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

sparkling sea

Papa Smut wrote: »

Thank you for that, Can you provide links?

I can for The Lancet but you will have to register to read the articles - registration is free.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/abstract.

Dr. Paul O’Mahony is a criminologist and a lecturer in criminal law in Trinity College, Dublin.
Paul O Mahony's book should be in any IT or Uni where Criminal Law, Criminology or prehaps Sociology, are modules - it cannot be veiwed online. No preview available on Google books I'm afraid.

He points out that a right to use drugs does not include the right to drive while under the influence of drugs or shirk responsibility criminal or harmful acts when drug use is a factor, etc.

Legality would mean drugs could be sold legally ensuring they did not fall into the hands of children, that quality was assured, that all users had accurate information on the negative aspects and dangers of drug use, and that resources could be diverted away from the drug enforcement part of the criminal justice system into tackling the causes of drug abuse and its effects.
The same if not more information that is given to people who choose to drink alcohol.

He rejects the argument that it would lead to an increase in drug use and states that "People have loads of good reasons for not using drugs. But these are personal reasons, not because they're illegal. "We are diverting huge energy, huge money, huge resources, from tackling the problem. We have created a monster."

He aslo makes a very interesting point on societal development and the points race for Unis in Ireland and how drug use may develop in different areas of contemporary Irish life.
"There is huge technical development happening in drugs. We are only just around the corner from memory-enhancing drugs. Middle-class parents will be looking for them to dope up their children to enhance their points. We are also close to safe euphorants and drug users won't be reliant on peasant farmers.

In looking at all the factors involved the most pressing point that is made by Dr O Mahony is where he states, "The future is much more dangerous than the present. Prohibition can't handle the present. It certainly won't be able to handle the future."

From what I have read on this subject, prohibition did not work for Ether drinking in Ulster - this was a huge problem. Nor did it work for Puteen consumption in Ireland - all that happened was legal and standardised alternatives replaced alchol replaced it. The same priniciple needs to be applied to drug use.

If we really want to tacle this problem, we need to admit that the status quo and the prohibitionist policies are not working and are actually causing more harm than good - in my opinion - this being baised on the facts of the situation - all the facts - not just the ones I cherry pick to suit my point of veiw.

sparkling sea

ro09 wrote: »

So you are just back from the crime capital of Europe. Since Holland leagalised nearly everything crime soared there. They have all the major criminals and gangs and rapists there and you think it would be good do do the same here. GOOD MAN

What stats support you point of veiw - I haven't seen any studies that indicate crime has soared since the Dutch legalised what ever you think they legalised. Cannabis has not been legalised in Holland by the by.


In 2010 research shows that the "heroin-junkies" have disappeared from the streets of the Netherlands and the treatment is upgraded from a test-trial to standard treatment for otherwise untreatable addicts. Also number of heroin addicts has dropped by more than 30% since 1983.

Also Cannabis is still controlled substance in the Netherlands and both possession and production for personal use are still misdemeanors, punishable by fine. Coffee shops are also technically illegal according to the statutes . However, a policy of non-enforcement has led to a situation where reliance upon non-enforcement has become common, and because of this the courts have ruled against the government when individual cases were prosecuted.

ro09

sparkling sea wrote: »

What stats support you point of veiw - I haven't seen any studies that indicate crime has soared since the Dutch legalised what ever you think they legalised. Cannabis has not been legalised in Holland by the by.


In 2010 research shows that the "heroin-junkies" have disappeared from the streets of the Netherlands and the treatment is upgraded from a test-trial to standard treatment for otherwise untreatable addicts. Also number of heroin addicts has dropped by more than 30% since 1983.

Also Cannabis is still controlled substance in the Netherlands and both possession and production for personal use are still misdemeanors, punishable by fine. Coffee shops are also technically illegal according to the statutes . However, a policy of non-enforcement has led to a situation where reliance upon non-enforcement has become common, and because of this the courts have ruled against the government when individual cases were prosecuted.

All the Crime bosses and drug barons and rapists go to live there dont they???

MaceFace

Wow, this is still going and it appears to be the same arguments.

Prohibition doesn't work, so lets legalise it.
Criminals profit from it, so lets legalise it.
It has medicinal purposes to lets legalise it.

To me, this kind of stinks of giving up.

