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

ordinarywoman

yes unfortunatly it is...but attitudes are changing, with similar laws now passed in New york, maine, among others.

ISAW

Papa Smut wrote: »

But unfortunately still a federal offence

Really? Under which federal law?

Nevermind:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/usc_sec_21_00000811----000-.html

and in 812
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/usc_sec_21_00000812----000-.html

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title21/21cfr1308_main_02.tpl

Listed 7360 at 22 in (d) of schedule I

ordinarywoman

isaw would you accept that the toxicity level of canabis would be less than herione then...or alcohol?

Jonny7

ISAW wrote: »

Im not.


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!

Sorry ISAW, just calling it as I see. Seen many decent arguments trail off into stamina contests, no one's fault - just the general side affect of "internet debate".

ps Enough time and google is all I need to argue just about anything.. I think

ISAW

ordinarywoman wrote: »

isaw would you accept that the toxicity level of canabis would be less than herione then...or alcohol?

I would think alcohol is probably the most damaging of all three both socially and physically. i dont know what the long term effects of cannabis are but there are no long term effects of pure heroine. It does no physical damage if taken in pure form. So I suppose you can say it isn't toxic at all. an overdoes will cause death not because of any damage but because the systems get so relaxed they stop. this may sound bad but I have sat with people who slowly died in this way using opiates and. By slowly I mean weeks. It is difficult to say because of personal involvement but there is no doubt of the medical applications of opiates.

ISAW

ordinarywoman wrote: »

yes unfortunatly it is...but attitudes are changing, with similar laws now passed in New york, maine, among others.

ah but the federal law is about mafia like people growing or selling hundreds of kilos. they arent about people with a few ounces at home. Now elsewhere I am in a similar discussion with respect to the RIRA. should not such growing be controlled and regulated so that criminal elements don't get involved and should not such criminals be punished?

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

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.

That's not what I asked, nice strawman argument there.

Again,

Do you accept that Cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco?

ScumLord

ISAW wrote: »

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

Here you go I know how you love your links. http://www.idmu.co.uk/historical.htm

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

Cannabis isn't that dangerous, cannabis helps some people focus, cannabis can help people with all kinds of creative processes you enjoy the by-products of people being stoned if you listen to music or watch film or read a book. A spliff really does help get the creative juices flowing and it can help you see the world in a whole new light as it did for me.

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)

Any one with a real interest in cannabis culture knows that.

All your links do is say cannabis is used they don't say how easy or hard it is to get a license to grow it.

ISAW

ScumLord wrote: »

Here you go I know how you love your links. http://www.idmu.co.uk/historical.htm

British law isn't binding in Ireland.

Cannabis isn't that dangerous, cannabis helps some people focus, cannabis can help people with all kinds of creative processes you enjoy the by-products of people being stoned if you listen to music or watch film or read a book. A spliff really does help get the creative juices flowing and it can help you see the world in a whole new light as it did for me.

And it also cis related to psychiosis and schitzoid activity. a fairly good programme about in (part of a series ) oin BBC 3 last night. why dont you look it up on I player?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x9ddq

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcthree/2011/01/60seconds-sam-the-cannabis-factsheet.shtml

Any one with a real interest in cannabis culture knows that.

Anyone with an interest in proper debate knows what a "sweeping statement" and "argument from authority " and "argument from opinion is"
I suggest you look them up.

All your links do is say cannabis is used they don't say how easy or hard it is to get a license to grow it.

For non drugs purposes not difficult at all. all you have to do is ring the department referred to in the links and they will supply you with the list of non/low TCH cannabis.
I'm sure the local Garda superintendent will give you all the information you need as regards what he will act on. If he does not you can demand he give you that information. It is his job after all and if you are asking so they you don't fall foul of the law it is his duty.

whop

Legalisation is a bit naive. Decriminalisation would be a gift though. I didn't read much of this thread but I'm seeing a lot of people who actually wouldn't be in favour. All this talk about schizophrenia/psychosis is a bit meh. Even the heaviest users are extremely unlikely to ever develop either.

I'm not sure the of how true the stats are on MJ arrests but whatever year they were taken from said that just over 70% of all drug convictions are relating to cannabis; even ridiculously small amounts. They really need to prioritise this because it's seriously f'in ridiculous.

THC is class 1 while meth and cocaine are class 2. WHY?!

ISAW

whop wrote: »

Legalisation is a bit naive. Decriminalisation would be a gift though. I didn't read much of this thread but I'm seeing a lot of people who actually wouldn't be in favour. All this talk about schizophrenia/psychosis is a bit meh. Even the heaviest users are extremely unlikely to ever develop either.

That is your opinion and not supported by the factual medical opinion presented.

I'm not sure the of how true the stats are on MJ arrests but whatever year they were taken from said that just over 70% of all drug convictions are relating to cannabis; even ridiculously small amounts. They really need to prioritise this because it's seriously f'in ridiculous.

I agree but the decriminalisation does not take away the need to regulate it.

THC is class 1 while meth and cocaine are class 2. WHY?!

In the UK it is different and class A B C and D

You must be referring to the US system

Schedule 1: High Abuse, No Recognized Medical Use, Lack of Safety

Schedule 2: High Abuse, Medical Utility, High Dependency Risk

Schedule 3: Lower Abuse, Medical Utility, Moderate Dependency Risk

Schedule 4: Limited Abuse, High Medical Utility, Limited Dependency Risk

Schedule 5: Minor Problems

Yeah, we don't really classify drugs.

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0654/D.0654.200805150044.html


Cannabis falls under "Schedule 1" of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 200/2007), the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) (No. 1) Regulations 2009 (SI 63/2009) and the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2009 (SI 122/2009).

Schedule 1 states: The substances (and certain derivatives thereof) considered by the state to have no medicinal or scientific value with consideration given regarding their likelihood of their being abused and thus would be considered illegal drugs.


They're just all bad.


mmmmmk? :pac:

collymcd

100% cannabis should be legalised. People need to move on from their archaic notions about cannabis and other drugs.

If you open your eyes you will see the real damage, in Irish society anyway, is being done by tobacco and alcohol. Would anyone ever think of banning these? No way.

The right to life and right to choice should be essential. That's not to say every/many laws should be abolished. Its just to say that smoking a spliff in your own privacy will not harm anyone, so why criminalize it? Certainly it will not harm society as much as the drunken lout that vandalizes, creates aggression and fills up our A&E departments on a weekly basis.

"But if you legalise it you will create addicts, oh noes." If you criminalize something you create prohibition. Prohibition creates desire, and strong, unshakable desire at that. This is commonly what drives heavy addiction. Further, the myth that cannabis is a gateway drug to other drugs is an absolute myth. It has been debunked in several papers.

Legalise it, let people have a choice. Let the government control the quality and movement of drugs. Take the power away from the drug cartels, create jobs, create tax income.

whop

ISAW wrote: »

That is your opinion and not supported by the factual medical opinion presented.

seriously? i've read enough journals to know that it is 'factual'. unless you have some other definition of factual. what exactly have you read?

ISAW wrote: »

I agree but the decriminalisation does not take away the need to regulate it.

i agree with that, but full blown legalisation is just too unlikely. i just want to smoke the ganja in peace.

ISAW wrote: »

In the UK it is different and class A B C and D

You must be referring to the US system

Schedule 1: High Abuse, No Recognized Medical Use, Lack of Safety

Schedule 2: High Abuse, Medical Utility, High Dependency Risk

Schedule 3: Lower Abuse, Medical Utility, Moderate Dependency Risk

Schedule 4: Limited Abuse, High Medical Utility, Limited Dependency Risk

Schedule 5: Minor Problems

i was correct, i just used a letter instead of a number. i can't tell if you're a troll or not.

ISAW

collymcd wrote: »

100% cannabis should be legalised. People need to move on from their archaic notions about cannabis and other drugs.

why not legalise heroin 100 per cent then?

If you open your eyes you will see the real damage, in Irish society anyway, is being done by tobacco and alcohol. Would anyone ever think of banning these? No way.

Both are strongly legally regulated. Tobacco has been curtailed by law more and more over the last two decades. alcohol could be banned. Muslims would be happy to vote for a ban and several local councils have banned it in public. But tobacco and alcohol are recreational drugs. The argument for cannabis being advanced is a medical one. do you really think bans on underage people having alcohol or tobacco are wrong?

The right to life and right to choice should be essential.

Whatever does that mean?

That's not to say every/many laws should be abolished. Its just to say that smoking a spliff in your own privacy will not harm anyone, so why criminalize it?

to use the old "tree falling in the woods" analogy - if someone is taking drugs on their own and no one is there to enforce laws how can you say a crime has been committed?

Certainly it will not harm society as much as the drunken lout that vandalizes, creates aggression and fills up our A&E departments on a weekly basis.

Which is a reason to ban or more heavily alcohol use as well as cannabis but not an argument for legalising something illegal.

"But if you legalise it you will create addicts, oh noes." If you criminalize something you create prohibition. Prohibition creates desire, and strong, unshakable desire at that.

Again saying alcohol should have never been made legal in the first place isn't an argument that cannabis which is illegal in the first place should be legalised.

This is commonly what drives heavy addiction.

Chemicals in the body drive heavy addiction and not desire. Addicts may indeed want drugs but if they don't get them they become physically sick.

Further, the myth that cannabis is a gateway drug to other drugs is an absolute myth. It has been debunked in several papers.

As I have suggested and supplied some references. Your references to these papers are?

Legalise it, let people have a choice. Let the government control the quality and movement of drugs. Take the power away from the drug cartels, create jobs, create tax income.

Why not do the same then for guns, heroin, prostitution etc.?

ISAW

whop wrote: »

seriously? i've read enough journals to know that it is 'factual'. unless you have some other definition of factual. what exactly have you read?

I have read what "argument from authority" and "shifting the burden" is.would you care to look them up under "logical fallacy" and when you are done come back and support your own claims and not base it on authority?

i agree with that, but full blown legalisation is just too unlikely. i just want to smoke the ganja in peace.

Then either get the law changed or move somewhere the law suits you. Would you go to Arabia and argue they should change their alcohol laws?

i was correct, i just used a letter instead of a number. i can't tell if you're a troll or not.

Look up "argument form ignorance" as well.

whop

ISAW wrote: »

I have read what "argument from authority" and "shifting the burden" is.would you care to look them up under "logical fallacy" and when you are done come back and support your own claims and not base it on authority?

i know what those things mean. every one of my thoughts is based of much of my own research. your words don't really address anything that's being discussed, rather they go into depth as to why everyone apart from you is ignorant and knows nothing. the over complication is not necessary. why can't you look at it from a simple benefits outweighing problems stance?

ISAW wrote: »

Then either get the law changed or move somewhere the law suits you. Would you go to Arabia and argue they should change their alcohol laws?

yeah okay i'll bet it changed tomorrow.

no, i don't want to move.

no, i wouldn't do that.

ISAW wrote: »

Look up "argument form ignorance" as well.

couldn't find anything like that. you've probably been reading the wrong stuff. might i recommend argument from ignorance. it seems right up your alley.

oconcuc

ISAW wrote: »

I have read what "argument from authority" and "shifting the burden" is.would you care to look them up under "logical fallacy" and when you are done come back and support your own claims and not base it on authority?



Then either get the law changed or move somewhere the law suits you. Would you go to Arabia and argue they should change their alcohol laws?



Look up "argument form ignorance" as well.

Holy Moly! I have been out of the country and not monitoring my account for the last month and this thread has just exploded, mainly thanks to you ISAW.

