Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal

Doc Ruby

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

We have a culture of abusing alcohol as it is, whereby we don't know how to "drink responsibily"; everything is about getting as plastered as possible. Alcohol as it is controls most of Irish society. We are a society of abuse.

What a pile of shite.

Einhard

Doc Ruby wrote: »

What a pile of shite.

You don't think we abuse alcohol in this country?

Einhard

Tomk1 wrote: »

I don't nor have any interest in smoking hash, but I think it's about time we (ireland) started taking a mature attitude to drug use and also remove it from the hands of criminals.

Just because you advocate an approach doesn't necessarily mean that that is the "mature attitude".

Doc Ruby

Einhard wrote: »

You don't think we abuse alcohol in this country?

Some do, same as in any country. Most do not, and this culture of abuse crap is just that.

McCoy wrote in The Irish Times that that spending on alcohol is recorded differently across the EU in contrast to Ireland. When comparisons of alcohol consumption are made, distinction is normally made between spending on alcohol in pubs on the one hand and in off-licences on the other. In most European countries only spending in off-licences is attributed to the category "alcohol" in national statistics, whereas money spent in pubs and restaurants is included in categories such as "recreation" or "entertainment".
The Irish numbers, in contrast, include spending in off-licences and pub sales combined. A recent Drinks Industry Group of Ireland report estimated that 70 per cent of alcohol in Ireland is bought in pubs and restaurants. This is a substantially higher proportion than our European counterparts, largely due to the greater propensity for Irish people to drink in pubs and restaurants rather than at home. The inclusion of both categories therefore greatly inflates alcohol expenditure levels in Ireland in comparison with other EU countries. While there is a continuing trend towards more off-licence sales in Ireland, it is the classification distinction that significantly explains the exaggerated comparisons of Irish alcohol expenditure with other countries.

In the context of a comprehensive measurement of alcohol spending, it could be argued that the Irish proportion of expenditure on alcohol is not overestimated; rather other countries' expenditure ratios are underestimated. The recent national accounts from the Central Statistics Office show that expenditure on alcohol in Ireland is 8.6 per cent of total personal expenditure, which has declined from 10.8 per cent in the mid-1990s. The recent EU-funded report claims that Ireland spends three times more than any other country on alcohol. However, using directly comparable data, a far different story is told.
Between 1995 and 2004, households in Ireland spent an average of 2.6 per cent of their personal expenditure on alcoholic beverages - when measured as off-licence consumption. In Greece the proportion is smaller, at 0.9 per cent, but certainly not 10 times smaller as widely reported. Ireland was surpassed by Finland, Luxembourg and the Czech Republic, which had averages of 3.8 per cent, 3 per cent and 5.2 per cent respectively. When on-licence trade is factored back in, Ireland would emerge towards the top of the expenditure league, but by no means anywhere near the exaggerated multiples normally reported.

Expenditure figures are a combination of the actual quantity of alcohol consumed and its price. The fact that taxes on alcohol are higher in Ireland than in most EU member states inflates the expenditure levels without necessarily implying greater consumption levels. Per-capita alcohol consumption levels in Ireland are high by international standards, but not disproportionately so. The trend over the last decade was for actual alcohol consumed to rise as income levels increased significantly, but at the same time the proportion of expenditure on alcohol declined. A number of factors led to the increase in alcohol consumed, particularly the huge growth in the numbers of people in the 18-25 age group and increased inward migration of adults.

Did you pick up the difference between legalisation and decriminalisation?

Temptamperu

Einhard wrote: »

And to be honest...some drugs might be more easily available than alcohol for the under 18s, but I doubt that's true of heroin and the like.

It is easier to get heroin both before your 18 and you dont have restrictions on when it can be sold. It is incredibaly easy to get, I could go out and be back in 10 minutes with some right now whereas I would not be able to get booze... go figure huh.

Einhard

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Some do, same as in any country. Most do not, and this culture of abuse crap is just that.


