Should cannibas be legalised????

JJ6000

The illegality of cannabis is something that really bothers me. So, for anyone who wants to debate the various aspects of the issue, bear with me and read my view on it.


Let me begin with my first point: the REAL reasons cannabis is illegal: Ignorance

The simple fact is, we still have a very conservative society. The vast majority of people in this country have never used cannabis. People, therefore, do not KNOW cannabis. They have no experience of the drug (anecdotally or scientifically speaking) other than what they read in the media from ill informed and sensationalist articles & reports.

Then contrast this with alcohol, for example. People KNOW alcohol. It has been a central part of our society for centuries. Our parents drank alcohol, their parents drank alcohol. The vast majority of people in the country are drinkers. Yet, despite the blatantly obvious evidence of all the problems that alcohol causes, it is still legal. In fact, any proposal to prohibit alcohol would not even be entertained at the lowest levels. That is how accustomed to alcohol we are.

Now, let me illustrate how ludicrous this point of view is. Alcohol plays a massive role in four of the most major causes of death of people in this country (particularly young people).
1 – Car crashes: alcohol plays a significant role in many car crashes. All official figures will back this up.
2 – Heart disease & cancer – consult any study on the links between the two. It is absolutely irrefutable.
3 – Suicide – Most suicides are done with the assistance of alcohol..and in many alcohol plays a significant part in the depression which leads up to the tragedy. Again, consult studies such as those by the Eastern Health Board.
4 – Violence – Most street violence involves alcohol. Consult any hospital/Garda figures.

On top of this, Alcohol causes incredible amounts of social and family problems. On paper, it is pure poison…a toxin in the true sense of the word. It puts a massive burden on our health services. Not just directly, through A&E, but also indirectly through all the reasons mentioned above. Liver cirrhosis, heart disease, car crash victims, cancer, diabetes……the list could go on forever. Ask any doctor in the country.

Now, I don’t want to turn this into an Alcohol Vs cannabis debate. I simply used this to illustrate how ludicrous the point of view is for cannabis to have been demonized in the media, by the government and by the public, when a perfectly legal drug, which the General public, media, government would NEVER support banning, causes all this destruction. It is ridiculous to propose one and ignore the other. You should, at the very least apply the same criteria to consideration of the virtues of alcohol’s legality as you would to considering the virtues of the legalization of cannabis. So, if your support the prohibition of cannabis, surely then you must think the prohibition of alcohol is a good idea also? No? I don’t think I am out of line by stating that this is hypocrisy at its very worst.

The reason for this hypocrisy and ignorance? – people KNOW alcohol and they don’t KNOW cannabis. In light of this public hypocrisy, the government will not consider a proposal to legalize cannabis since it will cost votes and the media will continue to play up to peoples narrow minded/ignorant views and print sensationalist stories since the public laps it up and it attracts readers, viewers and listeners. The public ignorance fuels the media and governments conservative stances and vice versa.





So, I’ll move on to my second point – the supposed “negative effects” of cannabis.
Does anybody honestly believe that cannabis can even APPROACH a fraction of the level of damage that alcohol causes? It is, comparatively and factually speaking, an incredibly benign drug.
The link between cannabis and mental problems is dubious, at best. I could spend all day picking holes in the various scientific conclusions but mostly, they involve large leaps in logic, incorrect conclusions and gross exaggerations.

Many of their arguments go something like this:
“most schizophrenics smoke, or have smoked, cannabis. There is a link. Therefore, we conclude, that cannabis causes schizophrenia”.
Well, for scientists, they do not appear to be very scientific, and seem to have lost sight of the fact that a link absolutely does NOT infer that there is a cause. That is a huge leap in logic. It is the equivalent in saying “most schizophrenics smoke cigarettes (which they do, as a matter of fact)…there is a link. Therefore, we conclude that cigarettes cause schizophrenia”.

Many scientists seem to have lost sight of one of the most basic elements of scientific argument…ie. That one argument must logically follow from the other. The above conclusions do NOT follow from the findings. They are leaps in logic and drastically misleading and the media is plagued with these ridiculous studies. Unfortunately, the public is unwilling, or unable, to see past these incorrect conclusions.

The media will also cite studies which conclude such things as cannabis’ ability to damage the memory of an adult humans brain….and cite it as accepted fact. Well, apart from the fact that these studies often, if not usually, make great leaps in logic, let me say that there is NO CONSENSUS on this “theory”. There are as many, if not more, studies absolutely refuting that theory than there are that support the theory (in spite of how poorly those supportive studies were conducted). It seems that the powers that be choose to select whichever studies support their viewpoint.

I recall reading several posts on this forum of people saying “I know alcohol is legal, but why legalise more drugs on top of this…it merely creates more problems” and “well, if cannabis is legalized, why not just legalize coke, pills, meth etc etc….its a vicious circle…how can you justify legalizing one and not the other”.

Well, its pretty simple really. There are two types of drugs. Socially destructive, and non-socially destructive. I have absolutely no problem with someone maintaining for socially destructive drugs to be prohibited. Drugs such as Meth and heroin are, most definitely, socially destructive. This naturally arises from the their inherent physical addictiveness and the dependency they induce. Crime naturally follows on from this dependency.

Cannabis possesses no such inherent addictiveness. Therefore, to compare these two sorts of drugs is a complete fallacy. They are ABSOLUTLEY different….as different as could possibly be. To argue any differently would be extremely narrow minded and imply that you really are ignorant of both the nature of these drugs, their health effects and social effects. As for psychological addiction? Well, this argument is a convenient one for proponents of prohibition of cannabis. However, what they fail to mention is that ANY substance on the face of the earth has the ability to be psychologically addictive. One example would be coffee. How many people do you know who can not function without 2-3 cups of coffee in the morning? I know dozens. Even Orange Juice. I know several people who absolutely will not feel right if they have not had their morning orange juice. Cannabis is no different to any other substance as regards “psychological addiction”.

Cannabis use really does not affect anyone other than the user. You do not see cannabis users going out and committing armed robberies, mugging innocent citizens or begging on the streets for the purposes of obtaining money for more cannabis. It is ridiculous to believe that someone enjoying the effects of cannabis would feel inclined to engage in street violence as a result of smoking it and certainly any cannabis user will tell you that the last thing they feel like doing when enjoying the effects of cannabis is to jump into a car and go for a drive (although I accept it does happen…this is an issuer for enforcement of the rules of the road, not an outright ban on a substance)

So, in light of the fact that it is not socially destructive and only affects the actual user the only leg the government has to stand on is to argue that ‘well, cannabis is detrimental to health and so should not be allowed to get into the hands of the individual, for his own good’. Well, I have already argued that the negative health effects are grossly exaggerated and, in most cases, absolutely incorrect and a result of the incorrect conclusions of poorly conducted studies by mis-informed scientists.

