Drug takers = Supporting Gang Land Ireland?

Time Magazine

It would be better for society if tobacco had never become a socially acceptable thing, not least because it's carcinagenic.

Ditto cannabis, not least because it can treble the chances of neurological disorders.

Simply because something's not working as it is illegal does not mean legalising it will help. Would decriminalising murder help? Now I know murder is ethically wrong and it's debatable whether cannabis usage is, but that's another matter. I'm just pointing out that there are already people ignoring laws, and legalising it would not help.

And dublindude, I can respect that you haven't evolved into a junkie and stayed on the straight and narrow. But whether you like to accept the empirical evidence or not, many people (not necessarily a majority or whatever), but many people do who use cannabis go onto stronger drugs. If you'd like to take a good test statistic to test this hypothesis, derive the number of specific junkies who tried cannabis first; as opposed to the number of people who have cannabis and evolved onto stronger things.

And regarding hitting the drug dealers: Amsterdam, gangland capital of Europe. My hypothesis on the reason for this is:
a) People who gain money from drug use tend to be scumbags. It's rare you hear of a very nice, amicable, pacifistic local drug dealer.
b) Liberalising the activities of these scum will not get them into the social norm.

And yes, of course, those who try cannabis are responsible for the trade, and ultimately the consequence of that trade.

Amazotheamazing

No one's really answered why drugs were made illegal in the first place. Like most people I've heard the (laughable) "hemp was a wonder substance" argument, but no-one (who believes drugs are harmless) comes up with a compelling case as to why drugs were banned in the first instance. It isn't as simple as the government hates people having fun, since they don't ban other sources of fun like drink, smoking, funfairs, women etc.

Too often the focus is on why drugs should be legalised without ever addressing the reason behind prohibition in the first place. Any suggestions?

samb

And regarding hitting the drug dealers: Amsterdam, gangland capital of Europe. My hypothesis on the reason for this is:
a) People who gain money from drug use tend to be scumbags. It's rare you hear of a very nice, amicable, pacifistic local drug dealer.

So put them out of business, legalise.

I'm just pointing out that there are already people ignoring laws, and legalising it would not help

So make laws that are largely enforceable.

But whether you like to accept the empirical evidence or not, many people (not necessarily a majority or whatever), but many people do who use cannabis go onto stronger drugs. If you'd like to take a good test statistic to test this hypothesis, derive the number of specific junkies who tried cannabis first; as opposed to the number of people who have cannabis and evolved onto stronger things.

So seperate the supply of cannibas from that of harder drugs, just like alcohol is.

Daithio

Elmo - McDowell did say what you think he said. In an odd way his approach to drugs is almost refreshing; he's trying to appeal to drug users' sense of morality in an attempt to stop them from using. But then again, it could be viewed as completely patronising and blame shifting. This is the way I find myself interpreting his stance. He doesn't have a clue. His parliamentary ramblings about drugs appeal to the muppets that will vote for him and carry him through the next election, but in reality he has no interest in finding the route of the problem which runs alot deeper than a few southsiders snorting a line of coke or rolling a joint.

Elmo

Elmo - McDowell did say what you think he said.

I only read a report in one of the tabloids. I am not sure what he said. Regardless its a good discussion. I would actually like to read what the man has to say for a change. Can anyone get their hands on what he said?

he's trying to appeal to drug users' sense of morality in an attempt to stop them from using.

Okay I don't think a drug habbit is going to have morality attached to it. I am sure "moral" drug addicts are not out robbing people.

But then again, it could be viewed as completely patronising and blame shifting.

I would have to read what he has said, no matter how much I would like that to be true.

but in reality he has no interest in finding the route of the problem which runs alot deeper than a few southsiders snorting a line of coke or rolling a joint.

I would say that most of them voted him in.

Also I am hugely igornant about drug use. I don't do drugs. But I am guessing that a line of coke is much worst then a joint?

Ditto cannabis, not least because it can treble the chances of neurological disorders

Has this been proven, what research has been carried out?

Alcohol shouldn't be acceptable because of what it causes, liver problems, stomach problems etc.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bagdaddy

Uthur wrote:

Prohibition simply does not work. When they banned alcohol in America
back in the 30s the result was that the gangsters got rich and people
kept boozing. People wanted to drink and banning alcohol didn't stop
them.

Banning drugs now has had the same effect. The gangsters are making
a fortune and people are still taking drugs. Lots of people want to take
drugs - that's a simple fact! Having it illegal never has and never will stop them.

It is estimated that about 25% of folks in the UK do cocaine on a
regular basis. if 1/4 of the population want to do it then it it is
madness to try to stop them!

It is time to end prohibition - it never worked and it is not working now.

Who the **** estimates this. Post a source for that becase there is no way a 1/4 of the population of the UK take cocaine on a ''regular basis''.

Elmo

Who the **** estimates this. Post a source for that becase there is no way a 1/4 of the population of the UK take cocaine on a ''regular basis''.

Yeah thats every one between the ages of 15 AND 35. and prob a few 12 year olds.

"Did you know that more people die from smoking related illnesses the from doing Heroin."

Taken from Clueless the TV Show on one of there after school special, mmmmm Hello! but more people smoke.

Time Magazine

samb wrote:

Angry Banana wrote:

And regarding hitting the drug dealers: Amsterdam, gangland capital of Europe. My hypothesis on the reason for this is:
a) People who gain money from drug use tend to be scumbags. It's rare you hear of a very nice, amicable, pacifistic local drug dealer.

So put them out of business, legalise.

You failed to point out the second part of what I said, namely that liberalising the activities of these knackers is not going to suddenly transform them into becoming respectable members of society.

So make laws that are largely enforceable.

The law is enforceable and is a deterrent to cannabis use. If you want to make use (which is shown to have serious carcinagenic and neuologically devastating consequences) more attractive, or rather less unattractive, to people you should legalise it. People are arrested for possession every day. Yes, the percentage of people caught is minimal compared to extent of its possession, but that's the same with drink-driving and speeding. Ergo liberalise drink driving?

So seperate the supply of cannibas from that of harder drugs, just like alcohol is.

Aside from the fact that cannibas is more damaging than alcohol, and alcohol is already a plague on so many people; cannibas, if only by societal and traditional influences rather than scientific, will always be less socially acceptable than alcohol. It's possession and use shall permanently be associated with deviance.

Time Magazine

Elmo wrote:

Has this been proven, what research has been carried out?

I read it in the Irish Times or Independent about a month ago. Can't provide the source because it I'm not going to look through the newspapers for the last six weeks!

Dave!

Angry Banana wrote:

But whether you like to accept the empirical evidence or not, many people (not necessarily a majority or whatever), but many people do who use cannabis go onto stronger drugs. If you'd like to take a good test statistic to test this hypothesis, derive the number of specific junkies who tried cannabis first; as opposed to the number of people who have cannabis and evolved onto stronger things.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth13.shtml

"Most users of heroin, LSD and cocaine have used marijuana. However, most marijuana users never use another illegal drug."

Time Magazine

DaveMcG wrote:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth13.shtml

"Most users of heroin, LSD and cocaine have used marijuana. However, most marijuana users never use another illegal drug."

Read my test statistic: how many people who use heavier drugs used softer drugs first.

The figures are distorted by people (teens, college parties etc) who try soft drugs for all of 3.2 seconds having had no prior intention, but for evermore fall under the bracket of "those who have used". Another fairer test statistic would be those who used soft drugs regularly to those who went onto heavier drugs.

Uthur

bagdaddy wrote:

Who the **** estimates this. Post a source for that becase there is no way a 1/4 of the population of the UK take cocaine on a ''regular basis''.

The British chief of police said so last week. That's who.

CiaranC

Angry Banana wrote:

Aside from the fact that cannibas is more damaging than alcohol, and alcohol is already a plague on so many people; cannibas, if only by societal and traditional influences rather than scientific, will always be less socially acceptable than alcohol. It's possession and use shall permanently be associated with deviance.

How is cannabis more damaging than alcohol? Go look up statistics on deaths, admissions to hospital, road accidents, violent crime and domestic violence. Alcohol is a huge factor in these, cannabis doesnt feature.

Your assertion that cannabis 'possession and use shall permanently be associated with deviance' is laughable. Maybe in the backwater you come from that is the case, but in cosmopolitan modern Ireland cannabis is used and accepted by practically all sections of society.

Time Magazine

CiaranC wrote:

How is cannabis more damaging than alcohol?

It's carcinagenic and it's neurologically damaging.

Go look up statistics on deaths, admissions to hospital, road accidents, violent crime and domestic violence. Alcohol is a huge factor in these, cannabis doesnt feature.

Nor does the rising oil price. Alcohol is infinitely more prevalent in society than cannabis, is also far more public, and is not associated with a necessitous caution of authority so of course it leads to greater statistics. If you'd like to provide adequate figures for neurological dysfuntioncs and bodycounts from carcinagens relative to regular use then we can debate statistical analysis.

Your assertion that cannabis 'possession and use shall permanently be associated with deviance' is laughable.

Whyso?

Maybe in the backwater you come from

Mods? . Doesn't this amount to personal attack through location?

Speaking of the water I live on, it's the Liffey. All of 1 mile from the Dublin border. And seeing as I spend about 12 hours every day in college in the city centre my locality can hardly be called backwater. Try to refrain from stupid personal abuse without knowledge about such please. It doesn't add to the debate.

that is the case, but in cosmopolitan modern Ireland cannabis is used and accepted by practically all sections of society.

Right. Now that's laughable. Let me just name sections of society who do not accept cannabis use: doctors, nurses, lawyers, gardaí, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, teachers, academic world, social workers, neuroscientists.

CiaranC

Let me just name sections of society who do not accept cannabis use: doctors, nurses, lawyers, gardaí, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, teachers, academic world, social workers, neuroscientists..

I know several Gardai who condone cannabis smoking. Same with teachers, nurses and members of FG and FF. Same with social workers. You are suggesting cannabis is not used in the Academic world? Gimme a break.

Lots of things people do are damaging to their health. Its my choice what I do with my body, and Im sick and tired of listening to PC nazis telling me what I can and cant do. If I want to eat a huge slice of cake, or drink 6 pints of beer, or smoke a damn joint then I will. People like you with a chip on your shoulder about it with just have to accept the fact that this has been the case since the damn of humanity, and always will be. Havent people got better things to do than preaching their self righteous twaddle on the internet?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

CiaranC

Decriminalisation wont eliminate the black market economy for drugs. Only legalisation will do that. Whatever small chance their is for decriminalisation of cannabis, the notion of legalisation of cocaine is unlikely to the point of hilarity.

So we'll just have to live with the current situation forever.

Time Magazine

CiaranC wrote:

I know several Gardai who condone cannabis smoking. Same with teachers, nurses and members of FG and FF. Same with social workers. You are suggesting cannabis is not used in the Academic world? Gimme a break.

Oh well please forgive me for not taking your personal anecdotes as empirical evidence. In fact, let's just disregard my anecdotes of the Gardaí who think it's a secret bane on inner-city areas; teachers who see kids failing to concentrate in school daily; nurses who have to treat the physciatrically disabled; the FG TD who wants stricter importation laws and massive investment in scanning technology etc; the FF'ers who have maintained the status quo for essentially the last twenty years. And do you really think this guy uses drugs often?

Lots of things people do are damaging to their health. Its my choice what I do with my body

Yes it is, but I believe the state has a mandate to stop people from causing harm to themselves. Is it so unfair to enforce people to wear seatbelts? Or to operate on children of Johava Witnesses?

and Im sick and tired of listening to PC nazis telling me what I can and cant do

Viva la revolution :rolleyes:.

