Cannabis should be legalized in Ireland To pull Our country out of ression

norrie rugger

FTA69 wrote: »

Balls. This use of the letter "z" irks me to no end.

Ballz

MaceFace

oconcuc wrote: »

I have already stated, MaceFace, that I am happy to engage in an energetic debate with any person's reasoned, rational and divergin opinion.

I have been equally critical of those making irrational and unsubstantiated claims on the pro-legalisation side of the discussion.

I am not a cannabis user, I am a sociological and legal researcher, I deal with the facts.



I have provided you with peer-reviewed research that has been published in the most respected medical, sociological and legal journals in the west. You have only responded to the posts I have made criticising you directly, not the posts referencing the research and evidence.



I have never claimed cannabis is harmless.

Cannabis was not invented today, or yesterday, cannabis has been cultivated and used as a stimulant/relaxant in Europe since the 16th century, about the time tobacco was gaining favor with wealthy elites in Europe.

I have never heard one valid argument from any organisation supporting legalisation that has claimed giving cannabis to children as responsible use, and just to let you know, children all over the world have access to cannabis under prohibition.



Please, provide us with some evidential support with your dazzling acturial skills. I have outlined a rough indication on the savings for the Criminal Justice system in earlier posts, using comparative data from similar jurisdictions.




Cannabis is a harmful drug, but it is not the duty of the Criminal Law to prohibit responsible adults from engaging in an activity that is moderately harmful (and that is all the evidence can deduce after 40 years of trying). The Criminal Law is there to protect other individuals, society at large and the state from destructive behaviour.

If you had read, or thought about any of my earlier posts, you would see a comprehensive outline of the philosophical model for Criminal Law utilised in this jurisdiction. See John Locke, HLA Hart and Robert Nozick. The works of these philosophers along with Thomas Aquinas and John Finnis have been referred to extensively by the Irish Courts on questions of Criminal Law validity under the Constitutional framework. There is no conflict between this philosophy and cannabis legalisation, see Dr. Timothy Murphy UCC Law.



Baseless and unqualified assertion. Although I am sure you are confident of your skills in international diplomacy, if you look at the de facto legal status of cannabis in the Netherlands, I haven't heard of the Dutch being excluded economically.

I have also provided an extensive outline of the legal implications of cannabis legalisation on international agreements subscribed to by the Irish State.



Don't know where you got this one from? Can we drink on the Street?



??? Again, children can use it now. Experiences in the Netherlands where it can be purchased in every significant town show otherwise, cannabis use there among under 18 is lower than here. Try the "won't somebody please think of the children" line with Grainne Kenny.



If you don't want that type of tourist, maybe you should prohibit stag parties coming to dublin for the weekend.

Your claims here are, like all your other claims, unqualified and completely subjective.




Would you like to suggest how to change it? There has not been one successful change in the policing of prohibition.

People are not stupid, they can read the research, they know the low risk of danger cannabis use poses. This is why cannabis use has continued in spite of the Criminalisation. As long as these people want cannabis, the market will provide them with it.

As long as governments treat it as a Criminal problem, there will be a Criminal issue with cannabis.




You have not made one argument of substance. Go and read some of the research. Go and read about the law. You don't seem to understand why Criminal Law exists.

Ok so, get off the fence yourself.
What exactly are you proposing should happen?

whynotwhycanti

MaceFace wrote: »

Almost everything here is based on opinion, unless of course there are some people here who have documented evidence on legalising cannabis in Ireland?

Now, truth be told, I don't see a reason of why it should be legal. I am listening to all the arguments but they are all around a small number of reasons, none of which stand up.

Regardless of whether alcohol or tobacco should be legal or not, it is nothing to do with cannabis. I am sick of making this point - two wrongs don't make a right.
Using this as a reason, then most drugs should be legal.
The big difference between the two are one is legal and one is not. If people want to avoid a criminal record, there is a very simple solution - don't use it.

How is my post based on opinion? You gave some figures for revenue from cannabis that you had totted up yourself while i gave a figure based on revenue calculated by the Californian state legislature.

Of course there is no documented evidence of legalising cannabis in Ireland as it is illegal. What you use is case studies of other countries and looking at these other countries; it would appear that the objective reality of legalising cannabis is very different to your own subjective opinion of what you think might happen. You say the argument for legalising don’t add up even though they are based on facts from other countries, but they don’t add up because you don’t think they do, but at the same time do not offer any counter evidence.

