Magic Mushrooms have just been made Illegal in Ireland

Evil Phil

True, if magic mushroom use was as common place and as accepted as alcohol or tobacco use is they wouldn't have been banned. But they aren't, I agree they shouldn't have been banned but Harney is just doing her job so you can't fault her really. The loophole was exploited for greed and now its closed.

radio

thing is though, we can blame the politicians as its their job to do what is right for us as a people, not decide laws based on how popular it makes the politicians. technically, if mushrooms and hash are bad and banned then so too should alcohol and smoking. If harney really really believes she is saving people by banning mushrooms then why doesnt she push to ban alcohol etc? the main answer is that it would make her too unpopular. nothing to do with looking after people as a whole in what is good or bad for them, more to do with looking after herself and trying to look like shes doing something good, rather than overspending 50 million quid.

In my mind, this whole thing rests on harneys shoulders. Its all a PR exercise, and the main casualty is freedom to eat something that grows in the field.

Catsmokinpot

Firespinner wrote:

True I haven't but i had to "mind" friends who were on them. None have freaked out but they all know people who have. (My friends began seeing faces staring from the walls.....Does this often happen?)

not alot of people get strong open eyed visual hallucinations from taking mushrooms, its kind of hard to explain what exactly you see.

say you see a painting, you see the trees in this painting you see a boat with some people on it. you see the sunset in the horizon, its a nice painting.

now look at that same painting on mushrooms, all of a sudden you see the wind swaying the trees the people are playing in the boat the sun continues to set instead of being stationary, you see a bird diving in to the water to catch a fish all as if life has been brought in to the painting by magic, you appreciate that painting a whole lot more than you used to.

i remember a mate of mine was looking in to a bottle upclose to his eye, and it looked to me like his eye had turned into a mouth and had started drinking from the bottle.

i have seen things i never dreamed i would see it has opened my mind to the bounty of possibilities out there, and has shown me another side of reality the side you arent able to see.

of all the things ive seen ive never... ever... ever... thought they were real thats why someone saying they can fly and actually jumping off a building to see puzzles me

Catsmokinpot

Angry Banana wrote:

Secondly, nigh on everyone's argument against the prohibition is "alcohol's not banned". If alcohol was banned tomorrow, would ye shut up?

yes because at least our country wouldnt be run by a bunch of lying full of **** hypocrites, who like nothing more than just nannying the rest of us

The_Minister

radio wrote:

thing is though, we can blame the politicians as its their job to do what is right for us as a people, not decide laws based on how popular it makes the politicians. technically, if mushrooms and hash are bad and banned then so too should alcohol and smoking. If harney really really believes she is saving people by banning mushrooms then why doesnt she push to ban alcohol etc? the main answer is that it would make her too unpopular. nothing to do with looking after people as a whole in what is good or bad for them, more to do with looking after herself and trying to look like shes doing something good, rather than overspending 50 million quid.

In my mind, this whole thing rests on harneys shoulders. Its all a PR exercise, and the main casualty is freedom to eat something that grows in the field.

If you had a vote from the Irish public it would be banned. Right or wrong she is doing what the public want. They would scream if she banned alcohol

Ag marbh

Firespinner wrote:

If you had a vote from the Irish public it would be banned. Right or wrong she is doing what the public want. They would scream if she banned alcohol

I've come to a conclusion that you're a joke of a bloke.

Stark

Why not put it to the public so? And allow groups on both sides to give balanced information to the public. While they're at it, they could have a referendum on the decriminalisation of cannabis.

rubadub

Evil Phil wrote:

In fairness the government was going to do this as popular opinion would have demanded it.

Firespinner wrote:

If you had a vote from the Irish public it would be banned. Right or wrong she is doing what the public want. They would scream if she banned alcohol

Thats what I would have thought, but TV3 news had a phone in poll and 55% were opposed to the ban.

rubadub

Firespinner wrote:

I also can't believe all the whinging.

Really. Do you drink, smoke, drink coffee eat chocolate?
Imagine if that fat mess mary harney/poppins announced that alcohol, nicotine and caffeine were banned tomorrow at 4 o'clock. Would you be in disbelief if people were whinging about that?

It is not so much the drug in question it is the hypocrisy of the situation, it is illogical. Laws being passed by the gutter press and duffys biddies.

rubadub

Evil Phil wrote:

People take them for recreational purposes but also for spirtual and meditative purposes -.

There are many medicinal uses, like the immune system for sore throats that you mentioned. They are good for eyesight but the main medicinal use is for clusterheadaches, they far surpass any medicines for it.

