Tuesday, July 25, 2017

NO MS HIGGINS, NOT SIMILAR, NOT EVEN CLOSE.



Mrs Higgins is currently filling the airhead hour 0500 to 0600 weekdays on Newstalk while Smalley covers the  drive time evenings.

This morning quite scathing of The PMs suggestion that had the now deceased seven druggies suspected of ingesting  synthetic Weed that might have contributed to their Darwinian solution, could have dodged the fatal outcome had they not indulged in illegal substance abuse.
Ms Iggins claimed that was akin to blaming road deaths to traffic.

No Nadine a car driver may have contributed to a greater or lesser degree in a fatality of another and may well have been entirely within the law during such an incident.
The currently dead drug users made a concious decision to ingest the poison that may have ended their lives so therefore they are entirely responsible. It would be different had they died taking prescription drugs in reccomended dosage.

There is zero professional responsibility involved in the other drug trade while Pharmacies and Drs have rigid protocols and standards not applied in the market for illegal drugs.

Simple message as articulated by Mr English, dont take/use illegal substances and thereby avoid dead. is about as accurate and honest as it could be.

Now had the airhead used swimming over the Huka Falls as an analogy she may have been accurate.  No need to reach for the PMs good sense response in desperate fake news.

Of course had she wished to sheet some of the responsibility home to a Minister then Boofhead Dunne does have some historical involvement along with his son with the chaotic attempt to intervene in the now shambolic synthetic testing brain fart and Mr Key was his boss. Benglish was only the bean counter at that time.

16 comments:

The Veteran said...

Uptick, uptick, uptick

Psycho Milt said...

Simple message as articulated by Mr English, dont take/use illegal substances and thereby avoid dead. is about as accurate and honest as it could be.

What an empathy-bypassed piece of shit he is.

Simple message as articulated by Psycho Milt: people use recreational drugs. If you make their preferred drug illegal, you make them a target market for criminals. That has consequences, and the consequences are your responsibility, you the fuckwits who made people's recreational drugs illegal.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

You are the fuckwits who would make people's recreational narcotics normal. Along with having dirty old men piddle in young ladies' toilets.

Get the message Milt. Nobody needs recreational narcotics.

The Veteran said...

PM ... you win first prize for convoluted thinking.

Psycho Milt said...

Nobody needs recreational narcotics.

So, you'd be happy for alcohol to be made illegal and the ensuing gang wars and people dying from "bad batches" to be blamed on drinkers?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

No, not at all but I'm not happy about legalizing a whole batch of other narcotics.

Psycho Milt said...

In other words, you wouldn't be happy for criminalisation of alcohol to cause gang wars and civilian deaths, but you're happy for criminalisation of other drugs to cause gang wars and civilian deaths. I've never understood the logic behind that view.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Once again, the implied but dishonest assumption implicit in almost very argument from the Left.

" .....criminalisation of other drugs to cause gang wars and civilian deaths"

It's not the criminalisation which causes the deaths, Milt. It's the criminals themselves.

The same chaps who kill people in order to steal perfectly legal cigarettes.

Psycho Milt said...

The assumption (an anything but dishonest one) is based on the facts that criminals don't set up gangs to supply alcohol and kill people with bad batches, and yet the moment alcohol was criminalised in the USA they did exactly that. It's almost as though criminalising that drug created a massive opportunity for profit from crime, an opportunity that was immediately taken up. In fact it's exactly like that, because... well, because that's what happens when you criminalise something that people want to buy. A staunch refusal to face facts doesn't alter the facts.

Brick said...

Psycho - your last sentence seems particularly applicable to your own mindset.

Ciaron said...

Simple message as articulated by Psycho Milt: people use recreational drugs. If you make their preferred drug illegal, you make them a target market for criminals.

From the "It's not rocket science" folder: When people involve themselves in illegal activities, bad outcomes ensue.

Society has deemed certain substances illegal, because of the harm they cause. You can try to convince us that the harm of your pet drug is less than alcohol or other socially acceptable substances but I suspect you'd have more luck moving the brown stuff uphill with a pointy stick.

Psycho Milt said...

Well, yes - convincing the irrational using rational argument is always doomed to failure. However, the blog isn't read only by the irrational.

We have compelling historical evidence relating to one particular drug, alcohol: when its production, sale and consumption is regulated by society, health harms ensue but the product itself is safe and its distribution doesn't involve criminals. When its production, sale and consumption is made illegal, the product tends to be unsafe and distributed by dangerous criminals. There's a conclusion about other recreational drugs to be drawn from that evidence, by people who are capable of rational thought.

Ciaron said...

I don't think you can legitimately draw an inverse extrapolation from a single data point.

Anonymous said...

Clarion....... http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/globalstatusreportalcohol2004_economic.pdf

The sooner the Govt legalises and controls the sale of cannabis and it's derivatives the better. There is far to much evidence out there that tells us by keeping it the hands of cf criminal gangs who are unaccountable for the results is harming society economically and physically. When heroin or it's substitute methadone is made a prescription drug it's attractiveness disappears and consequently the addiction rate drops. There will always be addicts, it's a part of the human condition but at least when it is controlled it eases the burden on the public health system.

Alcohol costs this country millions in enforcement, health and property damage, this become apparent very quickly when the drinking age was reduced to 18 and the licensing hours scrapped. When the gangs lose their source of income and burglaries/robberies halve the benifets to society will be clear.

Read this... http://www.businessinsider.fr/us/countries-experimenting-with-liberal-drug-laws-2016-3/

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Ciaron said...

Bruh,
Do you even hyperlink?

Anonymous said...

What's a Bruh?

Lord Egbut