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

Merrion

I lost some good friends to canabis...


They didn't die - I just can't remember where they live.

Lonesome Boatman

ISAW wrote: »

My personal experiences with cannabis or lack of them have nothing to do with the issue. I don't personalise issues and attempt to be objective. I may have no personal experience with killing people or not personally had an abortion on tried to commit suicide but that does not mean that objective research I produce about suicide abortion or homicide is wrong.

If you can't winn an issue do you always resort to attacking the person who is?



I'm not "afraid" of it at all! Im not for or against. It is just that many people who are suggesting it be legal aren't giving logical reasons or presenting sound or valid arguments.
And they are saying "alcohol is harmful" which is just a reason for nbanning alcohol or something else as well. But we can't do that because it has become so socially acceptable. so why make something legal if it will be difficult to ban if we later discover we were mistaken?

And Im not opposed to people who smoke it but tell me this. do you think people should be paying money to drug gangsters? You are aware that the money for cannabis goes to them?



Valium is apparently good for stress as well as are other narcotics. But that isn't a reason to have them freely available is it?

Sometimes yes, which is one of the reasons for legalisation. It takes the money out of the hands of greedy drug dealers and puts it into the system.

These drug gangsters fill the cannabis full of crap and you don't really know what you are smoking. Look here http://www.gritweed.co.uk/gritweed.htm

Things like this can cause serious health issues for people unaware of the dangers of smoking contaminated cannabis. If it is legalised people will have the advantage of knowing exactly what they are smoking and not have to give their money to drug dealers. Why should someone who wants to grow a plant for personal use rather than risk buying grit weed and giving their hard earned money to drug dealers be made to feel like a criminal?

Corsendonk

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

Sometimes yes, which is one of the reasons for legalisation. It takes the money out of the hands of greedy drug dealers and puts it into the system.

These drug gangsters fill the cannabis full of crap and you don't really know what you are smoking. Look here http://www.gritweed.co.uk/gritweed.htm

Things like this can cause serious health issues for people unaware of the dangers of smoking contaminated cannabis. If it is legalised people will have the advantage of knowing exactly what they are smoking and not have to give their money to drug dealers. Why should someone who wants to grow a plant for personal use rather than risk buying grit weed and giving their hard earned money to drug dealers be made to feel like a criminal?

You have to grow two plants as far as I know, needs another plant for fertilisation. Not everyone is green fingered and your always going to get someone greedy that thinks more plants are good and starts to sell off the surplus harvest and I can't see any government allowing a cash in hand business like that escape taxes.

More than likely if the legalise it they will centralise the growing of cannabis in Ireland and allow it for recreational use then they can tax it just like cigs. I wonder how long before smokers start trying to source cheaper off the blackmarket........

mikom

Corsendonk wrote: »

You have to grow two plants as far as I know, needs another plant for fertilisation.

No, that's Photoperiod for blooming.
Except for auto-flowers.

Elevator

@ isaw

you make some valid points and some not so valid

regarding your "why should we legalise?"

because it is one of the most versatile plants on the planet that we can get so much out of it's criminal that it's banned

it's only banned because America bullied the world into making it illegal so they could protect their new industries

the world would still enjoy all the goodness hemp and cannabis provide if it weren't for the fcuking yanks!!

wikileaks is increasingly showing yankyland up for the self serving,'twisted fcuks those in power over there really are!!

Elevator

ps. grammar nazi-ism is rampant around here and I agree it could be tidied up a little and I'm the first to admit i dont have perfect English but...

the way some people come across when being a grammar Nazi to me they are trying to make out you only got a say if you can dot all your I's and cross all your t's

sad world the world of a grammar Nazi!!

ordinarywoman

ISAW wrote: »

This isnt a debate about medicinal use of opiates cannabis etc. We know that opium , cocaine, morphine etc. have use as medicine but that isn't a reason to legalise them and make them freely available is it?

Opium Cocaine and Morphine are all addictive...and other than pain control have little medicinal use...and this discussion is not about any of those drugs this is about legalisisng canabis for monitary reasons...well what funds the health sector then..apples??
Obviously for monitary reasons alone canabis based drugs are cheaper than pharma drugs, and less harmfull too with a wider basis for use then most pharma products.

ordinarywoman

ISAW wrote: »

Eventually some gives a reason! But you do realise the same could be done for opium or heroine? Pure heroine is not damaging to the body.


based on what evidence??
https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/333185/128129.jpeg
This seems to say something else...

i fail to see all the jobs it would create

Growers, testers, lab technicians,
growing shops and seed banks, genetices

dispensairys and informed tecnicians,
coffee shops, and associated businesses
tourism
.....not to mention saving money on policing medicinal users, court cases, prison fees...

ISAW

Elevator wrote: »

@ isaw

you make some valid points and some not so valid

Care to show me the ones you deem invalid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_%28statistics%29

regarding your "why should we legalise?"

because it is one of the most versatile plants on the planet that we can get so much out of it's criminal that it's banned

Which is why it is legally grown for those purposes under an EU grant in Ireland.

it's only banned because America bullied the world into making it illegal so they could protect their new industries

And they also banned alcohol. did making alcohol legal make it safer or stop illegal alcohol?

I am aware of the "reefer madness" era and William Rendolph Herst's interest in the issue.

the world would still enjoy all the goodness hemp and cannabis provide if it weren't for the fcuking yanks!!

Not necessarily. Opium had a similar influence in Britian and the US. guess what? They banned that too!

wikileaks is increasingly showing yankyland up for the self serving,'twisted fcuks those in power over there really are!!

As someone opposed to authoritarianism I have some sympathy with such positions but I don't think we should have no laws at all. So called Libertarians seem more authoritarian than everyone else. And if the Us has legal abortion does that mean Ireland should copy them?

ISAW

Elevator wrote: »

ps. grammar nazi-ism is rampant around here and I agree it could be tidied up a little and I'm the first to admit i dont have perfect English but...

the way some people come across when being a grammar Nazi to me they are trying to make out you only got a say if you can dot all your I's and cross all your t's

sad world the world of a grammar Nazi!!

I agree. But.... If you are referring to my comment on the grammar of those slagging off the gardaí Turn on your irony detector as well.

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

As someone opposed to authoritarianism I have some sympathy with such positions but I don't think we should have no laws at all. So called Libertarians seem more authoritarian than everyone else. And if the Us has legal abortion does that mean Ireland should copy them?

Just rushing in to stop any further debate on abortion, this is about cannabis

Your friendly neighbourhood mod,

Papa


ISAW, as you're fond of definitions, here's a definition of a strawman argument. Lets leave the abortion analogy aside.

ISAW

ordinarywoman wrote: »

Opium Cocaine and Morphine are all addictive...

So is cannabis.

and other than pain control have little medicinal use...

That is a relativist argument. We are n't arguing about how versatile it is or the multifarious effects a drug has.Heart drugs have little medicinal use apart from treating heart problems. In fact almost all medicines are screened for side effects. so what? Just because they have one use ( and many have more than one) does not invalidate my argument.

and this discussion is not about any of those drugs this is about legalisisng canabis for monitary reasons...

Which means that the JUSTIFICATION is in the revenue gained. So are you agreed that we swhould similarly legalise prostitution suicide euthanasia cannibalism etc. if they gained the state revenue?

well what funds the health sector then..apples??
Obviously for monitary reasons alone canabis based drugs are cheaper than pharma drugs, and less harmfull too with a wider basis for use then most pharma products.

But that is medicinal use and not recreational. Just as other legal drugs are used as medicines.

ISAW

Papa Smut wrote: »

Just rushing in to stop any further debate on abortion, this is about cannabis

Your friendly neighbourhood mod,

Papa


ISAW, as you're fond of definitions, here's a definition of a strawman argument. Lets leave the abortion analogy aside.

It isnt a straw man! The point being made is we should legalise something because the US or UK or someoine else has legalised it! Why should this apply ONLY to cannabis and not to the legalising of anything else?

If the principle of "let us copy country x" applies then you can use that to suggest ANYTHING should be legalised. It is a ludicrous argument!

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

It isnt a straw man! The point being made is we should legalise something because the US or UK or someoine else has legalised it! Why should this apply ONLY to cannabis and not to the legalising of anything else?

If the principle of "let us copy country x" applies then you can use that to suggest ANYTHING should be legalised. It is a ludicrous argument!

A: The UK/US hasn't legalised it

B: I'm trying to track down the source of this "let us copy country x" argument.

C: you're sidetracking the issue by saying

And if the Us has legal abortion does that mean Ireland should copy them?

Why not, If the US has guns, does that mean Ireland should copy them?

Or

If the US invades a country, does that mean Ireland should copy them?

It was a strawman defence. Let's stick to facts in a debate please.

