Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
drug workhouses?
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Andy Wainwright
Sep 26, 2012, 7:37:04 AM9/26/12
to
Few recreational drugs are completely incapacitating, in fact most allow
users to do something constructive other than just take the stuff.
Most drug users pay for their habit by holding down jobs, but for those
unemployed it's often a nark for the taxpayer to see welfare being used
to pay for beer, fags, pot, smack etc.
Would it not be possible to open "wet centres" for unemployed drug users
where users could perform tasks such as packing, car washing etc in
exchange for gear- such as work for a couple of hours then have a spliff
break, or a line of coke, speed or heroin, even alcohol. Wouldn't be
particulaly expensive as the drugs are pretty cheap to produce. As well
as paying for the drugs, the labour of the addicts could pay for
rehabilitation facilities to be on hand, for when the addicts are ready
to quit.
users to do something constructive other than just take the stuff.
Most drug users pay for their habit by holding down jobs, but for those
unemployed it's often a nark for the taxpayer to see welfare being used
to pay for beer, fags, pot, smack etc.
Would it not be possible to open "wet centres" for unemployed drug users
where users could perform tasks such as packing, car washing etc in
exchange for gear- such as work for a couple of hours then have a spliff
break, or a line of coke, speed or heroin, even alcohol. Wouldn't be
particulaly expensive as the drugs are pretty cheap to produce. As well
as paying for the drugs, the labour of the addicts could pay for
rehabilitation facilities to be on hand, for when the addicts are ready
to quit.
Phil Stovell
Sep 26, 2012, 7:54:35 AM9/26/12
to
Georg von Krapp
Sep 26, 2012, 8:15:48 AM9/26/12
to
"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k3updc$7kv$1...@dont-email.me...
Guardian/Independent/Mirror/News24, etc. Don't think the unions'd be too
thrilled, either.
But an ostensibly sensible idea, nonetheless.
Mel Rowing
Sep 26, 2012, 9:52:40 AM9/26/12
to
On Sep 26, 12:37 pm, Andy Wainwright
"12,800 alcoholics, 9,200 drug addicts and 600 obese people have been
claiming the benefit for over ten years."
> Most drug users pay for their habit by holding down jobs, but for those
> unemployed it's often a nark for the taxpayer to see welfare being used
> to pay for beer, fags, pot, smack etc.
And quite understandably. Most people need to work to support home and
family.
Would not a better system be to pay benefits or the major portion of
benefits in the form of vouchers for food, clothing and accomodation?
The they will hve no money for drugs unless they work?
<andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Few recreational drugs are completely incapacitating, in fact most allow
> users to do something constructive other than just take the stuff.
If that is the case then how is it:
> Few recreational drugs are completely incapacitating, in fact most allow
> users to do something constructive other than just take the stuff.
"12,800 alcoholics, 9,200 drug addicts and 600 obese people have been
claiming the benefit for over ten years."
> Most drug users pay for their habit by holding down jobs, but for those
> unemployed it's often a nark for the taxpayer to see welfare being used
> to pay for beer, fags, pot, smack etc.
family.
Would not a better system be to pay benefits or the major portion of
benefits in the form of vouchers for food, clothing and accomodation?
The they will hve no money for drugs unless they work?
Nightjar
Sep 26, 2012, 10:11:38 AM9/26/12
to
On 26/09/2012 14:52, Mel Rowing wrote:
....
Colin Bignell
....
> Would not a better system be to pay benefits or the major portion of
> benefits in the form of vouchers for food, clothing and accomodation?
> The they will hve no money for drugs unless they work?
or steal.
> benefits in the form of vouchers for food, clothing and accomodation?
> The they will hve no money for drugs unless they work?
Colin Bignell
Phi
Sep 26, 2012, 10:18:33 AM9/26/12
to
"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:da89c65f-34a4-4d81...@ez21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Andy Wainwright
Sep 26, 2012, 10:28:06 AM9/26/12
to
On 26/09/2012 14:52, Mel Rowing wrote:
illness, a commonplace occurance due to the well meant but misplaced
religious values you were raised with.