I can see you have extracted great enjoyment from dissecting a variety of arguments, but I don't think you were around when I was involved earlier in this thread.

Have you read any of my own contributions? If you have, please illuminate me on any logical fallacies you deem present in my reasoning.

If not, I would enjoy it if you could take some time to read my fairly focused and I believe concise additions.

I have the impression you are either a lawyer in training, though please do not be offended by this. It is merely a brief, passing impression, derived from the last 20 minutes' quick perusal of your contributions.

ISAW

whop wrote: »

i know what those things mean. every one of my thoughts is based of much of my own research. your words don't really address anything that's being discussed, rather they go into depth as to why everyone apart from you is ignorant and knows nothing. the over complication is not necessary. why can't you look at it from a simple benefits outweighing problems stance?

I suggest you read over the thread to which you have been replying and you will see the references in my messages e.g. 814 on page 55

What are your published sources on benefits and problems?

couldn't find anything like that. you've probably been reading the wrong stuff. might i recommend argument from ignorance. it seems right up your alley.

Spelling flames and being a grammar Nazi won't assist you in supporting your own claims.

ISAW

oconcuc wrote: »

this thread has just exploded, mainly thanks to you ISAW.

You are welcome.

I can see you have extracted great enjoyment from dissecting a variety of arguments,

I dont necessarily enjoy it or do it for that reason but so what if I did?

but I don't think you were around when I was involved earlier in this thread.

So what?

Have you read any of my own contributions? If you have, please illuminate me on any logical fallacies you deem present in my reasoning.

Don't think I have. Sorry I'll have to ask you to rehearse them.

If not, I would enjoy it if you could take some time to read my fairly focused and I believe concise additions.

will do if I get the time. can you give me references to them?

I have the impression you are either a lawyer in training, though please do not be offended by this.

Either a lawyer or ....what? Is there something "lower"?

It is merely a brief, passing impression, derived from the last 20 minutes' quick perusal of your contributions.

I believe in logical and reasoned debate.

ordinarywoman

wecome back oconcuc...i have missed your reasoned (and well backed up) debate!!!

oconcuc

ISAW wrote: »

You are welcome.


I dont necessarily enjoy it or do it for that reason but so what if I did?



So what?



Don't think I have. Sorry I'll have to ask you to rehearse them.

will do if I get the time. can you give me references to them?



Either a lawyer or ....what? Is there something "lower"?



I believe in logical and reasoned debate.

..............maybe some other time.

ISAW

ordinarywoman wrote: »

wecome back oconcuc...i have missed your reasoned (and well backed up) debate!!!

What positive sentiments. I hope you state that when I return.

meditraitor

ISAW wrote: »

What positive sentiments. I hope you state that when I return.

Nice arguments, well done.

ordinarywoman

ISAW wrote: »

What positive sentiments. I hope you state that when I return.

if you were to stop using strawman arguements, and backing yourself up with articles where the conclusion is not visable on the search, stop advising me and making insulting insinuations then maybe i would welcome you back.:)

mickscahill

i completely agree. whereas i don't care about recession, getting stoned is the only good part of my life.

Vim Fuego

I don't partake (living in Malaysia right now, like my freedom) but am in favour of legalisation. I don't think people who want to enjoy a harmless, private vape should be treated as criminals and forced to deal with a criminal element, being sold contaminated product.

Anyway, rather than start a new thread, this is in today's Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0117/1224287681847.html

A NUMBER of so-called head shops have begun selling equipment that can be used to cultivate cannabis plants – and thanks to a loophole in recently introduced legislation they cannot be prosecuted for the practice.

This article annoys me. It seems to suggest we should be banning soil, lights and hydroponic kits. Why not ban street lights as well? That's a high pressure sodium bulb, you could grow cannabis with that. Better ban water as well while we're at it.