Did you pick up the difference between legalisation and decriminalisation?

Seriously, do you have to act like such an arse? It's not like I'm attacking you personally, yet you seem incapable of passing a remark without making it a snide one. It's not that I "didn't pick up on difference", it's that I didn't see your post, and was using the two interchangably because posts in AH generally aren't required to aspire to the semantic heights of post grad theses.

I'm opposed to legalisation and criminalisation. As I stated though, I'm open to having my mind changed.

Doc Ruby

Einhard wrote: »

Seriously, do you have to act like such an arse?

You didn't bother to read a post that was made minutes before your own, and now you're trying to save face by getting abusive. Fair enough, thats how you deal with it.

And I do in fact feel that the negative and false stereotype of the drunken Irish needs to be stamped out.

Einhard

Temptamperu wrote: »

It is easier to get heroin both before your 18 and you dont have restrictions on when it can be sold. It is incredibaly easy to get, I could go out and be back in 10 minutes with some right now whereas I would not be able to get booze... go figure huh.

That may be because of where you are. Would heroin be as easily available in the rural Laois as it is in parts of Dublin?

Also, do you see the point I'm making about normalisation?

If legalisation or criminalisation lead to reduction in drug use, or even was beneficial to society, I'd be behind it 100%. I simply don't think that that's necessarily the case.

PogMoThoin

Sorry, I started this thread and it seems some of you jumped in without reading the opening post, I'm talking about decrimalising, no mention of legalisation at all. There is a huge difference

Einhard

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You didn't bother to read a post that was made minutes before your own, and now you're trying to save face by getting abusive. Fair enough, thats how you deal with it.

And I do in fact feel that the negative and false stereotype of the drunken Irish needs to be stamped out.

No, I missed the earlier post because I've been busy replying to the points that everyone else has made. Your responses on this page have been unnecessarily snide- hence why I asked do you have to ask like an arse. No need for that attitude really.

Einhard

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Sorry, I started this thread and it seems some of you jumped in without reading the opening post, I'm talking about decrimalising, no mention of legalisation at all. There is a huge difference

I was using both interchangably...I'd be against both.

Doc Ruby

Einhard wrote: »

If legalisation or criminalisation lead to reduction in drug use, or even was beneficial to society, I'd be behind it 100%. I simply don't think that that's necessarily the case.

So the ten year long experiment in Portugal where drug abuse was halved, that wouldn't qualify as a reduction in drug use or beneficial to society?

Einhard wrote: »

No, I missed the earlier post because I've been busy replying to the points that everyone else has made. Your responses on this page have been unnecessarily snide- hence why I asked do you have to ask like an arse. No need for that attitude really.

Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that politely mentioning you were confusing two completely different approaches to drug abuse, not reading the thread, or indeed the opening post was being snide.

Now, I am being snide.

PogMoThoin

Einhard wrote: »

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Sorry, I started this thread and it seems some of you jumped in without reading the opening post, I'm talking about decrimalising, no mention of legalisation at all. There is a huge difference

I was using both interchangably...I oppose both.

Yes, it was you I was referring to but didn't want to be rude. Why would it be an offence to smoke a substance in the comfort of your own home after your day is done? what harm is it doing? If me and my wife take recreational drugs for bedroom pleasure is it causing a problem? Not every drug taker devotes their lives to taking drugs, some live perfectly normal lives

Seachmall

Einhard,

I think the Portugal and Vancouver examples mentioned in the first and second posts clearly demonstrate that decriminalisation does not directly, or indirectly, result in an increase in users. Netherlands also reflects this.

If you disagree I think it's fair to assume the Burden of Proof has been shifted to you.

Einhard

Doc Ruby wrote: »

So the ten year long experiment in Portugal where drug abuse was halved, that wouldn't qualify as a reduction in drug use or beneficial to society?

