Time to legalise some drugs?

gogglebok

dublindude wrote: »

The solution is to introduce draconian anti-drugs laws, for example, dealing is an automatic life sentence, etc.

Dealing aside, would you imprison people for taking drugs?

AARRRGH

gogglebok wrote: »

Dealing aside, would you imprison people for taking drugs?

No, I feel sorry for people who take drugs. I've never met someone in their 30's who is a "happy" drug taker - they're always running from something.

Teenagers and people in their early 20's are just being kids.

People who are caught taking drugs should be forced to get counselling.

rubadub

chickenhawk wrote: »

If someone wants to take cocaine they deserve the rat poison imo.
The same people will complain about crime on the streets and yet they are funding it.

I imagine in prohibition times people were saying the same thing about people who continued to buy illegal alcohol, "if somebody wants to drink whiskey they deserve the deadly methanol IMO". And I am sure that many illegal alcohol users also did complain about crime on the streets too. Many people are hypocritical about their drug use, when Cowen admitted smoking cannabis everybody was up in arms, yet in a interview Bertie said he never smoked it, but when asked if he took a pint he says "yes, plenty of those", and nobody bats an eyelid.

Research published in the medical journal The Lancet rates the most dangerous drugs (starting with the worst) as follows:
1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Street methadone
5. Alcohol
6. Ketamine
7. Benzodiazepines
8. Amphetamine
9. Tobacco
10. Buprenorphine
11. Cannabis
12. Solvents
13. 4-MTA
14. LSD
15. Methylphenidate
16. Anabolic steroids
17. GHB
18. Ecstasy
19. Alkyl nitrates
20. Khat

chickenhawk wrote: »

If marijuana and ecstasy were legalised I don't think the drug dealers would stop. The government would probably weaken the effects of these drugs (most drink is limited to 40%) and some people would want to have more of a hit so they buy the illegal stuff.

Do you know people who buy 95% illegal alcohol to have more of a hit?

Some use the faulty logic that high strength cannabis is worse for you, but you simply have to smoke less to achieve the same high, so inhale less smoke overall. You simply adjust your intake to suit strength, just like drinking whiskey rather than beer, you do not stick to the same 6 pints.

Of course dealers would still exist, just like people smuggle smokes and make poitin. But I imagine the vast amount of people would by in shops, just like smokes & beer. Most people do not want to have to buy contaminated drugs on the street, when prohibition was lifted in the US the illegal trade dropped dramatically, simple common sense would say why.

Some people also have weird ideas about illegal drugs, that it would be impossible for anybody to take them at low doses. Many people I know would take drugs at very low threshold doses, people have no trouble accepting that their mother could enjoy 1 glass of wine, but refuse to believe somebody could have a barely noticeable amount of cannabis. Users are portrayed as degenerate insatiable scum, if alcohol was illegal lots would probably presume all users were winos on the street, pissed all day, and would laugh at the notion of somebody drinking a single beer and stopping "all those alcoholics are mugging people for their next fix".

chickenhawk wrote: »

Have you never heard about anyone dieing after taking ecstasy

Yes, and in most cases it was not MDMA that killed them. The extremely low level of deaths from ecstasy for the massive user base is one of the reasons the drug is so attractive to many.

slipss

chickenhawk wrote: »

Dublinwriter. There is a difference between alcohol and heroine.

Sorry had to point that out, just wrecks my head.

FunkZ

slipss wrote: »

Sorry had to point that out, just wrecks my head.

Haha that's such an arsehole thing to do! Excellent :pac:

DublinWriter

chickenhawk wrote: »

Have you never heard about anyone dieing after taking ecstasy

Google 'Leah Betts'.

~Rebel~

DublinWriter wrote: »

Google 'Leah Betts'.

just did (well actualy did after Dudess post earlier)...it says she didn't die from ecstasy, she died from water intoxication...

An inquest determined that her death was actually not directly due to ecstasy consumption, but rather the large quantity of water she had consumed, apparently in observation of an advisory warning commonly given to ravers to drink water to avoid dehydration resulting from the exertion of dancing continuously for hours. Leah had been at home with friends and had not been dancing, yet consumed about 7 litres in less than 90 minutes, resulting in water intoxication and hyponatremia (low sodium levels; in this case due to the dilution of blood), which in turn led to serious swelling of the brain (cerebral oedema), irreparably damaging it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Betts

AARRRGH

Even if you don't die from ecstacy, it has been shown long term use causes dementia in rats.

It's not good for you.

Anyway the reason its illegal has as much to do with people "not being themselves" when they're on drugs than about how harmful it is.

No one thinks the current system is particularly good, but personally I prefer knowing the average person I meet around me isn't off their heads on something. We already have a ridiculous amount of selfishness/moronic behaviour/scumbags during sobriety.

