Misc Do drug dealers in Ireland give stuff on 'credit' and then threaten you/your family if you don't pay back?

[JessFR]

Years n years ago someone asked me to do this. Approach his parents and pretend to be a H dealer owed a few hundred££ by their junkie son. Act all threatening etc.
No way was I going to agree to that. Who the hell thinks it's ok to scare the crap out of their family on their doorstep.
I've done some shitty things to get money out of my parents but sending some pretend (or real) thug dealer to menace them, no way.

Yeah, I don't wanna be too harsh, because like, I know what it's like to have done terrible things you regret out of desperation, including things that hurt loved ones.

Still, I don't think I'd have ever asked for anything like that. Apart from the risks from the emotional harm, which are tremendous, there's substantial risks of it going wrong and someone getting hurt.

The closest I ever did to something like this was get money out of my mother by saying we (me and my boyfriend at the time) were in trouble with a debt. Now that wasn't a lie, but the amount I said we needed was inflated so that we could also get our drugs as well as pay the debt.

It's still a real horrible thing to do, I dunno. I don't like judging people for this stuff or acting like they're morally worse than me, even if what they did was worse than anything I've done.

To me, what I wanna know (as far as what I think about someone) is if they're sorry, if they don't feel sorry, then I would think nothing of judging them.

If they do.. Well I just don't feel like it's my place to judge people given the horrible things I've done too. All I can say is at least I regret them.

 

[dalpat077]

The closest I ever did to something like this was get money out of my mother by saying we (me and my boyfriend at the time) were in trouble with a debt. Now that wasn't a lie, but the amount I said we needed was inflated so that we could also get our drugs as well as pay the debt.

Meh. I wouldn't beat yourself up over this. It's called price gouging. Seems to have been adopted as a common business practice worldwide!

Besides. Wasn't, as you say, a blatant lie.

"I always tell the truth, even when I lie."

 

[tubgirl.jpg]

I was listening to a radio host Niall Boylan talk about a mother who had to pay a ransom to stop drug dealers attacking her house/family. Her 19yr old son was using cocaine and cannabis frequently and his habit soon exceeded his savings/earnings. She said that the drug dealer then gave him stuff on credit for a month and told him nicely to pay it back "when he could". Of course, he was out of his head for a month until he realized the predicament he was in and shit his pants.

He tried avoiding the drug dealer but he got followed and then they soon knocked on his ma's house. They asked for him and he said he'd pay. He told his mother about it but she said it's not her problem and kicked him out for using drugs. Well the dealer came again and smashed the window. Despite the mum saying that her son was no longer living there, they didn't care and said that if they can't find him, they'll go after his relatives until someone pays.

Long story, short, she paid €2500 and the issue was settled.

From listening to that episode, these stories are frighteningly common and it's happening to kids as young as 13-14. They either get threatened with physical harm or they are convinced to hold some drugs for someone.

Well, the son is obviously a moron. Taking a month worth of coke and gas on credit without a plan on how to repay it?
And then he tried avoiding the drug dealer? Jesus-titty-christ, what an idiot.

I did feel bad for the mom, but contemplating what she did, property damage and 2500 ain't that much.
She's seems like one shitty fucking parent - you 19-year old son is a drug addict and the solution is kicking him to the curb?
Great-fucking-parenting.

Where I've lived in Norway and Sweden this is common place.
I mean, you don't buy a computer on credit at Amazon and then ignores the bill.
Eventually a bailiff will be at your door.

I think if you owe money to shady people in many countries, even nice developed ones, people are going to get hurt or property damage in order to ensure debts are paid.

It's not like people don't die in Canada, or the USA for drug debts.

+1

 

[Vastness]

Holy fucking shit, first I've heard of this but that's dark. I mean, unscrupulous dealers offering drugs on tick as a means to trap the vulnerable via blackmail and extortion... that's one thing. But, kneecapping? That's fucking dark. Ireland is a savage place in many ways.



(edited out unnecessary political aside, apologies to anyone who read it and was offended, irrelevant to topic and out of line commenting on something I know probably little about.)

