Time to legalise some drugs?

LolaLuv

Dudess wrote: »

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

That's exactly the point; no one's willing to be accountable for their own actions anymore. Sure, some people have a natural predilection for addiction, but people are ultimately responsible for their own health. If everyone's so obsessed with taking care of others and keeping bad things illegal, then not only should alcohol and nicotine be banned, but so should greasy foods. But just as we allow people to assume responsibility for their dietary choices, so should they assume responsibility for their recreational drug use.

rossie1977

PillyPen wrote: »

That's exactly the point; no one's willing to be accountable for their own actions anymore. Sure, some people have a natural predilection for addiction, but people are ultimately responsible for their own health. If everyone's so obsessed with taking care of others and keeping bad things illegal, then not only should alcohol and nicotine be banned, but so should greasy foods. But just as we allow people to assume responsibility for their dietary choices, so should they assume responsibility for their recreational drug use.

or like escape from la ban smoking, alcohol, red meat, owning firearms, profanity, non-Christian religions (including atheism), and non-marital sex

Sam Vimes

dublindude wrote: »

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.

you said that draconian measures are what's needed. I said that many countries already have draconian measures and they haven't worked. It's hardly apples and oranges

dublindude wrote: »

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

what i said was in response to you saying "the difference with alcohol is that it's legal..." as if there's some massive difference between legal drugs and illegal ones anywhere except in the heads of people who are blinkered in their view on drugs

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.

sorry mate too late. Anybody who wants to get drugs in this country can with absolutely no hassle. In fact if they were legal it might even be slightly more difficult to get them because dealers don't ask for id, they push drugs on kids.

your point only makes sense if prohibition has some measurable impact on the availability of drugs. It has been shown the world over that it doesn't

also, who are you to decide what these people can and can't do? You might think they're irresponsible and uneducated but they're adults and they should have the right to do whatever they want regardless of whether you think they should or not. Some people go to mc donalds every day of their lives and end up leaving a 30 stone corpse. Should fast food be banned because some people are too irresponsible to eat it in moderation?

anything can be bad in the hands of stupid people, be it a burger or a knife or a car or a joint. You can't ban everything that's dangerous in the hands of stupid people because that would entail banning every single thing on the planet

Irishcrx

This conversation is had once a month. Yes soft drgus such as weed should be so they can focus on hard drugs, I think the US approach to marijuana has been very well done and is working very well, others should follow...we can hope...

Tigger

dublindude wrote: »

snippity


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.

what if we make drugs only legal in limerick

and we enforce the carrying of hatchets

and ban defibrulators

AARRRGH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you said that draconian measures are what's needed. I said that many countries already have draconian measures and they haven't worked. It's hardly apples and oranges

Yes, but you are saying draconian measures don't work, and your example is a drug producing country with a third world population.

We have nothing in common with drug producing third world countries.

Your comparison is fud.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

sorry mate too late. Anybody who wants to get drugs in this country can with absolutely no hassle. In fact if they were legal it might even be slightly more difficult to get them because dealers don't ask for id, they push drugs on kids.

This is pointless.

If you really believe having free access to drugs will make it more difficult for kids to get their hands on them, well then there is no point in me continuing this conversation.

Think about what you're saying.

Your points make no sense.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

your point only makes sense if prohibition has some measurable impact on the availability of drugs. It has been shown the world over that it doesn't

I don't think there is an easy solution to the drug problem. It'll never go away, whatever the Government does.

But I think it makes more sense to severly punish drug dealers instead of legalising hard drugs.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

also, who are you to decide what these people can and can't do? You might think they're irresponsible and uneducated but they're adults and they should have the right to do whatever they want regardless of whether you think they should or not. Some people go to mc donalds every day of their lives and end up leaving a 30 stone corpse. Should fast food be banned because some people are too irresponsible to eat it in moderation?

Again, apples and oranges.

I have no problem with people destroying their lives if they want to.

The problem with drugs is they affect the entire community.

You are only thinking about what's best for you. You need to look beyond yourself and see how the actions of people affect those around them.

There are loads of things I would love to be able to do, but I choose not to do them because they would be bad for society or those around me.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

anything can be bad in the hands of stupid people, be it a burger or a knife or a car or a joint. You can't ban everything that's dangerous in the hands of stupid people because that would entail banning every single thing on the planet

Should we legalise the carrying of knives?
Should we legalise the carrying of guns?

Of course we shouldn't. It makes sense to restrict things which are bad for society.

The Government has no interest in banning everything. They try to get some sort of balance, e.g. alcohol is legal.

Dragan

c - 13 wrote: »

Because no one in the country have ever been mugged by a junkie so they can get their next fix ?

And drink makes husbands beat wives and kids every weekend. ( default reply for these threads ).

These things are actions of the person at the end of the day. Why do these threads always boil down to the same tired rubbish?

AARRRGH

Dragan wrote: »

And drink makes husbands beat wives and kids every weekend. ( default reply for these threads ).

These things are actions of the person at the end of the day. Why do these threads always boil down to the same tired rubbish?

So two wrongs make a right?

No one is disputing alcohol causes all kinds of problems.

Do we really want to introduce more problems?

Dragan

dublindude wrote: »

So two wrongs make a right?

No one is disputing alcohol causes all kinds of problems.

Do we really want to introduce more problems?

No. I'm just saying people always trot out the same tired bull**** in these threads. You have two groups, one who thinks drugs should be legalised and one who things they shouldn't.

Normally both sides operate arguments completely devoid of logic or reason aiming only to hammer home why they feel they are right.

Are there advantages to legalising certain drug types for public availability? Yes....there are.

Are there disadvantages? Yes, there are.

The simple fact is that alchohol is a more destructive, more addictive substances than many of the illegal drugs that people use.

And yet the world is not on fire, people are not looting and rioting in the streets despite having access to alchohol on a practically 24/7 basis.

Do you know why? Because people are actually clever and more responsible as a whole than we normally give them credit for. So, we can handle legalised alchohol no problem, but legalising something like cannibas would be the end of society.

It makes no sense to me tbh.

Terry

Dudess wrote: »

That's a ridiculous statement - wishing illness or death on someone because they might try cocaine once out of curiosity.

Although I doubt drugs would be cut with harmful substances - why would a dealer try to kill potential customers?

Legalisation of drugs ftw - after that, personal responsibility.

Then you would be extremely naive.
These are people who have no problem shooting their rivals, friends and customers.
Do you remember the recent damp cocaine thing?
Have you ever heard of contaminated heroin being sold?

These are people who prey on the weaknesses of others for their own profit.
They really don't give a damn about their customers because there will always be some jackass looking to buy.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

theres 2 issue's from this imo.
1) Alcohol is legal and I would imagine spawns far more problems then drugs.
2) Freedom of choice. People who take drugs aren't forced to (well in most cases id imagine!), they choose to. Anything in excess is a bad thing, drink, drugs, food. I just think more education about the drugs and how you should use them If you're going to would go a lot further then scare-mongering, whether they become legalised or not.

1) There is an alcohol problem in this country from people drinking too much. Do you think that legalising other drugs will take away from this? Do you think that people will no over indulge in other drugs if they were legalised? If so, then I believe you to be very naive.

2) Freedom of choice?
Not when the addiction kicks in.
Ever seen how someone addicted to coke or heroin reacts when they can't get their fix?
I have and it's not a very nice thing.
Take the stigma away from these drugs by legalising them and all you will get is more addicts (over 10,000 heroin addicts in Dublin at the moment.) and more problems. Do you honestly think that legalised coke or heroin will make things better?
It won't. People will overdo these drugs. They will drive while on these drugs. They will commit crimes while on these drugs (read the court pages and look at how many people use the defense that they were not of sound mind because they are an alcoholic. They get away with it then because alcohol is legal). They will get addicted to these drugs and steal to pay for them. Don't think that they won't.

Dudess wrote: »

dublindude wrote: »

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.

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

Indeed.
Legalise it and watch those numbers soar even higher.

Illegal drugs are nature's way of weeding out the stupid people in society.

chickenhawk

Irishcrx wrote: »

This conversation is had once a month. Yes soft drgus such as weed should be so they can focus on hard drugs, I think the US approach to marijuana has been very well done and is working very well, others should follow...we can hope...

You are joking right?

Most large companies in America do a drugs test before you can start and randomly during the year. It has happened to me and I think the legalisation of some drugs would bring random drug testing by companies into Ireland. It's an extra hassle I don't need.

Dragan

Terry wrote: »

Illegal drugs are nature's way of weeding out the stupid people in society.

Just wondering why you always sit on the Class A end of this argument Terry? Do you see any place for some of the softer drugs being legalised?

Tigger

cannabis is every bit as much of an issue as "hard drugs" alsohnol is too but thats a different story

i'm pro the end of prohibition but i would also condone the use of random drug tests on drivers and by employers

Terry

Dragan wrote: »

Just wondering why you always sit on the Class A end of this argument Terry? Do you see any place for some of the softer drugs being legalised?

No. Stoners inevitably turn into lazy cúnts. People who take E, mushrooms and other hallucinogenics usually end up being paranoid weirdos.

Dragan

Terry wrote: »

No. Stoners inevitably turn into lazy cúnts. People who take E, mushrooms and other hallucinogenics usually end up being paranoid weirdos.

Some mighty fine generalisations there Terry. Thanks for coming back to me on it though.

daveharnett

I have a question for those who say no to decriminalising popular recreational drugs. Many of your arguments seem based on the assumption that consumption of these drugs would increase, if they were legalised. Is there any evidence to back up this assumption?

I would also like to address the argument that illegal drugs are responsible for muggings and robberies. I would contend that in fact muggers and robbers are responsible for muggings and robberies respectively.

chickenhawk

daveharnett wrote: »

I would also like to address the argument that illegal drugs are responsible for muggings and robberies. I would contend that in fact muggers and robbers are responsible for muggings and robberies respectively.

Ok. So that means that if someone is shot by another person (in a drug war for example) the shooter is the cause of that incident and people should just ignore the reasons behind the attack because it was not immediately evident?

Terry

Dragan wrote: »

Some mighty fine generalisations there Terry. Just Thanks for coming back to me on it though.

Just going by the people I know.

daveharnett wrote: »

I have a question for those who say no to decriminalising popular recreational drugs. Many of your arguments seem based on the assumption that consumption of these drugs would increase, if they were legalised. Is there any evidence to back up this assumption?

Mine eyes have seen.
Twenty years ago, the idea of doing cocaine would have bee abhorrent to most people. However, as it became more popular, more people decided that it was not abhorrent and started using it.
Decriminalise these drugs and you remove the stigma.
With the stigma gone, more people will use them and more people will become addicted to them and there will be more junkies on our streets.

I would also like to address the argument that illegal drugs are responsible for muggings and robberies. I would contend that in fact muggers and robbers are responsible for muggings and robberies respectively.

They mug people to get money to pay for their drugs. They are not taking the money to buy food or any other essentials.

Unless you propose giving people free drugs, then this problem will only increase if they are legalised.

Dragan

Personally know one would be able to put forth a compelling argument for the legalisation of cocaine, heroine, or any of those types of drugs.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing for that, or at least i hope not.

Terry

Dragan wrote: »

Personally know one would be able to put forth a compelling argument for the legalisation of cocaine, heroine, or any of those types of drugs.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing for that, or at least i hope not.

Some people are.
Have a look back at page one.

Irishcrx

chickenhawk wrote: »

You are joking right?

Most large companies in America do a drugs test before you can start and randomly during the year. It has happened to me and I think the legalisation of some drugs would bring random drug testing by companies into Ireland. It's an extra hassle I don't need.

Em no?...and if it is an extra hassle then don't smoke it simple just because it could be legal doesn't mean it is being forced upon you, and i'm sure the policy's of company's would change depending on the type of job you are doing if the law changed. And the US seem to coping with it quite well , not to mention the medical benefits it has brought forward.

daveharnett

chickenhawk wrote: »

Ok. So that means that if someone is shot by another person (in a drug war for example) the shooter is the cause of that incident and people should just ignore the reasons behind the attack because it was not immediately evident?

Good answer chickenhawk. My point was that
A: regardless of drug legislation, there are perfectly good laws to deal with muggers and robbers.
B: regardless of the habits of the mugger/robber in question, he/she is ultimately responsible for his actions. He/she cannot legally or morally blame the drugs.

To address the example you posed, yes understanding the context in which the crime took place might be useful. However, the bottom line is that the shooter is responsible for his actions. His crime is murder, not gang membership.

Dudess

Terry wrote: »

Then you would be extremely naive.
These are people who have no problem shooting their rivals, friends and customers.
Do you remember the recent damp cocaine thing?
Have you ever heard of contaminated heroin being sold?

These are people who prey on the weaknesses of others for their own profit.
They really don't give a damn about their customers because there will always be some jackass looking to buy.

All the more reason to legalise them and ensure they are produced in a high-standard environment so, no?

Dragan wrote: »

Personally know one would be able to put forth a compelling argument for the legalisation of cocaine, heroine, or any of those types of drugs.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing for that, or at least i hope not.

Dragan, it would stop heroin from being cut with whatever ****e is going into it. The dirty stuff being sold in this country is not pure heroin.

daveharnett

Terry wrote: »

Mine eyes have seen.
Twenty years ago, the idea of doing cocaine would have bee abhorrent to most people. However, as it became more popular, more people decided that it was not abhorrent and started using it.

So a drug's popularity can increase regardless of it's legal status. That's fine, but not really the point.

Terry wrote: »

Decriminalise these drugs and you remove the stigma.

I'm not so sure Terry. I think perhaps you may be overestimating the extent to which people are led by the law. How many people choose not to try heroin because it's illegal?

Nutmeg is legal, there is no stigma associated with it's use, and yet I've never been tempted. The problem is that it's just not a good drug.

brianthebard

Ok say drugs were legalised for use here,why would that stop drugs being cut with sh!t?Columbia,afghanistan et al are not going to legalise their drug trade any time soon.Weed in amsterdam has been shown to be contaminated on more than one occasion,what would stop this?Do people envisage being able to walk into a corner shop and pick up an ounce of opium,like sherlock holmes?Deluded if so.

Terry

Dudess wrote: »

All the more reason to legalise them and ensure they are produced in a high-standard environment so, no?

Dragan, it would stop heroin from being cut with whatever ****e is going into it. The dirty stuff being sold in this country is not pure heroin.

Again you are just removing the stigma and making the drugs more accessible.

It's not rocket science.

Remove the stigma, more people do it, more get addicted, more steal to support their habit, more crimes are committed.
It doesn't matter if it's pure or not, people will still take it if they are addicted.

A simple analogy would be a smoker out of cigarettes. He'll smoke a different brand to ease the craving. He won't really like it, but it will do until he gets to the shops for more of his own brand.

Also, don't think that heroin wouldn't be sold on the streets.
There's going to be some guy cutting it and selling it to kids who will then get hooked and continue to buy the street gear until they come of age and are able to buy the legal stuff.

daveharnett

Dragan wrote: »

Personally know one would be able to put forth a compelling argument for the legalisation of cocaine, heroine, or any of those types of drugs.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing for that, or at least i hope not.

I would argue for that. Calling for an activity to be decriminalised does not equate with advocating that activity.

IIRC, we decriminalised suicide a while back, and nobody accused the government of promoting it.

Terry

daveharnett wrote: »

So a drug's popularity can increase regardless of it's legal status. That's fine, but not really the point.

I'm not so sure Terry. I think perhaps you may be overestimating the extent to which people are led by the law. How many people choose not to try heroin because it's illegal?

Nutmeg is legal, there is no stigma associated with it's use, and yet I've never been tempted. The problem is that it's just not a good drug.[/QUOTE]
Curiosity killed the cat.
Also, given the choice between heroin and nutmeg, most would choose the latter as it gives a better high.

brianthebard wrote: »

Ok say drugs were legalised for use here,why would that stop drugs being cut with sh!t?Columbia,afghanistan et al are not going to legalise their drug trade any time soon.Weed in amsterdam has been shown to be contaminated on more than one occasion,what would stop this?Do people envisage being able to walk into a corner shop and pick up an ounce of opium,like sherlock holmes?Deluded if so.

Sadly, I think some people see the legalisation of drugs leading to some sort of utopia.

Dragan

Dudess wrote: »

All the more reason to legalise them and ensure they are produced in a high-standard environment so, no?

Dragan, it would stop heroin from being cut with whatever ****e is going into it. The dirty stuff being sold in this country is not pure heroin.

All the really bad effects that we see from Heroin are down to two things. The substance itself that causes the addiction and then the agents it is cut with.

Is pure heroin "safer" that cut to **** heroin? Yes, it is. No doubt, but it is still just as addictive. I was talking to a guy one night who has been on heroin for 25 years. A very successful man, great job, happy family, lots of money. Able to get himself the best of stuff and had the avenues to do so.

However, he was a still a junkie and was still able to list to me all the things that heoin has cost him.

I fail to see any viable argument for the legalisation of such things. When something can get you so strongly addicted to it, it can never be a good thing.

Terry

daveharnett wrote: »

I would argue for that. Calling for an activity to be decriminalised does not equate with advocating that activity.

IIRC, we decriminalised suicide a while back, and nobody accused the government of promoting it.

Suicide is not addictive, does not get you high (ok, sometimes an attempt will) and you won't do it again if you are successful.

nibble

Dragan wrote: »

Personally know one would be able to put forth a compelling argument for the legalisation of cocaine, heroine, or any of those types of drugs.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing for that, or at least i hope not.

Well I honestly am in favour of blanket legalisation of drugs, that means everything (ducks!!).
Like I said, people have free will and will do heroin and cocaine if they wish. Is it directly hurting anyone else? No, it isn't so why should it be the choice of legislators to decide what I can legally do to myself?

Also I feel people are a bit misinformed when it comes to the effects/dangers of various drugs. I mean if you take H as an example, it really really isn't that "bad for you". I know this might shock some of you who think instant death is a side effect of the drug, but it honestly does have very few negative health impacts, this isn't conjecture it's fact. Just look at its (along with morphine etc.) medicinal use, the only real negative aspect of their use is addiction and dependence.

Dudess

I'm with nibble.

chickenhawk

Irishcrx wrote: »

Em no?...and if it is an extra hassle then don't smoke it simple just because it could be legal doesn't mean it is being forced upon you.

I don't smoke and yet I have already been tested once this year and three times last year.

daveharnett wrote: »

B: regardless of the habits of the mugger/robber in question, he/she is ultimately responsible for his actions. He/she cannot legally or morally blame the drugs.

An addiction is a powerful thing. If a person is mugged then the mugger is responsible. However if that person was not addicted to drugs and was in less need for the money (and I know people get mugged by people other than addicts) the chances of them committing a crime is lessened because they have less need for it.

Dudess wrote: »

Dragan, it would stop heroin from being cut with whatever ****e is going into it. The dirty stuff being sold in this country is not pure heroin.

Why should we spend our taxes to make sure that a high grade of heroin is available for junkies?

daveharnett

Terry wrote: »

Suicide is not addictive, does not get you high (ok, sometimes an attempt will) and you won't do it again if you are successful.

The point was that suicide is not something that any sensible person would recommend, It's not good for the individual, or society, and it's certainly not good for dart drivers. Despite all of these drawbacks, we can all agree that it should not fall within the scope of criminal justice.

I would regard the use of ALL recreational drugs in the same light, regardless of their merits or lack thereof.

Dragan

nibble wrote: »

Well I honestly am in favour of blanket legalisation of drugs, that means everything (ducks!!).
Like I said, people have free will and will do heroin and cocaine if they wish. Is it directly hurting anyone else? No, it isn't so why should it be the choice of legislators to decide what I can legally do to myself?

Also I feel people are a bit misinformed when it comes to the effects/dangers of various drugs. I mean if you take H as an example, it really really isn't that "bad for you". I know this might shock some of you who think instant death is a side effect of the drug, but it honestly does have very few negative health impacts, this isn't conjecture it's fact. Just look at its (along with morphine etc.) medicinal use, the only real negative aspect of their use is addiction and dependence.

The only way to really know how a drug will affect you is to take it.

Sure, Heroin is not that "bad for you" as i already detailed, but it is still a highly addictive substance in it's pure form. It is really not good to be psychologically or physiologically addicted to something to the point that prolonged Heroin usage will get you.

That is definitely not healthy. Some things have no real place in a functioning society and should simple not be available to people with a degree of ease.

At the end of the day the role of our Government is to make the decisions based around what would or would not be good for us.

I just happen to disagree with them but i most certainly agree with them with regards to keeping Heroin illegal.

Terry

nibble wrote: »

Well I honestly am in favour of blanket legalisation of drugs, that means everything (ducks!!).
Like I said, people have free will and will do heroin and cocaine if they wish. Is it directly hurting anyone else? No, it isn't so why should it be the choice of legislators to decide what I can legally do to myself?

Also I feel people are a bit misinformed when it comes to the effects/dangers of various drugs. I mean if you take H as an example, it really really isn't that "bad for you". I know this might shock some of you who think instant death is a side effect of the drug, but it honestly does have very few negative health impacts, this isn't conjecture it's fact. Just look at its (along with morphine etc.) medicinal use, the only real negative aspect of their use is addiction and dependence.

Not hurting anyone except for the person at the wrong end of the blood filled syringe.

Oh, you can live with addiction, but it's not very nice.
This is coming from someone with addictions to four legal drugs.

chickenhawk

nibble wrote: »

the only real negative aspect of their use is addiction and dependence.

You don't think that is a serious negative aspect?

Addiction and dependence can ruin lives and make people only think about where their next high is coming from.

Our health service can barely deal with the amount of obese people stuffing their faces with chocolate and fast food. People should be able to regulate themselves is an argument you put forward. Yet many people are dieing because they eat food that is less addictive than drugs. If drugs were taken to the same extent can you imagine how full the hospitals would be?

AARRRGH

nibble wrote: »

Is it directly hurting anyone else? No, it isn't so

Go tell that to the families in the inner city. Heroin destroys communities.

nibble wrote: »

why should it be the choice of legislators to decide what I can legally do to myself?

Because your actions affect those around you.

You may not care if you affect other people, but the legislators do.

nibble wrote: »

Also I feel people are a bit misinformed when it comes to the effects/dangers of various drugs. I mean if you take H as an example, it really really isn't that "bad for you". I know this might shock some of you who think instant death is a side effect of the drug, but it honestly does have very few negative health impacts, this isn't conjecture it's fact. Just look at its (along with morphine etc.) medicinal use, the only real negative aspect of their use is addiction and dependence.

It's the affect heroin has on society which is damaging.

Again, I hate having to repeat myself, but drugs aren't banned because they are or aren't bad for you, they are banned because they are bad for society.

daveharnett

dublindude wrote: »

Again, I hate having to repeat myself, but drugs aren't banned because they are or aren't bad for you, they are banned because they are bad for society.

Follow that line of thinking and you end up in china.

Terry

daveharnett wrote: »

Follow that line of thinking and you end up in china.

Legalise drugs and we'll end up with anarchy.

Sorry your honour, I only did it because I was high.

chickenhawk

Terry wrote: »

Sorry your honour, I only did it because I was high.

There was a song about that a couple of years ago.

daveharnett

Terry wrote: »

Legalise drugs and we'll end up with anarchy.
Sorry your honour, I only did it because I was high.

That excuse doesn't wash in any court anywhere. Unless somebody literally forces you to take the drugs in question. I don't quite advocate that approach:P

Terry

daveharnett wrote: »

That excuse doesn't wash in any court anywhere. Unless somebody literally forces you to take the drugs in question. I don't quite advocate that approach:P

It works for alcoholics. All they have to do is go to a few AA meetings and they walk.
Legalise drugs and just swap AA with NA.

Earthhorse

I can picture it now; Dublin's criminal underworld waking up to a city in which drugs are decriminalised.

"What are we gonna do now?"

"Well, we could flood the market with cheaper equivalents, sabotage farmer's crops, burn out our competitors and generally strongarm anyone who co-operates with this out of co-operating with it."

"Nah, I'm gonna finally write that musical I've always dreamed of."

AH, AH, it's a hell of a board!

daveharnett wrote: »

Follow that line of thinking and you end up in china.

Yeah, Ireland feels exactly like China to me.

Don't tell anyone this but I'm not an only child.

slipss

Earthhorse wrote: »

I can picture it now; Dublin's criminal underworld waking up to a city in which drugs are decriminalised.

"What are we gonna do now?"

"Well, we could flood the market with cheaper equivalents, sabotage farmer's crops, burn out our competitors and generally strongarm anyone who co-operates with this out of co-operating with it."

"Nah, I'm gonna finally write that musical I've always dreamed of."

AH, AH, it's a hell of a board!

Finally someone talking sense. I mean remember the bombing of St James' Gate a couple of years ago, that was horrific, and the string of assassination attempts on B&H employees that plagued Tallaght back in 2002?

rowlandbrowner

Currently Ireland needs to legalise 4 things, abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage and prostitution (amoung other things.. but those I feel are the most important) But another drug is a bad idea. We have too many people abusing the currently legal ones as it is. We need to get our drink problem under control first.

Earthhorse

slipss wrote: »

Finally someone talking sense. I mean remember the bombing of St James' Gate a couple of years ago, that was horrific, and the string of assassination attempts on B&H employees that plagued Tallaght back in 2002?

Yes, I remember when the manufacture and distribution of alcohol and cigarettes was in the hands of international criminal gangs. It's completely analogous. Well played.

slipss

Earthhorse wrote: »

Yes, I remember when the manufacture and distribution of alcohol and cigarettes was in the hands of international criminal gangs. It's completely analogous. Well played.

Analogous huh? I'll have to take your word for it. (You really think a bunch of kids, and beer bellied oul fellas from finglas would be able to strong arm the types of corporation {like malboro or diageo} that would develop if ecstacy for example was legal?) I think you overestimate the all encompasing power of a 26 year old heroin addict with a rusty sawn off shot gun, my freind.

Earthhorse

Good man.

Ah, you edited your post. Couldn't just take my word for it, eh?

You really think criminal gangs are going to let a market slip away without a fight. I think you underestimate the power of greed my friend.

slipss

Well how much of a grip did the chicago mafia have on alcohol by the 40's or 50's? I'm gonna leave it there and we can agree to disagree, these drug threads never go anywhere productive.