Magic Mushrooms have just been made Illegal in Ireland

Time Magazine

radio wrote:

please try and read my posts?

That's rich. Read the word "potentially".

radio

i do see where yer coming from. but i still think its a knee jerk reaction by the government based more in their self interest than in mine. Mushroom consumption wasnt and hasnt been a major problem in ireland - but it gets the headlines and thats all they want right now.

Time Magazine

It was a fast response, yes. Knee-jerk, I'm not so sure. There has been talk of banning these for months and months. Everyone knew about it. Straw that broke the camel's back to be honest.

biko

Oh, the irony of it all (The Streets)

rubadub

Angry Banana wrote:

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?

She may be, and if she saw fit to ban it due to the dangers of it there are plenty of others she should ban too, by 4 o'clock today too. If not it just proves her ignorance, the fat mess can't even look after her own health and then these ministers come out preaching blind ignorance, getting their info from the sun, joe duffy's biddies, and suicide scapegoaters. She listens to them before the UN and the WHO, farcical hypocrites.

DublinWriter

radio wrote:

Mushroom consumption wasnt and hasnt been a major problem in ireland - but it gets the headlines and thats all they want right now.

Ironically, the parents of that guy with all their misguided lobbying attempts have actually done more to publicise and promote 'schrooms, never mind giving criminals another market to tap.

Time Magazine

rubadub wrote:

She listens to them before the UN and the WHO, farcical hypocrites.

Hehehe, I presume the farcical hypocrites you speak of are the UN and WHO.

Fecking gimps if I ever saw any.

nobodythere

I see what you're saying Angry banana, it's a tough grey moral area for many. But what would you say in the case of a 30 year old in such a situation? Does he not have a right to his life? What right does anyone else have to exact control over his freedom?

Minors are a diferent case, they don't have the level of maturity to make those decisions. What I'm saying is that as long as it's not harming ANYONE ELSE (smoking cannabis only harms others because it supports criminal activity, which is only because it's illegal, catch 22), you have the right to choose what to put into your body. If you're aware of all the risks and/or the potential unknown risks, then you as an adult should have a right to choose.

As far as I'm concerned this planet belongs to every human being and it is not the place of any other human being to tell another what to do if he is not hurting anyone besides himself (yes, this also means that in the case of people who are not mentally ill, I believe that they should be allowed to commit suicide).

The things you do hurt people every day. When you buy most foods you're helping to exploit other countries. When you drive your car you're contributing to pollution and the eventual destruction of the earth. Does this mean that you should give up these things? Yes. It does. But you don't. And why not? Because it's too much of a sacrifice. If you're so righteous about banning things like cannabis and mushrooms (and in general things that don't affect your life), why are you not so enthusiastic about things that affect your lifestyle? The reason alcohol comes up so much in this debate is because of the blatant double-standards that are shown, considering that magic mushrooms are a LOT less harmful than alcohol.

I feel I've trailed off a bit on that last point but ah well...

Edit: And with regards to "Acceptable Risk", what is acceptable risk? It's a very subjective thing. Me, I did a lot of research before I took the magic mushies and decided it was an acceptable risk. You might not feel the same

Snake-

Angry Banana wrote:

Essentially I believe the State has a legitimate remit to intervene in people's lives.

Thats your belief... What about the people who don't believe the state should interfere in people's lives?

I don't see why me putting drugs into my body is a problem, and I don't see why been in possession of drugs that will be put into my body is a problem.

I don't believe in been controled, especially by people I have never met.

Time Magazine

Right Snake. Whatever you say. Subvert the basic principle of democratic will because you don't believe in the authority of the State. Fair enough. No moral absolutes. No power of principles. In fact if we all believed in murder let's go hell for leather. Up to yourself. Good man yourself.

Grasshopa, I'll respond to you seriously when I get a chance. I haven't the time to do a sincere reply at the moment.

rubadub

Right Angry Banana. Whatever you say. Subvert the basic principle of reasonable freedom of choice because you believe in the authority of the State and never question their blatant hypocrisy. Fair enough.

lostexpectation

some questions, somebody mentioned that the mushroom has been made class A should it be?
is class A in the UK for eg?


does it do class a type things?