Evil Phil wrote:

I blame the head shops. They took a free resource and a legal, although somewhat borderline, activity and turned a profit from it. Now its illegal and a criminal act to go up the mountains and pick some come the autumn time.

I do not think they would be illegal if he had picked them himself and if they were not know to be on sale in shops. So in that respect the head shops can be blamed. Though I do feel they did nothing wrong. People can go and pick various medicinal herbs in the wild, I would not demonise health shops selling these medicinal herbs and call them greedy. BUT if that story is true about selling to a 15 year old girl is true then they are scumbags in my mind, and idiots for killing the golden goose in the process of selling the eggs to anybody.

There needs to be control and laws in place. If they were to put them in place then it is outright acceptance rather than turning a blind eye. It was far easier to ban them, lazy sh ites.

Evil Phil

My problem is that through self education organisms like mushrooms can be used for recreation, exploration of the self, medicinal, spiritual and social purposes and more. The legal situation was perfect, if you knew what you were doing and not processing them or selling them you were left alone because you weren't doing anything wrong. After all its entirely harmless and innocent. In the process of making a quick buck the head shops have f*cked this up for everyone and turned the innocent into criminals. By trying to make a quick buck they've forced a change in the law which effects people far more responisble then they obviously are.

On the point of healthfood shops: Medicinal herbs you can pick wild are not always available in the shops, at least not without a presciption. An example is St Johns Wort, with is used as an anti-depressent. The problem with St Johns Wort is that it's active ingredient is the active ingredient of many mordern prescription anti-depressents and if used incorrectly can be very dangerous. Hence you can't buy it over the counter - now the people I know with enough experience to pick and prepare St Johns Wort themselves have earned the wisdom to use it correctly. Going into the healthstore doesn't require that. Not that I'm disagreeing with you, I wish such a system could be used for psilocybin.

Personally I'm delighted that the sale of mushrooms has been stopped, its just a shame that so many will be affected by the actions forced by a greedy few.

nobodythere

Deleted User wrote:

<expects 5000% rise in number of people taken into hospital for consuming toxic mushrooms/ cow ****e>

LOL! "Ah no mary, another victim of the cow shíte eating epidemic!".

Me I'm for the ban as much as I love mushrooms, to inject it into our culture as part of a normal thing makes it a casual drug. Mushrooms have been a great benefit to me spiritually but for those who are unprepared, you're fscked! People are forced to prepare when they have to learn to pick em.

Now nobody mention the words LSA/Salvia and we'll be grand

PTL

If they had a vote tomorrow weither to ban them ... then yes they would be banned cause the only people who vote are grannys students are lazy ... i dont mean to be steriotypical here but im just going on facts ... if EVERYONE in ireland was to read an unbios leaflet about mushrooms and there health risks and read 1-2 unbios studies done on them and long term damage (which is none) and then had the choice of ... ban/dont care/dont ban id say most would be dont care as in leave it the way it is and it would be about 50/50 on ban and dont ban

And lets look at it .. the government control drink , i cant remember the exact figures but its something like from a 5euro on a pint only 1euro goes back to the pub and most of it goes back to the government and its even less of a percentage on smokes ... then mushrooms are competition, and the government cant be seen to promote mushrooms by putting heavy tax on them so they just get rid of the competition Its alot cheaper for a night of mushrooms then getting the same amount of intoxication on alcohol and no hang over on mushrooms

PTL

God i think giblet is in partnership with mary harney i thought this thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054884229
was a very good thread and a totaly different topic as it was what to do ... action to take ... not what do you think .... Giblet can you unlock the thread just like if they banned alcohol there would be 100's of threads and if one came along with some sort of solution would you lock it... let people who are annoyed voice there opions and open as many threads as they like cause if people do open 5-6 threads on the subjects its only cause so many people are effected by this subject and feel strongly about it ... this subject is going to stay alive for a good few weeks till we either figure out if we can fight this secondary legistlation or wither theres a loophole(dont say any here if you fing one tho)

Hope you rethink your dissision or ask the admin what he thinks

ezone

MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2006

I, Mary Harney, Minsiter of Health and Children, in exercise of the
powers conferred on me by sections 4,5 and 38 of the Misuse of Drugs
Act, 1977 (No. 12 of 1977) as adapted by the Health (Alteration of
Name of Department and Title of Minister) Order, 1977 (S.I. No 308
of 1997), hereby make the following regulations:

1: These regulations may be cited as the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment)
Regulations , 2006.
2: These Regulations shall come into force on the 31st day of
January, 2006.
3: The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1988 (S.I. No 328 of 1988) are
herby amended as follows:

In paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 1, after "Psilocin" there shall be
inserted "any substance, product or preparation (whether natural or
otherwise) including a fungus of any kind or description, which
contains Psilocin or an ester of Psilocin

Given under my Official seal
this 31 day of January 2006


signed: Guess who???

