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

mikom

ISAW wrote: »

2. No recorded deaths ever.

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

Barrel well and truly scraped

The validity of the finding did not stand up well under review. As reported on 2004-01-28 in the Neue Züricher Zeitung, the Federal Health Ministry of Switzerland asked Dr. Rudolf Brenneisen, a professor at the department for clinical research at the University of Bern, to review the data of this case. Dr. Brenneisen said that the data of the toxicological analysis and collected by autopsy were "scanty and not conclusive" and that the conclusion "death by cannabis intoxication" was "not legitimate". Additionally, Dr. Franjo Grotenhermen of the nova-Institute in Cologne, Germany said: "A concentration of 130 ng/ml THC-COOH in blood is a moderate concentration, which may be observed some hours after the use of one or two joints. Heavy regular use of cannabis easily results in THC-COOH concentrations of above 500 ng/ml. Many people use much more cannabis than Mr. Maisey did, without any negative consequences."

Lee John Maisey, aged 36, of Windcrest, Church View, was a self-confessed alcoholic, who also smoked cannabis.

ISAW

mikom wrote: »

Barrel well and truly scraped



Lee John Maisey, aged 36, of Windcrest, Church View, was a self-confessed alcoholic, who also smoked cannabis.

Scrape scrape lots of resin iin the bottom of this barrel.

Claim was "no recorded deaths ever"
Claim was wrong!

http://www.politics.ie/health-social-affairs/124372-irish-widow-brings-case-over-cannabis-link-husbands-death.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712259/Coroner-blames-death-on-toxic-cannabis.html
"Cerebellar Infarction in Adolescent Males Associated with Acute Marijuana Use," published in Pediatrics in Apr. 2004:

"Each of the 3 cannabis-associated cases of cerebellar infarction was confirmed by biopsy (1 case) or necropsy (2 cases)... Brainstem compromise caused by cerebellar and cerebral edema led to death in the 2 fatal cases."

Liliana Bachs, MD, Senior Medical Officer at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, et al., wrote in their article "Acute Cardiovascular Fatalities Following Cannabis Use," published by Forensic Science International in 2001:

"Cannabis is generally considered to be a drug with very low toxicity. In this paper, we report six cases where recent cannabis intake was associated with sudden and unexpected death. An acute cardiovascular event was the probable cause of death. In all cases, cannabis intake was documented by blood analysis."

Liliana Bachs, MD, Senior Medical Officer at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, wrote in a Nov. 28, 2005 email to ProCon.org:

"Causality is a difficult assessment in forensic toxicology. It is often an 'exclusion diagnosis,' and so it is in our cases. I'm therefore not sure about how to classify those deaths.

At the time I published that study [see above] I would probably not classify [the cannabis] as primary causation because it was not broadly accepted that [a death from cannabis] could occur at all. Today I see reports coming all the time that acknowledge cannabis cardiovascular risks, and the situation may be different."

The Institute of Medicine published in its Mar. 1999 report titled "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base":

"The cardiovascular changes [from marijuana use] have not posed a health problem for healthy, young users of marijuana or THC. However, such changes in heart rate and blood pressure could present a serious problem for older patients, especially those with coronary arterial or cerebrovascular disease.

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading causes of death in the United States (coronary heart disease is first; stroke is third), so any effect of marijuana use on cardiovascular disease could have a substantial impact on public health. The magnitude of the impact remains to be determined as chronic marijuana users from the late 1960s enter the age when coronary arterial and cerebrovascular diseases become common.

Smoking marijuana is also known to decrease maximal exercise performance. That, with the increased heart rate, could theoretically induce angina, so, this raises the possibility that patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease should be advised not to smoke marijuana, and THC might be contraindicated in patients with restricted cardiovascular function."

From: http://www.procon.org/

ordinarywoman

did you read those articles??
cause in the case of the 17yr old he had hx of taking amphetamines , more commenly associated with heart attacks...and he had no canabis in his system at the time of his death.
The second man had a hx of blood clots and was awaiting urgent MRI.

pital on tShe also claims he failed to properly take into account Mr Byrne’s medical history, including that he was being treated for high cholesterol and had been waiting for about a month for an “urgent” appointment for an MRI scan following the discovery of a blood clot in his leg.

