Is it left wing to tolerate crack dealers?

[butchersapron]

first point, probably but you're more so

second point, but it proves I did, you sad cunt

now apologise or is it too much for you

Make your fucking mind up! It proves you scanned something years ago - well done, not that the case went to court or anything else. It doesn't prove that.

Now, once more, merry fucking xmas

 

[snadge]

Make your fucking mind up! It ppoves you scanned somethingyears ago - well done, not that the case went to court or anything else. It doesn't prove that.

Now, once more, merry fucking xmas

okay merry xmas cunt

 

[Jo/Joe]

you two done?

 

[snadge]

you two done?

think so

I was trying to say something.

back to topic


a lot of the addicts ( criminal) come across as people that don't care, I'm sorry but this is hard to describe, I just find they will play on accepted excuses.

 

[butchersapron]

you two done?

Sorry, happy xmas to you too though.

Right, what agency other than the state can can carry this through? Given that it's the state that's provoked and then prolonged the whole seris of inter connected intitiatives that have left w/c communities in the terrible state they're in, them frankly no i'd rather keep them out. At elat for determning policy.

I'd rather see them as being placed under pressure for funding from community derived campaigns that don't only concentrate on one aspect of social alienation, for funding that is not under control of the local state bureaucrats but of the immediate community, in line with a whole of other local agencies for a step towards a community based control of it's own health issues. The state simply isn't going to help. It's going to try and impose it's own interests.

 

[snadge]

Sorry, happy xmas to you too though.

Right, what agency other than the state can can carry this through? Given that it's the state that's provoked and then prolonged the whole seris of inter connected intitiatives that have left w/c communities in the terrible state they're in, them frankly no i'd rather keep them out. At elat for determning policy.

I'd rather see them as being placed under pressure for funding from community derived campaigns that don't only concentrate on one aspect of social alienation, for funding that is not under control of the local state bureaucrats but of the immediate community, in line with a whole of other local agencies for a step towards a community based control of it's own health issues. The state simply isn't going to help. It's going to try and impose it's own interests.

I agree, the state hasn't got a clue


trouble is ( not withstanding) neither has the community, state pressure will become community action.

BTW butchers I'm gonna deete the links I gave ya for obvious reasons

any chance you could do the same for the one you gave the link for?

 

[butchersapron]

What makes you think that communities are unable to identify their own best interest? Or that if they can, they shouldn't be able to act upon that?

 

[snadge]

What makes you think that communities are unable to identify their own best interest? Or that if they can, they shouldn't be able to act upon that?

because people become intrinsicaly(sp) selfish.

 

[butchersapron]

Nope, don't see how that's got anything to do with what i've said.

Butr you agree then that

"... that communities are unable to identify their own best interest. Or that if they can, they shouldn't be able to act upon that"

 

[Jo/Joe]

happy xmas one and all. even phil.

Perhaps I was lazy in just saying 'the state'. The fundamental root of the problem is economic, and at present, I don't see anything but the state capable of addressing those issues. It's the state that detemines drug policy as well of course.

At a local level, where the day to day problems of drug use exist, the solution is not so obvious and needs local solutions, possibly in conjunction with authority even if only for the simple fact that authority exists and often holds the purse strings/has the power to shut down anything it wants.

 

[snadge]

Nope, don't see how that's got anything to do with what i've said.

maybe not, I'm looking outside the box as the daft twats say.

majority of people don't want to see, let alone understand.

 

[Blagsta]

I agree calling addicts as scum is extremely unhelpful.

there are a vast amount of damaged people around and most don't turn to addiction.

True. So why do you think some people do get an addiction?

A lot of people, when having to explain their actions will call upon a tried and trusted explanation.

an addict- abused childhood

BTW I have done work with counselling, remember for every 1 person that has a genuine "abused" childhood there are another three that will spout shite because it works.

So when I see my client later on today who keeps relapsing on crack because he was sexually abused as a child and has a problem with boundaries and relationships due to that, what do you want me to tell him? That he's spouting shite? Really?

