Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Should pot be made legal?
Options
Comments
-
That depends fundamentally on the way you believe a state should operate. A subscriber to John Stewart Mill's original liberalist theory would say no; only that which does harm to others should be regulated, and the state has no business or authority interfering with individual autonomy. Admittedly, this is certainly not the basis on which our state, or any state, is run. However, it is a line of thinking which, at the very least, demands a high standard of proof from those who would restrict individual liberty at state level: if you will take away our freedom, give us a damn good reason for doing so.oscarBravo wrote: »Isn't that the point of legislation? To prevent us from, and/or punish us for, doing things that are potentially harmful to ourselves or others?
That I thoroughly agree with. At the same time, I believe we can learn form our failures in alcohol control when implementing a structured system for controlling legal cannabis.oscarBravo wrote: »we don't seem to be able to handle the social problems that alcohol brings - perhaps we should address those before legalising any more drugs.
That argument necessitates making alcohol an illegal drug.rowlandbrowner wrote: »if that’s the case than this country has already shown itself to be too immature to use alcohol responsibility, and if that is supposedly the more harmful of the two then I can only imagine what the population would do if pot was made legal.
Again, I really don't think that the excessive consumption of alcohol by Irish people is due, entirely, to some sort of uncontrollable irresponsibility. We're not the genetically indulgent binge monsters some of the previous posts would have you believe. If we were, there would be a similar problem with other vices as well as alcohol. The alcohol problem here is due to a number of factors: the drinking culture, the inadequate controls effected and so on. If we implement proper regulations - real regulations - to combat the irresponsible aspect of substance use, we can manage cannabis better than we have alcohol.rowlandbrowner wrote: »Well our glaring stupidly which can be confirmed with a quick glance at the alcohol consumption levels should certainly not be met with the lifting of existing prohibitions.0 -
The first two I'm prepared to accept, but the third I have trouble comprehending. Of all the things smoking pot can be, I wouldn't have thought it particularly exciting.I have smoked on and off now for coming up on 8 years and I can honestly say it has helped me overcome stress, physical injury and most of all boredom.
That's a little sweeping. If someone smokes enough to give themselves cancer, or becomes a psychotic basket case, the public healthcare costs come back into the equation....any possible argument about public health care costs is negated.
I don't think it's enough to learn from our failures. I think we would need to see those structures in place and working for alcohol before we even consider legalising weed.Jim_Are_Great wrote: »... I believe we can learn form our failures in alcohol control when implementing a structured system for controlling legal cannabis.0 -
Touche but I'll challenge you to find me someone who's well toasted and board. Weed isn't exciting in and of itself it just makes the mundane seem less mundane:PoscarBravo wrote: »The first two I'm prepared to accept, but the third I have trouble comprehending. Of all the things smoking pot can be, I wouldn't have thought it particularly exciting.
I agree I did make a generalization there for effect, allow me to clarify. The benefits of occasional marijuana use for those who can use it occasionally outweigh the potential costs of taking care of people who use it in a self abusing fashion. I can say this as the actual amount of people who would use marijuana(and only marijuana) in a self abusing fashion is negligible. People who use marijuana in conjunction with other, more damaging, substances are going to abuse themselves anyway and we cannot blame marijuana for this.oscarBravo wrote: »That's a little sweeping. If someone smokes enough to give themselves cancer, or becomes a psychotic basket case, the public healthcare costs come back into the equation.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 29920
If you want to attack genuinely dangerous drugs such as heroin and crack/cocaine then you need to kill the supply, not the demand.
If you remove the cash crop (quite literally!) you cut the dealers off from their revenue. If you cut off their money, then you greatly reduce the upside of being a dealer.
DeV.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I'm assuming this was intended ironically, but our endemic alcohol problem tends to point to the fact that we are, as a nation, stupid and irresponsible when it comes to intoxicating substances.
Or that it is widely marketed to an over exposed youth drinking culture, as a result it has secured its place in irish society.....0 -
Advertisement
-
Jim_Are_Great wrote: »Actually, yes. I think there are very few people on the borderline thinking "Man, I'd smoke some weed right now, if only it were legal." Your own comments are full of evidence to suggest that many, if not most, people can and do have easy access to cannabis, despite its illegality. The laws against cannabis are obviously, therefore, of very little deterrant value. As of now, if people want cannabis, they can and will get it, no problem. By legalising it, there is unlikely to be a significant surge in cannabis consumer numbers, but there would certainly be opportunity for the cleaning up of the whole production and distribution process to make it safer.
Perhaps because alcohol is more addictive and potent than cannabis?
You seem to be constantly operating on the assumption of excess. People will not smoke so much pot that they can't work adequately, no more than people's alcohol consumption, no matter how excessive, affects the workrate. If legal cannabis had such an obliterating effect on the economy, how do you explain the thriving Dutch economy?
Firstly, more people who were previously borderline with regard to actually sampling cannabis in the first instance would try it out and some of these would go on to become chronic smokers.
Secondly, there are those today smoking cannabis who would undoubtedly smoke more if it were a legal substance. I don't know how many times I've heard friends complain that they can't get any smoke cause of a drought or whatever. The longing in their facial expression is pathetic.
Thirdly, you say that if it were legalised that it would clean up the drug thus making it safer. I'd slightly agree with this point if it were in relation to mdma or something but cannabis, even when cultivated in a controlled, labratory environment with minimum interference is highly carcinogenic. So the health risk is still there.
Finally, I can not fathom your last point whatsoever. You reckon that nobody smokes cannabis in sufficiently high quanitities for it to affect their work life? Well I was no major smoker, but even I missed some mornings as a result of smoking the night before. It wasn't that I was physically unable to rise out the bed, it was the killing of my ambition that prevented me from getting up and doing a days work.
And you also say that alcohol consumption, no matter how much, will not affect the work rate. How many people can't even get into work on a monday morning because of alcohol never mind put in a good days labour? Answer: thousands.0 -
Here's the thing: many many people across the world right now are stoned, and pretty much all of them will get up in the morning. you seem to imply that if Cannabis is made legal it will have knock on effects on our economic performance? ridiculous, last time i checked, Canada, Switzerland & the Netherlands seemed to be doing OK economically and they are all countries where weed is decriminalized and is freely available.
Not for the first time in this thread i will have to apply your logic to other substances like alcohol: im pretty certain alcohol is responsible for many sick days or poor performances at work, shall we ban that?, stop acting like a nanny, you cannot legislate to protect people from themselves.
If weed made you not show up for work then i feel sorry for you, but amongst i and many of my friends we seem to have little trouble getting on with our lives despite our fondness to smoke spliffs.0 -
Firstly, more people who were previously borderline with regard to actually sampling cannabis in the first instance would try it out and some of these would go on to become chronic smokers.
Secondly, there are those today smoking cannabis who would undoubtedly smoke more if it were a legal substance. I don't know how many times I've heard friends complain that they can't get any smoke cause of a drought or whatever. The longing in their facial expression is pathetic.
Thirdly, you say that if it were legalised that it would clean up the drug thus making it safer. I'd slightly agree with this point if it were in relation to mdma or something but cannabis, even when cultivated in a controlled, labratory environment with minimum interference is highly carcinogenic. So the health risk is still there.
Finally, I can not fathom your last point whatsoever. You reckon that nobody smokes cannabis in sufficiently high quanitities for it to affect their work life? Well I was no major smoker, but even I missed some mornings as a result of smoking the night before. It wasn't that I was physically unable to rise out the bed, it was the killing of my ambition that prevented me from getting up and doing a days work.
And you also say that alcohol consumption, no matter how much, will not affect the work rate. How many people can't even get into work on a monday morning because of alcohol never mind put in a good days labour? Answer: thousands.
I completely agrre with most if not all you have said.
Just on a personal level I know many of my peers who smoke cannabis regularily. Alot of them used to be quite intellectual individuals who have slowly but surely plumetted into a life of laziness and lack of ambition. All of them seem to voice the same opinion as users here- that they're not affected nor has it done them any harm whatsoever. Coincidental? I think not.... The fact remains that their brains are working at a pace half of what they used to be. Why make another scourge on society freely available. Any detterent is a good one however strong it is.