 

[tubgirl.jpg]

Holy fucking shit, first I've heard of this but that's dark. I mean, unscrupulous dealers offering drugs on tick as a means to trap the vulnerable via blackmail and extortion... that's one thing. But, kneecapping? That's fucking dark. Ireland is a savage place in many ways.

Well, it is against the law. And it aint exactly darker or more grim than what dealers do to other dealers, to customers and so forth.
As long as drugs are illegal, violence is the name of the game. Wish it wasn't but it is.
Should someone cap my knees one of these days slinging pills, I wouldn't exactly complain.
There's all sorts of risks with selling drugs - regular 5-0 usually the least of them.

 

[Vastness]

Irrelevant. Illegality of drugs is not an excuse for more illegal and especially explicitly violent behaviour. People like this are part of the problem as much as the cunts who kicked off the drug war in the first place. Yes, dark and darker drug associated crimes do occur, cartels being the obvious example. Doesn't make kneecapping OK or somehow excusable, understandable, not something to care about. Dealing drugs doesn't make you a savage, kneecapping people on the basis of extorted debt disputes does.



(edited out apology comment relating to said unnecessary political aside, above, I actually deleted this first by accident, I was going to leave it in but nevermind. anyone who knows what I'm referring to - apologies.)

 

[tubgirl.jpg]

Irrelevant. Illegality of drugs is not an excuse for more illegal and especially explicitly violent behaviour. People like this are part of the problem as much as the cunts who kicked off the drug war in the first place. Yes, dark and darker drug associated crimes do occur, cartels being the obvious example. Doesn't make kneecapping OK or somehow excusable, understandable, not something to care about. Dealing drugs doesn't make you a savage, kneecapping people on the basis of extorted debt disputes does.



...Just as an aside, my apologies, if they're warranted in anyone's opinion, for bringing up political shit which is not directly related to the topic at hand in my previous post, I'd probably stand by it but have no interest in really defending it. I am part Irish and have m natively Irish family still so I guess I feel that makes me somehow allowed to comment on these things, whether that's true or not. Anyway I was agitated and possibly a little messed up at the time for unrelated reasons and it probably doesn't need to be said or add much of value to the actual topic at hand.

I didn't say that- I simply stated how it is.
Do you think I want to be kneecaped? No. But I understand that such things might happen when getting into it, be it cops or disgruntled vigilantes who are tired of having dealers in the vicinity of kids and families. Violence is how the drug-game works. Denying this is simply being stubborn for the sake if it.

If you don't understand shit will get ugly when you owe a drugdealer money and you fuck-up the payment, you shouldn't buy drugs.
If you deal and don't understand rival dealers, cops, or, in this case, vigilantes, might seriously fuck_you_up, you shouldn't be dealing.
.
And whatever argument you have - this is the reality of it, which anybody who's been in debt or had to collect can confirm.

I'm not saying this is a good system. But that's how it is. Keepin drugs illegal makes these issues persist.

 

[dalpat077]

I didn't say that- I simply stated how it is.
Do you think I want to be kneecaped? No. But I understand that such things might happen when getting into it, be it cops or disgruntled vigilantes who are tired of having dealers in the vicinity of kids and families. Violence is how the drug-game works. Denying this is simply being stubborn for the sake if it.

If you don't understand shit will get ugly when you owe a drugdealer money and you fuck-up the payment, you shouldn't buy drugs.
If you deal and don't understand rival dealers, cops, or, in this case, vigilantes, might seriously fuck_you_up, you shouldn't be dealing.
.
And whatever argument you have - this is the reality of it, which anybody who's been in debt or had to collect can confirm.

I'm not saying this is a good system. But that's how it is. Keepin drugs illegal makes these issues persist.

I'm guessing it will come as no surprise to everyone that I agree with you on all except maybe the last two sentences.

