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

ISAW

PeakOutput wrote: »

cause its still there in your own post for anyone who wants to see

Not if you actually snip something out and claim it said something different and don't supply a reference to the source.

i dont know you and i dont care if you are or not.

so you don't care if i am honest or not yet you expect I should be? But you don't actually care if I am? - go figure

i am saying that for an honest debate to occur on the motion of 'should marijuana be legal' or any variation of that, the response of 'well its illegal so over to you' is not a sufficient and is a convenient way for people who hold a certain opinion to force the issue to never actually be debated.

Actually it is sufficient since the debate isnt a balance of evidence debate.
If we are debating "X should be made legal" it makes no difference if X is rape murder or cannabis use. It is for the proposer who makes the claims to prove the positive claim and not for the opposition to prove a negative

Look up "shifting" the burden and "proving a negative"

Do you really think that if someone is accused of murder that they should have to prove they are innocent or should we assume innocence in advance and ask that the case claiming guilt be proved?

the asking of, and the answer to, the question is not affected by and is completely independant to any law currently on the books or not

nope, im not your choosing to read what you want to read. if i make a statement the burden is on me to prove it. if you feel otherwise the burden is on you to prove it. in a debate the house makes a statement and the two sides make their arguments. now i understand that you have said that you havnt put your opinion on legalisation out there either way, thats fine, but you are implying that, in a discussion/debating forum, saying 'well the burden of proof is on you guys' is a sufficient retort to their arguments. it is patently clear that it is not.

Okay this is where such thinking leads:
Say one of my reasons for it not being legalised is because Big business, space aliens and unicorns are in cahoots and want it to be legalised. Now saying the burden of proof is on me to prove this is just not good enough! You have to prove there aren't any unicorns and that there are no space aliens since it just isn't good enough to assume they don't exist. You have to show the reasons why people believe they don't exist and the evidence for no unicorns!

i dont know why you keep bringing up prostitution and paedophilia, that is the very essence of a strawman argument. just because a statement is true for one thing, dosnt mean it is true for a similar thing.

to be logically it it does! The subject does not matter.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
You are now suggesting the premise is unsound but I am only applying the same premise "something being enjoyable" to the same conclusion -"legalise it"

the something may be anything. One could say "unicorns are enjoyable" and legalisation of unicorns would logically follow. the dact that unicorns don't exist is beside the point.

I think you may have problems with "straw man" . Here is a simple rule of thumb. If you can ask yourself "so what?" then you probably have a straw man.

Mr A : Cannabis is enjoyable therefore it should be legalises
Mr B: Rape is enjoyable too
Mr A : so what?
Mr B: therefore it should be legalised

Now had Mr B said something is anything other then enjoyable Mr A could say "so what" because then it would be a straw man! changing the actor isnt changing the premise ( the premise being it is enjoyable - changing what IT is doesn't invalidate the case of something being made legal based on enjoyability!)

they were made after societies values changed, same as slave laws were made after societies values changed.

Positive laws were made natural laws weren't. Look up "positive law" and "natural law"

and look up "genetic fallacy"

Say Galileo suggested a law of Gravity or that the Earth moves. Did the Earth suddenly begin to move just because he wrote this down?

i would argue that a legalised, well regulated sex trade, is better then what we have now

And you would have to show how so!

but thats a debate for a different day. again it is a strawmanning statement, you are making a statement about prostitution not about marijuana.

You are making the same logical error! I am making a statement that claiming something be legalised because some people enjoy it is not a convincing argument!
This applies no matter what the something is!

again why are you making arguments for/against both drugs and prostitution. this thread is about drugs only. if you want to start a debate on prostitution, have at it

Yes and the drugs are claimed to be justified because they are part of a general case of things which people enjoy. I'm just showing the general case isn't true so the specific case isn't necessarily either. One can go from the general to the specific ~(but not the other way round.

also the only thing that you have listed that is a negative

It isn't the only thing but only one logical exception is necessary to disprove a rule!

that is intrinsically linked with drugs is addiction, none of the other things are. they are side affects of this artificially created black market.

That would be for you to prove! i have already shown you that this also is not the case and that legalisation regulation taxation and control of drugs does not remove black markets.

also that one thing that is intrinsically linked with drugs is still irrelevant to this thread as this thread is not about drugs in general it is about marijuana.

Again I remind you general-> specific and nit the other way around!

a drug which has been shown to not be physically addictive in anyway.

Wow! Really? Where and when did medical science prove this negative?

i am sure that is what recreational users would say.