No it doesn't mean a reduction in drug use. It refers specifically to a reduction in "problematic" drug use. Nothing at all about drug use in general, and nothing at all on the criteria used to define what is problematic.

Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that politely mentioning you were confusing two completely different approaches to drug abuse, not reading the thread, or indeed the opening post was being snide.

I think you know what I was talking about.

Now, I am being snide.

reported for being snide.

Reported too.

:P

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Yes, it was you I was referring to but didn't want to be rude. Why would it be an offence to smoke a substance in the comfort of your own home after your day is done? what harm is it doing? If me and my wife take recreational drugs for bedroom pleasure is it causing a problem? Not every drug taker devotes their lives to taking drugs, some live perfectly normal lives

Well I think that recreational drug use has the potential to have a huge societal impact. I mean, it's accepted that alcohol and cigarettes have a huge negative impact on society. Yet those who advocate for decriminalisation seem to believe that there will be no such issues with other drugs.

Lord TSC

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Some do, same as in any country. Most do not, and this culture of abuse crap is just that.

Personally, as a non-drinker who is constantly made to feel as if I'm doing something wrong, I disagree with the notion it's "crap".

I'd also point out one of those links states that we're one of the worst binge drinkers in Europe, trying only with Finland (surprisingly). And if the point is "Sure England is as bad, ergo we're not doing anything wrong", I'd argue England is also a culture of abuse as well.

Einhard

Seachmall wrote: »

Einhard,

I think the Portugal and Vancouver examples mentioned in the first and second posts clearly demonstrate that decriminalisation does not directly, or indirectly, result in an increase in users. Netherlands also reflects this.

If you disagree I think it's fair to assume the Burden of Proof has been shifted to you.

I'm gonna have a look through those three examples again. Perhaps I'll change my mind.

Then i'll have to think up of something else to ring Joe Duffy about though.

Doc Ruby

Einhard wrote: »

No it doesn't mean a reduction in drug use. It refers specifically to a reduction in "problematic" drug use. Nothing at all about drug use in general, and nothing at all on the criteria used to define what is problematic.

Okay, can you show any evidence whatsoever that drug use increased in Portugal over the last ten years? If you can't find any, will you admit that decriminalisation is a positive thing? If not, why not?

Einhard wrote: »

I think you know what I was talking about.

I don't really.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Personally, as a non-drinker who is constantly made to feel as if I'm doing something wrong, I disagree with the notion it's "crap".

Eh maybe hang with a better crowd. Student abuse of alcohol is a big problem here I'll agree, are you a student?

Paparazzo

RichieC wrote: »

Decriminalising is the only logical route. It will never happen.

I agree. If it cut all violent crime by 90% I don't think we'd do it. It's not a popular enough decision with the Joe Duffy brigade.

Chuck Stone

The core principle is being lost amongst all the arguments to effect.

Peaceful people should be allowed to purchase and use drugs without being molested by the state.

It's really that simple.

Einhard

Paparazzo wrote: »

I agree. If it cut all violent crime by 90% I don't think we'd do it. It's not a popular enough decision with the Joe Duffy brigade.

I don't think you do yourself any favours with this Joe Duffy brigade crap.

Right...I'm gonna log off now. I'm gonna find whatever objective evidence I can on the pros and cons of decriminalisation (including that posted on this thread), go through it all and see if I can't come to a different opinion.

I'm sure you'll all barely be able to sleep with the anticipation!

PS: if anyone does have any relevant studies for or against, would you post them if possible?

Doc Ruby

Einhard wrote: »

I don't think you do yourself any favours with this Joe Duffy brigade crap.

Right...I'm gonna log off now. I'm gonna find whatever objective evidence I can on the pros and cons of decriminalisation (including that posted on this thread), go through it all and see if I can't come to a different opinion.

I'm sure you'll all barely be able to sleep with the anticipation!

PS: if anyone does have any relevant studies for or against, would you post them if possible?