However, even if, hypothetically, I did concede that cannabis had some sort of appreciable negative impact on health (for the record, this is hypothetical…I do NOT actually concede this), even in such a case you must consider the purpose of the legal system. I, for one, believe in autonomy of the individual and freedom of choice provided that those choices do not hurt others. The law is there to protect society as a whole and to protect one individual from the detrimental actions of another. I do NOT believe that the state has any right to dictate what I can and cannot do with my own body, and only my own body…whether it has a damaging effect on my body or not. If an individual is old enough, and mature enough, to make a decision on using cannabis then does the state really have any right to tell him that he cannot? Granted, you may not agree with his choices, but that does not give you the right to dictate what his choices should be when they clearly do not affect you. People make bad choices every day. I can choose to eat from the local fast food restaurant for breakfast lunch and dinner every day and suffer a heart attack by the time I am 30. Should the state have the right to tell me that I cannot make the choice? We have credited alcohol drinkers with the ability to engage in mature and responsible enjoyment of alcohol (in spite of the fact that many thousands treat it VERY irresponsibly), so tell me a single reason why the same courtesy should not be extended to cannabis users?

There is a constitutional right which protects my choice to make personal decisions about my body (ie. To use cannabis or not). It is called the right to bodily integrity. To argue that my view has no legal basis is therefore incorrect.

As regards the gateway theory; I have never in my life seen such a narrow minded and ill informed theory in my life. The theory is Laughable and so out of whack with any degree of rational argument that I am consistently stunned to see how people (especially some psychologists) still give it any credence. NO substance will CAUSE you to want another completely different substance. The so called “experts” on cannabis we see so often in the media appear to be implying that a natural and inherent effect of cannabis is that it causes users to graduate toward more powerful, addictive and damaging drugs. What causes people to graduate from one substance to another more powerful substance is nothing to do with the nature of the drug they are consuming, it is caused by their curiosity. It is the same as the “coming of age” with teenagers where they get a little risky, try eating junk food without their parents permission, then move up and take a drag off a cigarette and then maybe buy a whole packet of cigarettes…..by the logic of those who support the gateway drug theory, the junk food was a gateway substance, right? So, let’s make it illegal, shall we? The simple fact is, many people will try something, then they will get a little braver and try the next thing up from that and so on. Human beings have a naturally inquisitive and risk-taking nature. The vast majority will stop at a certain point but unfortunately some people are naturally too curious and continue to take progressively greater risks. So, would the removal of cannabis altogether from society stop these people from moving on to heroin and coke? Of course not. Because, the blatant fact is, their progression into damaging substances such as heroin/meth is caused by their overly inquisitive nature NOT by the actual substances they choose to consume along the way. If it was not cannabis, it could be paracetamol or Difene (which actually can be quite dangerous, as a matter of fact) that they choose to experiment with. Conveniently, anyone who gets any airtime or governmental position in this country chooses to ignore this very elementary psychological fact and mislead the public into believing that cannabis possesses these mythical and scientifically baseless qualities which, amazingly, appear to make users graduate onto dangerous substances. I would LOVE to see the "experts" try and back this theory up with actual rational and scientific argument because, frankly, it cant be done. Scientifically, the gateway concept simply does not exist. And psychologically, it is so ludicrous that it is easily refuted with even the most basic degree of rational argument.

In any case, pretend for a moment, that I did concede that the gateway theory phenomenon DID exist. ANY rehab centre will tell you that the vast and overwhelming majority of hardened drug addicts began with alcohol (and probably cigarettes). I Believe the figure is somewhere around 80% of addicts started out drinking alcohol (I do not have precise figures to hand) So, do we see the public, media and state labeling alcohol and cigarettes as a gateway drug. No, of course you don’t. If you cant see the gaping chasms and inconsistencies in the gateway theory then I feel you have become immune to any sort of rational argument.

It is true that there are negative health effects from some of the cannabis coming into the country at the moment (such as ‘gritweed’ and the usual soapbar hash which is very dirty), but these problems arise as a result of illegality. Legality would give rise to much higher quality of cannabis.




Which leads me on to my third point, the benefits of de-criminalisation.

As mentioned before, the quality of cannabis would be better. It would be more reliable and cleaner.

Legalisation would give rise to regulation. At the moment, do you really trust your local drug-dealer not to sell to an 11 year old child, who is much to immature to make a proper informed decision? Of course you don’t. Legalization could mean that cannabis could be strictly regulated to ensure it only gets into the hands of those mature enough to enjoy it (or avail of it’s health benefits) and not into the hands of children. This is a problem which is currently rife on our streets and we have no-one but the state to blame for creating the situation.

Reduction in crime rate. At the moment the entire trade is in the hands of drug dealers. It is the most widely used contraband substance in the state and is the main source of income for criminal gangs netting them many millions of Euro a year. In an age where our justice minister vehemently blames people for funding crime by buying cannabis should the government not consider legalization. The state is quick to place much of the responsibility for crime rates on the individual buyer while ignoring the fact that by criminalizing cannabis, they are responsible for creating a situation where crime has flourished. They have seemingly absolved themselves of all responsibility. This is both ignorant and small minded.

Also, legalization will mean we are not criminalizing people who deserve it least. I personally know several very responsible, tax paying people in respectable jobs (financial services, accountancy firms etc) who have never been in any sort of trouble before who have been arrested and charged for the possession of cannabis with the intent to supply (the amounts were relatively modest and for personal & friends use, but enough to warrant a sale and supply charge). These people have now been criminalized for merely engaging in the use of a very benign substance. Does anyone out there honestly believe the criminalization of these types of individuals for a “crime” such as this is justified? Can somebody point to the “harm” that they were causing by growing and consuming cannabis?

There would be less risk of unpredictable health complications as a result of low quality and “dirty” cannabis coming into the country. Currently, the prohibition of cannabis means we are plagued with such substances.

With legalization, people who truly do NEED cannabis (in a medical sense) will have access to it. I personally know one person (RIP) who was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour and did suffer quite a lot of pain who was advised by his specialist to use cannabis as it would help him deal with the pain in his remaining final days. And it did. I know another lady, a mother of a friend, who is currently very ill who, again, was also advised by her specialist to consider the use of cannabis to assist in relief from the pain of her illness. And it does. Is it justifiable that these people are being deprived of relief from debilitating conditions because the government refuses to budge on a point as a matter of principal?! In spite of overwhelming scientific and anectdotal evidence the government refuses to accept ANY sort of benefit that can be attributed to cannabis because it may open a Pandora’s Box of truth about cannabis…and their entire false arguments would come crashing down. Nice to see the government has the well being of our nations sick in mind, eh? These people are being robed of what small quality of life they might have with cannabis because the government stubbornly sticks to their guns. Do we really believe the government have our best interests in mind when they discuss they address the issue of legalization?