Tell a fatty or a drunk, who might very well be a gentle, kindly person
at heart, what a useless load of shit they are, what's that honestly
going to do? Make them eat more. Make them drink more. Eating disorders
and substance addictions are the result of low self esteem. Mistreat
such people, their self esteem is lowered, and they'll turn to whatever
crutch they cling to.
Low self esteem is usually the result of bullying. Bullying further
doesn't help, but harms, and means the chances of making a recovery and
returning to work are significantly lowered.
Mel Rowing
Sep 26, 2012, 10:47:53 AM9/26/12
to
On Sep 26, 3:18 pm, "Phi" <phis...@inbox.com> wrote:
> "Mel Rowing" <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> Would not a better system be to pay benefits or the major portion of
> benefits in the form of vouchers for food, clothing and accomodation?
> The they will hve no money for drugs unless they work?
>
> Or turn to more crime.
Crime is committed not startlingly by criminals who behave so in order
to acquire ill gotten gains. True they may want to buy drugs with
their ill gotten gains but this is not the only motivation. Some might
want to gamble, live the high life, live beyond their means, cut a
social impression, avoid the tedium of working or all manner of
reasons.
Criminality is a moral issue. The idea that criminals only behave as
they do so that they may buy drugs is a gross over simplifiaction.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that criminals who are drug
addicts would be honest upright citizens otherwise. If this is claimed
then such a claim provides a powerful extra reason to prohibit them
since clearly they interfere with moral character.
> "Mel Rowing" <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> Would not a better system be to pay benefits or the major portion of
> benefits in the form of vouchers for food, clothing and accomodation?
> The they will hve no money for drugs unless they work?
>
> Or turn to more crime.
to acquire ill gotten gains. True they may want to buy drugs with
their ill gotten gains but this is not the only motivation. Some might
want to gamble, live the high life, live beyond their means, cut a
social impression, avoid the tedium of working or all manner of
reasons.
Criminality is a moral issue. The idea that criminals only behave as
they do so that they may buy drugs is a gross over simplifiaction.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that criminals who are drug
addicts would be honest upright citizens otherwise. If this is claimed
then such a claim provides a powerful extra reason to prohibit them
since clearly they interfere with moral character.
abelard
Sep 26, 2012, 1:32:27 PM9/26/12
to
define 'low self-esteem'...and show precisely how it makes
you open your mouth and stuff it with foie gras
Nightjar
Sep 26, 2012, 2:11:26 PM9/26/12
to
strong correlation between drug addiction and criminal behaviour. In the
UK a heroin addict will, on average, commit 432 crimes a year to feed
their habit.
Colin Bignell
Andy Wainwright
Sep 26, 2012, 2:29:56 PM9/26/12
to
Many people are out of work through severe mental illness, and what's
sad is that a medical condition that is quite often managable is made
much, much worse by ignorant social attitudes propagated by an ignorant
media.
A mind out of control is very much like a car out of control. A lot of
accidents happen because drivers will instinctively steer in the
opposite direction that that which the car is skidding in.
When dealing with "sliding minds", the normal moral forces of threat and
reward will very often fail to have the effect they would on a person
thinking rationally.
Taken to the extreme, consider the deterent value of capital punishment
on the suicidal- it is actually negative.
If someone has a habit that's killing them, likewise, if they don't
actually want to live, unless you can change that attitude, little
progress is going to be made.
There is a workable solution to dealing with unstable minds- that is to
concentrate on the area of the patient's life that is stable, and build
upon it. As JC said, strengthen what remains.
abelard
Sep 26, 2012, 2:33:32 PM9/26/12
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:29:56 +0100, Andy Wainwright
>Many people are out of work through severe mental illness, and what's
>sad is that a medical condition that is quite often managable is made
>much, much worse by ignorant social attitudes propagated by an ignorant
>media.
>
>A mind out of control is very much like a car out of control. A lot of
>accidents happen because drivers will instinctively steer in the
>opposite direction that that which the car is skidding in.