I am sure it is what stoners and drug addicts might say too. so what? wher is the medical evidence showing ti to be true as you claim?

medicinal users would say it allows them to live there lives normally

Again so what? Clients of prostitutes and slave owners can also say their lives are more normal but what does that prove?

i have even provided the medical evidence which pro cannabis stoners didnt bother to supply. Those who promote medical use if reasonable accept the dangers involved. i am deeply suspicious of those promoting a "miracle drug" and then later saying they want unlimited availablilty no controlls and recreational use. If so , they were not really campaigining for responsible medical use in the first place.

But even this is evidence for medical legalisation does not justify stoners having a free for all.

i said nothing about cars or prostitutes

What did you mean by your comment ( in response to the point raised that people suffer because of cannabis culture as opposed to mainstream culture)

i do plenty of things that are both legal and socially acceptable that have the potential to cause far more damage to either me or someone else, so lets leave that one aside

1. you havnt shown anything you made a statement, an unequivelant one. more strawmanning

I make a radically simple example of the effect of of doing something ( detonating a nunk) for a reason ( removing black market traders) many have other consequences ( removing all the other people and entire city of Dublin)
and you think it is a straw man?

Stop copping out and look at the reason.
The may be consequences should one use a chainsaw to cut butter.

2. as long as you admit it will have an affect that is a great start.

So dublin will be destroyed but the black market will be gone? What planet are you on.

Mr A : Will you be my girlfriend
Miss B: Never!
Mr A: Never?
Miss B: Not in a million years!
Mr A : So you admit that's not never then. I can see things are improving between us.

after that it is just a matter of the degree of the affect and how different regulations can increase or reduce that degree and finding a happy medium

Except one does not know the hidden agenda of stoners. If cannabis is to be legalised it should be done in a reasonable way and not all at once. Legislator will not feel any compelling argument in this direction. People have to be convinced.

i didnt say anything about criminal business did i? i didnt call pharma's evil did i?

Somne here seem to have a sandal wearers Hippi mentality of the nice Hippis versus the evil uber capitalists.

when did i say i was against regulation? i am against prohibition. regulation is necessary in all areas of life to one degree or another

So you agree to strong controls on cannabis and regulated medical use and recreational use to remain banned until medical regulation and research happens?

see above, i said nothing about any hippy cottage industries but you can keep your prejudices coming you only paint yourself in a bad light

your wordshere shouldnt be pharma company manufactured derivatives of cannabis.

i can tell you for a fact that i havn't but i accept that the average smoker in ireland probably has unless they got into it via their parents or whatever, i still dont see what that has to do with the legalisation argument

Now THAT IS a straw man I admit. The fact that people buy their hash from criminals is nothing to do with legalisation. However it has to do with not supporting gangsters and encouraging a Hippi culture which grows their own cannabis and gives it away for free. This to me is a political way to tackle enforcement. If the courts or gardai were to be lax on those in possession oif they had convincing evidence that the drug was not being used for money purposes it would encourage people away from the criminal poisoned or dubious hash.

whats with the fixation with hash by the way? it is just one variation and while it is prevalant in dublin it is not the most widely available form.

Quality control as I said. It can be opiated or have any crap in it and due to the mass to volume ratio is more likely to be traded by criminals.

. people who are pro blanket prohibition are forcing people to suffer, people who have never smoked or done any drugs and otherwise would not even think about it but because they are sick and thats what could help but they are not allowed take it, they suffer.

1. Where did I say I was for blanket prohibition?
2. It isn't necessary to have a past in drug taking to have a reasonable opinion. whatever next all gynecologists should be women who had babies on the past? all abuse councillors should have a past of offending or being a victim? All judges on murder trails should have killed someone?
3. dont use medical pandering as an avenue to stoners' recreational use.

do you equate the opinions of the legislators on individual issues to the opinions of the individuals of this country?

Yes ! Certainly! Given they are and constitutionally have to be citizens of this country themselves.

anything that brings paedophilia / prostitution / any law that is not a drug law / any drug that is not the one being debated, into the debate is, depending on the wording, either a strawman argument or a slippery slope argument

So by mentioning that they have to be ruled out you have indulged in a straw man because you mentioned them?

Try this: "Any argument which is logically sound and valid does but which I don't like and can't oppose I'm going to put my fingers in my ears and ignore and pretend they don't apply"

You can't call for the abolition of a law without taking into account that a legal system exists. You can't deal with one law and ignore jurisprudence.

pagancornflake

ISAW wrote: »

That is changing the burden of proof!

Nope. Never claimed it shouldn't be.

ISAW wrote: »

the fact is cannabis is illegal.

Why is it illegal?

ISAW wrote: »

prostution is illegal and child molestation and rape are illegal.

Could you please justify how those things relate to cannabis consumption prima facie?

ISAW wrote: »

Thee are probably plenty of reasons but that is the case - they are illegal.