PTL

Lets not forget that politicians arnt any smarter or better then anyone else. They don't have massive I.Q's they dont have any magical powers they didnt do 7 years in college learning about the human body and what it can n can't take ..... So angry banana it sounds like ud put your life in the hands of these people... some people here dont respect authority enough and some people like yourself respect it too much ... maybe u wernt hugged enough or too much by your father or what ever the reason and wither you like r dislike mushrooms you still should open your eyes and see what politicians really are ... we need them but there no better then anyone else.

and lostexpectation ... a class A drug is like heroin, Class A drugs used to be a standard to tell people that there dangerous and addictive, they can and will kill you ... but mushrooms are non addictive and do not kill you (stupidity kills people no matter what drug there on, drink/mushrooms etc) So now i don't know what the classes are for since the drugs in them are now random, so the classes now are only used for prosecuting you. caught with a classA and your ****ed, caught with a classC and your given out to

What class has hungry hippo harney made mushies?

Akrasia

Angry Banana wrote:

Right Snake. Whatever you say. Subvert the basic principle of democratic will because you don't believe in the authority of the State. Fair enough. No moral absolutes. No power of principles. In fact if we all believed in murder let's go hell for leather. Up to yourself. Good man yourself.

Grasshopa, I'll respond to you seriously when I get a chance. I haven't the time to do a sincere reply at the moment.

It's a basic principle of democracy to do whatever the government tells you to do?
That's a principle of totalitarianism and fascism..

CerebralCortex

Snake- wrote:

Thats your belief... What about the people who don't believe the state should interfere in people's lives?

I don't see why me putting drugs into my body is a problem, and I don't see why been in possession of drugs that will be put into my body is a problem.

I don't believe in been controled, especially by people I have never met.

Good point.

What gets me is that one guy dies from taking 'shrooms and it gets banned and people in the thousands die from drink driving yet alcohol isn't banned.

Morons.
So out of touch.

Snake-

Angry Banana wrote:

Right Snake. Whatever you say. Subvert the basic principle of democratic will because you don't believe in the authority of the State. Fair enough. No moral absolutes. No power of principles. In fact if we all believed in murder let's go hell for leather. Up to yourself. Good man yourself.
QUOTE]

Takeing the life of another and making yourself feel relaxed or tripped are completly different.

PTL

Just got off the phone with a friend and realised whats so funny about this .... he told me he’s "coming off" cigarettes at the moment and immediately everyone thing ... agh so your going to be loosing the head at any little thing. and everyone thinks its acceptable to do so and theres no reason why.

This happens with everyone coming off the DRUG called nicotine, they wake up every morning craving another hit(drag) and cant think of anything else till they get there fix(first cigarette) and then when there coming off them cold turkey style most of them need a buffer like patches (heroin users use fi) and while getting withdrawals there touchy and irregular, there state of mind is changed when there on them and coming off them. and then once off them all it takes is one hit and there back on it

HOW! do people not think of smoking as a drug ... everyone knows its bad etc etc but if you said to a smoker or an alcoholic that there drug abusers or drugies or anything to that effect they would be either offended or think your wrong cause its legal denial is a terrible thing

Ajnag

Right Snake. Whatever you say. Subvert the basic principle of democratic will because you don't believe in the authority of the State. Fair enough. No moral absolutes. No power of principles. In fact if we all believed in murder let's go hell for leather. Up to yourself. Good man yourself.

You ever hear of libertarianism?
One of it's tenets leaving the responsibility of choice in the hands of the individual. You wanna be property of the state fine, but dont reduce my belife's to that of base nihelism. Thanks.

Liberal democracy

You left out the most important word

Akrasia

Ajnag wrote:

You ever hear of libertarianism?
One of it's tenets leaving the responsibility of choice in the hands of the individual. You wanna be property of the state fine, but dont reduce my belife's to that of base nihelism. Thanks.

libertarianism is basically ultra free market capitalism and as such, it is incompatible with the survival of a habitable planet. You should be an anarchist instead

Time Magazine

rubadub wrote:

Right Angry Banana. Whatever you say. Subvert the basic principle of reasonable freedom of choice because you believe in the authority of the State and never question their blatant hypocrisy. Fair enough.

Not going to respond to you for that stupid comment. Cop on.

PTL wrote:

Lets not forget that politicians arnt any smarter or better then anyone else.

They tend to be. Some are morons, but they are smarter than the average individual.

They don't have massive I.Q's they dont have any magical powers they didnt do 7 years in college learning about the human body and what it can n can't take

Many did. As did many of the Dept of Health.

..... So angry banana it sounds like ud put your life in the hands of these people...

Proof, if needed, that politicians are smarter than the average Joe just there. No it doesn't. I agree with them on this issue. Grow up.

some people here dont respect authority enough and some people like yourself respect it too much

I respect the authority of the state to ban the possession of narcotics as much as it should be respected. If they prohibited something I thought went beyond their mandate - which differs distinctly from what I disagree with - I would protest. If I disagree with them I would not vote for them.

maybe u wernt hugged enough or too much by your father or what ever the reason and wither you like r dislike mushrooms you still should open your eyes and see what politicians really are

Post reported. I grew up in a grand home, thanks. My eyes are open, and they're not hallucinatng.

we need them but there no better then anyone else.

