War On Drugs

quote:

---

A person in any profession who has been a heroin addict for 40 years with no ramifications has a story that a lot of people would be interested in.

---

Heroine, morphine, and cocaine abuse were all common in the Victorian period, these not yet being restricted drugs. As has been mentioned, Sherlock Holmes is a heroine addict, and this was not astoundingly remarkable, nor was it obligatory to paint him as a stumbling buffoon - quite the opposite, he is lauded for his intellect.It is actually more accurate to say that poor, malnourished crime-committing heroine users are merely more visible than the productive, functional users who are not getting into trouble with the law, than to to say the functional users have a unique experience.---On the issue of criminalisation, I cannot see the logic in decriminalising use, but not sale. If using or owning a thing is not contrary to the law, why whould providing or making that thing be contrary to the law? The providers are fulfilling a market demand with appropriate supply - thats exactly how its supposed to work. If you don't want the product retailed, then you have to assert its usage and posession are criminal in and of themselves. You cannot blame an entrepreneur for meeting effective demand for a product it is legal to have.This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-17-2005 07:12 AM

quote:

---

Some violent crime would go down, but not all. Remember, it's not the huge expense of drugs that leads most addicts to commit crimes, it's that their drug use makes them unemployable, so they have no income for anything, including drugs.

---

I don't think thats necessarily a good assumption. Such drugs are expensive - not least becuase of the costs associated with conducting an illegal enterprise. For the poor, that degree of expense is probably not sustainable on low-end wages, and thus their income may be supplemented by criminality. It is not necessarily the case that their drug use makes them unemployable at all - it is that the relatively huge expense to them leads them to criminality, which makes life unstable, which makes it hard to hold down a job.If they were sufficiently wealthy that they can easily sustain the expense of the habit, and can be confident of a stable supply, then the devolution to the chaotic and criminal lifestyle may not occur at all. Thats excatly the conclusion that appears to arise from studies on middle class habitual users.Short article: Is heroin safe for some people to use?
Is heroin safe for some people to use? | Science | The Guardian

quote:

---

Why wouldn't such behavior become normalized in family life, what with the children growing up with crack and heroin use a normal part of everyday life, like cigarettes are?

---

Arguably, it already is for many poor families. But, why cannot we de-stigmatise this problem, so that people are more willing to seek treatment, and treatment can be provided without having to wade through accusations of "endorsing" drug taking?

quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character, right?

---

Yes, but the point was that did not oblige the author(s) to paint him according to the modern druggies stereotype. Functional upper class users were normal and known - many od these drugs were available from the local chemist. The point was to illustrate that the stereotype of drug-users we have is not universal by a long shot, and shoulf not be assumed to be accurate merely because it is common.

quote:

---

I don't believe in "date rape". This notion has also been "romanticized" by women trying to be able to get on the bandwagon of having been "victimized" in some way.

---

That is repugnant misogynist nonsense and classic demonstration of the "blame-the-victim" defence.

quote:

---

Yes women on dates can and have been raped... plain raped. The current idea of "date rape" demeans those that have actually been sexually assaulted or worse.

---

Utter nonsense.

quote:

---

And before you say anything I have seen plenty of it to make me sick to my stomach. The worst was being in a room of women complaining about how they were date raped and you could see them getting off on how "violated" they were like it was some game with a point system. When I interjected that their stories were not rape or even assault they asked what I could know since I was a guy... then I told my story. That shut them the hell up.

---

All you're saying is that you played the "I'm so violated" card better than they did. One wonder who is the one with this issue running around in their heads? I think at this point your delusions to any comprehension or sympathy for feminism or sexual equality can be wholly discarded.

quote:

---

That was not the only time. While anecdotal, every single encounter I have had with girls claiming "date rape" have not been rapes at all. That was just one of the most gut churning encounters.

---

Or, is that the spin you need to put on their accounts so you don't have to deal with the problems they raise?

quote:

---

People that have been actually raped don't need separate categories for what kind of rape or assault they underwent. Date rape was (IMO) invented by people wanting to add more victimization categories for people to fit into, and not to point out that people can be raped by those they know.