>
>When dealing with "sliding minds", the normal moral forces of threat and
>reward will very often fail to have the effect they would on a person
>thinking rationally.
>
>Taken to the extreme, consider the deterent value of capital punishment
>on the suicidal- it is actually negative.
>
>If someone has a habit that's killing them, likewise, if they don't
>actually want to live, unless you can change that attitude, little
>progress is going to be made.
that's more undigested babble..and you've avoided the question/s
>There is a workable solution to dealing with unstable minds- that is to
>concentrate on the area of the patient's life that is stable, and build
>upon it. As JC said, strengthen what remains.
that bit is less objectionable but remains far too general
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On 26/09/2012 18:32, abelard wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:28:06 +0100, Andy Wainwright
>On 26/09/2012 18:32, abelard wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:28:06 +0100, Andy Wainwright
>>> Low self esteem is usually the result of bullying. Bullying further
>>> doesn't help, but harms, and means the chances of making a recovery and
>>> returning to work are significantly lowered.
>>
>> i object to you resorting to psychobabble...
>>
>> define 'low self-esteem'...and show precisely how it makes
>> you open your mouth and stuff it with foie gras
>Take it from me, I'm right on this one.
no
>>> doesn't help, but harms, and means the chances of making a recovery and
>>> returning to work are significantly lowered.
>>
>> i object to you resorting to psychobabble...
>>
>> define 'low self-esteem'...and show precisely how it makes
>> you open your mouth and stuff it with foie gras
>Take it from me, I'm right on this one.
>Many people are out of work through severe mental illness, and what's
>sad is that a medical condition that is quite often managable is made
>much, much worse by ignorant social attitudes propagated by an ignorant
>media.
>
>A mind out of control is very much like a car out of control. A lot of
>accidents happen because drivers will instinctively steer in the
>opposite direction that that which the car is skidding in.
>
>When dealing with "sliding minds", the normal moral forces of threat and
>reward will very often fail to have the effect they would on a person
>thinking rationally.
>
>Taken to the extreme, consider the deterent value of capital punishment
>on the suicidal- it is actually negative.
>
>If someone has a habit that's killing them, likewise, if they don't
>actually want to live, unless you can change that attitude, little
>progress is going to be made.
>There is a workable solution to dealing with unstable minds- that is to
>concentrate on the area of the patient's life that is stable, and build
>upon it. As JC said, strengthen what remains.
pensive hamster
Sep 26, 2012, 2:53:48 PM9/26/12
to
On Sep 26, 6:32 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
> define 'low self-esteem'...and show precisely how it makes
> you open your mouth and stuff it with foie gras
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12120689
>
> define 'low self-esteem'...and show precisely how it makes
> you open your mouth and stuff it with foie gras
(with pictures and everything ...)
[...]
Shaw Somers is the surgeon who carried out a stomach stapling
operation to curb Paul's appetite and save his life.
He says: "Paul was almost constantly eating."
He calls Paul's condition "an addiction" triggered by "hunger and a
need for comfort".
"He was getting takeaways and carrying on eating throughout the day,
largely because he felt helpless and it was his only comfort."
abelard
Sep 26, 2012, 3:04:11 PM9/26/12
to
i don't care if 'he calls it' open mouth syndrome' because
he wanted to eat because the fairies made him....
everyone needs a hobby!
pensive hamster
Sep 26, 2012, 3:14:05 PM9/26/12
to
On Sep 26, 8:04 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:53:48 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
>
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:53:48 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
>
> i do hope you're not offering that as serious analysis!
>
Serious analysis? Moi?
>
No, it is intended more as a vulgar divertissement.
abelard
Sep 26, 2012, 3:16:32 PM9/26/12
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:14:05 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
<pensive...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sep 26, 8:04�pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:53:48 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
>>
>> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12120689
>> >(with pictures and everything ...)
>
>>
>> i do hope you're not offering that as serious analysis!
>>
>
>Serious analysis? Moi?
thank the lord for that!
<pensive...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sep 26, 8:04�pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:53:48 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
>>
>> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12120689
>> >(with pictures and everything ...)
