Legalize Cannabis Ireland

choons

The only negative point I have come across is that it may be harder to prevent drug driving.

Is there a method of on the spot detection similar to breath testing for alcohol?

Gbear

choons wrote: »

The only negative point I have come across is that it may be harder to prevent drug driving.

Is there a method of on the spot detection similar to breath testing for alcohol?

That's a problem we have to tackle whether cannabis is legal or not.

I'm not sure what equipment the gards have for testing for drug driving but it doesn't require magic. It's an engineering problem. Engineering problems get fixed.

dttq

scamalert wrote: »

because maybe your head is to cloudy to process what i wrote :rolleyes:

Actually, if anything I'd say it only heightens one's senses toward seeing how some posts are nothing more than pure unadulterated BS.

The only heads that are clouded are those that cannot see through all of the pro-prohibition and reefer madness nonsense. Maybe you should spend some time with a few smokers, and I can guarantee you that you won't be long losing your immature cartoonish image of cannabis smokers.

The One Who Knocks

dttq wrote: »

Actually, if anything I'd say it only heightens one's senses toward seeing how some posts are nothing more than pure unadulterated BS.

The only heads that are clouded are those that cannot see through all of the pro-prohibition and reefer madness nonsense. Maybe you should spend some time with a few smokers, and I can guarantee you that you won't be long losing your immature cartoonish image of cannabis smokers.

Please, you can't really justify smoking that crap for recreational use,

Prescribed medically -> Yes
Recreation -> No

dttq

Jamez735 wrote: »

Please, you can't really justify smoking that crap for recreational use,

Why should anybody have to justify anything? It's none of your or the government's business what I do in my spare time, providing I'm not harming anyone else.

Prescribed medically -> Yes
Recreation -> Yes

FYP

The One Who Knocks

dttq wrote: »

Why should anybody have to justify anything? It's none of your or the government's business what I do in my spare time, providing I'm not harming anyone else.

That's fine, just please don't encourage others do to it.
I really don't mind what you do in your own time, but it's not right to tell people "it has advantages" "improves concentration" etc. etc. when really the negative effects outweigh the positives

dttq

Jamez735 wrote: »

That's fine, just please don't encourage others do to it.

I don't encourage anyone to use, honestly I couldn't give a flying f!ck who uses it or not.

I really don't mind what you do in your own time,

Fair enough.

but it's not right to tell people "it has advantages" "improves concentration" etc. etc.

It's subjective, for some maybe it doesn't do much for their concentration - but for many it helps them concentrate. And yes, it does have advantages, particularly when it comes to creativity, relaxation, enjoying music etc.

when really the negative effects outweigh the positives

Proof please.

The Snipe

Jamez, four questions, whats your argument against it? And what harm does it do? Do you drink? Do you have a penis?

Chuck Stone

Jamez735 wrote: »

That's fine, just please don't encourage others do to it

You have much more to be worried about with alcohol as regards encouraging people to use it.

I stopped drinking (the only drug I use) for a few months and was astonished by the amount of alcohol 'pushing' ads on TV.

Sports advertising is thoroughly drenched in alcohol advertising

The Clown Man

Oh god, here we go again. It might be the height of ignorance to quote yourself but everything I posted before in the other thread is still true. So here is my input, again:


Cannabis can cause or exasperate psychosis:
This is proven true for anyone 18 or under. It is not proven for anyone over 18 and in fact, the vast majority of research condemning cannabis also finds that it is almost entirely harmless for anyone over 18. Just one example of this found in under 10 secs. So by that logic the priority should be to ensure that cannabis is not available to those under 18, first and foremost.

Also, while the argument is being made that THC has the above effects, the question of CBD, the other prevalent substance in cannabis has been ignored. CBD's anti-psychotic effects are now well known and in a regulated market, the THC/CBD content should be clear. Take Sativex, the UK's fully legal cannabis tincture for treatment of MS, where clinical trials by GW Pharma found that the safest balance is around 50/50 for the negation of psychotic side effects to the satisfaction of the medical regulation bodies. The problem at the moment is that criminal cultivators want to up the levels of THC at the expense of the CBD balance purely for the "high".

So leaving the broad cultivation and distribution of cannabis to drug dealers supplied by criminal gangs is about the worst approach you can possibly take. Arguing that alcohol and tobacco is available to kids is assuming that the sale of cannabis should follow the same fatally flawed sales and marketing approach and is misleading. No-one will argue that there should be cannabis machines in pubs or that it should be as easily accessible as alcohol, our nations favourite drug. These two drugs should never be so readily available but unfortunately they are too ingrained in society to easily stop. But there has to be a better way than leaving the sale of cannabis to the black market alone.