Alcohol is embroidered into our culture and unfortunately the way we use it will not change any time soon but I feel comparing the two is a feeble if not desperate arguement.0 -
I heartily agree.oscarBravo wrote: »I don't think it's enough to learn from our failures. I think we would need to see those structures in place and working for alcohol before we even consider legalising weed.
I have no reason to believe that. People can get cannabis when they want, and those that want to, do so. The illigality of the drug isn't preventing anyone from obtaining it. The problems you have outlined, and which I do not contest, are just not aided in any way by the statutory ban on cannabis.there are those today smoking cannabis who would undoubtedly smoke more if it were a legal substance.
I don't mean that it would be a nice healthy treat for all the family. What I mean is that the drug could be sanitized to a much greater and more professional degree than it currently is. Latent health risks would obviously remain, but no more than in, say, cigarettes. With illigitimate street dealing, extraneous substances are often added to the plant, and the plants are often treated with dangerous enhancers. In a state-regulated cannabis outlet, these factors would obviously be negated, making its consumption safer. As a subsidiary point to this, power would be removed from dealers who, as often as not, are empowered in criminal enterprises by the sale of cannabis.Thirdly, you say that if it were legalised that it would clean up the drug thus making it safer. I'd slightly agree with this point if it were in relation to mdma or something but cannabis, even when cultivated in a controlled, labratory environment with minimum interference is highly carcinogenic. So the health risk is still there.
No, I reckon that the stoner dystopia you envisage is exaggerative. Some people currently smoke too much to go to work, as you have admitted. Has this ever lead to economic catastrophe? No. If cannabis were legalised, would enough people smoke so much that they can't work? No. Again, you fail to explain the economic prowess of countries in which cannabis is legal.I can not fathom your last point whatsoever. You reckon that nobody smokes cannabis in sufficiently high quanitities for it to affect their work life?
No, that is siply untrue. What we need is an effective method of curbing the adverse social effects of cannabis. We do not need an ineffective system which operates in half measures. The system of regulation we have has failed, and what I am suggesting is a new one, one which I feel will combat social ills far better than our current system. If you can show me why the status quo should be maintained despite its obvious shortcomings, then I would be delighted. Otherwise, let's have effective rules.Ri na hEireann wrote: »Why make another scourge on society freely available. Any detterent is a good one however strong it is.0 -
DeVore
If you want to attack genuinely dangerous drugs such as heroin and crack/cocaine then you need to kill the supply, not the demand.
If you remove the cash crop (quite literally!) you cut the dealers off from their revenue. If you cut off their money, then you greatly reduce the upside of being a dealer.
DeV.
Do you have any evidence for this? The evidence I have against this are
1. The study previously mentioned where heroin had a 400 times mark up. The economics of this means you will have difficulty stopping it being sold.
2. The only countries that have stopped opium being grown illegally have just swapped over tho having it grown legally.0 -
Advertisement
-
I donm't think the arguement that "Oh i've seen my mates or so and so ruin his life by it " washes anymore how many people have you seen ruin it on "Alcohol" and end up drinking themself into a grave yet we promote this drug and use it as part of our social lifes evry weekend. What medical use has ever been raised for drinking alcohol or smoking cigaretts?None. Cannabis?Plenty of medical uses that's what it's legal for medical patients in Holland, Canada and 6 states in America at the moment and growing everyday. I smoke, I don't drink alot don't like it seen too many people in my family ruin their lives from it, sure pot can be dangerous but not as dangerous if you are a waster anyone then your going to be regardless of pot, plenty of lazy people drink and smoke aswell, it's a sterotype which in this day and age is just no longer true. I smoke cannabis pretty much daily, I also have a well paid job, my own house, my own car, a great gf and penty of friends, I am not lazy I still get everything done and in the evening sit down and have a social smoke with friends. I don't like going to back alley dodgy scumbags to buy weed that aint worth the money, If we legilized we could regulate and take the foundation out of small time drug dealing. I wish to god people would see sence regardless of there personal opinion on it.0
-
Jim_Are_Great wrote: »I heartily agree.
I have no reason to believe that. People can get cannabis when they want, and those that want to, do so. The illigality of the drug isn't preventing anyone from obtaining it. The problems you have outlined, and which I do not contest, are just not aided in any way by the statutory ban on cannabis.
