pete doherty is a junkie ****** and the sooner he is

Would you want a heroin addict living next door to you?

 

No.

But once again, right to do what they wish within the law. It's not my place to tell anyone where they wish to live.

And all heroin addicts aren't robbing, abusive "smack rats" as per some believe on here.

 

I'm with you on this Dyson

Get on with your own life, leave everyone else to theirs, and punish people harshly but consistently if they step outside of the law.

"Heat" generation moralists, always looking down on someone else.

You can see it now, some scumbag saying "she's fat/skinny/spotty", "he's a junkie" blah blah, and we're all perfect of course.

 

RE: That's where you're wrong.

It has been society's right to be free from drug addicts since the possession and distribution of drugs and substances listed most commonly under the misuse of drugs act made it illegal to do so. The purpose of legislating against certain drugs is actually motivated by two dangers - the first is the harm a particular drug or drug addicted person poses to society, the second is the harm a particular drug poses to the individual. The misuse of drugs act is motivated by the purpose of protecting society from wide spread drug addiction or dependency - indeed this act was upheld by parliament who decided that, yes, society has a right to be protected from both harmful drugs and harmful addicts. By the way, that's 1971, if you still need the year that decision was endorsed.

As for your second stupid point: if we can't blame drug addicts for the illegal drugs market, who can we blame? Of course Doherty is to blame. As is every other druggie who buys a tenner wrap of smack. Every single one of them. Point is, nobody looks at the smack-head on the street with his teeth falling out, and thinks 'Wow, he's a cool bloke' - Doherty is a figure head, he's high profile, a negative example to others who would look at him and see something oddly admirable. There are people who would seek to emulate him.

Finally your liberal attitude of 'anyone who wants to take up drugs for personal use - it's up to them' shows an alarming lack of insight into the problems of chronic addiction and dependency (who is being short sighted now?). A crack addict who 'must' have his fix will rob someone rather than go without - he'll hurt someone to get what he needs. That's a proven. A heroin addict will more likely go stealing, or if they're in a bad way, they break into people's houses or do distraction burglaries on old folk, picking vulnerable targets. This proven cycle of behaviour - which most addicts will admit to and lament for themselves - is what makes it unacceptable for society to allow people to get into drugs.

No - it's not their choice to get involved in drugs, no - it's not their business. That's why courts can enforce drug testing and treatment orders to force people to comply with the necessity to not be on drugs. It has everything to do with society - it is society that suffers every time another person gets hooked.

You're simply wrong.

 

RE: No.

There are two types of people who are on heroin:
1) Those who still think it's great and that they're not addicted.
2) Those who regret the day they ever got involved in it and are fighting to get off.

Heroin is a dehumanising substance that leads people to do awful things - and it's a downward spiral.

 

a very well reasoned argument

and it has made me think.

I do think that many of your points are valid.

How should we handle alcohol, cigarettes, salt/red meat/junk food/cider though? Should we make these illegal or legalise drugs as they all seem to be nasty.

Can we regulate peoples desires to such an extent?

Where is the cut off point is the point I'm trying to get at?

Lot's of tramps drink cider and annoy people but cider's not illegal.

I don't know the answer but it's a hard one.

 

Oh really.

In your opinion right? Just checking.

I have my views. If a consenting adult wishes to do something, that is their choice. They know the consequences, it is well documented as they say, and if they want to risk that then fine.

Do you honestly believe that kids sit at home, see Doherty on the TV and think "Oooh, I think I'm going to take drugs now because he does". It's the violent movies made my child kill someone argument - which is complete ********.

So, what do we do with all these "scum of the earth" sorts then? Chuck em all in prison? Forcfully put them through a detox course? Castrate the worthless b@stards? People will do what they want, when they want - it's a fact of life. And if they don't want to stop - they won't stop. It's called being Human.

And my point was thus - you cannot blame drug addicts for the whole of the criminal underworld. It's just complete B*ll*cks. I'm not disputing that money is made by the criminals of this country/world, but to trace all their power towards a bloke paying a tenner for a hit is once again, in my opinion, absolute B*ll*cks.

 

Steady on old chap.

You may enjoy his wares but to call Pete Doherty a genius is just wrong.

 

RE: Oh really.

No - it's not my opinion. That's the point it's an object fact. Good of you to check because I'll reiterate it for you - you're wrong. Sure if someone wants to risk their own health - let them do it. It's their life - let them risk it. Are they allowed to cross the line and become a serious menace to society - no, not their choice at all. I know one crack addict who made £90,000 on the sale of a house and blew it all on crack in a scarily short amount of time. I know another crack addict who exercised what you would call his personal choice to try crack out. He was an 18 year old lad who was doing well as an electrician, too much money to spare so he bought drugs, thought it was great at first, until he couldn't afford his habit any more and couldn't control his own anger and aggression. Ended up smashing up his mothers house and beating up his mum. What about her rights?

As for people following by example - it does happen you know. Believe it or not people voted for Hitler because the promise of what he was offering was so good, they'd turn a blind eye to the negative side. There are some people who look at the likes of Pete Doherty and just see this free wheeling kind of guy, doing it his own way, sticking twos up to the system - and feeling more than a little disenfranchised themselves, they think why the hell not? If it works for him? It's not the same as saying video nasties or violent video games create killers. It's a proven fact (again objective fact) that most addicts get into drugs because they are offered the opportunity to do so by a social circle they are attracted into. People don't just walk up to a dealer one day and say 'I think I fancy a little bit of heroin - first time for everything'.