The two wrongs don't make a right argument is ridiculous. The point is that some people who use cannabis want it legal. One of the reasons they want it legal is because alcohol is legal. It is a fair and just point. I personally don't have a problem with alcohol being legal and do not consider it to be a wrong, just as i would not consider the legalising of cannabis to be a wrong, so i've no wrongs here so your little expression of two wrongs don't make a right is ridiculous and meaningless in the context of this debate. Also why not address the post after mine where the poster has called you up on everything and is far more knowledgeable on the topic than I. You have given absolutely no clear and concise objective reason on why it should not be legal other than what you personally want and think. The other poster has provided plenty of references to back up his argument, you have provided none. Maybe research the topic before posting so fervently on it, it would make you sound a little less ignorant.

.

oconcuc

MaceFace wrote: »

Ok so, get off the fence yourself.
What exactly are you proposing should happen?

Now I know you have not read my posts.

MaceFace

oconcuc wrote: »

Now I know you have not read my posts.

Seriously, 29 pages of posts! at least post out "the highlights" because all I have seen is you talk about criminal law and how it should not be a crime, but you don't actually spell out what that means.

There is so much crap on here that it is impossible to know who is talking what after a while.

Some people are calling for legalisation - where they say it should be produced, packaged, sold and consumed here in Ireland all legally.
Then on the opposite end you have just decriminalising where an end user can have a small amount and not be prosecuted.

If you can even let me know what range of pages your insightful proposal was on I will give it my undivided attention.

def

one last thing


http://www.irishhealth.com/poll.html?pollid=304


http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=7753


.......?

masteroftherealm

MaceFace wrote: »

1. Cannabis is a drug, and is harmful if used over a long time, or used inappropriately.
2. It is not legal anywhere else in the world, so if we take the first step, we risk becoming the piriah of the world and inwards investment into this country could decrease drastically.

I'm going to pick out these two points.

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

Irvin Rosenfeld

Irvin Rosenfeld, who joined the program in 1983, is the most public of the remaining patients and has been using legal federal marijuana for the longest amount of time. Irvin Rosenfeld is a successful stock broker working and living in South Florida.

He has smoked over 115,000 joints with no, and I mean, no negative effect on his health. In fact as you can see it has imporved his health massively. 10 minutes of searching medical journals will show many other prominient cases.

Cannabis is legal in 5 countries in the world (Dubious ones I will admit) Decriminalized in 12 countries. And legal for Medical Use in many others.

Danger of Cannabis:

Aspirin is a drug, and is harmful if used over a long time, or used inappropriately. Aspirin has an LD50 of 1750 mg/kg, an LD50 ratio is the ratio of drug that must be taken to induce death in 50% of subjects. One estimate of cannabis's LD50 for humans indicates that about 1500 pounds (680 kilograms) of cannabis would have to be smoked within 14 minutes. This estimate is supported by studies which indicate that the effective dose of THC is at least 1000 times lower than the estimated lethal dose (a "safety ratio" of 1000:1). This is much higher than alcohol (safety ratio of 10) cocaine (15), or heroin (6).

By your reasoning Aspirin should be criminalized in Ireland. Raw Facts and Figures. No spin no talk no BS. Just facts.

MaceFace

masteroftherealm wrote: »

I'm going to pick out these two points.

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

Irvin Rosenfeld

Irvin Rosenfeld, who joined the program in 1983, is the most public of the remaining patients and has been using legal federal marijuana for the longest amount of time. Irvin Rosenfeld is a successful stock broker working and living in South Florida.

He has smoked over 115,000 joints with no, and I mean, no negative effect on his health. In fact as you can see it has imporved his health massively. 10 minutes of searching medical journals will show many other prominient cases.

Cannabis is legal in 5 countries in the world (Dubious ones I will admit) Decriminalized in 12 countries. And legal for Medical Use in many others.

I can equally point out many people who have smoked tobacco and lived a long life with no real signs of health issues.

masteroftherealm wrote: »

Danger of Cannabis:

Aspirin is a drug, and is harmful if used over a long time, or used inappropriately. Aspirin has an LD50 of 1750 mg/kg, an LD50 ratio is the ratio of drug that must be taken to induce death in 50% of subjects. One estimate of cannabis's LD50 for humans indicates that about 1500 pounds (680 kilograms) of cannabis would have to be smoked within 14 minutes. This estimate is supported by studies which indicate that the effective dose of THC is at least 1000 times lower than the estimated lethal dose (a "safety ratio" of 1000:1). This is much higher than alcohol (safety ratio of 10) cocaine (15), or heroin (6).

By your reasoning Aspirin should be criminalized in Ireland. Raw Facts and Figures. No spin no talk no BS. Just facts.

[/QUOTE]
No, it is not my reasoning. Not at all!
Cannabis = taken for enjoyment
Aspirin = taken for health reasons

Note: I know there are medicinal reasons for taking cannabis but I don't think anyone on this thread has only called for legalising it for medicinal use. The majority just want easier access with no fear of arrest.