Another argument is that its not as bad as alcohol so lets legalise it. Legalising will result in a larger usage and that is the main reason that alcohol is such a problem for society - its widespread abuse. To an individual it is not as dangerous as class A drugs, and only time would tell if legalising canabis on the Irish (who already have a severe addition to alcohol) would be beneficial or not.

As I said months ago somewhere on this thread, criminals will just find another way of making money so we are just shifting the problem from one place to another.
I seriously can not see how we can actually make money from this (I am still not convinced that we can save money from it). It would have to be cost competitive and is that something we actually want?

Interesting that Holland are looking at changing their coffee shops to restrict access to locals only to try and stop the drug tourists......

Liberalbrehon

MaceFace wrote: »

Wow, this is still going and it appears to be the same arguments.

Prohibition doesn't work, so lets legalise it.
Criminals profit from it, so lets legalise it.
It has medicinal purposes to lets legalise it.

To me, this kind of stinks of giving up.

Another argument is that its not as bad as alcohol so lets legalise it. Legalising will result in a larger usage and that is the main reason that alcohol is such a problem for society - its widespread abuse. To an individual it is not as dangerous as class A drugs, and only time would tell if legalising canabis on the Irish (who already have a severe addition to alcohol) would be beneficial or not.

As I said months ago somewhere on this thread, criminals will just find another way of making money so we are just shifting the problem from one place to another.
I seriously can not see how we can actually make money from this (I am still not convinced that we can save money from it). It would have to be cost competitive and is that something we actually want?

Interesting that Holland are looking at changing their coffee shops to restrict access to locals only to try and stop the drug tourists......

And the idea/process of doing more of the same and expecting a different result smacks of idiocy/conformist rhetoric . (no personal offence intended)

PeakOutput

pclancy wrote: »

1. Legalization for medical use (ie tablet, spray or powder form) for pain relief
2. Legalization for recreational use (sold in plant/bud/leaf form)

i am splitting them up but i dont agree with how you split up the delivery system

as i said while the pharma companies should be allowed to manufacture these products they should be the only ones that do it and consumers shouldn't be forced to use their products

secondly inhaling marijuana smoke is not the same as inhaling cigarette smoke. it isn't carcinogenic and i havn't been able to find any studies that say it is harmful at all. judging by the amount of top flight athletes who use marijuana and suffer no performance loss(some would say it helps them perform better) i personally believe it is effectively harmless.

thirdly even if there is evidence it is harmful there is an easy delivery method that everyone can afford and that is called a vaporiser and only delivers the thc to the user.

finally it will eventually be legalised fully for recreational use as well as medicinal use, its just a question of when. it might not be in the next 5 or 10 years but certainly in the next 20. the only thing that will stop it is a massive conservative backlash against the continued liberalisation of society and i dont think that is going to happen in europe. i dont think it will happen in the states either but it is more likely there

PeakOutput

MaceFace wrote: »

Interesting that Holland are looking at changing their coffee shops to restrict access to locals only to try and stop the drug tourists......

also interesting that they are closing down prisons due to not having enough criminals to put in them

MaceFace

PeakOutput wrote: »

also interesting that they are closing down prisons due to not having enough criminals to put in them

Interesting - do you know why?

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

And the idea/process of doing more of the same and expecting a different result smacks of idiocy/conformist rhetoric . (no personal offence intended)

None taken because I agree. A different approach is needed but the debate should be about what that approach should be.
Just because you are against legalisation does not mean you are for keeping the current way of doing things.

PeakOutput

ro09 wrote: »

So you are just back from the crime capital of Europe. Since Holland leagalised nearly everything crime soared there. They have all the major criminals and gangs and rapists there and you think it would be good do do the same here. GOOD MAN

link please

its not even in the top ten according to forbes

http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/15/europe-capitals-crime-forbeslife-cx_po_0715crime_slide_11.html?thisSpeed=undefined

PeakOutput

MaceFace wrote: »

Interesting - do you know why?

general decrease in crime since the mid 90's

http://vorige.nrc.nl/international/article2246821.ece/Netherlands_to_close_prisons_for_lack_of_criminals

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/netherlands-prisons-closi_n_208561.html

sandmanporto

im confused! Wheres the statistics to back up the claim COFFEE KILLS?

ISAW

sparkling sea wrote: »

I can for The Lancet but you will have to register to read the articles - registration is free.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/abstract.

Dr. Paul O’Mahony

http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/3/425.short

newtadis

ordinarywoman wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogluk4VjPiM

Rep. Jared Polis spoke against the legislation that would further escalate the failed war on marijuana, in U.S.

there should not be a war on marijuana anyways

politicians that support prohibition support organized crime

charlemont

ro09 wrote: »

So you are just back from the crime capital of Europe. Since Holland leagalised nearly everything crime soared there. They have all the major criminals and gangs and rapists there and you think it would be good do do the same here. GOOD MAN

small irelander , we already have the same here anyway because thickos support crime by attending churchs and voting FF..

ordinarywoman

http://breakthematrix.com/alternatives/top-10-cannabis-studies-the-government-wished-it-had-never-funded/

Top 10 Cannabis Studies the Government Wished it Had Never Funded


10) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY:
A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.
9) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON’T RUIN YOUR LIFE:
Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept.
1997
THE “GATEWAY EFFECT” MAY BE A MIRAGE:
Marijuana is often called a “gateway drug” by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical “associations” indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana – implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained “without requiring a gateway effect.” More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what’s most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.
7) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART I):
The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, “the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement.” And what data exist show “little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use.” In other words, there is no proof that prohibition – the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century – reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.
6) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART II):
DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE “GATEWAY EFFECT”?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found no differences except one: Lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its “tolerant” marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842.
5) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I):
Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice’s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.
4) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II):
In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, “in a dose-dependent manner” (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, “Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer,” AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.
3) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III):
Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.
2) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV):
Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.
1) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE:
In response to passage of California’s medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana’s medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, “Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana.” While noting potential risks of smoking, the report added, “we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting.” The government’s refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government “loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened.” Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006

Bottle_of_Smoke

sparkling sea wrote: »

No problem.

The Lancet the world's leading general medical journal recently published a peer reveiwed study which found that and I quote "Alcohol is a more dangerous drug than heroin or crack cocaine.

Sounds like Bullsh*t to me. What is the context and basis for that statement?

My main issue with Dr. Nutt's evaluations last time was his use of ''harm to society'' in ranking the drugs. Would much rather have just seen the rankings for addictiveness and personal danger.

mikom

Just a heads up....

The first phase of the Newstalk YouTube digital debate has now ended and we have received more than 1,700 questions and almost 20,000 votes. Now, it is over to the party leaders.
The 10 most popular questions have been sent to the party leaders who will record a short video response to each.
These video responses will be uploaded on the You Tube channel hosting the digital debate on Friday February 18th and the public will have an opportunity to vote on the best answers between then and February 24th.
Below is the list of the Top 10 most popular questions
.......


OTHER ISSUES
Will your party commit to legalising and taxing cannabis for personal use, thereby generating a significant new source of tax revenues, saving Gardai and court resources, and allowing access to those with a medical need?

Prepare for waffle.

HavingCrack

mikom wrote: »

Just a heads up....



Prepare for waffle.

No party in Ireland has come out openly and said that they are for or against canabis legalisation and why they hold the position they do. There's little appetite for raising this issue and potentially losing votes from social conservatives when there are far easier topics to beat their rivals with.

sparkling sea

ro09 wrote: »

All the Crime bosses and drug barons and rapists go to live there dont they???

Thought you were serious there

sparkling sea

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Sounds like Bullsh*t to me. What is the context and basis for that statement?

My main issue with Dr. Nutt's evaluations last time was his use of ''harm to society'' in ranking the drugs. Would much rather have just seen the rankings for addictiveness and personal danger.

You don't know the context or basis for the statement so it sounds like bull**** and not just something you don't know -

The 2010 study focused on the harm done to user and society by a range of drugs.

Owing in part to criticism over the arbitrary weighting of the factors in the 2007 study, the new study employed a multi-criteria decision analysis procedure.

ro09

I think the Funny Stuff has Gone to all your Heads .

As I said already legalising drugs doesn't work just look at the crime capital of Europe Amsterdam. All the Rapists and Criminals are living there now, do we want them all in Ireland too.

Bottle_of_Smoke

sparkling sea wrote: »

You don't know the context or basis for the statement so it sounds like bull**** and not just something you don't know -

Sounds like bullsh*t because I know the effects of crack cocaine and heroin.

The 2010 study focused on the harm done to user and society by a range of drugs.

Owing in part to criticism over the arbitrary weighting of the factors in the 2007 study, the new study employed a multi-criteria decision analysis procedure.

This is my problem, I really don't care what general damage it does to society I just want to know what effect it will have on me if I take it.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ro09 wrote: »

I think the Funny Stuff has Gone to all your Heads .

As I said already legalising drugs doesn't work just look at the crime capital of Europe Amsterdam. All the Rapists and Criminals are living there now, do we want them all in Ireland too.

Amsterdams always seemed a very safe city to me. It was the drugs capital of Europe before cannabis was decriminalised due to its strategic position. Possibly a reason it was decriminalised - needed the police to tackle real crimes.

And its not just Amsterdam its everywhere in the Netherlands.

All the rapists and criminals live here? what does that even mean?

HavingCrack

ro09 wrote: »

I think the Funny Stuff has Gone to all your Heads .

As I said already legalising drugs doesn't work just look at the crime capital of Europe Amsterdam. All the Rapists and Criminals are living there now, do we want them all in Ireland too.

You're either trolling or serious and if its the first it isn't funny and if its the second you have your facts wrong.

Firstly, drugs are not legal in Amsterdam. I do not know why people think this is. You can't go into your local shop and buy an ounce of cocaine or some heroin. The place isn't over run with drug dealers and rapists as you seem to think, in fact Amsterdam reguarly appears in the top 10 'best cities to live' in surveys.

The country with the most liberal drug laws is in fact Portugal who de criminalised some drugs in 2004. It did not lead to it becoming the drugs capital of Europe. In fact, drug usage declined hugely in Portugal, drug related crime decreased substantially, HIV infection rates nearly halved and :eek: Portugal now has the lowest cannabis usage rate in Europe.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

mikom

ro09 wrote: »

I think the Funny Stuff has Gone to all your Heads .

As I said already legalising drugs doesn't work just look at the crime capital of Europe Amsterdam. All the Rapists and Criminals are living there now, do we want them all in Ireland too.

The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre says it helped an average of one rape victim every day during the month of December.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mheycwqlkfid/#ixzz1EE8yeHFj

"Hey Amsterdam, you left some behind!"

HavingCrack wrote: »

You're either trolling or serious and if its the first it isn't funny and if its the second you have your facts wrong.

Firstly, drugs are not legal in Amsterdam. I do not know why people think this is. You can't go into your local shop and buy an ounce of cocaine or some heroin. The place isn't over run with drug dealers and rapists as you seem to think, in fact Amsterdam reguarly appears in the top 10 'best cities to live' in surveys.

The country with the most liberal drug laws is in fact Portugal who de criminalised some drugs in 2004. It did not lead to it becoming the drugs capital of Europe. In fact, drug usage declined hugely in Portugal, drug related crime decreased substantially, HIV infection rates nearly halved and :eek: Portugal now has the lowest cannabis usage rate in Europe.

If we we were to follow ro09's line of thought then Portugal should be full of rapists as it is a cannabis free-for-all.
Of course ro09 is wrong, as all of the following European and environs countries have higher rates of Rape than Portugal...

United Kingdom:
Spain:
France:
Norway:
Finland:
Denmark:
Germany:
Bulgaria:
Poland:
Hungary:
Estonia:
Ireland:
Switzerland:
Lithuania:
Romania:
Czech Republic:
Latvia:
Slovenia:
Italy:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
.
.
.
I await the next lie.....

PeakOutput

ro09 wrote: »

I think the Funny Stuff has Gone to all your Heads .

As I said already legalising drugs doesn't work just look at the crime capital of Europe Amsterdam. All the Rapists and Criminals are living there now, do we want them all in Ireland too.

iv already proved that their crime rate is so low they have to close prisons so how about instead of making troll like statements you back them up with a some references?

whoopdedoo

Sativex, the industries answer to all our woes for an £11 a day subscription!!

the thing that sickens me is not really the already overstated fact that the very ingredients from cannabis that governments have been telling us will make us crazy are thc and cbd's, my gripe is pharmas answer is not even to try synthesise thc/cbd's etc (yes i know that would be a joke!!) but instead extract the pure stuff from the cannabis plant, put it in a pill and help us to keep a whole criminal cycle going while doing so and thats ok...

for £11 a day in uk or up north you could be baked on up to 2grms of the real deal and not swallowing the pharmas rubbish attempts!!

we can buy aloe vera ya or we can grow aloe vera, you can buy cannabis extract but you cannot under any circumstance grow it yourself or else!

http://www.gwpharm.com/sativex.aspx

Paulie Walnuts

There are some very stupid and irresponsible statements being made by both sides of this argument. It really bugs me when stoners claim there is nothing at all wrong wth smoking weed all day every day. There is, I've tried it, I pretty much wasted about 8 years of my life doing it.

Also, I can't stand it when people who have never tried weed make statements about cannabis. People who are so badly informed that they lump cannabis and weed in with cocaine and heroin. "Feckin jail the lot of dem drug addicts" they say. Ireland has one of the most draconian (god i hate that word) drug policies in Europe. Most European countries either allow a person to grow a plant or allow possession of small amount and you don't see those countries descending into anarchy do you?

Of course there can be some negative effects of excessive cannabis use (but damn it there are negative effects of doing ANYTHING to excess, even exercise or masturbating, try making that illegal!) but the fact is that it is a relatively harmless drug when done in moderation.

"Ah but it's a gateway drug" i hear you self righteous cavemen say. Perhaps, but the only reason it could ever be considered a gateway drug is precisely because it is illegal. When I want some weed (i couldn't give a sh**e if its illegal) I go and meet "Johnny the Drug Dealer" (not his real name) who also happens to be selling ecstasy, coke etc. Some people will be tempted to sample the other items on the menu. If weed were legalised I would go to a coffeeshop type establishment (a la in Holland) and buy my stuff from a businessman who pays tax to the government, no risk involved.

Finally, I would agree with the idea that some people are not suited to smoking. A minority of people who may already be predisposed to mental health problems and who smoke cannabis may find that smoking brings these mental health problems to the fore faster. Simple solution, if you find that this happens...don't smoke any more.

Overheal

Im again, going to reiterate, that 99% of this thread has nothing to do with the topic of whether or not - even in perfect social circumstances - legalizing and taxing marijuana sale would pull the economy out of recession. Which, it can't. I even go so far as to challenge whether it would show up as a whole-number percentage on the GDP.

All this other social-discussion BS? It's becoming the Bible, Creationism and Prophecy thread of Politics. Cyclical. Inconclusive. Pointless.

mikom

Paulie Walnuts wrote: »

There are some very stupid and irresponsible statements being made by both sides of this argument. It really bugs me when stoners claim there is nothing at all wrong wth smoking weed all day every day. There is, I've tried it, I pretty much wasted about 8 years of my life doing it.

Also, I can't stand it when people who have never tried weed make statements about cannabis. People who are so badly informed that they lump cannabis and weed in with cocaine and heroin. "Feckin jail the lot of dem drug addicts" they say. Ireland has one of the most draconian (god i hate that word) drug policies in Europe. Most European countries either allow a person to grow a plant or allow possession of small amount and you don't see those countries descending into anarchy do you?

Of course there can be some negative effects of excessive cannabis use (but damn it there are negative effects of doing ANYTHING to excess, even exercise or masturbating, try making that illegal!) but the fact is that it is a relatively harmless drug when done in moderation.

"Ah but it's a gateway drug" i hear you self righteous cavemen say. Perhaps, but the only reason it could ever be considered a gateway drug is precisely because it is illegal. When I want some weed (i couldn't give a sh**e if its illegal) I go and meet "Johnny the Drug Dealer" (not his real name) who also happens to be selling ecstasy, coke etc. Some people will be tempted to sample the other items on the menu. If weed were legalised I would go to a coffeeshop type establishment (a la in Holland) and buy my stuff from a businessman who pays tax to the government, no risk involved.

Finally, I would agree with the idea that some people are not suited to smoking. A minority of people who may already be predisposed to mental health problems and who smoke cannabis may find that smoking brings these mental health problems to the fore faster. Simple solution, if you find that this happens...don't smoke any more.

Total sense.
Respect yourself and what you use...... you'll rarely go wrong.