Racial links to drug use?

[Lovegrud]

Please avoid being racist in response to this as this thread is not about pointing out who does what and such please leave your prejudice at the door.

I have noticed some unusual things in relation to drug use and how your skin colour/general appearence effects what is available to you.

I have noticed that I am a very italian/greek looking white boy so to me getting amps, pills, coke and weed is pretty damn easy but anything else is nearly impossible.

I have asked my Asian friend about my little analysis and at first they thought I was just being mental but they have noticed it too.

We compiled our analysis and noticed that in VIC:

Asian = pills and amp
European= pills, amp, coke, weed
Indian= LSD, weed
African= Weed

My question is has any one else noticed this?

 

[Crankinit]

I don't think it has anything to do with your race inherently, as much as it does that certain cultures/subcultures/scenes will always resonate with certain drugs, and generally racial groups tend towards similar cultural groups. In the same way that I'm sure you'd find a correlation between things like clothing, or musical taste. Drug use is just an extension of that.

 

[Smoifer]

You left out Aboriginals, Caucasians, Middle Easterners, Meth and Hammer... I think it has more to do with the social scenes that different races move in than anything but yes I have noticed it... Remember in the end you may score your speed off a caucasian and he may score it off an asian who may score off an arab... In the drug scene everyone deals with everyone at some point.

 

[jamesmartin]

Indians as in india Indians ? Cos u defitley got that right

 

[drug_mentor]

To an extent you can generalise that different races and cultures have easier access and more often use certain drugs. The thing is that there will always be plenty of exceptions to the rule so its pointless to even bother.

Can't believe you didn't associate Asians with heroin there, that is one of the more obvious and consistently true generalisations in my experience.

 

[spok]

there was a study on the maori "warrior gene" that was shouted down in the media recently for suggesting that maoris were born aggressive, which might explain why so many of them are in the public detention system. however it was dismissed as racist

i don't think that suggesting africanised bees (which are the same species as the common bee) have been genetically predisposed to higher levels aggression by their environment is "bee racism".........actually it's a fact

in the same way, and without using any examples, humans can be genetically predisposed for a particular psychological and whatever else condition by their environment/culture - that's just a fact of evolution, the volume of pigment in their skin has sweet fuck all to do with it

it doesn't mean they are all a certain way, it just means that they as an isolated culture are generally of a particular disposition. with globalisation most peculiarities are going to be bred out of the human race eventually anyway

 

[Sameria]

I think you'll find socio-economic status has more of an effect then race directly. Basic high school economics tell us that price, availability and status play an important part in the consumers purchasing patterns of consumers, and psychoactive chemicals are no different, albeit just a little different compared to the legally marketable products.

Of course you get particular groups of people who have preferences toward certain drugs due to cultural or non-cultural differences.

 

[psytaco]

I'm not sure about this one. Are you talking about what drugs they use, or about you having difficulty scoring drugs off people from a different race.
If you can make these generalisations, which I'm not sure you can, you would have to make a distinction between people born in Australia and those recently arrived from overseas.
For instance, I can say without few arguements that native Israeli's and Indians are big fans of LSD. it got to do with the big psy trance scene over there, and it is little surprise that when they visit australia they get into our psy scene and continue using LSD.
People born in Australia will probably have just as varied drug taking habits as most racial groups whom were born in Australia.
I personally think it has more to do with what scene you are in. If you go to a hardstyle club that has a lot of asian kids in it, they'll be getting on pills, speed, G, K, as much as the anglo or meditarian kids. However, whether they would sell to you might be a different matter.
In the psy scene which has people from all over, particularly Indian, Israel, Japan, LSD and pills and other psychs are the preferred drugs, and i don't think this differs much depending on race.

Your argument could be true if you talk about certain drugs been used more in relation to cultural ceremony. ie. South Americans and Ayahuascha. or where some drugs are particularly taboo. ie. alcohol is perfectly acceptable in European soceity, but in muslim countries it is not, but smoking a sheesha or hooka with tobacco is perfectly fine.

