Why Is Marijuana Illegal?

Belfast

Gurgle wrote: »

Of course they do, if mj was legalized they could spend more of their time and resources dealing with actual criminals.

There's a reason why the gardai will confiscate it and throw it away (or possibly smoke it) without making a big deal about it. Its because they are better trained, streetwise, more experienced and just generally smarter than the muppets who write the laws.

I thought they were too lazy to do the paper work to make the arrest.

Seachmall

happyman81 wrote: »

For example, I find it very hard to believe that no one has ever smoked MJ and killed themselves while driving, because of the effects of MJ.

It's common sense to believe that a drug that impairs your reaction speeds and attention could possibly lead to such an accident.

People can crash their cars due to fatigue after playing soccer.

"Soccer" isn't listed as their cause of death.

DyldeBrill

nacimroc wrote: »

I was addicted to it for years! It completely Kills all ambition, mental ability dies, and it causes mental issues such as panic attacks! This is blatently obvious from anyone who knows a few stoners. After a few years, they will get mad chest pains, or start getting panic attacks. Thats the point when most people give it up which is why you don't see too many long term users (10+ years)!

As regards the netherlands, well ask anyone from there and they will explain how the whole thing was a complete disaster other than a bit of tourism.

Oh, and some people call it "dope" for a reason!

It all depends what type of person you are.Some people just aren't suited to it and cannot handle it, whilst other can function perfectly fine and go about their daily routine.I find it enhances my creative thinking.

DyldeBrill

Belfast wrote: »

Cannabis tends to alter you perception of time. It does impair you but make you think you are driving very fast when you are driving slow.

Any accidents tend to be at a slow speeds.

not a good Idea to take drugs and drive.

I wonder how many people crashed when using prescription drugs like Valium or over the counter cough mixture.

TBH I wouldn't even call cannabis a drug, it shouldn't be in that class.Its a completely natural thing.

Daroxtar

DyldeBrill wrote: »

TBH I wouldn't even call cannabis a drug, it shouldn't be in that class.Its a completely natural thing.

Exactly, just like opium and mescaline;)

DyldeBrill

just like opium

Belfast

DyldeBrill wrote: »

TBH I wouldn't even call cannabis a drug, it shouldn't be in that class.Its a completely natural thing.

a great many Drugs are made for plants and natural things can still kill you.

LH Pathe

be more aware with that 'natural' thing. Obviously there's lots of other plants as drugs are erm.. decidedly more potent.

Like hops

Shield

Haven't read the thread at all because I want to give an answer to it from a police point of view.

In my experience, whenever I have arrested someone who has it in their possession OR have taken it, they rarely resist arrest, are very usually cooperative people who say they use it to help them wind down after a busy day/week. I have never arrested someone who has smoked and is disorderly.

In my experience, whenever I have confiscated open bottles/cans of alcohol being consumed in a public place, or have arrested people for being drunk in a public place, I am met with resistance, verbal abuse, violence, spitting and so on. They usually tell us (in a variety of different ways) at one point or another, that they were just having a few drinks to help them wind down after a busy day/week. I don't ever recall arresting someone who is disorderly who I couldn't talk down and send on their way, unless that person has consumed alcohol, who then become aggressive, is impossible to reason with, and end up in the cells for the night.

Again, that's just the experience of a police officer, talking specifically about weed.

Doc

I believe the restricted production of hemp should be allowed for industrial purposes.
I believe that medical marihuana should be available under prescription as long as it passes the same restrictions any other medically prescribed drug would have to pass.
But I do not believe that marijuana should be legalized and available to the general public for recreational us.
True some of the original reasons behind why it was first criminalized may have been erroneous but unlike alcohol or tobacco (which is steadily becoming closer to being illegal) which many people compare it to, it is currently illegal. Through my own research into the subject I would not advise anyone to smoke marihuana. I base this on my own personal experiences and the research I have done have which has led me to believe that there is a strong connection between it and increased risk of certain types of mental illness and also the triggering of episodes in people who suffer from the same types of illness. I know that people will argue that there is conflicting research regarding marijuana and mental health and that the fact that it is illegal makes most research into it incredibly difficult but from what I have read people I have spoken to and experiences I have had I have formed my opinion. I also am aware that there are many people who enjoy it and do not suffer the particular side effects that would my major concern (I would also have concerns regarding Damage to DNA and that it may Cause Cancer particularly when smoked)
.
The pro legalization people often think that everyone who is against legalization are just conformists sheep who will go along with whatever they are told and think that all smokers are unproductive idiots I find that insulting and most of my friends have or do on occasion smoked and I do not consider them fools. I do think that they gloss over any potential harm they might be doing to themselves for the immediate gratification they receive. While I agree that there are harmful legal substances I don’t think we should potentially add another to the list.

Mike 1972

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It could be grown out the back garden. The state would not be able to tax it.

Alcohol can be brewed at home but how many people bother their @r$€;

This "its illegal because it cannot be taxed" stuff is pure shyte.

DyldeBrill wrote: »

TBH I wouldn't even call cannabis a drug, it shouldn't be in that class.Its a completely natural thing.

It is a drug.

Thats not to say it shouldnt be legal but lets not delude ourselves.

mikom

Doc wrote: »

I would also have concerns regarding Damage to DNA and that it may Cause Cancer particularly when smoked)
.

Potential... May... Could... are the main words used in the study I believe you are alluding to.

Funded study shows that cannabis can damage DNA
6/17/09|Cordis News| News

Researchers in the UK have found evidence that smoking cannabis can damage human DNA in ways that could potentially increase the risk of developing cancer. The findings, published in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, are an outcome of the ECNIS ('Environmental cancer risk, nutrition and individual susceptibility') Network of Excellence, which was funded with EUR 11 million under the 'Food Quality and Safety' Thematic area of the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) to study how diet and hereditary factors can influence environmental cancer risk.

The study used a new technique of highly sensitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry to look at the formation of a cancer-causing compound in calf thymus DNA that had been exposed to cannabis cigarette smoke in vitro. Their findings indicated that cannabis does damage DNA under laboratory conditions.

The positive and negative effects of using cannabis have been hotly debated for decades. Smoked for relaxation by people all over the world and used in both Chinese and Indian traditional medicine, the use of cannabis dates back centuries and is has been a part of many ancient cultures.

'Parts of the plant Cannabis sativa, also known as marijuana, ganja, and by various street names, are commonly smoked as a recreational drug, although its use for such purposes is illegal in many countries,' explained Dr Rajinder Singh of the University of Leicester, who led the study.

'There have been many studies on the toxicity of tobacco smoke,' he added. 'It is known that tobacco smoke contains 4,000 chemicals of which 60 are classed as carcinogens. Cannabis, in contrast, has not been so well studied. It is less combustible than tobacco and is often mixed with tobacco in use. Cannabis smoke contains 400 compounds, including 60 cannabinoids. However, because of its lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.'

It is known that toxic substances in tobacco can lead to lung and other cancers and damage DNA, but the link with cannabis smoking was not clarified. The study focused on the toxic substance acetaldehyde, which is found in both tobacco and cannabis.

The ability of cannabis smoke to damage DNA has serious implications for human health. Another concern is that cannabis smokers tend to inhale the smoke more deeply than tobacco smokers, which increases toxic overload in the respiratory system. 'The smoking of three to four cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day,' the researchers said.

'These results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke, implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development,' the study reads. 'The data obtained from this study suggesting the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke highlight the need for the stringent regulation of the consumption of cannabis cigarettes, thus limiting the development of adverse health consequences such as cancer,' the authors conclude.

The study was also an outcome of the NewGeneris ('Development and application of biomarkers of dietary exposure to genotoxic and immunotoxic chemicals and of biomarkers of early effects, using mother-child birth cohorts and biobanks') project, funded with EUR 13.6 million under FP6 to study the effects of maternal exposure to dietary compounds with carcinogenic and immunotoxic properties during pregnancy on cancer and other disease risks in the child.

Smoke can cause cancer......... true.
Time to introduce your friends to Low-Temperature vaporisation.

Also three to four cannabis joints a day?........... too much.
Moderation.

don ramo

dont drive when your in any way intoxicated by anything, simple as that, dont be an asshole,

never smoked it myself, but its more or less fact that hash is harmless when used recreationally, obviously long term abuse has affects, just like many legal intoxicants,

also most strong prescription medication should clearly state not to use heavy machinery when taking them, that to me anyway would mean unless you can pick your car up off the ground dont drive,

Mike 1972

Doc wrote: »

True some of the original reasons behind why it was first criminalized may have been erroneous but unlike alcohol or tobacco (which is steadily becoming closer to being illegal) which many people compare it to, it is currently illegal..

So the main reason why it should be illegal is -er because its illegal

Doc

mikom wrote: »

Potential... May... Could... are the main words used in the study I believe you are alluding to.

If that is about the study by University of Leicester on the subject regarding the effect on DNA then I have read it but I believe that I did say that due to the fact that it is illegal most research into the effects of cannabis use are incredibly difficult I am aware that most studies into the subject are largely inconclusive and it was never my intention to make out otherwise only to highlight what my concerns were regarding the use of marijuana.

Doc

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So the main reason why it should be illegal is -er because its illegal

What?

I didn’t think I would have to clarify this but my point is that just because some of the original reasons why it was made illegal may have been wrong it dose not mean that there are no reasons that exist why it should remain illegal.

Doc

mikom wrote: »

Potential... May... Could... are the main words used in the study I believe you are alluding to.



