To think it's pathetic to take drugs on a night out ...

[Ashkey234]

She's 31 and until she met this new girl she never took drugs.
Now every time she goes out with her she takes Coke.
Every 30 minutes going to the toilet taking more.
I'm starting to dislike her because of it,I know that sounds awful but she's always jumping around after it,sweating,sniffing,bleeding nose and I just think she's Pathetic.
Both 31,she has 3 kids and I think your a mother and doing that.
I love a night out,cocktails etc but I'm honestly thinking of ending our friendship.
What's your opinions?

That's brilliant MrsTP. I heard a program on the radio a few months ago and thought its frankly a bit mad that nobody is even discussing this in this country.

People who only care about the unethical trade in cash crops when it is a stick to beat drugs users with. As they happily munch on a KitKat made by Nestle with chocolate that probably involves slavery, possibly child slavery.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I actually boycott nestle 😉

I don't doubt that there are people who shop ethically and as I say, I care about the trade and how it affects people. I also know there are people who don't give a shit on a regular. And it's most chocolate BTW. Nestle are just extra-dreadful.

@MrsTerryPratchett I don't think pillorying and criminalising drug users helps that. Do you think there's a distinction to be made between drug addicts and casual drug users? I would never berate a drug addict for supporting a criminal industry - as you and others have eloquently illustrated on this thread, addition has many causes and addicts deserve far more empathy than they are currently afforded (and I aboslutely agree that drug users should receive treatment, not punishment - and that mandatory minimums are racist and outdated) (and also that there's a wider discussion to be had about decriminalising some or all illegal drugs).

But should that same empathy be extended to those who do the odd line of coke on a night out? They're not addicts, but they're willingly and unnecessarily supporting a criminal industry that causes untold harm - not least to drug addicts themselves.

(That was a genuine question by the way - I feel there's a difference, but I'm interested to know if you do. Your posts in this thread have been so interesting and challenging - in a good way.)

Its interesting that now most people on here are say the worst thing about drugs is the unethical trade. That would be easily fixed with regulated and legalized trade! Well, not 'easily' actually since many legal trades have terrible supply chains.

The "war on drugs" has been raging (and arguably lost) since the 60's - and has created a huge swath of profitable business for criminals, and for the poor and most marginalized in growing counties to be exploited.

Just like american prohibition of alcohol led to profitable opportunities for criminals with booze!

Everyone has different ethical stand markers at what level of human or animal suffering or environmental damage they are willing to accept for their own personal gain. People in glass houses and all that!

Also the "its illegal and therefore terrible" argument... cannabis. Legal in Nevada. Zero tolerance right next door in Idaho. Which state is correct in their thinking that taking cannabis is really bad for you/your family or that it isn't actually that bad? How can the impacts.affects be so different to people living a few miles (over the boarder) apart?

An interesting facet to cannabis legalization in some US states is the impact it has had on ethnic minorities. Arguably the people who would be most skilled and knowledgeable at selling it legally are those who sold it illegally before, but a criminal conviction means you are barred from owning a cannabis shop. And black men are WAY more likely in the US to be convicted of a drug crime than a white man.
One of many articles: www.theroot.com/why-black-people-are-being-left-out-of-the-weed-boom-1790856564

Do you think there's a distinction to be made between drug addicts and casual drug users?

@peachgreen

Tricky one!

To what extent are people really 'casual drug users' though? Like, people who take MDMA only when they go 'out out' and they only go out once every three months. One the one hand, that is relatively casual drug taking. However if you ALWAYS take MDMA when you go to club nights, are you not basically addicted in that situation?

Or you only take coke with a certain group of friends. If you can;t go out with that group of friends and NOT do it, again isn't that situation dependency?

That is an interesting question @peachgreen. And one that I am pondering. No, I don't think they are deserving of the same empathy. But I do think that people use certain drugs for certain reasons and those reasons can be complex.

I'd say don't go out with her on a night out. I've done drugs and yes I had an amazing night when I took coke, better than just drinking imo but that was years ago and now pregnant with dc1, haven't taken drugs for 3 years (only used to smoke weed) I couldn't think of anything more selfish. When it's your own life it's fair enough but not when you have little ones to think about. Although that said, if i was ever to visit Amsterdam theres a 99% chance that i would try mushrooms! My personal opinion, feel free to judge me for it!

@HipsterHunter It is a tricky distinction, especially when there are so many high-functioning addicts who have the funds to enable their habit and therefore have few of the negative repercussions of addiction. I'm sure there is a technical definition of an addict but I'm not aware of it.

I guess maybe it's a want / need thing, but even users themselves could have difficulty recognising whether or not they'd crossed that line.

You are right that legalisation wouldn't solve everything. I'm not sure I would advocate legalisation - just that there's a conversation to be had about it. (You're also right about the incredible racial bias in drug laws and policing.)

For me it's not that drugs being illegal is the only bad thing about them, but more that I don't feel it's my place to judge someone for what they do to their own body, no matter what I think of that particular drug. But I can judge their choice (when it is a choice) to support a criminal industry. I suppose in the same vein I would understand someone judging a person for buying Nestle products (whether I agree with that judgement or not) but not if they were judging their consumption of chocolate. Their body, their choice.

@MrsTerryPratchett Yes that's a good point. And perhaps there's often empathy to be found in the reason someone uses drugs if not in the act itself.

Certainly my preference would be that the first line of defence is treatment and education, not punishment.

I'm sure there is a technical definition of an addict but I'm not aware of it.

There is a pure medical model that says that physical addiction is the 'true' definition so very crudely someone who drinks more that 24 units a day (and therefore never sober and very likely to get really ill if they give up) would be an addict. Clearly, that captures only certain drugs and only certain addicts. Some people would say that 'alcoholic/drug addict' refers only to these people and that one would use 'a problem with alcohol/drugs' to cover everyone else. Alcohol/drug dependence.

There is the other extreme; 'if you use and it causes you problems and you continue to use, you have a drug/alcohol problem'. Which captures everyone but in terms of resource allocation isn't great. It does capture people who offend while under the influence, people who binge drink and people with atypical problematic use (has to have a drink before a meeting). Alcohol/drug abuse or misuse.

First lot would need detox, second lot wouldn't.

We lost the 'war on drugs' years ago and no amount of chiding people will stop them taking it if they are determined to. As a former drug squad police officer, I have seen the effects of hard drugs on people and had to deal with the aftermath.
I also currently work the doors on pubs, clubs and festivals and welcome the initiative by a drug testing charity called The Loop. Despite coats, pockets and bags being search prior to entering festivals, we are not legally allowed to search underclothing so it is obvious that drugs are getting into festivals, either stuffed inside knickers/bras etc or 'plugged'. Therefore it would seem to be sensible to have a charity that openly tests a drug for you, at a festival, and gives the results to you including, component parts and purity percentage. This allows for drugs to be taken in relative safety. You won't stop them dropping a tab so you might as well make sure they have all the information to make informed choices.
For those who think that illegal drugs are 'fun', I have seized cocaine cut with the following; brick dust, concrete mix, rat poison, urine.

Wow! How do you cut something with urine!?

Thing is, people take drugs, probably way more than you think.
Dangerously cut drugs don't kill people very often when compared to excessive alcohol drinking. It's not likely your friend will suddenly die from one line of coke and if she's doing it every weekend it's habitual. It's likely she will outgrow this phase and you can go back to being friends like before.
If she is caught in possession she may face jail time for a class a so that is irresponsible considering she has kids.

But it also just seems like you are on a totally different wavelength when you're out with her because you're consuming different things so it's not fun.

Can you do anything else together aside from going out? Or maybe just drift apart until she's over this phase? Unless you feel this brings her moral character into question and therefore you don't like her anymore?

But I think we should note it's mostly not drug takers filling up A&E every weekend and being saved from pools of their own vomit in the street. Maybe I'm wrong?