If I want to eat a huge slice of cake, or drink 6 pints of beer, or smoke a damn joint then I will.

If you want to assert the argument that eating a slice of cake is analgous to smoking a joint; I'll assert the argument that the illegality of the possession of certain substances (as defined by law, passed by elected representatives) that are damaging to you is akin to enforcing the wearing of seatbelts.

People like you with a chip on your shoulder

Post reported.

People like you with a chip on your shoulder about it with just have to accept the fact that this has been the case since the damn of humanity, and always will be.

And people like you have to accept that fair government intervention in people's lives has been the case since the development of democracy.

Havent people got better things to do than preaching their self righteous twaddle on the internet?

No. The chip on my shoulder is too burdensome for me to go out, I look retarded. Cop on, it's a debating forum and I enjoy debating and broadening my mind through intellectual battles. If you don't want to debate your side, nobody will stop you leaving. That said, nobody will hear you if you do.

Sorry for straying off-topic in the last couple of posts.

CiaranC

Yes it is, but I believe the state has a mandate to stop people from causing harm to themselves.

:eek:

Preumably you think contact sports should be outlawed by the state also? What about mountain climbing? Or do you not hold an arbitrary grudge against those particular form of human behaiviour? Who gets to decide - you?

The state has no mandate to interfere with peoples behaiviour as long as it does not infringe the rights of others.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Time Magazine

CiaranC wrote:

Preumably you think contact sports should be outlawed by the state also?

No, sports are a healthy activity.

What about mountain climbing?

Not carcinagenic, if I recall correctly.

Or do you not hold an arbitrary grudge against those particular form of human behaiviour?

Well, unlike your good self, I suppose I don't consider a game of handball analgous to cannabis usage.

Who gets to decide - you?

Ah now in fairness. We have a parliament, mate.

The state has no mandate to interfere with peoples behaiviour as long as it does not infringe the rights of others.

I disagree with you three-fold:

a) I believe the State does have the right to interfere in people's lives if it only affects them. I think mandatory seatbelts should be enforced. I strongly believe that the State has the right to intervene in the case of parents with fundamental religious beliefs denying their child the right to a blood transfusion. I think anorexic teenagers should not be allowed to wither to death if in the State's care. I think it may be provident, in some circumstances, for people who self-harm to be forced to go to depression clinics.

b) Of course it affects others' rights. If you use a carcinagenic good regularly and you get cancer who do you call? The hospital, funded by the State. Just as I think the State does have the right to intervene where it is provident; I do not believe the State has the right to refuse care to an individual who seeks medical attention. It costs thousands of euro to treat a cancer patient; moreso kids with psychological disorders.

c)It is illegal to have in your possession, a weapon. It is an offence for me to carry a blade in my pocket, even if I have no intention to stab someone. It's not affecting anyone, is it?

The answer is no, not directly. But there is a greater chance, in my possession of a knife, to stab someone than without. Similarly, if somebody takes drugs that are genuinely damaging to their brain there is a greater chance that they'll not be of sound mind and potentially dangerous. This argument is also applicable to health care costs; there is higher chance of you eating up the State's resources if you have cancer.

And just on another point, prohibition does work. I'd like to see you get your hands on some hydrochloric acid. Prohibition does not work where it is genuinely against the will of people, and I flatly refute any claim that the majority of people want cannabis legalised. I will just not simply accept any apparations of "if only you knew". Don't presume me to be so ignorant. Just because I've never touched the stuff does not mean I cannot quantify the size of its culture.

Freelancer

Tell me angry banana are you in favour of criminalisation of alcohol and tobacco?

Time Magazine

I would be, if I thought it would work.

But it's taken root, and thus would genuinely be a situation where prohibition would not work.

Let's learn our mistakes about being easy on tobacco consumption, rather than using it as an excuse to make another.

