Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Drugs
Comments
-
You will have to forgive me if I pull your zebra crossing of a post into less quoted sections. The quote function is powerful and useful but like any formatting tool… from capital letters to bolding…. over use makes the result look like an unreadable mess.
I am not sure what "well worn" has to do with anything as if a point is good then it remains good no matter how often it is used or trotted out. Just because you "would say" that the majority agree with you, this does not mean they would and in fact in many countries we see public opinion very much divided on the issues... especially if like I said you reduce the issues to individual drugs rather than blanket statements across them all.
We need to discuss each drug on individual merits and demerits and not this blanket discussion, populated by words like "addictive" that is so preferred by the naysayers in their tactic of what the Cato Institute describes as "speculation and fear mongering," rather than empirical evidence on the effects of more lenient drug policies.
Argumentum ad populum is called a fallacy for a reason however and I am not all that interested in moving the discussion from the facts, arguments and studies into a different discussion about how many people you personally feel agree with you.(except for limited weed in Holland) Again pure speculation. To give this idea any credence, one would need to show a modern example of somewhere where drugs were once legal but not now. Of which there isn't any AFAIK.
Thankfully however your lack of knowledge of examples does not mean such examples do not exist. There are others and I would quickly refer you to portugal as one of the more well known examples and better success stories.
I did not use my word "fantasy" lightly or based on speculation or assumption but based on facts, examples, studies and official recommendations.
In Portugal they decriminalised possession of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. This was done partly on the recommendation of a national commission which, like I mentioned I have already, came to the conclusion that maintaining such laws was a failure and more expensive than legality and treatments.
They found that illegal drug use among teens went down, HIV and other infections due to needles went down, and the number of people availing of treatment not only went up but more than doubled. They even have the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U. Other stats on teen us dropped by as much as 50%, while the masses of money saved from enforcing the laws was redirected into treatment programs and police resources were freed up to maintain laws actually worth maintaining.
All of this is the exact opposite of the predictions of the naysayers in that country and on this thread and that is only a small number of the many stats on the issue that you can read in the linked article and other sources. By any rational measure I can think of the portugal story is a success.
And there are movements in countries and states all over the world looking to follow suit so the Argumentum ad populum I opened this post deriding is not even on as strong a ground as you feel it might be.0 -
So it's not harmful, or addictive, or poisonous but you propose to keep it illegal. You aren't making much sense here.So it's not harmful right?
No.
No.
Is this your idea of a debate? Arm-waving hysterics concerning something you are personally against?Here we go with the usual Libertarian schtick.
Unbelievable.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am not sure what "well worn" has to do with anything as if a point is good then it remains good no matter how often it is used or trotted out.
Your points that lots of things are addictive, eg Coka Cola and McDonalds, are well very worn in debates like this one. Essentially meaningless to point out when discussing far more dangerous and addictive substances.
What you're essentially implying is that the addiction aspect should not be a big factor in deciding legality, or as you said yourself "Addictiveness should not be the criteria here I feel"
So not only well-worn, but ill-advised i would say in the context of drug legalisation.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »We need to discuss each drug on individual merits and demerits and not this blanket discussion, populated by words like "addictive" that is so preferred by the naysayers in their tactic of what the Cato Institute describes as "speculation and fear mongering," rather than empirical evidence on the effects of more lenient drug policies.
There you go again. I'm afraid you're trying to downplay or dismiss the issue of the addiction, but that would be preposterous in any discussion about legalisation addictive drugs.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Thankfully however your lack of knowledge of examples does not mean such examples do not exist. There are others and I would quickly refer you to portugal as one of the more well known examples and better success stories.
My lack of knowledge you say.
Portugal is most certainly not an example of what i've been talking about for the last few posts both with you and frag, which is legalisation.
Drugs are not fully legal in Portugal or anywhere else except limited coffee-shops in Holland (as i've already pointed out to you)
Jeez Louise.
I have been arguing against legalisation of drugs this whole time, not decriminalisation.
Looks like i'll have to stop you here and explain the differences between the two.
Drug legalization removes all criminal penalties for producing, selling and using drugs; no country has tried it.
Decriminalization, as practiced in Portugal, eliminates jail time for small-time drug users in favour of treatment programmes etc, but maintains criminal penalties for dealers.So it's not harmful, or addictive, or poisonous but you propose to keep it illegal. You aren't making much sense here.
I was being sarcastic. The reason LSD is banned is because it is indeed harmful. You're not aware of that obviously.0 -
My lack of knowledge you say.
Portugal is most certainly not an example of what i've been talking about for the last few posts both with you and frag, which is legalisation.
Drugs are not fully legal in Portugal or anywhere else except limited coffee-shops in Holland (as i've already pointed out to you)
Jeez Louise.
I have been arguing against legalisation of drugs this whole time, not decriminalisation.
The legal status of canabis in Holland is that it is decriminalised and not legalized. And regardless of the fact that drugs are not fully legal in Portugal you cant deny that the decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal has worked in so far as the reasons outlined by Nozzferrahhtoo in his post and has actually dare I say it worked out for the better of users, society and the government spend.
So your OK for decriminalisation then??0 -
Advertisement
-
Drugs are not fully legal in Portugal or anywhere else except limited coffee-shops in Holland (as i've already pointed out to you)
Jeez Louise.
Jeez Louise, so much incorrectness in one line.....
