“And Today’s Darwin Award Goes To….”

A high-flying accountant died after allegedly taking legal high GBL at a wake for a friend – who is thought to have been killed by the same lethal party drug.

/facepalm

The former Streetly College student was described by her heartbroken parents Dave and Tracie, who live in Queslett, as a ‘golden girl who would help anybody’.

‘She was really bright, in fact school was too easy for her,’ said Mr Nock, 69.

‘She was like an agony aunt and was so kind that she would get into trouble with debt collectors because she would lend her friends money.’

I guess ‘really bright’ doesn’t equal ‘sensible’..?

And yes, there will now be calls to make this drug illegal (from the anti-drug brigade) and to make all other drugs legal (from the pro-drug brigade), both considered by their respective proposers and enthiusiasts as a ‘solution’ to deaths like these.

But until we can find a way to stop human beings wanting to get high and taking stupid risks to do so, both are doomed to failure.

15 comments for ““And Today’s Darwin Award Goes To….”

  1. Fidel Cuntstruck
    May 4, 2012 at 11:29 am

    A high flying accountant … who got into trouble with debt collectors?

    Perhaps not as bright as her family would have you believe eh? 😕

    • May 6, 2012 at 8:56 am

      Indeed!

  2. Richard
    May 4, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    It’s nobody’s business what I want to put inside MY body. Have a read of Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science. See how many genious’s have used LSD.

  3. SteveW
    May 4, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Why would we want to “find a way to stop human beings wanting to get high”? What someone else puts into their own body is no business of mine, all the moreso what someone ‘wants’ to put into their body. I have a similar disinterest in their motivations for doing so.

    Having said that, just a tad disrespectful dieing at a mate’s wake, talk about attention seeking behaviour!

    • May 6, 2012 at 8:57 am

      ‘Look at me, look at meeeeee!’

  4. May 4, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    But until we can find a way to stop human beings wanting to get high and taking stupid risks to do so, both are doomed to failure.

    You may as well bring out anti-gravity legislation – it will be as effective as the war on drugs. People will always want to get high – always have, always will. The best solution is to let them. If the state is to be involved at all, then it should be no more than ensuring that the product meets minimum quality standards.

    Ultimately, if people die as a consequence of taking narcotics, well, they are all volunteers. The current situation whereby others suffer crime waves so that people can fund their habit is worse, frankly.

    • nisakiman
      May 5, 2012 at 12:20 pm

      As is your wont, LR, you’ve hit the nail right on it’s proverbial head.

      Of course the sensible approach is to let people get on with their lives as they see fit, even if that entails going to hell in a handcart.

      The problem is that TPTB and their armies of useful idiots are blind to all that doesn’t fit their worldview, and will continue to pursue their idiotic prohibitionist policies regardless of the fact that they are very obviously creating far more problems than they are solving.

      It was ever the way with the (self-appointed) Righteous Arbiters of human morality. The (unattainable) end justifies the means.

      • May 6, 2012 at 9:00 am

        Unfortunately, it’s never that simple – the idea that if drugs were made legal, all the associated criminals would get good jobs and go straight is a non-starter. They’d move into bootlegging.

        And unless the drugs were dispensed free, we’d still have petty crime to fund habits.

        • nisakiman
          May 6, 2012 at 12:47 pm

          Of course it’s not that simple, Julia. You can’t create, through repressive law, a multi-billion global drugs trade and then expect it just to go away by repealing those laws (laws which never should have been enacted in the first place).

          The legalisation of drugs will be a long and painful process, and will give more than ample opportunity for the prohibitionists to cry “See, we told you it should never be legalised!”.

          They (the prohibitionists) have created a monster, and it will take a couple of generations of mayhem before the beast is slain. But it’s a better option than continuing as we are now, with the human cost ever escalating.

          The “war on drugs” cannot, and will not, ever be won. All it will achieve is to claim more lives, create more misery. We need to grasp the nettle, painful though it might be, and take a different approach.

          • May 6, 2012 at 7:12 pm

            Can we have deregulation AND a welfare state, though?

            Plus soft (or no) justice, and a culture that seeks to avoid, where possible, all consequence of irresponsible behaviour?

            • nisakiman
              May 6, 2012 at 10:22 pm

              What price a welfare state?

              “In 40 years, taxpayers spent more than:

              — $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it.

              — $33 billion in marketing “Just Say No”-style messages to America’s youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have “risen steadily” since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.

              — $49 billion for law enforcement along America’s borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.

              — $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.

              — $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

              At the same time, drug abuse is costing the nation in other ways. The Justice Department estimates the consequences of drug abuse — “an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction” — cost the United States $215 billion a year.

              Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron says the only sure thing taxpayers get for more spending on police and soldiers is more homicides.

              “Current policy is not having an effect of reducing drug use,” Miron said, “but it’s costing the public a fortune.””

              These figures are only for USA. Extrapolate that globally, and you’re talking serious money. And what are the returns on that expenditure?

              Zilch. Nada. Zero. In fact, it would seem to be exacerbating the problem.

              We have laws to deal with crime, whether it be drug associated or otherwise.

              Irresponsible behaviour? What exactly is irresponsible behaviour? Attempting to scale Mount Everest without oxygen? Free climbing skyscrapers? Boxing? Running a marathon dressed as a chicken?

              Or is it only that which is disapproved of by Those-Who-Would-Rule-Us that is deemed to be irresponsible behaviour? It’s a question of perspective.

  5. May 4, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    I guess ‘really bright’ doesn’t equal ‘sensible’..?

    One of the golden maxims of life.

    • May 4, 2012 at 6:20 pm

      Intelligent and sensible do not always equate. You can have someone who is academically gifted yet incredibly stupid when it comes to common sense.

  6. Tattyfalarr
    May 5, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    ‘She was like an agony aunt and was so kind that she would get into trouble with debt collectors because she would lend her friends money.’”

    Translation: She was a mug who allowed people to dump their problems on her and take advantage to the extent that she got into debt herself.

    Perhaps taking drugs altered her perception of reality to the extent that it completely obliterated the normally clear distinction between “friends” and “parasites”.

    Just guessin’… 😐

    • May 5, 2012 at 5:47 pm

      de mortibus and all that…

      However, the existence of her ten-year-old son (and the fact that her father has custody of the child) suggests she allowed herself to be taken advantage of in more ways than one.

      It’s depressing how many of Julia’s posts deal with the unhappy destinies of women who, according to simple arithemtic, must have conceived before they were old enough to vote.

Comments are closed.