Jonny7

DarkJager wrote: »

I don't think so. Cannabis relaxes the mind and sort of numbs out any negative thoughts you'd have. In the 9 years I've been smoking it, I have never ever once came across anybody who was depressed from smoking weed, quite the opposite. People appreciate music more, find humour and something to laugh at in the most stupid things, and then get hungry. What is so demonic about that?

And please describe exactly what expenses you forsee for the health service?

I smoked it for a very long time and I've seen the bad effects from it. One family member is now completely housebound/paranoid/****ed up with a very strong social anxiety, the psychologists who've seen him say they have seen the same condition many times with heavy cannabis smokers.

Several (not all) of my friends who smoked have developed minor personality disorders, social anxieties, addictions, panic attacks, etc.

If you smoke a joint or two a week or less, it probably will not affect you very much in a negative way, apart from the tobacco. But quite honestly, any more than that and you risk opening up a can of worms. The effects are generally subtle and long run.

Whether it should be legalised I don't know, certainly don't want the place turned into a drugs destination full of crusty jugglers, drifters and UK tourists.

I just want to say that anyone who comes here extolling the virtues of this 'perfectly safe' drug is very misguided.

Pappy o' daniel

Cannabis is illegal not for health reasons, but because it is a substitute for alcohol and tobacco. If cannabis were legal it would compete with A and T, and as consequence tax take will be down.
These head shops sell products far more damaging to health than weed, but they still exist, reason: they pay tax.

Cannabis can not be taxed.

Always follow the money, morality is always second.

Everett

yes

HxGH

Cannabis does kill...

20% of road accidents are caused by the stonned community walking to and from head shops...

MaceFace

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

Cannabis is illegal not for health reasons, but because it is a substitute for alcohol and tobacco. If cannabis were legal it would compete with A and T, and as consequence tax take will be down.
These head shops sell products far more damaging to health than weed, but they still exist, reason: they pay tax.

Cannabis can not be taxed.

Always follow the money, morality is always second.

Very true - and man never landed on the moon, and the CIA killed Kennedy, and Aliens landed in Area 51.

Pappy o' daniel

MaceFace wrote: »

Very true - and man never landed on the moon, and the CIA killed Kennedy, and Aliens landed in Area 51.

Yeah, whats your point?

MaceFace

MaceFace wrote: »

No, it is not my reasoning. Not at all!
Cannabis = taken for enjoyment
Aspirin = taken for health reasons

Note: I know there are medicinal reasons for taking cannabis but I don't think anyone on this thread has only called for legalising it for medicinal use. The majority just want easier access with no fear of arrest.

How about a different comparison then? Peanuts... Thousands of people are allergic to peanuts and its something thats part of many foods. Shouldn't we make the use of peanuts illegal since it has the potential to hurt or kill thousands of people?

Lets face it, the numbers of people that are badly affected by cannabis would probably fall into the same area as those allergic to peanuts. And yet, peanuts are accepted. Just as there are plenty of other foods and substances which are part of our daily lives and have the ability to deal damage in various ways.

We expect people to know what foods/substances are not healthy or those that are dangerous to them. We expect them to know and avoid them. And for the most part, they do. Cannabis should be no different. Slap a health warning on the packet, tax it, sell it, and hope that people have the intelligence to understand the effects it has on them, and that they have the maturity/sense to use wisely.

MaceFace

Deleted User wrote: »

How about a different comparison then? Peanuts... Thousands of people are allergic to peanuts and its something thats part of many foods. Shouldn't we make the use of peanuts illegal since it has the potential to hurt or kill thousands of people?

Lets face it, the numbers of people that are badly affected by cannabis would probably fall into the same area as those allergic to peanuts. And yet, peanuts are accepted. Just as there are plenty of other foods and substances which are part of our daily lives and have the ability to deal damage in various ways.

We expect people to know what foods/substances are not healthy or those that are dangerous to them. We expect them to know and avoid them. And for the most part, they do. Cannabis should be no different. Slap a health warning on the packet, tax it, sell it, and hope that people have the intelligence to understand the effects it has on them, and that they have the maturity/sense to use wisely.

Some points, some minor

1. The primary reason for eating peanuts is for subsidence.
2. People know, or find out very quickly if they have an allergy to nuts, and will no longer take them whereas cannabis smokers will only find out the harmful affects after prolonged use and it is too late
3. Nuts, like alcohol and tobacco are not illegal today. It is incredibly difficult to make something illegal due to vested interests. Look at tobacco. We all know that used as directed by the manufacturer has a high chance of killing you. Look at the difficulties we have faced over the last 20 years trying to make it less legal.

So, you propose having packs of them with warning labels? Are you proposing that we have people grow the product here and sell it over the counter?

Once products (whatever they are) become legally available, people have a belief that they are safe to use. Look at cigarettes - why would anyone decide to start smoking today? Yet they do.
I bet most people think that the potions and powders sold in the head shops are generally safe.

Same thing will happen with cannabis - once you legalise, there will be a huge upsurge in consumption.

whynotwhycanti

MaceFace wrote: »

Same thing will happen with cannabis - once you legalise, there will be a huge upsurge in consumption.

You have absolute no proof of this other than it is what you think will happen. It is good to see you are still on here giving your opinion of what you think might happen without any evidence. Look at what happened in the Netherlands to see what happens, not what you think might happen. It is hard to take anything you say here seriously as it is based on unfounded probabilities that you are so sure will occur.

MaceFace

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

You have absolute no proof of this other than it is what you think will happen. It is good to see you are still on here giving your opinion of what you think might happen without any evidence. Look at what happened in the Netherlands to see what happens, not what you think might happen. It is hard to take anything you say here seriously as it is based on unfounded probabilities that you are so sure will occur.

Do you want me to use the tactic of others. Right - see A. Bloke 1996 paper on the matter. And then there is D. Others masterville piece. A must read.
Would you like me to go off and commission a study?

This is common sense and if you want to debate this exact fact, I am happy to listen.

Here is my reasoning:
If you legalise, you have shops on the high street selling the product. Anyone can, at almost any time, walk in and purchase that product.
Today, to get cannabis, you must know a dealer, or know someone who knows a dealer, or you take a chance and go somewhere likely to have a dealer.
For the majority of people, access to cannabis is not easy. Having it in the shops means instant access, and removes the taboo about using.

Now think of kids who are experimenting with various things. It would be extremely easy for any of these kids to have ready access to cannabis whenever they want as opposed to now which is more difficult.
Whereas most kids "try" cannabis, I put it to you that most kids will "try" it more often.

Look at the head shops. It is my view that because people see things for sale legally, their thoughts are that it is not harmful, because if it were, the government would ban it. Legalising will send the same message to people.

Why oh why does anyone think that increasing the availabilty of something will not result in an increase in its use? Makes no sense to me at all.

droidus

MaceFace wrote: »

Do you want me to use the tactic of others. Right - see A. Bloke 1996 paper on the matter. And then there is D. Others masterville piece. A must read.
Would you like me to go off and commission a study?

Could someone please lock this thread? It hurts my brain.

whynotwhycanti

MaceFace wrote: »

Do you want me to use the tactic of others. Right - see A. Bloke 1996 paper on the matter. And then there is D. Others masterville piece. A must read.
Would you like me to go off and commission a study?

This is common sense and if you want to debate this exact fact, I am happy to listen.

Here is my reasoning:
If you legalise, you have shops on the high street selling the product. Anyone can, at almost any time, walk in and purchase that product.
Today, to get cannabis, you must know a dealer, or know someone who knows a dealer, or you take a chance and go somewhere likely to have a dealer.
For the majority of people, access to cannabis is not easy. Having it in the shops means instant access, and removes the taboo about using.

Now think of kids who are experimenting with various things. It would be extremely easy for any of these kids to have ready access to cannabis whenever they want as opposed to now which is more difficult.
Whereas most kids "try" cannabis, I put it to you that most kids will "try" it more often.

Look at the head shops. It is my view that because people see things for sale legally, their thoughts are that it is not harmful, because if it were, the government would ban it. Legalising will send the same message to people.

Why oh why does anyone think that increasing the availabilty of something will not result in an increase in its use? Makes no sense to me at all.

Use the tactic of others? Would that be referring to papers that have actually studied the topic that we are debating? If somebody can back up there opinion with some research based study, fair play to them. There may actually be research papers that could back up what you are saying, but you seem to not think this is important in the context of the debate. What is important to you is what you are so sure will happen in this hypothetical situation. Its weak debating and tedious to read through.

Again, if you look at other countries, I’m afraid that the reality of what happens differs greatly to what you think happens, but why would we focus on these things, lets just go with what you think would happen. That far more accurate and really gives this debate and your opinion such credibility.

For the record, I am unsure as to whether I would want cannabis legal, I’m not sure if I want it decriminalised but to hear you spouting out with what you are so sure will happen is pitiable.

MaceFace

MaceFace wrote: »

Some points, some minor

1. The primary reason for eating peanuts is for subsidence.

I'm assuming you're talking about nourishment rather than subsidence...

Peanuts aren't native to Ireland, and aren't a requirement for any Irish diet..

2. People know, or find out very quickly if they have an allergy to nuts, and will no longer take them whereas cannabis smokers will only find out the harmful affects after prolonged use and it is too late

Actually Allergies can and do develop later in life. In fact, a series of US based studies have tried to show that the allergy towards peanuts is developed through the way they're processed (dry roasted) and the eating of them. its the same with alcohol... people can develop allergies to alcohol later in life after spend 20 years enjoying moderate consumption.

Most cannabis users will find out within 6 months any psychological affects of using the drug. Physical reactions will vary, but thats the same with the usage of anything over a protracted period of time.

3. Nuts, like alcohol and tobacco are not illegal today. It is incredibly difficult to make something illegal due to vested interests. Look at tobacco. We all know that used as directed by the manufacturer has a high chance of killing you. Look at the difficulties we have faced over the last 20 years trying to make it less legal.

So it really comes down to whether or not its legal/illegal at this given moment. Well, if thats the case, then why has the law changed at all over the last 80 years?

So, you propose having packs of them with warning labels? Are you proposing that we have people grow the product here and sell it over the counter?

Pretty much the same standards as Alcohol (licensing and age restrictions).. except to be only consumed at home..

Once products (whatever they are) become legally available, people have a belief that they are safe to use. Look at cigarettes - why would anyone decide to start smoking today? Yet they do.

I've been smoking 17 years and I never once believed that cigs were safe to use... People start smoking today for the same reasons that people started 17 years ago. Rebellion, its cool, its not allowed, etc. All smokers know the health risks... our faces are shoved into these realities every day... many still smoke. We don't care. Just as the people who start smoking now don't care either.

I bet most people think that the potions and powders sold in the head shops are generally safe.

Which they are.... They are generally safe. They're just not healthy and can cause serious damage if not used in a mature manner. But, hey, that could be said of hundreds of products sold in shops across the country.

You know, you can get stoned from smoking nutmeg.. its a light buzz, fills the room with the smell of baking, and will make you sit on the toilet for days afterwards.. so should we ban nutmeg now? Search the internet for natural highs, and you'll find loads of things which are sold daily, which can be used to cause different reactions of varying strengths...

Same thing will happen with cannabis - once you legalise, there will be a huge upsurge in consumption.

Yes, and no. Initially, there would be an upsurge. Thats normal with any introduction of a "cult" product... but after some time it would reduce to close to existing levels. The people who prefer bars and clubs will continue to do that rather than get stoned at home.

I can't quite figure out where this huge upsurge would come from, except possibly from the people moving away from Alcohol... which would be a rather positive change in my eyes..

def

Jonny7 wrote: »

I smoked it for a very long time and I've seen the bad effects from it. One family member is now completely housebound/paranoid/****ed up with a very strong social anxiety, the psychologists who've seen him say they have seen the same condition many times with heavy cannabis smokers.

Several (not all) of my friends who smoked have developed minor personality disorders, social anxieties, addictions, panic attacks, etc.


I just want to say that anyone who comes here extolling the virtues of this 'perfectly safe' drug is very misguided.

your family member ,though i do not know them, seems to be suffering from transient psychosis or schizophrenia ,often mistaken for one another ,

http://www.canedintotnes.co.uk/index.php/Home/Cannabis-does-not-cause-schizophrenia.html

http://www.health.am/psy/more/cannabis_use_does_not_cause_schizophrenia/

cannabis does not cause schizophrenia (this is thought to be solely genetic), if you smoked cannabis and did not "suffer" from psychosis you would want your money back ,same as if you drank 7 pints and remained sober you would want your money back as you wernt suffering from psychosis

transient psychosis is often misdiagnosed as schizophrenia and treated as such with unrequired medication ,

transient psychosis is caused by lack of choice , high strength THC is considered a mark of quality , it is not , if smoked (high strength THC strains ,eg satori ,white russian , "skunk" )every day over long periods this can cause transient psychosis , this only occurs because of the lack of CBD ,the antipsychotic cannabiniod ,when present it provides a more relaxed and sleepy stone , when cannabis is bred for high THC levels then the CBD is "bred out" , it is sacrificed for the THC ,

people who smoke cannabis do have factors attached to cannabis use which may add to other life problems , if they suffer from paranoia is there not people "after " them? should they be afraid to leave their house?
will they be arrested ? do people look down on them?


these factors (of prohibition) cause or add to mental illness, they would certainly be reduced in a regulated market , warnings and information on packs (THC>CBD) aswell as a choice of product , would drastically reduce mental illness associated with pot smoking , and the opium in hash doesnt help anyone....

how many suicides had alcohol involved? lots
how many had cannabis involved ? next to none ,

def

MaceFace wrote: »

Some points, some minor


Same thing will happen with cannabis - once you legalise, there will be a huge upsurge in consumption.

this is the worst arguement ever , upsurge in consumption ? by who ?would you take it up tomorrow if it became legal? no? its always the other person right.