---

Your opinion on the matter is worthless. Date rape is an identifiable and extant phenomenon, whether drug-assisted or otherwise. People used to make the same kinds of objections to intramarital rape, and that is specific term to denote a category; the only consistent elements in this sorts of nonsense apologetics are that a) women are unstable, irrational, and make up stories, and b) the poor men are the real victims.

quote:

---

Whether most people get attacked by those they know is irrelevant to issues of rape, rather than an interesting demographical statistic. If you think watching all your friends and family is going to protect you it will not. Most attacks come where you least expect them. That's how they succeed.

---

Yes, they are where you least expect them - in your own home, in the company of a male friend, and so forth. This issue is directly relevant becuase it demonstrates that we are still conditioning men to demand sex as if by right - even from women with wehom they have otherwise healthy relationships. And further, it acords with the frequency with which women dioe at the hands men known to them.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what this even means. I don't believe there is such a thing as "date rape", because you are either raped (even on a date) or you are not. The term "date rape" appears to exist only to water down the definition of rape so that more people could claim victimization. Can you explain what the difference is between rape and "date rape", and why it is so important to have the distinction?

---

I can; the argument is very similar to the issues aroun intramarital rape. That is, some people judge that a woman who goes out alone with a man is "asking for it", or that men have some reaonsable expectation of sex on dates. The result is forcible rape, but one often publicly condoned in the way intramarital rape used to be. It is a term that describes a real thing, not some spurious victim-status of your paranoid imaginings.

quote:

---

Actually it doesn't make you forget who you went out for drinks with. Neither can it remove the other evidence which usually comes with sex. If you think people may drug you, then don't let anyone ever pour or touch your drink. That would go with or without GHB.

---

As I understand, GHB does wipe out some temporal memory that goes back further than the drug itself. Nevertheless, it is precisely this secondary evidence which you think should be discounted becuase for some reason you don't think it was rape. Lastly, campaigns to raise awareness of drink-tampering have been going on over here for some time. Abnd yes, it would be sound advice for no womeam to ever let a man touch or handle her drink - but that again shifts all respnsibility onto women to protect themselves, creates a poisonous atmosphere, and eliminates the responsibility of the man who actually, you know, committed the rape.Its amazing we still see such backward, recidivist nonsense in the 21st century. It's about time you abandioned the idea that all women are conspiring against men, holmes.

quote:

---

Wrong. It is a conclusion based on my experiences of people using the term "date rape" to extend the boundaries of rape to include nonviolent and noncoercive situations.

---

No, it was exactly right. I'll say it again just so we are clear: that is repugnant misogynist nonsense and a classic demonstration of the "blame-the-victim" defence. This is exactly THE classic demonstration of bigotry.Even if I took the most charitable possible view of your claim, your generalisation of it beyond your immediate acquaintances, and claims as to "why it was invented", are noxious, spurious and misogynist.

quote:

---

Try to come up with an argument please.

---

I do not at all feel obliged to construct a serious argument to confront this claptrap. Your paranoia is not sufficiently challenging to the facts to require serious rebuttal, and merely demosntrate your own ignorance.

quote:

---

What had happened was I got so sick of their tales which were wholly NOT rape or coercion in any sense that I said that what they were talking about was not rape. Then THEY said to me that MEN could not know about RAPE because MEN CANNOT BE RAPED.

---

Oh, it wasn't rape becuase it was date rape, huh? Just like its not if she doesn't try to claw his eyes out, or had a weapon and didn't kill? Baloney.The issue of male rape is rather tangential to this IMO. Either way, it is wholly invalid for you to go from one conversation with a few individuals to a generalsiation applied to all women who have ever made such a claim. That is indeed resorting to sterotyping and collective responsibility, and I consider it utterly vile.But at this point your assumptions that women conduct this sort of manipulation routinely has now been aired on several threads, and I frankly don't consider your report of what they had to say reliable. It seems to me more likely that you heard what you wanted to hear.

quote:

---

This did not create a valid argument for coining the term "date rape" at all.

---

Wrong, it most certainly did. It explains that it is merely a decrsiptive term of something that actually happens, and not a conspiracy by an evil sisterhood.

quote:

---

Now why on earth did the nomenclature have to change in order to protect people on dates and in marriages? That is what you need to argue.