I don't mean that it would be a nice healthy treat for all the family. What I mean is that the drug could be sanitized to a much greater and more professional degree than it currently is. Latent health risks would obviously remain, but no more than in, say, cigarettes. With illigitimate street dealing, extraneous substances are often added to the plant, and the plants are often treated with dangerous enhancers. In a state-regulated cannabis outlet, these factors would obviously be negated, making its consumption safer. As a subsidiary point to this, power would be removed from dealers who, as often as not, are empowered in criminal enterprises by the sale of cannabis.
No, I reckon that the stoner dystopia you envisage is exaggerative. Some people currently smoke too much to go to work, as you have admitted. Has this ever lead to economic catastrophe? No. If cannabis were legalised, would enough people smoke so much that they can't work? No. Again, you fail to explain the economic prowess of countries in which cannabis is legal.
No, that is siply untrue. What we need is an effective method of curbing the adverse social effects of cannabis. We do not need an ineffective system which operates in half measures. The system of regulation we have has failed, and what I am suggesting is a new one, one which I feel will combat social ills far better than our current system. If you can show me why the status quo should be maintained despite its obvious shortcomings, then I would be delighted. Otherwise, let's have effective rules.
No the arguement still remains. Why add another drug which is accepted as damaging enter the forum of social acceptability from a legal perspective?
I cannot accept any arguement for the legalising of cannabis on the grounds of it being harmless. Again,I can only speak from a personal point of view and I'm sure it must somehow be relevant to you as I'm also from Waterford, but the majority of people I know who smoke the drug do so in far more than a social capacity. It has become part of their being and personality. They are no doubt dependent on the drug and it occupies their thoughts alot more than it should.
Then apart form the obvious mental affects, cannabis acts as a gateway drug to other more serious drugs. To say any different would be just plainly wrong. When cannabis has served its purpose for "chilling and relaxing" and combatting boredom, a new substance is looked for get the excitement.
I don't buy the idea that just because enforcement and detection is failing that we should just legalise something. Violent crime isn't always detected,or on ocassions sometimes not acted upon by the authorities how it shoud be. So does this mean we legalise assault? Does this mean we leagalise prostitution? Where does it stop? What happens if Heroine becomes the replacement of cannabis if legalised? Personally I think there are way too many what ifs to contemplate the legalisation of another damaging vice for Irish society.
If anything should be done it should be a campaign to show cannabis for what it really is,show the health affects and demonise it rather than legalise it.
Freedom of choice has to have some limitations. People by their nature make all sorts of poor decisions and to allow another drug to be easily availabe is just, in my opinion , an uneducated desire from discontented pot smokers.0 -
Because it would be far less damaging as a legal, and therefore easily controllable, substance. I have yet to see an argument to persuade me to the contrary.Ri na hEireann wrote: »No the arguement still remains. Why add another drug which is accepted as damaging enter the forum of social acceptability from a legal perspective?
And rightly so. I don't think anyone is suggesting that cannabis is harmless. But, at the risk of becoming repetative, it is far more harmful in every capacity as an underground substance.Ri na hEireann wrote: »I cannot accept any arguement for the legalising of cannabis on the grounds of it being harmless.
An apocryphal statement at best. This whole argument has been proceeding without anyone pointing out an important lacuna: no objective and comprehensive analysis has been conducted in this jurisdiction investigating the exact medical properties of cannabis use. In the absence of such a study, speculative evidence is all we can rely on. Need I point out that the partial legalisation of cannabis for this investigative purpose would be of obvious benefit. If a conclusive, peer-reviewed survey of the drug is conducted, and it turns out that it is monstrously destructive or inherently addictive, then I'll be the first to change my views. But no such empirical data exists, and so we have no reason to believe that either of these things are true.Ri na hEireann wrote: »Then apart form the obvious mental affects, cannabis acts as a gateway drug to other more serious drugs. To say any different would be just plainly wrong. When cannabis has served its purpose for "chilling and relaxing" and combatting boredom, a new substance is looked for get the excitement.