Elevator

this is like the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friend...

why do those who want to legally use cannabis have to bow down to those who don't for the past 40/50 years?!?

prohibition of most of the illegal drugs is a farce. proven to not do anything to stop drug use but hey, we'll just keep doing the same thing over and over and maybe we'll have a different outcome 100 years from now!!

ordinarywoman

ISAW you've bee given reasons why people believet that this should be legalised...all valid.
Making anaolgies to abortion etc ,is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
and this thread is not just asking about recreational canabis theis is about canabis as a whole, so therefore medicinal use is relevant.

So are you agreed that we swhould similarly legalise prostitution suicide euthanasia cannibalism etc. if they gained the state revenue?[/I]

no i did not say that at all...this is a prime example of your 'strawman' defence

ISAW

Papa Smut wrote: »

A: The UK/US hasn't legalised it

Wrong!
the discussion has been about various levels of "legal" use from medicinal to free availability and taxinbg cannabis. Primarily it has been about recreational use.

In the UK the law was relaxed on cannabis from class B to class C and then changed backj again.

So that is along tyhe lines of the "slippery slope" or gradual track to legalisation presented
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69622778&postcount=658

10 year graduation from Illegal to Legal via decriminalization in the interim with structured regulation implemented over the same period.

As for the US cannabis does not come under a federal law. each state can vary in terms of law.
In alaska it has been decriminalised.
Possession of one ounce or less of marijuana in the privacy of the home is legal.
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4522

B: I'm trying to track down the source of this "let us copy country x" argument.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69598278&postcount=625
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64975365&postcount=478
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68080449&postcount=486

C: you're sidetracking the issue by saying


Why not, If the US has guns, does that mean Ireland should copy them?

Or

If the US invades a country, does that mean Ireland should copy them?

It was a strawman defence. Let's stick to facts in a debate please.

Or if gays should have equal rights you think that is off topic too?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68080639&postcount=488

Does the State have the right to criminalise private citizens engaging in a relatively harmless activity just because it deviates from social norms.

These questions were asked by the homosexual community during the 1980's, most notably by David Norris, when this country still criminalised homosexuality. It took the European Court of Human Rights to force our Government of the day in 1993 to remove those Criminal penalties.

the principle of "Does the State have the right to criminalise private citizens engaging in a relatively harmless activity just because it deviates from social norms."

can be applied in the case of cannabis or of homosexuality. It is how a legal argument is made! It isn't a straw man to cite a case about homosexuals and apply the same reasoning to cannabis. Likewise for saying "somewhere else has legal cannabis/[insert whatever illegal thing you care to mention] therefore we should have it"


It is NOT a straw man to expose the principle of copying other jurisdictions as something which is not necessarily advisable just because others do it.

Oh_Noes

ISAW:

Please make an argument for or against cannabis legalisation and make a case for your argument.

If you can do it without using violent/sex crime metaphors then even better.

ISAW

ordinarywoman wrote: »

ISAW you've bee given reasons why people believet that this should be legalised...all valid.

REally ? Care to list them then? And care to show how they are valid?

Making anaolgies to abortion etc ,is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Not irrelevant to the issue of Holland or somewhere else having legal cannabis as an argument for having it legal in Ireland. There are a host of things which are illegal here and just because they are legal somewhere else isn't sufficient reason to legalise them in Ireland.

and this thread is not just asking about recreational canabis theis is about canabis as a whole, so therefore medicinal use is relevant.

Not to the title! Medicinal cannabis wont get us out of recession! And I'm quite happy to say medicinal use is part of the argument but that is a totally different issue and not for the argument made by recreational use people.

So are you agreed that we should similarly legalise prostitution suicide euthanasia cannibalism etc. if they gained the state revenue?[/I]

no i did not say that at all...this is a prime example of your 'strawman' defence

It isn't a straw man! It isn't because the premise is that elsewhere has something which we don't have in Ireland. So what? Just because elsewhere has something legal isn't sufficient reason for Ireland to have it legalised.

ISAW

Oh_Noes wrote: »

ISAW:

Please make an argument for or against cannabis legalisation and make a case for your argument.

I dont have to make a case for anything!
Other people are posting cases.
I am just pointing out the fallacies flaws and problems with their cases.
I dont have to come down on a side and I don't have to support or decry cannabis use

If you can do it without using violent/sex crime metaphors then even better.

The reason for the comparison is they are easily seen as acceptable or not acceptable. If you take the same argument and change the context from cannabis to say sex crime then the soundness of the argument is put in perspective.

ISAW

Elevator wrote: »

this is like the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friend...

why do those who want to legally use cannabis have to bow down to those who don't for the past 40/50 years?!?

prohibition of most of the illegal drugs is a farce. proven to not do anything to stop drug use but hey, we'll just keep doing the same thing over and over and maybe we'll have a different outcome 100 years from now!!

And prohibition of a whole load of other things which are also illegal from violence to terrorism etc. didn't stop them happening either maybe. But the point is that isn't sufficient reason to remove the prohibition is it?

Oh_Noes

ISAW wrote: »

The reason for the comparison is they are easily seen as acceptable or not acceptable. If you take the same argument and change the context from cannabis to say sex crime then the soundness of the argument is put in perspective.

When you take the same argument and change the context then you have lost all relevance. It's not a legitimate way to argue anything. Sex crimes/abortion/murder and cannabis have absolutely no common ground. Keep it IN context and make your argument.

And it's not enough to just wait for other people to post their opinions so you can look for holes. If you want to be taken seriously in any way then you should make your own comprehensive argument.

Quoting this thread and nit-picking over semantics won't suffice.

stevoslice

ISAW wrote: »

It is just that many people who are suggesting it be legal aren't giving logical reasons or presenting sound or valid arguments.

1. Cannabis a non-addictive substance
2. No recorded deaths ever.
3. Multiple Medicinal uses. (MS, Addiction Treatment, Chronic pain, Chemo-Patients)
4. Many Industrial uses. (Plastics, Building Materials)
5. Textiles (Hemp)
6. Dietary Supplements (Hemp Seeds)
7. Legalisation would result in reduced money lost to black market/criminals
8. Legalisation would result in increased money to government coffers.
9. Legalisation would Provide a new and hardy crop for smaller tillage farmers.

9 logical reasons for your consideration ISAW.

mikom

Badgermonkey

Demand has always existed and always will.

If we were grown up about it, narcotics in most forms could be trialled for a significant period of time to allow for a considered evaluation.

By prohibiting,we choose to allow pond life to attain vast wealth through sales to all social classes.

Then we complain of drug and gun crime.

Corsendonk

thebhoy wrote: »

1. Cannabis a non-addictive substance
2. No recorded deaths ever.
3. Multiple Medicinal uses. (MS, Addiction Treatment, Chronic pain, Chemo-Patients)
4. Many Industrial uses. (Plastics, Building Materials)
5. Textiles (Hemp)
6. Dietary Supplements (Hemp Seeds)
7. Legalisation would result in reduced money lost to black market/criminals
8. Legalisation would result in increased money to government coffers.
9. Legalisation would Provide a new and hardy crop for smaller tillage farmers.
9 logical reasons for your consideration ISAW.

Number 9 isn't logical if you had some growing knowledge, the crop requires higher temps to grow outside than we have in Ireland. The dutch grow theirs in glasshouses so can people stop peddling the argument that the local farmer down the lane on his crap soil can grow a crop. It keeps coming up here as a reason to legalise. If it is it will be grown in glasshouses by professional growers use to glasshouse technology.

Number 5 Even a farmer that was growing hemp trial(a different plant by the way but close relative but more hardy to grow outdoors) in the UK had to install security fences because some stoners thought it was really cannabis.

Number 4, the plastics developed from growing plants is an interesting idea but cannabis plants would be way down the list, research has centred on food crops such as sweetcorn were you have a large plant to produce 4-5 cobs on a decent plant. The efficient use of the land for food security would be to confine plastic production to food crops so can't see that as a selling point unless you want to cause another fiasco like bio diesel.

ISAW

Oh_Noes wrote: »

When you take the same argument and change the context then you have lost all relevance.

You would be wrong about that!

I referred earlier to validity and soundness of an argument from the logical point of view.
It makes no difference if you use "cannabis" "rape" or "terrorism" or "talking elephants" for that matter. The point is about whether it is logical or fallacious. It does not follow that because something is acceptable somewhere else that it shoudl be acceptable in Ireland.

But if you think a changed context is everyiong then let me use your own point against you. If you change the context by putting it in an Irish context instead of a "somewhere else" context then according to you the fact of cannabis being legal or acceptable elsewhere is irrelevant!

It's not a legitimate way to argue anything. Sex crimes/abortion/murder and cannabis have absolutely no common ground. Keep it IN context and make your argument.

Nor have talking elephants. The point was the meta-argument that any acceptable thing elsewhere should be acceptable in Ireland just because others find it acceptable elsewhere.
That isn't a sound basis for legalising cannabis is it?

And it's not enough to just wait for other people to post their opinions so you can look for holes.

Actually it is!

If you want to be taken seriously in any way then you should make your own comprehensive argument.

It isn't a question of balance and I suggest you look up "shifting the burden" under "logical fallacy" . If someone else claims something I don't have to prove the negative ( look up "proving a negative" while you are at it). Otherwise I should have to prove unicorns don't exist. Whatever next? Should we assume guilt in a court and the person have to prove themselves innocent by comprehensive argument? Clearly the onus is on the person making the claim!

Quoting this thread and nit-picking over semantics won't suffice.

Actually it will! But I have done more than that.

Oh_Noes

ISAW wrote: »

You would be wrong about that!

I referred earlier to validity and soundness of an argument from the logical point of view.
It makes no difference if you use "cannabis" "rape" or "terrorism" or "talking elephants" for that matter. The point is about whether it is logical or fallacious. It does not follow that because something is acceptable somewhere else that it shoudl be acceptable in Ireland.

But if you think a changed context is everyiong then let me use your own point against you. If you change the context by putting it in an Irish context instead of a "somewhere else" context then according to you the fact of cannabis being legal or acceptable elsewhere is irrelevant!



Nor have talking elephants. The point was the meta-argument that any acceptable thing elsewhere should be acceptable in Ireland just because others find it acceptable elsewhere.
That isn't a sound basis for legalising cannabis is it?



Actually it is!



It isn't a question of balance and I suggest you look up "shifting the burden" under "logical fallacy" . If someone else claims something I don't have to prove the negative ( look up "proving a negative" while you are at it). Otherwise I should have to prove unicorns don't exist. Whatever next? Should we assume guilt in a court and the person have to prove themselves innocent by comprehensive argument? Clearly the onus is on the person making the claim!



Actually it will! But I have done more than that.

Elephants? Rape? This thread is about Cannabis. I suggest you request a linguistics forum.

Back to relevant discussion.

ISAW

thebhoy wrote: »

1. Cannabis a non-addictive substance

http://www.medic8.com/drug-addiction/cannabis.html
“A dependence on a substance or behaviour which affects physical, psychological and emotional wellbeing”.

People who use cannabis on a regular basis find that they develop a dependency towards it. You may find that you have cravings for cannabis - whether smoked or inhaled and that you experience withdrawal symptoms when you stop taking it.

Withdrawal symptoms include anxiety, upset stomach, nausea, mood swings, sweating and disturbed sleep patterns.

2. No recorded deaths ever.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article999100.ece

Michael Howells, the Pembrokeshire Coroner, recorded the cause of death as cannabis poisoning

3. Multiple Medicinal uses. (MS, Addiction Treatment, Chronic pain, Chemo-Patients)

So what? Opiates have medicinal use too. That isnt a reason to make opium freely available.


4. Many Industrial uses. (Plastics, Building Materials)
5. Textiles (Hemp)

Not of CANNABIS. Of hemp yes but that has already been replied to. It is supported by EU grants and grown in Ireland for rope manufacture or textile use or paper or whatever . Again this is a different issue to the free availability of a recreational drug.


6. Dietary Supplements (Hemp Seeds)

That was answered in 3 medicinal use again.

7. Legalisation would result in reduced money lost to black market/criminals
Again what proof do you have for this?
Alcohol and cigarettes are legal but criminals still trade illegal tobacco and alcohol.


8. Legalisation would result in increased money to government coffers.

Not necessarily. Legalisation and TAXING it would. but I doubt it would be much of a revenue stream. what evidence do you have it would be?


9. Legalisation would Provide a new and hardy crop for smaller tillage farmers.

and that is an agricultural reason and not one about recreational drug use and already dealt with in 4 and 5.

9 logical reasons for your consideration ISAW.

Thanks for that. Many of them are duplicated and none support the free availability of a recreational drug. some legal uses are already in Ireland.

ISAW

Oh_Noes wrote: »

Elephants? Rape? This thread is about Cannabis. I suggest you request a linguistics forum.

Back to relevant discussion.

I suggest you read the reference about logical argument.

Premise => conclusion

On what basis do you suggest recreational cannabis use is warranted in Ireland?