I'm always bemused, when it comes to this business, how people (and I'd say the majority actually) are able to apply one code of ethics or morality to users and apply a different code of ethics or morality when it comes to producers and dealers and the like. Not to mention attempting to apply a different set of legal standards to which either should be held to account. Once you've decided to purchase illegal narcotics you've crossed a line. Once you've decided to produce or deal you've crossed a line. In both instances: a whole new set of rules and ethics apply. It doesn't get more clear cut than that. Only the level of shit that either cause for themselves may vary. And to think that law enforcement should be responsible for protecting users from producers or dealers is ludicrous. We're not talking about charity organizations here.

Reason I mention the last two sentences: I put it to you it's a far better system because from both sides justice and retribution can be swift, economical, and should any reparations be due from either side they can be dealt with and settled timeously. Last sentence a bit of a slippery slope i.e. think risk/reward ratio and supply vs. demand if you're in the business (although something tells me that I didn't really need to explain that to you! ).

And don't anybody go telling me that somebody got in over the head unknowingly. Unless you've been living under a rock (no pun intended) (and even then I'd not be so sure): you know, or remember, that feeling of excitement coupled with fear and trepidation and a healthy dose of adrenaline on your first score or deal? Well that's formal notification you've crossed said line. The only thing that varies from that point on is just how far into the abyss you're prepared to venture whether a producer or dealer or user.

 

[tubgirl.jpg]

I didn't say that- I simply stated how it is.
Do you think I want to be kneecaped? No. But I understand that such things might happen when getting into it, whether it be police or disgruntled vigilantes who are tired of having dealers around their kids.
That's how it works. There are no police. No justice-system. There is however (I don't know the correct term in english) violent-capital.

If you don't understand shit will get ugly when you owe a drugdealer money and you fuck-up the payment, you shouldn't buy drugs.
If you deal and don't understand rival dealers, cops, or, in this case, vigilantes, might seriously fuck_you_up, you shouldn't be dealing.
.
And whatever argument you have - this is the reality of it, which anybody who's been in debt or had to collect can confirm.

I'm not saying this is a good system. But that's how it is. Keepin drugs illegal makes these issues persist.

I'm guessing it will come as no surprise to everyone that I agree with you on all except maybe the last two sentences.

I'm always bemused, when it comes to this business, how people (and I'd say the majority actually) are able to apply one code of ethics or morality to users and apply a different code of ethics or morality when it comes to producers and dealers and the like. Not to mention attempting to apply a different set of legal standards to which either should be held to account. Once you've decided to purchase illegal narcotics you've crossed a line. Once you've decided to produce or deal you've crossed a line. In both instances: a whole new set of rules and ethics apply. It doesn't get more clear cut than that. Only the level of shit that either cause for themselves may vary. And to think that law enforcement should be responsible for protecting users from producers or dealers is ludicrous. We're not talking about charity organizations here.

Reason I mention the last two sentences: I put it to you it's a far better system because from both sides justice and retribution can be swift, economical, and should any reparations be due from either side they can be dealt with and settled timeously. Last sentence a bit of a slippery slope i.e. think risk/reward ratio and supply vs. demand if you're in the business (although something tells me that I didn't really need to explain that to you! ).

And don't anybody go telling me that somebody got in over the head unknowingly. Unless you've been living under a rock (no pun intended) (and even then I'd not be so sure): you know, or remember, that feeling of excitement coupled with fear and trepidation and a healthy dose of adrenaline on your first score or deal? Well that's formal notification you've crossed said line. The only thing that varies from that point on is just how far into the abyss you're prepared to venture whether a producer or dealer or user.

Goddamn, you're eloquent @dalpat077

Unless you've been living under a rock (no pun intended)

THanks for the lolz, haha

Yeah, I mean - it's not that I like how shit goes down, but this is how it goes down
You better put on your big boy pants if you're gonna get deep into the game.
And a blown out kneecap is a pretty merciful punishment in this line of work, if you fuck-up (or just move around on the wrong area).

 

[Vastness]

Violence is how the drug-game works. Denying this is simply being stubborn for the sake if it.

