@John Duggan: everyone except the average tax payer

@Deirdre: no he doesn’t, unless your taking about the bit where he implies all criminals are the most vulnerable.

And my point was the phrase has been used to refer to nearly every cohort of society other than the taxpayer (e.g. the homeless, travellers, domestic abuse victims, refugees and now young drug dealers). It’s become a meaningless cliche.

@John D: absolutely. When you’ve a better chance of getting a home by having a few sprogs and going on the scratcher than by working and saving you know somethings gone terribly wrong with society.

@John Duggan: I wont waste much time here but your comments are prehistoric. The point of the article is simple to understand but I guess you had your reply ready to go before you even read the whole article..just 2 points
First it is talking about street level dealers who are often targeted because they are addicts .and it has been proven that addicts end up that way due to various social problems. Plus if you decriminalised drugs and let the state control them you would take all the money away from these gangs exploiting addicts.
Your second absolutely mind numbing uneducated blind comment about how it’s easier to have a sprog and get a house is so dated its embarrassing maybe in the 1980s that was the case but here in 2021 families end up in hostels and hotels they are not building socail housing and havnt for years .you should stop blaming the vulnerable in society and look at the bigger picture as to why you dont have your own house and maybe blame the government you most likely voted in I wont be replying to your bigoted nonsense.

@John Duggan: the word “vulnerable” is just an adjective. I don’t know if you have a better word to describe people who are highly succeptible to being harmed or exploited, but a stylistic complaint about a writer using a certain phrase seems a trite response to this article. Especially when you yourself go on to use the phrase “the taxpayer”.

@Mac Muinteoir: the phrase I have issue with is “most vulnerable”, not “vulnerable”. I don’t think drug dealing youth are in fact the most vulnerable in our society; I can see why you dropped the “most” in your comment, because I doubt you do either.

Also I haven’t used the phrase taxpayer, that’s someone else.

@John Duggan: whoops, I did in fact use the phrase taxpayer. Although why that’s an issue I don’t know.

@John Duggan: well, when your first response to the article is to be all oh no, what does “most vulnerable” even mean, it’s so meaningless, why would he do that I can’t get over the fact that this guy used such a meaningless cliché, and then you use a massive cliché yourself, it’s all a bit pot, kettle, glasshouse, physician heal thyself etc. But anyway, to your point: no. The writer says young drug dealers he has worked with are “some of our most vulnerable citizens”. “Some of”. “Some”. And he’s right. Kids who suffer awful trauma, are exposed to addiction, leave school early, and are still actual, literal children, are extremely vulnerable to exploitation by criminal gangs. I honestly don’t see how you’re struggling with this.

@Mac Muinteoir: I’m not struggling with it, I’m actually 100% in agreement with the direction proposed by the article. But at the same time it has to be recognised that there’s something inherently objectionable to people about being asked to sympathise with drug dealers, or referring to them (or a subsection of them) as “the most vulnerable”. It’s not the message, it’s the presentation.

No one wants to “hug a hoodie”.

@John Duggan: I think you’ve got that completely backwards. What’s objectionable is telling people it’s OK to see vulnerable kids as “hoodies”. What’s objectionable is telling people they shouldn’t empathise with traumatised children who are being exploited. It’s precisely this lack of empathy, this de-humanisation, that leads to things like people calling for the gallows to be brought back.

@Mac Muinteoir: weird to see drug dealers as vulnerable kids to be honest.

@John Duggan: well, first they are kids, then a load of awful things happen to them, which leaves them vulnerable. Then, a criminal gang exploits those vulnerabilities, and they start selling drugs. Not sure weird is the word I’d go for. Tragic, maybe.

@Declan Doherty: and where are theses young lads getting the money for that bit of weed. Have they all got paper rounds.

@Odd Socks: I don’t know. You’d have to ask them. We all got our drug money from parents and jobs when we were growing up but we never stole it if that’s your angle. I think you might be under the misapprehension that this is a working class issue. It’s not. Kids across every sector of society are taking drugs. That’s the reality as it was 30 years ago when I was at it. We can either deal with that reality as a starting point or keep our heads buried in the sand and continue to make the situation worse. What’s your solution ?

@Odd Socks:
Where are they getting the money NOW Odd Socks?
Legalisation results in fewer young lads consuming it.

@Nomad: the changes that are suggested are looking at equity. But you would have to understand the issue and get past headlines to understand that.
I also find it very interesting that the automatic assumption of some people is that certain people contribute nothing to society. But equally assume other members of society do because they pay tax.

@Ian Kerrigan.: and it’s always said as tax but you mean income tax. Because everyone pays some kind of tax.

@Ian Kerrigan.: who said you have to pay tax to be a contributing member of society? I’m sure the people who are subject of this article are up every Sunday morning at 9am down at their local GAA club to coach the under 10s.

@Nomad: well John did. And you implied it. But now it’s being members of the GAA is it ? Interesting view on the world you have there. Just say you think people like yourself are good citizens and people who are different are not. Don’t beat about the bush.

@Nomad: the economic argument for helping poor people, which you seem to need, is that it is a long term investment, which saves money by preventing future costs, and by creating future opportunity. The selfish argument, which you may also need, is that everyone feels happier when inequality is lower, even people who are not poor. And the basic human decency argument is, helping poor people is the basically, humanly, decent thing to do. Jesus Christ. (That’s not me swearing, that’s just who I thought of when I thought about helping poor people.

@Ian Kerrigan.: I’d certainly consider myself a better citizen than a drug dealer … absolutely true and I’ll openly admit it.

@Nomad: I’m sure all publicans and pharmacists will be very upset that you think they are beneath you.

@Ian Kerrigan.: Okay mate … you win. Enjoy your Sunday.

@Nomad: well now that I have your approval I’m sure I will. Otherwise it would have been awful I’m sure.

@Declan Edward: eh… no!

@Mac Muinteoir: Oh yes, no doubt about that at all. I lean towards yes it should be legal, but on the flip side as I say it wouldn’t very nice to walk past people stinking of it.

Now I think about it, I’m wondering if it might even go as far to affect crypto, seeing as nearly all dark net markets use some form of it. If it were to be legalised, I guess there wouldn’t be much need for all the illegal markets as much, so would think like Bitcoin change the price?