Legalising cannibas to cure the resession?

Fighting Irish

efla wrote: »

Anything like this should be debated from the point of view of long term individual health and collective economic implications.

Smoking is not good for you, and smoking marijuana less so. Despite the consistent irony of middle class 'campaigners' effectively justifying their want of an easier supply through exchequer gains, and completely ignoring the real possibility of a burdened healthcare system through long-term smoking related physical and mental complications.

'Legalising cannabis to cure the recession'??

That has to be one of the stupidest things I have heard, even for AH

brains of a rock

Prof.Badass

What's the obsession with cannabis?

Many drugs are safer than cannabis (smoking is definitely not healthy) and therefore logically deserve to be legalised more than cannabis. From an objective point of view, singling out cannabis just seems really random.

When people keep mentioning cannabis, it's as if they don't actually care so much about the moral/politcal arguments. They just want it legalised because they happen to enjoy it themselves.

People who want only cannabis legalised really annoy me. To me they are even worse than the joe duffy crowd. Having to personally work around anti-drug laws themselves you'd think they'd be less ignorant. How they can manage to be so closed minded about other drugs while expecting people to be open minded about cannabis just baffles me.

marcsignal

imo they should legalise it and base its regulation loosely on the regulations governing alcohol.

ie: you have to be licenced to sell/distribute it, but you can grow your own, just as you can brew your own beer.

i find when i have it, i smoke far fewer cigarettes, and i can't help feeling that the 'paranoia' associated with the herb, is closely linked to the fact that it's illegal, and the fear of being caught. Despite the seizures lately, more and more of it is grown in ireland and consumed here.

there are other medical benefits that should be explored, treatment of MS etc, and hemp could be used as it has been in the past for many things, replacing other non biodegradable substances currently used for everyday items.

an honest un-biast study of the issue is long overdue.

sdanseo

The only reason the above poll is so biased towards yes is because the majority of people in the boards demographic are young and either use or have used cannabis.

The fact is it's about equal to smoking, which is being heavily restricted. Just because it has a bigger relaxing effect than tobacco doesn't mean it's any safer. Just because people smoke less of it doesn't make it a safer substance, it still does harm even if not as much. Both should be a person's choice in principle, but things aren't that simple. People make shít choices. There's nothing good in the long term about smoking in any form. If it could be guarenteed that legalising it might lower people's intake of carcinogens on a wide scale then maybe there'd be some merit, but give it a few years and people would get used to it being freely available. People probaby didn't used to be on 40 a day when cigarettes first came available.

If tobacco smoking could be banned now, it definately should be, and probably would be, because people realise that at the end of the day it costs nearly as much cure all the associated illnesses than governments stand to profit from it.

Tellox

Firstly; yes, it's harmless in moderation. There doesn't even need to be a LOT of moderation - just don't smoke it 24/7 and you'll be fine. And anyone with some experience can tell you that having a smoke after a long day's work is far more enjoyable (and better for you) than sitting down and starting on cans.

But then you've got the idiots who brand a leaf alongside the likes of heroin; it's a gateway drug!! etc etc. Unfortunately due to the amount of idiots like this in the country (and it's an embarrassing amount), I can't see us ever making any real progress towards some sort of legalisation.

The tax revenue would be fantastic - and we'd also be regulating the stuff, so the health implications of getting soapbar mixed up with the usual crap such as plastic, or being dipped in petrol and the likes would be out the window. And let's not forget that weed doesn't have the addictive properties of tobacco.

The big argument is all the scum we see belting around full of drink at young enough ages (14-16~) having a new vice to latch on to. I would throw that argument out the window - give me a scumbag stoned off his head over one full of cans any day. They'd be more likely to sit down and play their playstation rather than run around starting fights.

And the big kicker of it all is how readily available it is - I honestly can't think of more than 2 or 3 people who have never at least tried the stuff. This includes those who are currently earning their masters, those in full time employment, those with families.. etc etc. It's not a gateway drug, and in moderation, it's not going to fry your brain any worse than what having a few cans at the weekend would do.