1. A case is put forward that has no tangible supporting evidence (cannabis is illegal, and must stay as such until proven otherwise)
2. It's stated that the claim has not been proved false therefore it is reasonable to believe it; (cannabis is illegal and there is no reason to assume that it shouldn't)
3. The burden of proof will be shifted from the claimant to the opponent - challenging the opponent to prove it wrong; (since there is no reason to say that cannabis shouldn't be illegal, it must stay that way until you can prove otherwise*)
4. As the name implies, it is ignorance itself, the lack of knowledge of the claim, that is used to support it.

ISAW wrote: »

It isn't up to me to show why they are illegal.

I'm afraid it is. Otherwise, you are implicitly making an argument ad ignorandum by failing to define the claims subsisting in the predicate that you are asking people to disprove/invalidate (legality of cannabis obtains rightly).

ISAW wrote: »

It is up to the people making the case for making them legal to show their arguments

Agreed. People who want cannabis to be a permissible substance to be traded and consumed in society must provide arguments carry when standing opposed to the basis put forth by those who maintain that it should be illegal. So you must do the same.

ISAW wrote: »

Look up "shifting the burden2

Shifting the burden of proof is an informal fallacy; as such, the validity of its application is not undermined prima facie, but is contingent on the content based upon which the attempted shift is made. In this case, the burden of proof is correctly shifted due to the fact that you are asking me to argue against a null predicate, and as such, any attempt to argue against it without burden shifting will be an argument ad ignorandum.

ISAW wrote: »

and "proving a negative"

Justifying the apperceptive basis for a law is quite simple. There is no negative claim explicitly or tacitly contained in the request.

ISAW wrote: »

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

ISAW wrote: »

e.g. cannabis/child abuse is for the good of society

And as per your example, things should be presumed harmless to society until proven otherwise. This must be the case for the simple fact that to do otherwise is to presume that everything is harmful to society until proven otherwise, and legislating as such. By the principle, this is asinine from both a human rights/liberty perspective (denying everything to everyone until they can prove that it doesn't harm everyone), and a spiraling, inordinate amount of bureaucracy perspective (legislating to make every new thing that comes into the scope of human social awareness illegal, and simultaneously making everything that is proven legal, legal):P

ISAW wrote: »

If you claim cannabis should be legalized it isn't for me to show why it is illegal in the first place

Since you seem to be such a fan of trying to apply formal logic to people's arguments, allow me to do so here by way of translation:

"If you claim that X should be ¬Y, then it is not necessary to define Y."

ISAW, I'm sorry, but it really, really, really is xD

ISAW wrote: »

drugs and prostitution are de facto tolerated in Amsterdam and Copenhagen. It isn't for me to show how that came about.

Exactly.

ISAW wrote: »

Also suffering is because some people get negative psychotic and biological effects from cannabis which is directly inherent to cannabis.

Some people get fatal heart disease and/or obesity from cholesterol. Ban all cheese?

ISAW wrote: »

We have been over this argument already. cigarettes are controlled taxed and licenced. Yet illegal tobacco still exists and "poof" your argument disappears in a puff of logic!

1 sparrow does not a summer make I'd also argue that the market for illegal tobacco exists due to the governments asinine 400% tax rate on tobacco, and could be easily rectified by reducing this tax rate. Making tobacco illegal would do nothing to rectify this black market.

ISAW wrote: »

yes indeed. and it is justified by reasonable people getting elected and supplying reasoned debate and voting on such laws.

Popular assent/voting =/= justification. Reasonable people are capable of being unreasonable, so the quality of being reasonable does not confer the status of reasonable to all of their actions. It seems then, that the content of the reasoned debate must be the sole justificatory basis for where the law came from.

Until such time as that content is established, and your points on that matter carry, ISAW, I contend that it is you who is guilty of using an invalid form of the informal fallacy that is argument ad ignorandum, due to the fact that you are maintaining that the illegality of cannabis hasn't been shown to be unjustified, false, or whatever, so it is reasonable to believe it just, you are asking people to undermine an unjustified predicate (cannabis is justly illegal), and insisting that the burden of rejoinder belong to you in light of this.

By the definitions supplied in your own links, you are the one committing the fallacy in an invalid form.

Pagancornflake wrote:

Agree wholeheartedly there. Not too versed in the effects of cannabis on society myself, so I'll defer comment on that. I have to say though, if a millionaire must justify from where their money came, and cannabis users must prove that their enjoyment has not come on the suffering and neglect of others, then would a legislator not also have to justify upon what basis their law came from?

pagancornflake

ISAW wrote: »

I think you may have problems with "straw man" . Here is a simple rule of thumb. If you can ask yourself "so what?" then you probably have a straw man.

