It just infuriates me to no end, that there is NEVER any mention whatsoever, they don't even bother entertain the possibility that it's the person fault and not the drugs fault.
It's literally the same as if someone was shot in America, and the media started going "Shocking! Dangerous new popular gun found in America tonight"
As if it's the glocks fault someone got shot.
Not only is it irresponsible journalism, and being a media student DO NOT get me started on that shit, it's pretty much the logic of a child and perpetuates this lack of personal responsibility that is causing half the fucking problem!!
i agree that personal responsibility is not given enough credit nowadays, but there are some times that the substance itself is actually likely cause harm.
yes, we've all become cynical about drug warnings, drug propaganda - but that's not to say that some substances aren't dangerous.
obviously all the crap they've said for 80 odd years about cannabis has been exaggerated and made up. the same can be said about LSD, MDMA - any number of drugs. all of the popular illicit substances are classed as "very dangerous" according to what our governments tell us, yet a lot of us use (or know people that use) without robbing banks or going on killing frenzies.
it is very much like 'the boy who cried wolf' - because when something comes along that is compulsively addictive, causes psychosis and weird physical and mental disturbances, people hear that and say "yeah, sure. that's what they said about all those other drugs" and dismiss it.
while people going on about drugs being "evil" or "bad" or whatever isn't helpful or logical, it seems a bit foolhardy to be so trusting of research chemicals that are not extensively tested (if at all) and are making the rounds on the black market.
i read heaps of nightmarish bluelight reports about MDPV in the last couple of years - enough to decide i didn't want to try it. sure, some people might have liked it at first, but pretty much everyone said it was dangerous and had a lot of potential for harm. it tends to cause psychosis in otherwise healthy people very quickly, not to mention putting a lot of strain on your heart.
i used to enjoy meth, but eventually the bad outweighed the good - so i stopped. i was lucky, and i made that choice (as do all drug users, one way or another) and i got out, but i think what you're arguing (it's not the drug's fault - it's the individual's) could also be extended to put the blame on people for their addictions and the desperate places they can take them to. or blaming people for the psychological issues that can arise when you mess around with these kind of stimulants.
drugs are dangerous. this one in particular. yes, we are all jaded about 'drugs are bad' propaganda - but sometimes it is true.
people are responsible for their own actions, but with a practically unknown drug (for the vast majority of the community, at least) they can only make informed decisions when they have access to the information.
irresponsible journalism? i don't know about that.
yes, it's a lousy article, badly researched and likely thrown together very quickly. but if MDPV doesn't count as a dangerous drug, then i don't know what is. strychnine, i suppose?