Smoke can cause cancer......... true.
Time to introduce your friends to Low-Temperature vaporisation.

Also three to four cannabis joints a day?........... too much.
Moderation.

Your a very difficult man to quote mikom with your edits both ninja and less ninja.:D

I know many people who used to smoke this much its not that odd true its not behaving in moderation but the point was that 3 to 4 joints caused the equivalent damage as 20 tobacco cigarettes a day. I don’t know if you could scale that down and say 1 or 2 was equivalent to 10 tobacco cigarettes a day or not but you get the point.

mikom

Doc wrote: »

Your a very difficult man to quote mikom with your edits both ninja and less ninja.:D

I know many people who used to smoke this much its not that odd true its not behaving in moderation but the point was that 3 to 4 joints caused the equivalent damage as 20 tobacco cigarettes a day. I don’t know if you could scale that down and say 1 or 2 was equivalent to 10 tobacco cigarettes a day or not but you get the point.

How about vaporise it instead and scale it down to the equivalent to 0 tobacco cigarettes a day.

Doc

mikom wrote: »

How about vaporise it instead and scale it down to the equivalent to 0 tobacco cigarettes a day.

I don’t know if it would to be honest I don’t know how much of the damage is done by the actual burning or not. I’m not sure if the same damage would still be done as I’m assuming that some of the chemicals that cause the damage would still be getting into the lungs through vaporization?

mikom

Doc wrote: »

I don’t know if it would to be honest I don’t know how much of the damage is done by the actual burning or not. I’m not sure if the same damage would still be done as I’m assuming that some of the chemicals that cause the damage would still be getting into the lungs through vaporization?

Vaporization heats cannabis to a temperature where active cannabinoid vapors form (typically around 180-190 degrees Celsius), but below the point of combustion where noxious smoke and associated toxins (i.e., carcinogenic hydrocarbons) are produced (above 230 degrees Celsius).

Read more here... http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizerAbramsstudy.html

Chuck Stone

MagicSean wrote: »

That's my point. Chuck believes that they would have an interest in keeping it illegal for money/power. I think they wouldn't care if it was legalised.

Let's say Ireland spends 50 million a year on enforcing drug laws. Well that's 50m going from tax-payers pockets to other pockets. That's 50m worth of incentive to sustain prohibition.

This is self evident.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Alcohol can be brewed at home but how many people bother their @r$€;

Not many because by and large the free market has driven down the cost of alcohol to a point where home brewing is merely a hobby. The one area where a black market in alcohol has been sustained is the one drink that has been banned - poitín.

This "its illegal because it cannot be taxed" stuff is pure shyte.

Not entirely. Alcohol and cigs can be taxed so there is an incentive for the state to not prohibit their sales.

Marijuana is something people could grow in a small poly tunnel out the back garden with little expertise, ergo, there is no tax incentive for the state to legalise it.

Doc

mikom wrote: »

Read more here... http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizerAbramsstudy.html

Had a read of that thanks, it dose suggest that the safety of cannabis in relation to respiratory diseases can increase with the use of a vaporizer. Regular users of joints, blunts, pipes, and water pipes might decrease respiratory symptoms by switching to a vaporizer. It dose use the wording might and decrease, and of course decrease is not the same as stop, so I would assume that there is still some lung damage done but much less then if smoked.

MagicSean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Let's say Ireland spends 50 million a year on enforcing drug laws. Well that's 50m going from tax-payers pockets to other pockets. That's 50m worth of incentive to sustain prohibition.

This is self evident.



Not many because by and large the free market has driven down the cost of alcohol to a point where home brewing is merely a hobby. The one area where a black market in alcohol has been sustained is the one drink that has been banned - poitín.



Not entirely. Alcohol and cigs can be taxed so there is an incentive for the state to not prohibit their sales.

Marijuana is something people could grow in a small poly tunnel out the back garden with little expertise, ergo, there is no tax incentive for the state to legalise it.

I presume 50m is a number you chose randomly for dramatic effect. Gardai and prisoners work anyway. The only gardai who target cannabis dealers specifically are the drugs units. Their job wouldn't change. They would still go after the illegal dealers if it was regulated. Either way they wouldn't make or lose money because of it. The courts don't spend any extra money on it because they sit anyway. The only people that might lose out are criminal law solicitors, and simple possession cases aren't really money makers for them. The only people who would lose big money would be dealers.

Fago!

Belfast wrote: »

I thought they were too lazy to do the paper work to make the arrest.

That's pretty much it. A Garda told me a while ago that they don't bother proper arresting people they catch with weed or hash, because it is far too much hassle for them (and courts) to deal with for such a small offense. That's only for personal use though. Obviously if there's enough found on you that you could sell they'll go all the way.

MagicSean

Fago! wrote: »

That's pretty much it. A Garda told me a while ago that they don't bother proper arresting people they catch with weed or hash, because it is far too much hassle for them (and courts) to deal with for such a small offense. That's only for personal use though. Obviously if there's enough found on you that you could sell they'll go all the way.

You wouldn't arrest someone for simple possession anyway. It's done by summons.

lcrcboy

I hate to say this but if that Mitt Romney guy gets into power, you will never see marijuana being legalised, the guy does not even drink coffe because it's against his religion. Ireland will never even consider legalising it untill the USA and the UK do it first, and that goes the same for most countries they are all to afraid to step out of line with the Yanks.

California had a vote on it only a short time ago and it was shot down, but as the op has said there will be a referendum soon. If it eventually becomes legalised I hope to god the Tobacco companies dont get their hands on it and pump it full of chemicals such as nicotine, it would destory all the effort of legalising it.

mikom

lcrcboy wrote: »

I hate to say this but if that Mitt Romney guy gets into power, you will never see marijuana being legalised, the guy does not even drink coffe because it's against his religion.

Yep, I presume you have all seen this from the cold bastard.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YibZf7G3wjs

Here's hoping he doesn't get in, for this and many other issues.

Chuck Stone

MagicSean wrote: »

I presume 50m is a number you chose randomly for dramatic effect.

Dramatic effect?. I chose 50 million as a conservative guess actually. I don't think there are any figures. less than €1 million a week for policing, courts, prisons, customs etc doesn't seem like a wild estimate.

In the UK it cost 50m to police and prosecute for cannabis alone 12 years ago and that was just police time.

The financial costs of policing cannabis amount to at least £50 million a year (including sentencing costs), and absorb the equivalent of 500 full-time police officers.

For all prohibition activity (police, courts, prison) in this state 12 years later I'd imagine 50m isn't far off.

Gardai and prisoners work anyway.

Wtf are you on about? If drugs were legalised they'd still be out looking for dealers and drug users?

The only gardai who target cannabis dealers specifically are the drugs units. Their job wouldn't change. They would still go after the illegal dealers if it was regulated.

If drugs were legalised there wouldn't be any drug units. There wouldn't be any stop and search. There wouldn't be any criminal dealers and users.

The courts don't spend any extra money on it because they sit anyway.

This is a serious lapse in logic. Because they sit anyway? What does that even mean? There'd be less demand on the courts if drugs were legalised so that part of the cost would be removed.

The only people that might lose out are criminal law solicitors, and simple possession cases aren't really money makers for them.

The entire legal apparatus would cost a lot less and would be much leaner so there'd be less need for policing, criminal law people, prison places and associated staffing, probation officers and customs officials when it came to illegal drugs.

The only people who would lose big money would be dealers.

They'd be hit the hardest for sure - probably the best reason to legalise. Take it out of the hands of scumbags.

Edit:

It has been postulated that the UK would save £10Bn a year if it legalised drugs. If we have approx 8% of their population then 8% of 10Bn is £800 million!

About €1 Billion a year here if we extrapolate their stats?

I'm terrible at maths so this might be totally wrong.

MagicSean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Dramatic effect?. I chose 50 million as a conservative guess actually. I don't think there are any figures. less than €1 million a week for policing, courts, prisons, customs etc doesn't seem like a wild estimate.

In the UK it cost 50m to police and prosecute for cannabis alone 12 years ago and that was just police time.



For all prohibition activity (police, courts, prison) in this state 12 years later I'd imagine 50m isn't far off.



Wtf are you on about? If drugs were legalised they'd still be out looking for dealers and drug users?



If drugs were legalised there wouldn't be any drug units. There wouldn't be any stop and search. There wouldn't be any criminal dealers and users.



This is a serious lapse in logic. Because they sit anyway? What does that even mean? There'd be less demand on the courts if drugs were legalised so that part of the cost would be removed.



The entire legal apparatus would cost a lot less and would be much leaner so there'd be less need for policing, criminal law people, prison places and associated staffing, probation officers and customs officials when it came to illegal drugs.



They'd be hit the hardest for sure - probably the best reason to legalise. Take it out of the hands of scumbags.

Edit:

It has been postulated that the UK would save £10Bn a year if it legalised drugs. If we have approx 8% of their population then 8% of 10Bn is £800 million!

About €1 Billion a year here if we extrapolate their stats?

I'm terrible at maths so this might be totally wrong.

I can see the problem here. You are talkin about completely decriminalising all drugs. i am talking solely about decriminalising simple posession of cannabis and regulating the production and supply above a certain amount.

Chuck Stone

MagicSean wrote: »

I can see the problem here. You are talkin about completely decriminalising all drugs. i am talking solely about decriminalising simple posession of cannabis and regulating the production and supply above a certain amount.

Yeah. My bad.

Still though, if the cost of drug prohibition was ~€1bn a year it doesn't seem unreasonable that marijuana/cannabis portion would come in at around €50m (or thereabouts).