Mr A : Cannabis is enjoyable therefore it should be legalises
Mr B: Rape is enjoyable too
Mr A : so what?
Mr B: therefore it should be legalised

Mr A : Cannabis is enjoyable therefore it should be legalized.
Mr B : Rape is enjoyable too
Mr A : Rape is manifestly harmful to the victim in that it disregards their right to self determination and poisons future sexual relationships that the victim may have. It harms the perpetrator in that such an act reinforces behaviors which circumvent acts inherent in healthy human relationships (communication, consent, familiarity etc.).
Mr B : That was a much more effective defense than the one you just made. I could have sworn that some malevolent being was purposely making you sound like an idiot in order to prove some cruel, cosmic point of theirs.

Lantus

Recently been to A-dam and it's almost 90% men in the red light area and around looking for drugs and women prowling around until 6 or 7am. There is never any bother but it's really unsettling to say the least.

There is also a very good network of gangs suppling harder stuff on the street and you would be unlucky not to get asked walking around.

Cannabis is relatively safe in small quantities but like any drug has an adverse affect over time and will hit some people much harder than others.

It doesn't say much about our society, wellbeing or happiness when we feel we need to legalise and consume drink and drugs to make us feel better.

PeakOutput

Lantus wrote: »

It doesn't say much about our society, wellbeing or happiness when we feel we need to legalise and consume drink and drugs to make us feel better.

so wanting to do something simply for fun is somehow a sign of the decline of our society? :rolleyes:

pagancornflake

Lantus wrote: »

It doesn't say much about our society, wellbeing or happiness when we feel we need to legalize and consume drink and drugs to make us feel better.

Excuse me, who is "we"? Fools will always exist to take things to excess; you can't legislate against that.

ISAW

pagancornflake wrote: »

Nope. Never claimed it shouldn't be.

What do you mean by "never claimed shifting the burden of proof shouldn't be"?

Why is it illegal?

I have alluded to the American "reefer madness" era and the machinations of W Randolf Hearst elsewhere but the fact remains it is illegal.
You can't argue "the Dail made something illegal for the wrong reasons" and based on that
argue for making cannabis legal since to do so would require you to provide the same evidence for legalisation as yu would have to supply to show why it was wrongly made illegal in the first place. Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity
Occam's razor suggests that you do waay with the complication of adding in needless stages and dealing with the issue.

Suppose for example you claim aliens seeded the Earth with humans and life didn't just begin on on a planet like Earth . But where did the aliens come from ? they were seeded on their planet by other aliens and so on through a chain of alien races. Even if true since it is sufficient we can get rid of the chain and go back to the first alien race in it. Now they had to begin on their planet so why not just even do away with that and think it reasonable to assume if it could happen on their planet that it could happen here on Earth and do away with the necessity of all these aliens?

In the end you still have to show why it should be legal whether or not it is was made illegal for the wrong reasons. Asking others to justify illegality is shifting the burden!

Could you please justify how those things relate to cannabis consumption prima facie?

i am not saying "Murder is wrong" or "Fraud is wrong" and concluding there fore we should make cannabis illegal. That would be a straw man.

I am saying the general case is being advanced : X is enjoyable therefore x shold be made legal.

I am showing that enjoyability is not a sufficient reason to make something legal.

1. A case is put forward that has no tangible supporting evidence (cannabis is illegal, and must stay as such until proven otherwise)

Wrong! Shifting the burden! I never put this case! the case made was

1. Cannabis should be legalised because people enjopy it and because we might make tax money.

This is a case for recreational use . The case for medical use was also made.


Furthermore, the fact that such a law exists is evidence that the case must be made to change it!
And a plethora of evidence has been presented in any case medical effects, criminality etc.
and the basis of your general argument is "all laws have to be justified" isn't sound. Laws exist against murder rape etc and we dont have to justify them every day. Natural laws exist like the law of gravity. You dont go into a theatre and take out measuring instruments and measure the stress and strains and dimensions of the seat and ask for the engineering diagrams of it before yu sit down. You trust the design went through tests and the chair will support your weight.

2. It's stated that the claim has not been proved false therefore it is reasonable to believe it; (cannabis is illegal and there is no reason to assume that it shouldn't)

My argument isnt solely based on that but as I have just shown it is reasonable to believe laws are there for sound reasons.

3. The burden of proof will be shifted from the claimant to the opponent - challenging the opponent to prove it wrong; (since there is no reason to say that cannabis shouldn't be illegal, it must stay that way until you can prove otherwise*)

It is for the person making the original claim to support it and not for the others to "prove a negative"

The original claim in this discussion group was that it should be made legal.