I don't think you're fully comprehending my argument. I'm not suggesting immediate and laissez-faire legalisation. I'm proposing a system which would tackle the problems related to cannabis more effectively than the system on which we have been relying. This is not tantamount to legalising assault or prostitution; there is no alternative system proposed for these offences, and I feel the existing safeguards are effective, if not imperfect. If somebody can suggest a better system for handling these crimes through a path of legalisation, then start a thread and we'll have a chat about it.Ri na hEireann wrote: »I don't buy the idea that just because enforcement and detection is failing that we should just legalise something. Violent crime isn't always detected,or on ocassions sometimes not acted upon by the authorities how it shoud be. So does this mean we legalise assault? Does this mean we leagalise prostitution? Where does it stop?
I don't appreciate that pejorative remark. I'd like this discussion to continue with the same cordiality with which it began.Ri na hEireann wrote: »to allow another drug to be easily availabe is just, in my opinion , an uneducated desire from discontented pot smokers.0 -
"I have no reason to believe that. People can get cannabis when they want, and those that want to, do so. The illigality of the drug isn't preventing anyone from obtaining it"
Yes, it can be obtained but the majority of it is crap which does you more harm because of it contamination than anything. If it were to be regulated and controled it would stop this and give people a more open choice and most importantly not force MEDICAL USERS having to buy from druglords high money for grit. I'm sure if any of you had to expierience pain and have nothing to cure it that won't knock you for six or cause you sever side effects you would re-think your opinion on the use of medical and social marijuana.0 -
What medical use has ever been raised for drinking alcohol or smoking cigaretts?None. Cannabis?Plenty of medical uses that's what it's legal for medical patients in Holland, Canada and 6 states in America at the moment and growing everyday.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage#Alcohol_consumption_and_healthIn moderation, alcohol consumption has significant health benefits. These include a lower risk of heart attack,[5] lower risk of diabetes,[6] lower risk of Alzheimer's disease,[7] reduced risk of stroke,[8] and an increase in overall longevity.[9] One study found that a person fifty-five or older who consumed 1-3 drinks daily was half as likely to develop dementia linked to poor oxygen to the brain as a person who did not. Additionally, because alcohol increases 'good' cholesterol and decreases the 'bad' cholesterol, there are indications that frequent doses in moderation reduce the risk of blood clots and stroke. These benefits are all counteracted by excessive consumption.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_and_health#Beneficial_effects_of_smoking
0 -
Although that article may be true it is not practicle, yes having a pint of guiness may have benefits but the 20 you have after that on a fri/sat night won't be as much will they, you wouldn't go to a doctor with cancer or artritus and have him hand you a pint and a smoke to "Help" no you wouldn't, alcohol at the end of the day like alot of hard drugs are tampered with and mixed by man , cannabis has been used for 4000 years as medical and the 100 or so years it's been illegal is nothing, just cause this society doesn't seem to have a clue whats legal and what's not. Read this article below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_marijuana0 -
Just to pedantic, cannabis is 'believed' to have been used for four thousand years, according to the BBC link provided by wiki. It doesn't say how long it's been used as medicine, it does say 'thousands of years'.0
-
Since it grows wild and has been around pretty much forever sence would show that it has, down to the leaves been used to heal wounds in the battle days. Still 100 years of being illegal isn't a blip on the scale of how long it was used for good, it's sad that it's now classed a drug and in the hands of druglords. I also beleave the government know it would be the right thing to do in legalizing but lets be honest here they won't because it will take away from the drugs industry and they gain too much money from that every year, they don't REALLY want to emiminate it just be seen to be. Gangsters the whole lot of them.0
-
I really don't see what the drugs industry has to do with this. If cannabis was legal then they would market it.0
-
Yeah they would, but to do that they have to admit they were wrong about it this whole time and people would come looking for fines they had to pay back etc, so for start it's hassle as well as that alot of people in the drugs industry probably all of them are totally against this, they make alot of money not only here but in the U.S and UK from cannabis if that is legal that's gone, and so is a large part of the money it generated which was put back into the governement through the form of cover companies, houses, cars etc. It's all a game to them, it's just that nobody see's it cause there simply told drugs are bad and the government will stamp them out it's all crap. Don't get me wrong I would love to see it regulated but what i've outlines above is the real reason it won't be mark my words.0
-
Advertisement
-
I think you misunderstood me, I meant the drugs industry would market cannabis. They'd probably love for it to be legalised.0
-
I think the anti-legalisation people are missing two key points:
1: Medicinal marijuana. Some people with serious illnesses and long term pain swear by the medicinal properties of marijuana to deal with that pain. By supporting the status quo, you are telling some of the weakest people in our society that they must either suffer the pain, or pay a whole load of money for undesireable pharmacheuticals. As a right-thinking person, I want no part of this, and 100% support the right of a terminally sick person to access a clean supply of medicinal pot if they want it.
2: The current prohibition of marijunana has much the same properties as the American prohibition of alcohol in the 1930s. You can be sure that many of the social ills of marijuna being (over)stated on this thread were used during the '30s to advocate the indroduction and continuation of what amounted to one of the greatest policy failures in human history. Not only was it completely ignored, but it removed an entire industry from honest brokers and spawned a whole criminal underworld in the supply of illicit liquor. It was this, partially, that spawned the likes of Al Capone who turned Chicago into a crime infested war zone. Not only that but quality of the illicit liquor declined, sometimes to the point of being dangerously contaminated, as it was unregulated and consumers had no legal recourse when the contaminents caused serious health problems ... does any of this sound familiar?
Nothing I've seen or heard has yet convinced me that the current prohibition of marijuana is any different to the American alcohol prohibition of the 1930s, nor that you do more harm than good by strongly regulating a legal cannibis trade. Sales of non-medicinal marijuana could, for example, be taxed to the point where the taxed raised pay for any increase in healthcare needs of the small miscreant minority who abuses it.
And as for the "migration of scum" that moved to Amsterdam, if there were a large scale legalisation, there would be little or no migration as much of the "scum" could get their weed at home. But it takes leadership to be the first, and that is why I compared it to Ireland's leadership in Nanny State initiatives like the Bag Tax, the Smoking ban, incandescent light bulb bans etc.0 -
905- Sorry i see what you were saying now, if they legilized it would be the drug dealers running the show anyway, yeah it would but in Holland they do try to put the sqeeze on the market but they don't have total control as the government can regulate it and there's alot of competition, if you have crap stuff it simply won't sell like any other legal product, but it would be a damn sight better than it being ilegal and people having to go to jail for growing 3 plants just because they didn't wanna deal with this people and sit in cells with murderers and rapists do you think that's fair?Does anybody here think that is fair?0
-
Is there proof that it would be far less damaging though? I shan't pretend to be well informed about the topic but I honestly don't see why we shouldn't seek better enforcement rather than legalisation.Because it would be far less damaging as a legal, and therefore easily controllable, substance. I have yet to see an argument to persuade me to the contrary.
Would its legalisation not make prices soar and therefore only partially solve the illegal distribution of drugs or will people pay that bit extra to get clean hash?And rightly so. I don't think anyone is suggesting that cannabis is harmless. But, at the risk of becoming repetative, it is far more harmful in every capacity as an underground substance.
I beg to differ. If made legal, I expect that alot more people will dabble in its use. Those who were discouraged by the illegality will now have no barrier to stop them trying it. Those who use it now are risking damaging themselves by buying an illegal substance with little information of what's in it in the first place. Why should we legislate for the substance to be freely available and therefore affecting more people? I know the substance will be regulated and the drug will be "cleaner" but its adverse effects will be more widespread with more users.An apocryphal statement at best. This whole argument has been proceeding without anyone pointing out an important lacuna: no objective and comprehensive analysis has been conducted in this jurisdiction investigating the exact medical properties of cannabis use. In the absence of such a study, speculative evidence is all we can rely on.
Again, I can only speak from a personal perspective. I see what it can do. I have no need for a report to tell me what it can and can't do. I've made up my mind using primary evidence and I won't be swayed to the contrary. Call it speculative if you wish but I know many people who have been changed by the use of cannabis.
Or perhaps a revamp of the current system is in order?I'm proposing a system which would tackle the problems related to cannabis more effectively than the system on which we have been relying.This is not tantamount to legalising assault or prostitution; there is no alternative system proposed for these offences, and I feel the existing safeguards are effective, if not imperfect. If somebody can suggest a better system for handling these crimes through a path of legalisation, then start a thread and we'll have a chat about it.
