed my thoughts and decided to throw it up for discussion.
The sort of person you're describing is bloody annoying and I know a few like that. I just try to not slag them off on the grounds that they're hypocrites because it's something more or less everyone (admittedly to different degrees) can be accused of, and people tend to get very good at defending their own hypcrosies
who don't realise that they're compromising their views though
*other typos probably
they make things seem less disgusting and filthy
I dream of a bright post industrial future, what it could be, but unfortunately not where our authorities are helping to push us.
You cant uninvent the past, but you can look to the past to learn about what you may have lost/compromised/exchanged for material comfort etc
If i lived then it would be something that i could throw myself into totally.
The people he's talking about are always looking at the source of their consumer goods and food etc., so why should it be any different where their drugs are involved? They can't truly claim to lead 'ethical' lives if they're using drugs that are damaging the lives of others.
Me and most people I know got thoroughly sick of everyone who matches that description that we know of at the beginning of the year. Vacuous poseurs, the lot of 'em.
While I do think that decriminalisation is a good thing on principle, I fully accept that it would hav negative ramifications in some areas. But I don't know enough about that to comment really.
anti-animal testing campaigners who smoke tobacco. It was all tested on dogs you numbnuts.
Most folk are pretty hypocritical on these subjects anyway, it's almost impossible not to be in this country. Our entire economy is based on a buttfucking those nations less fortunate than us.
Fair Trade coffee does pay the farmers a fair wage, but the processing of the beans, which is the most profitable part, is mostly done by the first world (at least that was the case until a couple of years ago when i last checked).
All you can expect is to do the best you can, acknowledge you're still a rapacious, imperial snatchwit and not preach about it. If I stopped eating / wearing / drinking all the things that required exploitation of the third world I'd be hungry / naked / thirsty.
As many have pointed out, it's prohibition which does the damage, not the substance itself. The only valid reason not to take coke is because it's bad for you.
It's not granular moral bankruptcy - it's a plant extract.
The prohibition may well cause the damage, but because this is in place, it is inescapable that the consumption of this product is morally suspect.
If our sugar still came to us via the slave trade, would you consider this to be ok? Sugar is only a plant extract, but how we obtained it was despicable.
like the people who chose to buy their booze from Al Capone, anyone now buying illegal drugs is making a clear choice to join in on the international drugs business.