4. As the name implies, it is ignorance itself, the lack of knowledge of the claim, that is used to support it.

No it isn't! Yes the US laws came in as result of a campaign by an American who wanted to control newspapers.
Here is the UK history
http://www.idmu.co.uk/historical.htm

I'm afraid it is. Otherwise, you are implicitly making an argument ad ignorandum by failing to define the claims subsisting in the predicate that you are asking people to disprove/invalidate (legality of cannabis obtains rightly).

It is a free country and you are free to make legislators aware of the history and to try to convince them to change the law. Just telling them that their predecessors made a mistake isn't good enough.

Agreed. People who want cannabis to be a permissible substance to be traded and consumed in society must provide arguments carry when standing opposed to the basis put forth by those who maintain that it should be illegal. So you must do the same.

No! It isn't a "balanced argument" ! if you want the law repealed you have to provide the evidence.

Shifting the burden of proof is an informal fallacy; as such, the validity of its application is not undermined prima facie, but is contingent on the content based upon which the attempted shift is made. In this case, the burden of proof is correctly shifted due to the fact that you are asking me to argue against a null predicate, and as such, any attempt to argue against it without burden shifting will be an argument ad ignorandum.

I am not assking you to argue against anything! I am asking you to provide support for the predicate that cannabis ( or anything else) should be legalised because it is enjoyable for some people.

Justifying the apperceptive basis for a law is quite simple. There is no negative claim explicitly or tacitly contained in the request.

The law may have come in for dubious reasons but justified on the basis that it had been debated since inception and changed if and whan that was deemed necessary. Maybe like slavery regulation will ultimately cease but unlike slavery legislators today do not believe in free availability for recreational use. If you are in a count of law you will not get very far telling the judge that he has to justify the basis of the law.

And as per your example, things should be presumed harmless to society until proven otherwise.

So a new drug should not have to be tested and chemical companies should be allowed to distribute them willy nilly until some harmful effect is proven? I have a one word answer to that - thalidomide!

This must be the case for the simple fact that to do otherwise is to presume that everything is harmful to society until proven otherwise, and legislating as such.

Not necessarily one might assume some things like drugs for example are harmful and other things not harmful. It isn't necessarily a case of either allow everything or disallow everything.

By the principle, this is asinine from both a human rights/liberty perspective (denying everything to everyone until they can prove that it doesn't harm everyone), and a spiraling, inordinate amount of bureaucracy perspective (legislating to make every new thing that comes into the scope of human social awareness illegal, and simultaneously making everything that is proven legal, legal):P

Indeed by I am not suggesting that everything be denied to people until each in turn is proven not to be harmful so that is a straw man. By the way i have shown the harmful effects of cannabis as well. And finally I never stated I believe it should be illegal.


Since you seem to be such a fan of trying to apply formal logic to people's arguments, allow me to do so here by way of translation:

"If you claim that X should be ¬Y, then it is not necessary to define Y."

I didn't make any claim about legalising cannabis or not!

Some people get fatal heart disease and/or obesity from cholesterol. Ban all cheese?

Well we do regulate cheese production and it is banned from being sold without compliance.

1 sparrow does not a summer make I'd also argue that the market for illegal tobacco exists due to the governments asinine 400% tax rate on tobacco, and could be easily rectified by reducing this tax rate. Making tobacco illegal would do nothing to rectify this black market.

Making something legal on the other hand allows it to become culturally acceptable and difficult to ban again once made legal. Assuming tax is put on cannabis your argument only suggests that non taxed illegal cannabis would still exist. But like putting a tax on prostitution there are people who believe it should not be encouraged at all taxed or not just as drug taking should not be encouraged.

Popular assent/voting =/= justification. Reasonable people are capable of being unreasonable, so the quality of being reasonable does not confer the status of reasonable to all of their actions.

So you hold the people of Ireland in contempt?

It seems then, that the content of the reasoned debate must be the sole justificatory basis for where the law came from.

Not necessarily. Gun control came in because of the Civil War and war of Independence.. We don't argue for gun laws today to be repealed because the IRA has disarmed.

Until such time as that content is established, and your points on that matter carry, ISAW, I contend that it is you who is guilty of using an invalid form of the informal fallacy that is argument ad ignorandum, due to the fact that you are maintaining that the illegality of cannabis hasn't been shown to be unjustified, false, or whatever, so it is reasonable to believe it just, you are asking people to undermine an unjustified predicate (cannabis is justly illegal), and insisting that the burden of rejoinder belong to you in light of this.

No because I didn't claim the law was just or unjust.
Others claim it is unjust. I ask then to provide evidence that it is unjust.
Saying that I should have to prove laws are just before that is just silly!
i have no such burden of rejoinder although i may if I wish and have posted counter evidence. Teh burden is on them to prove cannabis is acceptable and safe.