Finally, prohibition simply DOES NOT WORK! It does approximately NOTHING the government says it does. The government says that the purpose of criminalizing cannabis is because it is dangerous (false and misleading, as I have pointed out), it is a gateway drug, and that it must be kept out of the hands of the individual. It is no revelation that it simply has not worked. Anyone who wants to get cannabis can…and usually will. The government says it is harmful to kids and one of the purposes of criminalization is to protect our nations children. Well that certainly has not worked. If anyone thinks they can trust a drug dealer not to sell cannabis to very young children they are extremely naïve and sadly misguided. As mentioned earlier, the only way to control children having access to cannabis is to legalize it, take it out of the hands of drug dealers so that the government may strictly regulate its sale to mature adults only…under stiff penalties if needs be. I do not believe any advocate of legalization would disagree with the need for regulation of the sale of cannabis to minors. The simple point is, however misguided their reasons were, the government policy of prohibition has FAILED, will continue to fail, and will continue to only serve to hurt rather than help (ie. Criminalizing honest people and denying aid to the sick and dieing). Isn’t it about time people stopped burying their head in the sand and realized that prohibition is helping no-one and hurting many?





So, what is the conclusion of all of this? Well, I’m afraid it’s not much really. You can choose to believe the hype, the rhetoric and the mis-information which is spewed by the media, the state and the general mis-informed public every day……or, you can free yourself of that and choose to actually think and critically analyze what these people are saying. It’s then that it becomes apparent how ludicrous this situation is because, at the end of the day all we are left with is four things – the facts, the theory, the misinformation and the hypocrisy. Unfortunately, people cannot look past the mis-information (poor studies, sensationalist media and government rhetoric), choose to believe the blatantly ludicrous theory (gateway theory) and ignore the real facts or even critically think about what they are being told by the media & state. The result? The hypocrisy which we see every day. Unfortunately, it seems that until people wake up and choose to actually think and find out things for themselves, it doesn’t seem like anything will change. God bless Ireland………….

Terry

Tlnr

Lawless_Samurai

JJ6000.... That was your first post!!! I got through the first paragraph and then tuned out. Sorry dude because it sounded like you had a real good argument. I'll try again to read it!!! Or if anyone can read it and then just take out the key parts that'd be cool :):D

Dave!

togster wrote: »

What. JC said we should legalise heroine. Why? Your article refers to methodone treatments in Switzerland. I presume he means it should be legally available for purchase.

"Switzerland's policy of offering heroin addicts substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine has led to a decline in the number of new heroin users in Zurich, according to a paper published in this week's issue of The Lancet"

Heroin is also legally available and its use is facilitated in injection rooms. The methadone is part of the treatment to get the addicts off heroin.

Prescribing the heroin meant that addicts' health improved, they were able to hold down jobs, they stopped commiting crime, etc.

You think that if that's verifiably the case, then such a policy should be investigated for implementation in Ireland? Or are you stubbornly opposed to legalisation of any drug that you don't use, in spite of its benefits to society?

Savage post JJ6000!!!

Kone

Woohoo! Yet another one of these threads....

Nice post JJ6000

Terry

DaveMcG wrote: »

Heroin is also legally available and its use is facilitated in injection rooms. The methadone is part of the treatment to get the addicts off heroin.

Prescribing the heroin meant that addicts' health improved, they were able to hold down jobs, they stopped commiting crime, etc.

You think that if that's verifiably the case, then such a policy should be investigated for implementation in Ireland? Or are you stubbornly opposed to legalisation of any drug that you don't use, in spite of its benefits to society?

Savage post JJ6000!!!

The only problem I would have with the Swiss deal is that there are a lot of people out there who would take advantage of the system.
You know the types. The people who refuse to get a job and would quite willingly get hooked on gear with the 'Ah, sure the state will sort me out with free good quality gear' attitude.

Well, that and the inevitable complaints of 'That's my fukkin' tax money they are giving to them fukkin junkies'. I just don't want to hear that.

Tzetze

JJ6000, I applaud your post. If only we had someone like yourself to stand up in the Dáil and sway opinion on this crucial matter.

A very rational, well thought out piece indeed. I agree with you 100% of course, so I'm the choir to your preaching. I hope some of the nay-sayers here will take the time to read it.

I'm not sure if you've read through all of the thread prior to your posting, but I'd like to ask your opinion on the point I brought up earlier regarding Dupont and the Oligarchs/Textile manufacturers getting together in the early 20th century with a plan to demonise cannabis by introducing the new 'scary' term - marijuana. Once cannabis was criminalized, it naturally progressed to the outlawing of hemp cultivation, opening the door to insane profits from nylon, plastic and other textiles.

Dave!

Terry wrote: »

The only problem I would have with the Swiss deal is that there are a lot of people out there who would take advantage of the system.
You know the types. The people who refuse to get a job and would quite willingly get hooked on gear with the 'Ah, sure the state will sort me out with free good quality gear' attitude.

The Swiss don't seem to be having a problem with that. But even if that is the case -- is it not better that they remain unemployed and get heroin maintenance, rather than having to commit crime to fund their addiction? It would more than likely be less of a financial burden on society (ignoring the obvious benefits of less crime, etc) to give them a regular dose of heroin than to pay for all the crime they commit, and then when they get caught, pay to keep them in jail.

Terry

First off, who the fúck made you a mod?
Boards.ie is doomed. Doomed I tell thee.

You make a very good point, but we're not Swiss.
I'd like to see it implemented, but only for those with an existing addiction. No exceptions to the rule and very strict monitoring of those who use it.

bubonicus

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Hey I can write whatever the hell I want to on the internet and stick whatever disclaimers I want under it; does that make me authoritative?

<Mr. Slave voice>Oh Jesus, Jesus chirst</Mr. Slave voice>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwDRBm-qbQI

e2a: I applaud you JJ6000.

Dave!

Terry wrote: »

First off, who the fúck made you a mod?
Boards.ie is doomed. Doomed I tell thee.

You make a very good point, but we're not Swiss.
I'd like to see it implemented, but only for those with an existing addiction. No exceptions to the rule and very strict monitoring of those who use it.

I'm mod of the Non-Drinkers Forum, so I take it I won't get the chance to ban you unfortunately

SubjectSean

Epic post JJ6000, thankyou.

Tzetze

The sociology of Cannabis and World History

In Ireland, already world famous for its cannabis linen, the Irish woman who wanted to know whom she would eventually marry was advised to seek revelation through cannabis.

Terry

DaveMcG wrote: »

I'm mod of the Non-Drinkers Forum, so I take it I won't get the chance to ban you unfortunately

Yeah. It's highly unlikely that I will ever post there.

JJ6000

Tzetze wrote: »

JJ6000, I applaud your post. If only we had someone like yourself to stand up in the Dáil and sway opinion on this crucial matter.

A very rational, well thought out piece indeed. I agree with you 100% of course, so I'm the choir to your preaching. I hope some of the nay-sayers here will take the time to read it.