/Non-drinker

DublinWriter

~Rebel~ wrote: »

just did (well actualy did after Dudess post earlier)...it says she didn't die from ecstasy, she died from water intoxication...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Betts

One of the side effects of E is a constant thirsty sensation. Leah Betts wouldn't have drunk the huge amount of water she did if it wasn't for the E she took.

It wasn't an isolated case, but her folks decided to make her death-bed pictures public in a hope of turning other kids away from E. It was also ironic considering her Dad was a retired Detective Sergeant from a Drugs Unit of the UK Police.

unreggd

They should ILLEGALISE behavior mod drugs

so then people will take them, thinkin they're rebels, then get a job!

Dudess

dublindude wrote: »

Even if you don't die from ecstacy, it has been shown long term use causes dementia in rats.

But I wonder whether a lot depends on the amount of ecstasy one uses. Plus, acid house was two decades ago and the forecasted pandemic of brain meltdown among today's late 30-somethings/40-somethings, who were in the grip of it, has not materialised.

Anyway the reason its illegal has as much to do with people "not being themselves" when they're on drugs than about how harmful it is.

Sorry to trot this one out again, but that could apply to alcohol.
I know people who go fuking deranged on excessive alcohol - they become aggressive, scary nut-jobs. By contrast, they're all loved-up on ecstasy.

No one thinks the current system is particularly good, but personally I prefer knowing the average person I meet around me isn't off their heads on something. We already have a ridiculous amount of selfishness/moronic behaviour/scumbags during sobriety.

There's no doubt excessive drug use can turn people into selfish, careless idiots, but (sorry) so can alcohol.

AARRRGH

Dudess wrote: »

But I wonder whether a lot depends on the amount of ecstasy one uses. Plus, acid house was two decades ago and the forecasted pandemic of brain meltdown among today's late 30-somethings/40-somethings, who were in the grip of it, has not materialised.

Yep, nothing may happen. We'll find out within our generation anyway.

Dudess wrote: »

Sorry to trot this one out again, but that could apply to alcohol.
I know people who go fuking deranged on excessive alcohol - they become aggressive, scary nut-jobs. By contrast, they're all loved-up on ecstasy.

People I know who take ecstasy never "only" take ecstasy. They always do some boozing or coke or ketamine as well.

I don't think ecstasy is an innocent drug whatsoever.

Dudess wrote: »

There's no doubt excessive drug use can turn people into selfish, careless idiots, but (sorry) so can alcohol.

I agree alcohol is ****ed, but we're talking about legalising other mind altering substances...

The sad reality is humans can't be trusted. Legalising drugs would result in chaos. Our society already can't handle alcohol. Just look at the Emergency Rooms every night of the week.

rubadub

dublindude wrote: »

No, I feel sorry for people who take drugs. I've never met someone in their 30's who is a "happy" drug taker - they're always running from something.

The majority of people 30+ in Ireland take recreational drugs, plenty seem happy to me and not "running" from anything. I have only met 1 person who never took recreational drugs.

dublindude wrote: »

Even if you don't die from ecstacy, it has been shown long term use causes dementia in rats.

It's not good for you.

Yeah in rats, big deal, if you were to ban all possibly harmful substances you would starve since the supermarkets would be bare, toast causes cancer. No need to even list all the harm the most widely used recreational drugs are, number 5 & 9 on the Lancets list, and they are legal!

DublinWriter wrote: »

One of the side effects of E is a constant thirsty sensation. Leah Betts wouldn't have drunk the huge amount of water she did if it wasn't for the E she took.

WRONG. Don't know where you pulled that one from. I presume you read some crap and misinterpreted it. People on E enjoy music and rhythmic movements and so dance, they dance so much they can become dehydrated, so they drink water to counter this. The propaganda and misinformation in the media completely overemphasises this point, this lead to people being overcautious about this dehydration, so they were force feeding themselves water, to the point where it became toxic. If the media were more truthful and less sensationalist then I expect she would still be alive and well.

I hope everybody realises that cocaine was once in widespread use in Dublin and was legal, it was available over the counter in pharmacies. Prohibition of drugs is a relatively new concept.

AARRRGH

rubadub wrote: »

The majority of people 30+ in Ireland take recreational drugs, plenty seem happy to me and not "running" from anything. I have only met 1 person who never took recreational drugs.

I've had the exact opposite experience and I know a lot of druggies. I'm no innocent bunny.

Btw, the majority of people 30+ in Ireland don't take recreational drugs.

rubadub wrote: »

Yeah in rats, big deal, if you were to ban all possibly harmful substances you would starve since the supermarkets would be bare, toast causes cancer. No need to even list all the harm the most widely used recreational drugs are, number 5 & 9 on the Lancets list, and they are legal!

Oh yeah, I agree, but we're talking about illegal recreational drugs. We're not having a general "what things in life are bad for you" conversation.