Try Belgium
Where cannabis is legal under the following conditions:
The amount possessed is 5 grams or less
You are over 18
You do not smoke in the presence of minors
You do not smoke in public
You are also allowed to own one female plant.
or try Ecuador where possession is not illegal
or this year try the Spanish Basque Country, parts of Switzerland, and Copenhagen in Denmark.As the U.S. federal government torques up its war on marijuana, parts of Europe are going in the other direction. The Socialist government of the Basque Country in Spain will approve a law in early 2012 which legalizes the cultivation, sale and consumption of cannabis, according to health authorities in the province.
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/12/spanish_basque_country_legalizing_marijuana_in_201.phpFour cantons in the French-speaking part of Switzerland – Geneva, Neuchatel, Vaud and Fribourg – have ratified an agreement to allow small-scale cultivation of cannabis within their borders. Under the new law, which should come into effect on January 1st 2012, adult residents may grow up to four cannabis plants for personal consumption.
http://marijuanacannabis.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/switzerland-and-copenhagen-beyond-cannabis-tolerance-part-two/Copenhagen Council is pushing ahead with its proposal to decriminalise cannabis within the city, and has set up a committee to investigate the best way to regulate the sale of hashish and marijuana. Currently, the favoured option is for 30 or 40 Council-controlled shops across the city in which adults may legally buy cannabis. The Copenhagen cannabis market is estimated to be worth around €200 million per year, most of which is assumed to be controlled by criminal gangs. Social Democrat councillor Lars Aslan Andersen believes that taking control of this trade would benefit all citizens, whether or not they consume cannabis, not to mention the city itself.
“It’s better that the council distributes hashish and not criminals,” he said. “I hope we get the opportunity to try a new policy because we can’t just continue the current prohibition strategy with hash which is very outdated.”
http://marijuanacannabis.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/switzerland-and-copenhagen-beyond-cannabis-tolerance-part-two/
For decriminalized try...
South Australia
Czech Republic
Argentina
and of course Portugal and the Netherlands0 -
Your points that lots of things are addictive, eg Coka Cola and McDonalds, are well very worn in debates like this one.
Yes and the fact that 2+2=4 is very well worn in most mathematical discussions. Why? Because it is a good and relevant point. The "well worn" comment really says nothing useful here other than to get a dig in.
Nor is it meaningless. The meaning of pointing it out if very clear and I have already laid it out. It is to counter the unhelpful strategy of just blanket calling all drugs "addictive" in order to indict them and make them sound bad.
Were more effort put in, all drugs laid on the table, and judged individually on their addictive natures we would find that some drugs do not really deserve the attribute at all, certainly not when compared to computer games, fast foods, sugar water, sex, cigarettes and alcohol.
Also when I said, and you quoted me as saying, "Addictiveness should not be the criteria" I really meant it but with the emphasis very much on THE. It should clearly be 'A' factor and I did not imply otherwise, just not the be all and end all factor by far.
It should be part of a larger discussion of each drug, individually, on each drugs merits and demerits. More than that I did not mean so divest yourself of any additional meaning you may have taken from it.... certainly any meaning where you imply I am trying to ignore the topic of addiction entirely.
In short the point I am making is that blanket indictment of all drugs as "addictive" is a lazy scare mongering tactic that obfuscates rather than aids a very important discussion by trying to indict all drugs with the worst examples of a single attribute from the entire group.My lack of knowledge you say.
Yes, you appeared to be unaware of any even remotely admissible example other than limited examples in Holland and I gave you another example.
As pointed out the effect of what was done in Portugal was almost the exact opposite of everything the naysayers and doomsayers espoused. That is all my point was and it is not negated by you falsely pretending I do not know the different between legalization and decriminalization when a simple post search on the history of my posting on drug and prostitution topics will evidence the exact opposite.
What we have is a spectrum in fact where we see that the harder line we take against drugs the worse the effect and the softer line we take against it the better. The changes in Portugal example this and the softer line taken correlates with massive benefits in many areas from drug use... to disease propagation... to improved cash flow... to increased resources in both policing and drug treatments. I am not aware of any serviceable definition of "benefit" in fact which we can apply and not determine Portugal fits it.
All, as I said, the opposite of the naysayers prophecies of doom on this thread and others and certainly a torpedo to the claim that if we allow drug use in other countries like Ireland that this will correlate with a massive increase in drug use.
And I personally feel there are great arguments, such as the application of taxation and industry standards on production and more, to argue that full legalization and regulation of the industry... like alcohol and cigarettes are now... can only lead to more such benefits. Unless one wants to fantasize that decriminalization leads to all these good things but for some magic reason legalization will entirely reverse the same effect?0 -
Jeez Louise, so much incorrectness in one line....
You must have not seen the word fully in my sentence.
Suits your argument conveniently but not when you put it back in and read it.
"Drugs are not fully legal in Portugal or anywhere else except limited coffee-shops in Holland (as i've already pointed out to you)"
It's not fully legal in zero zilch of any of those countries today now. Except Holland where they've rolled out coffee shops. Relaxing of possession laws is not fully legalising it. Do you understand that?0 -
It's not fully legal in zero zilch of any of those countries today now. Except Holland where they've rolled out coffee shops. Relaxing of possession laws is not fully legalising it. Do you understand that?
How many times do you have to be told?
It is not legal in the Netherlands...... a blind eye is just turned to it due to their tolerance policy.
It's still a controlled substance over there.
Do you understand that?0 -
LSD is non-toxic: nobody has ever died from an overdose (source). It is taken in very small doses (we're talking micrograms here) and affects, for a period of time around twelve hours, levels of glutamate and serotonin in the brain.The reason LSD is banned is because it is indeed harmful. You're not aware of that obviously.
At the very worst, its psychological effects can cause anxiety and panic--no different from coffee or some profound introspection.
I am very curious to hear your definition of harmful?0 -
Advertisement
-
LSD is non-toxic: nobody has ever died from an overdose (source). It is taken in very small doses (we're talking micrograms here) and affects, for a period of time around twelve hours, levels of glutamate and serotonin in the brain.
At the very worst, its psychological effects can cause anxiety and panic--no different from coffee or some profound introspection.
I am very curious to hear your definition of harmful?
There have been many cases of people thinking they could fly and jumping from windows .Coffee will not do that .0 -
There have been many cases of people thinking they could fly and jumping from windows .Coffee will not do that .
Source?? How many cases?
How about the great things that have happened under the influence of LSD? Did you know that Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was under the influence of LSD when he first deduced the double-helix structure of DNA nearly 50 years ago.
Just a thought.....
frAg0 -
-
That has to be the oldest and most unsubstantiated myth going. Many drunkards fall out of windows but I don't hear the nanny-lobby calling for booze bans.There have been many cases of people thinking they could fly and jumping from windows .Coffee will not do that.
Ultimately, ed2hands and the other proponents of drug criminalisation are beset by massive contradictions and inconsistencies on all sides. They say drugs are bad and evil, yet support the sale of alcohol. They demonstrate profound ignorance on what drugs actually are: heroin and hashish are castigated not because of their various characteristics but simply because some nanny-state bureaucrat has classified them as illegal.
Even drugs which are not toxic or addictive are hysterically screamed off as "dangerous and harmful" without a single consideration for the chemical facts.
Leaving aside the hysteria which is the main component of the arguments presented here, the tendency to want to control and punish people for peaceful activities undertaken in private residences is nothing short of a drive towards complete totalitarianism.0 -
Source?? How many cases?
How about the great things that have happened under the influence of LSD? Did you know that Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was under the influence of LSD when he first deduced the double-helix structure of DNA nearly 50 years ago.
frag quote
Just a thought..... nothing compared to the figures on coroners databases everywhere in the western world .Some terrible events are recorded of murders and suicides and terrible psychological latent results with permanent brain damage .Some never returned .0 -
Source?? How many cases?
How about the great things that have happened under the influence of LSD? Did you know that Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was under the influence of LSD when he first deduced the double-helix structure of DNA nearly 50 years ago.
frag quote
Just a thought..... nothing compared to the figures on coroners databases everywhere in the western world .Some terrible events are recorded of murders and suicides and terrible psychological latent results with permanent brain damage .Some never returned .
Proof please? Source?0 -
I'm saddened to admit there was actually one case in ireland recently on headshop mushrooms.....i really can't get my head around it...there are so few cases of window jumpers that maybe suicide cannot be ruled out?That has to be the oldest and most unsubstantiated myth going. Many drunkards fall out of windows but I don't hear the nanny-lobby calling for booze bans.
Ultimately, ed2hands and the other proponents of drug criminalisation are beset by massive contradictions and inconsistencies on all sides. They say drugs are bad and evil, yet support the sale of alcohol. They demonstrate profound ignorance on what drugs actually are: heroin and hashish are castigated not because of their various characteristics but simply because some nanny-state bureaucrat has classified them as illegal.
Even drugs which are not toxic or addictive are hysterically screamed off as "dangerous and harmful" without a single consideration for the chemical facts.
Leaving aside the hysteria which is the main component of the arguments presented here, the tendency to want to control and punish people for peaceful activities undertaken in private residences is nothing short of a drive towards complete totalitarianism.0 -
Ash.J.Williams wrote: »I'm saddened to admit there was actually one case in ireland recently on headshop mushrooms.....i really can't get my head around it...there are so few cases of window jumpers that maybe suicide cannot be ruled out?
Yeah it was in 2006. Funny how it involved alcohol too but surely we cant ban that stuff as what would the masses do on the weekend to relax eh??
Now I dont want to make light of the situation and I feel for his family, it was a terrible loss but four or more of them took the musgrooms. His brother was ok to diagnose and realise that he had become agitated and scared and did not know what was happening to him and yet the him and friends let his brother out on a balcony? Why did they not look after him, try and calm him down if they knew he was agitated?
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mushrooms-made-man-fall-to-his-death-from-fourthstorey-balcony-during-party-105555.html0 -
So your OK for decriminalisation then??
Yea. Said as much already. What i'm against is legalisation.
The highlighted bit is wrong. Where did you get that info? Cato?LSD is non-toxic: nobody has ever died from an overdose (source). It is taken in very small doses (we're talking micrograms here) and affects, for a period of time around twelve hours, levels of glutamate and serotonin in the brain.
At the very worst, its psychological effects can cause anxiety and panic--no different from coffee or some profound introspection.I am very curious to hear your definition of harmful?
After an LSD trip, the user may suffer acute anxiety or depression, and may also experience flashbacks, which are recurrences of the effects of LSD days or even months after taking the last dose. A flashback occurs suddenly, often without warning, usually in people who use hallucinogens chronically or have an underlying personality problem. Healthy people who use LSD occasionally may also have flashbacks. Bad trips and flashbacks are only part of the risks of LSD use. LSD users may also manifest relatively long-lasting psychoses, such as schizophrenia or severe depression.
http://www.drugs.com/lsd.htmlUltimately, ed2hands and the other proponents of drug criminalisation are beset by massive contradictions and inconsistencies on all sides. They say drugs are bad and evil, yet support the sale of alcohol. They demonstrate profound ignorance on what drugs actually are: heroin and hashish are castigated not because of their various characteristics but simply because some nanny-state bureaucrat has classified them as illegal.