I thought this was interesting.

Short version, drug related criminal problems went waaaay down, experimenting with drugs went up, long term drug use went way down. Basically some people who hadn't tried drugs before tried them, decided they weren't really interested, and moved on.

Lord TSC

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Eh maybe hang with a better crowd. Student abuse of alcohol is a big problem here I'll agree, are you a student?

Nope.

Though living in Drogheda probably doesn't help. Everything, and I mean everything for everyone, is drink drink drink, pub pub pub. If drugs were legalised/decriminalised in this town, it would likely end it....

lugha

PogMoThoin wrote: »

I'm talking about decrimalising, no mention of legalisation at all. There is a huge difference

Yes there is a difference. Decriminalising does nothing to address the moral objection to using illegal drugs, which is that by using illicit substances you are supporting an illicit industry. To suggest that such drug use is solely a personal decision for those that do is plainly spurious.

For me, the case for legalisation is much stronger than the one for decriminalisation. With regards to the reference cited in the OP, ( Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them), much of the subsequent discussion here has being on the “decriminalise drug use” bit and much less on the “treat addicts”!!!

They are not unrelated of course but I wonder if those cheerleading this policy would be happy were we to de facto adopt it in Ireland? Not by formally decriminalising drug use but by modifying policing policy, which I think we could easily enough do.

Of course that would mean that your nice, middle class, recreational drug user would be still conducting themselves in an illegal way (and more importantly, in an unethical one)

Father Damo

grazz wrote: »

Prohibition does not work with any drug, it breeds crime and black markets.

Of course prohibition bloody works.

If cocaine was of good quality in Ireland, I might take it. It is unregulated black market rubbish which has near on zero effect on me unless consumed in massive amounts at a price that is simply not worth the buzz. If cocaine was of a higher standard, and legal, I might buy high quality coke. But it is hard to get. Therefore government prohibition makes me not bother buying cocaine. Here in Australia cocaine is of such a high price, for the same quality as what you get in Ireland, that while it is available its use is not nearly as endemic as it was in Ireland- it is harder to get into Australia in large quantities, due to prohibition, and therefore remains ridicilously expensive for the average Joe to afford (about 200 euro per gram, roughly)

Take cannabis. From what I have heard back home hash is now rare as its all weed. I love hash. I hate weed. The gangs switched to delaing weed because it cuts out the risk of importing hash through the ports. Therefore if I was at home government prohibition would have killed off my usage of cannabis, because the only product now available is overpriced and crap.


Bottom line- the Irish government does not want me to use cannabis or cocaine. Enforcement of said laws means that if I were at home I would seldom if ever use cannabis or cocaine, because the enforcement of the law has led to both products being sold at poor quality.

Anyone who says prohibition doesnt work is embarassing themselves.

OneArt

What? I was in Portugal the other week and my friend's bar got raided by the cops because they thought people had hash...

44leto

LOL
Classic statistic correlation making for causation.
The Portuguese economy relied on things like textiles, low tech and unskilled productivity. All that industry has being moving to the far east in the last 20 years. The Portuguese economy has tanked.

I give another example IRELAND during the boom years consumed the most cocaine and other drugs per capita in the world. Now you would not have to be Sherlock Holmes to know that is not the case any more and without me spelling it out, you would know why.

Without knowing the figures I bet our alcohol consumption is down as well.

So logically, if you want to reduce recreational drug use in a countries population invite the IMF in.

There are some good arguments for legalising some recreational drugs and there are some good argument against legalising them. I would be on the side of not legalising them. In my eyes they are dangerous and you don't need them.

gosuckonalemon

Father Damo wrote: »

Of course prohibition bloody works.

If cocaine was of good quality in Ireland, I might take it. It is unregulated black market rubbish which has near on zero effect on me unless consumed in massive amounts at a price that is simply not worth the buzz. If cocaine was of a higher standard, and legal, I might buy high quality coke. But it is hard to get. Therefore government prohibition makes me not bother buying cocaine.