But in any case I did refer to jurisprudence and that we have a system of laws and it has a reasonable basis. I don't have to prove the reasonabness of every law no more than I have to prove or derive engineering equations to show a chair is safe or unsafe. If someone claims it is safe and the thing is deemed unsafe by law then they have to show on what their belief is based.

ISAW

PeakOutput wrote: »

so wanting to do something simply for fun is somehow a sign of the decline of our society? :rolleyes:

So people say. It is called "hedonism"

ISAW

You changed the premise Try this

pagancornflake wrote: »

Mr A : Cannabis is enjoyable therefore it should be legalized.
Mr B : Rape is enjoyable too
Mr A : Rape is manifestly harmful to the victim
Mr B : That is changing from you original premise enjoyment. So if cannabis is harmfull
you think it should be illegal?

PeakOutput

ISAW wrote: »

You changed the premise Try this

they arent like for like comparisons and you know it

rape is inhenrently harmful to other people besides the person doing the raping

marijuana is not. one person smoking marijuana does not harm anyone else in and of itself

ISAW

PeakOutput wrote: »

they arent like for like comparisons and you know it

rape is inhenrently harmful to other people besides the person doing the raping

marijuana is not. one person smoking marijuana does not harm anyone else in and of itself

Exactly!

The original argument was Cannabis is enjoyable so it should be legalised.

I showed the hedonistic enjoyment is not sufficient justification for legalisation of anything.
You then changed the premise suggesting that something which is harmful should be made illegal.

So based on your new premise i ask if cannabis is harmful should it be made illegal?

And as regards the "tree falling in the woods" one person smoking alone in the forest Cannabis comes under criminal law. One of the aspects which defines criminal law is that the person is doing something which is considered to be detrimental to society.

NB Foy "you" i dont necessarily mean only you i mean the person(s) who was making the argument follow the links back by clicking on the > above the quote and you will see what they stated in reply to me.

PeakOutput

ISAW wrote: »

Exactly!

The original argument was Cannabis is enjoyable so it should be legalised.

I showed the hedonistic enjoyment is not sufficient justification for legalisation of anything.
You then changed the premise suggesting that something which is harmful should be made illegal.

So based on your new premise i ask if cannabis is harmful should it be made illegal?

And as regards the "tree falling in the woods" one person smoking alone in the forest Cannabis comes under criminal law. One of the aspects which defines criminal law is that the person is doing something which is considered to be detrimental to society.

NB Foy "you" i dont necessarily mean only you i mean the person(s) who was making the argument follow the links back by clicking on the > above the quote and you will see what they stated in reply to me.

if anything is inherently harmful to somebody who is not a voluntary participant then it should be illegal, i dont believe marijuana to come under that heading

if it was legal then the only people it could harm are the people who voluntarily participate. i say could because i dont believe it is in anyway harmfull in and of itself but i understand that people who are anti-legalisation do believe.

the next argument i assume someone would make to counter mine is 'what about the innocent bystanders that have ties with the user, the spouse, the parents, the kids etc' and my response would be that you cannot legislate for tough cases like that. it is not my fault if someone cant handle their **** and i should not be penalised for that fact. there are other laws in place already that take this into account, child neglect laws, laws that protect spouses in the event of a break up, drink/drug driving laws so people who smoke cannot drive under the influence.

you argument that the black market would not dissapear dosnt hold much water imo because you cannot take into the account the actions of criminals when you are changing / creating laws. just because some people will choose to continue to break one law even after the introduction of another is not a valid reason to not introduce the other law. the aim must be to try and eradicate the criminality but in the real world that means reducing it as much as possible and making it as difficult as possible for criminals to operate

edit; isaw can have the last word, im jaded,so so jaded from the irrelvancies

ISAW

PeakOutput wrote: »

if anything is inherently harmful to somebody who is not a voluntary participant then it should be illegal, i dont believe marijuana to come under that heading

You may not believe the Earth goes rounfd the sun either but so what?
the fact is cannabis is illegal! if you believe it should be made legal then supply some evidence to support your opinion will you?

if it was legal then the only people it could harm are the people who voluntarily participate.

Really? Apply that reasoning to sex and see where it gets you?
You see underage sex is illegal. The same people who claim to be liberal tend to rant from a feminist perspective about abuse of girls when the issue statutory rape is raised.
Young people may "voluntarily participate" in sexual acts but that is still illegal.

Also take the case of young adults where the sex isn't illegal. Do you think having no marriage and a load of single parents even if legal is good for society?

i say could because i dont believe it is in anyway harmfull in and of itself but i understand that people who are anti-legalisation do believe.

One could easily contend prostitution, drug addiction gambling alcoholism not alone harms the person doing it but also harms other people. Why not cannabis use?

the next argument i assume someone would make to counter mine is 'what about the innocent bystanders that have ties with the user, the spouse, the parents, the kids etc' and my response would be that you cannot legislate for tough cases like that.

But when it comes to gambling , alcohol, tobacco, prostitution in every case it is illegal or has stringent controls. Cannabis however you deem should be freely available for recreational use?

it is not my fault if someone cant handle their **** and i should not be penalised for that fact. there are other laws in place already that take this into account, child neglect laws, laws that protect spouses in the event of a break up, drink/drug driving laws so people who smoke cannot drive under the influence.

So you therefore agree in stringent regulation and control of cannabis?

you argument that the black market would not dissapear dosnt hold much water imo because you cannot take into the account the actions of criminals when you are changing / creating laws.

This is reversing the argument. I did not claim "make it illegal because the black market will still exist"

Others claimed making it legal will make the black market!
It won't! I don't have to prove it won't but I supplied evidence anyway.

just because some people will choose to continue to break one law even after the introduction of another is not a valid reason to not introduce the other law. the aim must be to try and eradicate the criminality but in the real world that means reducing it as much as possible and making it as difficult as possible for criminals to operate

Which is entirely different to claiming legalisation will eliminate the black market.
And it is arguing for regulation and not against it!

ordinarywoman

Medical advice is being sought by the Republic's Department of Health in relation to cannabis-based medicinal products.

Irish Health Minister Mary Harney confirmed that her department is currently seeking "expert advice on whether or not there is a need, from a clinical perspective, to amend the Misuse of Drugs legislation to allow for the use of cannabis-based medicinal products".

However, Ms Harney warned that: "As cannabis is the drug which is most abused in Ireland, I am reluctant to loosen the controls on its use."

She said that she was aware that claims have been made in respect of the possible health benefits of cannabis-based medicinal products for patients suffering from certain conditions.

"I am also aware that cannabis-based medicinal products may be legally prescribed in other countries," she said.

At the moment in Ireland, cannabis and cannabis-based medicinal products are schedule one controlled substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

They are considered as having "no medicinal use and their manufacture, production, preparation, sale, supply, distribution and possession is unlawful, except for the purposes of research," she said.

Ms Harney was responding to a question by Labour Deputy Joe Costello, who had asked the minister if she would reconsider her decision not to allow cannabis-based drugs to be used for the medical treatment of multiple sclerosis sufferers and other patients.

He asked if her attention had been "drawn to the fact that such drugs are legally prescribed in other countries".

Following the minister's response, Deputy Costello said: "Mary Harney's reply to my parliamentary question is somewhat contradictory. On one hand she states that cannabis and cannabis-based products are considered as having no medicinal use.

"At the same time she is aware that cannabis-based medical products may be legally prescribed in other countries and she is seeking expert advice on whether or not to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow for the use of cannabis-based medical products."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/cannabis-pills-could-soon-be-legalised-in-republic-of-ireland-15011246.html

ordinarywoman

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0114/hickeyf.html

A former garda sergeant who was caught growing cannabis in his home has received a suspended prison sentence at Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court.

Finbar Hickey, with an address at Muchgrange, Greenore, Co Louth, had pleaded to a charge of cultivating cannabis plants without a licence at his home in February last year.

A total of 77 plants at various stages of growth were found in several incubation units hidden in a garage and sheds on the premises. Cannabis leaves were also found strung across the yard, drying in the air.

Hickey had co-operated fully with the investigation, according to Garda Sgt John Moroney who carried out the search. The defendant had told him he was growing the cannabis for himself and his wife to use.

The court heard that the former garda sergeant had served a year in prison at the Curragh after he was convicted of forging passport applications in 2001.

The 51-year-old had problems with cannabis but was willing to try and stop using the drug.

Judge Michael O'Shea sentenced Hickey to three years imprisonment but suspended it on condition of good conduct for four years.

mikom

ordinarywoman wrote: »

However, Ms Harney warned that: "As cannabis is the drug which is most abused in Ireland,

Lol
Look a little closer to home Mary.
A clue...... Its liquid.

whoopdedoo

mikom wrote: »

Lol
Look a little closer to home Mary.
A clue...... Its liquid.

dishonest cow!! good riddence to her

hopefully someone with sense will come into her position and move along with the Shenghan agreement with regards letting people bring in their medicines not legal here due to corrupt incompetence

Lefticus Loonaticus

Just saw some bust on the 9 news. A load of guards handling plants with rubber gloves as if they were handling plutonium. What a waste of tax payers money, garda resources and a load of perfectly good weed.