You've just demonstrated a profound ability to sum up exactly my thoughts on your contribution so far.Leaving aside the hysteria which is the main component of the arguments presented here,the tendency to want to control and punish people for peaceful activities undertaken in private residences is nothing short of a drive towards complete totalitarianism.
Leaving it aside you say.:)0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Yes, you appeared to be unaware of any even remotely admissible example other than limited examples in Holland and I gave you another example.
What you did was try to counter my argument (of which i've been clearly arguing against since i got here) in relation to legalisation with a point about relaxing laws on possession (Portugal). It is you who incorrectly confused them.
Now i was well aware of the effective de-criminalisation/part legalistation of possession of small amounts in parts of Europe and elsewhere, despite your now guessing that i wasn't, but naturally this and legalisation are completely separate kettles of fish. Anyway we cleared that up, so i don't mind discussing both if you can bear in mind to keep them apart in replies, especially accusations of lack of knowledge.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Yes and the fact that 2+2=4 is very well worn in most mathematical discussions. Why? Because it is a good and relevant point. The "well worn"comment really says nothing useful here other than to get a dig in.
The "well-worn"comment wasn't made to get a dig in. It's my genuine view.
I've heard the exact same points, more or less word for word, in many conversations about this over the years.
Yes of course it's true that those things you referenced can be habit-forming and addictive. But from any logical perspective, it's plain to see that justifying drug legalisation on the basis that things like fast food, computer games, and soft drinks can also be habit-forming just boils down to whataboutery.
The same goes for the '..but what about alcohol argument' by the way. Another favourite, but not something that legislators have taken seriously i'd imagine.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »It should be part of a larger discussion of each drug, individually, on each drugs merits and demerits.
What i don't disagree with you on is that each drug, individually, should be evaluated on it's merits and demerits, but as was said, this has and is already being done.
Many countries have already been evaluating each drug and many have gone for de-criminalisation of weed; many others a certain degree of toleration, as in usually let off with a warning if caught carrying a small amount. I'd include Ireland in the second category.
In saying that, nowhere not even Holland, has entertained the idea of full legalisation of hard drugs, or if was proposed by some group or other, am sure it was dismissed quickly for obvious reasons. The Cato Institute is one of those that churn out 'reports' occasionally. (They call themselves a "think-tank", though in my view that's a contradiction in terms in this case.)nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »In short the point I am making is that blanket indictment of all drugs as "addictive" is a lazy scare mongering tactic that obfuscates rather than aids a very important discussion by trying to indict all drugs with the worst examples of a single attribute from the entire group.
There's no getting away from the fact that all the main street drugs are physically or psychologically addictive. It's not up for debate in many treatment centres i'd imagine.
The statement "All main street drugs are addictive" sure does get some people riled as it's a generalisation, but it's an essentially true statement.
One can argue that for a lot of cases, it has more to do with the people using the drug rather than about the particular drug they are taking. That would be valid if drugs could also be called physically and/or psychologically harmless, but they're not unfortunately. Far from it.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And I personally feel there are great arguments, such as the application of taxation and industry standards on production and more, to argue that full legalization and regulation of the industry... like alcohol and cigarettes are now... can only lead to more such benefits.
Legalisation essentially means making drugs far far more freely available than they currently are;...to everyone...everywhere in the country , with all that that entails, all to pander to a very small percentage population-wise of drugs users who are, for the most part, presently not harassed.
A suggestion would be to consider those consequences with least as much effort as you've put into criticising the "anti-drugs" brigades shortcomings.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Unless one wants to fantasize that decriminalization leads to all these good things but for some magic reason legalization will entirely reverse the same effect?
There's one elementary flaw in attempting to use the results of de-criminalisation of small amounts ala your Portugal example and using it to predict how full legalisation would go, and it's this:
The availability or supply of drugs has not increased in Portugal.0 -
Advertisement
-
Now i was well aware of the effective de-criminalisation/part legalistation of possession of small amounts in parts of Europe and elsewhere, despite your now guessing that i wasn't
There seems to be no guessing involved, you have been corrected by quite a number of users, for example Mikom on the last page who you then did not reply to, now on your knowledge of the rules in the EU and elsewhere, including your impression of what the law is in Holland. However your lack of knowledge on this subject is irrelevant as we can still deal with your points which I have been doing.The "well-worn"comment wasn't made to get a dig in. It's my genuine view. I've heard the exact same points, more or less word for word, in many conversations about this over the years.
Hardly surprising. If a point is good, relevant, accurate and strong then you will keep hearing it. Especially if you insist on espousing the baseless nonsense that the point in question is used to counter.it's plain to see that justifying drug legalisation on the basis that things like fast food, computer games, and soft drinks can also be habit-forming just boils down to whataboutery.
But no one is doing that. This is just strawman. I am not justifying legalising drugs just because other things are addictive too. That is, and would be, absurd and it is a strawman of my position.
No what I AM saying is that given those things are addictive too, and given drugs have a huge range of addictiveness, it is purely ridiculous to speak against drugs by just calling them all the blanket term "addictive".
So no I am not advocating legalising all drugs just because the other things are addictive. I am advocating a PER DRUG discussion based on the individual merits and demerits of each drug in isolations.
What the nay and doom sayers want to do it lump all drugs under a single group and discuss their addictiveness based on the worst examples from the group. The makes as much sense as lumping all sports under the term "sport"... showing that thai kick boxing is violent and dangerous, and espousing that we should ban all sport because it is violent and dangerous.
What we see when this happens is countries like Portugal who move towards a softer line on a number of drugs and the softer line correlates strongly with a benefit in just about every measure you can apply to the subject. The complete opposite of what all you nay and doom sayers predicted.
Any fear of bad effects of doing the same here or elsewhere is therefore to my eyes baseless. There simply is no evidence to back up and of the nay and doom saying. I am also not aware of any reason to think full legalisation will suddenly stop, let alone totally reverse, the benefits we see either. It would take some strong evidence to suggest that and this thread is seeing no evidence, let alone strong evidence, to suggest any such thing.0 -
Legalising Alcohol and Tobacco never benefited Irish Society in any way at all but as we've never known any other way we find the idea of prohibition of both impossible to imagine . Any benefits to taxes are cancelled with the expense these have incurred . The Psychological traumas cannot be quantified and the costs astronomical .We cannot imagine a healthy happy society without them .The pub is so central to life here .We've managed until recent years to contain drinking and smoking tobacco but times have changed and now we see teenagers carrying six packs and getting into terrible trouble .A drunken Child was unheard of years ago so what are we to do with the appearance of Headshops and whatever legislation might arrive with them ? With the strictest legislation the spread of drugs across the population simply cannot be stopped .
People should remember that no two drugs are the same..their effects on people are not the same ...the medical problems are each different from each other ..Ireland will become ungovernable within a decade or so .There are a few people who'd like that . We are not a nation who cherishes legislation and there's a schaudenfraude element to all this as well as businesses waiting to open up .They are watching this forum with itchy anticipation .This thread is neither a discussion or a debate more a sussing of resistance . I try to be brief here so no nebulous reports from abroad they don't know us here. I do.0 -
You do realise there is a conspiracy theory forum on boards eh??0
-
We are not a nation who cherishes legislation and there's a schaudenfraude element to all this as well as businesses waiting to open up .They are watching this forum with itchy anticipation .This thread is neither a discussion or a debate more a sussing of resistance . I try to be brief here so no nebulous reports from abroad they don't know us here. I do.
All together now.......
♫
Michael, they have taken you away.
For you stole Trevelyan's corn,
So the young might see the morn.
Now a prison ship lies waiting in the bay
♫0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »There seems to be no guessing involved, you have been corrected by quite a number of users, for example Mikom on the last page who you then did not reply to..
I accept Mikoms correction of the fact that weed is techically still only de-criminalised in Holland, even though i was referring to it as legalised. I think we both know though what i meant; in that they are the only ones that have removed panalties and regulated not only for using, but also for producing, selling weed through 'legal' outlets, ie fully legalised as per what drug legalisation actually means.
Am sure Mikom can accept my non-response to that correction as accepting it, just as i'm not holding my breath for a response from Frag420 for his gem that pure heroin is not addictive, or Valmounts that acids worst effects are similar to coffee, or yours that "underground the mixes likely also include elements to increase the addiction so as to increase sales."
Comments like that have no business in a discussion about street drugs as anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge will tell you.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But no one is doing that. This is just strawman.
A large part of your posts so far have been strawmanning.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am advocating a PER DRUG discussion based on the individual merits and demerits of each drug in isolations.
I'm all ears.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am also not aware of any reason to think full legalisation will suddenly stop, let alone totally reverse, the benefits we see either. It would take some strong evidence to suggest that and this thread is seeing no evidence, let alone strong evidence, to suggest any such thing.
I'm still waiting for you to even mention the true repurcussions of legalisation, let alone counter the points made in any coherant way. All you seem interested in doing is trying to make an ill-advised leap of faith from examining the benefits of de-criminalisation and applying them to full legalisation. paddyandy and prop joe are the only posters based in reality at the moment IMO. The rest of you have your heads firmly in the sand on this so far.0 -
I accept Mikoms correction of the fact that weed is techically still only de-criminalised in Holland, even though i was referring to it as legalised. I think we both know though what i meant; in that they are the only ones that have removed panalties and regulated not only for using, but also for producing, selling weed through 'legal' outlets, ie fully legalised as per what drug legalisation actually means.
Am sure Mikom can accept my non-response to that correction as accepting it
Other readers and lurkers may not have.
TBH I would have expected a response and an acknowledgement.
It would have cleared thing up for readers of the thread.
These readers need to know what are facts and what is misinformation in this debate.paddyandy and prop joe are the only posters based in reality at the moment IMO.
I loled.those of us trying to prevent Ireland becoming a wilderness of feral gangsLegalising soft drugs has never worked and holland is currently blocking tourism for dopeheads .0 -
Am sure Mikom can accept my non-response to that correction as accepting it, just as i'm not holding my breath for a response from Frag420 for his gem that pure heroin is not addictive
I stand corrected. I meant to say that it is not as dangerous as street heroin which has been cut with many unsavoury additives.
frAg0 -
I was being driven through an area of south london several years ago and the driver pointed to an estate and said "the police won't go in there , it's in the hands of drug gangs " and i thought whatever the problem here it'll be in Ireland soon enough .It's here and growing ....so write your signature here on boards and don't say the warnings were not there .They are all around you .0
-
Source?Many countries have already been evaluating each drug
The only such study by any country I know of was the UK, whose government advisory body on drugs, headed by David Nutt, assessed all common recreational drugs by the harm they did to their users and society:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210
And what did they do? Listen to the scientists? Nope. They sacked them.
There is very little science behind the illegality of drugs. It's an incredibly dishonest argument to claim this.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
A Visit to parts of the world is science enough . People chasing pleasure care little for rationales and Dope Fiends are the worst of the worst .0
-
-
ed2hands - If you have an issue with another user and their posts like Frag420 then take it up with them, not me as I am not sure replies to me are a venue for getting digs at other users. As for my points and my reference to Mikoms, the only point I am making is that when we see any relaxation of the rules against drugs we see correlation to benefits. Portugal is just the best example of it.
The point of this is just to counter the ludicrous and thus far baseless claims that doing such things would result in massive increases in use, "feral gangs" wandering the streets of Ireland, and other such nonsense scaremongering.
Alas, aside from scare mongering and blanket labeling all drugs as "addictive" I am not actually seeing any arguments from the nay side on these issues at all. Nor am I seeing any argument to suggest that given relaxation of the laws has so many benefits.... that for some magic reason even more relaxation of the laws, up to and including legalisation and regulation will suddenly reverse that trend in some bad way. I am agog to hear such a position evidenced in any way. Especially given the obvious benefits of regulation of the industry.... such as the removal of impurities and additives from drugs which are designed to make them a) cheaper to the seller and maximize profits and b) to make them more addictive.0 -
-
That guy had been drinking too, as far as I understand.Ash.J.Williams wrote: »I'm saddened to admit there was actually one case in ireland recently on headshop mushrooms.....i really can't get my head around it...there are so few cases of window jumpers that maybe suicide cannot be ruled out?0 -
Advertisement
-
Could you please leave the libertarians pot-shots to one side; they have no relevance to the debate.[/B]The highlighted bit is wrong. Where did you get that info? Cato?
Curiously, this website doesn't provide a source for any of this information (in fact, all of it is refuted, with sources, on the wikipedia article on LSD). If this is the best you can do, it's no wonder the lies and tricks of the anti-drug lobby are starting to wane.After an LSD trip, the user may suffer acute anxiety or depression, and may also experience flashbacks, which are recurrences of the effects of LSD days or even months after taking the last dose. A flashback occurs suddenly, often without warning, usually in people who use hallucinogens chronically or have an underlying personality problem. Healthy people who use LSD occasionally may also have flashbacks. Bad trips and flashbacks are only part of the risks of LSD use. LSD users may also manifest relatively long-lasting psychoses, such as schizophrenia or severe depression.
http://www.drugs.com/lsd.html0 -
Could you please leave the libertarians pot-shots to one side; they have no relevance to the debate.
Libertarians, the very ones whose avowed policy is the legalisation of drugs have no relevance to a debate on drugs?
OK.Curiously, this website doesn't provide a source for any of this information (in fact, all of it is refuted, with sources, on the wikipedia article on LSD). If this is the best you can do, it's no wonder the lies and tricks of the anti-drug lobby are starting to wane.
You still think LSDs worst effects are similar to coffee then?
Some people's knowledge about drugs on this thread are laughable. You talk about lies and tricks from the nasty anti-drugs lobby? That's rich. And ridiculous.
If you or others think the only reason LSD or anything else has not been legalised is because of lies and tricks by some all-powerful anti-drugs lobby, or for that matter because their physical and social effects have not been properly evaluated, then you're sorely mistaken. There's scientific studies, reports and journals a mile high on the effects of drug use from around the world. It is these that legislators obviously been paying attention to when reviewing their drugs laws, not some right-wing economics number crunchers from Cato with dollar signs in their eyes that just see's drugs as another product to exact taxation from without due consideration for the effects of putting a Drugs-R-Us on every main street. As if that would somehow not exacerbate the already desperate problems present in society because of drug addiction/abuse. What an absolute joke.
The War on Drugs is unwinnable they say. So what do they suggest? Why more drugs of course! And better quality to boot!
Oh yeah that'd go well. Can't forsee any problems there at all..
Still haven't heard one proper justification for full legalisation of any drug.
All the points so far fall flat on their face with even the barest examination.0 -
Why did the UK government sack their scientific advisory council on drugs so? Drugs were never made illegal on the basis of any scientific study. Occasionally, there have been studies done retroactively which indicate the negative effects of some drugs, and there have been others which indicate that the use of some drugs is not harmful enough to warrant their illegality.There's scientific studies, reports and journals a mile high on the effects of drug use from around the world. It is these that legislators obviously been paying attention to when reviewing their drugs laws
You're making dismissive statements and arguing as if it's the most obvious thing in the world that all currently illegal drugs are incredibly harmful and no one should ever take them. However, not everyone shares your point of view and the science does not in any way unanimously agree with you.
btw, I'm not a Libertarian. I don't know where you got the idea that everyone pro drugs legalization is a Libertarian.0 -
-
Drugs were never made illegal on the basis of any scientific study.
Am sure by and large, they were made illegal back then after the effects on the community of their abuse were observed by authorities, health professionals, and social services.
Saying drugs were never made illegal on the basis of any scientific study is basically a moot point, even if there's truth in it, which i doubt tbh.
There's been enough study since then to bear out the fundamental wisdom of that legislation.
Some reckon LSD got lumped in there unfairly. I won't be shedding many tears about that personally.Occasionally, there have been studies done retroactively which indicate the negative effects of some drugs, and there have been others which indicate that the use of some drugs is not harmful enough to warrant their illegality.
Would say constantly is a more accurate description. Drug use and abuse is monitored very closely globally.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/data-and-analysis/WDR.html
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/Studies-on-Drugs-and-Crime.html
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/index.htmlbtw, I'm not a Libertarian. I don't know where you got the idea that everyone pro drugs legalization is a Libertarian.
I have never once said that in fairness.
Hell, i even agree with plenty of Ron Pauls' policies myself. I just draw the line for this.
But ok i will stop bashing Libertarianism and Cato if you think it's upsetting the dyed-in-the wool posters.You have, your just choosing to ignore them.
Which one's have i ignored?
Bullet-point them or copy-paste and sure we'll have another look.0 -
Advertisement
-
Analysis Paralysis as they say in Alcoholics Anonymous .0
-
It's a lot muddier than that in reality. Yes, health wasn't entirely excluded as a reason, but there were a lot of vested interests, racial issues, religious morals, general moral panic etc. which surrounded the banning of many drugs. It's sort of a morbidly fascinating topic with many angles.Am sure by and large, they were made illegal back then after the effects on the community of their abuse were observed by authorities, health professionals, and social services.
There hasn't really though. There are plenty of studies which indicate otherwise. Again, the British government's advisory council on drugs were sacked when their study came up with the "wrong" results.There's been enough study since then to bear out the fundamental wisdom of that legislation.
Drug use and abuse in an environment where they are illegal and carry harsh sentences for their sale and possession.Would say constantly is a more accurate description. Drug use and abuse is monitored very closely globally.
We don't really know to what extent drugs would have an effect on a modern society in which they were legalized, but in my mind, as well as the minds of many other, often very well respected and intelligent people, it could only be better than the complete mess we have now.0 -
Still haven't heard one proper justification for full legalisation of any drug.
Reasons drugs should be legalised.
1. It's none of yours or the state's damn business what someone chooses to put in their body.
2. Safety of the product (Regulation)
3. It would prevent the flow of money to criminal and terrorist organisation.
4. Huge reduction in costs to the tax-payer in prisons, policing, and welfare.
5. Prevents the making of criminals out of people for a lifestyle choice.
6. Drug consumption is a victimless 'crime'
7. It would keep young people outside the criminal underworld.
8. Drugs would become a hell of a lot cheaper leading to a reduction in addict related crime.
9. Police would be freed up to pursue people for real crimes with actual victims.
10. Prohibition doesn't work.The global war on drugs has "failed" according to a new report by a group of politicians and former world leaders.
The Global Commission on Drug Policy report calls for the legalisation of some drugs and an end to the criminalisation of drug users.
The panel includes former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the former leaders of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, and the entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-136243030 -
Chuck Stone wrote: »Reasons drugs should be legalised...
Thanks. Will answer those from the full legalisation standpoint of course.
Reasons drugs should be legalised.
1. It's none of yours or the state's damn business what someone chooses to put in their body.
I could agree with that in theory. What about in practice though?
If you're saying you want to grow a pot plant and smoke it, have no issue with that. It sort of becomes my business and the states very quickly though if availability and supply of 'recreational' drugs is increased, allowed, normalised.
The state has certain responsibilities towards it's citizens. The individual has certain responsibilities towards the state.
If an individual decides he to wants to import/manufacture street drugs and make them freely available to everyone aged 15 aged and upwards (i'm saying aged 15 because that is the age many kids are are of course usually able to get their hands on other currently legal drugs, ie alcohol and cigarettes), then that individual is in my eyes subverting his responsibilities towards his fellow citizens (the state)
Equally, if the state decides to allow import/manufacture of street drugs and make them freely available to everyone aged 15 and upwards, it is in my eyes subverting its responsibilities towards the individual (its citizens).
If someone says to me
"I don't use drugs myself, but i don't mind what anyone else does so legalise it" they might mean well, but what they're effectively saying is
"I don't use drugs myself, but i don't care if your 15 year old son or daughter is able to do it, so legalise it."
2. Safety of the product (Regulation)
I take this to mean that with leglisation, the safety of taking drugs will increase as they're purer. Well, it's certainly true that people do die or get very ill due to bad mixes. You very occasionally hear of bad ecstacy making people ill or bad heroin etc. It's hardly common though when you consider how many people do it. For the most part drugs mixes do not affect the user in that way. Bad for sales. As for more addictive substances likely being added to mixes, well that's just rubbish. They're not.
So the safety aspect is not really justification for legalisation based on a very few deaths and adverse effects by current users.
3. It would prevent the flow of money to criminal and terrorist organisation.
That is debatable. Who's to say that just because ecstacy, heroin, weed or coke becomes legally available, that criminal elements will not just keep producing product for market in the same way they're doing?
They'll just see it as competition; wouldn't stop some at all most likely.
What if a smack head uses his weekly allowance in a day and wants to get more?
There will always be a black market for drugs, same as there is with alcohol and cigarettes. So it certainly might slow the flow of money to criminal elements, but would it prevent it as in keep from happening? I very much doubt it.
All at the cost of making more drugs available to more people.
Methadone (legalised heroin substitute) is freely available to smack heads. Still doesn't stop them going off to get more heroin though.
4. Huge reduction in costs to the tax-payer in prisons, policing, and welfare.
De-criminalisation can sort the prison problem.
Policing costs of drug-related matters/crime may not go down hugely through legalisation.
Not sure how you think welfare costs would go down hugely or even stay the same with legalisation. More drugs = more users = more addicts = more welfare needs eg counselling, rehabilitation etc
5. Prevents the making of criminals out of people for a lifestyle choice.
De-criminalisation sorts that too. Help the people who want/need help rather than lock them up. Leave the self-home-grown pot smokers unharrassed.
6. Drug consumption is a victimless 'crime'
Certainly is not imv, unless you don't consider people with drug problems as victims.
Legalisation could vastly increase the amount of people who have a drugs problem.
7. It would keep young people outside the criminal underworld.
To an extent. It would also send this loud and clear message:
Street drugs are safe and acceptable to use.
8. Drugs would become a hell of a lot cheaper leading to a reduction in addict related crime.
Cheap drugs = more users = more addicts = more problems.
Do you really think cheaper drugs is actually a point in favour of legalisation?
A smack addict will take as much as he can get his hands on. His tolerance just goes up. When the cheap stuff runs out, he'll be hankering for more. So there may not be a reduction in addict related crime at all, not with more addicts.
9. Police would be freed up to pursue people for real crimes with actual victims.
Addressed already.
10. Prohibition doesn't work.
Works not too bad from where i'm standing. My son is not a drug user.
From the article:
"The global war on drugs has "failed" according to a new report by a group of politicians and former world leaders."
But it hasn't "failed". And the fact that it's unwinnable is no reason to abandon it, just the same as the war on speeding on our roads or drink-driving is unwinnable. Doesn't mean we give up trying to limit it. Good article though and did have some good points.0 -
Making snide remarks suggesting that I get all of my information from the Cato institute in order to discredit my post in some way is unnecessary.Libertarians, the very ones whose avowed policy is the legalisation of drugs have no relevance to a debate on drugs?
OK.
Everybody is still waiting for you to present some evidence to suggest that all drugs are the evil and addictive toxic poisons you keep claiming them to be.Some people's knowledge about drugs on this thread are laughable.
Finally, an explanation of your logic.If you or others think the only reason LSD or anything else has not been legalised is because of lies and tricks by some all-powerful anti-drugs lobby, or for that matter because their physical and social effects have not been properly evaluated, then you're sorely mistaken. There's scientific studies, reports and journals a mile high on the effects of drug use from around the world. It is these that legislators obviously been paying attention to when reviewing their drugs laws,
Legislators would not ban drugs unless the scientific evidence for doing so was "a mile high". Legislators have banned drugs. Therefore the evidence is a mile high.
I remain unconvinced, unfortunately.
Let's take a quick look at LSD:
Addictive: Definitely Not.
Toxic: Definitely Not. Therefore there is no risk of overdose.
Panic and Anxiety: Can trigger panic attacks--just like alcohol really.
Flashbacks:Wikipedia wrote:No definitive explanation is currently available for these experiences. Any attempt at explanation must reflect several observations: first, over 70 percent of LSD users claim never to have "flashed back"; second, the phenomenon does appear linked with LSD use, though a causal connection has not been established; and third, a higher proportion of psychiatric patients report flashbacks than other users.[54] Several studies have tried to determine how likely a user of LSD, not suffering from known psychiatric conditions, is to experience flashbacks. The larger studies include Blumenfeld's in 1971[55] and Naditch and Fenwick's in 1977,[56] which arrived at figures of 20% and 28%, respectively.
This hardly amounts to evidence "a mile high" does it?Wikipedia wrote:There is no consensus regarding the nature and causes of HPPD (or flashbacks). A study of 44 HPPD subjects who had previously ingested LSD showed EEG abnormalities.[60] Given that some symptoms have environmental triggers, it may represent a failure to adjust visual processing to changing environmental conditions. There are no explanations for why only some individuals develop HPPD. Explanations in terms of LSD physically remaining in the body for months or years after consumption have been discounted by experimental evidence.[54]
Genetic damage:
I've read most of these papers and if you're willing to go head to head on the veracity of their findings, be my guest.Wikipedia wrote:A 2008 medical review concluded, "The available data suggest that pure LSD does not cause chromosomal abnormalities, spontaneous abortions, or congenital malformations."
Yet you don't mind having the Drug-R-Us shops called pubs and don't object to people being able to carry around drugs for their own use without being called criminals. What is your point here?Still haven't heard one proper justification for full legalisation of any drug.
All the points so far fall flat on their face with even the barest examination.
Hysteria and moralising - these are the tactics of the anti-drug lobby. Especially considering their only evidence amounts to Because the government said so!0 -
-
Everybody is still waiting for you to present some evidence to suggest that all drugs are the evil and addictive toxic poisons you keep claiming them to be.
I honestly couldn't be bothered taking the time to debunk your ridiculous claim that LSD never has detrimental effects on users psychological wellbeing.
With respect, i have no interest in “presenting evidence" for this little side point. The lurkers can do their own research if they're very interested. A polite suggestion for them would be to talk to a drugs professional to find out from the horses mouth and not wiki.Yet you don't mind having the Drug-R-Us shops called pubs and don't object to people being able to carry around drugs for their own use without being called criminals. What is your point here?
Answered this already with frag.0 -
When the Global Commission on Drug Policy says that prohibition has failed you can't simply say its fine because your son isn't a drug user. Is that really your only argument on the efficacy of prohibition?10. Prohibition doesn't work.
Works not too bad from where i'm standing. My son is not a drug user.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
10. Prohibition doesn't work.
Works not too bad from where i'm standing. My son is not a drug user.
.
Are you sure. Are you beside him 24/7??
My folks thought the same about me but I was smoking a few joints, having a few beers whe I was younger and guess what......................I turned out OK. Its was all part of growing up.
And hypothetically speaking if your son was to smoke a joint or take an E would you not prefer that it was purchsed in a safe environ, away from gangsters, that is was not cut with any unsavoury additives, that the threat of being offered other harder drugs was not there and that the tax made on it could be spent on additional services or would you prefer that he bought from some dodgy guy in an estate, who wold have no issue offering him heroin or cocain too, that is not paying tax and your son can not bee 100% sure what it is that he is buying and consuming??
Now replying in your ususal fashion like you have been throughout this thread I am expecting a response along the lines of "well my son does not take drugs so I have nothing to worry about" but that is not an answer. Please for the sake of the thread take a minute and actually think about the situation as I described above and then answer with your preference.
frAg0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement