NEWS: Daily Telegraph - 11/12/08 'Cokehead should be ashamed'

[lil angel15]

Busty raises some valid points which I think are being missed by a number of people. Although coke is at the higher end of purchase costs, as well as notoriously at the lower end of purity, it's a different high being sought out in a lot of cases. There's no doubt that there is a facet of Australian society who use coke as a status symbol, however, there is an equal and under quoted percentage of coke users utilising it for its effects that simply can't be replicated in the same way by some 'cheaper' substances.

Meth is simply a superior drug in every respect.

It’s a matter of preferences really. They are both drugs, but very different drugs, that provide very different experiences. A good analogy would be a standard piece of rump steak to a beautifully marbled Wagyu Filet Mignon'. The Wagyu is obviously vastly superior, however, some people may choose to go down the standard rump road out of preference. They both feed a hunger, provide a content feeling at the completion of the meal but one is considerably more expensive than the other.

There are good things about cocaine and I'm not calling it a shit drug but when you pay these high prices for it you essentially paying for a brand name. Like how Nike shoes cost shitloads more than some unheard of brand, there might not even be much or any difference in quality but the brand name sells.

Once again, there’s no doubt some people are paying for the ‘brand name’ of coke, just like some people do with any branded product. In the same breath, some people are paying for a product that provides the user with a comfort, as well as superior feel and support, that the non brand name product or drug cannot provide. It’s all about preferences.

Why do people wear Georgio Armani suits and etc? Not just because of how nice it looks.

A tailored Armani suit v a Lowes special. Any person in their right mind would take the Armani over the Lowes any day. The fabric and the cut of the suit are noticeable to anyone worth their salt.

Coke is a nice drug but way too over hyped. I donno i got pretty severe hangovers from coke, made me so angry on the comedown and i felt like shit. Pretty hardcore stuff if u ask me just like most man made synthetic drugs.

It's a bit of a stretch describing cocaine as a synthetic drug, don't you think???

 

[Crankinit]

Yes but the whole analogy is flawed because it suggests that cocaine is inherently superior to meth.

An armani or hugo boss suit v. a $100 special at target, well, that's no competition. Likewise with the steak example. You're paying for a clearly and irrefuteably superior product, nobody would debate that and any status that comes as a result of that is secondary to the fact that it's just plain better than the cheaper option.

Coke v. meth on the other hand, well, the best that can be said is that coke has a shorter half life, making it more suitable for a more laid back social occasion. Meth is far cheaper, far stronger, far more conveniant to use and, I would imagine, tends towards being more pure as well, purely in terms of its effectiveness as a drug (in terms of functional stimulation and subjective enjoyment) it outstrips coke by a large margin. Other than any preference for cocaine due to its shorter half life, the only other advantage it provides over meth is the fact that it's fashionable and glamorous.

A more fitting analogy would be a piece of clothing that's poorly made, but because it has a brand name logo on it people pay far more for an inferior product than they would have to spend on a far better piece of clothing, purely for the privilege of wearing a certain brand name. You're spending more and sacrificing quality and function for the social status that comes with using that particular product.

I find it kind of funny that people are sitting here comparing cocaine to armani suits and expensive steak or wine, just goes to prove the point that people are using coke to satisfy their pretentions at sophistication.

 

[lil angel15]

Yes but the whole analogy is flawed because it suggests that cocaine is inherently superior to meth.

Is it flawed or has it proven a point. In the eyes of someone who prefers coke over meth it would be a perfect analogy. Their preference is with a certain drug (meat), with specific effects (taste) which happens to cost more. So the analogy would be correct as they believe the product is superior based on their needs and desires.

I concede the descriptor after the analogy may be deceiving as it describes rump (meth) as a preference. My apologies if that caused confusion. It lacked continuity which could easily result in confusion.

An armani or hugo boss suit v. a $100 special at target, well, that's no competition. Likewise with the steak example. You're paying for a clearly and irrefuteably superior product, nobody would debate that and any status that comes as a result of that is secondary to the fact that it's just plain better than the cheaper option.

You've effectively strengthened my point made against the original posters assumption that Armani suits, as with coke, are bought solely as a 'status symbol', rather than effective functionality.

Coke v. meth on the other hand, well, the best that can be said is that coke has a shorter half life, making it more suitable for a more laid back social occasion. Meth is far cheaper, far stronger, far more conveniant to use and, I would imagine, tends towards being more pure as well, purely in terms of its effectiveness as a drug (in terms of functional stimulation and subjective enjoyment) it outstrips coke by a large margin. Other than any preference for cocaine due to its shorter half life, the only other advantage it provides over meth is the fact that it's fashionable and glamorous.

Cheaper is great - you've got no arguments from me there. It's about the desired effect though. If you want a longer and stronger hit than you will no doubt get that from meth but that's not what everyone wants. 2-CB, LSD and DOB are all psychs with 5, 8 and 13 hour durations respectively - with the former generally being more expensive than the latter. Although they may all be loosely classed as similar drugs, their effects are quite different and serve a variety of useful purposes for different occasions.

Functional stimulation is debatable but the crux of your argument is the operative word - 'subjective'

I find it kind of funny that people are sitting here comparing cocaine to armani suits and expensive steak or wine, just goes to prove the point that people are using coke to satisfy their pretentions at sophistication.

There's no doubt this is amusing but I can't drive home enough that it's not about the price - it's about the enjoyment derived from a simple pleasure. I don't buy nice bottles of wine because I think it makes me look sophisticated, I buy them because they taste better than goon bags.

 

[Crankinit]

Well if you just genuinely prefer coke to meth enough that you don't mind dropping the cash for it, then power to you. Nothing wrong with spending money to indulge yourself, but I think you'd be in the minority of coke users in Australia if your use of cocaine over methamphetamine is driven by a genuine preference for its effect.

I still think the wine/suit analogy is invalid. Expensive wine tastes better than goon, that's a fairly objective statement. There may be people out there, somewhere, who would rather drink goon instead of indulge in something a little more expensive, but I doubt it. Expensive wine is generally just flat out better in every regard and the same applies for steak, or suits. These items are status symbols 'because' of their quality. Whereas cocaine v. meth can, at best, be said to come down to personal preference. And I still hold that the tipping point for many people is that it's considered glamorous and chic.

 

[Sustanon]

Busty raises some valid points which I think are being missed by a number of people. Although coke is at the higher end of purchase costs, as well as notoriously at the lower end of purity, it's a different high being sought out in a lot of cases. There's no doubt that there is a facet of Australian society who use coke as a status symbol, however, there is an equal and under quoted percentage of coke users utilising it for its effects that simply can't be replicated in the same way by some 'cheaper' substances.



It’s a matter of preferences really. They are both drugs, but very different drugs, that provide very different experiences. A good analogy would be a standard piece of rump steak to a beautifully marbled Wagyu Filet Mignon'. The Wagyu is obviously vastly superior, however, some people may choose to go down the standard rump road out of preference. They both feed a hunger, provide a content feeling at the completion of the meal but one is considerably more expensive than the other.



Once again, there’s no doubt some people are paying for the ‘brand name’ of coke, just like some people do with any branded product. In the same breath, some people are paying for a product that provides the user with a comfort, as well as superior feel and support, that the non brand name product or drug cannot provide. It’s all about preferences.



A tailored Armani suit v a Lowes special. Any person in their right mind would take the Armani over the Lowes any day. The fabric and the cut of the suit are noticeable to anyone worth their salt.



It's a bit of a stretch describing cocaine as a synthetic drug, don't you think???

Its not synthetic? Just because the starting material is organic (natural doesnt mean its not synthetic. We'll call it semi synthetic then. A normal suit would do it for me no need to pay 20 times more than a normal suit. People are getting greedier and greedier unfortunately.

 

[Terry Wright]

I tend to agree with most readers here that amphetamines are much more enjoyable than cocaine. That's my experience anyway. I have had coke twice and both times got angry and aggressive. I suppose that cocaine is just not for me.

In regards to the 2008 Daily Telegraph article, Cokehead Should Be Ashamed, it was probably the worst piece of so called journalism I have ever read. And the comments from Daily Telegraph readers were even more woeful (if that's possible).

I wrote about it when it was first published if anyone's interested: Journalist Should Be Ashamed

--
Terry Wright
The Australian Heroin Diaries

 

[marklar_the_23rd]

^ yeah, i loved the self-righteous tone of her article.

I wonder if she appreciates the sarcastic tone of my message? 8)

 

[Crankinit]

Loved the article terry, and some of the responses you quoted down the bottom are great too. A rare show of common sense.

 

[psytaco]

<

there is nothing sexier than a wog chick that loves to get on the coke


she would go like a zertec

HAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAH

I want this guy to start posting more.
You gave me a good laugh mate

 

[Terry Wright]

Loved the article terry, and some of the responses you quoted down the bottom are great too. A rare show of common sense.

Thanks Crankinit.

To see what red neck Australia thinks of drug users, check out the Murdoch trash papers online and read the comments. Amazingly, there has recently been many pro-legalisation comments to counter the usual chants of "lock 'em up" and "let 'em die".

Why are so many Australians so ignorant?

 

[Sameria]

Thanks Crankinit.

To see what red neck Australia thinks of drug users, check out the Murdoch trash papers online and read the comments. Amazingly, there has recently been many pro-legalisation comments to counter the usual chants of "lock 'em up" and "let 'em die".

Why are so many Australians so ignorant?

Rest assured its not just Australian's, its just human nature. Unfortunate as it is idiots will be around for a long time.