Cannabis causes laziness:
Only claimed by those who don't smoke it. In fact, the association is backwards. People who are lazy tend to choose it as their drug of choice because it is easy to source, cheap, and it is most enjoyable in the confines of your own home, meaning it plays right into their desired lifestyle. It could be argued that it is used as an excuse to absolve a person of responsibility, but that's something that alcohol has been doing far more harmfully for a long, long time. Many, many more people enjoy it who are gainfully employed at all levels and who don't use it as a means to opt out of life, rather as a way to "wind down" without all of the negative effects of alcohol.

We should not be encouraging more drugs to flood the market:
Wait, humans have been taking drugs since the dawn of time. Sure they are not physically beneficial and sure they have their negatives, but if that is the case why has drug use been so prevalent always? It's a little more difficult to quantify the positive psychological effects of drug use, and much more controversial, but one thing is for certain; humans have been drawn to drugs as long as humans have been around and there must be a reason. I know I enjoy a drink to wind down at the weekends, even if only for a few hours, and I truly feel that this helps me feel relaxed and ready for the next work week. I'm clearly not alone here. However, if I could achieve the same feeling of freedom from stress with something less harmful, should it not at least be an option? Why am I being driven towards consuming alcohol rather than lighter, less harmful alternatives? I'm pretty sure that alcohol abuse would be severely diminished if cannabis were introduced resulting in a net benefit for society. In fact, a quick search shows that this is not just my own opinion.

We shouldn't be looking to tax misery.
We already do. We tax everything, and substance abuse is right up there with alcohol and tobacco. In fact, it's an easy target when looking to increase tax. The drug trade is absolutely enormous, mainly because it is illegal. The fruits of this trade go directly to criminal organisations. People are going to pay for it, even if it is illegal so why not control where the money goes and take a share for the country? Everyone pays their tax on purchases, except drugs. Anyway, arguing against taxing and regulating drugs is essentially arguing for criminal financing on a gargantuan scale. It's ridiculous.


Look, it is pointless to argue the merits of drugs and equally pointless to argue the negative effects of drugs, but if you step down from whatever pedestal you are standing on and look at the big picture, the way drugs are handled in society today is so acutely misguided it's baffling. This "war on drugs" over in the States only served to boost and evolve criminals. What we are seeing now is common sense prevailing in Washington and Colorado. Hopefully we'll see these models work and the rest of the world will cop on. Someday we'll look back on the drugs prohibition in the same way we look at the alcohol prohibition. I'm personally looking forward to the fall of the drug gangs and the violence that goes along.

Oh, and I don't smoke weed. I have before but I'm not a "casual user" and I would never, ever buy it. I probably would if it was not financing crime.

---

Codine is regulated in pharmacies by the pharmacist asking a few questions before deciding whether to sell it to the purchaser. It's an opiad used as a painkiller. Neurafen plus and solpadine contain it. If we can sell an opiad legally in a controlled way, surely we can sell cannabis.

People do get addicted to codine sold over the counter but in our collective wisdom somehow it is less of a worry than the far less addictive cannabis.

---

It was mentioned earlier on that Egypt and Turkey added Hashish to the list of banned substances at the League of Nations conference on the illegalisation of opium, but, what was not mentioned was that opposing parties in both countries were widely associated with hashish. Therefore, the reason cannabis was banned in Europe was down to political gamesmanship.

In the US it was down to the fact that hemp products were seen as an industry killer for the paper and cotton industries. Both of which were booming at the time thanks to the introduction of mass production. The leader of the push to illegalise was a journalist who was heavily invested in the paper industry. I can't be arsed finding a link at this time, but it's all there, look it up.

Also, the unfortunate fact is that the Joe Duffy brigade still hold the majority in our country. If a referendum were to take place tomorrow, is would not succeed. Too many hold misinformed, herd mentality opinions over reason and logic. "Oh them drugs, aren't they just terrible? Poor Eileen's little Jimmy died injecting pot, don't ya know?" "Drugs, for shame!"

I wish we could claim to be a thoughtful and progressive people but we all know how far we are away from that.

geetar

Jamez735 wrote: »

That's fine, just please don't encourage others do to it.
I really don't mind what you do in your own time, but it's not right to tell people "it has advantages" "improves concentration" etc. etc. when really the negative effects outweigh the positives

could you list some negatives? i cant think of any

there are none of the health concerns associated with cigarettes such as bronchitus and lung cancer.

it is non addictive, only habitual and as addictive as pizza and video games.

so what are your negatives?

if its to do with use with adolescents, legalization would have age restrictions, just like alcohol. and yes, like alcohol, there will be underage users, BUT i believe much less then who currently do, mainly because usually those who deal buy in bulk and sell to make profit/break even. without any incentive to sell worse quality product for a greater cost, the black market would collapse due to it being inferior than the legal alternative.

if it's because you consider it a gateway drug, you are misinformed.

the reason why cannabis is considered a gateway drug is because people create relationships with dealers who can provide more substances. withh full legalization dealers are no longer needed, and with that the ease of finding coke, mdma etc decreases greatly.


im not by any means a pot head, nor am i a conspiracy driven liberal. im studying a very respectable degree, work hard and do well for myself. if choose to spend the weekends smoking with my friends and thoroughly enjoying myself, why should anyone stop me.

the history of cannabis illegality is incredible. please research it and inform yourself of why it is such an outrageous manipulation of people just to maintain an industry that a country was using as a crutch.

The One Who Knocks

ugh, I really don't want to start some fight or anything,

this is my last post on this thread.

1. Smoking increases your likelihood of doing worse drugs in the future...I couldn't be arsed to find the source, so take it or leave it

2. Stoners are not looked upon highly in society, I would certainly not hire one, and I wouln't like to be associated with any, nor would many people I know

I'm sure there's more side effects, but frankly I don't give a crap.

Look, if you want to legalize it, fine, I'm not going to argue, someone else can fight my corner.

At last, I leave you with this page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis

dttq

Jamez735 wrote: »

ugh, I really don't want to start some fight or anything,

If that's the case, don't post. Otherwise, what do you expect?

1. Smoking increases your likelihood of doing worse drugs in the future...I couldn't be arsed to find the source, so take it or leave it

I won't take it or leave it, because it's BS. The gateway theory has been debunked a million times already. Cannabis for most users is a terminus drug, not a gateway drug.

http://listverse.com/2009/01/26/top-10-common-myths-about-cannabis/ (myth 4)

http://www.ukcia.org/culture/effects/gateway01.php

2. Stoners are not looked upon highly in society,

I'm so sad about this that I'm going to burst out into tears this moment.

I would certainly not hire one, and I wouln't like to be associated with any, nor would many people I know

Don't flatter yourself, I'm sure most smokers wouldn't like to (a) work for people like you with your backward and narrow-minded mindset, and (b) be associated with people like you and your backward and narrow-minded mindset.

I'm sure there's more side effects, but frankly I don't give a crap.

How mature.

Look, if you want to legalize it, fine, I'm not going to argue, someone else can fight my corner.

The politicians and big business already are, so you needn't worry about that one.

Chuck Stone

Jamez735 wrote: »

1. Smoking increases your likelihood of doing worse drugs in the future.

dttq wrote: »

The gateway theory has been debunked a million times already. Cannabis for most users is a terminus drug, not a gateway drug.

http://listverse.com/2009/01/26/top-10-common-myths-about-cannabis/ (myth 4)

http://www.ukcia.org/culture/effects/gateway01.php

Pretty much a synopsis of the entire anti/pro legalisation debate above.

Prejudice and closed-mindedness versus rational debunking of it.

Ultimately it is up to those who support the prohibition farce to justify their support for this evil system. If supporters of prohibition can't justify their stance then they should probably just shut up and stop making fools of themselves.

dttq

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Pretty much a synopsis of the entire anti/pro legalisation debate above.

Prejudice and closed-mindedness versus rational debunking of it.

Ultimately it is up to those who support the prohibition farce to justify their support for this evil system. If supporters of prohibition can't justify their stance then they should probably just shut up and stop making fools of themselves.

Honestly, sometimes I don't even see the point in responding to some of these posts. Discussing this issue with pro-prohibitionists and trying to explain things to them is little different from this at times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0

ArseLtd

Jamez735 wrote: »

ugh, I really don't want to start some fight or anything,

this is my last post on this thread.

1. Smoking increases your likelihood of doing worse drugs in the future...I couldn't be arsed to find the source, so take it or leave it

2. Stoners are not looked upon highly in society, I would certainly not hire one, and I wouln't like to be associated with any, nor would many people I know

I'm sure there's more side effects, but frankly I don't give a crap.