 

[Blagsta]

me as well mate, I was abused also-not addict ( but I like a smoke ),the thing was I worked with an agency that dealt with "last chance" addicts, repeat criminals, some were extremely nasty people and the cynicism coming out of those twats was enough to make me stop doing it.

sounds like you were doing it for the wrong reasons

Trouble was it was run by wooly liberals who grasped on every fucking false word that was said, and off they scurried to finish their findings.

sounds like you weren't very good at it either

 

[Blagsta]

a lot of the addicts ( criminal) come across as people that don't care, I'm sorry but this is hard to describe, I just find they will play on accepted excuses.

and why do you think they don't care? For the hell of it? Or something deep rooted?

It seems to me that there are quite a few puritanical views on this thread who see addiction as some kind of moral failure in people.

 

[Blagsta]

Sorry, happy xmas to you too though.

Right, what agency other than the state can can carry this through? Given that it's the state that's provoked and then prolonged the whole seris of inter connected intitiatives that have left w/c communities in the terrible state they're in, them frankly no i'd rather keep them out. At elat for determning policy.

I'd rather see them as being placed under pressure for funding from community derived campaigns that don't only concentrate on one aspect of social alienation, for funding that is not under control of the local state bureaucrats but of the immediate community, in line with a whole of other local agencies for a step towards a community based control of it's own health issues. The state simply isn't going to help. It's going to try and impose it's own interests.

Yes, this is pretty much what I'd argue for too. Substance misuse is a problem that cuts right across many different areas of life - physical health, mental health, crime, education, work opportunities etc. To drive dealers out without addressing the other areas will only displace the problem. To approach it without having an understanding of why people get drug problems in the first place is doomed to failure.

 

[bristol_citizen]

I'd rather see them as being placed under pressure for funding from community derived campaigns that don't only concentrate on one aspect of social alienation, for funding that is not under control of the local state bureaucrats but of the immediate community, in line with a whole of other local agencies for a step towards a community based control of it's own health issues.

Do you know of any examples where this has happened? Locally, for instance, KWADS (Knowle West Against Drugs) started as a community-led campaign about 10 years ago. Look at it now and not one worker is from Knowle West anymore.
The state will just buy up any local campaign wholesale and put in its own people.

 

[likesfish]

to do effective work you need cash for resources that effectivly means the state and that means public sector jobs which get hoovered up by guardian reading types
most street level addicts are increadably manipulative and cynical you just won't survive otherwise . thats the nature of addiction just because you understand that still does'nt make it any easier to work with
the last estate I lived on actually got offered a housing officer job unfortunatly it was the anti social housing officer post.
brilliant while the numbskullls who can't manage to live in a community are hardly likely to traipse across town just down the road is another matter.

 

[butchersapron]

Do you know of any examples where this has happened? Locally, for instance, KWADS (Knowle West Against Drugs) started as a community-led campaign about 10 years ago. Look at it now and not one worker is from Knowle West anymore.
The state will just buy up any local campaign wholesale and put in its own people.

Exactly - what happens next, onnce you've been hollowed out by the local state. What happens next?

 

[Blagsta]

to do effective work you need cash for resources that effectivly means the state and that means public sector jobs which get hoovered up by guardian reading types

This is such a load of stereotyped toss. There are quite a few people working in the substance misuse field who come from working class backgrounds or who come from a background of crime and substance misuse themselves. To paint everyone in the field as "guardian reading types" and wooly liberals is just utter utter bullshit.

 

[LLETSA]

This is such a load of stereotyped toss. There are quite a few people working in the substance misuse field who come from working class backgrounds or who come from a background of crime and substance misuse themselves. To paint everyone in the field as "guardian reading types" and wooly liberals is just utter utter bullshit.

But your attitudes in this thread do seem to put you in the same bag as those who spout the stereotypical woolly liberal view that the 'real' victims are the addicts (and dealers?) and not those they often prey on.

The hardest line taken when it comes to attitudes towards drugs usually comes from those who have refused to go down the road of addiction but have to live with the consequences of it all around them. Your refusal to accept this fact suggests that your priorities lie with the addicts and not their victims, possibly as a consequence of spending more time with the former than with the latter?

 

[phildwyer]

I think that people who want to take drugs should be allowed to do so in peace. Is that such a wildly radical opinion? It works well enough in Amsterdam, where I'm off to tomorrow...

