Time to legalise some drugs?

Earthhorse

slipss wrote: »

Well how much of a grip did the chicago mafia have on alcohol by the 40's or 50's?

Well, that is Chicago; one state in one country in the world. Don't know the details but I doubt the mafia didn't hanve a foothold there for a looonnnggg time after prohibition ended.

slipss wrote: »

I'm gonna leave it there and we can agree to disagree, these drug threads never go anywhere productive.

Didn't you read my post? That guy is finally gonna write his musical. Honestly, some people.

Sam Vimes

dublindude wrote: »

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.

firstly, i didn't give an example, i just said there are countries that execute drug dealers. secondly, simply saying my comparison is fud doesn't make it so. why is it fud? what is so different about ireland that will make heavy sentences work when they haven't worked anywhere else? it's not just third world drug producing countries that have heavy punishments you know.

dublindude wrote: »

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.

i never said anything about free access to drugs. i'm talking about a system something like off licenses but a lot more strict. currently there are drug dealers hanging around outside schools enticing kids into doing drugs. do you really think a government run facility where id is checked makes it easier to get drugs than a man who approaches you on the street and offers you a free sample?

dublindude wrote: »

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.

yes drugs do affect the community but the conditions that allow them to affect the community are pretty much 100% caused by the fact that they're illegal. drug dealers murder each other and make the whole area live in fear and the users rob grannies to get their next fix.

but if they were legal, there would be no drug dealers and addicts could go to a shop and get heavily subsidised heroin so they wouldn't have to rob grannies. the example i always mention here is this woman:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3592877.stm

she doesn't affect anyone else and she doesn't give money to criminals and the reason for that is that instead of giving her draconian punishments, the government recognised that she had an addiction and helped her to live a normal life

dublindude wrote: »

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.

i don't do drugs. i just see the problems they cause and see that these problems would disappear if the government stopped banning something for which there is a huge demand

dublindude wrote: »

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.

you see there is a crucial difference there. guns and knives are used for inflicting harm on others. there is no reason to carry around a gun except to harm others. but drugs affect no one but yourself.

yes, if they are abused it can result in harming other people but the same can be said of almost anything from a car to a toothbrush. there are thousands of people in this country who do coke every saturday and have never affected anyone else through their drug use, except of course the fact that they give money to drug dealers, a problem that would be solved if they were legal

something should be banned if it is bad, not if it is possible for bad things to happen involving it if it's abused. that would result in banning everything

Sam Vimes

Terry wrote: »

Legalise drugs and we'll end up with anarchy.

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

alcohol is legal and being drunk doesn't legally excuse anything

and even if it did, that's a failing of the irish justice system, and has nothing to do with whether drugs should be legal or not.

Fanny Cradock

Dudess wrote: »

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.

You also aren't speaking from personal experience. The fact that friends or acquaintances haven't developed a dependence is purely anecdotal when considering the larger picture. The sad fact is that people do become addicted. For me the question is whether or not more people would become addicted through legalisation.



I've yet to see a compelling argument for the legalisation of drugs. There are, of course, some theoretical pros for the legalisation of certain drugs: regulation, for instance. But without hard evidence to support these claims I remain sceptical. For instance, I doubt that legalisation would remove the dealer from society. One would imagine that they would simply peddle other substances.

Admittedly there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in condemning the use of drugs like grass etc. when you consider that drugs like alcohol and nicotine - which generally aren't even categorised as drugs by most - are endemic in our society. Though of recent times you see that both of these are being increasingly regulated.

However, that these drugs - alcohol and nicotine - are so prevalent in our society, especially our recreational activities, offers little in the way of a platform to argue (as some here have done) that we should then legally introduce a range of potentially harmful drugs.

We would all be aware of the harmful consequences arising from the consumption of booze and cigarettes - both to the individual and those surrounding them as well as the cost to the exchequer in terms of expended state resources. To me this just seems like you are introducing and legitimising further substances which in net terms, would have a negative impact on society.

The fact of the matter is that there are far too many people out there who see drugs (in the larger sense) as a problem. In light of the fact that the pro legalisation folks have been unable to persuade this majority to come around to their way of thinking means they are unlikely to do so any time soon.

Terry

Sam Vimes wrote: »

yes drugs do affect the community but the conditions that allow them to affect the community are pretty much 100% caused by the fact that they're illegal. drug dealers murder each other and make the whole area live in fear and the users rob grannies to get their next fix.

but if they were legal, there would be no drug dealers and addicts could go to a shop and get heavily subsidised heroin so they wouldn't have to rob grannies. the example i always mention here is this woman:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3592877.stm

Will the government subsidise my addiction to nicotine and alcohol?
Both are addictive and sudden withdrawal from alcohol can kill you in certain cases.

Sam Vimes

Terry wrote: »

Will the government subsidise my addiction to nicotine and alcohol?
Both are addictive and sudden withdrawal from alcohol can kill you in certain cases.

well there are lots of support services for alcoholics in this country, so they do.

you don't really see people living on the streets begging for their next cigarette so the same level of support isn't necessary.

and if heroin was legal, they could use some of the billions they save from not having to enforce a ban to pay for services to help

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For instance, I doubt that legalisation would remove the dealer from society. One would imagine that they would simply peddle other substances.

well of course they would. criminals will make money whatever way they can. that doesn't mean drugs should be kept illegal

Terry

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well there are lots of support services for alcoholics in this country, so they do.

you don't really see people living on the streets begging for their next cigarette so the same level of support isn't necessary.

and if heroin was legal, they could use some of the billions they save from not having to enforce a ban to pay for services to help

But I want free beer, in the same way that woman gets free heroin.

Alcohol is always brought up in these threads, so now I'm asking wht give someone free heroin and not free alcohol. After all, they are both drugs, right?

Sam Vimes

Terry wrote: »

But I want free beer, in the same way that woman gets free heroin.

Alcohol is always brought up in these threads, so now I'm asking wht give someone free heroin and not free alcohol. After all, they are both drugs, right?

whatever is necessary to help people live a normal life should be done. for alcohol, AA is enough. but heroin is far more addictive than alcohol. it's just about impossible to get off it and even more difficult to live a normal life while on it. so the doctors give her exactly the right dose so that she satisifes her cravings but doesn't get off her head. because unlike with alcohol, that's what is necessary for her to live a normal life

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well of course they would. criminals will make money whatever way they can. that doesn't mean drugs should be kept illegal

Why not? Do you propose to legalise all drugs?


I've a fairly open mind to any convincing arguments. Posting a link to one woman's story doesn't really do much to sway me, however.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and if heroin was legal, they could use some of the billions they save from not having to enforce a ban to pay for services to help

Yes, I can dream too. If there was no heroin we could pump the savings to into the chronically under-funded interpretive dance artist of Ireland. You have admitted that the criminals would move onto other things. It would seem that any funding specifically used to combat heroin trafficking would then be shifted onto combating the criminals' next activity.

