Originally Posted by Shabba-:
“Reeks of desperation in here dragging up some tweet she posted nearly 2 years ago.”
“Reeks of desperation in here dragging up some tweet she posted nearly 2 years ago.”
Desperation of what?
One of Chloes tweets,,,,victimless crime gets 10/20
2 of 3
Originally Posted by BusyV:
“Desperation of what?”
“Desperation of what?
”
I'd have said desperation to discredit/shame/embarrass Chloe for having the audacity to win Big Brother - and I'd agree - it does look pretty desperate and a bit pathetic.
Originally Posted by niwdeness:
“Okay then, enlighten me. I don't know much about amphetamines, and there is limited clear info about it online, some sources have said it's a dependent drug, others have said it's addictive.
Either way, I stick to my original point that the media misreports and exaggerates the harm of recreational drugs, and in no is dealing them comparable to being a murderer, rapist or child-abuser.”
“Okay then, enlighten me. I don't know much about amphetamines, and there is limited clear info about it online, some sources have said it's a dependent drug, others have said it's addictive.
Either way, I stick to my original point that the media misreports and exaggerates the harm of recreational drugs, and in no is dealing them comparable to being a murderer, rapist or child-abuser.”
You are right that most available material will exclude amphetamine from the list most highly addictive substances but first hand experience via my field of work shows that this is an addictive drug. Either way it's mostly considered a dirty drug and is extremely destructive.
I would agree in regards to rapists and paedophiles but I don't see why dealers should be excluded from being classed murderers if the drug that they supply leads to a death.
Originally Posted by BusyV:
“Desperation of what?”
“Desperation of what?
”
I shouldn't worry about it, a lot of the posters here lately seem to think that the purpose of a forum is to diss other forum members, when it's actually to discuss things about the program, and about the HM's, on. Don't let them put you off from discussing
Originally Posted by wotnot:
“You are right that most available material will exclude amphetamine from the list most highly addictive substances but first hand experience via my field of work shows that this is an addictive drug. Either way it's mostly considered a dirty drug and is extremely destructive.
I would agree in regards to rapists and paedophiles but I don't see why dealers should be excluded from being classed murderers if the drug that they supply leads to a death.”
“You are right that most available material will exclude amphetamine from the list most highly addictive substances but first hand experience via my field of work shows that this is an addictive drug. Either way it's mostly considered a dirty drug and is extremely destructive.
I would agree in regards to rapists and paedophiles but I don't see why dealers should be excluded from being classed murderers if the drug that they supply leads to a death.”
Neither do I.
Originally Posted by Shabba-:
“Reeks of desperation in here dragging up some tweet she posted nearly 2 years ago.”
“Reeks of desperation in here dragging up some tweet she posted nearly 2 years ago.”
Two years?! lol I don't do twitter so wouldn't have a clue.
Originally Posted by wotnot:
“Two years?! lol I don't do twitter so wouldn't have a clue.”
“Two years?! lol I don't do twitter so wouldn't have a clue.”
Chloe CoCo Wilburn @ChloeJade59 11 Oct 2013
Peadophiles, murderers and rapists get silly sentences of less than 5, sometimes 3yrs..yet a perpetrator of a victimless crime get get 10/20
Someone has gone back 2 years on her Twitter page.
Does the time matter? Other housemates have stuff dragged up from years prior to their stay in the house and it's considered fair game.
Originally Posted by planets:
“Does the time matter? Other housemates have stuff dragged up from years prior to their stay in the house and it's considered fair game.”
“Does the time matter? Other housemates have stuff dragged up from years prior to their stay in the house and it's considered fair game.”
That's a good point though, why do 'we' do it, we shouldn't really give a toss. It's not like they are going to be doing anything that will affect us like run the country!
Originally Posted by wotnot:
“That's a good point though, why do 'we' do it, we shouldn't really give a toss. It's not like they are going to be doing anything that will affect us like run the country!”
“That's a good point though, why do 'we' do it, we shouldn't really give a toss. It's not like they are going to be doing anything that will affect us like run the country!”
It's done for a variety of reasons depending on the specific example.
Sometimes it's done to say an HM's behaviour in the house is consistent with their behaviour out of the house.
Sometimes it's done because an HM isn't liked but there isn't a good enough reason from their behaviour in the house to justify it, so behaviours outside the house are brought in to the argument.
Sometimes it's done to point out game plans strategies etc
Sometimes to point out HMs are lying.
The reasons are endless.... sometimes it's done to browbeat FMs!!
Originally Posted by wotnot:
“You are right that most available material will exclude amphetamine from the list most highly addictive substances but first hand experience via my field of work shows that this is an addictive drug. Either way it's mostly considered a dirty drug and is extremely destructive.
I would agree in regards to rapists and paedophiles but I don't see why dealers should be excluded from being classed murderers if the drug that they supply leads to a death.”
“You are right that most available material will exclude amphetamine from the list most highly addictive substances but first hand experience via my field of work shows that this is an addictive drug. Either way it's mostly considered a dirty drug and is extremely destructive.
I would agree in regards to rapists and paedophiles but I don't see why dealers should be excluded from being classed murderers if the drug that they supply leads to a death.”
DIsagree with your second point.
There is a difference between enabling someone to die, and directly and actively causing someone to die. The former requires a self-destruction action on the part of the victim, the latter doesn't.
I was curious where people were getting all this information from, so I went to have look for myself, I did not realise there was a time limit on what I could comment on! I was actually wondering what people thought was a victimless crime
Originally Posted by niwdeness:
“DIsagree with your second point.
There is a difference between enabling someone to die, and directly and actively causing someone to die. The former requires a self-destruction action on the part of the victim, the latter doesn't.”
“DIsagree with your second point.
There is a difference between enabling someone to die, and directly and actively causing someone to die. The former requires a self-destruction action on the part of the victim, the latter doesn't.”
While we cannot always control the destructive desires of others to actively tout a drug with the knowledge that it is unsafe (and no chemically produced drug is safe) and has the possibility of causing death is akin to murder.
We will have to agree to disagree I think
Originally Posted by John_Smith86:
“Really? You think drug dealers can be considered serial killers?”
“Really? You think drug dealers can be considered serial killers?”
In my opinion, not a lot of difference
Originally Posted by wotnot:
“While we cannot always control the destructive desires of others to actively tout a drug with the knowledge that it is unsafe (and no chemically produced drug is safe) and has the possibility of causing death is akin to murder.
We will have to agree to disagree I think”
“While we cannot always control the destructive desires of others to actively tout a drug with the knowledge that it is unsafe (and no chemically produced drug is safe) and has the possibility of causing death is akin to murder.
We will have to agree to disagree I think”
We will.
It's not akin at all. Murder is a deliberate, premeditated act. Selling potentially dangerous drugs to someone suggests indifference to someone's wellbeing, but does not suggest an intent for that person to die.
They are both crappy things but one is more crap then the other.
Originally Posted by niwdeness:
“There is no victimless crime but the level of harm drugs cause is often exaggerated by the media, and people perpetuate this, as seen in this thread. Amphetamines (like speed) are not like crack or heroin, they are not considered particularly addictive by most experts. "Legal" and "moral" are often mixed up by people.”
“There is no victimless crime but the level of harm drugs cause is often exaggerated by the media, and people perpetuate this, as seen in this thread. Amphetamines (like speed) are not like crack or heroin, they are not considered particularly addictive by most experts. "Legal" and "moral" are often mixed up by people.”
BULLSHIT.
If somebody wants to smoke buds from a plant, that is NOBODY's business. There is no victim.
Sounds like basically he was a gangster. Regardless of the drugs issue 'career criminals' usually have victims at some point.
10 years is a long stretch and the fact the guy above him, or got caught and/or convicted for more, got double that suggests some very serious business here imo.
I don't know if that's where it came from but just one example on the drugs issue is that China's one of the world's biggest producers and stuff from there supports slavery, murder, you name it. Same with South American coke as well as propping up despots.
The 'war on drugs' failed a long time ago - anyone can see that, but there are consequences far beyond just getting in then shifting an ounce or two of coke or speed or heroin, let alone that much.
Agreed harm relative to many legal pursuits is often exaggerated and sensationalised.
I also believe most harm and almost all crime involved is due to the drug laws, and that there should be none (but ofc with proper education etc). I believe it was Keith Richards who said that he's only alive today because the drugs they got were so pure - it's often the adulterants that kill heroin users who inject for example, and many OD because a batch is cut less than normal.
One of the hardest drugs to come off, ironically, is methadone - the legal substitute they give heroin addicts! Much harder to come off than heroin itself - I've seen it first hand.
You are wrong though - amphetamines are exactly in the same bracket as coke or heroin in terms of addiction, it's just not as common. Addicts inject it. I've known a couple of speed addicts and it's not pretty at all. Unsurprisingly they were very poor as it's so much cheaper than coke it tends to be in the real ghettos in the UK.
Methamphetamine is basically the crack version - go look at some documentaries about what that does to you!
I completely agree, and there's so much ignorance about (and without being rude Chloe's not the most informed person on the planet) imo it's completely understandable.
Cannabis is the most ridiculous one of all I agree. The problem is, huge amounts in the UK are grown by the Vietnamese gangs in rented houses, and the poor souls who tend to the plants are basically slaves as well. Unless you know where it's come from, you don't know there wasn't a victim along the way.
10 years is a long stretch and the fact the guy above him, or got caught and/or convicted for more, got double that suggests some very serious business here imo.
I don't know if that's where it came from but just one example on the drugs issue is that China's one of the world's biggest producers and stuff from there supports slavery, murder, you name it. Same with South American coke as well as propping up despots.
The 'war on drugs' failed a long time ago - anyone can see that, but there are consequences far beyond just getting in then shifting an ounce or two of coke or speed or heroin, let alone that much.
Originally Posted by niwdeness:
“There is no victimless crime but the level of harm drugs cause is often exaggerated by the media, and people perpetuate this, as seen in this thread. Amphetamines (like speed) are not like crack or heroin, they are not considered particularly addictive by most experts. "Legal" and "moral" are often mixed up by people.”
“There is no victimless crime but the level of harm drugs cause is often exaggerated by the media, and people perpetuate this, as seen in this thread. Amphetamines (like speed) are not like crack or heroin, they are not considered particularly addictive by most experts. "Legal" and "moral" are often mixed up by people.”
Agreed harm relative to many legal pursuits is often exaggerated and sensationalised.
I also believe most harm and almost all crime involved is due to the drug laws, and that there should be none (but ofc with proper education etc). I believe it was Keith Richards who said that he's only alive today because the drugs they got were so pure - it's often the adulterants that kill heroin users who inject for example, and many OD because a batch is cut less than normal.
One of the hardest drugs to come off, ironically, is methadone - the legal substitute they give heroin addicts! Much harder to come off than heroin itself - I've seen it first hand.
You are wrong though - amphetamines are exactly in the same bracket as coke or heroin in terms of addiction, it's just not as common. Addicts inject it. I've known a couple of speed addicts and it's not pretty at all. Unsurprisingly they were very poor as it's so much cheaper than coke it tends to be in the real ghettos in the UK.
Methamphetamine is basically the crack version - go look at some documentaries about what that does to you!
Originally Posted by MargMck:
“He was described as "a career criminal" in court so it's very unlikely there were no victims along the way.
However, I expect any daughter would be distressed if her father, regardless of what he'd done, would be upset if he was locked up for years, so explaining the misguided tweet of the time.”
“He was described as "a career criminal" in court so it's very unlikely there were no victims along the way.
However, I expect any daughter would be distressed if her father, regardless of what he'd done, would be upset if he was locked up for years, so explaining the misguided tweet of the time.”
I completely agree, and there's so much ignorance about (and without being rude Chloe's not the most informed person on the planet) imo it's completely understandable.
Originally Posted by michaelkegnan:
“BULLSHIT.
If somebody wants to smoke buds from a plant, that is NOBODY's business. There is no victim.”
“BULLSHIT.
If somebody wants to smoke buds from a plant, that is NOBODY's business. There is no victim.”
Cannabis is the most ridiculous one of all I agree. The problem is, huge amounts in the UK are grown by the Vietnamese gangs in rented houses, and the poor souls who tend to the plants are basically slaves as well. Unless you know where it's come from, you don't know there wasn't a victim along the way.
Why did she feel the need to "tweet" anything at all. What is wrong with people...
Her father is a criminal, was found guilty of his crimes and is now in prison.
I have said before, the sins of the father should not be vistied on their children, but when said children go on twitter and bang on about sentences...well they do leave themselves open to comment.
Idiotic.
Her father is a criminal, was found guilty of his crimes and is now in prison.
I have said before, the sins of the father should not be vistied on their children, but when said children go on twitter and bang on about sentences...well they do leave themselves open to comment.
Idiotic.
Cannabis can cause serious mental illness and ruin lives theres your victim Chloe as a starter for five.
Originally Posted by Hoffmister:
“Cannabis can cause serious mental illness and ruin lives theres your victim Chloe as a starter for five.”
“Cannabis can cause serious mental illness and ruin lives theres your victim Chloe as a starter for five.”
Cannabis doesn't 'cause' mental illness, it only - like any drugs/drink merely amplifies the mental illness that's already there
Much as I respect your opinion I feel it's endemic of the ill-informed parrotism at the heart of Cannabis opposition
Originally Posted by wotnot:
“You are right that most available material will exclude amphetamine from the list most highly addictive substances but first hand experience via my field of work shows that this is an addictive drug. Either way it's mostly considered a dirty drug and is extremely destructive.
I would agree in regards to rapists and paedophiles but I don't see why dealers should be excluded from being classed murderers if the drug that they supply leads to a death.”
“You are right that most available material will exclude amphetamine from the list most highly addictive substances but first hand experience via my field of work shows that this is an addictive drug. Either way it's mostly considered a dirty drug and is extremely destructive.
I would agree in regards to rapists and paedophiles but I don't see why dealers should be excluded from being classed murderers if the drug that they supply leads to a death.”
Well, technically alcohol is also a drug. Would you like to see Pub landlords prosecuted for supplying a drug to addicts?
I'd say taking your own drugs, prostitution, watching live TV without TV license are all pretty much victimless crimes.
Originally Posted by BusyV:
“Chloe CoCo Wilburn @ChloeJade59 11 Oct 2013
Peadophiles, murderers and rapists get silly sentences of less than 5, sometimes 3yrs..yet a perpetrator of a victimless crime get get 10/20
I am confused, I know this is an opinion but surely all crimes have a victim directly or indirectly?”
“Chloe CoCo Wilburn @ChloeJade59 11 Oct 2013
Peadophiles, murderers and rapists get silly sentences of less than 5, sometimes 3yrs..yet a perpetrator of a victimless crime get get 10/20
I am confused, I know this is an opinion but surely all crimes have a victim directly or indirectly?
”
Is she referring to her father the drug dealer? Because if she is then I bet there are more victims than she will ever know.
These pricks have no morals whom they sell to just as long as they sell their drugs, They don't care about other people children, they care only about their own children & in some cases now even their own families!
10 years is a drop in the ocean compared to what her father has put onto other people not only the drug user but their families as well over the years.
So if it is her fathers sentence she is referring to then don't do the crime if you can't do the time!
How many times has this sad git & his mates got away with dealing drugs?!
Originally Posted by niwdeness:
“There is no victimless crime but the level of harm drugs cause is often exaggerated by the media, and people perpetuate this, as seen in this thread. Amphetamines (like speed) are not like crack or heroin, they are not considered particularly addictive by most experts. "Legal" and "moral" are often mixed up by people.”
“There is no victimless crime but the level of harm drugs cause is often exaggerated by the media, and people perpetuate this, as seen in this thread. Amphetamines (like speed) are not like crack or heroin, they are not considered particularly addictive by most experts. "Legal" and "moral" are often mixed up by people.”
Drugs are drugs, people will experiment and die from them so anyone dealing with them should be locked up and the key thrown away.
Originally Posted by HonestLee:
“Cannabis doesn't 'cause' mental illness, it only - like any drugs/drink merely amplifies the mental illness that's already there
Much as I respect your opinion I feel it's endemic of the ill-informed parrotism at the heart of Cannabis opposition”
“Cannabis doesn't 'cause' mental illness, it only - like any drugs/drink merely amplifies the mental illness that's already there
Much as I respect your opinion I feel it's endemic of the ill-informed parrotism at the heart of Cannabis opposition”
Wrong (and I'm a cannabis advocate).
People rarely used to get screwed up mentally on cannabis - because it was natural.
Nature designs everything perfectly - the natural breeds balance the psychoactive element (THC) with another very important element - CBD, which balances THC out in the brain and makes people less likely to become psychotic.
Most modern cannabis breeders have been working for years to boost THC to crazy levels and reduce CBD. It feels stronger, the growers make more profit and for many people is OK. But if you're susceptible to mental illness the risk is much, much greater.
In America (where it's actually a medicine in many States now) they list the THC vs CBD content in the pharmacies, and are actively developing strains that are low THC high CBD.
2 of 3