 

[psytaco]

i forgot to add, socioeconomic status has alot to do with it also. if you can't afford expensive drugs then you won't use them.

 

[psytaco]

there was a study on the maori "warrior gene" that was shouted down in the media recently for suggesting that maoris were born aggressive, which might explain why so many of them are in the public detention system. however it was dismissed as racist

i don't think that suggesting africanised bees (which are the same species as the common bee) have been genetically predisposed to higher levels aggression by their environment is "bee racism".........actually it's a fact

in the same way, and without using any examples, humans can be genetically predisposed for a particular psychological and whatever else condition by their environment/culture - that's just a fact of evolution, the volume of pigment in their skin has sweet fuck all to do with it

it doesn't mean they are all a certain way, it just means that they as an isolated culture are generally of a particular disposition. with globalisation most peculiarities are going to be bred out of the human race eventually anyway

You can't generalise a different type of bee to a different type of human. I am assuming that the african bee is a different species of bee, whilst a maori person is a race of people, not a different species of people. Did the study actually isolate what gene/s that caused aggression? Could it differentiate genetic influences from environment?
Ok, so there are more maori's in NZ jails. there's also more aboriginals in oz jails, and more african americans in US jails. is it because all these groups are inherently violent? No, I would argue that it has more to with a lack of legitimate opportunities to make money, higher levels of poverty within these groups (which is also implicated in illiteracy and other factors which prevent getting a job, and racism inherent in the country and in the criminal justice system.

 

[hyroller]

^^^^ I think he's talking about scoring off people of a different race. lol

All I know is bogans tend to love it all... 8)

 

[Sustanon]

Please avoid being racist in response to this as this thread is not about pointing out who does what and such please leave your prejudice at the door.

I have noticed some unusual things in relation to drug use and how your skin colour/general appearence effects what is available to you.

I have noticed that I am a very italian/greek looking white boy so to me getting amps, pills, coke and weed is pretty damn easy but anything else is nearly impossible.

I have asked my Asian friend about my little analysis and at first they thought I was just being mental but they have noticed it too.

We compiled our analysis and noticed that in VIC:

Asian = pills and amp
European= pills, amp, coke, weed
Indian= LSD, weed
African= Weed

My question is has any one else noticed this?

It depends on what sort of drugs they used to get back in there own country. Im using everything cos i always have in Europe hahahaha

 

[psytaco]

^^^^ I think he's talking about scoring off people of a different race. lol

All I know is bogans tend to love it all... 8)

Oh ok. Went off on a rant without answering his question

Eh, sometimes I find it hard to score off others from other races. At a well known hard trance club in melbourne that has a high asian contingent I sometimes won't be able to score off those guys, even though I just saw them doing some deals. but then again other times I have. I must admit i look a bit like a police officer. ie. white, tall, well built, with short hair and I wear normal clubbing type clothes when I go out. Bit of a pain in the arse, and have a few smart arses say "I say no to drugs officer", or something similiar. Maybe I need to stop asking people "excuse me, but where can I find some ecstacy tablets, or you might know them as tablets of lovers speed?
In the psy scene, no problem getting stuff of others regardless of race.

 

[spok]

You can't generalise a different type of bee to a different type of human

first off, there aren't different types of human...there are very very minor superficial variations dictated by environmental differences. we're talking .000X% on a genetic level. and secondly, you sure can use another animal as an example. you and they aren't as different as you think

I am assuming that the african bee is a different species of bee

nope. what do they say about assumption?

whilst a maori person is a race of people

"race" is just the word used to describe those very very minor superficial differences. on a genetic level it is irrelevant. it's like suggesting your brother is a different "race" because he got a tan from living in qld

not a different species of people

as already stated, there aren't different species of human. separate two groups of modern day humans in two very different environments and keep them isolated for a few hundred million years and you will get yourself a separate species. even then "species" is just like "race" it's just a word used to describe differences. all life on this planet started in the same place, environment just shaped us differently. you actually had gills at an early stage of your life. you still have the remanence of a tail at the base of your vertebrae