Terry

Sam Vimes wrote: »

whatever is necessary to help people live a normal life should be done. for alcohol, AA is enough. but heroin is far more addictive than alcohol. it's just about impossible to get off it and even more difficult to live a normal life while on it. so the doctors give her exactly the right dose so that she satisifes her cravings but doesn't get off her head. because unlike with alcohol, that's what is necessary for her to live a normal life

What about cigarettes?
Highly addictive and really hard to quit.
I want free cigarettes.
I want free stuff for everyone stupid enough to get addicted to [substance] in the first place.


As for legalised heroin becoming widely available, I refer you to my earlier point that people would willingly sell it to children on the street (in the same way that they sell methadone and foy now) and you would continue to have more teenage junkies.

Complete trade embargo on the countries of origin is the only way to stop this crap.

Tigger

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.

why not

its their body

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why not? Do you propose to legalise all drugs?

well, yes. you're implying that drugs shouldn't be made legal because the criminals would move onto something else. so why don't we make milk illegal? something should be illegal if it is bad, not because we're afraid of what the dealers will move onto if we make the thing they currently sell legal.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've a fairly open mind to any convincing arguments. Posting a link to one woman's story doesn't really do much to sway me, however.

the story mentioned one woman but hundreds of people are part of the trial

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, I can dream too. If there was no heroin we could pump the savings to into the chronically under-funded interpretive dance artist of Ireland. You have admitted that the criminals would move onto other things. It would seem that any funding specifically used to combat heroin trafficking would then be shifted onto combating the criminals' next activity.

criminals are already selling pretty much everything that there is an illegal demand for. the reason drugs are so prevelant is that there is far more money to be made off them than any other illegal substance. there's only so much diesel and dodgy ciggies you can sell before you saturate the market.

and again, "they'll just move onto something else" is a terrible reason for them to be illegal because it says nothing about whether they're actually bad or not and the same logic could be used for milk

Tigger

on the free beer issue in my opinion anyone who spends their unemployment allowance on beer and ciggaretts, or any other allowance that they are given to keep them fed and housed and clothed is getting free beetr and ciggs

we are in a state where i pay huge amounts of tax to the exchequer so that others can have free beer

now its a different issue whether this is right or wrong but what the diff between beer and heroin under those circumstanses

Sam Vimes

Terry wrote: »

What about cigarettes?
Highly addictive and really hard to quit.
I want free cigarettes.
I want free stuff for everyone stupid enough to get addicted to [substance] in the first place.

you're not really reading what i'm writing here. it's not about free stuff for stupid people. it's about doing what is necessary to help people live a normal life and keep money out of the hands of dealers. you're not going out and giving all your money to a scum bag because of your nictoine addiction so i'm afraid you don't get squat

Terry wrote: »

As for legalised heroin becoming widely available, I refer you to my earlier point that people would willingly sell it to children on the street (in the same way that they sell methadone and foy now) and you would continue to have more teenage junkies.

that already happens and it already is widely available

Terry wrote: »

Complete trade embargo on the countries of origin is the only way to stop this crap.

well that's not going to happen. also, magic mushrooms grow all over ireland. let the embargo begin

vorbis

Terry, this woman can take heroin 3 times a day, satisfy her addiction and still lead a productive life. If you give an alcoholic the alcohol to satisfy their addiction then they will be too pissed to lead a productive life! Common sense no?

They also argue in the article that there clean heroin isn't dangerous per se. Would explain why its not a great idea to do it for cigarettes. Every drug is different. Heroin involves a physical addiction far more severe than that of other drugs.

On the overall drugs issue, I would legalize everything except heroin and other drugs with strong physical addictive properties. NHS type trials should be expanded for users of those drugs.
The rest, I'd lump in with alcohol. It shocked me a bit the first time I saw some friends of mine doing coke and pills. Yet they all hold down decent jobs and lead normal lives. Another guy I know has tried everything he can get his hands on, mushrooms, cocaine, hash, painkillers. His boss at work thinks he's a great worker and he's doing very well for himself. People take recreational drugs for the buzz they offer... same as alcohol.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

for alcohol, AA is enough. but heroin is far more addictive than alcohol. it's just about impossible to get off it and even more difficult to live a normal life while on it. because unlike with alcohol, that's what is necessary for her to live a normal life

And you know for a fact that AA is enough? Clearly she doesn't live a 'normal' life.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And you know for a fact that AA is enough?

how do you mean? i mean it's enough in that it's not necessary to fund alcohol for alcoholics because AA is usually enough to get them off it and giving them alcohol wouldn't really have the same effect as satisfying someone's craving for heroin because they'd just get pissed.

i'm sure it doesn't work for some people but what's your point? what do you suggest instead of AA?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Clearly she doesn't live a 'normal' life.

she lives a very similar life to a diabetic. she has to regularly inject herself but she's not living on the streets whoring herself out for a fix. a good tradeoff i think

nibble

I kinda seemed like I was belittling the impact of addiction on the person and friends, family etc earlier, but I'm not. Addiction sure isn't nice and that's an understatement I know, but you cant protect people from everything, you just can't.

Just about everything that you can derive pleasure from (or even pain for some) can become psychologically addictive, and that's the real challenge once the physical side of it has been combated. You can get clean from anything if you really want to and i mean really want to, withdrawal is hell but you got to suck it up, simple as.

You definitely can be a functioning addict, hell Sigmund Freud was a coke addict and he managed basically invent modern psychology . And I'm sure their is countless opiate and benzo (valium etc) addicts out there and people don't even know about it.. Is it more acceptable because they're getting prescribed the stuff from a well intending doctor?

Maybe my views are just skewed toward being pro-drug for obvious reasons, but I honestly believe people should have freedom, otherwise we may as well be living behind the great firewall of China.

Terry

Sam Vimes wrote: »

how do you mean? i mean it's enough in that it's not necessary to fund alcohol for alcoholics because AA is usually enough to get them off it and giving them alcohol wouldn't really have the same effect as satisfying someone's craving for heroin because they'd just get pissed.

i'm sure it doesn't work for some people but what's your point? what do you suggest instead of AA?


she lives a very similar life to a diabetic. she has to regularly inject herself but she's not living on the streets whoring herself out for a fix. a good tradeoff i think

Having to spend the rest of your life getting daily injections of a toxin is hardly normal.

I demand free cigarettes off the government.
I can life a normal life while still being a smoker. I just need my hit every 20 minutes or so.
The government make billions every year from the tax on tobacco products. Why should I pay for something that I'm addicted to if they are willing to give away methadon and (in the case of the British government) heroin?
I'm addicted to nicotine. I can't quit my habit. The government make this drug legally available, so why not give to addicts?

The thing here is, if other drugs are legalised, you will get this retarded arguement from junkies.

'Oh, poor me. I can't quit. The government should help me.'

Anyone stupid enough to become addicted to known addictive substances should get no help like this.
We are all taught from an early age that these things are addictive.
You get addicted, it's your own fault.

Are you all willing to pay more tax to subsidise those who end up messed up from these drugs?
don't give me that bull that the government subsidies will pay for them. You know well it won't cover it.

Are you all willing to have drug tourists invade your town?

Like fúck you are.

Amsterdam is there for all your needs.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well, yes. you're implying that drugs shouldn't be made legal because the criminals would move onto something else.

It seems that you have completely missed my point. I've not implied that drugs shouldn't be made illegal because criminals will move onto something else. I merely stated that such a thing would be a consequence of making drugs legal, thereby negating the one of the main positives I've heard that arise from regulation. I've have argued that your belief that money saved from combating drug criminals - while remembering you admitted they will simply move onto something else - would be pumped into drug rehabilitation schemes seemed to be entirely unfounded.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

so why don't we make milk illegal?

Ban milk! What would I have on my Crunchy Nut Cornflakes? Heroin?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

something should be illegal if it is bad, not because we're afraid of what the dealers will move onto if we make the thing they currently sell legal.

Let's look at two of your statements.

1) You agree that something should be illegal if it is 'bad'.
2) You reveal that legalisation should include all drugs.

Bearing in mind your above two interlinking statements, can you please then try to explain to me how a substance like methamphetamine, crack, or heroin could be considered 'good'.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

criminals are already selling pretty much everything that there is an illegal demand for. the reason drugs are so prevelant is that there is far more money to be made off them than any other illegal substance. there's only so much diesel and dodgy ciggies you can sell before you saturate the market.

No, the main reason drugs are so prevalent is because of demand, not simply because the amount of money to be made selling them.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and again, "they'll just move onto something else" is a terrible reason for them to be illegal because it says nothing about whether they're actually bad or not and the same logic could be used for milk

And again, this is not a reason why I believe drugs such as coke and heroin should remain illegal. To clarify: I stated this point as a rebuttal to the the theoretical benefit - that legalisation, whilst potentially removing the criminals from the drugs trade, would somehow rid our society of them all together.


I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on the matter. Seems as you would have all drugs legalised, have you any idea about how such a thing would work in practice?

For instance:
*Have you thought about legislation?
*How would you go about building a system that could dispense substances? *Would this be a state run body, a semi-private body, or a private body?
*Can anyone purchase these drugs whenever they like? Or would it more of a rigid system - certain amounts at certain time for certain people? Which, in itself, could lead to a form of sub-dealing.
*Do you have in mind age limits where people can take crack etc?
*Would you expect the levels of addiction to rise or fall?
*Do you believe it 'moral' for the State to dispense harmful substances given that it's function is to serve the best interests population? Or is the current illegal status of drugs the immoral choice?

nibble

Terry wrote: »

Having to spend the rest of your life getting daily injections of a toxin is hardly normal.

I demand free cigarettes off the government.
I can life a normal life while still being a smoker. I just need my hit every 20 minutes or so.
The government make billions every year from the tax on tobacco products. Why should I pay for something that I'm addicted to if they are willing to give away methadon and (in the case of the British government) heroin?
I'm addicted to nicotine. I can't quit my habit. The government make this drug legally available, so why not give to addicts?

The thing here is, if other drugs are legalised, you will get this retarded arguement from junkies.


'Oh, poor me. I can't quit. The government should help me.'

Anyone stupid enough to become addicted to known addictive substances should get no help like this.
We are all taught from an early age that these things are addictive.
You get addicted, it's your own fault.

Are you all willing to pay more tax to subsidise those who end up messed up from these drugs?
don't give me that bull that the government subsidies will pay for them. You know well it won't cover it.

Are you all willing to have drug tourists invade your town?

Like fúck you are.

Amsterdam is there for all your needs.

Just for the sake of correctness heroin is certainly not a "toxin".

I would agree that the whole methadone clinic crap is well just that, crap. They don't try and get people clean, they give them methadone which is even harder to kick than heroin, but the junkies themselves just don't want to quit anyway. If they really did well they wouldn't need to be maintained with methadone for years at a time.

I would say that some addicts at least should be helped, maybe through a GP. Particularly alcoholics and benzo addicts (but thats not really the same thing) because withdrawal can kill people that go cold turkey from big drink addictions.

Sam Vimes

Terry wrote: »

Having to spend the rest of your life getting daily injections of a toxin is hardly normal.

"normal" is relative. an injection or two a day is more "normal" than living on the streets. not injecting yourself is more "normal" again but that's not an option for her

Terry wrote: »

I demand free cigarettes off the government.
I can life a normal life while still being a smoker. I just need my hit every 20 minutes or so.
The government make billions every year from the tax on tobacco products. Why should I pay for something that I'm addicted to if they are willing to give away methadon and (in the case of the British government) heroin?
I'm addicted to nicotine. I can't quit my habit. The government make this drug legally available, so why not give to addicts?

The thing here is, if other drugs are legalised, you will get this retarded arguement from junkies.

'Oh, poor me. I can't quit. The government should help me.'

again, it's not really about the addicts. i don't give a **** if addicts destroy their lives. the point is to stop drugs affecting people other than the user themselves. your nicotine addiction doesn't have you on the streets robbing grannies so you don't get anything i'm afraid

with that trial, she went through all the normal detox procedures for years and they all failed. this was a last resort as it should be. it wasn't just a case of "i'm addicted, give me free stuff"

Terry wrote: »

Anyone stupid enough to become addicted to known addictive substances should get no help like this.
We are all taught from an early age that these things are addictive.
You get addicted, it's your own fault.

in theory i agree, but that attitude results in junkies robbing grannies to pay scum bags.

Terry wrote: »

Are you all willing to pay more tax to subsidise those who end up messed up from these drugs?
don't give me that bull that the government subsidies will pay for them. You know well it won't cover it.

it costs €90,000 a year to keep someone in prison. just how much would the government save if they didn't have to pay for any drug related inmates anymore or any of the other pointless drug prevention measures? it'd almost certainly cost less than €90,000 per year to put people caught with drugs on a rehabilitation program instead of imprisoning them

Terry wrote: »

Are you all willing to have drug tourists invade your town?

Like fúck you are.

Amsterdam is there for all your needs.

wouldn't really mind tbh. for all you hear about amsterdam it's only a few streets that are like that. life goes on in amsterdam around all the sex and drugs

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It seems that you have completely missed my point. I've not implied that drugs shouldn't be made illegal because criminals will move onto something else. I merely stated that such a thing would be a consequence of making drugs legal, thereby negating the one of the main positives I've heard that arise from regulation. I've have argued that your belief that money saved from combating drug criminals - while remembering you admitted they will simply move onto something else - would be pumped into drug rehabilitation schemes seemed to be entirely unfounded.

it seems you've completely missed the point i was making. criminals already sell everything that there is a demand for and they make as much money as they can from them. if drugs were made legal tomorrow, the demand for these other illlegal things wouldn't suddenly sky rocket.

what i mean is that they'd move onto something else because they'd be forced to but they wouldn't be moving into a new market, they'd be trying to squeeze extra money out of currently existing boot leg markets. the result would be far less money for them

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Let's look at two of your statements.