Regulate it, Tax it, Sell it. Better the money goes back into building a nice road in Ireland than an offshore bank account.

in b4 "YOU ARE THE REASON DRUGS ARE SO RAMPANT IN THIS COUNTRY YOU SWINE etc"

ScumLord

vinylmesh wrote: »

What's the obsession with cannabis?

Many drugs are safer than cannabis (smoking is definitely not healthy) and therefore logically deserve to be legalised more than cannabis. From an objective point of view, singling out cannabis just seems really random.

When people keep mentioning cannabis, it's as if they don't actually care so much about the moral/politcal arguments. They just want it legalised because they happen to enjoy it themselves.

People who want only cannabis legalised really annoy me. To me they are even worse than the joe duffy crowd. Having to personally work around anti-drug laws themselves you'd think they'd be less ignorant. How they can manage to be so closed minded about other drugs while expecting people to be open minded about cannabis just baffles me.

I'd be in favour of legalising all drugs but cannabis is my drug of preference and it's the only one I feel really strongly about getting legalised. Cannabis has so many benefits in so many areas it's criminal that we can't make use of this wonder plant. It's also a great way of testing the water when it comes to legalising other drugs.

I think all efforts should be focused on cannabis to get it pushed through. Trying to get all drugs legalised in one fell swoop won't work we need stepping stones.

marcsignal

Tellox wrote: »

Firstly; yes, it's harmless in moderation. There doesn't even need to be a LOT of moderation - just don't smoke it 24/7 and you'll be fine. And anyone with some experience can tell you that having a smoke after a long day's work is far more enjoyable (and better for you) than sitting down and starting on cans.

have to agree Tellox, as with all of these things, common sense should always be a prevailing factor.
Adding to that, all I can say in support of its use, is, that having drank in dublin city centre for over 20 years, prior to the smoking ban, i've never seen agro in any pub that turned a blind eye to punters having the odd spliff.

go into town any weekend and you'll see people pissed up to the eyeballs kicking the shit out of one and other.

faceman

Im against it. Our healthcare system is already crippled by alcohol and cigarette related illnesses. We dont need an additional burden.

I always hate the way the pro druggies always spout medicinal medicine or other benefits as if it the only and best offering to treat an ailment. Its mind altering therefore doesnt offer any treatment of most conditions it is claimed to help.

Prohibition doesnt work but as we've seen with the government's attitude to dealing with smoking in Ireland, the numbers of young people taking up smoking has greatly fallen as a result, which benefits the individual and those around them. NOt to mention the health care system.

But if sitting in stoned off your face, disconnected from the real world is your thing, knock yourself out.

Homicidal_jesus

vinylmesh wrote: »

What's the obsession with cannabis?

Many drugs are safer than cannabis (smoking is definitely not healthy)

..its fun:D

and in the history of the united states there has never been a death soley linked to cannabis unlike tobacco..not sure about europe..but i like those odds

ScumLord

faceman wrote: »

Im against it. Our healthcare system is already crippled by alcohol and cigarette related illnesses. We dont need an additional burden.

What additional burden? Your just assuming it'll create a similar burden to two completely different drugs.

I always hate the way the pro druggies always spout medicinal medicine or other benefits as if it the only and best offering to treat an ailment. Its mind altering therefore doesnt offer any treatment of most conditions it is claimed to help.

It is a form of treatment, you can use it to replace multiple drugs with just one. It's being researched and brought to the market as we speak, in fact it's ready as an oral spray and proving very successful it's just not being used because the government won't allow it and the medical companies would rather sell their much more expensive and patented drugs instead.

Prohibition doesnt work

and isn't nessecary it's a waste of time, money and people lifes.

But if sitting in stoned off your face, disconnected from the real world is your thing, knock yourself out.

You obviously don't smoke. Smoking with friends is much more enjoyable just like drinking with friends is much more enjoyable.

Neamhshuntasach

With weed you smoke and enjoy the effects. You know your limits. With alcohol you drink and are usually too drunk to enjoy or remember the effects. What is really worse? I use both regularily. And i've a fair idea which one is worse for my health.

Ostrom

Fighting Irish wrote: »

brains of a rock

Argue back

chachabinx wrote: »

Ok my point was that its everywhere anyway... most of this generation is smoking it on a daily basis so why not???? There is still going to be the same problem regarding healthcare whether its legal or not!

Also did you know that the scum that provides the drugs mix it with sand, diesel, petrol & old tyres & lord knows what else. So to me thats would cripple the healthcare system NOT clean weed & hash!

Below is the medical benifits.



Note the word partial:

Partial list of clinical applications
"Victoria", the United States' first legal medical marijuana plant grown by The Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana.[citation needed]

Medical cannabis specialist Tod H. Mikuriya recorded over 250 indications for medical cannabis,[10] as classified by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-9).[11]

In a 2002 review of medical literature, medical cannabis was shown to have established effects in the treatment of nausea, vomiting, premenstrual syndrome, unintentional weight loss, and lack of appetite. Other "relatively well-confirmed" effects were in the treatment of "spasticity, painful conditions, especially neurogenic pain, movement disorders, asthma, [and] Glaucoma".[12]

Preliminary findings indicate that cannabis-based drugs could prove useful in treating inflammatory bowel disease (consisting of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis),[13] migraines, fibromyalgia, and related conditions.[14]

Medical cannabis has also been found to relieve certain symptoms of multiple sclerosis[15] and spinal cord injuries[16][17][18] by exhibiting antispasmodic and muscle-relaxant properties as well as stimulating appetite. Clinical trials provide evidence that THC reduces motor and vocal tics of Tourette syndrome and related behavioral problems such as obsessive–compulsive disorders.[19][20]

Other studies have shown cannabis or cannabinoids to be useful in treating alcohol abuse,[21] attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD or AD/HD)[22][23] amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,[24][25][26] collagen-induced arthritis,[27] rheumatoid arthritis,[28] asthma,[29] atherosclerosis[30] bipolar disorder,[31][32] childhood mental disorders,[33] colorectal cancer,[34] depression,[35][36][37][38] diabetic retinopathy,[39][40] dystonia,[41][42] epilepsy,[43][44] digestive diseases,[45][46] gliomas,[47][48] hepatitis C,[49][50] Huntington's disease,[51] hypertension,[52][53] urinary incontinence,[54] leukemia,[55] skin tumors,[56] morning sickness,[57][58] methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA),[59][60] Parkinson's disease,[61] pruritus,[62][63] posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD),[64][65][66] sickle-cell disease,[67] and sleep apnea.[68]

And not a mention of the need for controlled administration under the supervision of medical professionals?

Where exactly is this clean hash and weed to come from? Will a protected domestic supply produce a purification industry? Should we allocate the resources of a state department to policing revenue and licensing vendors? What about the added costs of acquiring pure substance, would that drive up black market competition for contaminated cheap alternatives?

From a public health perspective, it makes no sense to promote marijuana smoking, the operative word being smoking. Your data does not matter, something the pro-cannabis lobby consistently overlooks; it justifies controlled administration for pain management, and suggests nothing about quality of life enhancement for those who do not need it. The extent of the damage surplus to that encountered through tobacco is irrelevant, you are proposing to introduce a substance - that medical research tells us should (obviously) be limited on a case-by-case basis - to the general population.

What medic could possibly sanction what you are talking about at the level you are suggesting? These arguments always come back to lifestyle choices, with abuse of data shaped to an argument it was never intended to support.

Tellox

faceman wrote: »

Im against it. Our healthcare system is already crippled by alcohol and cigarette related illnesses. We dont need an additional burden.

Are you kidding me? The tax on cigarettes far more than covers the health costs. Generally someone who smokes weed would smoke less tobacco - due to the "oversmoked" feeling you can have shortly afterwards. Now, I'm not attempting to say that legalising weed would HELP our healthcare system, but it certainly would not cripple it; especially with the tax that would be hiked onto it.

I always hate the way the pro druggies always spout medicinal medicine or other benefits as if it the only and best offering to treat an ailment. Its mind altering therefore doesnt offer any treatment of most conditions it is claimed to help.

As with any other over the counter medicine such as panadol, hedex.. etc etc. I'm also unable to take the vast majority of painkillers on the market (like plenty of others, due to pre-existing conditions) - take a guess as to what I do when I've a splitting migraine.

Prohibition doesnt work but as we've seen with the government's attitude to dealing with smoking in Ireland, the numbers of young people taking up smoking has greatly fallen as a result, which benefits the individual and those around them. NOt to mention the health care system.

Where did you pull that out of? I see no less underage smokers on the street now than I did 10 years ago.

But if sitting in stoned off your face, disconnected from the real world is your thing, knock yourself out.

*facepalm*

humanji

marcsignal wrote: »

go into town any weekend and you'll see people pissed up to the eyeballs kicking the shit out of one and other.

Is that drinks fault or peoples fault?

Tellox wrote:

Are you kidding me? The tax on cigarettes far more than covers the health costs. Generally someone who smokes weed would smoke less tobacco - due to the "oversmoked" feeling you can have shortly afterwards. Now, I'm not attempting to say that legalising weed would HELP our healthcare system, but it certainly would not cripple it; especially with the tax that would be hiked onto it.

The point is, there's no point adding another burden (however light it may seem) to the mix with out sorting these ones out first. I'd be all for legalising cannabis if the rest of the country could be sorted out first. Legalising it now will do very little for the economy in the short term and besides, as is said in the several hundred thousand similar threads before, it would be political suicide for any party to legalise it.

chachabinx

bluto63 wrote: »

I would think that legalising weed would encourage more smokers, which would encourage more people to spend the night in smoking, rather than going to the pub. The tax they'd get off alcohol would be far higher than that they would get off weed, so I fail to see how it could cure the recession

Yes but most people do this anyway because its so easily available... it cuts out the risk of driving still half drunk... and being hungover in work... also is it not better that people are sitting at home smoking then out drunk causing trouble.. gettin sick on the street... abusing people trying to make a living... unprotected sex which lead to pregnancy.. which leads to lone parent allowence, rent allowence or a council house, having to leave college & school & pretty much ****ing up you whole life...
People gettin beaten to death for no reason or stabbed... windows gettin smashed & cars gettin smashed up!

And how would they not make as much money... its grows itself!

wudangclan

humanji wrote: »

Is that drinks fault or peoples fault?

drinks affect on people?

You Suck!

Our healthcare system is already crippled by alcohol and cigarette related illnesses.

Really?
As far as I was aware smokers outpay their costs to the system by a hefty chunk thanks to the wonderful tax fish that likes to swim in a barrel. Don't know about alcohol, but once again tax comes to mind for some strange reason.

No, whats crippling health care is complete and utter mismanagement and incompentance, not to mention a bloated and bureaucratic civil service grown fat on getting what they want without fear of recrimination.

pro druggies

Yeah, the legalization stereotypes and the people who fulfill are a pain, but does it do anything for your argument to invoke a stereotype?

Hows about these 'pro-druggies':
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html

The report shows that marijuana legalization -- replacing prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation -- would save $7.7 billion per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods. If, however, marijuana were taxed similarly to alcohol or tobacco, it might generate as much as $6.2 billion annually.

But now before you accuse me of being 'pro-druggie', let me just say I used to care and don't really give a **** anymore. Prohibition or lack thereof does not affect me, and these arguments on the internets can and will go on forever so **** it, meh whatever.

Prof.Badass

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd be in favour of legalising all drugs but cannabis is my drug of preference and it's the only one I feel really strongly about getting legalised. Cannabis has so many benefits in so many areas it's criminal that we can't make use of this wonder plant. It's also a great way of testing the water when it comes to legalising other drugs.

I think all efforts should be focused on cannabis to get it pushed through. Trying to get all drugs legalised in one fell swoop won't work we need stepping stones.

I honestly cannot ever see cannabis being legalised as a result of "let's legalise cannabis, it's not that bad".
By arguing about cannabis specifically you're actually playing into their hands. It gives the impression that you agree somewhat with their arguments.

By the same token, I cannot see cannabis being legalised as part of "we need to legalise all drugs".

What i can see however, is cannabis eventually being legalised as part of a call for a change in how we deal with drugs. And i don't think legalising cannabis would be suitable first step.

The first step might be to loosen restrictions on nicotine-replacement products in order to reduce the harm caused by tobacco. The next step might be to legalise a safer alternative to alcohol or maybe a non-toxic synthetic cannabinoid.

Basically i think by arguing "legalise cannabis" or "legalise all drugs" you're barking up the wrong tree. I think "prohibition is a mess" and "we need a rational approach to drugs" are much better arguments .

wudangclan

isn't it being taxed now in california?
yes it is ,i just googled it.
http://www.canorml.org/news/oaktax.html
hopefully this will lead to reform in other states and then the rest of the world.
a pity we don't have politicians imaginative or brave enough here to initiate this.
(1.8% tax doesn't seem like a huge amount.i would imagine the tax here will be much higher when it is eventually legalised.)

humanji

wudangclan wrote: »

drinks affect on people?

Or peoples inability to drink moderately?

chachabinx

efla wrote: »

Argue back



And not a mention of the need for controlled administration under the supervision of medical professionals?

Where exactly is this clean hash and weed to come from? Will a protected domestic supply produce a purification industry? Should we allocate the resources of a state department to policing revenue and licensing vendors? What about the added costs of acquiring pure substance, would that drive up black market competition for contaminated cheap alternatives?

From a public health perspective, it makes no sense to promote marijuana smoking, the operative word being smoking. Your data does not matter, something the pro-cannabis lobby consistently overlooks; it justifies controlled administration for pain management, and suggests nothing about quality of life enhancement for those who do not need it. The extent of the damage surplus to that encountered through tobacco is irrelevant, you are proposing to introduce a substance - that medical research tells us should (obviously) be limited on a case-by-case basis - to the general population.

What medic could possibly sanction what you are talking about at the level you are suggesting? These arguments always come back to lifestyle choices, with abuse of data shaped to an argument it was never intended to support.

Ok now... Alcohol is legal... do you see any normal everyday human being buying it off the black market (remember I said NORMAL)! You can tastle the quality, you can see it & you can feel it...
Clean hash & weed grows on tree's... where did you go to school? Obviously for your "grand" vocabulary it was somewhere good... but did they not teach you any common sense?
You are the sort of person that is in government now... squeeky clean with no street smarts what-so-ever!
THe people that have this country the way it is!

wudangclan

humanji wrote: »

Or peoples inability to drink moderately?

or a mixture of all three?

chachabinx

faceman wrote: »

Im against it. Our healthcare system is already crippled by alcohol and cigarette related illnesses. We dont need an additional burden.

I always hate the way the pro druggies always spout medicinal medicine or other benefits as if it the only and best offering to treat an ailment. Its mind altering therefore doesnt offer any treatment of most conditions it is claimed to help.

Prohibition doesnt work but as we've seen with the government's attitude to dealing with smoking in Ireland, the numbers of young people taking up smoking has greatly fallen as a result, which benefits the individual and those around them. NOt to mention the health care system.

But if sitting in stoned off your face, disconnected from the real world is your thing, knock yourself out.

Sitting around stoned off your face??
I work 9-5.30 & go to college in the evenings... and I go home and have a joint... its the only part of my day that I really truely enjoy... do I not deserve that??

Tellox

humanji wrote: »

The point is, there's no point adding another burden (however light it may seem) to the mix with out sorting these ones out first. I'd be all for legalising cannabis if the rest of the country could be sorted out first. Legalising it now will do very little for the economy in the short term and besides, as is said in the several hundred thousand similar threads before, it would be political suicide for any party to legalise it.

I think you missed the point. Cigarette's are taxed to the point where they cover the healthcare costs, and far more on top of it. There's no reason as to why they wouldn't do the same with government regulated cannabis.

Tellox

chachabinx wrote: »

Sitting around stoned off your face??
I work 9-5.30 & go to college in the evenings... and I go home and have a joint... its the only part of my day that I really truely enjoy... do I not deserve that??

No, you should go home and have a bottle of vodka each night. You'll be a far more productive member of society. And that's what's important. Not enjoyment of life, but productivity and living to the upstanding morals set by the government.

wudangclan

Tellox wrote: »

No, you should go home and have a bottle of vodka each night. You'll be a far more productive member of society. And that's what's important. Not enjoyment of life, but productivity and living to the upstanding morals set by the government.

the caption above his head kinda sums it up.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/images/2009/0910/frontpageimage.jpg?ts=1252588132


reminiscent of 'arbeit macht frei'.

starflake

Or go home each night and have neither ?? just a suggestion!

starflake

chachabinx wrote: »

Ok now... Alcohol is legal... do you see any normal everyday human being buying it off the black market (remember I said NORMAL)! You can tastle the quality, you can see it & you can feel it...
Clean hash & weed grows on tree's... where did you go to school? Obviously for your "grand" vocabulary it was somewhere good... but did they not teach you any common sense?
You are the sort of person that is in government now... squeeky clean with no street smarts what-so-ever!
THe people that have this country the way it is!

Ouch.... You don't know Efla... bit harsh really... No need to get personal. This is a public debate it's not a personal bashing!

chachabinx

Tellox wrote: »

No, you should go home and have a bottle of vodka each night. You'll be a far more productive member of society. And that's what's important. Not enjoyment of life, but productivity and living to the upstanding morals set by the government.

Thats it Im running for president... who's with me??

Another point I would like to make is the coffee's shops that will be able replace all the run down restaurants that were closed as a result of the ressession...

Also most 16-25 years olds still live at home & most parents are ignorent of the fact & don't let their kids smoke it in the house (which is understandable) so instead there driving around parked up in carparks getting high or hanging around schools & shops...

Ostrom

chachabinx wrote: »

Ok now... Alcohol is legal... do you see any normal everyday human being buying it off the black market (remember I said NORMAL)! You can tastle the quality, you can see it & you can feel it...
Clean hash & weed grows on tree's... where did you go to school? Obviously for your "grand" vocabulary it was somewhere good... but did they not teach you any common sense?
You are the sort of person that is in government now... squeeky clean with no street smarts what-so-ever!
THe people that have this country the way it is!

I'm crushed.

Meanwhile, back in the real world where our economic fortunes are determined by factors other than the intoxicant market, the legality of alsohol has nothing to do with it. I'm sure you will agree, as your cited 'research' and other such idiotic stoner campaign pages will tell you, alcohol causes many more deaths per year, either directly, or indirectly.

A history of narcotics will show you something of the bigotry and misinformation that surrounded early legislation and later policing policy, so let it not be said that I'm being hypocritical - I'm well aware the current state of legislation is founded on equally mis-directing evidence - sensible though it probably appeared at the time. The point should be purely from a public health perspective - there is no rationale for introducing something potentially damaging, irrespective of how limiting the damage may be, or how much faith you have in the ability of the consumer to self-regulate.

Alcohol has developed differently (obviously) into a profitable enterprise - despite the fact that it also holds no significant long-term benefits (dont bother posting the weekly daily mail 'shot a day cures cancer' links), burdens our healthcare system with alcohol-related illnesses, indirect admissions due to induced violence, road deaths, and numerous effects at the level of family.

As for marijuana, are you telling me that we are able to distinguish quality without some sort of acquired taste/direction? Completely impossible without some sort of learning process. It is enough to assume taste will regulate any potential trade in contaminated marijuana?

I have an excellent education - I smoked my way through undergrad engineering many years ago and failed out, and spent plenty of years exposed to your kind, so trust me, I am under no illusious that your 'campaign' has anything to do with enriching the public good through tax.


Now, why not address some of the concerns raised in this thread instead of picking at my grammer and blaming 'de government'?