>
>>
>> i do hope you're not offering that as serious analysis!
>>
>
>Serious analysis? Moi?
>No, it is intended more as a vulgar divertissement.
Peter Turtill
Sep 26, 2012, 4:02:41 PM9/26/12
to
money out of drugs.
pete
Peter Turtill
Sep 26, 2012, 4:22:04 PM9/26/12
to
tier of crime.That would save us much more than these wasters cost us.
pete
Peter Turtill
Sep 26, 2012, 4:31:28 PM9/26/12
to
better way of life. Yes of course there will always be criminals and
bankers etc but helping addicts who want help is a common decency.
pete
Peter Turtill
Sep 26, 2012, 4:56:53 PM9/26/12
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:53:48 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
pete
Mel Rowing
Sep 27, 2012, 4:26:51 AM9/27/12
to
On Sep 26, 3:28 pm, Andy Wainwright
even born!
> Tell a fatty or a drunk, who might very well be a gentle, kindly person
> at heart, what a useless load of shit they are, what's that honestly
> going to do? Make them eat more. Make them drink more. Eating disorders
> and substance addictions are the result of low self esteem. Mistreat
> such people, their self esteem is lowered, and they'll turn to whatever
> crutch they cling to.
And that crutch is other people's wallets! People who have competing
demands for their money.
They are not useless because I or anyone else says they're useless.
It's their lifestyle that makes them such. I would not be so ill
mannered as to call them useless even is I think such. Their social
image is there for all including themselves to see and evaluate.
Alcoholics do not generally enjoy enhanced neither do druggies and so,
increasingly obesity also attracts social disapproval. These values do
come out and come through. There is only one way to enhance one's
socail image and that is through behaviour.
> Low self esteem is usually the result of bullying. Bullying further
> doesn't help, but harms, and means the chances of making a recovery and
> returning to work are significantly lowered.
Rubbish. I suppose we've all been bullied in various ways on
occasions. We have to earn to cope and or deal with it. By and large
we don't rush into a corner and become an alcoholic or a druggie or
gorge ourselves.
It's remarkable that nobody drinks alcohol because they like and get
enjoyment out of it yet people still begin to partake of alcohol,
similarly nobody does drugs because because it provides them with some
kind of satisfaction yet people still take up drugs regardless of all
the social taboos that seek to dissuade them. Nobody over eats because
they enjoy their food.
All these conditions are self inflicted. What ever happened to the
society where everyone took responsibility for their own actions. Most
of us have come through it!
<andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 26/09/2012 14:52, Mel Rowing wrote:
> > Would not a better system be to pay benefits or the major portion of
> > benefits in the form of vouchers for food, clothing and accomodation?
> > The they will hve no money for drugs unless they work?
>
> What you're demonstrating here is a lack of understanding about mental
> illness, a commonplace occurance due to the well meant but misplaced
> religious values you were raised with.
What do you know about my upbringing? You weren't there! You weren't
> On 26/09/2012 14:52, Mel Rowing wrote:
> > Would not a better system be to pay benefits or the major portion of
> > benefits in the form of vouchers for food, clothing and accomodation?
> > The they will hve no money for drugs unless they work?
>
> What you're demonstrating here is a lack of understanding about mental
> illness, a commonplace occurance due to the well meant but misplaced
> religious values you were raised with.
even born!
> Tell a fatty or a drunk, who might very well be a gentle, kindly person
> at heart, what a useless load of shit they are, what's that honestly
> going to do? Make them eat more. Make them drink more. Eating disorders
> and substance addictions are the result of low self esteem. Mistreat
> such people, their self esteem is lowered, and they'll turn to whatever
> crutch they cling to.
demands for their money.
They are not useless because I or anyone else says they're useless.
It's their lifestyle that makes them such. I would not be so ill
mannered as to call them useless even is I think such. Their social
image is there for all including themselves to see and evaluate.
Alcoholics do not generally enjoy enhanced neither do druggies and so,
increasingly obesity also attracts social disapproval. These values do
come out and come through. There is only one way to enhance one's
socail image and that is through behaviour.
