Many, many people took recreational drugs in the 90s. Where are they now?

[perhapsiwill]

I'm not a drug addict and none of my friends were at the time, we just took Es at the weekend, sometimes other drugs. We all went to work or college, seemed like everyone else did this too. We had a great time, weekends were for dancing and hugging, I didn't get on with drunk people and one night stands and it suited me much better.
I moved away from where I grew up, nice area to another nice area.
When I mention partying in my youth to other mums where I live now, they look at me as if I'm an addict who needs help .
Are they all pretending? There were thousands of us doing this so where are they now? And why do people who never took drugs appear to feel so morally superior? One of the women where I live openly talks about cheating the system financially yet looks at me like I'm scum because I went out and had fun 20 years ago. (And probably once a year now!) I feel that because I mentioned this one evening in a pub I have alienated myself from the local mums.

Oh I went to the fridge in Brixton too cote .
I travelled alone when I was younger as well as with friends. In Africa and South America and Asia. I also spent a lot of my travels hitch hiking, always with someone else but I reckon that was more risky than the party drugs.
I believe that risk and reward travel side by side. I never would have met all the amazing people I did if I hadn't hitch hiked, I had great fun taking mushrooms and acid as well as Es etc and I knew I was taking a risk but it was a lot of fun. Maybe some people just take more risks.
I'm sorry for those that have experience of friends and relatives who have died. I can account for many more in my own life who have died of heart attacks, possibly related to obesity or alcohol consumption. Cigarettes contributed to the deaths of three of my relatives.

Pounding - I totally agree that "we need a grown up discussion on drugs". The problem is that there is crushing political pressure on one side and ignorance coupled with prejudice on the other. Politicians don't want to be the one to say that actually drugs are not all that bad and people who have been brainwashed all their lives about how all drugs are horrible and that's why they are illegal don't want to hear facts to the contrary, let alone have that grown up discussion.

"I meet countless addicts who think nothing of burgling an old lady and pushing her over in order to fund their next hit... I also come across people who have no dealings with criminality whatsoever other than trying to buy some pills or cocaine on a night out. People who hold down decent jobs, contribute to charity, have functioning families, etc... it seems ludicrous that we are putting them in the same categories"

Very true, and that is because "drugs" is so broad a category as to be meaningless. The addicts who hurt old ladies to get money for their next hit are not doing it for an E or LSD. Nowhere in the world has anyone prostituted themselves for a tab of acid or a joint. There is a world of difference between heroin & crystal meth, and recreational drugs like MDMA & LSD.

"The one thing both groups share in common is that they encourage the growth of organised crime by buying the drugs."

YABU to leave the responsibility for organised crime at the feet of the users, while it belongs solely in the hands of legislators. There is clearly (a lot of) demand for these products. Whose fault it is that they are not sold by legal organisations, quality-controlled, and taxes received by proper authorities? Not the users'.

"while they're illegal, anyone taking them is contributing to that seedy underbelly whether they like it or not. I have more time for recreational drug users who put their money where their mouth is and actually campaign for legalisation which could remove some of these issues."

Don't hold your breath for that. In the real world, (1) Nobody has time for that sort of thing, and (2) Nobody will put their neck out and clearly show their employers, parents, etc that they use drugs by campaigning for legalisation although it is nobody's business what they do in their spare time and with their own bodies.

"the sort who think that the rules apply to everyone bar them"

Yep, that's me. When the rules are dumb, I don't feel like following them. Millions of others clearly agree.

What I eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise ingest into or do to my own body is nobody's business. I didn't listen to my mum who said I should stay a virgin until marriage and no, I certainly didn't listen to government authorities who say I couldn't smoke or eat what I wanted to. They can all bite me

And if I lived in Northern Ireland, I would not have had an unwanted child just because the rules there say I should. I would have found an illegal, criminal organisation to provide the illegal abortion I needed.

Cote I agree with a lot of what you say, but I don't think you can compare abortion with legalisation of drugs.

Pregnancy is a natural event on which survival of our species depends. Debates on unwanted pregnancies and abortion cannot lose sight of that fact and there are important considerations such as the bodily autonomy of women in a world where contraception is also frowned upon and women's rights have some way to go. Someone's desire to get high does not compare.

Of course I can. Both are illegal in some parts of the world. Both are about what people can do to their own bodies. As such, I have no problem breaking both laws and engaging the criminals who provide those services that the state refuses to regulate, as and when the need may arise.

When the rules are dumb, I don't feel like following them. Millions of others clearly agree.

So do those who commit burglaries and shop thefts because they 'need the money', those who beat up their partners (because they deserve it), those who abuse children (I'm just misunderstood), those who drive at 100 miles or while drunk (because I'm actually a better driver than everyone else).

We live in a (relatively) free country. You can make your own choices and live by the consequences. Some people are happy to and good luck to them. Others lose my sympathy when they bemoan the fact that their little "possession of cocaine" may mean they can no longer volunteer at their child's activity group or face travel restrictions.

cote we do know that people who have taken certain drugs in the past are more at risk from heart problems in the future. Including things like chemotherapy too, so it's not just illegal drugs. The heart problems don't always surface until your heart is under greater than normal strain, so you wouldn't necessarily know. So I do know this as its part of my job to know!

You can look at numbers taken and incidents - it gives a very rough figure, but is not entirely quantifiable as you don't have a quality system in place with illegal drugs.
I doubt most if you would be happy with such slap dash production methods when buying your yoghurts let alone your otc paracetamol.

Cote if you think wanting to snorting coke is on the same level as a woman wanting to abort a foetus conceived as part of a domestic rape, there it no point in us continuing this debate. I bow out.

" there are important considerations such as the bodily autonomy of women"

Exactly. Freedom to do what you want to your body. Such as have a glass of wine or smoke a joint. Or have sex with who you want. Or have a piercing or tattoo.

You might think one is worthier a cause than the other, but both depend on the question of whether grown and capable adults should have the right to do what they want to their own bodies.

"if you think wanting to snorting coke is on the same level as a woman wanting to abort a foetus conceived as part of a domestic rape"

No need to clutch your pearls. I didn't say anything about "on the same level". I said they are both illegal in some parts of the world and they are both about doing things to one's own body. Which is true.

Do try to argue against it, if you can.

" those who commit burglaries and shop thefts because they 'need the money', those who beat up their partners (because they deserve it), those who abuse children (I'm just misunderstood), those who drive at 100 miles or while drunk (because I'm actually a better driver than everyone else)."

Was I not clear that I am talking about laws on what one can do to his own body and not murder, theft, and child abuse?

YABU to leave the responsibility for organised crime at the feet of the users, while it belongs solely in the hands of legislators

. I guess it makes users feel better if they believe this. Personally I could never pay for something where I know the money will most likely go in the pockets of organized crime despite whose 'fault' it is.

If you think the laws are wrong perhaps move somewhere with more relaxed attitudes, or campaign to get things changed, you could even try getting yourself elected as an MP or something. We live in a democracy after all.

I don't pretend to be an expect on the drug trade but I know enough to know that it's extremely nasty, violent and exploits the very most vulnerable in society. Clearly some people are OK with contributing towards this.

Expert NOT expect

Twittery what about the clothes you buy or the meat you eat. Can you be sure you are not contributing to the suffering of others or of our planet ? Highly unlikely that you are not.

Two wrongs don't make a right though, pointing out that there are other wrongs in this world doesn't absolve you of responsibility towards the first wrong.

Arguing you want to choose which laws you obey is a slippery slope towards a lawless society. on the one hand, yes it's up to you what you do with your own body, but I agree the subsequent involvement of criminality does rather make you have responsibilities towards your fellow citizens.

Rather than think entirely about yourself, perhaps it's an idea for you to campaign for a change in the law perhaps. Although you may believe using illegal substances is not harming anyone, it's not helping anyone either.

I've been part of a team who tried to get a client well, who developed severe psychosis, despite having a professional job before. Because he happened to smoke strong skunk. The psychosis it brought on could not be treated with even the rarer anti-psychotics and we ended up transferring him to London from Yorkshire to try to treat him. He lost everything.

Then there was the beautiful air stewardess who was no longer very beautiful, as she was losing her teeth, her jaw was rotting and her face was receding due to use of speed.......coupled with a heavy dose of psychosis and depression.

The thing is, recreational users by definition only see one side of the coin. Why would you see the extreme mental health problems, physical addictions and psychological addictions that can develop, unless your friends told you all about their medical issues (a great many people lie through shame).

What this thread does show, is that there are some posters who certainly give credence to the idea that many recreational drug users who appear to have come through unscathed a) cannot tell the difference between data and anecdote......unless it involves horse riding, and b) typify the stereotype that they think they have come through unscathed but are actually particularly arrogant and obnoxious

*the psychosis and depression were brought on by speed, not the other way around. We know now that a lot of MH problems can be carried through genes. However, it seems different peoples' MH genes become "activated" by different things, so using once can trigger MH issues. It is not always self medicating.

OP
Twittery what about the clothes you buy or the meat you eat. Can you be sure you are not contributing to the suffering of others or of our planet ? Highly unlikely that you are not

I can't be sure that I'm not contributing to the suffering of others but at least I TRY my best not too. If you take drugs then you ARE knowingly contributing towards organized crime and all the horrors that are associated with it. I chose not to. Some people chose to but are at least honest that they don't care where their money goes and other people, such as yourself, seem keen to justify why it's ok and that's it not even 'your' fault.

Sorry, I've just noticed that I've namechanged since I last posted before the weekend. I was OfToTown before. I'm a regular namechanger but try not to namechange mid thread

I know plenty of the rec drug users who now have anxiety, depression, use a walking stick and can't work (only in early 40s) they seem stuck in the past and feel that everyone else is 'square' and they are so edgy.

I'm not sure why taking recreational drugs in the context that I have given would mean that you might have a walking stick.
Why can't they walk or work??

"Rather than think entirely about yourself, perhaps it's an idea for you to campaign for a change in the law perhaps."

Or perhaps not perhaps, considering that I haven't touched any of it for over a decade.

"Although you may believe using illegal substances is not harming anyone, it's not helping anyone either."

Why should I care if what I eat, drink etc is "not helping anyone"?

The chocolate I eat isn't helping anyone, either. So?

"want to choose which laws you obey is a slippery slope towards a lawless society"

It clearly isn't since neither yours truly nor the hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens who have decided that government has no business forbidding what they can do with their bodies have NOT descended into a devolved state of lawless beasts.

Gay men were having sex when sodomy was illegal. Women are having abortions where they are illegal, too. And you'd better believe that extramarital sex is quite the thing in Muslim countries, despite the death sentence it comes with. People have a long history of giving two fingers to laws forbidding stuff they want to with their own bodies, without it descending into lawlessness.

"I know plenty of the rec drug users who now have anxiety, depression, use a walking stick and can't work (only in early 40s)"

That might have a lot to do with the fact that recreational drug use is incredibly common. You will of course know former clubbers with problems, just as I'm sure sure know many who are very successful and have no physical problems.

For future reference, if it were illegal to consume a half glass of champagne once or twice when pregnant, those laws would get the two fingers, too.

Given the mounting evidence regarding the harm of consuming sugar, if cakes and biscuits one day become illegal, expect the aforementioned two fingers once again.

Just so we're clear

its human nature to seek pleasure and we all seek it in different ways

we can't all be good and in control all the time but it doesn't make you a bad person if you give in now and then

The tax you pay on your chocolate goes towards our society. So yes, it does help!

The money you give criminals to fund drug running is often used to support other sorts of crime.

The problem with not following laws is that you can't really pick and choose. Mainly I think we do obey laws, but the more that are ignored, the worse society becomes. you are not really suggesting that we only obey laws we fancy?