This is just as it came from the department

Evil Phil

Evil Phil wrote:

True, if magic mushroom use was as common place and as accepted as alcohol or tobacco use is they wouldn't have been banned. But they aren't, I agree they shouldn't have been banned but Harney is just doing her job so you can't fault her really. The loophole was exploited for greed and now its closed.

Yes that's it, the PD's oppose Capitalism.

Firespinner wrote:

If you had a vote from the Irish public it would be banned. Right or wrong she is doing what the public want. They would scream if she banned alcohol

Because the general public are woefully misinformed and have been subjected to lies/propoganda most of their lives. Not to mention the fact that a lot of them are idiots.

nobodythere

Ok that doesn't include grow kits cos the psilocybin is only formed during the growth AFAIK

Double shush!

radio

FX Meister wrote:

As for the spas who say they grow wild, no, they don't. And if you don't know this then you should take some and fly off a balcony.

hang on, are you telling me magic mushrooms dont grow wild? If thats the case then theres a few fields not too far away from me that you should go and talk to, cus they dont know that.

Time Magazine

Stark wrote:

Why not put it to the public so? And allow groups on both sides to give balanced information to the public. While they're at it, they could have a referendum on the decriminalisation of cannabis.

Unless you want to enshrine a right to the possession of narcotics in the constitution, a referendum is completely useless here. It's not a constitutional matter. It's a civil matter. As someone, quite (stupidly) suggested (they suggested a Legalisation Party would get into government), it's a party-political issue, pertaining to an Act that can be changed quite easily - and, in this case an extension to an Act that can be changed in a day.

And do NONE of ye really believe Mary Harney might actually be against the possession of this drug? Do all of you believe it was simply a politically-motivated move?

Come off it. Pun intended.

ezone

From another forum :

"Mushrooms naturally growing on anyones premesis are now a class A drug. Any land owner, including the state will be liable to prosecution for any psilocybe mushrooms growing on the owned land. The UK government's judicial department needed 6 months to formulate in such a way that it would not cause this problem. Psilocybe mushrooms are naturally occuring in Ireland. Anyone can press charges against these landowners. Banning naturally occuring plants or mushrooms are a judicial hazard. This is one of the reasons why the UN decided not to. Think about it: The Irish government has a problem.

It's up to you if you manifestate that problem.

By the way: innoculating land with spore syringes or young mycelium (does not contain active substances yet) is legal. Should some accidently land on the property of certain officials and charges are pressed, the media will have a blast!"

radio

Angry Banana wrote:

Unless you want to enshrine a right to the possession of narcotics in the constitution, a referendum is completely useless here. It's not a constitutional matter.

shouldnt it be based on actual facts - as in facts that prove that mushroom consumption is dangerous .. at least as dangerous as something that is legal before they consider such a change? That isnt the case here. Howmuch do we know of the fella that died? of his mental health, other addictions? I dont mean to be disrespectful to his family, all Im wondering is does his death prove conclusively that the mushrooms caused him to jump off from a height. many things cause people to do that.

If we dont have that proof then why have they banned the mushies? the only option i see is political motivation as theres no proof they are more dangerous than currently legal drugs. Obviously they arent for everyone, but everyone wasnt taking them.

psilocybe

Grow kits are illegal as the contain a fungus (mycellium) which contains psilocybin. Spores are legal because they have no psilocybin in them.

Time Magazine

radio wrote:

shouldnt it be based on actual facts - as in facts that prove that mushroom consumption is dangerous .. at least as dangerous as something that is legal before they consider such a change? That isnt the case here. Howmuch do we know of the fella that died? of his mental health, other addictions? I dont mean to be disrespectful to his family, all Im wondering is does his death prove conclusively that the mushrooms caused him to jump off from a height. many things cause people to do that.

If we dont have that proof then why have they banned the mushies? the only option i see is political motivation as theres no proof they are more dangerous than currently legal drugs. Obviously they arent for everyone, but everyone wasnt taking them.

Firstly, the above has absolutely no relevance to my quote you selected.

Secondly, I'm of the view that things (that are potentially dangerous - and a guy did just throw himself out a window) should be banned until it's proven safe. I apply the same standard to sweets.

nobodythere

Angry Banana wrote:

Unless you want to enshrine a right to the possession of narcotics in the constitution, a referendum is completely useless here.