Equally, tacit acceptance of it is as good as endorsement of if. It doesn't need to be this way, it shouldn't be this way, and this kind of behaviour should be condemned. Drug use, trade and violent crime are separate issues. They might be connected, arguably, perhaps obviously, because they are all illegal. But that doesn't excuse the violence as a separately vicious and unnecessary element of it which persists because those involved in the drug game choose to use violence. Admittedly, we can argue that they don't really have a choice either, there is violence, offense is often the best defense, and conscientious objection to violent means, or pacifism, is unlikely to win you many turf wars or even allow your budding ethical drug business to stick around very long. These things are all true and very relevant factors here.

But, ultimately, violence occurs on an individual level because individuals choose to be violent. Motivations, external pressures, do not entirely excuse the immorality of the act. For the same reason we're now seeing Nazi war criminals in their 90s being prosecuted, even when, in many cases, it's probably arguable that they ended up in the positions they did by random chance and circumstance rather than because they were intrinsically evil individuals.

It's important to separate the net social value of an action from the circumstances and societal pressures surrounding it. Lynching a black man because you grew up in the deep south of 'Murica when the slave trade was in full flow and your dad was a member of the KKK is wrong and should be condemned. Maybe you had to do it because otherwise you'd be ostracized by your community. Fine. What you did was wrong and should still be condemned.

Kneecapping someone over an unsettled debt is a disproportionate use of force. The fact that drugs are involved is an incidental irrelevance. It's wrong and should be condemned. Maybe you need to do it because otherwise another member of your gang would kneecap you. Maybe you need to do it because you know no other way to earn a living and if you don't set a hard example, you won't be able to feed your family with your drug money. Fine, there are always reasons. It's still wrong, and should be condemned.

 

[dalpat077]

I'm giving your post a "Heart Like". Not because I agree with it. But because I always do appreciate the way you put things i.e. they're never random rants and most always give me reason to pause.

If I may though:

You're introducing a whole lot of wider issues that are not pertinent in my opinion (and I'm sure it's obvious, from my opening gambit, that no offense is meant by this). Either that or I'm just more narrow minded and have a tendency to become too focused (both of which being quite possible).

I put this to you: kneecapping (being the example that's being used here) of a user that owes drug money isn't the first chosen course of action. Violence as a whole isn't the first chosen course of action. Nobody needs that type of attention in this business. Nobody that wants to last anyway. But whatever the case: we're talking about an illegal business here. Courses of action become limited once all else has failed. And at the end of the day: it's collecting what's due that counts i.e. nothing personal and nothing more to it than that. I also put it to you that were violence not an ever present and real possibility and danger: there'd be dealers being ripped off left, right, and center. In my opinion therefore: it's an integral part of the business.

I will, however, concede that no self-respecting dealer, or one that wants to remain in business, will extend material amounts of credit and that would necessitate resorting to violence in order to recover said material amounts. But the same could be said for the user. As it pertains to the topic of this particular thread: exactly what BOTH parties were thinking is beyond me. Note: I'm specifically talking about the first post on this thread i.e. not about other nefarious activities where drugs were not involved at all (from what I gather some of the other stuff mentioned here is pure extortion and that's a different crime altogether and shouldn't be confused with this business nor give it a worse rap than it already has). And no matter how misguided said individual was and no matter how irresponsible, for want of a better word, said dealer was: nobody will convince me that said individual wasn't fully aware of the possible (violent) consequences. As to how said dealer handled the situation: well said dealer should never have gotten into said position in the first place. But they did. And one way or the other: they were going to collect. And collect they did.

 

[Vastness]

Yeah, I guess I don't really disagree with anything you've said, except to say that I don't think it's a definite that dealers would be being ripped off left and right - violence begets violence of course, and the user to dealer ratio is always going to be disproportionate enough, and the black market disparate and splintered enough, that simply blacklisting unscrupulous users is likely not going to be a sufficient method to prevent this. In this world though, obviously the users would be the morally dubious entities. Or course, illegality of drugs is an ever present and unwelcome shadow that brings darkness to the entire industry, and it's probably unrealistic to think anything will change as long as governments themselves are the primary perpetrators of violence against those involved in an - at best - morally neutral pursuit of wealth, enjoyment, or just happiness... ie, using or supplying drugs.