---

You are confusing your feelings with those of others. It is because many men DO think they are entitled to sex in marriage, or after paying for a date.

quote:

---

Wait a second. How does this address what I said at all? You agree with exactly what I said and then turn around and act as if you add something that I don't agree with.

---

You don;t agree with what I said precisely becuase what you said was that it was WOMENS responsibility. Therefore men can continue to believe that they are entiteld to sex, and thats no a problem for men to deal with, its a problem for women to deal with. Again, that haqs been a constant feature of your arguments in regards womens rights: "don't involve me, sort it out for yourself".

quote:

---

Until all raping is stopped, this is exactly what will go on and have to be defended against, right?

---

Your argument is that rape should not be stopped, that women should just deal with it. After all, if she was careless with her drink, thinking she was in the company of friends, then that would be her fault, right? Like wearing a mini-skirt is also her fault. Classic blame-the-victim, again and again.

quote:

---

I said there are PEOPLE who are interested in fostering a victim culture.

---

And what eveidence is there for that, other than you find it more comforting than dealing with the facts? What people, where, name names.

quote:

---

In this specific topic "date rape" is a such a dilution and SOME WOMEN I KNEW took advantage of the dilution in order to become victims and so gain status.

---

Except that it is NOT a dilution and your interpretation of what they had to say, given this assumption of yours, is highly suspect. So suspect I think it is outright misogyny.

quote:

---

In fact ALL WOMEN I KNOW WHO CLAIMED DATE RAPE were in fact nothing close to a violent nor coerced situation.

---

So what. Again, this demonstrates a remarkable naivite about rape and how it happens - it seems to assume that only the violent home-invader or mugger conducts rape. Thats is entirely not so, and one of the things that this very term is intended to denote. But instead of hearing what is actually said, you choose to filter this through some paranoid conspiracy about dishonest women and the "victim culture" of which you appear so enamoured. It seems to me that YOU are revelling in your "victim" status here, the poor white male so aggreived in this "politically correct" world.This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-22-2005 09:06 AM

quote:

---

My point in listing this stat is that a sizeable minority of the men surveyed above were using coersion and/or physical force or aggression to have sex but don't even consider it rape.

​

And to reinforce this, a very recent survey in the UK of teenage girls produces some very distressing results.

​

quote:

---

Some 20% of teenage girls have been hit by their boyfriends, a survey by children's charity the NSPCC suggests.

​

It found 4% were subjected to regular attacks by their partner and a further 16% had been struck at least once.

​

And 31% believed it was acceptable for a boy to act in an "aggressive" way if his girlfriend had cheated on him.

---

​

--

​

More than two out of every three of the girls hit by boyfriends stayed with them, and one out of every five ignored the abuse altogether.

​

--

​

Some 6% of the girls aged between 13 and 19, whose average age was 15, had been forced to have sex by a boyfriend.

​

And one out of every three of them forgave and stayed with him.
--

​

Sugar editor Annabel Brog said: "This survey paints a frightening picture of domestic violence and the link between girls seeing abuse at home and then going on to be hit by a boyfriend themselves.

​

"An appalling number of girls feel that violence at home or in relationships is sometimes acceptable."

---

BBC NEWS | UK | Girls reveal abuse by boyfriendsWhats also clear of course is that boys are willing and able to exercise this violence. Our society still accepts violence by men against women; still seeks to demonise women as culpable for their victimhood. And it has to be massivley endemic if it is being taken up by kids in what is likely their first relationship. In this context, the idea that men "might" be aggressive, or "might" use a date-rape drug, is not hysterical, or demonising men, or an unfair generalisation, or any kind of "victim culture": it is simply acknowledging the actuality.This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-22-2005 10:52 AM

quote:

---

What on earth does that actually mean? I damn well expect any girlfriend of mine to act in an aggressive way if she found out I was cheating on her.

---

Based on other stuff I have read, I would expect this to include physical intimidation, harrasment, bunny-boiling, stalking and so forth.Lets also bear in mind there are quite a number of cases of jilted men murdering their ex's, and sometimes their children, becuase "If I can't have you nobody can".Angry and emotional, I think of as normal. Aggressive, no.