She has asked the High Court to judicially review Dr Geraghty’s finding, based on a pathologist’s report, that traces of cannabis found in Mr Byrne’s system were sufficient to have induced and/or contributed to the onset of the heart attack.

She also claimed the coroner had not taken into account the possible effect on Mr Byrne of having to wait some 40 minutes for an ambulance to bring him from his home to Tallaght Hoshe day of his death - November 9th Mr Toal said a report from Dr Bill Tormey, a consultant chemical pathologist at Beaumont Hospital, said the coroner’s finding the cannabis traces induced or contributed to the heart attack was incompatible with scientific evidence suggesting cannabis can have a “protective role” against heart attack. Dr Tormey said it was “fanciful in the extreme” to call this a misadventure, counsel said.2005.

ISAW

ordinarywoman wrote: »

did you read those articles??

Did you read: "2. No recorded deaths ever."?

stevoslice

Corsendonk wrote: »

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.

i am quite aware of how cannabis should be grown, and am also aware that mushrooms/cucumbers/tomatoes are mass grown in this country in greenhouses, growing cannabis does not so much need higher temperatures as it does a well defined day/night cycle with plenty of light for growth, there are also plenty of strains of cannabis that would grow (altough not amazingly) in our climate.

ISAW wrote: »

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

Ok, maybe addictive, but no more so than coffee, or even tea.

2. No recorded deaths ever.

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

I could have worded it better, sure, but if you need to go back to 2004 to find a recorded death i think it can be assumed that cannabis is pretty safe.
it is impossible to overdose on cannabis, demonstrated here.

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.

strawman argument yet again

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.

op states that cannabis should be legalized to pull country out of recession, this is all part of that same issue, currently hemp needs a license to be grown yes & that stipulation is complete nonsense.

I have no source at the moment, but domestic houses have been built from hemp and hemp fibres which have energy ratings much better than your average concrete house, the license needed for studies of hemp in this country serve no purpose but to slow down/discourage research into what is an amazing plant.

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?

as do criminals trade illegal ripoff soccer/rugby jerseys or branded gear, which is why i said legalisation would reduce the money lost to the black market, can you accept this?

yes legalise cannabis and tax the sh*t out of it. If they taxed it to resemble the current 'black market' price it would bring in money by the shedload.

my 'evidence' is in the fact that criminals are making millions of euro of this product, surely they would not bother if, as you say, it would be a poor revenue stream.

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.

you seem to believe that there is only an argument here for the recreational use, this is not the case.

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.

one last thing i will say is that prohibition, as posted above, does not work. if it did this question would not arise on boards every 5 minutes, decades after the product is banned.

ISAW

mikom wrote: »

You are aware then the Kennedy's got their money in this and not just Capone?

stevoslice

ISAW wrote: »

You are aware then the Kennedy's got their money in this and not just Capone?

you are aware then that prohibition doesn't work.

NullZer0

Please stop posting this crap.
It doesn't anger me that you suggest Cannabis should be legalized - personally I would have no objection.

It angers me because every now and again some idiot posts something the same without really thinking aout what they are saying.

Now... back to the real world.

ISAW

[QUOTE=thebhoy;69671238

Ok, maybe addictive, but no more so than coffee, or even tea.
[/quote]

Debatable. Strong evidence exists that it is much more addictive.

I could have worded it better, sure, but if you need to go back to 2004 to find a recorded death i think it can be assumed that cannabis is pretty safe.

Compared to what??? Oops and who was accusing me of straw man arguments?

it is impossible to overdose on cannabis, demonstrated here.

again it is maybe impossible to overdose on other things like Ritalin but that isn't a reason for recreational use. It is maybe impossible to die from an overdose of sex but that isn't a reason for people to have free love is it?

strawman argument yet again

NO it ISN'T!

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.


Premise = "cannabis/opium/sex/gambling/X has measured therapeutic medicinal effects"

that isn't sufficient reason to make any drug freely available or to encourage a particular behavior.

op states that cannabis should be legalized to pull country out of recession, this is all part of that same issue, currently hemp needs a license to be grown yes & that stipulation is complete nonsense.