I'm not sure if you've read through all of the thread prior to your posting, but I'd like to ask your opinion on the point I brought up earlier regarding Dupont and the Oligarchs/Textile manufacturers getting together in the early 20th century with a plan to demonise cannabis by introducing the new 'scary' term - marijuana. Once cannabis was criminalized, it naturally progressed to the outlawing of hemp cultivation, opening the door to insane profits from nylon, plastic and other textiles.

Actually, I only briefly ran through the thread as it's quite lengthy so I didnt get the chance to read your piece.

It's actually my first time on Boards.ie and I was scanning through the differnent forums and happened upon this thread which is a subject of much interest to me.

I'll defnitely read that piece you posted....it interests me to know the history of how we have reached the situation where cannabis has been so wrongfully demonised.

ScumLord

JJ6000 wrote: »

The illegality of cannabis is something that really bothers me. So, for anyone who wants to debate the various aspects of the issue, bear with me and read my view on it.


Let me begin with my first point: the REAL reasons cannabis is illegal: Ignorance

The simple fact is, we still have a very conservative society. The vast majority of people in this country have never used cannabis. People, therefore, do not KNOW cannabis. They have no experience of the drug (anecdotally or scientifically speaking) other than what they read in the media from ill informed and sensationalist articles & reports.

Then contrast this with alcohol, for example. People KNOW alcohol. It has been a central part of our society for centuries. Our parents drank alcohol, their parents drank alcohol. The vast majority of people in the country are drinkers. Yet, despite the blatantly obvious evidence of all the problems that alcohol causes, it is still legal. In fact, any proposal to prohibit alcohol would not even be entertained at the lowest levels. That is how accustomed to alcohol we are.

Now, let me illustrate how ludicrous this point of view is. Alcohol plays a massive role in four of the most major causes of death of people in this country (particularly young people).
1 – Car crashes: alcohol plays a significant role in many car crashes. All official figures will back this up.
2 – Heart disease & cancer – consult any study on the links between the two. It is absolutely irrefutable.
3 – Suicide – Most suicides are done with the assistance of alcohol..and in many alcohol plays a significant part in the depression which leads up to the tragedy. Again, consult studies such as those by the Eastern Health Board.
4 – Violence – Most street violence involves alcohol. Consult any hospital/Garda figures.

On top of this, Alcohol causes incredible amounts of social and family problems. On paper, it is pure poison…a toxin in the true sense of the word. It puts a massive burden on our health services. Not just directly, through A&E, but also indirectly through all the reasons mentioned above. Liver cirrhosis, heart disease, car crash victims, cancer, diabetes……the list could go on forever. Ask any doctor in the country.

Now, I don’t want to turn this into an Alcohol Vs cannabis debate. I simply used this to illustrate how ludicrous the point of view is for cannabis to have been demonized in the media, by the government and by the public, when a perfectly legal drug, which the General public, media, government would NEVER support banning, causes all this destruction. It is ridiculous to propose one and ignore the other. You should, at the very least apply the same criteria to consideration of the virtues of alcohol’s legality as you would to considering the virtues of the legalization of cannabis. So, if your support the prohibition of cannabis, surely then you must think the prohibition of alcohol is a good idea also? No? I don’t think I am out of line by stating that this is hypocrisy at its very worst.

The reason for this hypocrisy and ignorance? – people KNOW alcohol and they don’t KNOW cannabis. In light of this public hypocrisy, the government will not consider a proposal to legalize cannabis since it will cost votes and the media will continue to play up to peoples narrow minded/ignorant views and print sensationalist stories since the public laps it up and it attracts readers, viewers and listeners. The public ignorance fuels the media and governments conservative stances and vice versa.





So, I’ll move on to my second point – the supposed “negative effects” of cannabis.
Does anybody honestly believe that cannabis can even APPROACH a fraction of the level of damage that alcohol causes? It is, comparatively and factually speaking, an incredibly benign drug.
The link between cannabis and mental problems is dubious, at best. I could spend all day picking holes in the various scientific conclusions but mostly, they involve large leaps in logic, incorrect conclusions and gross exaggerations.

Many of their arguments go something like this:
“most schizophrenics smoke, or have smoked, cannabis. There is a link. Therefore, we conclude, that cannabis causes schizophrenia”.
Well, for scientists, they do not appear to be very scientific, and seem to have lost sight of the fact that a link absolutely does NOT infer that there is a cause. That is a huge leap in logic. It is the equivalent in saying “most schizophrenics smoke cigarettes (which they do, as a matter of fact)…there is a link. Therefore, we conclude that cigarettes cause schizophrenia”.

Many scientists seem to have lost sight of one of the most basic elements of scientific argument…ie. That one argument must logically follow from the other. The above conclusions do NOT follow from the findings. They are leaps in logic and drastically misleading and the media is plagued with these ridiculous studies. Unfortunately, the public is unwilling, or unable, to see past these incorrect conclusions.

The media will also cite studies which conclude such things as cannabis’ ability to damage the memory of an adult humans brain….and cite it as accepted fact. Well, apart from the fact that these studies often, if not usually, make great leaps in logic, let me say that there is NO CONSENSUS on this “theory”. There are as many, if not more, studies absolutely refuting that theory than there are that support the theory (in spite of how poorly those supportive studies were conducted). It seems that the powers that be choose to select whichever studies support their viewpoint.

I recall reading several posts on this forum of people saying “I know alcohol is legal, but why legalise more drugs on top of this…it merely creates more problems” and “well, if cannabis is legalized, why not just legalize coke, pills, meth etc etc….its a vicious circle…how can you justify legalizing one and not the other”.

Well, its pretty simple really. There are two types of drugs. Socially destructive, and non-socially destructive. I have absolutely no problem with someone maintaining for socially destructive drugs to be prohibited. Drugs such as Meth and heroin are, most definitely, socially destructive. This naturally arises from the their inherent physical addictiveness and the dependency they induce. Crime naturally follows on from this dependency.

Cannabis possesses no such inherent addictiveness. Therefore, to compare these two sorts of drugs is a complete fallacy. They are ABSOLUTLEY different….as different as could possibly be. To argue any differently would be extremely narrow minded and imply that you really are ignorant of both the nature of these drugs, their health effects and social effects. As for psychological addiction? Well, this argument is a convenient one for proponents of prohibition of cannabis. However, what they fail to mention is that ANY substance on the face of the earth has the ability to be psychologically addictive. One example would be coffee. How many people do you know who can not function without 2-3 cups of coffee in the morning? I know dozens. Even Orange Juice. I know several people who absolutely will not feel right if they have not had their morning orange juice. Cannabis is no different to any other substance as regards “psychological addiction”.