Oh_Noes

What's worse is that they know most of the cannabis people are smoking is actually grown here now and they're actively targeting the people growing small amounts in their homes for their own use.

These people provide nothing to the black market and don't pay criminals for anything yet the lawmakers of the country haven't yet realised the big bag of cash there to be taken in taxes.

kraggy

If Labour get in to government in a couple of weeks, why don't ye starty lobbying Emmet Stagg?

He suggested a study be done into the possible benefits of legalising cannabis a couple of years ago.

whoopdedoo

kraggy wrote: »

If Labour get in to government in a couple of weeks, why don't ye starty lobbying Emmet Stagg?

He suggested a study be done into the possible benefits of legalising cannabis a couple of years ago.

can't we just point him in the direction of the many many reports already made?

my money's on the 25/30ish year study ongoing in Jamaica that also disproves the gateway drug bullsh1t!

charlemont

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

Just saw some bust on the 9 news. A load of guards handling plants with rubber gloves as if they were handling plutonium. What a waste of tax payers money, garda resources and a load of perfectly good weed.

Its sick !!! I bet the cops think they done a great job.:mad:

charlemont

Oh_Noes wrote: »

What's worse is that they know most of the cannabis people are smoking is actually grown here now and they're actively targeting the people growing small amounts in their homes for their own use.

These people provide nothing to the black market and don't pay criminals for anything yet the lawmakers of the country haven't yet realised the big bag of cash there to be taken in taxes.

People are being treated harsher in court for growing it rather than buying it off a dealer.

Lefticus Loonaticus

charlemont wrote: »

Its sick !!! I bet the cops think they done a great job.:mad:

Not to mention some poor guy whos gonna get flung into prison for a considerable amount of time even tho hes done nothing wrong. That must be horrendous.

In fairness to the guards tho, they have to do what their higher ups tell em too. Its the people responsible for reforming legislation who should be ashamed of themselves.

ordinarywoman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag753xidcOI


some more truth for the doctors and politicians and legislators to have a look at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUmAAMVdcok

ISAW

Fairly interesting BBC 3 documentary on tonight which explained how organised crime is dealing cannabis and people buying it are buying into murder, slavery, etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcthree/2011/01/james-alexandrou-on-filming-cannabis-whats-the-harm.shtml

ISAW

Oh_Noes wrote: »

What's worse is that they know most of the cannabis people are smoking is actually grown here now and they're actively targeting the people growing small amounts in their homes for their own use.

If only that was the case.
In fact if you look at these busts you find hundreds of plants involved. who grows a hundred plants for "own use".
And they are not in their own home. they are in "farms" . I use the term loosely because it may involve a townhouse or flat where the whole inside has been insulated with tunnels for growing and possibly staffed by a trafficked "gardener" whi is not allowed to leave the house and sleeps on the floor. this is what the BBC were showing anyway.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y4529

In fact one case in wales was their largest investigation ever (involving the murder of a Vietnamese gardener who was broken into by a rival gang who stole the plants. His bosses didn't believe him and tortured him to death.)


Im not saying that some people with two or three plants aren't arrested but think reasonably.
Put it this way. suppose you are a district officer (superintendent or chief) and you have a budget. Say you have ten people in a drug squad. running that squad could cost say a million a year. Now are you interested in Joe soap the illegal home grower who grew three plants for himself or the gang with 300 plants worth a half million on the street? a half million in the hands of people who will use guns and intimidation and put that money to finance trafficked prostitutes, cocaine,and heroine, bank jobs etc.

These people provide nothing to the black market and don't pay criminals for anything yet the lawmakers of the country haven't yet realised the big bag of cash there to be taken in taxes.

so you are saying that all the people growing it now and not paying tax whether criminal or not will suddenly decide to pay tax on it?

Mind you I have an open mind on this . If people could grow say three plants at home and had to apply for a licence and pay tax then the demand for illegal criminal drugs might collapse. The truth is though that cannabis is not a hippi colony of homegrown all over the country no more than home brew wine and beer is.

TheReverend

ISAW wrote: »

Fairly interesting BBC 3 documentary on tonight which explained how organised crime is dealing cannabis and people buying it are buying into murder, slavery, etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcthree/2011/01/james-alexandrou-on-filming-cannabis-whats-the-harm.shtml

And if were being sold in shops like tobacco that wouldnt be a problem

ISAW

TheReverend wrote: »

And if were being sold in shops like tobacco that wouldnt be a problem

If it was sold in shops like Pharmacies under regulated restraint it might be less of a problem than it being illegal.

whoopdedoo

ISAW wrote: »

If it was sold in shops like Pharmacies under regulated restraint it might be less of a problem than it being illegal.

who kidnapped ISAW? :eek: