Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Cannabis should be legalized in Ireland To pull Our country out of ression
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
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
It was basically a documentary showing the harms of prohibition. almost everything was because of the illegality of the plant.
I only saw part 2 though, but 'Martin' didn't ask any difficult questions did he?
This was also on television (cnbc) last night. it was actually quite good.
This is quite interesting too, Mr nice talking to Professor David Nutt recently.
http://current.com/groups/videos/92822690_howard-marks-interviews-david-nutt.htm0 -
-
Advertisement
-
What do you mean by "never claimed shifting the burden of proof shouldn't be"?
Following from what we were talking about (things requiring reasons to be banned), what I was saying was that I never claimed that marijuana should be legalized.You can't argue "the Dail made something illegal for the wrong reasons"
Could you supply the portion of my post that you are quoting?and based on that argue for making cannabis legal
Not arguing for this.yu would have to supply to show why it was wrongly made illegal in the first place.
The justification for this illegality must be defined before it can be shown to be wrong. Otherwise, as I have said, any argument against it is an argument against a null predicate, and is hence an argument from ignorance.Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity
I am not multiplying entities. I am trying to get you to delineate one, before another can logically have any coherent content.Occam's razor suggests that you do waay with the complication of adding in needless stages and dealing with the issue.
This is exactly what I have been attempting to do. If the justificatory basis for the illegality of cannabis is contextually poor or non existent, then this saves us the needless task of having to invalidate it.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?
Please do not furnish me with figurative nonsense. I am perfectly comfortable and proficient with the abstract and I do not enjoy having to decrypt the apperceptive concomitants of your metaphorical objects.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.
No, it isn't. To do so would be to ask me to attack a null predicate, and these attacks would necessarily be from ignorance.Asking others to justify illegality is shifting the burden!
Yes, it is. And rightly the burden is shifted.
You are aware that shifting the burden of proof is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in an argument, right?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.
Yeah, you are substituting cannabis with child molestation and prostitution instead of murder and fraud.I am saying the general case is being advanced : X is enjoyable therefore x shold be made legal.
I don't care about the general case, please deal with my case.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.
Yes, you did formulate the case as such. You saidISAW wrote:Thee are probably plenty of reasons but that is the case - they are illegal...It isn't up to me to show why they are illegal.
You gave no reasons (this being the evidence here). You put the case such that the illegality of cannabis is currently the case, and that is the position of default until proof otherwise is supplied.Furthermore, the fact that such a law exists is evidence that the case must be made to change it!
How exactly?and the basis of your general argument is "all laws have to have been justified" isn't sound.
Fixed that for you in bold.
Yes, it is. My argument concerns the effective progression of argument. Unjustified presumption supplies a null predicate. Arguments against null predicates are necessarily ignorant, making logical refutation impossible=> predicates have to be justified in order for arguments to progress effectively.
Follows.Laws exist against murder rape etc and we dont have to justify them every day.
I said nothing about having to justify things every day. STRAW MANNatural laws exist like the law of gravity.
Natural laws are not equivalent to man made laws. They deal with fundamentally different epistemic objects. STRAW MANYou 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.
Material stress can be held to an quantifiable empirical standard, and so can concomitant laws regarding material quality control=> objective
Laws regarding moral status (your mention of hedonism is interesting here) and health risk are subject to consensus regarding moral convention and the threshold of risk allowed for individuals for themselves and those around them=> subjective.
The two do not equate. STRAW MANMy argument isnt solely based on that but as I have just shown it is reasonable to believe laws are there for sound reasons.
This is not a discourse on intuition. This is a discourse on logic. It is not logical to assume that all laws exist for good reasons. History has shown this presumption to be rubbish, in any case.It is for the person making the original claim to support it and not for the others to "prove a negative"
"Original claim" goes beyond the scope of this argument and thread, as I have shown. Also, you have still not justified your invocation of negative proof in this case.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
The point you are quoting comes as a result of the three preceding points. All 4 of these come directly from the definition of "argument from ignorance" that you copy-pasted at me.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.
How exactly is this a free country if I have to lobby for referendum whenever the whim takes a legislator to pass whatever law they see fit?No! It isn't a "balanced argument" ! if you want the law repealed you have to provide the evidence.
Yes, it is. I have already shown how this is the case (null predicates, ignorance etc.). Simply saying it won't make it true xDI am not assking you to argue against anything!
Yes, you are. Here:ISAW wrote:if you want the law repealed you have to provide the evidence.
Implicit null predicate, for the reasons I have already gone into.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.
I made no such claim. straw man...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.
Similarly, things which are manifestly harmful beyond imagination and have not been made illegal are justifiedly legal because a discourse on the matter exists. This is, of course, nonsense.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.
This is a pointless contribution to the discussion. I am not in court. I am in a thread on boards.ie.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?
No, new drugs should be subject to testing with reference to existing guidelines and available drugs. Doing this with cannabis makes a bad case for continuing illegality, considering the scope of categorically legal substances which are considered permissible currently.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.
We are not talking about "one", we are talking about categorical determinants for legislative bodies.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.
In this case you are. I am taking your basis for doing so, and taking a consequentialist route with it in order to demonstrate its absurdity. I am doing so blatantly, and without supposition. There is no straw man.By the way i have shown the harmful effects of cannabis as well.
True. You have not effectively argued that this constitutes a basis for law though.And finally I never stated I believe it should be illegal.
I never said you did either. Again, concomitant to the approach of arguing as such.I didn't make any claim about legalising cannabis or not!
I never said you did. "If you claim that X should be ¬Y, then it is not necessary to define Y."
X=> Cannabis
Y=> Predicated legal statusWell we do regulate cheese production and it is banned from being sold without compliance.
The terms of compliance with regard to these substances do not equate in light of the supposed risk inherent to both.Making something legal on the other hand allows it to become culturally acceptable and difficult to ban again once made legal.
Could you please provide evidence to support your claim regarding the causative link between cultural normativism and legal status.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.
We are not talking about prostitution. "Drug taking" is not a homogenized category of conduct. Legislation allows drug taking in the form of alcohol and nicotine consumption. Where are these moralizing legislators that you put stock in?So you hold the people of Ireland in contempt?
No.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.
What does that have to do with anything?No because I didn't claim the law was just or unjust.
Arguing that the case against illegality needs justification requires you presume that the law for illegality is just.Others claim it is unjust. I ask then to provide evidence that it is unjust.
You must first explain how it is just. They can't claim it is unjust until evidence has been given to establish it as just.
'others claim X is ¬Y. I ask then to provide evidence that X is ¬Y'.
This is impossible until Y has been defined, and successfully applied to X by way of argument.Saying that I should have to prove laws are just before that is just silly!
Saying it doesn't make it true
although i may if I wish and have posted counter evidence. Teh burden is on them to prove cannabis is acceptable and safe.
What criteria determine "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.
No, you didn't. Even in this paragraph you have actively and vociferously avoided this aspect of the discourse!I don't have to prove the reasonableness of every law
True. You only have to do so when you elect to use specific laws as basis for an argument.You changed the premise (what premise?) Try this:
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?
Mr. A : No, it isn't. I was pointing out that fact that the thing that you equated with cannabis is fundamentally different in its concomitant effect, and implicitly elucidating on the scope in which enjoyment can be used as a justificatory basis. Stop being such a tedious pedant if you are so bad with details, Mr. B.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Thats a slightly nonsensical argument.
Children are not big purveyors of the black market as far as I know
his arguments have been fairly nonsensical for quite a few pages now
here is a straight forward question and requires only a straightforward answer
forgetting any individual state or nation
Should a person who is afflicted by a condition, through no fault of their own, have access to any and all substances that are necessary to alleviate the suffering caused by that condition?0 -
-
-
-
All drugs should be legalised and I am not in favour of drug use per se.
The cost of policing the areas were gangland type problems have arisen because drugs are illegally is phenomenal - but is drug use illegal because it wrong, or is it wrong because it is illegal. If it was legal would it cost society less both economically and ethically - yes.
Poverty and despair are at the root of most problematic drug use and it is only by addressing these underlying causes that significantly decreases the number of problematic users.
If cannabis was legal, people could grow their own, pushers would not be need for this drug.
If drugs were legal we wouldn't need to criminalise the user or the seller - no one ends up with a criminal record which is the biggest problem with cannabis - it allows some of the citizens to be unneseccarily labelled criminals and possible improsined , this then can have terrible consequences which are not equaitable, not just but rather immoral and unethical.
The market for drugs is demand-led and thousands of people demand illegal drugs however the quality of the substance they take and the negative health effects they endure because of this can cost them and society millions of euro. Also prohibition has led to the stigmatisation and marginalisation of drug users.
Enforce quaility standards on all drugs - this is bad needed and could be an idea for a new and innovative industry in Ireland - we are after all looiking for jobs in the pharmacuetical industry - this would definitely hepl get us out of recession 0 -
sparkling sea wrote: »All drugs should be legalised and I am not in favour of drug use per se.
The cost of policing the areas were gangland type problems have arisen because drugs are illegally is phenomenal - but is drug use illegal because it wrong, or is it wrong because it is illegal. If it was legal would it cost society less both economically and ethically - yes.
Poverty and despair are at the root of most problematic drug use and it is only by addressing these underlying causes that significantly decreases the number of problematic users.
If cannabis was legal, people could grow their own, pushers would not be need for this drug.
If drugs were legal we wouldn't need to criminalise the user or the seller - no one ends up with a criminal record which is the biggest problem with cannabis - it allows some of the citizens to be unneseccarily labelled criminals and possible improsined , this then can have terrible consequences which are not equaitable, not just but rather immoral and unethical.
The market for drugs is demand-led and thousands of people demand illegal drugs however the quality of the substance they take and the negative health effects they endure because of this can cost them and society millions of euro. Also prohibition has led to the stigmatisation and marginalisation of drug users.
Enforce quaility standards on all drugs - this is bad needed and could be an idea for a new and innovative industry in Ireland - we are after all looiking for jobs in the pharmacuetical industry - this would definitely hepl get us out of recession
Friendly warning, you're going to have to back up those claims, or rephrase them as "your opinion" 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Thats a slightly nonsensical argument.
Children are not big purveyors of the black market as far as I know
You said: Legalising cannabis will reduce black market cannabis
I say: Legalising tobacco i.e. unrestricted use of it a without controls e.g. allowing children to buy tobacco and removing the illegality of that might not reduce the black market in tobacco
Making something legal or relaxing control on it whether it be cannabis or tobacco may not reduce or remove illegal tobacco or cannabis.
How is that nonsensical?0 -
An affliction like a nervoos tick caused by not being able to do something illegal such as abuse children - NO
An affliction like MS - maybe
I would say yes if the medicine is tried and tested and the side effects know . If not you are into a Thalidomide senario which was to alleviate the suffering caused by the condition of pregnancy.
Assuming Cannabis is tried and teated then you are making an argument for limited and controlled medicanal use and not for recreational use.
It is a bit like saying that because some doctors perform abortions under limited circumstances that that is the same as having abortion on demand - it isn't!
Medical cannabis is a different use of a drug and that is not what most of the pro cannabis lobby have being arguing for in this thread.
Where did I ever say there should be no medical use of cannabis?
you didnt but i asked it repeatedly in the thread and never got an answer
i want it to be completely legal and controlled in much the same way as alcohol or tobacco, however, i feel the medicinal use is far far more important in the grand scheme of things. ignorance and prejudice among a certain generation should not be allowed to force suffering on innocent people.
the tests have been done, the side affects are known, doctors should be allowed to prescribe marijuana to patients if they deem it necessary. pharmaceuticals companies dont need to be involved or if they are patients shouldnt be forced to have to use their product. they should have the choice between buying the cannibinoid pill from the pharmaceutical company or buying a more natural version from a dispensary or growing their own.
then when those laws are in place we should start worrying about recreational use.
in the mean time ill be living in the states, enjoying their open attitudes
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf1EOpVrUKw
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement