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

ordinarywoman

crackpot?:D

maybe so.

do i care what your opinion is of me.....

not in the slightest.

ISAW

ordinarywoman wrote: »

crackpot?:D

maybe so.

do i care what your opinion is of me.....

not in the slightest.

Again it isn't an issue of what you ropinion is of me or mine of you. If you believe in a conspiracy theory about chemical companies hiding evidence about cannabis or making fake research to facilitate economic gain that is your own business. But when you come her and claim something is scientifically and factually true you had best be prepared to support the claim with evidence. Whatever ridiculous reason for believing as you do is your own business. We are trying to discuss the claims made as a result of posts and nt the motivation of why you posted them in the first place.

nesf

ISAW wrote: »

Who am I to question whatevewr crackpot conspiracy theories you believe? What I am interested in is the sweeping objective claims you make based on such beliefs. The claims are not supported.

Please don't call another user's views crackpot, thanks.

Johnboy1951

ISAW, you may have the time to nitpick every word used here but I neither have the time nor the inclination to do so.

However as an example ...

I believe the danger of corporate manipulation should not be dismissed out of hand.

Fair enough. But

1. Prove it is happening
2. It has not bearing on "legalise cannabis for recreational use" . It is the pharma industry not the tabacco industry.

1. Prove a danger is happening? I posted an opinion. It is my belief that there is a danger in trusting what corporations tell us. My belief is based on the history of corporations.

2. I am aware it is the pharma industry not the tobacco industry, and I guess all others reading this thread are.

So, what is your point? What are you saying? It surely reads like you are telling me that the Pharma Corporations are in some manner or form more honest/dependable/etc than the Tobacco Corporations; that the results of their 'research' is somehow to be more trusted than the research of the tobacco Corps.

You have links and studies to prove your point?

I am sure if you wish to search you will find many references to Pharma corporations dumping chemicals and otherwise polluting and endangering the health of the populace in many countries. But of course those results would be contrary to your apparent position of trustworthiness.

I post the above to highlight a point about your posts, and NOT as a point of discussion in this thread.

As I said, I posted opinion only which for the most part is based on life as I lived it, and was not meant to prove anything.

regards.

ISAW

nesf wrote: »

Please don't call another user's views crackpot, thanks.

I am attacking the arguments made which are crackpot arguments and not the posters making them. Their personal beliefs are their own business. The arguments presented are conspiracy theories such as:

- Big pharma business is currently orchestrating a "demonise cannabis" campaign because they have secret knowledge that cannabis can cure cancer so they are demonising it until they can patent the drug involved.

Plausable but silly.

- cannabis is a wholly natural drug and should be made legal for everyone.

Again a ridiculous claim. Cannabis nowadays is several times more potent then the cannabis at Woodstock. why? Because it has been artificially cross bred. The additional medical claims made for it relate to even more artificial cannabinoids manufactured in the lab.

I won't personally attack or insult any poster and if anyone took offence to my point that some of the arguments made were crackpot this is not to claim that the particular posters were crackpots themselves.

ISAW

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

ISAW, you may have the time to nitpick every word used here but I neither have the time nor the inclination to do so.

So what? If you cant prove your case don't blame me.

1. Prove a danger is happening? I posted an opinion. It is my belief that there is a danger in trusting what corporations tell us. My belief is based on the history of corporations.

In other words you are posting your wholly unsupported opinion and you are not posting which might in any way be misconstrued as objective fact?

2. I am aware it is the pharma industry not the tobacco industry, and I guess all others reading this thread are.

While there are valid critiques of pharma and big business, medicines are not to be lumped in with drugs to be pushed on people with the object of making them addicted.

So, what is your point? What are you saying? It surely reads like you are telling me that the Pharma Corporations are in some manner or form more honest/dependable/etc than the Tobacco Corporations; that the results of their 'research' is somehow to be more trusted than the research of the tobacco Corps.

No Im telling you that peer reviewed research is just that -"peer reviewed" . If you care claiming qualified people are making it up or forgive the pun "doctoring" it then where is your evidence.

Please don't refer to Thalidomide or similar - we are discussing cannabis here.

You have links and studies to prove your point?

Indeed I do to claims I make! But Im not making the claim. You are!
Look up "burden of evidence" would you.

I am sure if you wish to search you will find many references to Pharma corporations dumping chemicals and otherwise polluting and endangering the health of the populace in many countries.

I'm sure I might but I'm not making the claim. You are!
And this isnt about environmental damage it is about [your claim[/b] of pharmachem keeping cannabis research secret so that they can corner the market in cannabis.
Where is your evidence?

But of course those results would be contrary to your apparent position of trustworthiness.

Let me get this straight. Non existant evidence about results which may be true but which you have not produced at all are contrary to the position that the pharmachem industry is trustworthy.
And this non existent series of tenuous links proves what in relation to legalisation of cannabis?

As I said, I posted opinion only which for the most part is based on life as I lived it, and was not meant to prove anything.

Fair enough. If my opinion was it was done by space aliens or unicorns that would be about as useful to the discussion or legalising cannabis would it not?

You see conspiracy theories without any actual evidence are not really contributing to developing a debate are they?

nesf

ISAW wrote: »

I am attacking the arguments made which are crackpot arguments and not the posters making them. Their personal beliefs are their own business. The arguments presented are conspiracy theories such as:

- Big pharma business is currently orchestrating a "demonise cannabis" campaign because they have secret knowledge that cannabis can cure cancer so they are demonising it until they can patent the drug involved.

Plausable but silly.

- cannabis is a wholly natural drug and should be made legal for everyone.

Again a ridiculous claim. Cannabis nowadays is several times more potent then the cannabis at Woodstock. why? Because it has been artificially cross bred. The additional medical claims made for it relate to even more artificial cannabinoids manufactured in the lab.

I won't personally attack or insult any poster and if anyone took offence to my point that some of the arguments made were crackpot this is not to claim that the particular posters were crackpots themselves.

I know what you are doing and I'm asking you to rephrase things. Calling someone's argument crackpot is far too close to calling them a crackpot. Attack arguments yes but don't descend into name calling.

ScumLord

ISAW wrote: »

- cannabis is a wholly natural drug and should be made legal for everyone.

Again a ridiculous claim. Cannabis nowadays is several times more potent then the cannabis at Woodstock. why? Because it has been artificially cross bred. The additional medical claims made for it relate to even more artificial cannabinoids manufactured in the lab.

This is a bit of a myth and an assumption. It's like saying wine that's around now is more potent than it was in the 60s, as you know there is a wide variety of wines and the same is true for cannabis, you can buy a really strong one or a weaker one depending on personal preference (well you can in many other countries you don't necessarily get the choice here).

There were plenty of really, really strong cannabis strains in the past that's a known fact that's over looked. The media will talk about "super skunk" which isn't even all that strong and has been around for donkeys years. It's not even a particular strain it's just a name for weed that got attached to a few branded weeds.

There's no reason why cannabis should be illegal it's not dangerous enough to justify spending the amount of money we do to keep it out of peoples hands.

Jonny7

I am against the cannabis legalisation for various reasons

But reading ISAW's comments reminds me of one thing

You can argue almost anything, any side, forever, on the internet (with our friend google) and.. whoever has the most stamina, wins (if it can be called winning)

Johnboy1951

Originally Posted by Johnboy1951 View Post
ISAW, you may have the time to nitpick every word used here but I neither have the time nor the inclination to do so.

So what? If you cant prove your case don't blame me.

You just do not seem to get it.
I posted opinion.
I have no case to prove.
I have no wish to prove any case to you.

I thought I was joining a 'discussion' thread ...... obviously it is no longer such.

Your posts have added nothing to my understanding of the subject.
Given the length and frequency of your posts that is hardly a recommendation.

Maybe you should reconsider your approach to such discussions, as it is hardly productive to alienate other posters in a thread.
Human nature being what it is, when alienated, people usually do not listen to the 'message' (and in this case I, for one, have been unable to decipher what that 'message' may be).

regards.

Pace2008

ScumLord wrote: »

This is a bit of a myth and an assumption. It's like saying wine that's around now is more potent than it was in the 60s, as you know there is a wide variety of wines and the same is true for cannabis, you can buy a really strong one or a weaker one depending on personal preference (well you can in many other countries you don't necessarily get the choice here).

Good article here that debunks the media’s wild, but widely believed, claims about the purported dramatic increase in cannabis potency.

The average THC content in weed has risen slightly, but the hysteria over deadly, widespread “super skunk” is largely unfounded.

And once again, this minor increase in potency is a result of prohibition as intensive, indoor hydroponic operations are far easier to conceal from the authorities that large outdoor cannabis farms.

ISAW

Jonny7 wrote: »

I am against the cannabis legalisation for various reasons

Im not.

But reading ISAW's comments reminds me of one thing

You can argue almost anything, any side, forever, on the internet (with our friend google) and.. whoever has the most stamina, wins (if it can be called winning)

that is unfair. someone else spammed in a list of references. I took the care to go through them and point out they didn't support the case made.

If you are saying people win a debate because they provide supported evidence and take the care to research it properly then please don't couch it in disparaging terms. It is called professionalism or maintaining high standards putting the effort in research.

I am particularly annoyed that you think just googling something is doing research!

Oh_Noes

Jonny7 wrote: »

I am against the cannabis legalisation for various reasons

But reading ISAW's comments reminds me of one thing

You can argue almost anything, any side, forever, on the internet (with our friend google) and.. whoever has the most stamina, wins (if it can be called winning)

If your objective is to have everyone abandon the thread then yeah, his stamina won him his objective. Several other threads about the issue have popped up since and the sensible discussion continued.

I think 2011 is going to be a year where cannabis is talked about more and more.

ISAW

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

You just do not seem to get it.
I posted opinion.

so basically your opinion is about as reliable as "the unicorns did it" and has no basis in fact.

I have no case to prove.
I have no wish to prove any case to you.

Lucky because you haven't got one!
But why are you posting an unsupported opinion if you don't care about the outcome?

I thought I was joining a 'discussion' thread ...... obviously it is no longer such.

You are quite free to discuss yout opinions about legalising currently illegal activities. You don't need my permission.
It is just that yu opinion wont do anything to change the situation if you have no support for it.

Your posts have added nothing to my understanding of the subject.

Obviously since you didn't read the evidence in them you have nothing to support yu opinion. But don't think that means my posts had no evidence in them. If you say that you are lying. Clearly I posted on the contents of papers in peer review journals. If you dont understand them or me that isn't my fault is it?

Given the length and frequency of your posts that is hardly a recommendation.

I doubt your uninformed opinion is anything to go by given you admit to not paying attention to the contents of peer review journals referenced in my posts.

Maybe you should reconsider your approach to such discussions, as it is hardly productive to alienate other posters in a thread.

What other posters think of me is their own business. I don't come her to be liked. It isn't about my ego. It is about whether they claims people make are supported with evidence.

Human nature being what it is, when alienated, people usually do not listen to the 'message' (and in this case I, for one, have been unable to decipher what that 'message' may be).

regards.

Not listening won't make them right will it?

nesf

ISAW wrote: »

Clearly I posted on the contents of papers in peer review journals. If you dont understand them or me that isn't my fault is it?

Actually it is. If you're going to post a reference it is your job to ensure the rest of the debate can understand what it says. Otherwise people could merely post highly technical and complex papers that only an expert in the field could understand and hide behind them.

ScumLord

Oh_Noes wrote: »

If your objective is to have everyone abandon the thread then yeah, his stamina won him his objective. Several other threads about the issue have popped up since and the sensible discussion continued.

I think 2011 is going to be a year where cannabis is talked about more and more.

It's always been talked about it's only lately that more balanced information has come out and been accepted by the general public. Drugs overall are being discussed more and more but it's a real shame cannabis is being lumped in with the rest of them as it's not in the same league as most drugs. In my own experience it's not even a patch on the risks of alcohol.

loveweed

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

i think this is very true ,

as far as i know these days there on about trying to bring in medical cannabis tablets for ms suffers
and other problems such as depression ,

ISAW

nesf wrote: »

Actually it is. If you're going to post a reference it is your job to ensure the rest of the debate can understand what it says.

which (if you bothered to read my posts) is why for example I bothered to go throught each one and pick out the relevant parts which showed it was "in vivo" or "in vitro" and explained what these terms meant and why that is relevant to the discussion!

Otherwise people could merely post highly technical and complex papers that only an expert in the field could understand and hide behind them.

QED

Others posted the papers alone. I posted excerpts from them explaining why they were relevant or not to the issue .

ISAW

loveweed wrote: »

i think this is very true ,

as far as i know these days there on about trying to bring in medical cannabis tablets for ms suffers
and other problems such as depression ,

Now this argument was brought up hundreds of messages ago.

Let me ask you what relevance does "cannabis may have medical applications" have to the issue of "make cannabis freely available as a recreational drug ( even alcohol and tobacco have controls) and tax it"?

ScumLord

ISAW wrote: »

Let me ask you what relevance does "cannabis may have medical applications" have to the issue of "make cannabis freely available as a recreational drug ( even alcohol and tobacco have controls) and tax it"?

It's to counter the argument that cannabis is a dangerous and useless drug. It's not, not only can you get high off it but it can also alleviate medical problems and you can make a shirt out of it too.

Hammered hippie

The government has done everything in their power to accomodate drug lords and crime gangs the last year. They must have some urgent need to help those poor sods earning some good old hard cash.
So no hope there.
As long as drug lords and crime gangs have canabis as one of their big sellers the government will not legalise it.
Anyone that wants to argue otherwise is welcome but will lose the discussion as the proof that the government loves drug lords and crime gangs is overwhelming. If not they are all blessed with too many chromosomes as stupid retarded policy making would not even cover the insanity of the governments actions the past two years if indeed they actually do not want drug lords and crime gangs to rule the streets.
So instead of campaigning for legalisation of cannabis we'd better campaign to find out why governments love illegal drug trade soooo much

nesf

ISAW wrote: »

which (if you bothered to read my posts) is why for example I bothered to go throught each one and pick out the relevant parts which showed it was "in vivo" or "in vitro" and explained what these terms meant and why that is relevant to the discussion!



QED

Others posted the papers alone. I posted excerpts from them explaining why they were relevant or not to the issue .

The issue is more that people have to wade through a wall of text to try and pick out your points. Might be an idea to try and be more succinct, it makes your points clearer and results in less confusion amongst people arguing with you.

ISAW

ScumLord wrote: »

It's to counter the argument that cannabis is a dangerous and useless drug.

Fair enough. Who made such an argument? Where did they make it?

It's not, not only can you get high off it but it can also alleviate medical problems and you can make a shirt out of it too.

If you read back over the debate you might note I pointed out the difference between medical use and recreational use which you are now conflating.

For example how is it useful and safe to get stoned every day if it isn't for a medical reason?

I also pointed out agricultural and industrial use of the plant (in making paper cloth or rope for example) is different to and already supported by law in Ireland.

ScumLord

ISAW wrote: »

Fair enough. Who made such an argument? Where did they make it?

It's the argument that got cannabis made illegal so it's the stance of the government and it's what the government are telling people. That's why it's always brought up, it wasn't my argument I was just helping you out as you didn't seem to understand that.

For example how is it useful and safe to get stoned every day if it isn't for a medical reason?

No body said it was useful and safe your just jumping to conclusions and putting a bad spin on every pro cannabis point.

I also pointed out agricultural and industrial use of the plant (in making paper cloth or rope for example) is different to and already supported by law in Ireland.

I only know the status of hemp in the UK, technically you can get a license to grow hemp, it's very hard to get the license though and the rigmarole you have to go through with regards burning the flowers is just silly and unnecessary, that is unless Ireland is different from the UK which I doubt.

ISAW

ScumLord wrote: »

It's the argument that got cannabis made illegal

Really? According to what law?
Can you show us a source for the debate before this law was passed?

so it's the stance of the government and it's what the government are telling people.

Not really. Ther were governments in the nineteenth century which passed laws which members of governments today might not know about or the background to them. Blasphemy for example might be a current example.

That's why it's always brought up, it wasn't my argument I was just helping you out as you didn't seem to understand that.

It hasn't been brought up here yet AFAIK. All that has is the "reefer madness" campaign in the US. But whether the same happened in Ireland I don't know. You claim it did. How do you know?

No body said it was useful and safe your just jumping to conclusions and putting a bad spin on every pro cannabis point.

WHAT pro cannabis points? There aren't any valid one so far with the exception of controlled regulated medicinal use.

I only know the status of hemp in the UK, technically you can get a license to grow hemp,

Same in Ireland. i referred to the farm before but Im not going to reveal the locations because as I stated stoners might think stealing the crop is a good idea ( it isn't- the THC content is so low it is fairly useless for getting stoned)

it's very hard to get the license though and the rigmarole you have to go through with regards burning the flowers is just silly and unnecessary, that is unless Ireland is different from the UK which I doubt.

http://www.teagasc.ie/research/reports/crops/4487/eopr-4487.asp
The approved list of varieties is published by the Department of Health and Children.
See also:
http://www.internationalhempassociation.org/jiha/jiha5114.html

ISAW: Do you accept that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco?

ordinarywoman

http://networkedblogs.com/cxCi8

As of 01/01/11 possession of up to 1 oz of mj for non medicinal reasons is no longer a criminal offence in California...

ordinarywoman

ordinarywoman wrote: »

http://networkedblogs.com/cxCi8

As of 01/01/11 possession of up to 1 oz of mj for non medicinal reasons is no longer a criminal offence in California...

But unfortunately still a federal offence

ISAW

Papa Smut wrote: »

ISAW: Do you accept that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco?

Well I accept pure heroin is less physically harmful than alcohol.
I also think heroin causes less social and economic damage.

I don't think either of these is a reason to make heroine freely available for social use.

By the way alcohol and tobacco are controlled and regulated by law and not freely available.

ISAW

ordinarywoman wrote: »

http://networkedblogs.com/cxCi8

As of 01/01/11 possession of up to 1 oz of mj for non medicinal reasons is no longer a criminal offence in California...

Indeed legality varies from state to state
Ironically Sarah Palin's state Alaska - is lax on cannabis
http://www.usmarijuanalaws.com/

1 oz or less in your residence or home no penalty 1 to 4 ounces is a misdemeanor.