Did the study actually isolate what gene/s that caused aggression?

hey? the genes responsible for aggression were well understood before that study

Could it differentiate genetic influences from environment?

genetic differences are dictated by environment. there isn't anything else

Ok, so there are more maori's in NZ jails. there's also more aboriginals in oz jails, and more african americans in US jails. is it because all these groups are inherently violent? No

how would i know. i don't just make up answers. what'd you base yours on?

could the fact that they as an isolated group of people have been subject to very difficult environmental circumstances in their recent genetic hisotry have conditioned them for aggression?

yes

it doesn't matter if they're green, black, pink, magenta, orange, white, or turquoise. all forms of life will be conditioned according to what their environment dictates. if that environment is violent and oppressive, they will be conditioned accordingly. pit fighting dogs or spanish fighting bulls are another example

and to tie it in with the original topic of this thread, aggression is a response to fear, fear is pain, is someone is in pain they are more prone to substance abuse to relieve it. so in the same way that a group of people can be conditioned for aggression, they can be prone to substance abuse

 

[footscrazy]

Spok, from what I understood, psytaco was basically saying what you've just said again.

genetic differences are dictated by environment. there isn't anything else

In evolutionary terms, genetic differences are determined by environment (and there is something else - sexual selection, but I'll stay on topic) but over one lifetime, there is very much a difference between genetics and environment. The genes of one individual can't change over a lifetime, no matter what the environment. How they are expressed may be able to change, but ultimately, the genes stay the same.

 

[hyroller]

I find I have scored ice off an obscenely large number of Middle Eastern purveyors of substances.

Just an observation. lol

 

[footscrazy]

^^ Wow, I've never bought ice from a middle eastern person; the majority have been aussies, some asians too.

 

[spok]

Spok, from what I understood, psytaco was basically saying what you've just said again.

i do see that now........i've jumped the gun and told him a lot of what he already knows. sorry about that psytaco, i'll read more carefully in future

in evolutionary terms, genetic differences are determined by environment (and there is something else - sexual selection, but I'll stay on topic)

agree it's a bit off topic but i have a difference of opinion on this......

exactly what is sexually appealing is as a consequence of what is required for survival in that environment, it's not arbitrary. other members of the species aren't excluded from "environment", anything external is environmental

but over one lifetime, there is very much a difference between genetics and environment

this just seems like you are stating the obvious, like there is a difference between blond hair and the sun. there's an obvious difference but one is a consequence of the other in the same way as genetics and environment. the genetic make up x is born with is as a consequence of the environment experienced by their genetic ancestry

The genes of one individual can't change over a lifetime, no matter what the environment. How they are expressed may be able to change, but ultimately, the genes stay the same.

evolution is gene mutation, which occurs during the life time, and is then inherited by the next generation

 

[spok]

ok i see i have missed something in what you are both trying to say.......

that a person may only be acting aggressively as a consequence of their experiences within their lifetime, and not as the result of a genetic predisposition for that sort of behaviour

for sure i think that is possible, you'll notice i never jumped on the wagon that any group of people were infact conditioned for aggression, but it absolutely is possible

 

[footscrazy]

exactly what is sexually appealing is as a consequence of what is required for survival in that environment, it's not arbitrary. other members of the species aren't excluded from "environment", anything external is environmental

I get what you're saying, but environmental selection and sexual selection are considered different.Think of the huge peacock tail - this is an example of sexual selection and 'environmental' selection fighting against each other - sexual selection pushing the tail to get bigger and brighter - while environmental selection pushes it the other way, and selects against bigger tails as it hinders their ability to run away from predators. The tail that peacocks have is the balance between sexual and environmental factors pushing in opposite directions.

evolution is gene mutation, which occurs during the life time, and is then inherited by the next generation

While that is true, genes don't mutate in response to any environmental pressures. They mutate randomly and then environmental pressures select for those genes that that are adaptive.

Sorry to be so off topic.