Freelancer

Angry Banana wrote:

I would be, if I thought it would work.

But it's taken root, and thus would genuinely be a situation where prohibition would not work.

Let's learn our mistakes about being easy on tobacco consumption, rather than using it as an excuse to make another.

My question was two fold I asked about Alcohol and tobacco, you merely focused on tobacco. So again i ask are you in favour of banning alcohol and tobacco on the basis of your argument aganist cannabis decriminalisation.

Furthermore the link between for example scizopherinia and cannabis smoking is a tenious link at best. Yes many people who are scizophrenic have used cannabis, but no direct evidence of a link that cannabis caused this scizophrenia has been proven conclusively, yes post a link, and I shall then post another, the medical community is seriously divided on this issue however the lobby that makes the claim has never conclusively proved it.

See if you're going on the logic of it should be banned because of the burden it's abuse puts on the state, I'd be curious to see how many of the people in our A&E on a saturday night are there because of cannabis abuse and not the more likely alcohol abuse.

Cigarette's and Alcohol cost the state significant amounts in medical bills from injuries commited by people under the infulence of the latter, out patient alcoholic treatment centers. Furthermore the carcengic content of a joint is greatly increased by the tobacco used to roll it with, and the chemicals and impurities that criminals use to increase their profit margin. De criminalising would regulate the trade to force sellers to adhere to trading practices and would greatly increase the quality (decent pure weed instead of the rancid soapbar the Irish market is forced to endure)

The suggestion that cannabis abuse costs this state a significant amount of money is true, but not because it is a drain on our health service, but rather customs and excise, court and police time are wasted trying to enforce these laws.

Your argument that our state has the right to criminalise one product because of the dangers it poses to our health while continuing to allow the sale of two other products that causes a far more significant degree of mental and physical health issues, is hyprocrtical. You cannot hold the above position while at the same time not be in favour of probition of cigarettes and alcohol. Are you?

And just on another point, prohibition does work. I'd like to see you get your hands on some hydrochloric acid.

Thats a spurious argument. Prohibition has nothing to do with a dangerous chemical that is difficult to produce, hard to store and has little pratical use for the ordinary man on the street.

Hydrochloric acid for example has been used by rioters in the north as part of "acid bombs" So if theres a will theres away, it is possible to create with a few household chemicals and some large batteries.

Do not compare prohibtion to a proscribed chemical that the man on the street has little use or need for.

and I flatly refute any claim that the majority of people want cannabis legalised. I will just not simply accept any apparations of "if only you knew".

I'm sorry who's making broad sweeping allegations about the general publics behaviour now?

bagdaddy

Uthur wrote:

The British chief of police said so last week. That's who.

Yeah, well then he is full of ****.

I suppose ultimately it would come to down where you think the invididuals right to self determination, independence and liberty starts and the will of majority to impose their views on an individual ends. If you think the "state" has a mandate to interfere with peoples behaviour even if that behaviour does not infringe the rights of others, where exactly should state power over the individual stop? Should individuals not be sovereign over themselves, their bodies and their minds?

bagdaddy

bagdaddy wrote:

Yeah, well then he is full of ****.

Well put

Elmo

Preumably you think contact sports should be outlawed by the state also?

Any thing we do could be life threating, perhaps we should all go around in bubble rap.

rubadub

Elmo wrote:

"Did you know that more people die from smoking related illnesses the from doing Heroin."

Taken from Clueless the TV Show on one of there after school special, mmmmm Hello! but more people smoke.

a higher % of legal drug users die from their drug use than illegal drug users, thats %, not figures. In fact a higher % of alcohol OR nicotine users die than the % all of the illegal drug users combined.

If the government made tobacco illegal then people would be supporting the gangs who would take up trading that. In fact the governments high tobacco tax already leads to tobacco crime, theft of shops and trucks and smuggling.

If they were really that concerned about gangs they would do the same as in england i.e. in a roundabout way allow you to grow yourself yet not sell.