 

[kyser_soze]

It's ironic - this morning's Metro has a story about a local copper who's been told to 'stop arresting' local ne'er do wells on the beat he's had for 5 years, despite having the backing of the estates he patrols...

 

[likesfish]

a if you want a substance misuse job your be looking for one in the guardian on a wednesday.
thats where all the community jobs are advertised
you want to use drugs fine not a problem.
problem comes from what addicts have to do to afford there drugs and what dealers are prepared to do to defend there turf.
frankly you can stuff whatever chemical you like in you if your not bothering me.
its the fall out from drug users activities that cause the problems

 

[kyser_soze]

thats where all the community jobs are advertised

And do you know why theat's where they're all advertised? Because the Guardian recruitment section gets the best response in volume and matching candidates to jobs in comparison with other newpapers, especially local press.

 

[phildwyer]

you want to use drugs fine not a problem.
problem comes from what addicts have to do to afford there drugs and what dealers are prepared to do to defend there turf.
frankly you can stuff whatever chemical you like in you if your not bothering me.
its the fall out from drug users activities that cause the problems

Exactly, and that fall-out is the result of drugs being illegal, hence expensive and difficult/dangerous to obtain. Legalization is the answer. We will not achieve legalization by organizing vigilante campaigns against dealers.

 

[LLETSA]

Wait for the Perfect Day everyone! It's coming! It's coming!

Exactly, and that fall-out is the result of drugs being illegal, hence expensive and difficult/dangerous to obtain. Legalization is the answer. We will not achieve legalization by organizing vigilante campaigns against dealers.

Neither will anything change for those who suffer the consequences of the actions of the dealers and addicts as long as your couldn't-give-a-toss libertarianism holds sway.

 

[TeeJay]

I think that people who want to take drugs should be allowed to do so in peace. Is that such a wildly radical opinion? It works well enough in Amsterdam, where I'm off to tomorrow...

Make sure you post something from there and especially tell us what you are having for lunch.

 

[Blagsta]

But your attitudes in this thread do seem to put you in the same bag as those who spout the stereotypical woolly liberal view that the 'real' victims are the addicts (and dealers?) and not those they often prey on.

EXCEPT THAT I HAVEN'T SAID THAT. What I have said is that it is not as simple as all addicts (or dealers) are scum. That's it. I haven't marginalised the victims of crime (in fact I've been at pains to point out that I've been a victim myself).

The hardest line taken when it comes to attitudes towards drugs usually comes from those who have refused to go down the road of addiction but have to live with the consequences of it all around them.

Except its not true ime.

Your refusal to accept this fact suggests that your priorities lie with the addicts and not their victims, possibly as a consequence of spending more time with the former than with the latter?

EXCEPT THAT I HAVEN'T SAID THAT EITHER.

A little honesty from you wouldn't go amiss eh?

 

[Blagsta]

a if you want a substance misuse job your be looking for one in the guardian on a wednesday.
thats where all the community jobs are advertised

Well duh. But to stereotype all substance misuse workers as wooly Guardian reading liberals is dishonest bullshit.

you want to use drugs fine not a problem.
problem comes from what addicts have to do to afford there drugs and what dealers are prepared to do to defend there turf.
frankly you can stuff whatever chemical you like in you if your not bothering me.
its the fall out from drug users activities that cause the problems

Well duh again. Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious. What I'm trying to point out on this thread is that polarising and simplifying the debate is stupid. It needs to move beyond "all drug users are scum, we must drive them out". the only person trying to move beyond that on here seems to be butchers.

 

[LLETSA]

EXCEPT THAT I HAVEN'T SAID THAT. What I have said is that it is not as simple as all addicts (or dealers) are scum. That's it. I haven't marginalised the victims of crime (in fact I've been at pains to point out that I've been a victim myself).



Except its not true ime.



EXCEPT THAT I HAVEN'T SAID THAT EITHER.

A little honesty from you wouldn't go amiss eh?

You might not have directly said that you spend more time with addicts than those who suffer the consequences of their behaviour. However, in the very fact that you take pains to deny that the people least sympathetic towards drug abuse are those who have to live in the midst of its consequences, suggests that this is the case.

It isn't a case of dishonesty: I can't help it if you have difficulty making it clear exactly what you mean.