The drugs thread

Richard Cranium

Hugh Shy Gumbo wrote: »

I'd be in favour of legalising everything really, that way steps can be made to make sure it isn't being sold to kids and a massive amount of revenue would be taken out of the hands of murdering gangs and into the hands of the government. Okay so it would be taken out of the hands of your friendly local stoner as well but on balance, probably worth it.

I think the double standard argument does stand up; if you can drink, smoke or eat yourself to death as long as you're paying tax on it, why is does it suddenly clock over to "wrong and immoral" to pill yourself to death? Just ****ing tax it. Also the amount of garda/court time and resources spent chasing and processing people who possess or supply weed is ridiculous, considering they're likely to be law-abiding, non-violent people apart from that.

On the flip side of that, it can and should be argued that it is wrong and immoral (or just plain selfish) to drink, smoke or eat yourself to death for a number of reasons. It's not a victimless non-crime. Leaving aside the effect that it would have on family and friends to see someone do that to themselves, it costs the country a fortune and clogs up the health services dealing with people who have done themselves damage this way. How many people get treated for cancer or liver sclerosis or diabetes or anything else caused by not looking after themselves properly? How much time and money are we expending trying to treat them, when there are others (dare I say it) much more deserving of those services? I agree with Jay P when he said that increased availability of drugs will increase usage. I've seen it myself, although I don't have hard and fast statistics to quote either.

Drug use/abuse is dangerous and does do serious harm to people a lot of the time. Not just physically either, it seriously messes with people's heads. As far as I know there is a proven link between cannabis (or whatever you want to call it) and psychosis, and in a country that already has such an obscenely high suicide rate (not to mention awful mental health services), decriminalisation would be completely illogical and indefensible.

Have I got the right to drive my car like a lunatic and then crash and kill myself in front of all my family and friends? I don't think so.
Should I have that right? Almost certainly not.

strobe

Richard Cranium wrote: »

Have I got the right to drive my car like a lunatic and then crash and kill myself in front of all my family and friends? I don't think so.
Should I have that right? Almost certainly not.

Have you got the right to race in rallys or go rock climbing, or horse riding, or surfing huge waves, or do boxing, or sky diving?

Should you have that right?

Novella

Tried a lot of that head shop shit tbh. Will never ever touch any kind of drugs again. One night, after smoking some and taking a few pills, I had a huge panic attack and I honestly thought that I was gonna die. I couldn't breathe, didn't know where I was (I was in my own living room) and my heart was racing so fast it felt like it was gonna burst. One of the scariest moments of my life.

I've also tried hash and weed, but as I said, no drugs for me ever again. I'm actually pretty ashamed that it took something like a bad trip and putting my health and safety at risk for me to realise that drugs are bad. Serious respect for those who never try 'em.

unknown13

Once you are 18, taking it under your own will and not intoxicated. I couldn't care what you take because at the end of the day it is your own body and life. Do what you want to with it.

Pygmalion

Richard Cranium wrote: »

Have I got the right to drive my car like a lunatic and then crash and kill myself in front of all my family and friends? I don't think so.
Should I have that right? Almost certainly not.

Attempted suicide isn't actually a crime in this country, so you do have the right to kill yourself, doing it in front of friends and family probably isn't illegal either.
You can't drive like a lunatic and crash on purpose though, there are laws against endangering other people while driving.
Drugs on the other hand don't directly endanger other people (I added in "directly" for a reason here, I'm aware it isn't exactly going to put a smile on your families face if they find out you've died).

As for the extra medical treatment we give to those people, most drinkers don't end up getting super expensive medical treatment, all drinkers pay a lot of extra tax which goes towards hospitals and the like.

A lot more smokers do end up in hospitals, but still nowhere near 100%, and in most cases it takes years/decades before they end up in hospital.
Almost €5 on a pack of cigarettes is in Tax (based on 2008 numbers, probably higher now). If someone smokes a pack a day for 20 years and then gets hospitalised they've paid almost €40000 extra in tax, so they're not getting that treatment for free.

Richard Cranium

strobe wrote: »

Have you got the right to race in rallys or go rock climbing, or horse riding, or surfing huge waves, or do boxing, or sky diving?

Should you have that right?

That's not my point. I'm not saying that people should be banned from doing anything remotely dangerous (as I've said before, I'm not a fan of the nanny-state), I'm saying that it's wrong to allow someone to be self destructive, especially when they are not the only ones who will pay the price of their actions.

And no. I shouldn't be allowed to race in a rally, go rock climbing, surf huge waves, sky dive or box- not at the moment anyway. I don't know how to do any of those things and without the guidance and supervision of an expert I might kill myself or someone else. That would be bad, don't you agree?