> Low self esteem is usually the result of bullying. Bullying further
> doesn't help, but harms, and means the chances of making a recovery and
> returning to work are significantly lowered.
occasions. We have to earn to cope and or deal with it. By and large
we don't rush into a corner and become an alcoholic or a druggie or
gorge ourselves.
It's remarkable that nobody drinks alcohol because they like and get
enjoyment out of it yet people still begin to partake of alcohol,
similarly nobody does drugs because because it provides them with some
kind of satisfaction yet people still take up drugs regardless of all
the social taboos that seek to dissuade them. Nobody over eats because
they enjoy their food.
All these conditions are self inflicted. What ever happened to the
society where everyone took responsibility for their own actions. Most
of us have come through it!
Andy Wainwright
Sep 27, 2012, 8:54:55 AM9/27/12
to
point out the bunk of our beliefs we actually share.
Like many diagnosed schizophrenics (diagnosis aged 7) , I've had
problems with addictions. Brain chemistry imbalances can create
cravings, much in the same way as hormones during pregnancy can make a
woman have strange tastes in food as the body seeks the neccesary
chemical balance.
I've certainly been a junkie, but never made any money out of selling
addictive drugs.
Now, both Thatcher and Cameron have. The typical addict is driven by
brain chemistry, sometimes genetic, sometimes pyschological, but the big
time dealers are driven by money- as such are rarely users, but
conciously making a profit out of misery of others.
Isn't the guy in it for money the criminal, and the guy with a mental
illness who's filling their coffers the victim? You seem to confuse the
two. That seems a little perverted to me.
JohnR
Sep 27, 2012, 9:08:58 AM9/27/12
to
war industry won't have any of it. They just need more power granted to
tackle the problem, and money thrown at them of course. Fight the good
fight and win the righteous crusade once and for all, then this utter
lunacy will all be over... or so the deluded, vindictive cretins keep
telling us.
JohnR
Sep 27, 2012, 9:23:19 AM9/27/12
to
On 26/09/2012 15:47, Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Sep 26, 3:18 pm, "Phi" <phis...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> "Mel Rowing" <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>
>> Would not a better system be to pay benefits or the major portion of
>> benefits in the form of vouchers for food, clothing and accomodation?
>> The they will hve no money for drugs unless they work?
>>
>> Or turn to more crime.
>
> Crime is committed not startlingly by criminals who behave so in order
> to acquire ill gotten gains. True they may want to buy drugs with
> their ill gotten gains but this is not the only motivation. Some might
> want to gamble, live the high life, live beyond their means, cut a
> social impression, avoid the tedium of working or all manner of
> reasons.
>
Aye, the financial centres are full of them, admitted not quite as many
>> "Mel Rowing" <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>
>> Would not a better system be to pay benefits or the major portion of
>> benefits in the form of vouchers for food, clothing and accomodation?
>> The they will hve no money for drugs unless they work?
>>
>> Or turn to more crime.
>
> Crime is committed not startlingly by criminals who behave so in order
> to acquire ill gotten gains. True they may want to buy drugs with
> their ill gotten gains but this is not the only motivation. Some might
> want to gamble, live the high life, live beyond their means, cut a
> social impression, avoid the tedium of working or all manner of
> reasons.
>
now since their reckless stupidity and rapacious greed brought most of
the house crashing down around them.
> Criminality is a moral issue. The idea that criminals only behave as
> they do so that they may buy drugs is a gross over simplifiaction.
> There is absolutely no reason to believe that criminals who are drug
any more than there is reason to think that users of some drugs would be
criminals otherwise, if not for the drug war stupidity and hypocrisy
that arbitrarily labels them as such.
> If this is claimed
> then such a claim provides a powerful extra reason to prohibit them
> since clearly they interfere with moral character.
>
abelard
Sep 27, 2012, 1:29:27 PM9/27/12
to
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:54:55 +0100, Andy Wainwright
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Here's the problem I've got with your ethical code. Now I'd like to
>point out the bunk of our beliefs we actually share.
i believe you, i really do
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Here's the problem I've got with your ethical code. Now I'd like to
>point out the bunk of our beliefs we actually share.
Peter Turtill
Sep 27, 2012, 5:29:16 PM9/27/12
to
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:08:58 +0100, JohnR <repr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Yes the anti-drug industry is far too profitable. I probably makes as
much as the drug industry and they are probably linked anyhow. Busting
drug cartels keeps the supply down and hence the price up and creates
the demand.
pete
wrote:
much as the drug industry and they are probably linked anyhow. Busting
drug cartels keeps the supply down and hence the price up and creates
the demand.
pete
Mel Rowing
Sep 27, 2012, 5:55:08 PM9/27/12
to
On Sep 27, 1:55 pm, Andy Wainwright
highly unlikely.
Why is it that widespread addiction is a realtively new phenomenon.
When I was at school the question of drugs rarely if ever cropped up
in conversation. We knew a few jazz musicians used drugs and that was
about it. Nowadays kids use drug terminology in coversations between
each other.
Yry lifestyle choice as a starting basis for your explanation and not
some illness. Illness has been with us for ever, addiction hasn't!
> I've certainly been a junkie, but never made any money out of selling
> addictive drugs.
What does that matter? You've certainly put money into the trade all
be it other people's money some of which will have been passed on to
fund God knows what.
> Now, both Thatcher and Cameron have. The typical addict is driven by
> brain chemistry, sometimes genetic, sometimes pyschological, but the big
> time dealers are driven by money- as such are rarely users, but
> conciously making a profit out of misery of others.
This same brain chemistry has be operating for thousands of years.
> Isn't the guy in it for money the criminal, and the guy with a mental
> illness who's filling their coffers the victim? You seem to confuse the
> two. That seems a little perverted to me.
No because there can be no dealer without customers. That makes the
customer just as culpable as the dealer if not more so since without
the latter there can be no former. He is the base of the pyramid.
Without him the whole ediface collapses.
<andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/09/2012 09:26, Mel Rowing wrote:
> Here's the problem I've got with your ethical code. Now I'd like to
> point out the bunk of our beliefs we actually share.
>
> Like many diagnosed schizophrenics (diagnosis aged 7) , I've had
> problems with addictions. Brain chemistry imbalances can create
> cravings, much in the same way as hormones during pregnancy can make a
> woman have strange tastes in food as the body seeks the neccesary
> chemical balance.
So are you telling me that drug addicts are schizophrenics? That seems
> On 27/09/2012 09:26, Mel Rowing wrote:
> Here's the problem I've got with your ethical code. Now I'd like to
> point out the bunk of our beliefs we actually share.
>
> Like many diagnosed schizophrenics (diagnosis aged 7) , I've had
> problems with addictions. Brain chemistry imbalances can create
> cravings, much in the same way as hormones during pregnancy can make a
> woman have strange tastes in food as the body seeks the neccesary
> chemical balance.
highly unlikely.
Why is it that widespread addiction is a realtively new phenomenon.
When I was at school the question of drugs rarely if ever cropped up
in conversation. We knew a few jazz musicians used drugs and that was
about it. Nowadays kids use drug terminology in coversations between
each other.
Yry lifestyle choice as a starting basis for your explanation and not
some illness. Illness has been with us for ever, addiction hasn't!
> I've certainly been a junkie, but never made any money out of selling
> addictive drugs.
be it other people's money some of which will have been passed on to
fund God knows what.
> Now, both Thatcher and Cameron have. The typical addict is driven by
> brain chemistry, sometimes genetic, sometimes pyschological, but the big
> time dealers are driven by money- as such are rarely users, but
> conciously making a profit out of misery of others.
> Isn't the guy in it for money the criminal, and the guy with a mental
> illness who's filling their coffers the victim? You seem to confuse the
> two. That seems a little perverted to me.
customer just as culpable as the dealer if not more so since without
the latter there can be no former. He is the base of the pyramid.
Without him the whole ediface collapses.
0 new messages