Legalising cannibas to cure the resession?

ScumLord

starflake wrote: »

You seem like a good person Auvers your kids will be good people too I'm not saying don't legalise cannabis here I'm just saying we need to research it in every which way possible before doing so. It has worked out fine in Holland but knowing the famous Irish culture of excess we should be very careful before doing anything drastic, y'know

Excessive cannabis use isn't going to have nearly the same effect on people and society that drink does. The worst thing (imo) that can happen if you do to much weed is you become almost immune to the high it produces.

meditraitor

ScumLord wrote: »

The worst thing (imo) that can happen if you do to much weed is you become almost immune to the high it produces.

This is certainly a good point and is proven in the Dutch model, the THC content in marajauna has more than doubled between 1998 and present day in amsterdam coffe shops

starflake

ScumLord wrote: »

Excessive cannabis use isn't going to have nearly the same effect on people and society that drink does. The worst thing (imo) that can happen if you do to much weed is you become almost immune to the high it produces.

What happens then if you can't get the same high that you used to? do you stop smoking it? sorry i'm ignorant to all of this

starflake

Personal liberty.

That is all.

starflake wrote:

What happens then if you can't get the same high that you used to? do you stop smoking it? sorry i'm ignorant to all of this

Yes. As with almost all psychoactive substances (including alcohol and prescription drugs), chronic use will cause the person to develop a tolerance due to down-regulation of the receptors. The solution is to stop for a while.

ScumLord

meditraitor wrote: »

This is certainly a good point and is proven in the Dutch model, the THC content in marajauna has more than doubled between 1998 and present day in amsterdam coffe shops

That's also been urged on by the likes of the cannabis cup and competition. It is bad over all for the cannabis user, like pointed out already by others the anitphycotics and anticarcinogens go down when THC content goes up. That's only going to get worse while people grow outside of any regulation.

chachabinx

meditraitor wrote: »

This thread has gone off topic a bit guys, I am anti legalising drugs but Im willing to listen and maybe debate with anybody who can give a good reason to legalise Cannabis.

Anyone?

Money going to government
Not going into offshore bank accounts
Non-contaminated & regulated weed
A numours amount of jobs being created
Loads of hip cafe's taking up where shops/pubs & resaurants have closed down
Sickening the drug dealers of the country
Taking young adults off the streets
Tourism

ScumLord

starflake wrote: »

What happens then if you can't get the same high that you used to? do you stop smoking it? sorry i'm ignorant to all of this

I do. After you build up a tolerance it doesn't really matter how much you smoke your not going to get high.

chachabinx

meditraitor wrote: »

This is certainly a good point and is proven in the Dutch model, the THC content in marajauna has more than doubled between 1998 and present day in amsterdam coffe shops

I've been smoking 7 years & that is completely untrue... its always going to get you stoned... I dunno where that came from but I still get as stoned now as I did back in the day...

starflake

ScumLord wrote: »

I do. After you build up a tolerance it doesn't really matter how much you smoke your not going to get high.

So what happens then? Do you drink instead do you smoke to get high? I don't mean you personally I mean 'people'.

Hauk

meditraitor wrote: »

It wont cure the recession, only a nut would think that:D

Ah but it would help

I'd love to have a decent debate, but every time one of these comes up, it descends into "Who has the moral high ground?".

I am of the personal opinion that it would bring agricultural, industrial, medicinal and recreational benefits to Ireland. It's an untapped industry, and any modern government with an eye on economic trends should be willing to at least put the debate on the table.

I'm just after reading the National Drug Strategy that was launched today. 70% of the "Steering Group"(I have no idea who these people are) were in favour of the medicinal use:

From the National Drug Strategy PDF wrote:

The Steering Group considered the legislative
framework governing illicit substances. Most
were not in favour of legalising, decriminalising
or changing/redefining the legal status of
certain illicit drugs (cannabis was the focus
of most discussion in this context). In these
discussions, it was pointed out that findings
from the Drug Prevalence Surveys of 2002/03
and 2006/0715
16 indicated that approximately
70% of those surveyed were of the opinion
that recreational use of cannabis should not
be permitted (support for the medicinal use
of cannabis was about 70% over the two
surveys).

Yet 70% were against the recreational use.

I haven't delved too much into the document. I've only searched the document for "cannabis" and read the associated paragraphs/sections.

I could go on and on and on, but my main point is: I would consider there to be far more benefits for the cannabis industry being taxed and regulated, which would aid the economy in it's recovery.

Hauk

ScumLord

starflake wrote: »

So what happens then? Do you drink instead do you smoke to get high? I don't mean you personally I mean 'people'.

I don't know, watch tv, read a book, internet, my life doesn't revolve around smoking spliffs and I don't smoke 24/7. I consider myself a stoner because of the culture and everything that goes with it it's not just purely about smoking weed. Although that is a major part of it.

meditraitor

chachabinx wrote: »

Money going to government

Ok, fair enough. But how much does the government have to reinvest? Social care, health awareness, treatment? and general health care (if usage increases)

chachabinx wrote: »

Not going into offshore bank accounts

Not relevent

chachabinx wrote: »

Non-contaminated & regulated weed

Who grows it and were? The security on this type of operation would be enormous

chachabinx wrote: »

A numours amount of jobs being created

Would this industry be new or replace jobs in other industrys i.e drinks industry

chachabinx wrote: »

Loads of hip cafe's taking up where shops/pubs & resaurants have closed down

But the shops and restaurants are closing because people have no money, thats not going to change

chachabinx wrote: »

Sickening the drug dealers of the country

Cannabis is probably only #3 in terms of the money drug dealer make from their Business

chachabinx wrote: »

Taking young adults off the streets

Thats not going to change, plenty of smokers on the street.

chachabinx wrote: »

Tourism

This is the tricky one, drug tourism is in my opinion something we could do without.
Maybe just sell it to residents (like they plan to do in amsterdam very soon)


Im still not convinced but fair play

chachabinx

starflake wrote: »

So what happens then? Do you drink instead do you smoke to get high? I don't mean you personally I mean 'people'.

People automatically think that you would go to somethin else but the thing is cannabis is in a league of it own... its not like alcohol & hard drugs... its different...
I think that if cannibis didn't exist at all the same people would be doin the same drugs...
Its not about what gets you high its about people being curious... I was always curious about drug & I done them... I went through a phase & I stopped it... I have friends that smoke cannabis & wouldn't touch another drug & then I have friends that would touch hard drugs & don't smoke cannabis... its about what your into not this "doesn't get you high anymore" crap!

meditraitor

chachabinx wrote: »

I've been smoking 7 years & that is completely untrue... its always going to get you stoned... I dunno where that came from but I still get as stoned now as I did back in the day...

Whats untrue? the THC concentration in marajuana sold in amsterdam coffe shops has doubled in recent times. I **** you not!

From personal experience I can say that excessive and regular use does diminish the effect

marcsignal

humanji wrote: »

Is that drinks fault or peoples fault?

a combination of both i'd guess. alcohol has a tendancy to make many people aggressive, particularlly if you have a predisposition to aggression, just as smoke, possibly has potential to cause emotional/mental problems to people who have a predisposition to them.

personally i'd prefere to be dealing with a stoner, than an aggressive drunk, if i was a doorman or garda.

chachabinx

meditraitor wrote: »

Ok, fair enough. But how much does the government have to reinvest? Social care, health awareness, treatment? and general health care (if usage increases)



Not relevent



Who grows it and were? The security on this type of operation would be enormous



Would this industry be new or replace jobs in other industrys i.e drinks industry



But the shops and restaurants are closing because people have no money, thats not going to change



Cannabis is probably only #3 in terms of the money drug dealer make from their Business



Thats not going to change, plenty of smokers on the street.



This is the tricky one, drug tourism is in my opinion something we could do without.
Maybe just sell it to residents (like they plan to do in amsterdam very soon)


Im still not convinced but fair play

Reinvestment? People invest the government TAX

Social care? My point again.. its gettin smoked anyway so why not legalise it.

health awareness - we can do the usualy a few ads on TV.. won't cost much compared to the $$$$ from revenue

Treatment - My point again.. its gettin smoked anyway so why not legalise it.



can you explain why this is not relavent? Its cash leaving the country




And how do they do it in amsterdam? How do they produce cigarettes & alcohol here? Again the revenue will be much more than cost. Secuity fences & guards...



again no because people will still want to go out & have a few drinks and is smoking alot more benefitial to society & your health than drinking?




Yes but there is still millions being spend on cannabis... even those that do not work can still afford 50 quid a week for smoke... I've seen it... most of my male friends are living at home & out of work and the females that are all working still spendin as much this year as last year




-
yes but its still a MASSIVE amount even if its only 3rd



Yes but alot less if there is somewhere warm & cosy to go with a bit of atmosphere



We're not going to be shoving coke down there noses so can you please call it cannabis tourism. And it goes no harm in Amsterdam does it not. Is it better that people come here to get pissed out of their mind?.. And lets face it anyone that visits Dublin City is there for a party... and in fairness I've I had to be there all the time I think I'd be drunk/stoned all the time too

Pace2008

While it’s naive to believe that cannabis alone would be enough to bring us out of a recession that is largely caused by external forces, I would like to see it legalised (along with select other drugs) at some stage in the future, for any number of personal and socioeconomic reasons that I couldn’t be arsed listing, and have been done to death already. However, I can’t see it happening any time soon for a number of reasons.

Firstly, and possibly most crucially, we live in a society that has been dominated by the Church until relatively recent years. I believe that there’s a correlation between the influence of religion on any given country and the harshness of punitive drug laws as well as the general attitude the public holds towards mind-altering chemicals. It’s based around the notion that achieving an inordinate amount of pleasure is inherently bad, even if doing so has no ill-effect on those around you - a personal sin as such. If you go back fifty years you’ll find plenty of people held the idea of casual, premarital sex in similar disregard. As the Church’s grasp over Ireland loosens I can see a shift in the public’s attitude towards the issue - it’s safe to say that the current generation has a more liberal view towards drugs.

Secondly, we have a government that is either unable or unwilling to implement pragmatic solutions for anything (and this is not exclusive to drugs) - ban/tax/ban/tax ad nauseum.

In addition, if Ireland was to take the initiative and introduce legalisation, we could have the issue of drug tourism to deal with. If weed became legal here, you can be sure every scumbag from the UK (along with all the respectable stoners) would be getting their 10c Ryanair flights over to Dublin every second weekend, and bringing trouble with them. If it was
The other way around, I think Britain would have no bother handling Irish troublemakers abroad, but Ireland is a small country and sudden influx of undesirables from a nation with a population nearly fifteen times greater than our own could present difficulties. It’s a situation that may not even arise but it’s one of the more compelling arguments I’ve heard from the anti-drug lobby over here.

faceman wrote: »

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.

Your comment doesn’t really justify a response but I’d advise you to look at the World Health Organisation’s list of essential medicines. Ketamine, nitrous oxide, morphine, and a bunch of Benzos are listed there (to name but a few) – compounds which should fit your definition of ‘mind-altering’. Perhaps you’d like to contact them and tell them they’re wrong? This is a perfect example of morality getting in the way of objectivity.

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?

Purification? What are you talking about? It’s a plant. You grow it, dry out the buds, and smoke/vaporise it. There’s no purification process for potatoes that I’m aware of, and Google isn’t turning up many relevant results. The only reason contaminated cannabis is out there is due to its illicit nature and the desire of dealers to make profit, which causes it to be ‘cut’ with impurities along the chain of supply. In a regulated market there would be no reason to provide a contaminated product.

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?

See above. I can’t see how there’d be a market for a contaminated product in a regulated environment. Or am I missing your point completely?

efla wrote: »

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.

I await your citations, because I dont think you have any that will justify it. When did smoking in any form, outside the context of experimental medical control, become good for you?

Creating a legal market, and as another poster suggested, actively promoting it through coffee shops - it is reasonable to assume that more would end up smoking than now. (I wasn't talking about second hand smoke)

I don’t agree with your general sentiments. Your view on what’s good and bad for society is a bit cold and seems to take the human out of humanities, if you’ll excuse the trope. Do you not think the fact that getting high is enjoyable factors in there somewhere? I know ‘good times while stoned’ is something of an intangible factor and isn’t exactly as measurable as ‘respiratory difficulties caused by chronic cannabis abuse’ but it has to count for something. I’ll be the first to put my hands up and admit my stance towards legalisation isn’t entirely based around some altruistic desire to ameliorate my country’s economy – I’d also be partial to a bit of legal, cheap, good-quality weed, and I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with this motive . Of course, if legalisation was to decimate the country it’d obviously be a bad thing, but I don’t think that it would happen, even in our culture of excess. Despite all the talk of cannabis causing mental illness, it’s yet to be ascertained in any real way. Meta-analyses have shown a correlation between schizophrenia and cannabis consumption, but so too have they shown that schizophrenics smoke an inordinate amount of cigarettes, and take more drugs in general than the average person. There's also been no proven link to date between cannabis use and cancer, despite the fact that there's more carcinogens in weed than cigarettes. It'd be foolish to assume that there aren't potential dangers associated with weed - it can be an insidious drug that can affect your life for the worse if abused, despite what the pro-leglalisation lobby (whom I also don't trust) may say - but I think the potential economic benefits, combined with the importance of one's liberties, outweigh them.

Mrmoe

Can we not just legalize brownies then which would result in no smoking related diseases.

Ostrom

Pace2008 wrote: »

Purification? What are you talking about? It’s a plant. You grow it, dry out the buds, and smoke/vaporise it. There’s no purification process for potatoes that I’m aware of, and Google isn’t turning up many relevant results. The only reason contaminated cannabis is out there is due to its illicit nature and the desire of dealers to make profit, which causes it to be ‘cut’ with impurities along the chain of supply. In a regulated market there would be no reason to provide a contaminated product.

See above. I can’t see how there’d be a market for a contaminated product in a regulated environment. Or am I missing your point completely?

My point, or question was how such a trade could be regulated - with the added expense of pure weed (I am assuming it is more expensive - correct me if I'm wrong, I honestly dont know), I cant see trade in cheaper contaminated substances taking much of a hit, if anything the lifting of restrictions would enable easier movement of pure product to be processed - again, I am assuming this is something that can be done after growing - I dont know how the processing works. The purification question was in relation to the poster above, who seemed to be suggesting that 'taste' would act as a regulator and eliminate competition from alternatives - I was asking if he meant post-processing recovery of clean product - the suggestion being that current suppplies are mixed with other products. Also, purification in relation to monitoring whatever an established standard of 'good product' would be, would likely be costly (all my assumptions).

Pace2008 wrote: »

I don’t agree with your general sentiments. Your view on what’s good and bad for society is a bit cold and seems to take the human out of humanities, if you’ll excuse the trope. Do you not think the fact that getting high is enjoyable factors in there somewhere?

No, I couldn't support anything that attempted to promote or introduce something that is by nature damaging - enjoyment does not mitigate. Obviously I'm biased in this respect.

Pace2008 wrote: »

I know ‘good times while stoned’ is something of an intangible factor and isn’t exactly as measurable as ‘respiratory difficulties caused by chronic cannabis abuse’ but it has to count for something. I’ll be the first to put my hands up and admit my stance towards legalisation isn’t entirely based around some altruistic desire to ameliorate my country’s economy – I’d also be partial to a bit of legal, cheap, good-quality weed, and I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with this motive . Of course, if legalisation was to decimate the country it’d obviously be a bad thing, but I don’t think that it would happen, even in our culture of excess. Despite all the talk of cannabis causing mental illness, it’s yet to be ascertained in any real way. Meta-analyses have shown a correlation between schizophrenia and cannabis consumption, but so too have they shown that schizophrenics smoke an inordinate amount of cigarettes, and take more drugs in general than the average person. There's also been no proven link to date between cannabis use and cancer, despite the fact that there's more carcinogens in weed than cigarettes.

This is what I would be most concerned about - the economic argument tends to rest on misinterpreted evidence - positive effects on medical conditions = benefits in general etc.

Pace2008 wrote: »

It'd be foolish to assume that there aren't potential dangers associated with weed - it can be an insidious drug that can affect your life for the worse if abused, despite what the pro-leglalisation lobby (whom I also don't trust) may say - but I think the potential economic benefits, combined with the importance of one's liberties, outweigh them.

I have yet to see any reasonable justification on economic grounds for legalisation - there have been a few remarks thrown around, but nothing coherent. Someone posted an estimate on tax revenue above that was negligible.

Prof.Badass

efla wrote: »

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.

Strange view you have on alcohol there. I take it you don't drink.

Hypothetical scenario here; If you could somehow wish alcohol away with no side effects, would you do it?

See, I wouldn't see alcohol as having no long-term benifits. Yeah, I'm damaging my organs and shortening my lifespan, but by getting drunk every now and again with friends I'm enjoying my life a lot more. I honestly believe that getting to de-stress at the weekend is giving me a greater quality of life than i would have had otherwise.

jumpguy

chachabinx wrote: »

I am a young adult & nearly everyone I associate with smoke it... whether its in work.. college & friends in general... people have smoked it for years & its not going to stop EVER

Birds of a feather...

El_Dangeroso

One major reason to legalise is that you can determine the THC vs Cannabinoid content in the product you are buying.

At the moment, weed is bred to be higher and higher in THC thus diminishing the cannabinoid content.

Cannabinoids are anti-psychotic and balance the paranoia-inducing effects of THC.

So legalisation would allow the consumer to buy a better and safer product.

Also I think that Amsterdam should be looked upon as a lesson on how not to legalise weed as they have a bizarre system when coffee shops buy illegally through the back door and sell legally out the front. It's not really legal, just 'tolerated'.

roneythetube

for those still refusing to believe that cannabis is medicine ...I give you


http://www.acmed.org/ - International Association for Cannabis as Medicine
and
http://cannabinoidsociety.org/ The International Cannabinoid Research Society

Get the facts on the cost of the War on Drugs here (financial cost - not to mention the destructive costs of prohibition on society)
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/54

why not http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376 - marijuana and medicine
and http://www.treatingyourself.com/ is a great resource for those wanting to learn more about how to use this medicine.

evidence! sources! Peer reviewed!!!

this is only the tip of a very large iceberg. Instead of discussing what you think of all this why not read a little instead and inform yerself? I know these are discussion forums whose point is to 'discuss' but it is hard to discuss anything with folk reared on 40 years of 'War on Drugs' mis-information (read lies).
wake up and open yer eyes. Prohibition does not work. Its time for a change. Yes we can(nabis):D;)

DublinWriter

You seriously believe that Mary Harney would legalise something that would give her the munchies?

Ostrom

vinylmesh wrote: »

Strange view you have on alcohol there. I take it you don't drink.

Hypothetical scenario here; If you could somehow wish alcohol away with no side effects, would you do it?

Absolutely I would. That wasn't a view, just fact.

vinylmesh wrote: »

See, I wouldn't see alcohol as having no long-term benifits. Yeah, I'm damaging my organs and shortening my lifespan, but by getting drunk every now and again with friends I'm enjoying my life a lot more. I honestly believe that getting to de-stress at the weekend is giving me a greater quality of life than i would have had otherwise.

Are there really no alternatives? My life is no less enjoyable without alcohol, and that is from experience of both.

Kalashnikov_Kid

I haven't read the whole thread, but would just like to say that if we legalise cannabis as some sort of 'recession buster', we might as well introduce tax-break happy-hours in the pubs aswell to bring a bit of balance.

There seems to be a hippy myth out there that cannabis is 101% harmless in all cases - that is not true.

Roughly 10% of the population would be putting their mental health seriously at risk by taking up hash-smoking as an occupation - mainly depression, paranoia, schizophrenia and lethargic behaviour.

Of course you can say the same about alcohol, but just thought I'd make the point.

ScumLord

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread, but...

You should have read the rest of the thread, and 10% is an exaggeration, try 1% or less. 10% is a huge number of people.

Prof.Badass

efla wrote: »

Absolutely I would. That wasn't a view, just fact.

I explained what i see as a long term benifit of alcohol. Regardless, the important thing is that your logic holds.

While i disagree with your views, they are consistent and i respect you for that. Fortunately for me, only a minority of people would find themselves agreeing with you when you take your argument to it's logical conclusion. Your chances of persuading the majority have just crashed.

Are there really no alternatives? My life is no less enjoyable without alcohol, and that is from experience of both.

Alternatives? Yes I would suggest ghb as it is completely non-toxic in the long term and is not associated with aggressive behavior the way alcohol is.

There was a call in england to legalise pagoclone as a safer alternative to alcohol. Sadly such an approach would be far too rational for this day and age.

InkSlinger67

I wouldn't want to be suffering DT's while reading this thread....a chap might start hallucinating thinking that cannabis is as easy to get in Ireland as a loaf of bread!

*Amber agrees with InkSlinger's rational observation*

God, I miss my Vicodin! :pac:

thomond2006

OP, what about Atari Jaguar?