LolaLuv

I'm for a moderate legalization of drugs (I'm American, so it will never, ever happen here), but I think legalization would have both negatives and positives. While legalizing substances leads to greater control, which can also mean greater safety, one wonders if it would also lead to greater amounts of addiction? Of course, the same logic can be applied to alcohol. Some states in the U.S. regulate the amount of certain cold meds an individual can purchase each week, since they can be used to make meth. I wonder if a similar idea could be applied to other abused substances, such as alcohol and coke, etc. I really think the bottom line is that people are going to abuse substances whether they're legal or not, maybe legalization would at least make the dangers of overdosing decrease.

AARRRGH

PillyPen wrote:

While legalizing substances leads to greater control, which can also mean greater safety, one wonders if it would also lead to greater amounts of addiction?

I think if I knew I could get Government supplied recreational drugs which were guaranteed to be quality, I'd be more likely to take recreational drugs.

I'm sure a lot of people would have a similar attitude as me.

More people taking drugs can only result in more addicts.

LolaLuv

Most likely, but it also might mean less deaths for recreational users because the drugs would be safer.

AARRRGH

PillyPen wrote: »

Most likely, but it also might mean less deaths for recreational users because the drugs would be safer.

Yep, maybe, but very few people die from recreational drug use.

rubadub

dublindude wrote: »

I've had the exact opposite experience and I know a lot of druggies. I'm no innocent bunny.

Btw, the majority of people 30+ in Ireland don't take recreational drugs.

The vast majority of people I know drink, or do you not consider alcohol a recreational drug? what would you consider it? Is your issue more about the harm of drugs on the person or society or are you more worried about legal issues. You brand people "druggies" is that what you would call nicotine addicts and alcohol addicts, or does the legality of the drug make such a difference to your opinion of the person. If somebody illegally enjoys liquer from a bottle which was illegally smuggled into the country are they suddenly a "druggie".

Like I said prohibition of drugs is a relatively recent occurrence, I think it bizarre that nothing was learned from the US alcohol prohibition debacle.

dublindude wrote: »

More people taking drugs can only result in more addicts..

Not necessarily. I think if all drugs were legal then their would be far less misinformation about them, e.g. people thinking alcohol is grand since it is legal, "if it was harmful it would be illegal, right?" Some people presume these uncontrollable degenerate junkies will take loads of drugs on top of the current 8 pints- doesn't happen. It would be like banning mcdonalds from introducing a lower fat burger to tackle obesity, the reason being, "jesus, they are fat enough on the big macs, they will eat these on top of them too."

Since you do not drink etc I presume you do not have a strong appetite/desire for experiencing altered states of conciousness, many people do, it is a simple human drive. Many people only have alcohol as this outlet, demonising people who choose to take different mind altering substances, you often see comments like "sure we have drink, surely thats enough", why should there only be one drug of choice, no. 5 on that list. Many take cannabis as a alternative to drink which they consider to be less harmful to themselves.

Research published in the medical journal The Lancet rates the most dangerous drugs (starting with the worst) as follows:
1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Street methadone
5. Alcohol
6. Ketamine
7. Benzodiazepines
8. Amphetamine
9. Tobacco
10. Buprenorphine
11. Cannabis
12. Solvents
13. 4-MTA
14. LSD
15. Methylphenidate
16. Anabolic steroids
17. GHB
18. Ecstasy
19. Alkyl nitrates
20. Khat

A writer Jonathan Ott has some good discussion on why drugs became illegal, and asks a question "Why Can't We Cope with Ecstasy and Euphoria?" seems people without a high drive for experiencing altered states are afraid of them for some reason, and think nobody else should have the right to enjoy them

AARRRGH

rubadub wrote: »

The vast majority of people I know drink, or do you not consider alcohol a recreational drug?

FFS, don't be so childish. We're talking about illegal recreational drugs.

You're not going to win this argument on some language technicality.

Obviously I know most people 30+ drink alcohol.

As you know, we have a serious alcohol problem in Ireland.

rubadub wrote: »

what would you consider it?

I consider it a recreational drug.

We are talking about illegal recreational drugs.

rubadub wrote: »

Is your issue more about the harm of drugs on the person or society or are you more worried about legal issues.

I worry about society.

I have no problem with people doing whatever they want to themselves.

rubadub wrote: »

You brand people "druggies" is that what you would call nicotine addicts and alcohol addicts, or does the legality of the drug make such a difference to your opinion of the person. If somebody illegally enjoys liquer from a bottle which was illegally smuggled into the country are they suddenly a "druggie".

Again, this topic is about illegal recreational drugs in Ireland.

Heroin, ecstasy, etc.

I would have thought that was pretty obvious.

rubadub wrote: »

Like I said prohibition of drugs is a relatively recent occurrence, I think it bizarre that nothing was learned from the US alcohol prohibition debacle.

You see, this is the difference between you and me.

You are imagining a group of boards.ie nerds innocently taking a few pills or smoking some weed.

Unfortunately the vast majority of Ireland are not responsible nerds.

You need to look at the bigger picture.

Your view of the problem is very simplistic.

rubadub wrote: »

Since you do not drink etc I presume you do not have a strong appetite/desire for experiencing altered states of conciousness, many people do, it is a simple human drive.

I like getting off my head.

I choose not to as I am ambitious and I find hangovers, etc. are not good for my motivation.

I know there are such things as "functioning alcoholics" but they are rare.

The list of harmful drugs you posted... I'm aware of that list. I made a post about it on boards.ie about a year ago. Yes, I'm aware some drugs are worse than others.

chickenhawk

Dudess wrote: »

One case - Leah Betts. The coroner ruled her death was actually due to too much water consumption.
I don't mean to diss you but I think you've been taken in a bit much by moral guardian types. It is possible to do drugs recreationally and be responsible about it - and I have never touched ecstasy/MDMA, cocaine or speed so I'm not speaking from personal bias. The most I'd do is a few drags off a spliff once in a blue moon. I could count on one hand those who have a problem now, and I'd know far more people with a drink problem.

First of all saying 'I don't mean to diss you but' is like saying 'I'm not racist but...'

I've tried splifs and cocaine (once) in college and I didn't see the attraction. So I am not been taken in a bit by moral guardian types. Maybe you should not try so hard to go against moral guardian types.

I've heard of more than one person who has died from ecstasy and saying it was the over consumption of water that killed them is stupid. That is like saying the person did not die in a car crash but going through the windscreen and hitting a tree, after the car came to a sudden stop, killed them.

Of course you know more people who have alcohol problems because it is more widely available. If drugs were consumed to the same extent I'm sure there would be a higher proportion of problems.

rubadub

dublindude wrote: »

FFS, don't be so childish. We're talking about illegal recreational drugs.

Many are discussing alcohol as a valid recreational drug, the most abused recreational drug out there. I find this hand on the ears "la, la, la, I can't hear you" attitude to be childish, it is often used in threads here when arguing about drugs, can't come up with a decent argument so can only manage, "shut up, you cannot mention alcohol".

dublindude wrote: »

Obviously I know most people 30+ drink alcohol....

I consider it a recreational drug....

I feel sorry for people who take drugs. I've never met someone in their 30's who is a "happy" drug taker - they're always running from something.

That was what I was questioning before, you consider it a drug, and never met a "happy" drug taker, seemed a very odd statement to me as it includes all drinkers.
As I said before many people refuse to accept people can take illegal drugs in low controlled doses. Maybe your definition of "drug taker" is not simply anybody who takes drugs. e.g. I have a mate who might smoke a few puffs on a joint once or twice a year, others might take a half E once a year.

Unfortunately the vast majority of Ireland are not responsible nerds.

A lot of people do take low doses of recreational drugs, I know many who do. Point again is people see a lad gurning in the pub "oh, hes on E" etc, many do not realise the extent of drug use, people around you in the pub could be mildly intoxicated and no-one is any the wiser. Then they see somebody totally off their nut and think all users will be like this. Like I mentioned if alcohol was illegal people would think 1 sip and you turn into an addicted wino, robbing for your next fix.

I choose not to as I am ambitious and I find hangovers, etc. are not good for my motivation.

I know there are such things as "functioning alcoholics" but they are rare.

And there are many functioning heroin addicts too, doctors who self prescribe etc. Many cocaine users do not use to excess, depends on your definition of "alcoholic" too. The bit about hangovers is interesting, personally if my drugs of choice were also legal my alcohol consumption would drop dramatically, it would be socially and legally acceptable, and as you said before the quality would be more controlled. I would consider the drugs I do take to be less harmful than alcohol on my system, even with the risk of contamination.

Some peoples ambition is simply to enjoy themselves, they may have a high desire to experience altered states so would sacrifice other things, perhaps monetary, in favour of experiencing them.

Economic reasons play a huge part in drug prohibition, the US fearing people turning into the "lazy mexicans" they saw smoking pot. Opening hours in pubs were originally brought in to ensure workers would be OK during the war effort.

AARRRGH

rubadub wrote: »

Many are discussing alcohol as a valid recreational drug, the most abused recreational drug out there. I find this hand on the ears "la, la, la, I can't hear you" attitude to be childish, it is often used in threads here when arguing about drugs, can't come up with a decent argument so can only manage, "shut up, you cannot mention alcohol".

You think you're being clever, but you're not. Your trick of saying "recreational drugs" when discussing illegal recreational drugs and then claiming you were talking about alcohol is playground stuff.

If you want to talk about alcohol, use the word "alcohol". Don't try to blur things by lumping it into the same group as illegal drugs.

