Should cannibas be legalised????

jim o doom

One other point (yes im long winded on this matter! sorry )Cannabis in general is a lot less bad for you than smoking tobacco because it acts as an expectorant, allowing the unwanted contents of your lungs to "conglomerate" - and be expelled from the body, totally unlike tobacco.

meditraitor

Seems as all the pro-dopes have had a say in how cannabis is a wonder drug, even one gobsheen saying it might be a deterant to lung cancer I thought Id wade in with some more internet (serious business) related Facts. I know you all get your info from erowid and the likes so the following article in an equally honest publication namely the Daily mail and is an opposite view to the guys who say it is not harmfull

A single joint of cannabis raises the risk of schizophrenia by more than 40 per cent, a disturbing study warns.
The Government-commissioned report has also found that taking the drug regularly more than doubles the risk of serious mental illness.
Overall, cannabis could be to blame for one in seven cases of schizophrenia and other life-shattering mental illness, the Lancet reports.
The grim statistics - the latest to link teenage cannabis use with mental illness in later life - come only days after Gordon Brown ordered a review of the decision to downgrade cannabis to class C, the least serious category.
The Prime Minister is said to have a 'personal instinct' that the change should be reversed, with more arrests and stiffer penalties for users.
Cannabis has been implicated in a string of vicious killings, including the recent stabbing of fashion designer Lucy Braham.
The authors of the latest study, the most comprehensive of its kind and commissioned by the Department of Health, said: 'Policymakers need to provide the public with advice about this widely-used drug.
'We believe there is now enough evidence to inform people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life.'
The analysis does not look at the age at which schizophrenia is likely to develop. However, previous studies have shown that smoking the drug as a teenager raises the risk of developing schizophrenia in one's twenties or thirties.
The researchers, from four British universities, analysed the results of 35 studies into cannabis use from around the world. This suggested that trying cannabis only once was enough to raise the risk of schizophrenia by 41 per cent.
At greatest risk, however, were heavy users, with those who took cannabis over 100 times having more than double the risk of those who never touched the drug.
With up to 40 per cent of teenagers and young adults in the UK believed to have tried cannabis, the researchers estimate that the drug could be behind 14 per cent of cases of schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses.
'Although individual lifetime risk of chronic psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, even in people who use cannabis regularly, is likely to be low - less than three per cent - cannabis use can be expected to have a substantial effect on psychotic disorders at a population level because exposure to this drug is so common.'
Cardiff University researcher Dr Stanley Zammit added: 'Even if cannabis does cause an increased risk of developing psychosis, most people who use cannabis will not develop such an illness.
'Nevertheless, we would still advise people to avoid or limit their use of this drug, especially if they start to develop any mental health symptoms, or if they have relatives with psychotic illnesses.'
In an accompanying editorial in the Lancet, Dutch psychiatrists said the focus on heroin, cocaine and other Class A drugs meant the dangers of cannabis had been overlooked.
'In the public debate, cannabis has been considered a more or less harmless drug compared with alcohol, central stimulants and opioids.
'However, the potential long-term hazardous effects of cannabis with regard to psychosis seem to have been overlooked, and there is a need to warn the public of these dangers, as well as to establish a treatment to help young frequent cannabis users.'
Previous studies have shown a clear link between cannabis use in the teenage years and mental illness in later life.
Research completed by leading psychiatrist Professor Robin Murray in 2005 showed that those who smoked the drug regularly at 18 were 1.6 times more likely to suffer serious psychiatric problems, including schizophrenia, by their mid-20s.
For those who were regular users at 15, the stakes were even higher, with their risk of mental illness by the age of 26 being 4.5 times greater than normal.
It is thought that, used during teenage years, the drug can cause permanent damage to the developing brain.
Professor Robin Murray, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, warned yesterday that the risks were likely to be heightened by the increasing use of powerful skunk cannabis.
'My own experience suggest to me that the risk with skunk is higher. Therefore their estimate that 14 per cent of cases of schizophrenia in the UK are due to cannabis is now probably an understatement.'
Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of the mental health charity SANE, said: 'This analysis should act as a serious warning of the dangers of regular or heavy cannabis use, doubling the risk of developing schizophrenia - a condition in which a person may hear voices and experience strange thoughts and paranoid delusions.
'The debate about classification should not founder on statistics but take into account the potential damage to hundreds of people who without cannabis would not develop mental illness.
'While the majority can take the drug with no mind-altering effects, it is estimated that 10 per cent are at risk.
'You only need to see one person whose mind has been altered and life irreparably damaged, or talk to their family, to realise that the headlines are not scaremongering but reflect a daily, and preventable, tragedy.'
However, others questioned the link, pointing out there has been little change in rates of schizophrenia in recent years despite the rise in cannabis use and the increasing strength of the drug.

dr.bollocko

meditraitor wrote: »

Seems as all the pro-dopes have had a say in how cannabis is a wonder drug, even one gobsheen saying it might be a deterant to lung cancer I thought Id wade in with some more internet (serious business) related Facts. I know you all get your info from erowid and the likes so the following article in an equally honest publication namely the Daily mail and is an opposite view to the guys who say it is not harmfull

ROFLMFAO.

Auvers

meditraitor wrote: »

the following article in an equally honest publication namely the Daily mail

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

jim o doom

meditraitor wrote: »

'Even if cannabis does cause an increased risk of developing psychosis, most people who use cannabis will not develop such an illness.

That is in the body of your own quote there buddy. But I guess you just like reading the sensationalist part of the headline. well done on quoting rubbish from a rag like the daily mail, did you even read the entire thing? The doctor states that most people will not develop an illness right? but they suggest staying away regardless, because doctors always tell you to not do ANYTHING that is bad for you

that entire quote seems like a badly thought out attempt at trolling instead of arguing a decent point

meditraitor

jim o doom wrote: »

that entire quote seems like a badly thought out attempt at trolling instead of arguing a decent point

Ye got me, next step is to call me a racist and a nazi

drunkmonkey

How many people would be put out of work if cannibas was legalised?

It's the second biggest industry in the country...

patrickbrophy18

Response to the initial question. Highly unlikely. The Intoxicating Liquor Bill is a sign that they are tackling consumption of semi legal drugs. However, I think that this country is becoming too much of a nanny state.

hot2def

Wait, there are people who *don't* think cannabis should be legal?

ScumLord

meditraitor wrote: »

Seems as all the pro-dopes have had a say in how cannabis is a wonder drug, even one gobsheen saying it might be a deterant to lung cancer

Oooowwwwaa my feeeelings.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

How many people would be put out of work if cannabis was legalized?

It's the second biggest industry in the country...

I reckon it could create possibly millions* of jobs. Growing both recreational and industrial grade cannabis, transporting, selling, culture, tourism. I think the industrial side would make Ireland fortunes.

*Slight exaggeration.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Ah sure, drugs are class.

jim o doom

meditraitor wrote: »

Ye got me, next step is to call me a racist and a nazi

Really, so because I call someone on what I see as trolling, that means I have to use other standard web replies as well? oh yeah, nice attempt at avoiding answering my other response regarding the actual content of what you pasted in relation to Doctors stating that pretty much most people who use it won't experience these phenomena at all. BUT THEY COULD SO IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL! pffff.

Try using arguments based on what you believe as opposed to pasting senesationalistic rubbish printed in a "newspaper" famous for blowing things out of proportion to sell more copies, eh? Anything I've posted was based on how it marginalises users (and regardless of how bad it is for the user, people will use regardless) as criminals when in fact they have done nothing wrong. I posted not a single health benefit - because if there are any I think they are marginal. I am talking about legality & why it should be legal. Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves? But no, someone is going to smoke a joint and go on a murderous rampage! well that or order a pizza.

Wertz

Wait...people would have a problem with paying tax on it? WTF?
Unless you've been living under a rock for the past while you'll know the country is in the sh*t financially...the amount of money that flows out of the economy and in to the black market for cannabis is money that is never gotten back and must be fairly substantial...for the most part straight into the pockets of criminals, most of that money ultimately leaving the country. Additionally, for anyone that does the whole Amsterdam thing, there's more money that leaves the country, much of which goes on to benefit the Dutch revenue.
Meanwhile through continued criminalisation, if caught in posession or with intent to supply, people are put through a costly legal process and may end up doing jail time for bigger offences...the costs involved around the supports for that process (paying solicitors, judges, gardaí, social workers, probabtion officers, not to mention that huge cost of incarceration) come directly from tax revenue that could be better spent elsewhere.
So it's a double edged sword...we pay large sums to police and prosecute cannabis whilst money leaves the economy on the sale end of things...to me that just makes no sense at all.
Why would anyone have a problem paying tax/VAT for a guaranteed supply of quality assured cannabis? We already pay tax on booze and fags...
You have to remember that in the (highly unlikely) event of decriminalisation, prices would need to be kept at a reasonably equal figure to black market prices in order to attract buyers....but since our government don't even seem to realise this (as is evident with cost of ciggies), that probably wouldn't happen. Pubs would probably take a further hit in business too in the event of legalisation (a guarantee it'll NEVER happen)
All that new revenue could go a long way to paying for some stuff the country does need though...as could a lot of that prison space and garda time...

[edit] BTW someone said something about the Dutch smoking ban in hotel rooms...you could never smoke legally in ANY hotel room in the 'dam for the last 4-5 yrs, due to fire regulations...never stopped me from opneing a window and socking up the smoke alarm though. The smoking ban is a bit of a PITA but it's not the end of the world either...most places juts tell you to keep the smokes and butts off the table and to be discrete...it's not like the cops are coming in and ripping open spliffs at random to check for tobacco...

dr.bollocko

So.... if the Irish Government legalised weed, we could smoke our way out of the recession?
Wertz for prez.

Wertz

Wishful thinking is a strong political trait as evidenced by...well, any politician.

I don't think it's a recession beater (god I hate that phrase), but it's common f*cking sense...
Whilst we're on the subject I could never understand why rolling papers didn't have some kind of tax on them...wait sh*t, I hope Lenihan's not reading this...

somethingwitty

jim o doom wrote: »

I regard it as not being a gateway drug whatsoever.

Exactly. It has been proven that it is not a gateway drug. That rumour was started by false polls created during the 'Reefer Madness' in the States a few decades ago.

I would also find the alcohol is more of a gateway drug. When you are drunk you know exactly what you are doing but you just dont give a ****. When I stoned I find myself a lot more together.

As for just getting bored of cannibis and wanting a better high (seeing it as a gateway drug from this perspective) I would think that from the moment you put something into your body to change how you feel you start that mindset.
Using substances to change how you feel, be that chocolate, cannibis, paracetamol, heroine or coffee-who is to say where you should draw the line?
So opposition, why should cannibis remain illegal while alcohol not?... The latter is worse for you, look it up if you wish.

somethingwitty

jim o doom wrote: »

I agree with a previous posters suggestion about taking it away from the criminals - if it were legalised, it might cause extra expense due to taxes being added on, but the simple fact is that the government would be making money on it, which isn't a bad thing (despite the governments inability to spend money properly) and those of us who choose to get high would no longer be classed as criminals, for a habit that is SO painless.

Actually people seem to be forgetting that the reason why dealers charge so much for cannibis IS BECAUSE THEY CAN. BEcause its illegal.
If it was legalised and taxed, we would still pay a **** load less for it as there would be more dealers and growers and it wouldnt be risky... therefore bringing the price way down!! Im telling you guys, we are being ripped off (incase you didnt already know!!)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jim o doom wrote: »

The argument used about a small percentage of people being prone to psychosis when it is used is ridiculous as well, as that percentage of people is so low compared to (alcohol again) the damage and madness of any weekend in this country

There is a danger in most things we do isn't there. If you drink alcohol you could turn into an alcoholic, but that's no reason to ban it.
People say it will make you depressed, and the like, but I dont think it brings anything out in you that isnt already there. You have to know yourself a bit and be able to control it and watch for any warning signs.

I went throught a very VERY tough time in my life about 3 years ago and I was very depressed and I really nearly took my own life. This is when I first started smokig it properly and it really did just take the edge off how I felt. I started to relax and become my old self again and I KNOW it was because of smoking weed. After I started to get things back on track, I cut down an awful lot, and I don't really smoke regularly now at all. I still enjoy it occasionally.
I don't know how I ended up if it wasn't for weed. I went to see counsellors and took anti-depressants but the only thing that worked was the green.
I heard similar stories from other people. I've heard of it curing anorexia.
I think its a great thing if not abused, like everything else really.

meditraitor

jim o doom wrote: »

Really, so because I call someone on what I see as trolling, that means I have to use other standard web replies as well? oh yeah, nice attempt at avoiding answering my other response regarding the actual content of what you pasted in relation to Doctors stating that pretty much most people who use it won't experience these phenomena at all. BUT THEY COULD SO IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL! pffff.