Cannabis use really does not affect anyone other than the user. You do not see cannabis users going out and committing armed robberies, mugging innocent citizens or begging on the streets for the purposes of obtaining money for more cannabis. It is ridiculous to believe that someone enjoying the effects of cannabis would feel inclined to engage in street violence as a result of smoking it and certainly any cannabis user will tell you that the last thing they feel like doing when enjoying the effects of cannabis is to jump into a car and go for a drive (although I accept it does happen…this is an issuer for enforcement of the rules of the road, not an outright ban on a substance)

So, in light of the fact that it is not socially destructive and only affects the actual user the only leg the government has to stand on is to argue that ‘well, cannabis is detrimental to health and so should not be allowed to get into the hands of the individual, for his own good’. Well, I have already argued that the negative health effects are grossly exaggerated and, in most cases, absolutely incorrect and a result of the incorrect conclusions of poorly conducted studies by mis-informed scientists.

However, even if, hypothetically, I did concede that cannabis had some sort of appreciable negative impact on health (for the record, this is hypothetical…I do NOT actually concede this), even in such a case you must consider the purpose of the legal system. I, for one, believe in autonomy of the individual and freedom of choice provided that those choices do not hurt others. The law is there to protect society as a whole and to protect one individual from the detrimental actions of another. I do NOT believe that the state has any right to dictate what I can and cannot do with my own body, and only my own body…whether it has a damaging effect on my body or not. If an individual is old enough, and mature enough, to make a decision on using cannabis then does the state really have any right to tell him that he cannot? Granted, you may not agree with his choices, but that does not give you the right to dictate what his choices should be when they clearly do not affect you. People make bad choices every day. I can choose to eat from the local fast food restaurant for breakfast lunch and dinner every day and suffer a heart attack by the time I am 30. Should the state have the right to tell me that I cannot make the choice? We have credited alcohol drinkers with the ability to engage in mature and responsible enjoyment of alcohol (in spite of the fact that many thousands treat it VERY irresponsibly), so tell me a single reason why the same courtesy should not be extended to cannabis users?

There is a constitutional right which protects my choice to make personal decisions about my body (ie. To use cannabis or not). It is called the right to bodily integrity. To argue that my view has no legal basis is therefore incorrect.

As regards the gateway theory; I have never in my life seen such a narrow minded and ill informed theory in my life. The theory is Laughable and so out of whack with any degree of rational argument that I am consistently stunned to see how people (especially some psychologists) still give it any credence. NO substance will CAUSE you to want another completely different substance. The so called “experts” on cannabis we see so often in the media appear to be implying that a natural and inherent effect of cannabis is that it causes users to graduate toward more powerful, addictive and damaging drugs. What causes people to graduate from one substance to another more powerful substance is nothing to do with the nature of the drug they are consuming, it is caused by their curiosity. It is the same as the “coming of age” with teenagers where they get a little risky, try eating junk food without their parents permission, then move up and take a drag off a cigarette and then maybe buy a whole packet of cigarettes…..by the logic of those who support the gateway drug theory, the junk food was a gateway substance, right? So, let’s make it illegal, shall we? The simple fact is, many people will try something, then they will get a little braver and try the next thing up from that and so on. Human beings have a naturally inquisitive and risk-taking nature. The vast majority will stop at a certain point but unfortunately some people are naturally too curious and continue to take progressively greater risks. So, would the removal of cannabis altogether from society stop these people from moving on to heroin and coke? Of course not. Because, the blatant fact is, their progression into damaging substances such as heroin/meth is caused by their overly inquisitive nature NOT by the actual substances they choose to consume along the way. If it was not cannabis, it could be paracetamol or Difene (which actually can be quite dangerous, as a matter of fact) that they choose to experiment with. Conveniently, anyone who gets any airtime or governmental position in this country chooses to ignore this very elementary psychological fact and mislead the public into believing that cannabis possesses these mythical and scientifically baseless qualities which, amazingly, appear to make users graduate onto dangerous substances. I would LOVE to see the "experts" try and back this theory up with actual rational and scientific argument because, frankly, it cant be done. Scientifically, the gateway concept simply does not exist. And psychologically, it is so ludicrous that it is easily refuted with even the most basic degree of rational argument.

In any case, pretend for a moment, that I did concede that the gateway theory phenomenon DID exist. ANY rehab centre will tell you that the vast and overwhelming majority of hardened drug addicts began with alcohol (and probably cigarettes). I Believe the figure is somewhere around 80% of addicts started out drinking alcohol (I do not have precise figures to hand) So, do we see the public, media and state labeling alcohol and cigarettes as a gateway drug. No, of course you don’t. If you cant see the gaping chasms and inconsistencies in the gateway theory then I feel you have become immune to any sort of rational argument.

It is true that there are negative health effects from some of the cannabis coming into the country at the moment (such as ‘gritweed’ and the usual soapbar hash which is very dirty), but these problems arise as a result of illegality. Legality would give rise to much higher quality of cannabis.




Which leads me on to my third point, the benefits of de-criminalisation.

As mentioned before, the quality of cannabis would be better. It would be more reliable and cleaner.

Legalisation would give rise to regulation. At the moment, do you really trust your local drug-dealer not to sell to an 11 year old child, who is much to immature to make a proper informed decision? Of course you don’t. Legalization could mean that cannabis could be strictly regulated to ensure it only gets into the hands of those mature enough to enjoy it (or avail of it’s health benefits) and not into the hands of children. This is a problem which is currently rife on our streets and we have no-one but the state to blame for creating the situation.

Reduction in crime rate. At the moment the entire trade is in the hands of drug dealers. It is the most widely used contraband substance in the state and is the main source of income for criminal gangs netting them many millions of Euro a year. In an age where our justice minister vehemently blames people for funding crime by buying cannabis should the government not consider legalization. The state is quick to place much of the responsibility for crime rates on the individual buyer while ignoring the fact that by criminalizing cannabis, they are responsible for creating a situation where crime has flourished. They have seemingly absolved themselves of all responsibility. This is both ignorant and small minded.

Also, legalization will mean we are not criminalizing people who deserve it least. I personally know several very responsible, tax paying people in respectable jobs (financial services, accountancy firms etc) who have never been in any sort of trouble before who have been arrested and charged for the possession of cannabis with the intent to supply (the amounts were relatively modest and for personal & friends use, but enough to warrant a sale and supply charge). These people have now been criminalized for merely engaging in the use of a very benign substance. Does anyone out there honestly believe the criminalization of these types of individuals for a “crime” such as this is justified? Can somebody point to the “harm” that they were causing by growing and consuming cannabis?

There would be less risk of unpredictable health complications as a result of low quality and “dirty” cannabis coming into the country. Currently, the prohibition of cannabis means we are plagued with such substances.

With legalization, people who truly do NEED cannabis (in a medical sense) will have access to it. I personally know one person (RIP) who was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour and did suffer quite a lot of pain who was advised by his specialist to use cannabis as it would help him deal with the pain in his remaining final days. And it did. I know another lady, a mother of a friend, who is currently very ill who, again, was also advised by her specialist to consider the use of cannabis to assist in relief from the pain of her illness. And it does. Is it justifiable that these people are being deprived of relief from debilitating conditions because the government refuses to budge on a point as a matter of principal?! In spite of overwhelming scientific and anectdotal evidence the government refuses to accept ANY sort of benefit that can be attributed to cannabis because it may open a Pandora’s Box of truth about cannabis…and their entire false arguments would come crashing down. Nice to see the government has the well being of our nations sick in mind, eh? These people are being robed of what small quality of life they might have with cannabis because the government stubbornly sticks to their guns. Do we really believe the government have our best interests in mind when they discuss they address the issue of legalization?

Finally, prohibition simply DOES NOT WORK! It does approximately NOTHING the government says it does. The government says that the purpose of criminalizing cannabis is because it is dangerous (false and misleading, as I have pointed out), it is a gateway drug, and that it must be kept out of the hands of the individual. It is no revelation that it simply has not worked. Anyone who wants to get cannabis can…and usually will. The government says it is harmful to kids and one of the purposes of criminalization is to protect our nations children. Well that certainly has not worked. If anyone thinks they can trust a drug dealer not to sell cannabis to very young children they are extremely naïve and sadly misguided. As mentioned earlier, the only way to control children having access to cannabis is to legalize it, take it out of the hands of drug dealers so that the government may strictly regulate its sale to mature adults only…under stiff penalties if needs be. I do not believe any advocate of legalization would disagree with the need for regulation of the sale of cannabis to minors. The simple point is, however misguided their reasons were, the government policy of prohibition has FAILED, will continue to fail, and will continue to only serve to hurt rather than help (ie. Criminalizing honest people and denying aid to the sick and dieing). Isn’t it about time people stopped burying their head in the sand and realized that prohibition is helping no-one and hurting many?





So, what is the conclusion of all of this? Well, I’m afraid it’s not much really. You can choose to believe the hype, the rhetoric and the mis-information which is spewed by the media, the state and the general mis-informed public every day……or, you can free yourself of that and choose to actually think and critically analyze what these people are saying. It’s then that it becomes apparent how ludicrous this situation is because, at the end of the day all we are left with is four things – the facts, the theory, the misinformation and the hypocrisy. Unfortunately, people cannot look past the mis-information (poor studies, sensationalist media and government rhetoric), choose to believe the blatantly ludicrous theory (gateway theory) and ignore the real facts or even critically think about what they are being told by the media & state. The result? The hypocrisy which we see every day. Unfortunately, it seems that until people wake up and choose to actually think and find out things for themselves, it doesn’t seem like anything will change. God bless Ireland………….

Ya what he said.

JJ6000

Tzetze wrote: »

JJ6000, I applaud your post. If only we had someone like yourself to stand up in the Dáil and sway opinion on this crucial matter.

A very rational, well thought out piece indeed. I agree with you 100% of course, so I'm the choir to your preaching. I hope some of the nay-sayers here will take the time to read it.

I'm not sure if you've read through all of the thread prior to your posting, but I'd like to ask your opinion on the point I brought up earlier regarding Dupont and the Oligarchs/Textile manufacturers getting together in the early 20th century with a plan to demonise cannabis by introducing the new 'scary' term - marijuana. Once cannabis was criminalized, it naturally progressed to the outlawing of hemp cultivation, opening the door to insane profits from nylon, plastic and other textiles.

Actually, as regards your fist sentence, that brings up what I believe to be the central problem with the cannabis legalisation movement. That is Lack of proper representation.

At the moment, there is a widespread public sterotype of cannabis users being no more than your sterotypical stoner who will typically sit at home completely apathetically happy to get stoned and nothing else.

The reality couldnt be further from the truth. I know many cannabis users and all are in gainful employment. None fit the sterotype which has been assigned to them. I know doctors, solicitors, teachers, IT specialists and accountants who all use cannabis. I myself am a qualified Barrister.

The problem is that the true demographics of cannabis use are not apparent to the general public and the reason for this is that very little has been done by cannabis users (ie. us) to contradict this. There is very little organisation involved in the movement at present. The Dail do not take any representatives seriously because they do not come across with any degree of professionalism or seriousness and typically, merely re-enforce the 'stoner' stereotype.

The legalisation marches, for example, which happen from time to time do very little to help the cause. In fact, they probably hinder more than help. Most of the marches consist of things like a group of young people & students congregating in an area, waving banners, shouting a bit..then sitting down and having a joint as a sign of protest. This type of approach does nothing to help the publics image of cannabis users and only reinforces their stereotypes. It will get us nowhere.

Now, I have no problem with the image people typically associate with 'stoners' (for the record, I hate that term..and I use it for convenience purposes only)...but what is needed is a true representation of the demographics of cannabis users because this extends across all different walks of life and social classes. From the unemployed to some of the most succesful solicitors in law firms across the country. We need everyone joining in the campaign, particularly those who the public do not typically associate with cannabis use....such as mature professionals (of course, not limited to mature profesisonals...but curently that is an area of representation that is lacking). Doctors, solicitors, financial services employees etc etc. all these people (and anyone else) should be involved since the public and the government need to know the truth about cannabis use.

On top of that, we need rational and well thought out argument. Fact, figures and we need to expose and make people aware of all the lies, mis-leading information and hypocrisy they have been subjected to. We need to put a different face on the legalisation movement because the old face clearly hasnt worked.

If any of you guys are interested or would like to consider that type of approach, you could check out www.cani.ie, for a start. Try to join in and do your part.

ScumLord

I know doctors, solicitors, teachers, IT specialists and accountants who all use cannabis. I myself am a qualified Barrister.

That's a disgrace! Who are these people? We have a right to know! :D

Umm.. Yet another cannabis legalisation site, there's already thc.ie and cannabisireland.net.

The legalisation marches, for example, which happen from time to time do very little to help the cause. In fact, they probably hinder more than help.

That's what I've been saying on CI.net I suggested more of a festival type set up in Galway where we wouldn't be getting in the way of other people. Lately I've been thinking a march to Eurad's offices to confront there lies and challenge them to an open debate would serve us better.

Someone with your legal speak and grammar skills are what this movements been calling out for.

When it comes to facts and figures I'm sure the UK based groups have already done all the work and would be happy to pass it all onto us.

rubadub

Terry wrote: »

Again. There will still be crap sold on the streets.
Look at tobacco for example.
You can go into Dublin and buy some cheap cigarettes on the street.
It wouldn't be any different with hash.

Thats exactly what I was saying too...

Terry wrote: »

As for your Poitin analogy, it's flawed. Different drinks have different flavours. People will drink something they like the taste of.

If alchol was illegal people would be buying it, they would not have the advantage of being able to pick and choose flavours, let alone get a product which at least has some quality control in its production. Many people drink the cheapest alcohol they can with only getting pissed in mind- teenagers drinking cheap vodka or cider might not like the taste.

Terry wrote: »

Ok. viagra and paracetemol have no place in this debate.
One gives you a boner and the other gets rid of your wifes headache, so that she will appreciate your boner. Then again, you always bring legal drugs into this arguement, so I shouldn't have expected anything different this time.

Yes I know you hate it since it is a nice convienent way for you to dismiss arguments. Legality of drugs harmful effects is extremely important, how on earth can it not be brought up. The very illegality of drugs causes more harm than their physiological effects.

You asked questions and said if I answered YES I must be deluded. I gave perfect good reasons why I would have said yes, and you dismiss them as usual with this "shut up, that stuff is illegal, it cannot be compared". Yet your very own questions were related to illegality. In this case you were saying "do you honestly think it will be cheaper". I was talking of other legal drugs since many are available illegal yet people still buy from proper sources. I know lads who have been offered viagra in pubs. Other drugs can be bought online like this and have the potential for illegal sale. There is simply no proper market, but you COULD still buy cheaper.

Terry wrote: »

What's with the poitin?
It's not like there are poitin dealers all over the place.
It's extremely rare.

Exactly my point, thank you!
If alcohol was illegal they would be all over the place. And kids could get poitin on the street but people will not sell as there is not much market. The kids would sooner pay the few euro more and get somebody to go to an offie for them. Most people still buy tobacco in shops. I expect the same would be true of cannabis, people will buy in shops and kids will get lads to go into "cannabis offies".

Terry wrote: »

Most did start on alcohol. What's your point there?
Most of the people I know who drink alcohol have never done anything stronger.

My point is that some people with crazy logic could call for alcohol to be illegal due to it being a gateway drug. You already said most did start on it. Then you said 99% of people you know who started on cannabis went onto harder drugs. Seems that you are hanging around with people way outside what normal stats show

Terry wrote: »

Regarding the tax issue, you really are deluded if you are of the opinion that the government will not tax it to bits.

.
I dont think you read my post properly. I said they would tax it accordingly, just like smokes & booze. There comes a point where people would turn to illegal trading if the tax is too high. I would expect the pricing to be around the same as it is now for illegal stuff. But it would be available cheaper from illegal outlets.

Terry wrote: »

You know exactly what I mean by harder drugs. You are just being pedantic.

I honestly do not know what you mean. You have very black & white views on drugs that I can never understand. Would you consider mdma "harder" than alcohol?
e.g.

Most of them then cop on and realise that beer is the best drug available, because you can use it in moderation and not get messed up.
One or two social pints would not even give most people a buzz. Can you say the same about weed?

You already have your mind that alcohol is fine. I suspect this is due to its illegality and you have a huge respect for legality of drugs yet do not seem concerned about how they became illegal or cannot be made illegal in the first place.
You also seem totally unable to accept that people can take drugs in small does, and you seem to only basis this on legality! bizarre stuff, you can take legal drugs in moderate doses but not drink.

e.g.

Why are you smoking it if you're not going to get stoned?

Why do people have the one or 2 social pints you mention if they are not going to get totally pissed. You have a black & white view of stoned/unstoned yet can see degrees of drunkeness with no problems. You have probably come across lots of people on cannabis in your life and were non the wiser that they were mildly intoxicated.

You seem pretty ignorant of common usage. I have said before of drugs at theshold doses and it seems you cannot accept that anybody would do such a thing, presuming any drug user must be an overindugent waster.

Most scientific research is bollox.

They get a bunch of people who have smoked the odd joint and ask them some questions.

Proper stoners are too wasted most of the time to acxtually show up for anything.

That is very telling of your prejudices against illegal drug users. Proper winos are too wasted to show up for anything too. The majority of alcohol & cannabis users are not in that category of "too wasted to move".

Tha Gopher

bubonicus wrote: »

<Mr. Slave voice>Oh Jesus, Jesus chirst</Mr. Slave voice>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwDRBm-qbQI

e2a: I applaud you JJ6000.

Ah the Streets with a drink=bad drugs=good times for all tune.

Ill raise you.

Blinded By the Lights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A8T4lVu074


Oh wait, no, that was pro drugs and all. It was the drunken guests who assaulted Mike when they saw he was off his tits

bubonicus

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Ah the Streets with a drink=bad drugs=good times for all tune.

Ill raise you.

Blinded By the Lights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A8T4lVu074


Oh wait, no, that was pro drugs and all. It was the drunken guests who assaulted Mike when they saw he was off his tits

lol, i think this is what you where looking for...:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNbExvU42q4

SimpleSam06

JJ6000 wrote: »

Let me begin with my first point: the REAL reasons cannabis is illegal: Ignorance

Then contrast this with alcohol, for example. People KNOW alcohol. It has been a central part of our society for centuries.

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.

JJ6000 wrote: »

So, I’ll move on to my second point – the supposed “negative effects” of cannabis.
Does anybody honestly believe that cannabis can even APPROACH a fraction of the level of damage that alcohol causes?

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.

JJ6000 wrote: »

Well, for scientists, they do not appear to be very scientific, and seem to have lost sight of the fact that a link absolutely does NOT infer that there is a cause.

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?

JJ6000 wrote: »

Well, its pretty simple really. There are two types of drugs. Socially destructive, and non-socially destructive.

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.

JJ6000 wrote: »

Cannabis possesses no such inherent addictiveness.

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".

JJ6000 wrote: »

One example would be coffee. How many people do you know who can not function without 2-3 cups of coffee in the morning? I know dozens.

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.

JJ6000 wrote: »

Even Orange Juice. I know several people who absolutely will not feel right if they have not had their morning orange juice. Cannabis is no different to any other substance as regards “psychological addiction

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?

JJ6000 wrote: »

Cannabis use really does not affect anyone other than the user.

Bit like cigarettes so, eh?

JJ6000 wrote: »

So, in light of the fact that it is not socially destructive and only affects the actual user

Both of which points are proveably wrong.

JJ6000 wrote: »

However, even if, hypothetically, I did concede that cannabis had some sort of appreciable negative impact on health (for the record, this is hypothetical…I do NOT actually concede this)

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

JJ6000 wrote: »

even in such a case you must consider the purpose of the legal system.

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.

JJ6000 wrote: »

The law is there to protect society as a whole and to protect one individual from the detrimental actions of another.

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

JJ6000 wrote: »

I do NOT believe that the state has any right to dictate what I can and cannot do with my own body

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.

JJ6000 wrote: »

then does the state really have any right to tell him that he cannot?

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

JJ6000 wrote: »

I can choose to eat from the local fast food restaurant for breakfast lunch and dinner every day and suffer a heart attack by the time I am 30. Should the state have the right to tell me that I cannot make the choice?

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.

JJ6000 wrote: »

There is a constitutional right which protects my choice to make personal decisions about my body (ie. To use cannabis or not). It is called the right to bodily integrity.