As irrelevant as the price of cabbage. Never once have I expressed concern for any politicians in this thread.

Akrasia wrote:

It's a basic principle of democracy to do whatever the government tells you to do?
That's a principle of totalitarianism and fascism..

I think it's pretty clear, when I spoke about the democratic mandates there about twelve times, that I'm not coming from a fascist perspective.

Snake- wrote:

Takeing the life of another and making yourself feel relaxed or tripped are completly different.

I agree, but the sentiment that was hinted at in your post is not a whole lot away from moral relativism - which is essentially what I hinted at.

ajnag wrote:

You ever hear of libertarianism?
One of it's tenets leaving the responsibility of choice in the hands of the individual. You wanna be property of the state fine, but dont reduce my belife's to that of base nihelism. Thanks.

Yes, I've heard of libertarianism. It's a political belief, as are neo-conservatism/anarchism/fascism. The fact that you know the writings of John Locke does not negate the fact that I know the writings of Hobbes for God's sake. They're not definitively better. I don't agree with liberalism, I'm not a liberal.

Nor am I the property of the State. The state is our instrument to yield as we see fit, within some constraints. If the State wants to offer you free healthcare, nay - oblige itself to provide you with free healthcare, it can demand certain health restrictions. This is one. You don't agree with it. I do.

Akrasia

Angry Banana wrote:

Nor am I the property of the State. The state is our instrument to yield as we see fit, within some constraints. If the State wants to offer you free healthcare, nay - oblige itself to provide you with free healthcare, it can demand certain health restrictions. This is one. You don't agree with it. I do.

So you see the restrictions on what drugs we can take as a part of a quid pro quo social contract where the state will provide us with healthcare if we promise to not deliberately abuse our bodies?

So does this mean if the State renages on it's contract to provide us with adequate health care provisions that we are entitled to disregard their laws restrcting how we affect our own health seeing as we effectively have to have private health insurance in order to be guaranteed adequate health cover. If we have to pay for our own health care shouldn't we be entitled to make ourselves sick if we so choose?

The_Minister

grasshopa wrote:

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.

I think you are half-assedly referencing Mill's harm principle

The_Minister

Rather than be political puppetteering it may be that Harney GENUINELY feels that they should be gone. Do not forget that this was just a loophole, for drug use they were already illegal. They were illegal before her rise to power.
Remember after the 60's hallucinogenics got a bad name. She may just be going on a prejudice or what the older experts are saying.



PS>(Can we leave all the "fat mess" stuff. Its low, childish, pathetic and pointless. Many women gain weight as they age and it is unlikely that her busy schedule allows her to excercise)

sudzs

MY busy schedule doesn't allow me to excercise much either. But I don't over eat. Just as well really because if I were obese and got ill as a result, I would have to rely on the public health services unlike others who could avail of the private institutions. Maybe if Cookie Monster had to rely on the same services as I do then she might look after her own health a bit better.

psilocybe

In case any of you didn't hear customs have now started started seizing Salvia and San Pedro both of which are completely legal.

Time Magazine

Akrasia wrote:

quid pro quo

I love the smell of Latin in the morning. It always makes the initiator look ultra vires to be honest.

Akrasia wrote:

So you see the restrictions on what drugs we can take as a part of a quid pro quo social contract where the state will provide us with healthcare if we promise to not deliberately abuse our bodies?

I actually see it more than that. That is, however, part of the contract. I'm riding on the example wave to show, prima facie, drug use is not a self-contained act.

So does this mean if the State renages on it's contract to provide us with adequate health care provisions that we are entitled to disregard their laws restrcting how we affect our own health seeing as we effectively have to have private health insurance in order to be guaranteed adequate health cover.

No, because health care is only part of the provision. As mentioned earlier, the members of the state (and I'm of the opinion that I am talking about the majoritarian view here) may impose whichever reasonable rules it likes. This is not a case of oppression. Bit of a nanny-state maybe, but that's such a cliché at this stage.

If we have to pay for our own health care shouldn't we be entitled to make ourselves sick if we so choose?

See above. Another example: I don't believe in private healthcare because it negates the public service and is essentially a re-distribution of well-being to the rich. See Unhealthy State by Maeve-Ann Wren. And still no, and I'm just taking another example here, because the State can enforce what it believes is for the common-good; and thus can stop - if it so desires - people from making themselves sick. I wouldn't agree with that per se, but I wouldn't call it oppression either.