Which can't be done anyway I think because of some UN resolution made early in the beginning of the UN.

Angry Banana wrote:

Secondly, I'm of the view that things (that are potentially dangerous - and a guy did just throw himself out a window) should be banned until it's proven safe. I apply the same standard to sweets.

Really? You want to ban sweets? You don't believe that people should have the right to put what they like into their bodies? I go by one rule in this life: You have a RIGHT to do whatever the fsck you want as long as you're not hurting anybody else. Remember that sentence, it's one that has made more sense to me in my whole life than any other. We were not born to be babied, fed manufactured food and live in a glass bubble. Evolution comes through liberation, not oppression.

Time Magazine

Really? You want to ban sweets?

Yes.


No, I don't want to ban sweets. But before sweets, or cough medicines, or methods of blood transfusion, or contraception become "mainstream" I want to feel safe in the level of risk. This require testing.

You don't believe that people should have the right to put what they like into their bodies?

That's a myriad of a political question, and the answer is no. Essentially I believe the State has a legitimate remit to intervene in people's lives. If Jehova's Witness parents refuse surgery on their child, I say intervene. If a sixteen year old girl suffers from bulimia I say she should be fed. Conversely, the State is obliged to provide medical assistance to those who need it. I think this requires to state to intervene in the case where people are actually hurting themselves. And in the case of cannabis etc. this means preventing, by all means, its usage (except for medicinal purposes etc). The reason for this is because otherwise you're wasting tax-money, as you will get cancer treatment etc. The state already combats tobacco, and just stops short of banning it because it's not politically possible. Ditto alcohol, although not enough is done in this regard. I think we should learn our painful lesson from those tough problems and not use it as a cop out to get away with legalisation.

Cake Fiend

Angry Banana wrote:

If Jehova's Witness parents refuse surgery on their child, I say intervene. If a sixteen year old girl suffers from bulimia I say she should be fed.

Both of your examples concern minors. A better comparison would be whether the state should intervene if a sane adult refused surgery on their own body.

Hypothetical example: I develop an operable terminal disease. Are you saying that you think the state should force me to be operated on against my will?

radio

Angry Banana wrote:

Firstly, the above has absolutely no relevance to my quote you selected.

Secondly, I'm of the view that things (that are potentially dangerous - and a guy did just throw himself out a window) should be banned until it's proven safe. I apply the same standard to sweets.

it is indeed of relevance. your point was that a referendum is only needed to change the constitution. my point was that outside of that, laws are normally changed in respect to. for example, a drug proving dangerous, or a ban, say on mobile phones in cars due to accidents. for something to be banned it has to have been responsible for something bad happening.

for your second point is alcohol safe? is tobacco safe? is car pollution safe? are plastic bags safe? everything in the wrong hands is dangerous so rather than proving something to be safe, how about proving it to be more dangerous - as I said before - than anything else that is used and is legal?

radio

Angry Banana wrote:

(that are potentially dangerous - and a guy did just throw himself out a window)

please try and read my posts?

radio wrote:

Howmuch do we know of the fella that died? of his mental health, other addictions? I dont mean to be disrespectful to his family, all Im wondering is does his death prove conclusively that the mushrooms caused him to jump off from a height.

Time Magazine

Sico wrote:

Both of your examples concern minors. A better comparison would be whether the state should intervene if a sane adult refused surgery on their own body.

Grand. An 18 year old girl.

Time Magazine

radio wrote:

it is indeed of relevance. your point was that a referendum is only needed to change the constitution. my point was that outside of that, laws are normally changed in respect to. for example, a drug proving dangerous, or a ban, say on mobile phones in cars due to accidents. for something to be banned it has to have been responsible for something bad happening.

Like carcinagens and schrizophenia - or at least there's a very big risk of it. If there is complete scientific proof that there're no problems with e.g. cannabis, or even if the benefits are greater than the problems, I'll shut up no problem.

for your second point is alcohol safe? is tobacco safe? is car pollution safe? are plastic bags safe? everything in the wrong hands is dangerous so rather than proving something to be safe, how about proving it to be more dangerous - as I said before - than anything else that is used and is legal?

Read my post. Acceptable risk. Hurling is dangerous. I don't propose we ban that. Read my post. Alcohol is combatted. Tobacco is combatted. Car pollution is fought against. It's all about the best way to combat things; and banning can work. It can certainly work better than regulation. God knows the state can't regulate a bus-service.