Look, if you want to legalize it, fine, I'm not going to argue, someone else can fight my corner.

At last, I leave you with this page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis

No. 1 has been proven wrong and has never really been proven right, which is why you can't find a source.

As for no. 2, think of Richard Branson, Ted Turner, Michael Phelps, Stephen King ... the list goes on, all much more successful than you and are "stoners". Not to mention almost every musician. I'm sure those people would not hire someone as narrow minded as yourself, not to mention someone willing to throw out info with no factual basis at all.

You're living a sheltered life if you think there are people who can't get weed easily at the moment and are silly if you want your tax money wasted on prohibition.

Lastly, would you tell me the difference between recreational use and medical use. I understand you don't like losing an argument and therefore may not like to reply to the thread.

Chuck Stone

Stephen Downing, a retired deputy chief of police for the Los Angeles Police Department and Terry Nelson, retired from Department of Homeland Security on why they support treating addiction as a health problem and are for the total legalization of drugs.

"You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money... and you don't know where the **** is going to take you".

Det. Lester Freamon

The Wire

VideoKid

Some of ye might find this article interesting
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/

120_Minutes

Jamez735 wrote: »

2. Stoners are not looked upon highly in society, I would certainly not hire one, and I wouln't like to be associated with any, nor would many people I know

Ironically, and more importantly statistically, you probably already have, and continue to do so, and you dont even know it.

RonyPonyBah

I have a friend that has an incurable pain with IBS nothing but a small bit of cannabis cures the pain for a few hours.

Being so close to the person i have have seen the benefits of cannabis from a medical perspective and think we should legalise it and have it distributed to medical patients

mr lee

sherlock holmes smoked cannabis

jasonmcco

The legalise marijauna lobby should change tactics and call for ban on alcohol.

A PERSON DIES EVERY 7 HOURS IN IRELAND BECAUSE OF ALCOHOL.

http://alcoholireland.ie/alcohol-facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

People should not be asked solely whether they want marijauna legalised. They should be asked whether they also want alcohol use to be left legal.

End game hopefully would be that we would get support from the people who use alcohol. They would find the idea that they could be told by government that they cant use alcohol coz government knows best abhorrent.

People who use alcohol are our allies in this fight and are an extremely strong lobby.

Demonstrations outside A&E to demand govt do something about the epidemic killing our citizens at a rate of 7 AN HOUR.

Gurantee the vintners association might change their very strong stance against legalising marijauna.

kingtiger

mr lee wrote: »

sherlock holmes smoked cannabis

more like Morphine and Cocaine

Ash.J.Williams

nothing fixes deep tooth nerve pain like cannabis. You know the really deep pain that would drop an elephant? The pain that you need to mix panadol and nurofen+ to get anywhere near normal for an hour.....

jasonmcco

The medical profession in America has admitted to the many benefits of marijauna use but over here we are still using 1960's arguments that it's a gateway drug.

Is it really ok to tell a person dying in pain from cancer that they cant have marijauna.

Guess it is especially when you can tell a dying woman she cant have an abortion even though baby is dying. Leave her lying there
suffering. The Irish are great.

srsly78

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

nothing fixes deep tooth nerve pain like cannabis. You know the really deep pain that would drop an elephant? The pain that you need to mix panadol and nurofen+ to get anywhere near normal for an hour.....

Dentist gives better results in my experience.

Ash.J.Williams

srsly78 wrote: »

Dentist gives better results in my experience.

When you get to one and can afford root canal right there and then. From experience the process took one week. That is a week of pain. Also if we are talking pain relief. No, a dentist cannot give better pain relief then cannabis.

srsly78

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

When you get to one and can afford root canal right there and then. From experience the process took one week. That is a week of pain. Also if we are talking pain relief. No, a dentist cannot give better pain relief then cannabis.

TCD dental hospital offer a walk-in service for emergency patients. They do stage 1 of root canal for free. Other dental hospitals in your area may offer a similar service. Note this is only for acute emergencies not normal patients.

Ash.J.Williams

srsly78 wrote: »

TCD dental hospital offer a walk-in service for emergency patients. They do stage 1 of root canal for free. Other dental hospitals in your area may offer a similar service. Note this is only for acute emergencies not normal patients.

First of all, i did not know that, thanks for the info. However TCD did not cross my mind at my isolated address at that time. It was just "arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh"....holy **** that spliff worked....

ArseLtd