1) You agree that something should be illegal if it is 'bad'.
2) You reveal that legalisation should include all drugs.

Bearing in mind your above two interlinking statements, can you please then try to explain to me how a substance like methamphetamine, crack, or heroin could be considered 'good'.

it depends on your definition of bad. if another adult wants to take a substance that will destroy his life, that's none of my business. for me, 'bad' only becomes a factor when what you do affects others

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, the main reason drugs are so prevalent is because of demand, not simply because the amount of money to be made selling them.

and the reason there is so much money made off them is because of the demand. possibly i wasn't clear here. what i meant was "the reason drug dealers are so prevelant"

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And again, this is not a reason why I believe drugs such as coke and heroin should remain illegal. To clarify: I stated this point as a rebuttal to the the theoretical benefit - that legalisation, whilst potentially removing the criminals from the drugs trade, would somehow rid our society of them all together.

if it's done properly it would. the point is to eliminate the motivation of people to get them from the local scum bag. if the method of doing it doesn't accomplish that, there's no point in doing it

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on the matter. Seems as you would have all drugs legalised, have you any idea about how such a thing would work in practice?

For instance:
*Have you thought about legislation?
*How would you go about building a system that could dispense substances? *Would this be a state run body, a semi-private body, or a private body?
*Can anyone purchase these drugs whenever they like? Or would it more of a rigid system - certain amounts at certain time for certain people? Which, in itself, could lead to a form of sub-dealing.
*Do you have in mind age limits where people can take crack etc?
*Would you expect the levels of addiction to rise or fall?
*Do you believe it 'moral' for the State to dispense harmful substances given that it's function is to serve the best interests population? Or is the current illegal status of drugs the immoral choice?

i haven't done a comprehensive project plan complete with mile stones and decision points tbh. those are details that can be worked out. there's nothing on that list that's impossible to accomplish, it's just a matter of organising it

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

again, it's not really about the addicts. i don't give a **** if addicts destroy their lives.

Well, then you are hardly the person to be making decisions for them, are you?

david_the_great

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?


there are countries that execute drug dealers and those countries still have drug problems

they would still be buying from the scumbags- except the scum will be paying taxes-

the government aren't going to start there own shops

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, then you are hardly the person to be making decisions for them, are you?

i want it to be made clear that i almost never use the following emoticon. I save it for the most ridiculous of ridiculous comments i come across: :rolleyes:

are you seriously saying that because i haven't worked out every detail of how to distribute drugs with budget estimates included my opinion on a thread on the internet isn't worth listening to ?

in your reply i would like a link to your project plan for solving the current drug problem without legalising them.

Sam Vimes

david_the_great wrote: »

they would still be buying from the scumbags- except the scum will be paying taxes-

the government aren't going to start there own shops

well if they're running legal businesses and paying taxes they're not really scum bags. Would you consider your local bar man a scum bag? Or the local newsagent?

ScumLord

Drugs where no where near the huge international problem they are now, before prohibition came along. FACT. There was a slight opiates problem in china but it was nowhere near as bad as some would have let on.

You won't find any stat anywhere that can tell you anythings gotten better since prohibition came into affect.

Prohibition is the cause of the worlds drug/crime problem not drugs.

david_the_great wrote:

they would still be buying from the scumbags- except the scum will be paying taxes-

the government aren't going to start there own shops

Scumbags don't do legitimate business all that well, or taxes. Their lazy and there isn't enough profit margin in legitimate business. Regulating drugs means we can have traceability like we do with Irish food.

It's never going to happen it seems politicians and the public at large prefer living in ghettos and having 50 cent wannabes roaming the streets making insane amounts of money. It makes us look cool like all the other developed countries.

Shazbot

nibble wrote: »

Just for the sake of correctness heroin is certainly not a "toxin".

Everything is a toxin, it just depends on the dose. Hell, water could become toxic at a ludicrous dose.

I would agree that the whole methadone clinic crap is well just that, crap. They don't try and get people clean, they give them methadone which is even harder to kick than heroin, but the junkies themselves just don't want to quit anyway. If they really did well they wouldn't need to be maintained with methadone for years at a time.

Methadone clinics aren't the cash farm you seem to have portrayed them as. Addiction is a serious disease, yes it is considered a disease, and should be treated as such. Methadone clinics try to ween the addict off heroin by lowering the dosage of the opiate over time. This can take years to do. Relapse is inevitable but the treatmeant has to be continued to give the addict a fighting chance. There are successfull cases of kicking the addiction.

Most addicts do want to quit, infact that is one criteria of addiction: understanding the drug is addictive and determental but they still crave it. It's just extremely difficult to do so

I would say that some addicts at least should be helped, maybe through a GP. Particularly alcoholics and benzo addicts (but thats not really the same thing) because withdrawal can kill people that go cold turkey from big drink addictions.

True, they should be helped and are, yet you seem to complain about the treatment clinics, rather strange outlook there.

On the the legalisation of drugs, I'm still on the fence. We will never see it implemented and to test the effects of legalising drugs would take far too long to do a massive social experiment to compare it to the current state. And if it is worse than the current state then the government would never be forgive and then we'll have future boards.ie posters ranting about the huge mistake we made. And if it did work, we'd go down as heroes. Is it worth the gamble?

Tigger

Shazbot wrote: »

Everything is a toxin, it just depends on the dose. Hell, water could become toxic at a ludicrous dose.

this is not correct

toxin
A toxin generally refers to a naturally occurring substance that is poisonous (toxic) to your body in some way1. Toxins can be secreted by bacteria (examples: food poisoning, bacterial gastroenteritis, toxic shock syndrome, scarlet fever or scarletina), diphtheria, or perhaps be found in a plant (example: poisonous mushrooms) or food (example: aflatoxin, a toxin in peanuts).


water can harm in crazy amounts as it causes salt leeching which affectsthe sodium/potasium ionic gates in ones nervous system

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i want it to be made clear that i almost never use the following emoticon. I save it for the most ridiculous of ridiculous comments i come across: :rolleyes:

are you seriously saying that because i haven't worked out every detail of how to distribute drugs with budget estimates included my opinion on a thread on the internet isn't worth listening to ?

in your reply i would like a link to your project plan for solving the current drug problem without legalising them.

Look at the comment I quoted from your good self:

again, it's not really about the addicts. i don't give a **** if addicts destroy their lives.

I was replying directly to that statement, not budgetary concerns. Is the concept of quoting and responding to a quote a difficult concept for you to grasp? At this point I would insert a 'roll eyes', but we must remain civil!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

it seems you've completely missed the point i was making. criminals already sell everything that there is a demand for and they make as much money as they can from them. if drugs were made legal tomorrow, the demand for these other illlegal things wouldn't suddenly sky rocket.

what i mean is that they'd move onto something else because they'd be forced to but they wouldn't be moving into a new market, they'd be trying to squeeze extra money out of currently existing boot leg markets. the result would be far less money for them

What are you talking about? What do I care if the price of bootleg DVDs or whatever does or does not sky-rocket? What relevance does the criminal business plan have to do with this conversation?

Though not involved in drugs, we both agree that the criminal would still operate elsewhere. The only difference between our two positions was that I believe that this wouldn't constitute an overall advantage.

Tigger

ScumLord wrote: »

Drugs where no where near the huge international problem they are now, before prohibition came along. FACT. There was a slight opiates problem in china but it was nowhere near as bad as some would have let on.

You won't find any stat anywhere that can tell you anythings gotten better since prohibition came into affect.

but think of the shildren

Prohibition is the cause of the worlds drug/crime problem not drugs.


Scumbags don't do legitimate business all that well, or taxes. Their lazy and there isn't enough profit margin in legitimate business. Regulating drugs means we can have traceability like we do with Irish food.

It's never going to happen it seems politicians and the public at large prefer living in ghettos and having 50 cent wannabes roaming the streets making insane amounts of money. It makes us look cool like all the other developed countries.

fear is a brilliant marketing device
to have a rich liberal class one needs a strong middle/working class motivated by striving to stay out of the ubderclass

Shazbot

Tigger wrote: »

this is not correct

toxin
A toxin generally refers to a naturally occurring substance that is poisonous (toxic) to your body in some way1. Toxins can be secreted by bacteria (examples: food poisoning, bacterial gastroenteritis, toxic shock syndrome, scarlet fever or scarletina), diphtheria, or perhaps be found in a plant (example: poisonous mushrooms) or food (example: aflatoxin, a toxin in peanuts).


water can harm in crazy amounts as it causes salt leeching which affectsthe sodium/potasium ionic gates in ones nervous system

You really solidified my point. Everything is a toxin. Speaking in a pharmacological sense. Everything that we come into contact with can harm us, it's simplely dose depedant. Your dictionary quote only says naturally occurring substances but artificial substances can also be toxic.

slipss

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For instance:
*Have you thought about legislation?
*(1)How would you go about building a system that could dispense substances? *Would this be a state run body, a semi-private body, or a private body?
*(2)Can anyone purchase these drugs whenever they like? Or would it more of a rigid system - certain amounts at certain time for certain people? Which, in itself, could lead to a form of sub-dealing.
*3Do you have in mind age limits where people can take crack etc?
*4Would you expect the levels of addiction to rise or fall?
*5Do you believe it 'moral' for the State to dispense harmful substances given that it's function is to serve the best interests population? Or is the current illegal status of drugs the immoral choice?

I know that was asked of someone else, and it's not like I sit around all day trying to develop this system, or have an aptitude towards that kind of thing, so I'm sure there will be problems with this (i'm sure thier would be problems with a system I came up with to ensure efficiency in a telesales centre ect, (hopefully a team people whos jobs these things are could do worlds better) but:

(1) Private enterprise working under strict state guidlines enforced by severe consequences for breaching them would seem to make the most sense.

(2) Well age restrictions would certainly have to apply, you can't have 10 year olds buying coke or ecstacy any more than you can have them buying cars or alcohol, thats a give in. As for that leading to a form of sub-dealing i.e people targeting kids directly, well that could certainly prove to be a problem, but that happens already. We can agree it would certainly happen less, can't we? For one thing it is far more socially unexceptable to exclusively target drugs to children than it is just to sell drugs. Anyone selling drugs outside of regulation would be known to be specifically targeting children and I mean how many people do you know that earn a living by exclusively selling alcohol to children in thier neighbourhoods? I know none, maybe I live a sheltered life.

3 Well I'd imagine 18, that seems to be the standard for these sorts of things as its the age you are considered an adult.

4 I know some people will disagree with me here, but I would say in time they would fall dramatically. For one thing people using the drugs would already be in the system instead of waiting untill it has gotten to the stage that they are so addicted that they have come to the attention of the police or are incapable of living a productive life. For another (and we may differ of opinion here again) the drugs would be far far less available to people 13, 14, 15 years old and clearly someone is far more likely to become severley addicted the younger they start using. Also alot of drug dealers will do absalutely everything in thier power to ensure someone becomes addicted and remains that way. Things like purposefully aloowing to build up huge debts. Threatening them and thier families. Pretending to be thier best friend. Actually tracking them down when they are trying to quit and pushing the drug into thier hands. These things would obviosly violate the state guidlines and land you in prison, with a fine and have you stripped of your license permanently in a regualted system.

5 [This is really a matter of personal politics ect and could fill a 100 page thread on its own] What one considers moral differs greatly from person to person but I personally believe that as long as I am not harming anyone else then its none of the state's business. I fund them, I elect them, they are not supposed to enforce thier will on me they are supposed to do what I tell them to. This is a republic, they work for us, not the other way around.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Look at the comment I quoted from your good self:



I was replying directly to that statement, not budgetary concerns. Is the concept of quoting and responding to a quote a difficult concept for you to grasp? At this point I would insert a 'roll eyes', but we must remain civil!

fair enough i apologise. I misread your post. But your point is still invalid. I'm not making decisions for drugs addicts. I'm not in a position to be making decisions at all. All i care about is reducing the crime rate and saving taxes. they're adults and if they want to take drugs it's none of my business

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What are you talking about? What do I care if the price of bootleg DVDs or whatever does or does not sky-rocket? What relevance does the criminal business plan have to do with this conversation?

Though not involved in drugs, we both agree that the criminal would still operate elsewhere. The only difference between our two positions was that I believe that this wouldn't constitute an overall advantage.

so you're saying they'd just move onto something else and i mentioned several areas where criminals make money and you're asking what relevance this has to the advantage or lack thereof of removing the money they make from drugs........................?

The advantage is that all of the other illegal markets that criminals can make money from are already saturated and there's no way they can generate even a fraction of a percent of the money they make from drugs by trying to squeeze more money out of these markets

Do you think that if oil ran out tomorrow all the oil companies would "just move onto something else" and their revenues wouldn't be affected?

Tha Gopher

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

LOL What in the name of jesus does the fact people in Mesopotamia smoked ganj in 10,000 BC have to do with Ireland in 2020. As I said, cannabis will always be available worldwide. It will always remain obtainable in Africa, the Caribbean, basically anywhere with a suitable climate. It will not remain cheap or affordable in Ireland, due to the fact the Morrocans will eventually all but win their war on drugs, and the grass here is generally so badly cut it is not worth buying.

You my friend are still trotting out the same utter arse as all the rest did back then.

And I would be fairly sure you are one of the guys who never bothered replying to any response I gave to you. Because, of course, you didnt have one.

slipss

Tha Gopher wrote: »

It will always remain obtainable in Africa, the Caribbean, basically anywhere with a suitable climate.

Like Ireland? I agree.

Terry

Tha Gopher wrote: »

LOL What in the name of jesus does the fact people in Mesopotamia smoked ganj in 10,000 BC have to do with Ireland in 2020. As I said, cannabis will always be available worldwide. It will always remain obtainable in Africa, the Caribbean, basically anywhere with a suitable climate. It will not remain cheap or affordable in Ireland, due to the fact the Morrocans will eventually all but win their war on drugs, and the grass here is generally so badly cut it is not worth buying.

You my friend are still trotting out the same utter arse as all the rest did back then.

And I would be fairly sure you are one of the guys who never bothered replying to any response I gave to you. Because, of course, you didnt have one.

Indeed.
They also thought the world was flat back then.

brianthebard

Tha Gopher wrote: »

LOL What in the name of jesus does the fact people in Mesopotamia smoked ganj in 10,000 BC have to do with Ireland in 2020. As I said, cannabis will always be available worldwide. It will always remain obtainable in Africa, the Caribbean, basically anywhere with a suitable climate. It will not remain cheap or affordable in Ireland, due to the fact the Morrocans will eventually all but win their war on drugs, and the grass here is generally so badly cut it is not worth buying.

You my friend are still trotting out the same utter arse as all the rest did back then.

And I would be fairly sure you are one of the guys who never bothered replying to any response I gave to you. Because, of course, you didnt have one.

do you not see an inherent contradiction in claiming cannabis will be obtainable worldwide,but that if morocco stops producing it it won't be affordable in ireland?

rubadub

Dudess wrote: »

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

Also the fact is people snorting "cocaine" are not using pure cocaine, it is full of all sorts of crap. People will continue to use it still though no matter what. Before prohibition in the US I would imagine the figures for blindness from alcohol were pretty low, then it gets prohibited, yes the users drop dramatically, but blindness and death increase.

Another problem is unexpected purity, people will often get heavily cut cocaine and then easily overdose on purer product, this effect is compounded since you are talking small amounts of powder, while with alcohol you would taste it, but possibly not the contaminants. In the US they copped on the citizens were still using it despite the law and causing more health problems even though the user base had dropped.

Before its prohibition cocaine was in wide use in dublin, available over the counter in pharmacies, I am not sure if there were many cocaine related deaths during that time.

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?

2 wrongs remove the hypocrisy from the laws, if the legal harmful recreational drugs were illegal I would actually have no real problem, that's the way it would always have been, I probably never would have drank alcohol if it had been illegal growing up. Imagine the media scares about booze. "rat poison" in stimulant drugs is simply strychnine, used as a stimulant and also a poison. Another cutting agent ketamine is usually described as "horse tranquiliser", looks good in the Sun, better than its other medical uses for humans, and the recreational dose is a fraction of what a child would be prescribed. If alcohol was around but only started to be drank by humans today it would be described as "industrial solvent used to degrease tractor engines, make you go mad and beat your wife, get sick and have extreme comedowns (hangovers)."

I could safely say if it was illegal and I experienced a bad hangover I would not have used it again.

As for more problems, as I said previously many people just have desires to experience altered states, many would choose cannabis over alcohol for health reasons among other reasons, but they may fear the law more than their health, so just accept alcohol as the only drug on offer to them. Alcohol is so ingrained in our culture it is frightening, if cannabis was legalized I could not imagine my boss handing out tokens for joints at the christmas party along with booze vouchers, or companies sending gifts of other drugs to other companies.

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.

The point was they are not adding them specifically to harm people, the media infer this when they say "rat poison". I certainly agree they are adding crap but it is not to kill customers, it is a cheap filler which is also a stimulant, be it caffeine or strychnine or just plain bulking glucose. Most dealers have no control over the drug production so have no idea, most are not chemists so will not know the dangers of damp cocaine. Injecting anything off the street is a bad idea.

Terry wrote: »

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

Junkies play the heroin addict card too, I expect many are not real addicts at all and just play the helpless lad led astray by the wicked addiction.

Terry wrote: »

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

Nature didn't make them illegal, do you think the harmful legal drugs are also natures way of weeding out stupid people? You being the mod of the "giving up smoking" forum and all. You made similar comments about addicts in another thread recently.

nibble wrote: »

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?

The chart was from the peer reviewed medical journal The Lancet, not The Sun. You can see the program yourself here. They explain how they list was decided on.

Tha Gopher wrote: »

It will not remain cheap or affordable in Ireland, due to the fact the Morrocans will eventually all but win their war on drugs, and the grass here is generally so badly cut it is not worth buying.

Home grown will rise in popularity, and grit weed is well known by now with buyers refusing it more and more. People have no problem paying €
50-100 for a nights drinking in the pub, even though they could buy illegal alcohol for a fraction of that.

JC 2K3

Ah, an AH drugs debate - more addictive than any drug I've ever tried. Glad to have my latest fix.

As always, it's been a disorganised, point scoring affair, with the stubborn posters, the informed posters, the misinformed posters and those who are far too rigid in their views all dissecting each others' arguments in a messy fashion. Generally, there's been little development in I think the problem is the question is so large and no one knows exactly what they're arguing, or they just doesn't care as long as they get a negative or positive view of drugs across in their post.

Firstly, it's important to define exactly what's being discussed here. While there are thousands of substances out there with possible recreational potential, there are really only a handful that are being discussed when we talk about legalisation. Would I be correct in stating that the following are the only drugs that people are really concerned about here:
-Cannabis
-Cocaine
-MDMA (Ecstasy)
-LSD (and, along the same lines, Mescaline and Psilicobin)
-Heroin

Essentially, all that's being argued about is the legalisation of 5 drugs (and possibly a few others with similiar effects (I know there are a few different types I could have included, but for the sake of this discussion, just leave it at these 5)), only 2 of which are massive problems for people here: Heroin and Cocaine.

In the interest of making this a more interesting discussion, might I suggest that from now on, Heroin and Cocaine be left out of the discussion. I personally acknowledge that there is a massive difference between them and the other 3, because of their addiction potential and all the problems that come with them. I do think that some change of law is needed with relation to them, but I think that it is a distinctly different area of discussion to these other 3 drugs.

So, cannabis, MDMA and LSD/other similar psychedelics. Rather than reasons for them to be legalised, I think reasons should have to be given to support their illegal status. I think we'll all agree that humans should have the right to legally do anything they want to unless there's a very good reason to have something illegal, such as it harming others.

So what are possible arguments for the illegalisation of these substances? I'd put it down to 3 things: Physical Health, Mental Health and Dangers While Under the Influence.

(keep in mind that I'm talking about these drugs below as if they were legal, so being cut with other substances or gang violence doesn't come into it)

Physical Health:
Lung cancer from smoking cannabis aside, since that is something that can be avoided with vaporisation or ingestion, all 3 of these are fairly safe physically, MDMA being the only one with any realistic danger. Overdose is possible, but not likely. Overheating is a possibility but is very related to one's environment, and water intoxication is possible but could be easily stopped with information campaigns.