Catsmokinpot

Angry Banana wrote:

rubadub wrote:

Right Angry Banana. Whatever you say. Subvert the basic principle of reasonable freedom of choice because you believe in the authority of the State and never question their blatant hypocrisy. Fair enough.

Not going to respond to you for that stupid comment. Cop on.

how is that a stupid comment? is it possible you just dont have an answer for it that doesnt sound completely rediculous?

during college christmas day last year in waterford a feller got mowed down by an articulated lorry cause he was drinking and he thought he could hold on to the back of the cab and get down the road, he subsequently fell and killed himself, one of my best mates saw it all, it was horrible. you dont see drink getting banned? this sort of stuff happens every day...

i pay taxes to the government, approx €100 comes out of my wage packet every fortnight i never see that money, i dont have a car, i dont go to the doctor, havent been in ages, when i do i have to pay, because i have to be dirt fúckin poor to get free health care, i have taken my weight in mushrooms, never thought about flying off a building. ive often looked at the stretch of water and said jesus that looks smooth enough to walk on, but i know i cant, you know why? because im not stupid, since i was born i haven't been able to walk on water, no mushroom is going to make me think that.

how on earth can you stand there and say the seat that im sitting in is uncomfortable if you have not sat in it yourself?

you can never ever.... ever.... ever.... ever.... understand a hallucinagenic drug unless you actually try one

my taxes go to pay for street cleaners, judges, cops, social workers, doctors yet i havent been in trouble with the law, i dont litter, ive never been to a social worker, and when i go to the doctor i have to pay.

ive never called the firebrigade, never called an ambulance, never used a public toilet, all of which i would have to pay for anyway.

i dont have any kids, they dont need schooling, so basically i pay the government €100 a fortnight and when i do need them they shaft me some more i pay tax on every single thing that i buy, for what? for them to shaft me some more, i have no doubt you like getting shafted, but i dont.

no study has been put in to wether or not mushrooms or any other hallucinogen is safe or not, they have just been brushed under the carpet, i mean obviously its not safe for everyone nor is any other drug, having an alcoholic mother makes me want to ban alcohol, but it is up to adult people if they want to drink or not... not me

you think people are not educated enough to make their own decisions who the **** do you think you are? god?

im doing something to myself that doesnt harm anyone else, i pay taxes to the government and they don't allow me the freedom to do what i want... the kings of old, thought they had a god given right to command people used to do sh1t like that, communism was much the same, fascism too, and they were known as evil regimes. and now it seems that democracy isnt too dissimilar

Time Magazine

Grasshopa, sorry for taking so long to reply. Work and study and life intervene in my habitual debating anois agus arís .

grasshopa wrote:

I see what you're saying Angry banana, it's a tough grey moral area for many. But what would you say in the case of a 30 year old in such a situation? Does he not have a right to his life? What right does anyone else have to exact control over his freedom?

You're arguing liberalism, essentially. Instead of us picking specific issues and debating this needle in hay, my views are akin to a watered-down Leviathan State, with moral absolutist views restricted to realise our own infallability.

So essentially I believe it's the State's duty of care to keep people alive. I completely agree the family should have the right to decide when the plug should be pulled on the machine that's keeping somebody alive etc., but sweeping generalisations like that are just that - too general. If a thirty year old who has developed cancer and decides to not pursue further chemo that's their choice; but the decision to actively do something that will force them into that choice should be combatted.

Minors are a diferent case, they don't have the level of maturity to make those decisions.

"Minor" is one under the age of eighteen years. Should that necessarily be the cut-off point? Is an 18 year old that much more mature than a 17 year old? Either way, it's negligable.

What I'm saying is that as long as it's not harming ANYONE ELSE (smoking cannabis only harms others because it supports criminal activity, which is only because it's illegal, catch 22),

I don't agree with that. There're millions of reasons. Let me take the one I've been using, healthcare:
Situation A: Cannabis is legal. Many people use it regularly. The cancer ward of James's is bursting, costing €100 a year to run.
Situation B: Cannabis is illegal. Fewer people use it regularly, if not only because of the disincentive of a criminal record. The cancer ward of James's is not quite bursting, costing €90 a year to run
Net effect: The marginal kid with cystic fibrosis receives a lesser standard of care in A. Indirect effect.

Now I can go into how being stoned makes you less productive and thus you're contributing less to society, but that'll really piss you guys off . I could also go into empirical evidence to show that legalising cannabis does not actually really hit criminials, and that Amsterdam is the crime capital of Europe, but that'd piss you off. And I could go into moral absolute arguments about Mother Theresa and Josef Stalin but I think that's a little heavy and a little off-topic. I could use a few more arguments I've read about, I prefer to use the healthcare argument. It's just easier to type.

you have the right to choose what to put into your body. If you're aware of all the risks and/or the potential unknown risks, then you as an adult should have a right to choose.

Does the state not have the right to decide what its members do? Are you really saying this is tantamount to oppression?

As far as I'm concerned this planet belongs to every human being and it is not the place of any other human being to tell another what to do if he is not hurting anyone besides himself (yes, this also means that in the case of people who are not mentally ill, I believe that they should be allowed to commit suicide).

I've argued the point that it's not self-contained above, and left out some of the other reasons why, perhaps, I don't agree with the above statement in toto. (*Waves to Akrasia*).

The things you do hurt people every day. When you buy most foods you're helping to exploit other countries.

I know a fair few things about the economics of food markets and disagree with that statement.

When you drive your car you're contributing to pollution and the eventual destruction of the earth.

I ride the bus, but when I will own a car I'll be transporting myself to a place where I held fund research into less-polluting methods, not least by reading this book.

Does this mean that you should give up these things? Yes.

Well now.

It does. But you don't. And why not? Because it's too much of a sacrifice.

That's an interesting point. Maybe you're right, and you're reaching an interesting conclusion. Basically you're saying the cost is greater than the benefit. Would you like to apply that cost-benefit analysis to society and the right to cannabis?

If you're so righteous

I like it.

If you're so righteous about banning things like cannabis and mushrooms (and in general things that don't affect your life), why are you not so enthusiastic about things that affect your lifestyle?

That's a lovely presumption to make for the team. I am, actually. Like the cutting-back of 'recreational' expenditure for third-level institutions in favour of primary school capital expenditure. This directly, negatively, effected me. I didn't call it oppression. Nor do I bemoan our spending on Aid. Why is this? Does this not mean the State have less money to give me in supplemental grants? Of course it does. Maybe this is boiling down to the root of my point - I view things in respect of the aggregate social good as opposed to individualist benefit. Oooh now there's a dilly of a pickle. If ye're all so gung ho for liberalism do ye not also want to stop taxing to pay for Aid and allowing asylum seekers in? After all, it's all relative ain't it?

The reason alcohol comes up so much in this debate is because of the blatant double-standards that are shown, considering that magic mushrooms are a LOT less harmful than alcohol.

In aggregation not necessarily, in medium doses completely. But we're already ploughing money into alcohol-prevention. It is illegal, essentially, to be drunk in public. It is illegal to to sell alcohol to minors, or those under its influence. And yet we still have major problems - I agree. This is coupled with the fact, that in reasonable doses, Guiness is actually good for you. But here we go, let public go mad, and alcohol is one of our biggest scourges on society.

What do the free liberals say to do with drugs then? Legalise them! Look at what alcohol is doing! You're defeating your own bloody point! The regulation of alcohol is hurting us every Friday night and you argue that cannabis should be legalised on that point alone! Come off it! If there's every been an argument made about prohibition of cannabis it's the problem with alcohol, not vice versa.

And for the record, no, I have never assaulted somebody because of alcohol. I have never needed medical treatment because of alcohol. I have never said anything I regret (AFAIK!) while drunk. So don't play the holier-than-thou card.

Edit: And with regards to "Acceptable Risk", what is acceptable risk?It's a very subjective thing.

A risk which is acceptable, where the end justifies the means if necessary. I can't specifically quantify that, and I'm sure you'll forgive me for that - because otherwise I'll ask you to quantify it relative to the problems of having Hydrochloric acid on the market and then you'll be rightly screwed. I agree it's subjective, but so is who's the best political party in Ireland and we still choose that. Just because we don't know a definitive answer on a subject does not mean we cannot apply ordinal logic to it.

Me, I did a lot of research before I took the magic mushies and decided it was an acceptable risk. You might not feel the same

You're right. You think it's acceptable and I don't. And yet you try refer to drugs and liberalism as defences. It's all bullsh*t to be honest. I don't want us a nation stoned ad infinium (hello again Akrasia), you don't have a problem with that. I think my view of society is better than yours, and as I don't believe in the argument that because "he thinks the earth is round, and I think it's flat, therefore neither of us are right" I'm sticking by it.

I could include political waffle about dancing at the crossroads, but I'll spare it.

Time Magazine

Catsmokinpot wrote:

how is that a stupid comment? is it possible you just dont have an answer for it that doesnt sound completely rediculous?

He stated I never question blatant hypocracy. That's how.

Edit: I think each and every one of your points is covered in my last two or three posts.