If, however, I did know how to safely do those things then of course I should be allowed. Similarly, if a certain drug is shown to be safe when used responsibly then it should be sold in a regulated way to people who can use it responsibly. Cannabis has side effects that don't justify the benefits, as do many if not all of the other illegal drugs. They aren't banned for the craic, like.

Pygmalion

Richard Cranium wrote: »

If, however, I did know how to safely do those things then of course I should be allowed. Similarly, if a certain drug is shown to be safe when used responsibly then it should be sold in a regulated way to people who can use it responsibly. Cannabis has side effects that don't justify the benefits, as do many if not all of the other illegal drugs. They aren't banned for the craic, like.

Am I correct to assume that you would much prefer if alcohol was illegal?
If you do think that I won't argue, since clearly this is just a policy we disagree on for our own reasons.

My main problem is with people automatically assuming that alcohol is safer than illegal drugs and shouldn't be held to the same standards, purely because it's legal.

byrnem31

I have tried nearly every drug thats available in this country and I have been addicted to a few with serious consequences.
Alcohol is by far one of the most damaging drugs there is. The class people put drugs into is rubbish. Hash and weed are aslo very damaging. I smoked a lot of it when I was younger but moved onto different dugs. The people who kept smoking it turned into cabbages from it.
Tobacco is another filthy, highly dangerous and addictive drug. The government make money off it in the short run, but the health issues it causes in the long run are costlty.If you legalise drugs you will make money in the short run but in the long run it proves a financial burden.

We tell children drugs are bad for you, but when they do them they have the time of their lives. There should be more drug awarness campaigns with real ex-addicts to tell their story first hand to children instead of suits and ties telling them. Children dont listen to authority. At least if addicts talk they can witness the consequences of taking drugs over the course of your life. Just let them take a look people who have suffered from drug abuse. All sorts of different addicts too, not just the sterotypical junkie. Let them see people damaged from hash, ectasy, alcohol, tobacco, acid, heroin, cocaine etc.

All drugs are utter dirt and a curse on society. They make people irrational and act in ways they would never usually behave. We see this every week on the streets of our towns and cities. The damage they cause is horrendous. Just look at all the fighting, deaths and drink driving related incidents around the country every week. They are caused not by addicted people, but your average office worker, student, carpenter etc. and why ? Because of the effects of drugs. They give people crap for brains.

Richard Cranium

Pygmalion wrote: »

Attempted suicide isn't actually a crime in this country, so you do have the right to kill yourself, doing it in front of friends and family probably isn't illegal either.
You can't drive like a lunatic and crash on purpose though, there are laws against endangering other people while driving.
Drugs on the other hand don't directly endanger other people (I added in "directly" for a reason here, I'm aware it isn't exactly going to put a smile on your families face if they find out you've died).

As for the extra medical treatment we give to those people, most drinkers don't end up getting super expensive medical treatment, all drinkers pay a lot of extra tax which goes towards hospitals and the like.

A lot more smokers do end up in hospitals, but still nowhere near 100%, and in most cases it takes years/decades before they end up in hospital.
Almost €5 on a pack of cigarettes is in Tax (based on 2008 numbers, probably higher now). If someone smokes a pack a day for 20 years and then gets hospitalised they've paid almost €40000 extra in tax, so they're not getting that treatment for free.

Suicide is a completely different issue. I wasn't asking if I had the right to deliberately kill myself, more whether it was morally acceptable to allow someone do something like that. I don't think it is.
Drugs can directly endanger other people though- coke makes people aggressive, other drugs make people paranoid and liable to attack others. It does happen, even though I haven't done a great job of elucidating. You know what I mean I hope...

I'm not sure if the extra tax paid by drinkers and smokers completely covers the cost of treatment though. Maybe one of the medical people here could tell me how much it costs the state to provide chemo or an organ transplant for someone. I'd be very surprised if the extra taxes on cigarettes and alcohol covered it completely though.


EDIT: I do think alcohol should be legal. I do drink, I do get drunk, and occassionally I get completely irresponsibly shít-faced. For the most part though, I'm responsible. I don't believe I'm doing any serious damage to my own body (I know this sounds a bit naive after what I've just said but I mean it- the vast majority of the time I don't drink heavily at all, nor do I drink very frequently), and I certainly don't ever put anyone else in danger.
But I digress. There is such a thing as a responsible level of drinking, and it does have health benefits (a glass of red wine a day is good, or something, I dunno exactly.) More importantly than that, we know the risks and the benefits of alcohol, and it is regulated. Possibly a good answer to the question you asked is that I support a lot of the restriction on sales of alcohol (but again that's a discussion for another day). Everyone should know exactly how dangerous it can be, but also they should have allowed to drink.

Does that make me a hypocrite? Possibly.

Pygmalion

Richard Cranium wrote: »

I'm not sure if the extra tax paid by drinkers and smokers completely covers the cost of treatment though. Maybe one of the medical people here could tell me how much it costs the state to provide chemo or an organ transplant for someone. I'd be very surprised if the extra taxes on cigarettes and alcohol covered it completely though.

Well drinkers/smokers generally are less likely to get an organ than non-drinkers/smokers IIRC.
And it may not completely cover it, but there's still a massive offset, and keep in mind that the €40000 isn't necessarily all, if only 50% of smokers end up in hospital then it'd be more like almost €80000 (adjust for whatever the actual percentage is, but it's not 100% anyway) per treatment.

Bobalicious93

Hang on, there's a difference between 'hash' and 'weed'?

I was under the impression they were the same thing..

Pygmalion

Bobalicious93 wrote: »

Hang on, there's a difference between 'hash' and 'weed'?

I was under the impression they were the same thing..

Same plant, but different parts of it, or prepared differently or something.

Jay P

Bobalicious93 wrote: »

Hang on, there's a difference between 'hash' and 'weed'?

I was under the impression they were the same thing..

I'm not entirely sure what Hash is, but it's something to do with the root of the cannabis plant. It's generally brown, and looks quite like an oxo cube. Weed is the leaves of the cannabis plant, but dried. As they're leaves, it's green.

strobe

Richard Cranium wrote: »

And no. I shouldn't be allowed to race in a rally, go rock climbing, surf huge waves, sky dive or box- not at the moment anyway. I don't know how to do any of those things and without the guidance and supervision of an expert I might kill myself or someone else. That would be bad, don't you agree?

I do agree. That would be bad. People that take drugs should learn how to take them in a way that limits the dangers aswell.

If, however, I did know how to safely do those things then of course I should be allowed. Similarly, if a certain drug is shown to be safe when used responsibly then it should be sold in a regulated way to people who can use it responsibly. Cannabis has side effects that don't justify the benefits, as do many if not all of the other illegal drugs. They aren't banned for the craic, like.

That's a little mixed up. Boxing has never been shown to be safe. It is a dangerous thing to do and will always remain so. Boxing has "possible" side effects that "some people would argue" don't justify the benefits, as do many, if not all "potentially" dangerous activities. Lot's of people don't want to ban boxing for the craic, like.

strobe

Bobalicious93 wrote: »

Hang on, there's a difference between 'hash' and 'weed'?

I was under the impression they were the same thing..

Pygmalion wrote: »

Same plant, but different parts of it, or prepared differently or something.

Jay P wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what Hash is, but it's something to do with the root of the cannabis plant. It's generally brown, and looks quite like an oxo cube. Weed is the leaves of the cannabis plant, but dried. As they're leaves, it's green.

Hash is cannabis resin. The buds on the plant produce a sticky resin that prevents them from drying out. Hash is this resin collected and allowed to solidify. That is what hash is supposed to be but some of the hash that you would buy in the street is also mixed with other crap to bulk it out.

Weed is herbal canabis. It is the buds that grow on the plant, the ones that produce the resin collected and allowed to dry out so they can be smoked.

Fad

Jay P wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what Hash is, but it's something to do with the root of the cannabis plant. It's generally brown, and looks quite like an oxo cube. Weed is the leaves of the cannabis plant, but dried. As they're leaves, it's green.

Hash is Cannabis Resin, made from the leaves (Nowt to do with the roots), weed is just the dried leaves.

Hash is more concentrated than regular weed.

Edit: Strobe wins!

Konata

As I was growing up, I always promised myself I'd never touch drugs. However, that didn't really last very long and I got rather self - destructive I smoked hash for the first time when I was 17 and proceeded to take it 3 or 4 more times before I realised it was doing nothing to me and was wasting my time. Whilst in Amsterdam last Summer, I tried one of their infamous space cakes - fúcking scary experience. I had terrible pains in my chest afterwards, but took half a hash brownie the next day. More chest pains - scared the shít out of me and I swore away from cannabis of all and every type. I've also abused prescription drugs a fair bit and taken LSD once.

I am not, in any way, proud of any drugs I've taken and none of them were worth it either. I've been tempted to try coke and heroin at one point, purely for the self destruction factor though. Luckily, I've gained a bit of cop in the last few months and I don't plan on touching any more drugs in the future.

Fad wrote: »

If people are supplied PURE drugs and are told what dosage levels to follow, everything would probably be much safer. If people ignore those levels, that's their call.

This is my opinion exactly. Take alcohol for example - we're constantly fed information about how many standard drinks is healthy for us, what's considered a binge, the risks of excessive drinking etc. It's down to the individual themselves to make a decision on how much to drink based on all this information. If they drink responsibly - great! If not, then they can suffer the consequences and have no one to blame but themselves.

I believe it should be the same for drugs. If people still choose to abuse them, that's their fault. It would get rid of a lot of crime in this country.

There is, however, one drug which I don't believe should ever be legalised and this is heroin. I've spent a lot of time researching heroin and it is the most addictive of all drugs - most users are addicted from their first use. Heroin will never be a safe drug to have in society - it's too much to expect people to be able to not abuse it.

Richard Cranium

Richard Cranium wrote: »

Blah blah blah... They aren't banned for the craic, like.

God I'm crap at trying to explain myself! What I was trying to say was that I'm inclined to trust the doctors and all the other experts in the field, who know just what these drugs do to the human body. If they are of the opinion that a certain drug is too dangerous to be legal, then I'll trust their educated conclusion on that matter. I'm sure most doctors will say that, physically and mentally, it will be okay to give your 16 year old son a glass of wine with his dinner the odd time. They'll also say that giving your 16 year old son unrestricted access to alcohol will put him, and his still-developing liver in particular, at risk of serious health problems in the short and long term.
Most doctors I've heard talk about illegal drugs say that they are dangerous and really shouldn't be messed with. Smoking a joint or two won't be the end of the world, but really you should probably just leave them alone. Personally, I'm not going to second guess the experts.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Richard Cranium wrote: »

On the flip side of that, it can and should be argued that it is wrong and immoral (or just plain selfish) to drink, smoke or eat yourself to death for a number of reasons. It's not a victimless non-crime.

Yup, I'd agree it's equally as immoral to drink smoke or eat yourself to death as it is to drug yourself to death. I do not agree that it's equally immoral to smoke a couple of joints a month or occasionally enjoy some stronger recreational drugs, and I would like to see this reflected in the law.

Drug use/abuse is dangerous and does do serious harm to people a lot of the time. Not just physically either, it seriously messes with people's heads. As far as I know there is a proven link between cannabis (or whatever you want to call it) and psychosis, and in a country that already has such an obscenely high suicide rate (not to mention awful mental health services), decriminalisation would be completely illogical and indefensible.

As far as I recall, cannabis can exacerbate symptoms in those already pre-disposed to phsychosis, which when you look at the number of people who smoke and the number of people with that pre-disposition works out at less than half a percent of the population. Maybe all the revenue from taxing it could go towards improving our woeful mental health services, and maybe if people weren't afraid of being treated like criminals they'd be more likely to admit to smoking if they were asked by a mental health professional, or to present in the first place. Also the double standard comes up again, with suicide rates and mental health services in such a sorry state, why is not illogical and indefensible to have alcohol legal? A psychiatrist I know says that in cases of attempted suicide she's dealt with, abuse of spirits comes up almost half the time as a contributing factor (not saying we should criminalise alcohol, just pointing it out).

Have I got the right to drive my car like a lunatic and then crash and kill myself in front of all my family and friends? I don't think so.
Should I have that right? Almost certainly not.

You probably do actually, don't though

Ginja Ninja

Hugh Shy Gumbo wrote: »

You probably do actually, don't though

You don't actually[someone with a better connection can google this if you want] but as far as I know Suicide is illegal in Ireland.I can't see how you can arrest someone for it[what with them dying and all] but hypothetically charges could be brought against someone who attempted to kill themselvs[no judge would prosecute it,but it's in the law]


oh and drugs are bad kids,mmmmmkay? People make drugs dangerous

Pygmalion

Ginja Ninja wrote: »

You don't actually[someone with a better connection can google this if you want] but as far as I know Suicide is illegal in Ireland.I can't see how you can arrest someone for it[what with them dying and all] but hypothetically charges could be brought against someone who attempted to kill themselvs[no judge would prosecute it,but it's in the law]

It was illegal until 1993 with the aptly-titled "CRIMINAL LAW (SUICIDE) ACT" stating that it was no longer a crime.
But

A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be guilty of an offence

I wouldn't be surprised if someone were to blame a headshop/dealer for aiding suicide if someone decided to kill themselves while on drugs.
Obviously it'd be absurd if someone blamed a pub owner for the same thing, but I think it's fairly obvious that Alcohol will always enjoy special treatment over any other drugs, regardless of the facts of the case.

phlegms

Love weed, much prefer it to alcohol. Never had a bad experience smoking weed but I've had multiple messy experiences with alcohol. If I could go into a pub and get a spliff instead of a pint that would be great.