Hemp growing for industrial use would have about as much an effect of the economy as venison for agricultural use. Nothing problematic in that, or in medicinal use the main issue is one of recreational use.

I have no source at the moment, but domestic houses have been built from hemp and hemp fibres which have energy ratings much better than your average concrete house, the license needed for studies of hemp in this country serve no purpose but to slow down/discourage research into what is an amazing plant.

I agree. and if the hemp could be grown with no TCH no licence at all would be needed. i doubt any judge would look seriously on someone who was illegally cultivating a plant to make ropes!

http://www.hempcompany.ie/pdfs/www_hemp_hse_cat.pdf
http://www.harmonikireland.com/hemp/

http://www.teagasc.ie/research/reports/crops/4487/eopr-4487.asp
To enable the development of an industry based on hemp, a licence to grow approved varieties of hemp can be obtained. The approved list of varieties is published by the Department of Health and Children. All varieties evaluated in this project were selected from this list and grown under licence.

as do criminals trade illegal ripoff soccer/rugby jerseys or branded gear, which is why i said legalisation would reduce the money lost to the black market, can you accept this?

legal licence can be obtained. Allo yo9u need do is declare where you are growing it.

yes legalise cannabis and tax the sh*t out of it. If they taxed it to resemble the current 'black market' price it would bring in money by the shedload.

AHA! which is back to the recreational use argument and totally different to industrial use.

my 'evidence' is in the fact that criminals are making millions of euro of this product, surely they would not bother if, as you say, it would be a poor revenue stream.

Illegal alcohol and cigarrettes are a poor revenue stream compared to other illegal drugs but it doers not stop them bothering does it?

you seem to believe that there is only an argument here for the recreational use, this is not the case.

You seem to think people will agree with the industrial medicinal and agricultural use and suddenly you can slip in the recreational use argument.

one last thing i will say is that prohibition, as posted above, does not work. if it did this question would not arise on boards every 5 minutes, decades after the product is banned.

Premise = making something illegal does not work... therefore conclusion = make it legal.

We can apply this premise to abortion, stealing, violent crime, fraud driving on the wrong side of the road or any host of things!

The point is if something is illegal and people still do it that is not sufficient reason to make it legal is it?

ISAW

thebhoy wrote: »

you are aware then that prohibition doesn't work.

You are aware that people still do things which are illegal?
Does that mean that we should make them legal because making them illegal doers not pervent people doing it?

Based on that we can do away with all crimes and misdemeanours. I mean people will drive on the wrong side of the road . Why only yesterday I saw a car doing so in order to get up a hill in the snow. Sure why have laws against anything at all?

The point is that just because people commit crimes isn't sufficient reason to remove the criminality.

ISAW

iRock wrote: »

Please stop posting this crap.
It doesn't anger me that you suggest Cannabis should be legalized - personally I would have no objection.

It angers me because every now and again some idiot posts something the same without really thinking aout what they are saying.

Now... back to the real world.

+1

ISAW

Badgermonkey wrote: »

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.

the Kennedy family made money in bootlegging.

When prohibition was lifted they got the licence for Scotch. Irish whisky was newver pushed in the US because og this and Scotch was. Vast wealth accrued legally and little of it helped Ireland.

Spearbearer

weedfreedomtinp wrote: »

Tobacco kills 750.000 per year

Alcohol kills 400.000 per year

coffee kills 4.500 per year

aspirin kills 7.500 per year

Cannabis Kills 0 what you say 0 dont believe me look in google videos for a video called

THE UNION , THE BUSINESS BEHIND CANNABIS ,,,

Its all in it ,,

from professors from Harvard uni and many more top Law official's


THE UNION , THE BUSINESS BEHIND CANNABIS ,,,

when you see the video please comment on this truly

No to legalisation of drugs

Elevator

@isaw you've outdone yourself here mate!! my god! http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article999100.ece

(man dies from eating too much "toxic" cannabis!! WTF?!? pmsl)

look at the end of the day I don't know why you feel so strongly on the subject?! you come on here putting across arguments that to me state "I know what's best for millions of cannabis users!"

get a grip

I see you threw up a ritalin argument in one of your posts, you do know certain strains of cannabis can be used to treat ADHD, ADD etc.

I'd rather use cannabis over synthetic drugs anyday!!

ps. which big pharma company you work for??

stevoslice

ISAW wrote: »

Debatable. Strong evidence exists that it is much more addictive.

where

Compared to what??? Oops and who was accusing me of straw man arguments?

what is your argument with my point exactly

again it is maybe impossible to overdose on other things like Ritalin but that isn't a reason for recreational use. It is maybe impossible to die from an overdose of sex but that isn't a reason for people to have free love is it?

ritalin is a synthetic chemical, cannabis is a plant. i am arguing for the legalisation of cannabis, so i am going to list the pros*. do you object to a persons sexual freedom, i don't get the point your making here, nothing to do with my point.

NO it ISN'T!

i'm not even gonna bother

Premise = "cannabis/opium/sex/gambling/X has measured therapeutic medicinal effects"

that isn't sufficient reason to make any drug freely available or to encourage a particular behavior.

do you have a problem with people having sex, it seems to be a counter argument from you. opiates are used in medicine you know, its called morphine. where is this gambling argument after coming from, your arguments all seem to be based around the same principle.

I agree. and if the hemp could be grown with no TCH no licence at all would be needed.

we can both agree that the amount of thc in hemp is pitiful, so the fact that it needs a license to grow it at all is bizarre.

AHA! which is back to the recreational use argument and totally different to industrial use.

i am arguing both cases, they are not mutually exclusive as you seem to believe.

Illegal alcohol and cigarrettes are a poor revenue stream compared to other illegal drugs but it doers not stop them bothering does it?

GalwayAdvertiser wrote:

Galway Advertiser
He says: “From reports I hear locally, Customs in Galway city and county are taking far too relaxed an approach to those selling illegal tobacco in markets and door to door. Cigarette smuggling is not some sort of victimless minor crime. Last year the Exchequer lost €556 million in unpaid excise levies. That is money that will have to be made up elsewhere through cutbacks in health services and schools. There is ample evidence that smuggling is run by vicious crime gangs and paramilitaries.”

thats an estimated €556 million lost to the exchequer just from illegal cigarettes, hardly a small amount of cash now is it.

You seem to think people will agree with the industrial medicinal and agricultural use and suddenly you can slip in the recreational use argument.

i am not slipping in any argument, i have been arguing for the legalisation of cannabis it from the start and arguing for the whole plant to be legalised, and stating the positives that may come from that. please don't do the 'joe duffy' on it

Premise = making something illegal does not work... therefore conclusion = make it legal.

We can apply this premise to abortion, stealing, violent crime, fraud driving on the wrong side of the road or any host of things!

The point is if something is illegal and people still do it that is not sufficient reason to make it legal is it?

you have brought up abortion a few times and it has nothing to do with this thread.

Premise = making something illegal does not work... therefore conclusion= look at your options again, make a reasoned argument for or against those options, change laws, observe effect on society, if negative start again, if positive then keep laws but also look to improve them.

*and yes i am fully aware of the negative effects cannabis can have on a developing mind, i am for legalising and regulating, not cannabis for all.

ISAW

Elevator wrote: »

@isaw you've outdone yourself here mate!!
look at the end of the day I don't know why you feel so strongly on the subject?!

How I personally feel is irrelevant to the issue.

you come on here putting across arguments that to me state "I know what's best for millions of cannabis users!"

Not at all! You are ignorant of my posts. I am in fact anti authoritarian and have a record of posting on such issues. Look up "argument from ignorance" By the way do yu always resort to attacking the person rather than the point they are making? Look up "ad hominem" as well would you?

I see you threw up a ritalin argument in one of your posts, you do know certain strains of cannabis can be used to treat ADHD, ADD etc.

Interesting. No I didnt! Have you any peer reviewed medical evidence for this claim?
Are you aware Scientologists swear by Ritalin?

I'd rather use cannabis over synthetic drugs anyday!!

sure why not use digatalis or opium then? For that matter why no go and live with the Amish community and reject all our "synthetic" society? that would include the computer by the way? the "it is more natural" argument isnt very strong. Jusdt like cattle breading the cannabis available today comes from "artificial" breeding of plants which yield ten times as much TCH as compared to the hippi days of the sixties.

ps. which big pharma company you work for??

Look up "ad hominem" again will you? Pharmachem is in fact our largest exporting sector and the sandal wearing brigade wont replace that business. And I don't work for any of them. Please stop trying to personally attack me or my motives and deal with the issue.

ISAW

Spearbearer wrote: »

No to legalisation of drugs

Well this is equally ludicrous. In Roman times the average life expectancy was about 30 now it is over 80. Due in part to legal and controlled drugs.

ISAW: Please use the multiquote function instead of 5 posts in a row. It is quite difficult to follow the thread with separate postings.

Your Friendly Neighbourhood mod,

Papa

Badgermonkey

I think all chance of a reasonable discussion on the original question seems to have crumbled under the weight of snipe and counter snipe.

There are some within the thread so magnetically drawn towards eachothers posts that they should frankly 'get a room'.

Badgermonkey, your post doesn't help and back seat modding is frowned upon.

Your friendly neighbourhood mod,

Papa

ISAW

thebhoy wrote: »

where

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673698050211
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2000.9544851.x/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6SYT-48CFM80-1&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F15%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1585828870&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6028e81324ce7cb440872842c223b9d1&searchtype=a

do you have a problem with people having sex, it seems to be a counter argument from you.

I suggest you read the thread on lone parents. Some people view having children as irresponsible. Others view the sex industry as something which should not be supported and kept illegal.

opiates are used in medicine you know, its called morphine.

I am aware of that. Legally controlled medicinal use is NOT free availability.

where is this gambling argument after coming from, your arguments all seem to be based around the same principle.

It is coming from "something which causes no physical harm" being regulated or illegal. Same goes for sex.

we can both agree that the amount of thc in hemp is pitiful, so the fact that it needs a license to grow it at all is bizarre.

"Pitifull" is a relative term. Obviously it is only pityfull to someone who wants to harvest the drug rather then the other benifits of the plant which they pretend to be supporting.

i am arguing both cases, they are not mutually exclusive as you seem to believe.

But when the agricultural or industrial use is accepted the "pitiful" amour of recreational drug becomes apparent?

thats an estimated €556 million lost to the exchequer just from illegal cigarettes, hardly a small amount of cash now is it.

Which is only an argument for criminalisation of cannabis rather than legaslisation Sinclare even when made legal the illegal version ( like the "non pitiful" version) causes revenue loss.

i am not slipping in any argument, i have been arguing for the legalisation of cannabis it from the start and arguing for the whole plant to be legalised, and stating the positives that may come from that. please don't do the 'joe duffy' on it

Please please please NEVER compare me to Joe Duffy! It is the worst personal attack I have experienced to date.

I have pointed out that the legal use of hemp for non drug use is already possible in Ireland. It is usually paraded as a means to free recreational use of cannabis. Likewise medicinal use who are not twenty somethings or kids but mature adults with valid and medically supported arguments.

you have brought up abortion a few times and it has nothing to do with this thread.

It has to do with the generalisation of something being acceptable to some people somewhere being used to justify a particular argument. Even if everywhere else in the world had things we don't have in Ireland e.g. national service, driving on the right, prostitution abortion or free cannabis it is NOT sufficient to say we should therefor have it legalised here.

Premise = making something illegal does not work...

It is a false premise. If it is true in general then you can say

Making alcohol illegal does not work
Making cannabis illegal does not work
Making sex with minors illegal does not work
and so on with abortion, driving wherever you want, fraud etc.

therefore conclusion= look at your options again, make a reasoned argument for or against those options, change laws, observe effect on society, if negative start again, if positive then keep laws but also look to improve them.

If something is already legal then it is almost impossible to make it illegal again. The US example fairly much proves that. I am not against making cannabis legal. If I had to vote on it in the senate or Dail I would not have a huge problem with making some changes. But it would have to start with widespread medical support

I would be loathe to just jump to full legalisation. Maybe medicinal use, reclassification and relaxing enforcement and prosecution to begin with?

*and yes i am fully aware of the negative effects cannabis can have on a developing mind, i am for legalising and regulating, not cannabis for all.

Which does not differ from my position. see where using reason gets people? Now if we were on cannabis could we have done that?

ISAW

141_Oscar_Mike wrote: »

There is no evidence of this.

I just posted it.

[/quote]
Cannabis was also claimed to be a gateway drug. This is also false[/QUOTE]

I also reased that point. The "gateway drug" think smacks to me more of an ignorance scare tactic. It hasn't been supported with evidence.

Oh_Noes

Badgermonkey wrote: »

I think all chance of a reasonable discussion on the original question seems to have crumbled under the weight of snipe and counter snipe.

Completely agree. Was a fun thread when it was actual discussion rather than page after page of childish spam.

ISAW

Papa Smut wrote: »

ISAW: Please use the multiquote function instead of 5 posts in a row. It is quite difficult to follow the thread with separate postings.

Your Friendly Neighbourhood mod,

Papa

Sorry i dont know how to use it. I have tried. Ill try again.

Just hit the multi quote button on each post you would like to quote, and then on the last one hit quote instead of multiquote

stevoslice

ISAW wrote: »

"Pitifull" is a relative term. Obviously it is only pityfull to someone who wants to harvest the drug rather then the other benifits of the plant which they pretend to be supporting.

Hemp needs a license to be grown in this country because of its relation to sensemilla.
Why not then, bring in a license for growing sage, after all it is related to salvia divinorium, which is a lot more intense than weed let me tell you.

Which is only an argument for criminalisation of cannabis rather than legaslisation Sinclare even when made legal the illegal version ( like the "non pitiful" version) causes revenue loss.

this statement makes no sense. the money is already being lost 100% to gangs/drug dealers/international crime syndicates, my argument is to divert some/most of that cash back into the revenue system, through government regulation and taxation. it is pretty naive/underhanded to try and use that argument ISAW

Please please please NEVER compare me to Joe Duffy! It is the worst personal attack I have experienced to date.

well then please try and understand my posts before you rebutt them.

It has to do with the generalisation of something being acceptable to some people somewhere being used to justify a particular argument. Even if everywhere else in the world had things we don't have in Ireland e.g. national service, driving on the right, prostitution abortion or free cannabis it is NOT sufficient to say we should therefor have it legalised here.

So you are counter arguing something which i have not argued, well then thats ok. *shakes head

It is a false premise. If it is true in general then you can say
Making alcohol illegal does not work
Making cannabis illegal does not work
Making sex with minors illegal does not work
and so on with abortion, driving wherever you want, fraud etc.

Worzel, is that you?

If something is already legal then it is almost impossible to make it illegal again. The US example fairly much proves that.

but you just said it doesn't matter what happens in other countries
head shops & 'magic' mushrooms are now illegal?

Which does not differ from my position. see where using reason gets people? Now if we were on cannabis could we have done that?

i just did

i think your devils advocate position does not work on a public forum. you seem to be unreasonable and unwilling to see the point that a poster has made, and instead of acknowledging a fair point, you will just rebutt that along with everything else.

Corsendonk

thebhoy wrote: »

i am quite aware of how cannabis should be grown, and am also aware that mushrooms/cucumbers/tomatoes are mass grown in this country in greenhouses, growing cannabis does not so much need higher temperatures as it does a well defined day/night cycle with plenty of light for growth, there are also plenty of strains of cannabis that would grow (altough not amazingly) in our climate.

Mushrooms don't grown in greenhouses, just thought I would point that out to you, a separate production unit and defo not a greenhouse.

I use to commercial grow the two other crops you mentioned so I have a bit of a commercial horticulture background. A state of the art greenhouse unit could easily grow for the irish market and grow strains such as the consumer is use to, with efficient use of inputs. Why would you want to grow the crop the most expensive and inefficient way is beyond me ie outdoors, do you want to screw the consumer on price? Or worse still offer a subsidy to the farmer. Why else would the Kings of Horticulture(the Dutch) continue to grow strains in green houses? Because in a green house unit you can install extra lighting to provide the required hours of sunlight, recycle the water supply, use biological controls rather than chemicals for pest control and make efficient use of the heating system. So you can produce the best quality and safe crop with a constant planned supply 12 months of the year for the consumer.

stevoslice

Corsendonk wrote: »

Mushrooms don't grown in greenhouses, just thought I would point that out to you, a separate production unit and defo not a greenhouse.

that is fair, i know they grow them in tents or indoors but i was just generalizing

I use to commercial grow the two other crops you mentioned so I have a bit of a commercial horticulture background. A state of the art greenhouse unit could easily grow for the irish market and grow strains such as the consumer is use to, with efficient use of inputs. Why would you want to grow the crop the most expensive and inefficient way is beyond me ie outdoors, do you want to screw the consumer on price? Or worse still offer a subsidy to the farmer. Why else would the Kings of Horticulture(the Dutch) continue to grow strains in green houses? Because in a green house unit you can install extra lighting to provide the required hours of sunlight, recycle the water supply, use biological controls rather than chemicals for pest control and make efficient use of the heating system. So you can produce the best quality and safe crop with a constant planned supply 12 months of the year for the consumer.

i do not want to screw any consumer, was just stating that strains can and do grow in this part of the world, anecdotally, glastonbury is supposed to have a problem with weed becoming a weed.

the day/night cycle is terribly important for a cannabis plant, with it needing to start off with an 18/6 day/night to simulate summer, then 12/12 simulating autumn, to induce to plant to start flowering, if you will. so maybe not a greenhouse but a blackhouse . maybe we should put our heads together Corsendonk and supply affordable yet quality produce to the local market.

ISAW

thebhoy wrote: »

this statement makes no sense. the money is already being lost 100% to gangs/drug dealers/international crime syndicates, my argument is to divert some/most of that cash back into the revenue system, through government regulation and taxation. it is pretty naive/underhanded to try and use that argument ISAW

Ltes see:
It is illegal so we gain no revenue.
Making it legal will at least gain us some revenue.
But the point I am making is that even if we gain some revenue we may just be increasing the amount of involvement by criminals. Developing a sex industry for example may lead to a sex tax but also lead to more illegal prostitutes and to even more pimps.

but you just said it doesn't matter what happens in other countries
head shops & 'magic' mushrooms are now illegal?

Hmmm let's see:
I stated it is not a sound argument to say because "something is legal somewhere else that that justifies legalising the same in Ireland" this isn't exactly the same as saying something which is found to be harmful elsewhere should be illegal here.

Look up "affirming the consequent" and "denying the antecedent" as opposed to "denying the consequent" or modus tollens

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P

the important thing is the premise has to be valid

If it is good then it is legal.
it is not legal
therefore it is not good

isn't the same as
1. If P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, P.


If it is good then it is legal.
it is legal
therefore it is good

which seems more valid "if it is illegal it is probably harmfull"
or
"if it is legal elsewhewr it is probably good for Irish society"

i think your devils advocate position does not work on a public forum

That is your opinion. Mine is supported with reasoned argument.

you seem to be unreasonable and unwilling to see the point that a poster has made, and instead of acknowledging a fair point, you will just rebutt that along with everything else.

No I don't! all you are saying here is "I don't like the way you argue"!
So what? It is logical and reasonable. whether you like it or not isn't at issue,

Corsendonk

thebhoy wrote: »

that is fair, i know they grow them in tents or indoors but i was just generalizing



i do not want to screw any consumer, was just stating that strains can and do grow in this part of the world, anecdotally, glastonbury is supposed to have a problem with weed becoming a weed.

the day/night cycle is terribly important for a cannabis plant, with it needing to start off with an 18/6 day/night to simulate summer, then 12/12 simulating autumn, to induce to plant to start flowering, if you will. so maybe not a greenhouse but a blackhouse . maybe we should put our heads together Corsendonk and supply affordable yet quality produce to the local market.

Mushroom Tunnels is the term your searching for:D

Have you got 25 million euros? You can install computer operated blinds to control the light levels, they use them in poinsettia production and salad crops . The below vid gives a taste of the technology involved, there is a much smaller unit beside dublin airport but same technology involved but it did cost 25 million.

In all honesty its a lot cheaper to import it from warmer climates, I know a guy in the banana business that already has the contacts ready to go if they legalise in the UK. Banana boats only take about 12 days from loading to delivery in Dublin of cargo from UK ports.