The state and it's enforcers are the most sadistic and repeatedly criminally violent entities here, the buck starts and, probably, can only stop with them.

I just find it frustrating when I see people expressing, in my view, blase, "it is what it is, if you can't handle it, you shouldn't be involved" kind of attitudes which just strike me as transparently machismo and short sighted bullshit.

Not necessarily speaking about anyone in this thread for the record - just a general trend I observe, when I bet that a good portion of that supposedly indifferent "it is what it is" crowd would be crying foul as much as anyone else were it their knees about to be permanently damaged, or that of their friend, their son, or any other loved one.

If everyone will forgive me putting my woke hat on for a moment - it's also, in my view, a type of victim blaming, akin to saying women shouldn't be walking late at night in sexually suggestive clothing if they don't want to risk being raped. Yeah, maybe certain precautions, unfortunately, need to be encouraged, don't get into strangers' cars, don't drink to the point of near complete incapacitation... but the need for these precautions - while it's indicative of wider problems in society that need to be addressed, doesn't excuse the individual choosing to punish that person for their choices, whether they be poor choices or not. It's no-one's fault for getting raped, and while borrowing money on tick from a violent criminal is, in most cases, significantly more of a dumb decision that just walking home alone from a night out as an attractive and vulnerable female, it's not their fault that their action endangers them. Borrowing money, in and of itself, should not pose a mortal risk of harm, in most cases. It's not the fault of this unfortunate individual who couldn't pay their debts, who likely had some problems even before this unfortunate incident, to say the least, that they got their kneecaps blown out - it's the fault of the fucking violent sociopath who pulled the trigger. Yes, it's also the fault of the state for not regulating drugs legally, it's also the fault of society for creating a world in which this kind of shit happens and - whether or not they think it's OK, really - people go through with committing violent crimes. But, adults are still responsible for their actions. I say again, the perpetrators of violence should be condemned.

I know, again, I'm expanding the scope of the situation a little, it's just difficult for me not to. And yes, again, obviously I include the state and those who make and enforce violent drug laws, even if that violence is less physical but no less damaging, as targets for condemnation. There's a lot of blame to go around... but flippant "it is what it is" acceptance of the status quo - even if, perhaps it could be said that it goes without saying that these things shouldn't happen, even if they do - just bothers me.

 

[matt<3ketamine]

Yes they do it, but it's ironic because they give you the drugs to sell and then come back acting like they didn't n either flip Ur house n beat ya up, just beat ya up or kneecap ya (shoot ya in kneecaps)
So they give u the drugs with one hand then punish you with the other, I've seen it happen

 

[matt<3ketamine]

I was listening to a radio host Niall Boylan talk about a mother who had to pay a ransom to stop drug dealers attacking her house/family. Her 19yr old son was using cocaine and cannabis frequently and his habit soon exceeded his savings/earnings. She said that the drug dealer then gave him stuff on credit for a month and told him nicely to pay it back "when he could". Of course, he was out of his head for a month until he realized the predicament he was in and shit his pants.

He tried avoiding the drug dealer but he got followed and then they soon knocked on his ma's house. They asked for him and he said he'd pay. He told his mother about it but she said it's not her problem and kicked him out for using drugs. Well the dealer came again and smashed the window. Despite the mum saying that her son was no longer living there, they didn't care and said that if they can't find him, they'll go after his relatives until someone pays.

Long story, short, she paid €2500 and the issue was settled.

From listening to that episode, these stories are frighteningly common and it's happening to kids as young as 13-14. They either get threatened with physical harm or they are convinced to hold some drugs for someone.

Also the name here for stuff on 'credit' is called 'tic' or 'on strap/strapped' but I answered how they work in my post above

 

[tubgirl.jpg]

Equally, tacit acceptance of it is as good as endorsement of if. It doesn't need to be this way, it shouldn't be this way, and this kind of behaviour should be condemned. Drug use, trade and violent crime are separate issues. They might be connected, arguably, perhaps obviously, because they are all illegal. But that doesn't excuse the violence as a separately vicious and unnecessary element of it which persists because those involved in the drug game choose to use violence. Admittedly, we can argue that they don't really have a choice either, there is violence, offense is often the best defense, and conscientious objection to violent means, or pacifism, is unlikely to win you many turf wars or even allow your budding ethical drug business to stick around very long. These things are all true and very relevant factors here.

But, ultimately, violence occurs on an individual level because individuals choose to be violent. Motivations, external pressures, do not entirely excuse the immorality of the act. For the same reason we're now seeing Nazi war criminals in their 90s being prosecuted, even when, in many cases, it's probably arguable that they ended up in the positions they did by random chance and circumstance rather than because they were intrinsically evil individuals.

It's important to separate the net social value of an action from the circumstances and societal pressures surrounding it. Lynching a black man because you grew up in the deep south of 'Murica when the slave trade was in full flow and your dad was a member of the KKK is wrong and should be condemned. Maybe you had to do it because otherwise you'd be ostracized by your community. Fine. What you did was wrong and should still be condemned.

Kneecapping someone over an unsettled debt is a disproportionate use of force. The fact that drugs are involved is an incidental irrelevance. It's wrong and should be condemned. Maybe you need to do it because otherwise another member of your gang would kneecap you. Maybe you need to do it because you know no other way to earn a living and if you don't set a hard example, you won't be able to feed your family with your drug money. Fine, there are always reasons. It's still wrong, and should be condemned.

Oh my.

You have NEVER sold as much as a Tylenol, huh?

Because, UNFORTUNATELY, if you did with this pacifistic apparoach in a very violent sub-culture of society,
you'd get fucked around so badly, you'd be torn-apart ragdoll after a week.

This statement alone proves my above claim;

Kneecapping someone over an unsettled debt is a disproportionate use of force.

You think kneecapping over is bad, you haven't seen much of that world..

No, it shouldn't, and I never said I thought it should be.

I simply stated, that's how it is.

But as a social experiment, push some coke or bars or heroin on credit, and when it's time to collect, see how far you get with a Kumbayah-approach and report back. I'll front the drugs.

FYI, I kneecap my entire gang-gang once a year, for discipline.

Godwin's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[dalpat077]

Yes they do it, but it's ironic because they give you the drugs to sell and then come back acting like they didn't n either flip Ur house n beat ya up, just beat ya up or kneecap ya (shoot ya in kneecaps)
So they give u the drugs with one hand then punish you with the other, I've seen it happen

For the sake of my own interest (obviously I suppose) could you explain this further?

 

[tubgirl.jpg]

I feel like generally this would happen to lower level dealers who get fronted drugs to sell, for instance a higher level marijuana dealer might front a lower level guy a quarter pound and then expect to be paid back in a few days or a week. I have a hard time believing this would happen to users being fronted drugs over any length of time though. Why would the dealer keep fronting drugs if they hadn't been paid back for the earlier drugs? I pretty much never asked dealers for drugs when I didn't have money because I knew what the answer would be, I mean often times it was hard enough to get them to show up when I did have money. I only had one dealer who offered to front me dope when I was sick and it was only like $20 worth which I was then expected to pay back the very next time I saw him, which I always did. Fronting addicts thousands of dollars worth of drugs just sounds insane to me and must be extremely uncommon if it happens at all in the USA. Only way I could see that making any kind of sense would be if the buyer and seller had a long term relationship and the seller knew the buyer was going to be getting a large sum of money soon.

Definetly a good point, but generally, between the cornerboy and the high level distributor, there are many, many, many middlemen.
The real high level dealers don't get close to the drugs.

The guy fronting the cornerboys (at least in Scandinavia) has a boss who has a boss who has a boss.

Fronting someone is largely based on history between the two parties.

Well, there are a couple of reasons why a drug-dealer would let a user rack up a sizeble debt;

- They need what's called a "keeper", a.k.a, someone to stash their drugs at. This might be 100g of heroin, or six bricks of coke.

-They force the user to register on vehicles and other various shit to avoid leaving a paper-trail withh their names

- They force them to mule, transport and so on. While doing this, it's quite commonplace (again, Sweden) that the dealer sends
goons to rob the mule, and the user get "deeper" in debt.


There are plenty of reasons, unfortunately. They turn your condo into a pure traphouse.

Rule of thumb is, don't take on credit, and don't let anyone take on credit.
That way, nobody get's pressured into anything.

 

[MsDiz]

Just as an aside, my apologies, if they're warranted in anyone's opinion, for bringing up political shit which is not directly related to the topic at hand in my previous post, I'd probably stand by it but have no interest in really defending it. I am part Irish and have m natively Irish family still so I guess I feel that makes me somehow allowed to comment on these things, whether that's true or not. Anyway I was agitated and possibly a little messed up at the time for unrelated reasons and it probably doesn't need to be said or add much of value to the actual topic at hand.

Just to say, as someone who has literally been in a bomb and had family killed due to the troubles, you have no right to comment on the Irish struggle with the brits over stolen land and the genocide of Irish people. I’m sorry if that’s harsh but being part Irish does not give you the right. You have no idea of a 1/100th of what has gone on here and what generations have had to deal with.

I’m under 60 btw, if you think “the troubles” have stopped let me inform you it’s far from it.

I am a very passionate republican and I mean no offence to you I’m just letting you know what’s what.

 

[Vastness]

Oh my.

You have NEVER sold as much as a Tylenol, huh?

Like most drug users, I assume, I've dabbled in dealing when I was younger although I was never very good at it, and as you would no doubt have guessed, got off very lightly. I sold pills in clubs for a while, some of them of very dubious quality that I would have an ethical problem with selling now, until I was caught by a bouncer being absurdly indiscreet and careless and after some physical (but not excessive) manhandling, intimidation and frightening verbal threats the point was made and he obviously recognised I was out of place in that world and not worthy of a more serious punishment.

That said, that particular club was known to be very corrupt and lax when it came to drug enforcement so quite likely he just ended up adding to the stash to be sold by the approved in house dealers. I also witnessed a friend of mine who did it with me (although less often) get physically mugged in a far more violent fashion and was unable to effectively intervene - in that circumstance I wouldn't have been surprised if someone pulled a knife.

I have witnessed and experienced drug related violence, of course, I'm sure many of us here have. Nothing close to kneecapping, in my case, fortunately. But it's also irrelevant to the discussion. Not having experienced any such violence doesn't and shouldn't exclude anyone from this discussion, and honestly just proves my point about this blase attitude to excessive violence being a kind of transparent bravado - "you just don't know what it's like, leave the drug world to the real men (or women, perhaps, less commonly) who understand what's needed!".

"That's just how it is", is not an argument. It's also irrelevant. I feel we're repeating ourselves now so I won't go on too much. But my position - in case it isn't clear enough - is that regardless of how it is, it's just not good enough, ideologically lazy, apathetic misanthropy to just keep saying "yeah it shouldn't happen, but that's how it is".

We obviously all know it happens. Equally, we hopefully all know it's wrong. Incessantly focusing on how people just need to understand and (perhaps - by implication even if you didn't directly say it) accept it - is no good to anyone, again it is fence sitting, ideological laziness, and refusal to take a strong moral position on an obviously barbaric crime.

 

[Vastness]

Just to say, as someone who has literally been in a bomb and had family killed due to the troubles, you have no right to comment on the Irish struggle with the brits over stolen land and the genocide of Irish people. I’m sorry if that’s harsh but being part Irish does not give you the right. You have no idea of a 1/100th of what has gone on here and what generations have had to deal with.

I’m under 60 btw, if you think “the troubles” have stopped let me inform you it’s far from it.

I am a very passionate republican and I mean no offence to you I’m just letting you know what’s what.

Thank you, noted, and apologies again, I knew shortly after posting I probably should have known better. I'm going to edit my original post so as not to cause any further offense to anyone.