Take cannabis. From what I have heard back home hash is now rare as its all weed. I love hash. I hate weed. The gangs switched to delaing weed because it cuts out the risk of importing hash through the ports. Therefore if I was at home government prohibition would have killed off my usage of cannabis, because the only product now available is overpriced and crap.


Bottom line- the Irish government does not want me to use cannabis or cocaine. Enforcement of said laws means that if I were at home I would seldom if ever use cannabis or cocaine, because the enforcement of the law has led to both products being sold at poor quality.

Anyone who says prohibition doesnt work is embarassing themselves.

Prohibition does not, and has never worked. You are just talking about your own very limited personal experience.

Hash is still widely available, just not as much as it used to be because of home grown weed. So has prohibition stopped the sale of hash? No of course not, it's just that weed is more common and is everywhere. If prohibition worked neither would be available.

Heroin is rampant on the streets of every town in Ireland. Has prohibition worked here? NO!

You can buy ecstacy in any decent electronic club in the country every weekend. Has prohibition worked here? NO!

You don't buy coke because it's poor quality. I totally agree with you. I don't either for the same reasons. But does this mean that cocaine isn't available to buy any day of the week by people who are willing to settle for poor quality coke? No. Prohibition hasn't worked here.

In short, just because you chose not to buy a certain drug because it is poor quality doesn't mean it is not available.

Such a stupid comment for you to make. :rolleyes:

gosuckonalemon

44leto wrote: »

LOL
Classic statistic correlation making for causation.
The Portuguese economy relied on things like textiles, low tech and unskilled productivity. All that industry has being moving to the far east in the last 20 years. The Portuguese economy has tanked.

I give another example IRELAND during the boom years consumed the most cocaine and other drugs per capita in the world. Now you would not have to be Sherlock Holmes to know that is not the case any more and without me spelling it out, you would know why.

Without knowing the figures I bet our alcohol consumption is down as well.

So logically, if you want to reduce recreational drug use in a countries population invite the IMF in.

There are some good arguments for legalising some recreational drugs and there are some good argument against legalising them. I would be on the side of not legalising them. In my eyes they are dangerous and you don't need them.

Heroin use has increased since the recession.

You can buy pills for 4-5e a pop. I doubt most people who take them recreationally every so often will stop as a result of the recession.

Levels of weed consumption has increased slightly. Many people who can no longer afford to go out 2-3 nights per week on the piss are staying at home, smoking a few joints instead, watching movies etc.

A 50 bag of weed could last a moderate smoker a couple of weeks. Switching that with 4-5 nights out on the piss leads to serious savings.

Father Damo

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

Prohibition does not, and has never worked. You are just talking about your own very limited personal experience.

Hash is still widely available, just not as much as it used to be because of home grown weed. So has prohibition stopped the sale of has? No of course not, it's just that weed is more common and is everywhere. If prohibition worked neither would be available.

Heroin is rampant on the streets of every town in Ireland. Has prohibition worked here? NO!

You can buy ecstacy in any decent electronic club in the country every weekend. Has prohibition worked here? NO!

You don't buy coke because it's poor quality. I totally agree with you. I don't either for the same reasons. But does this mean that cocaine isn't available to buy any day of the week by people who are willing to settle for poor quality coke? No. Prohibition hasn't worked here.

In short, just because you chose not to buy a certain drug because it is poor quality doesn't mean it is not available.

Such a stupid comment for you to make. :rolleyes:

But the prohibition of the product results in it being of poor quality, and results in a great many people not taking it. Which is exactly what the goernment wants.

I know ecstasy is everywhere for example (and cheap. And of good quality, generally), but take Australia, where I live. Way back when, all of the yokes in Australia were being smuggled in by the Italian mafia. Same high quality straight from the dam stuff we get, albeit at a much higher price given the transport distance (about 20 euro per pill here on average). A few years ago the Aussie police smashed the main network and it has only haphazardly recovered since. The e market in Oz currently consists of sometimes scoring great yokes, sometimes scoring stuff made locally with substitute MDMA- like chemicals that are close but no cigar, and occasionally paying for completely useless duds. Ecstasy use has been falling year by year as many peoiple tire of spending too much for a crap product. Government wins again.

Government 1- Me 0. Because I am not on it, the gov wins that one.

Father Damo

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

A 50 bag of weed could last a moderate smoker a couple of weeks. Switching that with 4-5 nights out on the piss leads to serious savings.

Bloody hell, how much is in a 50 bag these days?

gosuckonalemon

Einhard wrote: »

Having said that, I am open to having my mind changed, so I'll have an aul perusal through that report. From what I glanced though, the article is somewhat misleading. "Problematic" drug abuse is down by half, but there's nothing to suggest that drug use itself is down. It could well have increased. Many people who have issues with alcohol in this country wouldn't be seen as having a "problematic" relationship with drink, but it still has massive personal and societal affects.

Why would it increase? If people want to take drugs they will take them, irrespective if they are legal or illegal.

I've taken most drugs except heroin, if it was to be made legal in the morning I still wouldn't take it.

Also, if drug use itself increased what would be wrong with that? If someone decided to try a spliff because it is legal and enjoyed it what harm. If they stayed in on a Saturday night, got a little stoned, and watched a movie with mates isn't it better than going out and getting locked?

44leto

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

Heroin use has increased since the recession.

You can buy pills for 4-5e a pop. I doubt most people who take them recreationally every so often will stop as a result of the recession.

Levels of weed consumption has increased slightly. Many people who can no longer afford to go out 2-3 nights per week on the piss are staying at home, smoking a few joints instead, watching movies etc.

A 50 bag of weed could last a moderate smoker a couple of weeks. Switching that with 4-5 nights out on the piss leads to serious savings.

Would our present recreational drug use be anywhere as HI as it was during the boom. I bet we could not claim that much coveted number 1 spot we achieved during the boom. The use of those drugs maybe up, I don't know, but overall our consumption will be down.

gosuckonalemon

Father Damo wrote: »

But the prohibition of the product results in it being of poor quality, and results in a great many people not taking it. Which is exactly what the goernment wants.

I know ecstasy is everywhere for example (and cheap. And of good quality, generally), but take Australia, where I live. Way back when, all of the yokes in Australia were being smuggled in by the Italian mafia. Same high quality straight from the dam stuff we get, albeit at a much higher price given the transport distance (about 20 euro per pill here on average). A few years ago the Aussie police smashed the main network and it has only haphazardly recovered since. The e market in Oz currently consists of sometimes scoring great yokes, sometimes scoring stuff made locally with substitute MDMA- like chemicals that are close but no cigar, and occasionally paying for completely useless duds. Ecstasy use has been falling year by year as many peoiple tire of spending too much for a crap product. Government wins again.

Government 1- Me 0. Because I am not on it, the gov wins that one.

Quality isn't an issue. The government still can't stop the selling of these drugs no matter how good or bad the quality.

Anyways, why waste your money on pills in Oz. Just get some Ice for yourself. The place is flooded with it.

Australia is one of, if not the largest consumers of crystal meth in the world. What has prohibition achieved to curb this?

Crystal Meth Suppliers/Users 2- Government 0

gosuckonalemon

Father Damo wrote: »

Bloody hell, how much is in a 50 bag these days?

Enough to stay at home and get stoned for 4-5 nights if you smoke 1-2 spliffs per night.

Father Damo

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

Quality isn't an issue. The government still can't stop the selling of these drugs no matter how good or bad the quality.

By that logic if I bring 0.05 gram of coke into Singapore, mix it with flour and sell it, despite the fact it will have no effect on my buyer, that means Singapores anti drug policy (which I would imagine results in a near unavailability of drugs in Singapore) is failed? BOLLOCKS.

Anyways, why waste your money on pills in Oz. Just get some Ice for yourself. The place is flooded with it.

You are advocating smoking ice? Jesus christ.

Australia is one of, if not the largest consumers of crystal meth in the world. What has prohibition achieved to curb this?

Crystal Meth Suppliers/Users 2- Government 0

Heroin overdoses and related crime fell sharply in the early 21st century thanks to the gov crackdowns. Look her up.

gosuckonalemon

44leto wrote: »

Would our present recreational drug use be anywhere as HI as it was during the boom. I bet we could not claim that much coveted number 1 spot we achieved during the boom. The use of those drugs maybe up, I don't know, but overall our consumption will be down.

The only drug in which consumption has reduced is cocaine for obvious reasons. However, people who enjoyed taking this recreationally have simply switched to cheaper drugs such as ecstacy.

So, while the choice of drugs consumed has switched, actual levels of drug consumption has increased.

Heroin has dropped in price from 20e a deal 5 years ago down to 12e.

Pills cost less than the price of a pint.

As more and more weed is being grown domestically the price is falling as there is much less transportation required cutting out middle men and associated costs.

In short, drug use is flourishing in this recession.

AeoNGriM

While I respect everyone's opinion and your freedom to believe and think what you like, I don't think any among you has the right to tell another person what they can or can't do so I will still be consuming my illegal drug of choice, cannabis, at the close of business each day.


I'll tell you one thing, there's a whooooooole lot of ill-informed reactionaries in this thread.


Maybe do some research on the subject instead of regurgitating alarmist bollocks every time someone lights up a joint.


Or don't. What the fcuk do I care what you say or think?

gosuckonalemon

Father Damo wrote: »

By that logic if I bring 0.05 gram of coke into Singapore, mix it with flour and sell it, despite the fact it will have no effect on my buyer, that means Singapores anti drug policy (which I would imagine results in a near unavailability of drugs in Singapore) is failed? BOLLOCKS.

Who would buy that? If you are going to do that why not just sell actual flour. If you were caught with 0.05g of coke you would be treated the same as if you had 50g of coke.

Father Damo wrote: »

You are advocating smoking ice? Jesus christ.

No, not advocating it. However Ice is a much more recreational drug over there than people think. Not everyone turns into a junkie. I worked over there back in 2002 and several of my colleagues (all well to do professionals) dabbled with it every now and then.

Father Damo wrote: »

Heroin overdoses and related crime fell sharply in the early 21st century thanks to the gov crackdowns. Look her up.

No, that was due to methadone scheme. Which at the same time is seriously flawed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2012/0109/1224310001769.html

The number of heroin users in Ireland is the highest in the EU while deaths of people on methadone programmes increasing.

Lord TSC

While I respect everyone's opinion and your freedom to believe and think what you like, I don't think any among you has the right to tell another person what they can or can't do so I will still be consuming my illegal drug of choice, cannabis, at the close of business each day.

Awesome. In which case, you'll have no problem if I continue my end of day routine of murder and theft. After all, "I don't think any among you has the right to tell another person what they can or can't do".

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Auvers

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Awesome. In which case, you'll have no problem if I continue my end of day routine of murder and theft. After all, "I don't think any among you has the right to tell another person what they can or can't do".

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

hold on a sec smoking a joint of your own homegrown which only effects you and doesn't interfere with anybody's else's life

where as murder and robbery is definitely effecting someone

so enough with the silly roll eyes and use of the word Awesome

PogMoThoin

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Awesome. In which case, you'll have no problem if I continue my end of day routine of murder and theft. After all, "I don't think any among you has the right to tell another person what they can or can't do".

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Wow, just Wow :eek:

Lord TSC

I know it's a case of being extreme examples, but since when has "I'll do what I like" formed the basis of a decent argument?

If anything, it's the very definition of a losing argument; "I can't win, but I don't care what you think, I'll do it anyway".

gosuckonalemon

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Awesome. In which case, you'll have no problem if I continue my end of day routine of murder and theft. After all, "I don't think any among you has the right to tell another person what they can or can't do".

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Troll or retarded? I'm still trying to figure this out but will go for a bit of both.

PogMoThoin

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I know it's a case of being extreme examples, but since when has "I'll do what I like" formed the basis of a decent argument?

If anything, it's the very definition of a losing argument; "I can't win, but I don't care what you think, I'll do it anyway".

If it's not harming anybody else what harm is it doing? My brother is slightly disabled after an accident 14 years ago, he smokes 1 joint every evening to chill. The alternative for him is the 6 Difene the doctor perscribes. Is he harming you?

He should be allowed grow a plant for consumption in his own house

gosuckonalemon

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I know it's a case of being extreme examples, but since when has "I'll do what I like" formed the basis of a decent argument?

If anything, it's the very definition of a losing argument; "I can't win, but I don't care what you think, I'll do it anyway".

You compared smoking a joint with murder, I think it's time you bowed out and went to school or at least some special needs centre for the day.

Seachmall

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I know it's a case of being extreme examples, but since when has "I'll do what I like" formed the basis of a decent argument?

If anything, it's the very definition of a losing argument; "I can't win, but I don't care what you think, I'll do it anyway".

I think the "as long as it doesn't affect anyone else" is typically implied when that argument is brought up in these discussions.

You're not technically wrong in your point but it's a bit absurd to assume that his argument was comparable to arguing that murder is fine.

Dyr

What about the drug barons, lads?

What about the garda's, lads?

This is an industry we're talking about here

No drug wars, no big drug seizures, shoplifting, mugging and burlaries all dropping drastically, Armed scumbags having to find new sources of revenue. No more Paul Williams best sellers.

All for what, just to make this country a better place to live in? I mean we all want that but surely not at any cost :mad:

lugha

PogMoThoin wrote: »

If it's not harming anybody else what harm is it doing?

If it were legal you could make that argument. But it isn't and the harm is that it supports an illegal and at times pretty ruthless illegal industry.

At best, that means our valuable tax euro are being spent, largely fruitlessly IMO, combating this . At worst, one of us could be unlucky and get caught in one of their regular shoot outs.

The only credible argument is for legalisation, not decriminalisation.

Tomk1

Einhard wrote: »

That may be because of where you are. Would heroin be as easily available in the rural Laois as it is in parts of Dublin?

google laois+heroin
Survey: Sharp rise in heroin use in midlands
By Cormac O’Keeffe
Monday, May 24, 2010
www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfcwauojgbql/rss2/

Midland Regional Drugs Task Force
www.mrdtf.ie/

Heroin needle demand doubles in Portlaoise
Published: 20 August 2011
www.leinsterexpress.ie/news/local/heroin_needle_demand_doubles_in_portlaoise_1_2979902

WILD IN THE COUNTRY; RURAL IRISH GIRLS ARE CHOOSING HEROIN FOR THEIR TEENAGE KICKS.
''Byline: STEWART MacLEAN

GIRLS in rural Ireland as young as 15 are becoming heroin addicts, it was revealed yesterday.

The shock findings were announced after a study into the nation's drug problem showed more youngsters than ever are turning to hard substances in country areas.''
www.thefreelibrary.com/WILD+IN+THE+COUNTRY%3B+RURAL+IRISH+GIRLS+ARE+CHOOSING+HEROIN+FOR+THEIR...-a0127180794

I won't list all the results, as that's google's job.

If legalisation or criminalisation lead to reduction in drug use, or even was beneficial to society, I'd be behind it 100%. I simply don't think that that's necessarily the case.

I'll just reply to that with a simular dismissive reply from you to me.
Just because you think that doesn't make it so.