Mental Health:
Along with causing the user to have enlightening thoughts and epiphanies about their lives, LSD can potentially force someone to face memories one has happily suppressed. Depending on the severity of past trauma, this could unearth psychological problems if one has a bad trip, however, this can be controlled if a friend is close by and the person is in a familiar environment. Bad trips are quite rare, however.
Cannabis is generally used by most without problems and research into its negative effects is extremely inconsistant. It's quite easy to understand how those with mental illness would be attracted to it. However, increased cannabis usage not causing any rise in mental illness in any country, ever, is probably the most compelling argument for it not actually causing mental illness.
MDMA overuse is proven to be bad for memory and even occasional use can cause temporary depression, but is generally not considered a problem drug in terms of mental health. If overused, it is probably the most apparently bad of all 3.

Dangers While Under the Influence
Cannabis wouldn't really have any dangers associated with being under the influence of it, since it generally makes the user lethargic and relaxed. The main issues with being on MDMA would be the environment in which it is usually taken, which could possibly cause overheating. For LSD and other psychedelics, the setting is important, as one can become very scared and have a bad trip if in an unfamiliar place. The myths about drilling holes in ones skull etc. are generally misattributed to LSD and similar psychedelics, however, and would be more likely on delerients like datura (scopolamine), which cause actual hallucinations as opposed to altered perception.

Now, I think there're some things there which would make a case for looking at regulating these substances strictly, but not illegalisation. Feel free to dissect that and disagree with me.


As for what dublindude said about most people being idiots and us having to give up certain things because others can't handle them responsibly, and how legalising drugs would cause more problems than we currently have with alcohol. I have to ask how legalising drugs would cause any more problems than we currently have with alcohol? More drugs doesn't mean more problems, it would just mean an equal amount of problems, just with a few more substances involved, no?

Wow, that was long.....

Sam Vimes

Tha Gopher wrote: »

LOL What in the name of jesus does the fact people in Mesopotamia smoked ganj in 10,000 BC have to do with Ireland in 2020. As I said, cannabis will always be available worldwide. It will always remain obtainable in Africa, the Caribbean, basically anywhere with a suitable climate. It will not remain cheap or affordable in Ireland, due to the fact the Morrocans will eventually all but win their war on drugs, and the grass here is generally so badly cut it is not worth buying.

what it has to do with ireland in 2020 is: people have wanted to smoke hash since the stone age. if this demand has not subsided in the last 12,000 years, the chances of it subsiding in the next 10 are precisely nil. you may as well suggest that people will lose their fondness for burgers and embrace carrots.

so unless you're living in your own imaginary world, you have to admit that the demand will still be there in ten years. so your argument then becomes that prohibition will start to work in the next ten years

this argument fails for two reasons. firstly, you assume that the moroccan government will succeed in the next ten years where every single government in the world has failed since prohibition began. this is simply not going to happen. secondly, it assumes that the only place that we can get cannabis from is morocco. this is not the case. in fact, in can be grown in ireland so by your own logic, it will never be eradicated here. you yourself say it'll be available worldwide so why this focus on morocco?

you also assume that people will get sick of the perceived low quality of the hash we get and stop doing it. this argument also fails for two reasons. firstly, because they haven't got sick of it so far and there's absolutely no reason to suggest that they will in the next ten years. secondly, because it assumes that the drug dealers will simply give up if people go off their low quality hash, rather than improving the quality as all good businessmen do.


the fact is, there is a huge demand for drugs. this demand is not going to go away unless we change the nature of the human brain and as long as there is a demand, drug dealers will find a way to satisfy it, period. to suggest otherwise is just lunacy

Tha Gopher wrote: »

And I would be fairly sure you are one of the guys who never bothered replying to any response I gave to you. Because, of course, you didnt have one.

now you're just making assumptions about me. any examples?

Terry

rubadub wrote: »

The point was they are not adding them specifically to harm people, the media infer this when they say "rat poison". I certainly agree they are adding crap but it is not to kill customers, it is a cheap filler which is also a stimulant, be it caffeine or strychnine or just plain bulking glucose. Most dealers have no control over the drug production so have no idea, most are not chemists so will not know the dangers of damp cocaine. Injecting anything off the street is a bad idea.

My point was that they don't care what's in it or who buys it.
They are ruthless bastards who don't give a crap about anyone.

Junkies play the heroin addict card too, I expect many are not real addicts at all and just play the helpless lad led astray by the wicked addiction.

Indeed they do.
Imagine it was legal.
Would you mind if the guy who mugged you got a light sentence because the judge felt sorry for him because of his government approved addiction?

Nature didn't make them illegal, do you think the harmful legal drugs are also natures way of weeding out stupid people? You being the mod of the "giving up smoking" forum and all. You made similar comments about addicts in another thread recently.

Thkis has nothing to do with nature. Well, human nature, but that's about it.
Just because something is there, it doesn't mean it's good for society.
I don't care if people have smoked weed for thousands of years. They also traded in slaves for thousands of years. They pick on those naturally weaker than them. That doesn't make it right.

as for smoking, I hve said before that I believe all tobacco products should be illegal. Really pointless drug and I write this with a cigarette in my hand.

As for those still advocating the legalisation of heroin, come back to me when you have an addiction to benzodiazepines and I'll talk to you, because then you will know something about addiction.

Sam Vimes

Terry wrote: »

My point was that they don't care what's in it or who buys it.
They are ruthless bastards who don't give a crap about anyone.

Indeed they do.
Imagine it was legal.

i can. it would no longer be sold by ruthless bastards who don't give a crap about anyone

Terry wrote: »

Would you mind if the guy who mugged you got a light sentence because the judge felt sorry for him because of his government approved addiction?

what you have there again is a problem with the irish judicial system, not drugs. who says that the sentences for drug induced crime would have to go down if they were legalised?

brianthebard

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i can. it would no longer be sold by ruthless bastards who don't give a crap about anyone

but who would grow and supply it?As i already pointed out weed in amsterdam still gets contaminated from time to time.

Sam Vimes

brianthebard wrote: »

but who would grow and supply it?As i already pointed out weed in amsterdam still gets contaminated from time to time.

farmers could grow it. I'm sure cannabis does get contaminated from time to time but it's still better than the current situation where you don't know what you're getting

ScumLord

brianthebard wrote: »

but who would grow and supply it?As i already pointed out weed in amsterdam still gets contaminated from time to time.

There's to much of a grey area in Amsterdam. They don't really control anything and are basically just taxing illegal activity.

The Cannabis plant can be a very lucrative plant. It's simple enough to grow, if your only growing it for hemp then it can grow outdoors in Ireland. If Ireland could legalize it the industry could be worth millions (well it is worth millions as it is but it could be worth allot more as a legitimate crop). Hemp is still a valuable crop but it costs allot due to restrictions on growing (even though cannabis grown for hemp is useless for getting high) Irish suppliers would find a big international market waiting for them and little or no competition. There's the same international market for medical cannabis.

There's allot of money in the cannabis plant, there would be plenty of domestic farmers willing to exploit it.

Tha Gopher

Sam Vimes wrote: »

what it has to do with ireland in 2020 is: people have wanted to smoke hash since the stone age. if this demand has not subsided in the last 12,000 years, the chances of it subsiding in the next 10 are precisely nil. you may as well suggest that people will lose their fondness for burgers and embrace carrots.

They have wanted to smoke it for 12,000 years in Ireland?!!?

Though I cant be arsed checking, and tbh in terms of landmass movement 12,000 years is probably a very short time, I dont deny that we may have once had a climate in which weed growed wild. It does in parts of Poland and Russia during the summer after all, so it isnt impossible.

But if you reckon anyone bar the well educated and well travelled sailors had even heard of grass before the 50s, you are having a laugh. The first commoner Irish to experience it were probably emigrants to the US in the 60s, or migrants in England who associated with Jamaicans. It arrived on the college and hippy scene here by the late 60s but was still very much an elitist drug until the mid 70s, and even then was largely unheard of outside the main cities.

so unless you're living in your own imaginary world, you have to admit that the demand will still be there in ten years. so your argument then becomes that prohibition will start to work in the next ten years

Demand will certainly be there. People born pre 1996 or thereabouts will reminisce about warm summer evenings in fields with a few cans getting completely toasted.

These same people, unless they have an absoloute addiction, will not be paying god knows how much for small quantities of Afghan hash that slip through. They will not be paying massive amounts for bags of weak weed nowhere else in Europe wanted. They will not be going to Amsterdam as the Dutch will eventually ban the stuff. Additionally, as the developing world gains more wealth and law and order less people will grow drugs on a large scale. It is already happening in Morocco.

this argument fails for two reasons. firstly, you assume that the moroccan government will succeed in the next ten years where every single government in the world has failed since prohibition began.

Fail.

While California grown weed is certainly available it is not at the level of the likes of Morocco where, until recently, the law largely turned a blind eye to cannabis growing. [/quote]

this is simply not going to happen. secondly, it assumes that the only place that we can get cannabis from is morocco. this is not the case. in fact, in can be grown in ireland so by your own logic, it will never be eradicated here. you yourself say it'll be available worldwide so why this focus on morocco?

Oh ffs.

I said it will never be entirely eradicated from Ireland. Yes, a small minority of people will go to the bother of spending a significant amount of money on grow lights, hydro systems, grow spaces etc etc etc for personal use or sale to friends.

Of course, the above generally excludes people who are house sharing with non friends, people living with parents etc etc etc.

And finally, the vast majority of our smoke does come from Morocco. Nigerian, South African and British home grown also comes in. Again, it is mashed to pieces, making alot of it less strong than evem common soap.

you also assume that people will get sick of the perceived low quality of the hash we get and stop doing it. this argument also fails for two reasons. firstly, because they haven't got sick of it so far and there's absolutely no reason to suggest that they will in the next ten years. secondly, because it assumes that the drug dealers will simply give up if people go off their low quality hash, rather than improving the quality as all good businessmen do.

The decline in the popularity of cocaine in Dublin didnt make them up their quality. Greed always wins.

the fact is, there is a huge demand for drugs. this demand is not going to go away unless we change the nature of the human brain and as long as there is a demand, drug dealers will find a way to satisfy it, period. to suggest otherwise is just lunacy

Teenagers born in this century who by 2020 may have smoked it a handful of times are not going to be hooked enough to demand it.

now you're just making assumptions about me. any examples?

The thread died after I rebuked all arguements. Go check if you want.

rubadub wrote: »

Home grown will rise in popularity, and grit weed is well known by now with buyers refusing it more and more. People have no problem paying €
50-100 for a nights drinking in the pub, even though they could buy illegal alcohol for a fraction of that.

And where could they drink the moonshine? People go to a pub or nightclub to socialise, meet people, watch sport. People are paying for a night out as much as the drink. ffs, you can get as drunk in your home on under 20 euro of Bavaria as you would in a pub. Difference is, it isnt as much fun.

brianthebard wrote: »

do you not see an inherent contradiction in claiming cannabis will be obtainable worldwide,but that if morocco stops producing it it won't be affordable in ireland?

Distance ffs.

Less cut cocaine is cheaper in the US.
It is most expensive in the likes of Eastern Europe given the distance it travels.

Similiarly, with its proximity to Afghanistan heroin is much more affordable to street junkies in Russia than it is after passing through Iran, Turkey, Greece, the fmr Yugoslavia, Italy, Germany, Holland, London, Liverpool and finally Dublin. Genuine Afghan hash would be the same.

Ecstasy has a production price of 5 cent per pill in Holland, where the chemicals for making it are more easily obtainable than elsewhere. It is bought in bulk by traffickers for as little as 25 cent, sold here for a fiver a pop.

Given the distance and location of Australia a single pill goes for 40 euro there. Around 15 euro in the US.

rubadub

Terry wrote: »

My point was that they don't care what's in it or who buys it.
They are ruthless bastards who don't give a crap about anyone.

I totally agree. Your previous post was just in reference to somebody who said "Although I doubt drugs would be cut with harmful substances - why would a dealer try to kill potential customers?"
The drugs are potentially harmful, they cut them with other potentially harmful products too, but these are usually added as a cheap way to increase effect, a lot of the time they are legal, such as caffeine and more recently BZP etc. I think the poster meant they do not add stuff specifically and solely to kill or harm customers, which some gutter press rags do tend to infer.

Terry wrote: »

Would you mind if the guy who mugged you got a light sentence because the judge felt sorry for him because of his government approved addiction?

I would mind, just as I would mind being robbed by a wino wanting a few cans, or a judge letting a guy off assaulting me since he was drunk. A lot of them end up that way by choice, it is a cop out for some, just giving into the addiction, legal or not. Thing is I think some judges currently do fall for the heroin addiction card even more so because its addictive nature tends to be exaggerated by the media. The second "heroin user" is mentioned people presume they are addicts, but many are not, hopefully most judges have more sense.

Some people automatically view heroin users as muggers, but may scoff at the idea of a "legal addict" robbing to feed a habit, I am sure many proceeds of crime go towards buying legal drugs.

Terry wrote: »

This has nothing to do with nature. Well, human nature, but that's about it.
Just because something is there, it doesn't mean it's good for society.

I agree. I was not saying they should be legal if natural, just your point was sort of "nature taking its course", while it is not really the case since man has effectively made nature illegal, some even considering eradicating the cannabis species from the planet.

Terry wrote: »

as for smoking, I hve said before that I believe all tobacco products should be illegal. Really pointless drug and I write this with a cigarette in my hand.

It is pointless, and highly addictive. Most people take cannabis along with it too, making it an even more highly addictive drug, since the cannabis high does give the drug a "point" to users, yet many refuse to admit they are addicted. Many smoke joints daily, yet are convinced they "do not smoke cigarettes", just leads to over indulgence in cannabis and as it is usually unfiltered and with other crap from the hash it has a bad effect on health.

If tobacco was made illegal would you still use it? i.e. buy from drug dealers?

brianthebard wrote: »

but who would grow and supply it?As i already pointed out weed in amsterdam still gets contaminated from time to time.

Cannabis is not legal in holland and as such it is not controlled in anyway. Coffeeshops trade on goodwill/reputation.