Vim Fuego

Here's another one from the very same edition:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0117/1224287680734.html

THE OWNER of the Nirvana chain of head shops, Jim Bellamy, has denied plant cultivation kits being sold in his outlets and on his websites are encouraging people to grow cannabis plants.

This looks like it's going to be the next crusade for the Joe Duffy brigade.

I don't like the head shops though, I don't think they're doing anyone any favours. Jim Bellamy seems to have the attitude of 'ah, sure I'm just a cute hoor. I know nothing about anything'. They did act irresponsibly during the legal highs 'crisis' ('we can't give advice on these psychoactive substances because actually, it's er, plant food') so now the whole cannabis cause is lumped in with these clowns.

They're soft targets if the government does wish to ban seed sales and grow equipment. Thanks for that Jim!

cancercowboy

I think we should legalise Cannabis. It is harmless and it could potentially be a huge earner for the exchequer. It would mean hundreds of jobs. Also, the marketing does itself really.

There is a short time to capitalise on this, the U.S. is getting closer every day to leaglisation and once that happens our ability to bring in Cannabis tourists will be much harder.

pclancy

To drop in from a medical point of view I thought i'd share this study performed in New Zealand a few years back. I work with two of the clinicians involved and therefore can vouch for its scientific, non government-biased approach. NZ has a massive amount of pot smokers per capita compared to the rest of the world, something like 3/4 of the adult population have tried it and probably a quarter use it regularly with Maori and pacifica peoples using it even more. Therefore its a good place to study its long term effects properly and its use without the addition of tobacco, which is almost never added to a joint down here.

Cannabis use and the risk of lung cancer

The findings of this and other studies do suggest a link between cannabis use and increased risk of lung cancer. There have also been connections between mouth, head, neck and throat cancers due to the heat of the smoke and the fact its tar contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco.

Marijuana Smoking and the Risk of Head and Neck Cancer

Therefore I always find it ironic when people say there are no negative health effects of cannabis except for the limited chance of psychosis or other mental illnesses, mainly in the under 25 age group. This simply is not true because there are clear links between its use and damage to your respiratory systems. I know radiologists for example who could leaf through 20 x-rays of cannabis smokers and tell me roughly how long they've been smoking by the shape of the upper lung tracts or size of dark masses in the various lung chambers. Its a recognizable difference in xray lung damage or shape between tobacco smokers, cannabis smokers and non-smokers. It really annoys me that information like that is never publicized to the wider public and you'd only realize things like that from being in the profession.

New Zealand has woken up to the fact that there are a large percentage of users here who arent going to go away and want their voice heard. Therefore we have political parties such as the ACLP who are actively working to get into parliament and obtain enough votes to get their points across for decriminalization for medical and personal use. The right wing government we have right now has made it clear recently that it won't be legal under their time but there's hope down the road.

Another ironic thing is the finding that THC can actually have anti-tumour forming properties so as its been shown to increase risk of lung cancer on one hand, it might also be preventing it on the other!!. Therefore I think that simply not enough money or time has been poured into unbiased research on its effects on the respiratory system and the cancers mentioned above but hopefully in years to come we'll have a better picture of what it does to the body and the legal freedom to allow people to make their own choices. Also I want to point out that i'm pro-legislation personally as I do smoke it myself even though I know so much of the medical risks. Its a total waste of police and prison time and I think everyone should have the right to grow a plant of their own at home. But it should not be promoted by users or those that want it decriminalized as being "harmless" or having no negative effects on the body at all because science says that it does do harm, the levels of which are not quite certain but the facts are there-sadly your lungs just weren't ever supposed to have smoke in them.

The costs to the public health system for looking after all the stoners of today in 30-50 years time may turn out to be quite significant. It will pale in comparison to that of looking after the dying tobacco users but its something still worth thinking about.

Vaporising may be the "safest" way we know of right now to smoke it but i'm not totally convinced of its merits. Maybe we should just stick to eating it, that way nothing gets harmed and you can still enjoy the best effects of THC with some Hendrix on in the background or a good book in your hand.