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

JJ6000 wrote: »

As regards the gateway theory; I have never in my life seen such a narrow minded and ill informed theory in my life.

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.

JJ6000 wrote: »

Which leads me on to my third point, the benefits of de-criminalisation.

Oh god, here we go...

JJ6000 wrote: »

As mentioned before, the quality of cannabis would be better. It would be more reliable and cleaner.

Yes, better drugs giving a better high. Brilliant.

JJ6000 wrote: »

At the moment, do you really trust your local drug-dealer not to sell to an 11 year old child, who is much to immature to make a proper informed decision?

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

JJ6000 wrote: »

Reduction in crime rate. At the moment the entire trade is in the hands of drug dealers.

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?

JJ6000 wrote: »

The state is quick to place much of the responsibility for crime rates on the individual buyer while ignoring the fact that by criminalizing cannabis, they are responsible for creating a situation where crime has flourished.

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.

JJ6000 wrote: »

Also, legalization will mean we are not criminalizing people who deserve it least.

What, people who break the law and are criminals?

JJ6000 wrote: »

I personally know one person (RIP) who was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour and did suffer quite a lot of pain who was advised by his specialist to use cannabis as it would help him deal with the pain in his remaining final days. And it did.

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

JJ6000 wrote: »

the government refuses to accept ANY sort of benefit that can be attributed to cannabis because it may open a Pandora’s Box of truth about cannabis

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.

JJ6000 wrote: »

Finally, prohibition simply DOES NOT WORK!

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.

JJ6000 wrote: »

So, what is the conclusion of all of this? Well, I’m afraid it’s not much really. You can choose to believe the hype, the rhetoric and the mis-information which is spewed by the media, the state and the general mis-informed public every day……or,

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

Terry

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.

Sam Vimes

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.

Alcohol has been banned before and it didn't cause chaos but it did cause the enrichment of criminal syndicates. Does cannabis somehow not do that in your world?

Sam Vimes

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.

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

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

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".

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

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.

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. and the people who sold them the alcohol were the same people who would sell them any other drug so alcohol became a gateway drug by your definition simply by makig it illegal

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Both of which points are proveably wrong.

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?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

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

how about you do the same?

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.

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

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

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

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

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.

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

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.

that's what he's doing

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.

and that is solely because it is illegal

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

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

what's your point? are you saying that shops don't have any more of a conscience than drug dealers or what? i don't understand your point and why it means that cannabis should be illegal.

you seem to be saying that making it legal would not make it any more difficult to get. surely licensing it and having the ability to punish shops that sell to under age people would give more control over the situation? and the shops wouldn't sell other drugs so your argument about the dealers selling other stuff to the cannabis users would be out the window

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?

so should we ban other stuff for no reason, forcing them onto the black market, thereby giving criminals more money so they don't feel the need to branch out into other areas. saying "if they don't sell x they'll sell other stuff" is not a reason to ban anything

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.

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

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.

yes and of course the people who never tried it did so because it was illegal and it was completely impossible for them to get. they didn't simply make a choice not to

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

Boggle

SimpleSam06 wrote:

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.

Not to bne funny but... we are not capable of controling cannabis.

And that is why when you say....

Simplesam06 wrote:

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

...as an argument against legalisation, I have to point out that when I was in school I could not walk into an offy and get alcohol. I could hash any time I wanted though ( and as a result, I could get other stuff too).
You appear to prefer it for children to have an easier time getting drugs than alcohol.

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".

You sound like you just read this in a book!
Just so you know... You can smoke as heavily as you like for as long as you like and then stop with no cravings - ie its not physically addictive. I could look up yet another study but I'd rather simply state my experience.

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?

This is a great example of how you have handled this debate so far... You never actually answer a point - you rather try to take the piss out of the poster by twisting things. Cheap and nigh on pathetic...

Bit like cigarettes so, eh?

Aaah your ignorance astounds me more every line I read. The trouble with cigarettes is their addictive qualities.
These are absent from hash...

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.

People are not all robots so in order for a law to be effective then it has to make sense. Banning murder is fair enough for obvious reasons, but unless there is a reason to ban hash then there is no way people are going to obey.

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

Are you FF by any chance? You ability not to answer a single point is astounding!

Anyway to finish, and to quote my dad's words: If they cant even keep drugs out of a prison then how are they meant to keep it out of a country...?

lezizi

Should cannibas be legalised??

Definitely.

wazzoraybelle

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

You mean I can't smoke those jeans I got on holiday?


Rather than getting into the finer points of Dutch import laws, if you make it legal to own it but illegal to distribute it, (dealing), you will only make the criminal dealers exponentially richer.

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.

SimpleSam06

Commander Vimes wrote: »

Alcohol has been banned before and it didn't cause chaos but it did cause the enrichment of criminal syndicates. Does cannabis somehow not do that in your world?

At the height of prohibition, Al Capone's organisation was being discussed in the White House. They had essentially full control over several major cities, and they were the law. If thats not chaos, I'd love to see your definition of it. Also note the difference between enrichment and "vast, vast enrichment".

SimpleSam06

Boggle wrote: »

Not to bne funny but

Don't worry, you aren't.

Boggle wrote: »

... we are not capable of controling cannabis.

Oh we are very capable of controlling cannabis, just not perfectly. Very little is black and white. We're one hell of a lot more capable of controlling it than if we tried to ban alcohol.

Boggle wrote: »

And that is why when you say....
...as an argument against legalisation, I have to point out that when I was in school I could not walk into an offy and get alcohol. I could hash any time I wanted though ( and as a result, I could get other stuff too).
You appear to prefer it for children to have an easier time getting drugs than alcohol.

Taking two different points out of context and then claiming a third and entirely new point raises the quotient of fail on the entire internet, you know. Stop! Think of the internet before you post again!

Boggle wrote: »

I could look up yet another study but I'd rather simply state my experience.

You're the one making the claims, you back them up.

Boggle wrote: »

This is a great example of how you have handled this debate so far... You never actually answer a point - you rather try to take the piss out of the poster by twisting things. Cheap and nigh on pathetic...

Ah nothing like sagging abuse to fortify your argument. We're redlining the fail here.

Boggle wrote: »

Aaah your ignorance astounds me more every line I read. The trouble with cigarettes is their addictive qualities. These are absent from hash...

Sigh.

Boggle wrote: »

People are not all robots so in order for a law to be effective then it has to make sense. Banning murder is fair enough for obvious reasons, but unless there is a reason to ban hash then there is no way people are going to obey.

But the thing is, oh vox populi, 99% of people have no problem whatsoever obeying the law in this regard. Whats your problem that you can't? I mean is it personal, emotional, physical, whats the story?

Boggle wrote: »

Anyway to finish, and to quote my dad's words: If they cant even keep drugs out of a prison then how are they meant to keep it out of a country...?

The occupants of a country aren't prisoners or convicted criminals.