Ginja Ninja

phlegms wrote: »

Love weed, much prefer it to alcohol. Never had a bad experience smoking weed but I've had multiple messy experiences with alcohol. If I could go into a pub and get a spliff instead of a pint that would be great.

I'd somewhat agree,weed for all the long term effects doesn't have as high an odds as turning people ito douchebags as alchohol does.I've seen/heard of a lot of people doing a lot of nasty things when they drink after a bad mood,but never about people who got stoned

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Ginja Ninja wrote: »

I'd somewhat agree,weed for all the long term effects doesn't have as high an odds as turning people ito douchebags as alchohol does.I've seen/heard of a lot of people doing a lot of nasty things when they drink after a bad mood,but never about people who got stoned

http://www.lamebook.com/gabes-first-day-on-the-job

Arcade Panda

phlegms wrote: »

Love weed, much prefer it to alcohol. Never had a bad experience smoking weed but I've had multiple messy experiences with alcohol. If I could go into a pub and get a spliff instead of a pint that would be great.

Weed just tends to give me a happy really....not that I'm doing it every weekend but when I do have a spliff I tend to really enjoy it.

Everything is ok in moderation.

I know I've posted here about my friend who has a little bit of a drug problem. She started on weed, moved on to pills and now she does acid pretty regularly. She's lost a ton of weight and we really have **** all in common anymore. So although weed is fairly harmless it tends to be the stepping block for much harder drugs for some people.

Extrasupervery

Fad wrote: »

We'd only try non-Irish E, Acid and Mary Jane!

I remember now! We did. There was high-fiving.

EuropeanSon

Had weed once, was great craic, but I wouldn't be into having it regularly. Once in a blue moon is OK though.

I'd try them but I don't think I dunno if I'd take them after that. I'd be curious enough to do it once, but I'll stick to alcohol after that.
At least I know what I'm getting with alcohol.

sock puppet

Richard Cranium wrote: »

Suicide is a completely different issue. I wasn't asking if I had the right to deliberately kill myself, more whether it was morally acceptable to allow someone do something like that. I don't think it is.
Drugs can directly endanger other people though- coke makes people aggressive, other drugs make people paranoid and liable to attack others. It does happen, even though I haven't done a great job of elucidating. You know what I mean I hope...

I'm not sure if the extra tax paid by drinkers and smokers completely covers the cost of treatment though. Maybe one of the medical people here could tell me how much it costs the state to provide chemo or an organ transplant for someone. I'd be very surprised if the extra taxes on cigarettes and alcohol covered it completely though.


EDIT: I do think alcohol should be legal. I do drink, I do get drunk, and occassionally I get completely irresponsibly shít-faced. For the most part though, I'm responsible. I don't believe I'm doing any serious damage to my own body (I know this sounds a bit naive after what I've just said but I mean it- the vast majority of the time I don't drink heavily at all, nor do I drink very frequently), and I certainly don't ever put anyone else in danger.
But I digress. There is such a thing as a responsible level of drinking, and it does have health benefits (a glass of red wine a day is good, or something, I dunno exactly.) More importantly than that, we know the risks and the benefits of alcohol, and it is regulated. Possibly a good answer to the question you asked is that I support a lot of the restriction on sales of alcohol (but again that's a discussion for another day). Everyone should know exactly how dangerous it can be, but also they should have allowed to drink.

Does that make me a hypocrite? Possibly.

Someone told me (with no real evidence) that smokers don't really cost that much more. They'll die younger on average meaning they won't be a drain on resources like their healthier counterparts. Also consider that if you live long enough, smoker or non-smoker your chances of getting cancer are very high.

As for the impact it has on others around you, people have the right to associate with who they wish. Most people eventually just give up and cut ties with drug abusers. The only people they should be responsible to are their kids, and there are other ways to deal with that.

I used to like the head shop coke substitutes. I've heard it's about as addictive though. Apparently the new head shop drugs give awful come downs so I'll probably stay away.

Davidius

Pygmalion wrote: »

To be fair, that's usually given as a pretty good reason for legalisation, when people do buy drugs it'll be going towards the state and not criminals.

Whatever about it being a reason for legalisation, it just doesn't sit right with me when people try to make it out to be the government's fault criminals are in business while they themselves go out and buy illegal drugs. It's not like they need those drugs so it just seems fairly selfish of them.