Should cannibas be legalised????

SimpleSam06

Commander Vimes wrote: »

except that you take away the money from the criminals and give it to the government

Criminals wouldn't have the money if gobshites didn't give it to them.

Commander Vimes wrote: »

who said he was trying to get them on his side?

Okay so, enjoy your crusade to have cannabis legalised with the media gainst you. /gets popcorn

Commander Vimes wrote: »

just because he hasn't linked to one doesn't mean he hasn't read them. maybe they're not available online

And maybe hes blowing more than smoke out a few orificies. Make the claim, back it up. Thems the rules.

Commander Vimes wrote: »

maybe criminals will smoke it maybe they won't. what's your point? just because socially destructive people do a drug does not necessarily make that drug socially destructive

Well well, isn't that funny. You could say the same thing about almost any drug.

Commander Vimes wrote: »

for a man insisting someone else post links you're not posting many yourself...

Then again I'm not making wild ass and hairy claims on all sides.

Commander Vimes wrote: »

and of course cannabis has only been around since 1997. you seem to forget alcohol has been banned before. society trundled along anyway but with an upsurge in criminality.

You might have a read of that post I made about prohibition in the US.

Commander Vimes wrote: »

then prove them wrong rather than just saying they are. how does cannabis effect other people other than giving money to gangs, a problem which would be solved by legalising it?

Oh yes, criminals are forcing us to introduce a whole new variety of drugs to the shelves of our corner shops. Grow a pair, would you.

Commander Vimes wrote: »

when you're trying to change a law, how can you not go after the legal system?

No, you go after the people who make the legal system.

Commander Vimes wrote: »

that's a load of crap and you know it. the law is there to tell people what they can and can't do. the penal system is a system of punishment

Sigh. Its just not worth it.

Commander Vimes wrote: »

let me see if i understand you. teenagers can't make informed decisions about cannabis so we must ban adults from using it. thereby making criminals the only source of the drugs and they don't ask for id. makes perfect sense

So by your logic all drugs should be legalised after age 18? No, tis you who makes perfect sense.

Commander Vimes wrote: »

that's what he's doing

So why is he waxing eloquent on the faceless machinery of the state so much? The sixties are over, thank christ.

Commander Vimes wrote: »

and that is solely because it is illegal... i don't understand your point and why it means that cannabis should be illegal... surely licensing it and having the ability to punish shops that sell to under age people would give more control over the situation

But why should society have to bend over because a tiny minority of drug using tweens can't handle the itch?

Commander Vimes wrote: »

so should we ban other stuff for no reason

Yes, there are no reasons to keep drugs illegal. Brilliant.

Commander Vimes wrote: »

wanting to do something doesn't make it addictive. people buy illegal dvd's. are they addictive?

When you start smoking DVDs I'll give you a gold star for good comparisons.

Commander Vimes wrote: »

as far as i can see, you were in such a hurry to try to prove him wrong you forgot to make sense

Might I recommend a trip to specsavers, they have a good two for one offer these days?

SimpleSam06

Hey hey, I did it, I actually answered all of those multiple points of fruitlesseness! There's five minutes of my life I won't get back. Ah well...

wazzoraybelle wrote: »

I was making the point that commercially grown hemp is not the same as weed and is not a valid argument for the legalisation of cannabis but you very 'cleverly' managed to ridicule that point. If only I had your sharp wit!!

On 'dutch import laws' ( whatever thats about) I was responding to your earlier point where you stated that dealing was illegal in amsterdam which it most certainly is not and is very tightly regulated.

While I was living in Switzerland many cannabis users grew their own supplies on their apartment balconys or back gardens . I don't see how this makes any criminal exponetially richer but I'm open to any explanation ( you seem to have omitted this in your post!:D
B Good.

I was trying to cause stoners heads to explode by proxy. Did it work?

AngryHippie

If you look back, weed was actually legal up until shortly after the turn of the century, as hemp was an essential good for sea transport. It was a cabal of forestry officials who had it outlawed in the US, who then had it put into the UN charter of illegal substances, thereby spinning it into law in most of the world.

Granted, there has been a lot of breeding and strengthening of the marijuana strains since then, and an ounce of skunk from the 21st century is going to be stronger than the stuff smoked back then.

Nonetheless, the legal system is not capable of dealing with the drugs situation in Ireland.

A far more logical solution would be licensed growth and sale in Ireland, with any of the revenue generated by the sale and produce going straight to the mental health care budget. I sincerely believe, that the benefits would by far outweigh the costs in this case, as people are smoking it anyway.

If this case study turned out to be a success, then it could be used as a pilot structure to take heroin addicts off the streets, and medicate them in a safe manner, until such time as they are prepared mentally and physically to get free of it. It'll reduce the level of tragedy in their lives, reduce violent crime, and more importantly, reduce the income of total scumbags.

This is the ONLY way to solve the drugs crisis.

In the US they have 3 major federal agencies trying to tackle drug related crime, and even then they are playing catch up in a race they are losing badly.

If this was in place before, crack and crystal meth. became major problems in Irish society, then it is possible that the major dealers would be crippled to the point of taking risks before there was effective demand for these two. Risks get them caught.

If Crack makes it into our suburbs its gonna make the heroin problem look like tv licensing, same applies to crystal meth. They are far more severe than heroin, as they are not as physically debilitating, and induce psychosis as opposed to sedation. Our time is running out on this one, It is worth giving cannabis legalisation a go, as so much of our population is already informed and active. The rest remains a pipe dream.


By the way, punishment for a victimless crime is essential fascism
I know people who have grown their own, gotten caught with some, ended up with a criminal record for it......

hopalong85

SimpleSam06. Lol, just lol. I'm pretty sure i've never read anything more ridiculous than your most recent posts.

bonkey

AngryHippie wrote: »

If you look back, weed was actually legal up until shortly after the turn of the century,

That depends where you're talking about.

Marijuana was legal in Switzerland until 1971.

A friend of mine from the Emmental tells me how on Sundays, it was traditional for the farmers to have their "special pipe", where they treated themselves to adding 50% tobacco to the mix.

This is the ONLY way to solve the drugs crisis.

I'm always skeptical of any such proposal. How, for example, do you intend to handle the equivalent of drunk-driving? THC stays in your system for surprisingly long times...especially if you're a regular user. It is currently impossible to distinguish between someone who is high on a small amount of recently-ingested THC, and someone who has a comparatively high "background level" from regular usage.

So how do you police that? Would people be happy to have marijuana licensed if it meant you could lose your driving license for residual THC in the system, days or even weeks after the last joint was smoked?

By the way, punishment for a victimless crime is essential fascism

Only in the sense that fascism seems to be the new label for anything to do with government that people object to.

SimpleSam06

hopalong85 wrote: »

SimpleSam06. Lol, just lol. I'm pretty sure i've never read anything more ridiculous than your most recent posts.

So by a process of elimination, you've just learned to read? Congratulations on passing your adult literacy course, and welcome to the internet! Soon you may even be gainfuly employed!

I mean, come on. At least mock the "simple" part of the nick. A little effort wouldn't kill you.

Oh I forgot. Stoners.

Tzetze

Commander Vimes wrote:

as far as i can see, you were in such a hurry to try to prove him wrong you forgot to make sense

hehehe

humbert

I think reason died an ugly death the moment people started line by line quote wars.

ScumLord

I think reason died an ugly death the moment people started line by line quote wars

I agree, anyway..

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

This is not the case with cannabis. Its not a case of which is more worthy of banning, its a case of which we ones we are capable of controlling at this stage. Flooding the market with new drugs isn't going to make the world a better place.

Nobody's on about flooding the market with cannabis. That's just typical scare mongering, just because cannabis becomes legal doesn't mean everyone is going to turn into a stoner over night. we're just saying let those that want to use cannabis use it.

For me it's about freedom to do what I like as long as I don't hurt anybody. The only real downside to using cannabis is the fact it's illegal so most the money going towards organized crime.

Again you are talking about a drug which has been in circulation for a very long time. Banning it now would result in turmoil, the cure would be worse than the disease.

Cannabis has been used for around 10,000 years. The point isn't about banning alcohol it's about double standards.
Oh, so lets go after the legal system itself now. Good enough for murder cases and all other crimes, but it lacks the necessaries to deal with cannabis.

The state is not a mysterious body of aliens, its an elected group of men and women (elected by your friends and neighbours I might add), who have decided that for their own good and for the good of those who might not be yet capable of making informed decisions (teenagers) some substances should be banned.

But it's not achieving that teenagers have easier access to it than adults at the moment legalisation would reverse that.

Buying cannabis puts you in contact with the same subsection of society that will sell you anything you can buy, including heroin. In fact they have quite an incentive to attempt to sell you other drugs, for their own financial gain.

The gateway theory had allot to do with how cannabis was supposed to make you more likely to become addicted to other drugs. They claimed it changed your brain and turned you into an addict. They've since found out it's actually tobacco that causes that change and I've heard some scientists say it's actually tobacco that introduces kids to using illegal (to them) substances and changing they're brain chemistry. At the end of the day however most teenagers are aware that most the information they hear is at the very least stretching the truth and won't be as apprehensive about trying it, putting them in contact with criminals and harder drugs. Easy solution, legalise cannabis.

11 year old children readily get their hands on cigarettes and alcohol.

But it's not easy for them.

And of course if you take away their income from cannabis, they'll all quit crime and take up accountancy. Also, why should society as a whole have to bow to pressure from a criminal subculture?

A financial blow like that is bound to hurt them allot. They're not going to turn into saints because of that but they would have lost millions reducing they're buying power.

Not really. Just a bunch of middle class tween whiners who can't deal with their lives and want to find some sort of illusory escape in chemicals, while actively supporting criminal organisations and doing nothing of value.

Of course ignoring every major artist for the last few thousand years, including painters, musicians, poets (like our very own WB Yeats) and sculpters. Then there's the modern IT crowd or just about anyone who's tried it and liked it.
[/QUOTE]

Tzetze

Marijuana only hurts the profits of a few. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is a remarkable substance and has huge benefits to society. Because of the way THC is absorbed into our systems, it is impossible to overdose on it (receptors become saturated and no more uptake occurs). There have been no reported cases in history of anyone dying from an overdose of THC. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for alcohol.

The boiling point of THC is much lower than the combustion temperature of the marijuana plant, only needing 200°C to vaporize. There are loads of vaporizers for sale online, or they can be built cheaply following easily found guides.

The Oligarchs are aware of the benefits of naturally occuring THC, and profit from a synthetic version. Marinol is the leading synthetic version and it doesn't take long for DuPont's name to come up again when googling it. Marinol has similar side effects to natural THC but has an immunomodulative effect and lacks (among other things) the anti-convulsant which is of benefit to MS sufferers.

Wiki wrote:

In April 2005, Canadian authorities approved the marketing of Sativex, a mouth spray for multiple sclerosis to alleviate pain. Sativex contains tetrahydrocannabinol together with cannabidiol. It is marketed in Canada by GW Pharmaceuticals, being the first cannabis-based prescription drug in the world.

\o/

This stranglehold over hemp and THC for the profit of a few is needless and senseless. It relies on finite resources when the most logical alternative can be grown anywhere at fractions of the costs involved.

bandit197

You should be allowed to grow a cannabis plant in your own home without fear of prosecution. What you do with it should be up to you as long as you weren't selling it? Smoke it, eat it, whatever:D Its a naturally growing plant in our world and we as humans should have as much right to grow it as a pot of geraniums....Oh wait..that'll never happen because the government wont make anything out of it, in fact they would lose revenue because people would be drinking less. Oh if only there was a buzz out of smoking geraniums:D but then they would be banned too!

ScumLord

Tzetze wrote: »

This stranglehold over hemp and THC for the profit of a few is needless and senseless. It relies on finite resources when the most logical alternative can be grown anywhere at fractions of the costs involved.

I don't understand it either, people seem to have a problem with people getting high off it. All these companies are doing is taking the high out of the drug, like a drug can't be good for you if you enjoy it. In the end cannabis will be used by the general and controlled by big companies when we could just grow our own and have the same benefits. Of course if they legalised it now those companies would probably be out of pocket by billions. But that's another conspiracy theory no medical company would ever do anything so underhanded.

I can see a market for a non high version for people that don't like being under the influence of a drug but I don't see whats wrong with allowing people to choose which version they want

JJ6000

Can I begin by saying that your username "simplesam" is quite apt, as you seem to have displayed an absolute inability to read and understand what I have actually written. Let me explain how.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

And you just sank your comparison right there. Let me ask you, if we lived in a society with no alcohol, and someone brought alcohol in and started trying to sell it, would it be legal? Of course not. Same with cigarettes.

The fact is, although they might be worse than cannabis, attempting to ban them outright at this stage would cause widespread chaos and the vast, vast enrichment of criminal syndicates.

This is not the case with cannabis. Its not a case of which is more worthy of banning, its a case of which we ones we are capable of controlling at this stage. Flooding the market with new drugs isn't going to make the world a better place.

As I said before in my post, I was not turning it into a debate on which was more worthwhile to ban. As I EXPRESSLY said, I was citing it as an example to highlight the hypocrisy and ignorance of the media, government and general public. This is evidenced by the fact that in spite of the fact that alcohol causes such massive damage in so many ways, the prevailing attitude is that cannabis is a much greater danger and should not be tolerated. NOWHERE did I state that alcohol SHOULD be banned and NOWHERE did I discuss the comparative merits of a ban on each one. Had you actually taken the time, or had the presence of mind, to actually read my post you would have realised this.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

And your second point looks exactly like your first point. For someone not trying to start an alcohol versus cannabis debate, your whole platform seems to rest entirely on it.

And by the way calling the media hypocrites is not a good way to get them on your side.

Again, you have mis-read my post. You are entirely missing the point of my analogy. I used it to highlight the prevailing hypocrisy and bias and to illustrate how the prevailing views are not based on rationality or fact. You appear to be missing the point entirely. Please make an effort to actually read and think before typing.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

You seem to be citing a lot of scientific reports without ever linking to one or quoting to one. How about a little research before you attempt to appeal to the intellectual side and actually backing up your arguments?

Please clarify, where exactly did I cite scientific studies. You do understand what the words “cite” mean, don’t you? I certainly don’t see where I cited any specific studies. I already stated “I could spend all day picking holes in the scientific conclusions”, but such a debate is beyond the scope of this thread (which is of a more general nature, rather than a debate of specific scientific studies). However, if you really want me to cite scientific studies I would be MORE than happy to start another thread in time on the subject of scientific studies into the effects of cannabis, if you would be willing to engage in a debate of those studies with me?? How about it?? Because I can cite many studies if you wish to discuss them rationally with me??

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

That would really depend on your society, wouldn't it? Or are you going to tell us that all of the petty criminals (and major criminals) in Ireland would never smoke weed? I'd argue that they are primary consumers of the drug.

I really do not get your point here. What exactly are you trying to say? You neeed to work on your arguments and actually manage to form a coherent one.Are you saying it IS destructive and refuting my point?? If yes, then please, feel free to explain your point of view (as I have done) and illustrate how it is destructive. Are you saying that weed makes these criminals commit crimes? Please elaborate. Many of the criminals probably eat toast also….oh, I guess that means toast causes criminal behaviour. Sterling argument...bravo.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

This is incorrect. Cannabis produces similar effects to painkillers (which is similar to the effects produced by cigarettes, by the way). This is a chemical reaction which could be called "pleasant".

Hahahaha…..I’m sorry, I apoligize. But your argument is very obscure. Oh, so it’s “pleasant” is it? I think you have misunderstood the concept of an ‘inherent physical addiction’. Please explain how it is physically addictive, other than saying it is “pleasant”, bearing in mind that absolutely every peer reviewed study has refuted the idea that it is physically addictive. Indeed, the governments own report refuted the physical addictiveness of cannabis. I can cite the studies if you wish? Perhaps you are referring to phsychological addiction, which I have already dealt with in my post….or haven’t you read that part?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Again you are talking about a drug which has been in circulation for a very long time. Banning it now would result in turmoil, the cure would be worse than the disease.

Again, I am not debating the respective merits of a ban or which is more worthwhile banning. I’m getting tired of explaining this point to you. It seems you have mis-read or do not possess the mental faculties to understand my post……..again. Have another go at it, or possibly get your teacher to explain it to you.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Hahah, ah now you have stretched it well out of bounds. Hold on, so are you saying cannabis is as neccessary to our well being as vitamin C, or basically food?

Hahahaha….this is actually getting quite humorous now. You appear to be incapable of actually listening (or in this case reading) to what is being said. Do you realise this? No, I am not saying cannabis is as vital to our well being as Vit-C or food. My point is that many other substances are psychologically addictive and so the psychological addiction is no more prevalent with cannabis (and less so, in many cases) than with any other substance. Please, make an effort to read more carefully or do not post worthless retorts. It wastes everyones time, including your own. Your time would be better spent playing with your train-set perhaps?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Bit like cigarettes so, eh?

No, smoking stresses our health services massively, and causes tax-payers a lot of money. It kills 400,000 per year world-wide and causes an untold number of illnesses – cancer, heart disease etc etc etc. I can provide many figures if you like? Can you do the same for cannabis? You comparison is a fallacy.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Both of which points are proveably wrong.

Can you elaborate, or are you in the habit of making unsubstantiated statements. I’m not even asking you to post studies….please just at least give me a coherent argument other than stating ‘you are wrong’.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Hard enough for you to do without linking to or citing a single study...

How can I post a study of the appreciable negative effects of cannabis when such a study does not exist? There ARENT any appreciable negative effects. That was my POINT! Hahahaha….your logic is ludicrous!! So, you are asking for what doesn’t exist? Sorry, but I am not able to assist you in that one. Not a very clever request for you to make.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Oh, so lets go after the legal system itself now. Good enough for murder cases and all other crimes, but it lacks the neccessaries to deal with cannabis.

This is getting tiring. What exactly is your point here? What is your view on the purpose of the legal system? In fact, can you please state any sort of argument/point of view? And for the record, what is wrong with criticizing the legal system? People do it every day. So, I suppose many of the people who rightfully criticize planning legislation are simply “going after the legal system” and their arguments are redundant? And for the redord, yes, the legal system lacks the necessaries to deal with cannabis. At least current legislation does. Thank you for making my point for me.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The law is there as a system of punishment. No other reason. The knock on effects are merely side effects of that.

Wrong wrong wrong!!!! Your point of view really highlight the lack of depth to your views. Ever think of prevention, and rehabilitation?? Judges factor these into the sentences they hand out EVERY DAY. Perhaps you would care to actually read some judgments and then get back to me. I studied this for years so perhaps I should save you the embarrassment and advise you to take my word for it. But feel free to embarrass yourself (again) if you wish. Tell me, what are you basing your assertion on? Is it merely your opinion, because every single Judge in the country would disagree with you and the last time I was in a court room, they were the ones handing down the sentences (a judge is the individual who sits in the high chair and wears a wig...in case you are confused)

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The state is not a mysterious body of aliens, its an elected group of men and women (elected by your friends and neighbours I might add), who have decided that for their own good and for the good of those who might not be yet capable of making informed decisions (teenagers) some substances should be banned.

There are several definitions for “state”. In this case, I use it to refer to the government, not the general populace. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The "state" has no rights not granted to it by the populace. If you have a problem with that, go talk to the populace.

Is that not what I am trying to do.....or have you missed that glaringly obvious fact?[/quote]

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Again, understand what the state is. Its us. At the risk of mentally scarring anyone on LSD reading this right now, the MAN is YOU.

Again, look up the several definitions for a state. Your understanding of vocabulary appears to be very limited.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

You've been reading a lot of American websites, haven't you.

Oh, now this statement IS good. You OBVIOUSLY have no idea what you are talking about. The right to bodily integrity is a recognized constitutional right IN IRELAND. Please, look and read carefully what I have just written in capital letters especially for you. Article 40.3 of OUR constitution (if I have to state the obvious for you, we are in Ireland now, not the U.S), implies the existence of unenumerated rights afforded to Irish citizens under natural law. The right to bodily integrity has been recognised in many cases in the Irish legal system. Please, refrain from offering an authoritative view on subjects you are very ignorant of and do your research before making a ridiculous statement like that. PS. Your “arguments” are awfully thin and this statement is possibly the greatest embodiement of your ignorance.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Jesus what a load of waffle you ranted there. Let me spell it out for you, flowery rhetoric does not an argument make. Let me spell it out for you even further. Buying cannabis puts you in contact with the same subsection of society that will sell you anything you can buy, including heroin. In fact they have quite an incentive to attempt to sell you other drugs, for their own financial gain. End of.

Hahahaha, thank you! You just argued in favor of my point. The illegality of cannabis puts you in contact with other drugs. Now, this does not infer that cannabis is a gateway drug (as you seem to have confused what the ‘gateway theory’ actually means) but you have just illustrated how when someone wants to buy cannabis they must go to a drug dealer who may then encourage them to take other, harmful drugs. Hmmmm, so why has this situation arisen? Well, isnt is obvious? It is by virtue of the fact that it is ILLEGAL that this is happening. Were cannabis legalised, people would not come into contact with such other substances when they go to purchase cannabis as they could purchase it from a reputable and licenced salesman. You just argued in favor of legalisation and cited an important point that proponents of legalisation use all the time. It seems that even in the rare situation that you do manage to string a coherent point together, it works in my favor. Thank you

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Oh god, here we go...

Wow, another sterling argument! You've convinced me now!! seriously though, please, be more constructive in what you choose to write.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Yes, better drugs giving a better high. Brilliant.

No, they would have less harmful impurities. And yes, that is “brilliant”.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

11 year old children readily get their hands on cigarettes and alcohol.

Yes, because of lack of strict regulation. Further down my original post I propose strict regulation to minors. At present, we have no control over sale to minors. Legalisation would give us far greater control. Please make an effort to read before commenting

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

And of course if you take away their income from cannabis, they'll all quit crime and take up accountancy. Also, why should society as a whole have to bow to pressure from a criminal subculture?

Maybe I am wrong here, but please, could you explain how how taking a criminal gangs source of income is ‘bowing to pressure’?? Do you really think Gangs are pressurising the government into legalising cannabis? Do you really think legalisation is in the interest of criminal gangs. Again, you appear to be making very little sense....yet again.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

But if no one bought, there wouldn't be any demand. For a non addictive substance. Which can land you in jail, with a permanent criminal record of caught. Definetely non addictive though.

Like I explained, people want cannabis. They will buy it....this is undeniable fact. Personally, I am supplied by friends who I know have grown their own as it is cleaner and I don’t want to pass my money to a criminal. But the fact is, the government have created a situation where many people MUST buy from criminal drug dealers. I am quite sure that many people are not thrilled about having to hand money to criminals to obtain cannabis. But the governement does not accept ANY responsibility for the situation they have created. Explain how that is not hypocritical?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

What, people who break the law and are criminals?

Yes, people who break ridiculous laws. Just because it is current law, it does not make it just. You seem to be of the view that the status quo is fine solely by virtue of the fact that it is the status quo.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

And the obligatory pull on the heartstrings. I can almost hear the violins caterwauling.

Ok, now your attitude is beginning to bother me. I could have been an awful lot easier on your childish logic, your poorly thought out arguments which lack any depth, your obviously low IQ and lack of mental faculties, your poor reading and reasoning skills, your hypocrisy, your inability to understand fact and rational argument and theory and your refusal to substantiate anything you say. But as a result of this statement I decided in this retort to expose you as the obvious idiot that you are.

The example I cited is, in fact, a real person and your childish comment is both offensive and adds nothing to the discussion. Even if it wasn’t, are you saying that those situations do not exist? The medical benefits of cannbis are accepted. Would you like me to cite you studies. Once again, rather than engage in any debate you choose to sit on the sidelines and fire off cheap and sarcastic insults. Unfortunately, cheap and sarcastic insults appear to be the limit of your argumentitive ability. Let me ask you….how does it feel? How does it feel to be completely devoid of any rationality, reason or ability to engage in mature discussion. Your “retort” is not even worthy of a reasoned response it is so blatantly misguided. I would call you mentally deficient but I am sure it would be an insult to mentally deficient people.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Not really. Just a bunch of middle class tween whiners who can't deal with their lives and want to find some sort of illusory escape in chemicals, while actively supporting criminal organisations and doing nothing of value.

Ah, so they have no medical value? Care to cite studies. I can cite MANY which PROVE medical benefits. Also, your assertion of all cannabis users as falling into one category really does highlight your lack of education or knowledge on the subject. Please, inform yourself before typing. ALL the people I know who use cannabis are in gainful employment and have many interests outside of smoking cannabis. Personally, as regards pasttimes, I enjoy nothing more than exposing juvenile idiots on public forums.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

But you yourself pointed out that the vast majority of people in Ireland have never tried cannabis. Seems to be working just fine to me.

Most people have not tried it because they are ignorant of it and believe they lies and mis-truths which have been presented to them. It is not out of rational choice. This is an option which I believe the Irish People are entitled to.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Or you can buy the line that some random on the intarweb is selling. Badly.

Like I said at the beginning of the post…your username is sadly apt. You are quite obviously, quite a simple person with no depth to their views. Not one SINGLE argument you presented made sense. In fact, the only coherent points you made worked in favor of legalisation. Thanks for that. But I’m sure your VAST intellect didn’t see that one coming did you? Please, save yourself the embarrasment and don’t bother engaging in the debate since you know approximately nothing about the issue. Doing so will only lead to further embarrasment and hghlight the sad fact that you are most likely unable to engage in any discussion more advanced than why Cheese & onion is so much tastier than Salt & Vinegar.

So tell me sam, which is it, Cheese & onion or Salt & Vinegar?

Tzetze

JJ6000, would you mind not changing from default font colours? We don't all use the default forum theme, and black font doesn't contrast well against an almost black background. Normally, doesn't bother me much, but I want to read your post.

SimpleSam06

Well gentlemen, I'm sorry that you went to all the trouble it took to respond point by point to that marathon quoting session, because I have no intention of carrying it on, having better things to do with my time.

I was tempted to let the last few of the usual suspects stick their oars in, but nah. The deluge of chuckleheads and durr hurrs have polluted this fine establishment enough for one day.

I'll just say this. For all the braying about being treated like adults, why don't you start acting like adults, stop sucking on your paper pricks, put them down, and stop putting money directly, willingly and gleefully in the hands of criminal organisations.

Oho, and JJ6000, if you really are a barrister, I hope to christ I never have to depend on you for legal advice, after your last foaming-at-the-mouth piece.

ScumLord

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I'll just say this. For all the braying about being treated like adults, why don't you start acting like adults, stop sucking on your paper pricks, put them down, and stop putting money directly, willingly and gleefully in the hands of criminal organisations.

I agree growing your own is the way to go.

SimpleSam06

ScumLord wrote: »

I agree growing your own is the way to go.

Tzetze

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I'll just say this. For all the braying about being treated like adults, why don't you start acting like adults, stop sucking on your paper pricks, put them down, and stop putting money directly, willingly and gleefully in the hands of criminal organisations..

(like DuPont and Pfizer)

wil

I havent read any of this thread simply because I think the answer is obvious.

The eating of human flesh, no matter how close to chicken (or pork) it tastes or environmentally beneficial it seems is something that should be left to plane crashes in the Andes. It has no place in modern society, no matter how hungry you are. That's my final word on the topic.;)

humanji

wil wrote: »

I havent read any of this thread simply because I think the answer is obvious.

The eating of human flesh, no matter how close to chicken (or pork) it tastes or environmentally beneficial it seems is something that should be left to plane crashes in the Andes. It has no place in modern society, no matter how hungry you are. That's my final word on the topic.;)

lol

Terry

Any more personal abuse from anyone will result in a ban.

rubadub

Terry wrote: »

Nice retort.
I wasn't arsed responding to it myself.
All I saw was 'I don't want to turn this into an alcohol vs cannabis debate, but...' and then I stopped reading.

All I expect, you are not allowed discuss any legal drugs in a debate about legalisation of drugs, crazy stuff. I expect if there was a debate on legalising gay marriage you would ignore all posts relating to heterosexual marriage.

Keep your hands on your ears, "lalala I cant hear you"

A lot of comments said here need not be referring to drugs, many items could be substituted into the place of alcohol or cigarettes when talking about ecomonic reasoning. e.g. illegal DVDs.

Terry wrote: »

Do you understand the difference between recreational drugs and medicinal drugs?

I would love to hear your explanation. Bear in mind cannabis, alcohol, nicotine, heroin, cocaine, LSD, psilocybin, MDMA, amphetamine and many more have all been used medicinally, and are self prescribed by many people for their own ailments, some recommended by doctors who are unfortunately not allowed to prescribe some of them.

A massive portion of painkiller sales are to cure the hangovers induced by the alcohol you think is such a great drug. Seems to be your drug of choice and you want to inflict this choice on all others too. I cannot think of any other drug with such extreme hangover effects, I imagine if people had the same effect from illegal drugs they would not be as popular, many would not have alcohol as their drug of choice due to its side effects, they still want a altered state of conciousness so suffer it since it is the only legal choice out there. L

ike I said before you seem to have odd statistics about people you have met 99% of people you know who tried cannabis went onto "harder drugs", I still wonder what these are. And the majority of people you know who drink to not go onto cannabis.

Terry wrote: »

I've seen people become aggressive when they couldn't get any weed.
What does that tell you?

Tells me you know some very odd people. Were they smoking this with tobacco? Did they still smoke cigarettes when they could not get the weed?
This is the only time I have seen people having withdrawl, but the exact same withdrawl effects you would get from nictoine withdrawl. People ignore the extreme addictive nature of tobacco since it is legal. The old "its legal so it must be grand" comes into effect.
I have never heard of anybody becoming aggressive from tobacco or cannabis withdrawl.

Tzetze

rubadub wrote:

I have never heard of anybody becoming aggressive from tobacco or cannabis withdrawl.

THC is also known to be an aggression-suppressor. Take away the suppressor and the aggression comes back.

Terry

rubadub wrote: »

All I expect, you are not allowed discuss any legal drugs in a debate about legalisation of drugs, crazy stuff. I expect if there was a debate on legalising gay marriage you would ignore all posts relating to heterosexual marriage.

Just keep skewing the arguement there. Good boy.

Keep your hands on your ears, "lalala I cant hear you"

Having read countless threads on the same topic, all I ever see are the same arguements about how alcohol is really bad and weed has been around for thousands of years (as has alcohol, but I digress). It gets fairly tiresome.

A lot of comments said here need not be referring to drugs, many items could be substituted into the place of alcohol or cigarettes when talking about ecomonic reasoning. e.g. illegal DVDs.

Of course they could. However, by using thse things as a debating point, you ae just trying to sway the arguement away from the fact that possesion of cannabis is illegal and are trying to justify your own purchase of it.

I would love to hear your explanation. Bear in mind cannabis, alcohol, nicotine, heroin, cocaine, LSD, psilocybin, MDMA, amphetamine and many more have all been used medicinally, and are self prescribed by many people for their own ailments, some recommended by doctors who are unfortunately not allowed to prescribe some of them.

Yes. All these have been prescribed in the past. Then people realised the damaging long term effects of use of these drugs and they were banned.
It's called learning from your mistakes, or trial and error.

A massive portion of painkiller sales are to cure the hangovers induced by the alcohol you think is such a great drug. Seems to be your drug of choice and you want to inflict this choice on all others too. I cannot think of any other drug with such extreme hangover effects, I imagine if people had the same effect from illegal drugs they would not be as popular, many would not have alcohol as their drug of choice due to its side effects, they still want a altered state of conciousness so suffer it since it is the only legal choice out there.

Again you are trying to pass the buck.
The people who suffer badly from the effects of alcohol are the ones who abuse it.
If there was an alternative, they would undoubtedly abuse that too.

ike I said before you seem to have odd statistics about people you have met 99% of people you know who tried cannabis went onto "harder drugs", I still wonder what these are. And the majority of people you know who drink to not go onto cannabis.

Heroin, cocaine, amphetamines and their derivatives, ecstacy (not MDMA).
Just because some quack in the 1850's prescribed opiates and cocaine, it doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

Tells me you know some very odd people. Were they smoking this with tobacco? Did they still smoke cigarettes when they could not get the weed?
This is the only time I have seen people having withdrawl, but the exact same withdrawl effects you would get from nictoine withdrawl. People ignore the extreme addictive nature of tobacco since it is legal. The old "its legal so it must be grand" comes into effect.
I have never heard of anybody becoming aggressive from tobacco or cannabis withdrawl.

They were smoking hash with tobacco, but weed on its own. They were addicted to nicotene already, so they would have smoked cigarettes anyway.

JJ6000

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well gentlemen, I'm sorry that you went to all the trouble it took to respond point by point to that marathon quoting session, because I have no intention of carrying it on, having better things to do with my time..

Like learning to read? Or completing first class perhaps? Oh, and by the way, I really admire your ability to back out of a discussion. It seems there are some things you arent useless at. I had a strong feeling your response would take the form of a retreat.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I was tempted to let the last few of the usual suspects stick their oars in, but nah. The deluge of chuckleheads and durr hurrs have polluted this fine establishment enough for one day..

Yep, a bunch of "chuckleheads and durr hurrs" whos points you just displyed an inability to refute or who you failed to present any coherent argument to. Well done.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I'll just say this. For all the braying about being treated like adults, why don't you start acting like adults, stop sucking on your paper pricks, put them down, and stop putting money directly, willingly and gleefully in the hands of criminal organisations.

I believe we have dealt with this small minded view already....and dismissed it. For somebody who wants to cower out of a debate you really do a good job of trying to ressurect it.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Oho, and JJ6000, if you really are a barrister, I hope to christ I never have to depend on you for legal advice, after your last foaming-at-the-mouth piece.

I will say one last thing to you. I already stated that I do not usually revert to that tone in my posts. But the fact that your retort to my original post was insulting meant I had absolutley no problem highlighting your many shortcomings.

Am I sorry? No. You wont get any apologies or 'pulling on heartstrings' (as you put it) around here, so I suggest you look elsewhere.

Oh, and by the way, if I ever did have to provide legal assistance to you I would be sure your clear mental deficiencies would provide you with a solid defence. i dont think the jury would take much convincing in that regard.

Have a nice day.
J

ScumLord

Of course they could. However, by using thse things as a debating point, you ae just trying to sway the arguement away from the fact that possesion of cannabis is illegal and are trying to justify your own purchase of it.

I don't really get this. The problem is possession of cannabis is illegal and the government does a terrible job of justifying the reasons behind that classification.

SimpleSam06

JJ6000 wrote: »

Like learning to read? Or completing first class perhaps? Oh, and by the way, I really admire your ability to back out of a discussion. It seems there are some things you arent useless at.

You'd think a barrister would have read the charter before opening his gob.

JJ6000 wrote: »

I will say one last thing to you. I already stated that I do not usually revert to that tone in my posts.

Of which you have made a grand total of five, so almost half of your posts were in that tone. Good luck!

Tzetze

Here's some interesting reading on the subject.

It features a piece by a Dr. Robert L. DuPont, president of the Institute for Behavior and Health and former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. (Institute for Behaviour - like straight out of an Orwell novel, minibe.)

DuPont wrote:

Just as many people who speed do not have accidents, many people who smoke marijuana do not have problems as a result of their use, especially those who use the drug for brief periods of time and/or infrequently. The same is true for drunk driving — it is estimated that the drunk driver’s risk of an accident is about one in 2,000 episodes of drunk driving. Nevertheless, speeding and drunk driving are punishable by law because of the serious consequences of these behaviors. In all of these cases, legal prohibition serves as a reasonably effective deterrent to the behavior. For those who are undeterred by prohibition, the enforcement of the law produces escalating consequences for repeated violations.

:rolleyes:

meditraitor

ScumLord wrote: »

For me it's about freedom to do what I like as long as I don't hurt anybody. The only real downside to using cannabis is the fact it's illegal so most the money going towards organized crime.

Wrong

ScumLord

SimpleSam06, you do realise your being charged for every reply he gives you.