I wasn't at all comparing it to prostitution or assault but simply trying to illustrate that, just because something is being policed ineffectively doesn't mean we should legalise it.I don't appreciate that pejorative remark. I'd like this discussion to continue with the same cordiality with which it began.
Sorry if you think I've brought the debate into disrepute. I didn't intend to.
I just feel that as a society we have enough vices. I can see your point from a practical point of view and I also see its merits. However, I feel that the legalisation will only have negative results in the long run. Laws simply need to be enforced. I know that's easier said then done but from a social point of view rather than an economical or even a practical point of view Ireland does not need another drug to accompany the already out of control alcohol problem.0 -
Maybe instead of spending our efforts trying to legalize pot, we should spend it trying to introduce execution for hard drug dealers. Time well spent.
On topic, an excellent point has been made that we would draw a lot of scumbags (think English gangsters) to our shores, scumbags that should be jailed indefinitely for the betterment of society. I would be ashamed to see my country abused so.0 -
Unfortunately for me, and those who share my beliefs, the answer is no. However, I believe all my previously stated hypothetical arguments to be cogent. If you wish to take issue with any specifics of my proposition, please do.Ri na hEireann wrote: »Is there proof that it would be far less damaging though?
A good point. Doubtless, if we really want to tackle the social problems caused by cannabis and related substances, our only two options are tighter enforcement of the law or controlled legalisation. I throw in with the latter, as I think it is a more realistic and sustainable policy. Perfect policing is, practically speaking, impossible. I don't think anyone is under any illusion to the contrary. I would like to hear the manner in which you propose the harshening of enforcement should be effected before we debate further on this particular point.Ri na hEireann wrote: »I honestly don't see why we shouldn't seek better enforcement rather than legalisation.
We obviously have differing views on the adverse effects of the drug. From my point of view, the worst effects reciprocated by cannabis include empowering illigitimate enterprise, subverting the rule of law, and adverse health effects. The 'dabbling' of which you speak is not, in itself, an adverse effect as far as I'm concerned. The cleaning of the drug is one enormous advantage of its legalisation, as the extraneous substances added to illegal cannabis are obviously a significant factor in associated health dificulties. What are the adverse effects to which you allude which outweigh these advantages?Ri na hEireann wrote: »I beg to differ. If made legal, I expect that alot more people will dabble in its use. Those who were discouraged by the illegality will now have no barrier to stop them trying it. Those who use it now are risking damaging themselves by buying an illegal substance with little information of what's in it in the first place. Why should we legislate for the substance to be freely available and therefore affecting more people? I know the substance will be regulated and the drug will be "cleaner" but its adverse effects will be more widespread with more users.
You know many people who have been changed by the use of illegal cannabis. There is a lack of empirical data informing us exactly what properties of the drug are so damaging, or indeed if any intrinsic element of the plant is at fault.Ri na hEireann wrote: »I have no need for a report to tell me what it can and can't do. I've made up my mind using primary evidence and I won't be swayed to the contrary. Call it speculative if you wish but I know many people who have been changed by the use of cannabis.
I readily accept that as a possibility, but again, I need to know what you're suggesting precisely before I reply.Ri na hEireann wrote: »Or perhaps a revamp of the current system is in order?
... Seriously?Maybe instead of spending our efforts trying to legalize pot, we should spend it trying to introduce execution for hard drug dealers. Time well spent.
I don't follow your logic on that one either, care to elaborate?On topic, an excellent point has been made that we would draw a lot of scumbags (think English gangsters) to our shores0 -
Ah now you's are running away with the plot. Tighter enforcment are you all crazy??...are you so up your own A***** that you can't stop and open your minds for a minute and stop supporting this granny state attitude. What it needs to be is reconized for being a natural part of a nature, a plant with great healing capacities not a big time drug. I have severe problems seeing lads thrown in jail for smoking a bit of grass, or a cancer patient being dragged through court because this governement won't give her the only thing that gets her feeling slightly normal for a few hours. Most of you talking about it here have never even toked a joint so of course you'll be talking like that, but while this attitude continues this topic will get nowhere except worst.1
Advertisement