As for what we do with these addicts - well the fact is that we can't tolerate them. How we deal with them is another thing. One school of thought is 'shoot the lot of them', the other school of thought is 'rehabilitate them'. There is a pair heroin addicts in York that I could name who are an absolute threat to society, unrepentant, love gear, won't change, and will rob, steal, do anything to get that fix. They are like animals and their minds are not their own. All they do all day is go stalking for the next fix. They won't ever change, won't ever rehab. They'll be dead before they make 45 years old. The crime they are responsible for in supporting their 'human right' to exercise their 'choice' is staggering, and we're talking some real, low, evil ****. Yeah, I'd throw away the key. I know a lot of people would advocate the death penalty. What they do is not called 'being human', it's called being 'inhuman'.

The vast majority of crime in this country (low level or serious and organised) is motivated or associated with (cross subsidised by) the drug taking and drugs trading communities. Whether you like to admit it or not, the money that goes through drug dealers is dirty money that finds its way into the hands or terrorists, arms dealers, child prostitution rings, human trafficking and other utterly deplorable illegal industries that really do exist, whether you like to ignor it or not. The druggie who keeps going back and back to the same dealer, with his £60 or £70 a day habit, has a substantial part to play in funding the above - they share the responsibility, but they just don't care and bottom line is that to get that £60 or £70 a day (and often more) they will go committing crimes to make their ends meet. It's a vicious circle.

 

Well

your well reasoned and articulate response is somewhat wasted here.</p>

As your rightly point out in more flowery words than I..</p>

Tha cant educate pork.</p>

 

RE: a very well reasoned argument

I can see where you're coming from there. In my opinion - just my thoughts - if someone wants to eat chocolate until they get fat, well that's their choice. They're not harming me or you. Sure, they cost the NHS if they get obese and start with heart disease or whatever, but they're probably contributing to the NHS so that's fair enough. Same for smokers. Yes smoking kills, and passive smoking is bad news, but I can choose to walk away from that and it is unlikely that they'll follow me and make me breathe the smoke. Smokers contribute more in taxes to the NHS than they draw out of it. So no problem. Yeah, tramps getting pissed on cider and shouting in the street are irritational - but they can get nicked and spend a night in the cells. If they want to change or leave alcoholism behind society should try and help them, even if it's not profitable. If they don't want to change, I believe the problem is tolerable (you can cross the street, avoid that park bench).

I think the difference for me is highly addictive substances that motivate people directly to target others in society and create genuine victims of crime (burglaries, vehicle crimes, robberies, thefts). I think that's the line I draw. Plus you can also say that in the red meat / chocolate / cigarettes / junk food argument there is less criminality on the supply side, whereas your class A drugs tend to support the funding of a more serious organised criminal element which threatens to undermine society in a substantial way.

If it's only harming yourself and not others - then go for it. It's not my problem and so long as you've made a well informed decision and you're not going to turn around and take McDonalds or Cadburys to court later on down the line - I can't see why it should be anyone elses.

If it's going to harm yourself, and subsequently have a significant negative impact on the society you live in, I think that's problematic and shouldn't be allowed.

 

to all you pro pete doherty do gooders

i hope he moves in next door to you,breaks in to yours and steals all your valuables and sells them for dug money,lets then sit back and watch your reaction is to the punitive punnishment he gets cos he is famous,,see if you would think him a genius then,,he is a scumbag who lots of youngsters look upto and could quite possibly be led to think drugs are cool,,

 

RE: It is true

He is to music what kipper jackson is to race relations.
Also, ill tell thee now, if he had injected one of my family with a syrine full of blood and god knows what esle as shown on those 'documntry' like he did that lass who was spark out Id have made sure he couldnt breath never mind sign.
the waster of talent fecktwit.

 

RE: a very well reasoned argument

How is Pete Doherty taking drugs affecting you more than people on the street smoking? You can't ALWAYS walk away from them, sometimes you have to stay where you are and inhale the smoke. Drugs - someone else taking drugs near you, wouldn't affect you. Therefore, smoking is a worse crime than drugs, and that's why if drugs are illegal, smoking should be too.

Therefore, you are wrong.

 

RE: a very well reasoned argument

seeing ones idol do something imoral/illegal and not give two shits about it is a factor in the behaviour of some of its said fans.
For example, jackass had people jumpin gout shopping trolley and dirty sanchez had men all over the country sticking thier fingers up the birds arse during sex and giving her a **** tache

 

RE: Scurge of the land?

He owes his land loard 10k in rent arrears and lived in squalor.
hardly flash with cash.

 

to be honest...

I've never seen a smackhead who remotely looks like he's into the libertines...

 

RE: a very well reasoned argument

He's hardly my idol. Yes, I liked him in The Libertines, but he's not as good in Babyshambles - hence why I've never bought any of their music. I've always preferred Carl Barat.

So, you're wrong there too, NOT my idol.

 

RE: to all you pro pete doherty do gooders

No one said it was good of him to do drugs, all anyone has said in his defence is that it's his choice, and it is HIS choice. It's nothing to do with anyone but himself.