get a grip ,there would be a decrease in use , end of story , kids cant get it,

prohibition causes an increase in use , the number of users has increased every time they've been estimated , because there is no age limit and drug education is actually free advertising,

THINK OF THE CHILDREN !!!

every use of cannabis is medicinal , SMOKING pure herb prevents lung cancer .... tabacco gives smoking a bad name ... it would seem to have a negative corrilation ,becoming greater the heavier its consumed? -donald tashkin- ,, google along with -smoking cannabis does not cause cancer-

type in -cannabis does not cause cancer - to google

and then - cannabis cures cancer

tell me what you think

LiNgWiStIkZ

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref=ts&gid=273693574382


May 8th, in Cork, Dublin and Belfast.

oconcuc

This argument has ventured into the absurd, the ineffectual and the stupid . Neither side here seems interested in much more than their own, mainly misguided, reasonings on the legal status of cannabis. The one thing that is clear, is most have done absolutely no reading in this area. This thread is littered with half truths, quarter truths, lies and insanity.

The most disappointing arguments have come from the anti-legalisation supporters. Not one post offered has mentioned any evidence to support their claims.

Maceface and def, in your own opposing ideology, are guilty of some of the most extreme, fruitless and circular argumentation.

Maceface, having met and spoken to Graine Kenny of EURAD, I am beginning to develop my suspicions that you may be one of her acolytes, as your logic and unsupported, yet unwaivering, beliefs is remarkably similar to hers.

In case you are unaware of who Grainne Kenny is, see bored rural housewife (of mediocre intelligence), suffering from unfulfilled marriage, decides the best way to get on the Joe Duffy regularly is to join a pressure group.

From monitoring your posts, and having met people with similar capacities for change as your own, I can see you can be shown irrefutable evidence (as you have been, try for the last time, to read a comprehensive, yet concise reports from the British Government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs ) from recognised experts in the fields of medicine, psychology, law, sociology and neuro-biology, that show cannabis criminalisation is unnecessary.

I believe, having spent the last 2 years studying the law and realities surrounding cannabis prohibition in Britain and Ireland, that cannabis is not a safe substance. I also believe that cannabis prohibition is a meaningless and counterproductive exercise in State authoritarianism.

There MUST be evidential justification for criminalising an activity pursued by a significant minority of this country. Morality has everything to do with the Criminal law, if you are going to put people in Jail, or at the very least attach a negative label to them for the rest of their lives (criminal conviction), there must be some rational justification for it.

To say simply, 'it is bad for you', does not suffice. It may be bad for you, there are many things that are bad for you, many unnecessary things that society accepts as being part of living in a liberal democracy. It is comparatively safer than many other illicit and licit substances.

We do not normally criminalise activities simply because they are unsafe. We may regulate them, but we do not criminalise them. Unless your activity is having a negative impact on others, you are generally permitted to do whatever you want to yourself in private.

I do not use cannabis, but I know that legalising would do more good than harm.

Usage rates, as some of you might contend, do not rise after decriminalisation or de facto legalistation. The evidence is clear on that contention. Any state that has decriminalised has seen negligible, to no changes in consumption.

No country has seen an increase in under 18 cannabis use, in fact, the Netherlands is experiencing decreases in minors using cannabis.

The cost to the State enforcing these ridiculous prohibitions is enormous. As it is not just the Gardaí that deal with enforcement. The Courts, probation services and prison services spend a substantial amount of time and resources on enforcement.

Legalising would not cost more than prohibition, a few Department of Health and Agriculture civil servants and inspectors? That is all that would be required to regulate a small cannabis industry.

Cannabis is socially acceptable and enjoys widespread use. Allowing criminals to earn significant portions of their income from this substance, makes some more sympathetic to their general activities.

Some have claimed that if you remove cannabis from the hands of criminal networks, they will simply sell larger amounts of more dangerous substances. Use rates for cocaine and heroin have nothing to do with how hard dealers advertise. Heroin use increases in-line with economic activity (we are experiencing a sharp rise in heroin use in Dublin and nationwide due to the recession), while cocaine use rates follow economic prosperity.

The claims of massive increase to demand on mental health services are baseless, as evidence shows there would be only a negligible rise in use
. Any cost to the Health service, we are already enduring under prohibition.

These points I am confident will fall on deaf ears, but I feel obligated to reiterate them again.

LiNgWiStIkZ

I'm sorry I can only thank that post once.

sparkling sea

There is not evidence to suggest that legalistion of any drug would cause a rise in consumption.

Poteen and ether were both hugely consumed in the island of Ireland in the past. Prohibition did nothing to decrease the use of these substances and although neither are widely consumed now, legislation of alcohol was the main reason for the decrease in use - there was an alternative.

All drugs should be legalised in Ireland. It would allow for proper quality control, proper treatment centres, true figures on actual use of different substances. Also sceinetific studies could take place on the true effects of consumption of these drugs. Drugs could be supplied by for instance chemists, this would remove the need for drug users to steal to fund their habit, to some extent. There are endless benefits to society in legalising all drugs, finiancial, social, moral, ethical,etc but moral crusaders who lobby for prohibition are being used by criminals who make a fortune from prohibition.

Zambia

LiNgWiStIkZ wrote: »

I'm sorry I can only thank that post once.

+ 1 excellent post

MaceFace

Allow me to retort, but please do not see this as a post in opposition to your views, but I think it would be fair for me to at least tease out a few points you made, notably about me, and give me a chance to defend myself as well as demonstrate why you think I am an acolyte.

Please don't get defensive, but see my questions and opinions for what they are.

oconcuc wrote: »

This argument has ventured into the absurd, the ineffectual and the stupid . Neither side here seems interested in much more than their own, mainly misguided, reasonings on the legal status of cannabis. The one thing that is clear, is most have done absolutely no reading in this area. This thread is littered with half truths, quarter truths, lies and insanity.

I agree about some of the just plain stupid arguments that have developed on both sides (mine included)

oconcuc wrote: »

The most disappointing arguments have come from the anti-legalisation supporters. Not one post offered has mentioned any evidence to support their claims.

It is not just the ant-legalisation brigade that have failed to mention evidence. As like your post (and don't take this the wrong way), I do not see any links to any evidence that may help "us acolytes" see the light.
Saying to go and read a particular paper is not going to fly. If I asked you to go off to the library read something, would you?

oconcuc wrote: »

Maceface and def, in your own opposing ideology, are guilty of some of the most extreme, fruitless and circular argumentation.

Agreed. Like many, I have been baited into the most stupid arguments

oconcuc wrote: »

Maceface, having met and spoken to Graine Kenny of EURAD, I am beginning to develop my suspicions that you may be one of her acolytes, as your logic and unsupported, yet unwaivering, beliefs is remarkably similar to hers.

Play the ball, not the man.

oconcuc wrote: »

In case you are unaware of who Grainne Kenny is, see bored rural housewife (of mediocre intelligence), suffering from unfulfilled marriage, decides the best way to get on the Joe Duffy regularly is to join a pressure group.

Ah good man - associate me with some uknown person to indirectly get people thinking I am a also nut job and no matter what I say, it is against an agenda.
Please try and be constructive to the topic in question.

oconcuc wrote: »

From monitoring your posts, and having met people with similar capacities for change as your own, I can see you can be shown irrefutable evidence (as you have been, try for the last time, to read a comprehensive, yet concise reports from the British Government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs ) from recognised experts in the fields of medicine, psychology, law, sociology and neuro-biology, that show cannabis criminalisation is unnecessary.

Now this is the serious part. I have not seen any links to any reports, and I have mentioned this on a number of occassions. I have said previously that I have not read all pages in this argument (because lets face it, most of it is garbage), and I have requested some links that may enlighten me.
Can you please post these again?

oconcuc wrote: »

I believe, having spent the last 2 years studying the law and realities surrounding cannabis prohibition in Britain and Ireland, that cannabis is not a safe substance. I also believe that cannabis prohibition is a meaningless and counterproductive exercise in State authoritarianism.

And that is your opinion, which is based on your experience, which may or may not be more than my own, but please do not preach that your view is the only valid one and because we do not have the same education that we are not entitled to our views which may be different.
If you want to state your opinion as fact, then I suggest you write a blog rather than posting to a site that is meant to encourage discussion.

If your post is only regarding cannabis being a criminal offence, then that is only a very small thing we are trying to discuss.

If it is the bigger picture of moving cannabis to be more mainstream, then there are plenty of studies that do not agree with your point of view.
The Rand Coproration have many detailed papers on the subject.
(www.rand.org)

oconcuc wrote: »

There MUST be evidential justification for criminalising an activity pursued by a significant minority of this country. Morality has everything to do with the Criminal law, if you are going to put people in Jail, or at the very least attach a negative label to them for the rest of their lives (criminal conviction), there must be some rational justification for it.

To say simply, 'it is bad for you', does not suffice. It may be bad for you, there are many things that are bad for you, many unnecessary things that society accepts as being part of living in a liberal democracy. It is comparatively safer than many other illicit and licit substances.

We do not normally criminalise activities simply because they are unsafe. We may regulate them, but we do not criminalise them. Unless your activity is having a negative impact on others, you are generally permitted to do whatever you want to yourself in private.

I do not use cannabis, but I know that legalising would do more good than harm.

I have never said that users should be criminally prosecuted for posession. I have offered the suggestion that there are many ways of dealing with it, such as on the spot fines, so I am not going to debate whether it should be a criminal offence of not.

The fact is that it is illegal today and it will remain that way until a viable alternative is on offer. The problem is that most cannabis users want full legalisation a'la Amsterdam and while many people may also like that, there are plenty of people who live in this country who would not like to live in a city like that.

oconcuc wrote: »

Usage rates, as some of you might contend, do not rise after decriminalisation or de facto legalistation. The evidence is clear on that contention. Any state that has decriminalised has seen negligible, to no changes in consumption.
No country has seen an increase in under 18 cannabis use, in fact, the Netherlands is experiencing decreases in minors using cannabis.

Stating this as fact imo is wrong. There are many different factors to determine usage rates, including how popular the drug is at any particular time (as cocaine was seen as cool in the 80's and ecstacy in the 90s).

Here is an interesing read which talks about usage rates in the Netherlands, and talks about the problems when trying to measure rates:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/korf-e.htm

In this paper, it talks about spikes in usage rates, but importantly it states the following:
"went up again in the 1980s after coffee shops took over the sale of cannabis, and stabilised or slightly decreased by the end of the 1990s when the number of coffee shops was reduced"

Can you please provide a link to the evidence you are basing your opinion on?

oconcuc wrote: »

The cost to the State enforcing these ridiculous prohibitions is enormous. As it is not just the Gardaí that deal with enforcement. The Courts, probation services and prison services spend a substantial amount of time and resources on enforcement.

I completly agree about that it costs a lot of money to police.

oconcuc wrote: »

Legalising would not cost more than prohibition, a few Department of Health and Agriculture civil servants and inspectors? That is all that would be required to regulate a small cannabis industry.

Well, it all depends on what you are planning on doing, and this is why I asked in a previous post what your plan would be.
You claim only a few inspectors would be required, but what about the cost of:

• Accidents
• Healthcare
• Addiction Treatment
• Loss in productivity

Here is a good paper on the issue:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1805.pdf

One quotes:
"that subsequent growth in commercial access might have caused the steep increase in cannabis prevalence among youth."

oconcuc wrote: »

Cannabis is socially acceptable and enjoys widespread use. Allowing criminals to earn significant portions of their income from this substance, makes some more sympathetic to their general activities.

Some have claimed that if you remove cannabis from the hands of criminal networks, they will simply sell larger amounts of more dangerous substances. Use rates for cocaine and heroin have nothing to do with how hard dealers advertise. Heroin use increases in-line with economic activity (we are experiencing a sharp rise in heroin use in Dublin and nationwide due to the recession), while cocaine use rates follow economic prosperity.

I have given the opinion that the criminals (street dealers and above) will not cease to be involved in criminal activity once cannabis is legally accessible. They will move into other criminal activities, so to say that the cost of policing cannabis will be a total saving is wrong. IMO there will be an increase in other crime, not specifically hard drugs as you mention.

oconcuc wrote: »

The claims of massive increase to demand on mental health services are baseless, as evidence shows there would be only a negligible rise in use
. Any cost to the Health service, we are already enduring under prohibition.

These points I am confident will fall on deaf ears, but I feel obligated to reiterate them again.

Again, can I ask for this evidence? Link?
One thing we will have to do if we do legalise is put a proper health policy in place to deal with the fallout of this action.

If you do not want to engage in a debate on the subject, that's fine, but please stop denegrating my character because I have a different opinion that you.

sparkling sea

Irish society glamorizes alcohol while demonizing drugs. In Ireland more people are killed by cigarette smoking, drink and cars than drugs.These are indisputable facts (CSO figures) yet calls for the prohibition of cigarettes, alcohol or driving are almost unheard of.
Like alcohol and cigarettes the sale of addictive substances could be controlled by the State at prices set to put the criminals out of business. The illegal sale of petrol, tobacco and alcohol demonstrate that it would be naïve to assume that just because a commodity is legal, that it would not be of interest to criminal gangs.
Also many drug users never commit criminal offence, apart from the actual purchase and consumption of the illegal substances, and furthermore many criminals do not use any drugs, illicit or otherwise.
An arguement can be made that the sale of alcohol and particularly cigarettes is funding many criminal gangs in Ireland as it is once again a very lucrative market for this people. This fact is NOT disuading the public from buying from these criminal gangs despite nightly news reports on the upsurge of gangland crimes. As with the arguements against prohibition Irish people appear to be happy to turn a blind eye and cherry pick in relation to crime and drugs when it suits them. The sales of illegal cigarettes, drink and petrol suggests that it suits us now even though we say otherwise.

The question still remains are drugs illegal because they are wrong or are the wrong because they are illegal. This must be looked in context of alcohol and cigarettes and the right of every person to autonomous choice