Try using arguments based on what you believe as opposed to pasting senesationalistic rubbish printed in a "newspaper" famous for blowing things out of proportion to sell more copies, eh? Anything I've posted was based on how it marginalises users (and regardless of how bad it is for the user, people will use regardless) as criminals when in fact they have done nothing wrong. I posted not a single health benefit - because if there are any I think they are marginal. I am talking about legality & why it should be legal. Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves? But no, someone is going to smoke a joint and go on a murderous rampage! well that or order a pizza.

You didnt really get it did you, nobody in there right mind would read the fucking Mail.
Maybe I should have made a joke about farting so you could appreciate the humour.

And as for troling, I believe that the unverifiable rubbish written about the positives of weed on this thread is equally throllish. Not one person in the past 30 posts when saying a doctor said this or a report say that has backed up there statement with any proof.
All I have seen is hearsay and bull.


And as for your accusation I would equally liken your replies to one of ignorance because if you bothered to read the thread before jumping in you will see I have contributed in a manner based on my beliefs but you didnt bother reading the thread did you?

The reply you BOTHERED to read was a perfect reflection of the road this thread has taken.
I.E one of sensationalist unproven tripe.

Mark

See post 303,305,307,308,309,311,315

P.S, If you need me to hold your hand for any other threads, PM me I would be glad to help

SpookyDoll

the amount of money that flows out of the economy and in to the black market for cannabis is money that is never gotten back and must be fairly substantial...for the most part straight into the pockets of criminals

Errrrr.......scuse me, but arent our taxes already going to criminials?
ie....politicians!

I have no faith in the Government to be able to "quality assure" my smoke any more than they can run the country, I dont want those muppets involved, the price will go through the roof, they'll balls it up like they do everything else!!!

ScumLord

meditraitor wrote: »

And as for troling, I believe that the unverifiable rubbish written about the positives of weed on this thread is equally throllish. Not one person in the past 30 posts when saying a doctor said this or a report say that has backed up there statement with any proof.
All I have seen is hearsay and bull.

The reply you BOTHERED to read was a perfect reflection of the road this thread has taken.
I.E one of sensationalist unproven tripe.

It's hard to get straight answers about cannabis from either side due to vested interests.

But Cannabis is a major drug in cancer research. As you will see all the following videos on youtube feature men in white coats, meaning their all smart, doctor types.

http://ie.youtube.com/results?search_query=cannabis+cancer&search_type=&aq=f

Dragan

meditraitor wrote: »

You didnt really get it did you, nobody in there right mind would read the fucking Mail.
Maybe I should have made a joke about farting so you could appreciate the humour.

And as for troling, I believe that the unverifiable rubbish written about the positives of weed on this thread is equally throllish. Not one person in the past 30 posts when saying a doctor said this or a report say that has backed up there statement with any proof.
All I have seen is hearsay and bull.


And as for your accusation I would equally liken your replies to one of ignorance because if you bothered to read the thread before jumping in you will see I have contributed in a manner based on my beliefs but you didnt bother reading the thread did you?

The reply you BOTHERED to read was a perfect reflection of the road this thread has taken.
I.E one of sensationalist unproven tripe.

Mark

See post 303,305,307,308,309,311,315

P.S, If you need me to hold your hand for any other threads, PM me I would be glad to help

Cannabis is lower down on the list of dangerous drugs than drugs that are currently legal to buy in Ireland from shops, pubs and off licences.

Thats really about all i ever need to say on the matter.

If the one is so dangerous it needs to be banned, then so should the others.

Alternatively, the other should be legalised as their are positive benefits towards a more understanding move in this way.

Cannabis being illegal is down to two things, geographical location, climate and Sir Walter Raleight preferring black/brown over green. Thats about it.:)

ScumLord

Dragan wrote: »

Cannabis being illegal is down to two things, geographical location, climate and Sir Walter Raleight preferring black/brown over green. Thats about it.:)

If the Mexicans weren't such **** the Americans might not have grown to hate the drug so much.

Dragan

ScumLord wrote: »

If the Mexicans weren't such **** the Americans might not have grown to hate the drug so much.

LoL, considering a quote from the man behind it being illegal in the states from way back in the day goes aong the lines of "it makes blacks think they are whites" , i will leave the States out of it for now.

For anyone with a genuine interest in the safety of the drug, not just the "it's dangerous" or "it safe" arguments to suit you own needs i suggest you find information of the COMPASS study that was done in Canada.

Trying to find results now but it's actually rather difficult.

Here is a list of medical studies done on cannabis and results.

Enough info provided to track down full studies for those who are interested.

http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/study.php

JC 2K3

meditraitor wrote: »

Not one person in the past 30 posts when saying a doctor said this or a report say that has backed up there statement with any proof.

Just on that, I don't see why a doctor's opinion should be any more valid than anyone else's.

Doctors learn about symptoms of illnesses and how to treat them with legal, approved, medical drugs. Unless they go on to study drugs and drugs' interactions with the body in more detail, the only thing they're ever going to be told about recreational drugs are the negative symptoms they can possibly induce (very probably due to abuse or recklessness while using).

Now, medical scientists and doctors with expertise in the area of how many different types of drugs affect the body, in both positive and negative ways and why they do so, are a different story, but it really písses me off when I see people attaching more weight to an anti-drug argument because a fecking GP, with no certifiable expertise in the area, says they're dangerous.

jim o doom

meditraitor wrote: »

And as for troling, I believe that the unverifiable rubbish written about the positives of weed on this thread is equally throllish. Not one person in the past 30 posts when saying a doctor said this or a report say that has backed up there statement with any proof.

No I don't really think that is accurate, we are expounding why we believe that it should be legal, without abusing the people who think otherwise, other posters have recently posted medical stuff, if that helps you feel any better.. Also someone who is trolling is generally abusive in manner (like your most recent post to me i.e. inferring I needed your hand to read a thread, insulting & condescending, but if that's what makes you feel superior to a marijuana user, go ahead and do it, I don't mind) and spouts counter active arguments - your mirror post may have been a joke, and I took it the wrong way, nevertheless it seemed trolling at the time

meditraitor wrote: »

All I have seen is hearsay and bull.

Naw, all you've seen here are peoples opinions, some based on fact, but not all - it's unforuntate that so many people's opinions are hearsay & bs to you - but opinions they remain, and this threads point is whether or not people THINK whether or not it SHOULD be legalised, right?

meditraitor wrote: »

And as for your accusation I would equally liken your replies to one of ignorance because if you bothered to read the thread before jumping in you will see I have contributed in a manner based on my beliefs but you didnt bother reading the thread did you?

Of course! how ignorant of me! I didn't spend SEVERAL hours reading a monster 45 + page thread! I apologise for this, but the social norms of boards occasionally escape me - I thought people were allowed to read the last ten pages of a huge page and then chip in their views, but now I understand that I must read each page and post before forming my opinion - thank you for enlightening me. I did read the thread, dude - I simply didn't have the patience for 45 pages of it - but if you think I need my hand held because I like patience, then please brother, take my hand - for I need leading

meditraitor wrote: »

The reply you BOTHERED to read was a perfect reflection of the road this thread has taken.
I.E one of sensationalist unproven tripe.

Oh yeah, I don't just have to read every page, but remember every post by every poster! - that's just not going to happen, my poor "junkie" brain can't handle that amount of information - pity me and lead me by the hand around boards like the retard you seem to think I am
Also you lambast me for reading your most recent post, and take me to task for it, without answering any of the points I have raised - and you think I am the ignorant one. nice..

Magpie!

Yes.

Then i could go into a shop and buy some. I always got it off my ex and now he isn't talking to me i'm all out and I'm not to clued up on the whole buying drugs thing.

crazzzzy

magpie....u should hav stayed on gud terms with d ex :P

ScumLord

Magpie! wrote: »

Yes.

Then i could go into a shop and buy some. I always got it off my ex and now he isn't talking to me i'm all out and I'm not to clued up on the whole buying drugs thing.

go to the Guards and tell them your an undercover reporter and get them point out all the dealers to you.

thebman

jim o doom wrote: »

Doctors stating that pretty much most people who use it won't experience these phenomena at all. BUT THEY COULD SO IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL! pffff.

That logic is b0ll0cks.

Half the products available should be illegal so including television as some people may experience seisures from some scenes in some movies.

Seriously, people need to think their arguments through FFS.

Dragan

brim4brim wrote: »

That logic is b0ll0cks.

Half the products available should be illegal so including television as some people may experience seisures from some scenes in some movies.

Seriously, people need to think their arguments through FFS.

Agreed. Often times the thing working directly against the controlled legalisation of cannabis are the people who use it.

Just like anything else a fair proportion of cannabis users can be less that well versed in debate.