Everyone knows alcohol is a problem. No one is claiming it isn't.

The difference is alcohol is legal. Is it hypocritical that alcohol is legal? Probably.

rubadub wrote: »

That was what I was questioning before, you consider it a drug, and never met a "happy" drug taker, seemed a very odd statement to me as it includes all drinkers.

Surely it is obvious this topic is about illegal drugs.

When someone says "drugs" they are not talking about Viagra.

Seriously, your argument technique is extremely childish and basic.

rubadub wrote: »

As I said before many people refuse to accept people can take illegal drugs in low controlled doses. Maybe your definition of "drug taker" is not simply anybody who takes drugs. e.g. I have a mate who might smoke a few puffs on a joint once or twice a year, others might take a half E once a year.

I'm completely aware everyone does everything at different levels.

The problem, again, is that the majority of Irish people are not responsible. I wish they were, but they're not. You cannot give these people legal access to mind altering drugs. There would be chaos.

We already cannot cope with our alcohol problem.

Legalising drugs would be a disaster.

rubadub

chickenhawk wrote: »

I've heard of more than one person who has died from ecstasy and saying it was the over consumption of water that killed them is stupid. That is like saying the person did not die in a car crash but going through the windscreen and hitting a tree, after the car came to a sudden stop, killed them.

And the majority of people know the risks with alcohol and driving. Many are still oblivious to the fact that it was water intoxication that killed these people and you still see people chugging down unnecessary amounts of water. The media are hugely to blame, it was their sensationalistic crap which lead people to force feed themselves water to the point of death. The media were pretty quiet about the fact it was water that killed them, they really should have had lots of warnings, but they probably risked blaming themselves for the death, felt guilty so just kept quiet.

dublindude wrote: »

You think you're being clever, but you're not. Your trick of saying "recreational drugs" when discussing illegal recreational drugs and then claiming you were talking about alcohol is playground stuff.

There is no trick about it, I and many others include it in recreational drugs, and many have been talking about alcohol already here. You yourself already said it is a recreational drug. I really do not see why you are so hung up on legality. Some ignorantly believe all legal drugs are harmless, and all illegal ones are fine, otherwise they would be legal, and vice versa. I don't think you have that view so wonder why you would not include it in "drugs". Many are so set in their traditions that they never take the time to step back and look at the drug issue fundamentally, alcohol was always legal, and mammy drinks it so it is fine, and unquestionable, yet have crazily hypocritical views on "druggies".

Psilocybin bearing mushrooms were legal until recently, were they fine before that, and suddenly "bad" overnight? If alcohol was banned tomorrow would you then take your hands off your ears.

I feel sorry for people who take drugs. I've never met someone in their 30's who is a "happy" drug taker - they're always running from something.

I still wonder about this, you only worry about illegal drugs. Do you know any people who would have a spliff only once or twice a year? are they running from something? or is your definition of "drug taker" similar to what you would call an alcoholic, in which case I find it easier to believe you know no happy drug addicts. There are probably people you know who are "happy" and take illegal drugs without your knowledge, if I worked in your place and I heard your views then I would not bother telling you what I get up to, for several reasons.

dublindude wrote: »

If you want to talk about alcohol, use the word "alcohol". Don't try to blur things by lumping it into the same group as illegal drugs.

I really think it should be included, it is the most widely abused drug, and a perfect example for discussion, i.e. it was legal in the US, prohibited and made legal again. Why was nothing learned from this?

Legalising drugs would be a disaster.

Prohibiting them is even more of a disaster.

chickenhawk

rubadub wrote: »

And the majority of people know the risks with alcohol and driving.

But yet most are unaware about the effects of drug driving. I'm sure if some drugs were legalised there would be an information campaign. Would it work?....probably not. So if drugs were legalised then the death rate on our roads would probably go up.

portomar

there is almost as much hysteria about alcohol as there is about drugs. both is rubbish, nobody i know has a problem with alcohol, i have known alcoholics while working in a pub, but thats it. obviously you see junkies/general scum falling around the place, who are obviously what you may call "problem users" so while im not denying its there are people with alcohol problems, i would wager that most people who drink would go through life with no other problems related to alcohol use except for the health effects, which could be said of salt or cholesterol too. the only restriction put on alcohol should be the sale to minors. i also think that the same should be applied to drugs, if you decided to ban alcohol, a certain amount of people would just turn to varnish or glue, you name it. most people ARE responsible, and should be allowed do what they like for the most part.

dya remember when binge drinking had a different name? it was DRINKING!

Tha Gopher

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How

why would anyone buy cocaine cut with rat poison off the local scumbag if they could go to a government run shop and buy top quality stuff?

Rat poison?

Aye, people dropping dead from poisoned cocaine and it being in the papers is a great way to keep your business going. FFS.

The only similiar case I heard of was years ago when a guy who badly needed lawyers fees for his impending trial ordered his son to sell contaminated heroin he had previously buried.


With the Morrocans clamping down heavily on hash and the majority of weed available here being so weak it is not worth buying, the government has no incentive to legalise. The stuff will either be gone within 10-15 years, will be too expensive due to the distace travelled or, in the case of weed, will be of such poor quality nobody will bother buying it.

Cocaine has taken a massive dive in popularity in Dublin compared to its height in 2004 and 2005, it was litreally everywhere. Again, cost and poor quality product meant the trade effectively killed itself.

Some might say they will increase the quality of weed by not mashing so much herbs and sh1te into it.
Cocaine use nosedived. Doesnt mean they cut the amount of mixing of that sh1t did it? Greed always wins out.

Believe it or not, slowly but surely prohibition is working. Even the Dutch will probably tighten their laws within the next few years because, as happened in England with the recent reclassification, it is causing more trouble than it is worth (the Dutch hate the English more than even the Germans. Mainly because they come over for smoking holidays and proceed to also get blind pissed or generally fcuked on coke and the rest).

portomar

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Rat poison?



Believe it or not, slowly but surely prohibition is working.

gonna go with not. certainly hope it never works

AARRRGH

rubadub wrote: »

Prohibiting them is even more of a disaster.

Right, I'm out. This is pointless. You are unable to see the bigger picture.

Dudess

chickenhawk wrote: »

First of all saying 'I don't mean to diss you but' is like saying 'I'm not racist but...'

Oh for god's sake. That analogy would be of some use if I preceded an insult with "I don't mean to diss you". I only said it to show that by disagreeing with you, I wasn't trying to belittle you. I shouldn't have bothered.

I've heard of more than one person who has died from ecstasy and saying it was the over consumption of water that killed them is stupid. That is like saying the person did not die in a car crash but going through the windscreen and hitting a tree, after the car came to a sudden stop, killed them.

Those were the coroner's findings in that particular case - over-hydration killed her, not the ecstasy. How is it stupid to state that, when that is what killed her?
I really don't know of other cases of ecstasy-related deaths, apart from one. It was the person's first time and they were stupid enough to take five Es. Considering the hundreds of thousands of ecstasy users every weekend between here and Britain, it looks like the risk of death is pretty minimal.

Tha Gopher

portomar wrote: »

gonna go with not. certainly hope it never works

The government will never in a million years manage to make Ireland a drug free zone. No country ever will. Even in Dubai, where a forgotten single rolled spliff in a Bitish DJs luggage got him four years, you can bet there are people risking it all smoking a few doobs tonight. However you can also bet the stuff is very hard to find given the penalties.

However, with the Morrocans making a good job of their attempt to all but end hash farming by 2012, the dealers selling joke weed and Ireland being too far away to make the importing of Afghan and Lebanese hash on a large scale affordable, the government will eventually win.

brianthebard

Tha Gopher wrote: »

The government will never in a million years manage to make Ireland a drug free zone. No country ever will. Even in Dubai, where a forgotten single rolled spliff in a Bitish DJs luggage got him four years, you can bet there are people risking it all smoking a few doobs tonight. However you can also bet the stuff is very hard to find given the penalties.

However, with the Morrocans making a good job of their attempt to all but end hash farming by 2012, the dealers selling joke weed and Ireland being too far away to make the importing of Afghan and Lebanese hash on a large scale affordable, the government will eventually win.

how come columbian coke and afghan heroin can be profitable,but not weed?Prohibition has been in force a century give or take in britain and has had little impact,how do you account for that?

chickenhawk

Dudess wrote: »

I wasn't trying to belittle you. I shouldn't have bothered.

Those were the coroner's findings in that particular case - over-hydration killed her, not the ecstasy. How is it stupid to state that, when that is what killed her?.

You are right you shouldn't have said it. If you had a good argument you wouldn't have to say it.

The coroners job is to find out the specific cause of death. If a person is stabbed five times but dies of a heart attack before bleeding out then the coroner will state that the cause of death is by heart attack. Everyone knows that the stabbing caused the heart attack but that is technically not the cause of death.

If that person hadn't taken ecstasy then they most likely wouldn't have drank so much water and killed themselves. So stating that the drugs had nothing to do with it is just turning your back on the real cause.

Dudess

chickenhawk wrote: »

You are right you shouldn't have said it. If you had a good argument you wouldn't have to say it.

No, I said it because you seem to be taking it personally on this thread when someone has a difference of opinion to yours.
I believe I have a good argument - that fuk all people die from recreational drug use. According to you they do, and yet you can't provide examples.

nibble

Just had to post in this thread!, even if it will just be another big ultimately pointless argument. I'd see myself as a pretty passionate person relating to this, always have to argue when it comes up.

Anyway I'd have to say the chart listing how dangerous various drugs are above is frankly, bs. How could you even meaningfully rank them like that, whats it based on; instant death after ingesting x or y? And besides how could methadone and bupe be ranked differently to H?
All opioid's are essentially equal from a health perspective, Yes that's right that codeine containing box of nurofen plus is just as "evil" (to your physical helath) as a bag of skag .

Heroin, assuming no nasty cuts in it or that you don't get hepatitis from shooting it is basically harmless. Now that's not considering the mental health issues that go with addiction and dependence etc. Nor am I saying that doing H or any drug is a "good" thing but it's also not a "bad" thing, it's just a part of life.

The basic crux of most blanket drug legalistation arguments is that people have free will, and that they will choose to do as they wish when making decisions concerning themselves. And if they wish to experience an altered state then they will and they should legally be able to do so since it is an issue pertaining to themselves and not directly anyone else.

AND anyone still pretending that alcohol is different just because of its legal status is kidding themselves. Maybe so they don't feel like those poor dirty "drug" addicts while downing their pints.

chickenhawk

Dudess wrote: »

No, I said it because you seem to be taking it personally on this thread when someone has a difference of opinion to yours.
I believe I have a good argument - that fuk all people die from recreational drug use. According to you they do, and yet you can't provide examples.

I don't take it personally I just like to get my point across.

And you are right I have no proof. I'm sure I could look it up on the net and find it. But I don't care. If people want to take drugs let them. If they die I just won't give a sh1t. On the same note if someone dies from alcohol will I give a sh1t?.....no.

Dudess

:rolleyes: Well then why would you care about drugs being made legal so, if you don't give a sh1t about them killing/harming those useless, no-good, drug-taking villains?

I agree with you nibble. There's such a thing as personal responsibility. It's up to us to be sensible about what we consume.

And yes, alcohol is a drug, and a potentially dangerous one at that. The legal thing is always resorted to - legal or illegal, it's irrelevant when the focus is on the potential damage something can do. And too much alcohol can do a LOT.

AARRRGH

There is an article in the Sunday Times today about 1/4 of all heart attack victims (who are under 30) in the UK being the result of cocaine.

Dudess

But heart attacks under 30 are so very rare, a large number of them are bound to be caused by drug misuse.

AARRRGH

Dudess wrote: »

But heart attacks under 30 are so very rare, a large number of them are bound to be caused by drug misuse.

Yeah that's my point.

Imagine how many people would be having heart attacks if cocaine was legalised and commonly used.

Dudess

But it's up to them not to be stupid and irresponsible if they decide to use it.

hussey

Have a read of this Book about a satirical approach of legalising drugs.

flanum

too many pages to bothered reading. when the op is talking about drugs... er caffeine/nicotine/alcohol/paracetemol/adrenaline??? be a bit more specific on yer opening post otherwise its not worth reading!

nibble

^^
You can do perfectly legitimate surveys in a tactful way to give just about an result you wish. But yes of course chronic cocaine use is not good for you, its a strong stimulant and powerful local anaesthetic, shooting it is just asking for trouble if it becomes a regular thing. If You think coke is bad just wait until meth penetrates Ireland...

Just to touch on something rubadub said, prohibition is indeed a pretty recent phenomena, the last hundred or so years really. I mean opium and coca goes even further back than alcohol, we're talking predating the invention of the wheel! Was there this kind of uproar then? Did politicians penetrate and legislate every aspect of life? No there wasn't, and did society crumble into chaos? Once again, no.

The drive to get high is as human as sex and always will exist, no matter how much the "Nanny State" tries to curb it.

Sam Vimes

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Rat poison?

Aye, people dropping dead from poisoned cocaine and it being in the papers is a great way to keep your business going. FFS.

i was using hyperbole

Tha Gopher wrote: »

With the Morrocans clamping down heavily on hash and the majority of weed available here being so weak it is not worth buying, the government has no incentive to legalise. The stuff will either be gone within 10-15 years, will be too expensive due to the distace travelled or, in the case of weed, will be of such poor quality nobody will bother buying it.

Cocaine has taken a massive dive in popularity in Dublin compared to its height in 2004 and 2005, it was litreally everywhere. Again, cost and poor quality product meant the trade effectively killed itself.

Some might say they will increase the quality of weed by not mashing so much herbs and sh1te into it.
Cocaine use nosedived. Doesnt mean they cut the amount of mixing of that sh1t did it? Greed always wins out.

you trotted out this argument a few months ago. It was ridiculous then and it's ridiculous now. I went through the whole argument point by point the last time but is cba this time. I'll just say that hash has been smoked since 10,000bc according to wikipedia so if you're suggesting that something is going to fundamentally change in ireland to make it the first country to eliminate hash for 12,000 years you haven't a clue what you're talking about

dublindude wrote: »

No. Having a nation of druggies is not the solution.

The solution is to introduce draconian anti-drugs laws, for example, dealing is an automatic life sentence, etc.

The problem is we are too soft on crime in this country. We should take the scum off the streets permanently. I'd be willing to pay more tax to accomplish that.

as i already mentioned in this thread, there are countries that execute drug dealers and those countries still have drugs problems so your statement is provably wrong

dublindude wrote: »

No one thinks the current system is particularly good, but personally I prefer knowing the average person I meet around me isn't off their heads on something. We already have a ridiculous amount of selfishness/moronic behaviour/scumbags during sobriety.

That assumes there is some correlation between the chances of someone taking a drug and it being legal. Since i could make one phone call and have a mountain of pills in front of me in an hour, i don't believe any such correlation exists

dublindude wrote: »

You think you're being clever, but you're not. Your trick of saying "recreational drugs" when discussing illegal recreational drugs and then claiming you were talking about alcohol is playground stuff.

If you want to talk about alcohol, use the word "alcohol". Don't try to blur things by lumping it into the same group as illegal drugs.

Everyone knows alcohol is a problem. No one is claiming it isn't.

The difference is alcohol is legal. Is it hypocritical that alcohol is legal? Probably.

Is there some particular genetic marker in illegal drugs? The "illegal genes" perhaps? Or is it that which drugs were made legal and which weren't was almost arbitrarily chosen and lumping in the two most commonly abused drugs is perfectly legitimate?

you need to get out of this blinkered state of mind where illegal=bad and actually think about why they're illegal and what the effects of legalising them will be. These weren't some wise sages with some inspired knowledge who banned them, they were flawed human beings and it's entirely possible they were wrong

personally what i think would happen is:
there would be an initial jump in use when they were made legal. Then maybe more people would become regular users but maybe not. I think that anyone who's inclined to become addicted isn't really bothered about the legality and is already using. Whether drugs are legal or not, kids have to be raised and bills have to be paid. Society isn't just going to collapse because you can get coke in an off license, rather than going to the house of the dealer who lives next door to the off license

most importantly, the drug dealers would lose the vast majority of their revenue. They would move onto something else of course but nothing makes them as much money as drugs.

the government would print leaflets advising people on correct dosages and monitor the quality etc so drug related deaths would plummet since the vast majority are from ill educated mis use.

the government would save billions in protecting the borders and imprisoning users, and make money from tax

but no one wants to hear all this because they had "drugs are bad" beaten into them and refuse to consider anything to the contrary or even question the conventional wisdom despite the fact that it's been proven worldwide that the conventional approach has zero impact on drug use

AARRRGH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

as i already mentioned in this thread, there are countries that execute drug dealers and those countries still have drugs problems so your statement is provably wrong

It is unfair to compare drug producing countries with Ireland.

It is unfair to compare third world countries with Ireland.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you need to get out of this blinkered state of mind where illegal=bad and actually think about why they're illegal and what the effects of legalising them will be.

Eh... I have done this.

I don't just think "oh it's illegal so it must be bad".

My opinion is based on the fact that the majority of Irish people are irresponsible and uneducated and I do not want those sorts of people having free access to mind altering drugs. Our system could not handle this.

I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, but I'm not worried about the nerdy boards user taking drugs and then going home to play World of Warcraft.

I'm not worried about you or rubadub or dudess.

I'm worried about the hundreds of thousands of monkeys on our street who are already out of control due to booze. Adding coke and pills and heroiin into the mix won't help matters.

But you know what? Hard drugs will never be legalised, so this entire conversation is pointless.

nibble

dublindude wrote: »

My opinion is based on the fact that the majority of Irish people are irresponsible and uneducated and I do not want those sorts of people having free access to mind altering drugs. Our system could not handle this.

They already essentially have free access, and maybe a nice fat shot of H would calm some of these "people" down. I don't think most would be doing much robbery and raping with reckless abandon while nodded out on opiates..

dublindude wrote: »

I'm worried about the hundreds of thousands of monkeys on our street who are already out of control due to booze. Adding coke and pills and heroiin into the mix won't help matters.

Fair enough I suppose but don't use monkeys in a derogatory way, after all were nothing but a load of mutated monkeys anyway. This is getting away from the point but we are just animals ffs, I mean we let cats have their catnip why cant we have ours? Ok, Ok that's a little bit of a skewed way of putting it but it is basically the truth.

dublindude wrote: »

But you know what? Hard drugs will never be legalised, so this entire conversation is pointless.

True, not in our lifetime anyway but hey it's fun to argue!

AARRRGH

nibble wrote: »

True, not in our lifetime anyway but hey it's fun to argue!

It sure is

/Sorry monkeys

flanum

Anybody got any skins?

j1smithy

Well one way to cut down on coke use would to force anyone who was found with the drug, be forced to take the coke vaccine.

Heres the thread on it:
http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055307792