Largest on-land seizure of drugs in the history of the state.

PucaMama

gaffer91 wrote: »

Some people are unable to move out. And if people had a rough start, then yes they will find life a lot tougher. I don't need to point out how poor social circumstances force people into a life of crime. People are attracted to money- with drugs they see an easy way for them to do it.

i had a **** start in life on the money side of things. im still not a drug dealer, or even a user. not that i was never offered illegal drugs. i used the magic word "no". i believe all people have "no" in their vocab.

gaffer91

gara wrote: »

Yes we know, it's always somebody else's fault -the poor drug dealers, if only Mammy had have gotten him that Meccano set in 1979. Does the concept of personal responsibility mean anything to you? Because I know several people with irresponsible parents who went to terrible schools and none of them are drug dealers

Read my previous post. Not everyone who grows up in an unprivileged area will become a drug dealer but many will, for the reasons I have outlined.

tayto lover wrote: »

I knew many people who if they were alive would disagree with you.

Wow, what a fantastic refutation of my argument and links provided. I hereby retract everything I said and am now firmly of the belief that people cannot be trusted to take relatively harmless drugs safely and we should continue this costly and useless war indefinitely, whatever it takes.

Logical Fallacy

gara wrote: »

Yes we know, it's always somebody else's fault -the poor drug dealers, if only Mammy had have gotten him that Meccano set in 1979. Does the concept of personal responsibility mean anything to you? Because I know several people with irresponsible parents who went to terrible schools and none of them are drug dealers

Too much funny!!!

"You should be responsible for what you choose to do, but also you are not allowed do certain things! Accept personal responsibility and also this statute of limitations on that responsibility!".

The simple truth is that we created room for sob stories with prohibition, true personal responsibility would mean allowing people to do the things they wanted that didn't harm anyone else and forcing them to accept and deal with the consequences...like refusing to treat minor injuries of drunks in A+E at weekends.

bohsboy

Shryke wrote: »

LSD is completely non-toxic (it's cleaner and safer to take than alcohol) and is currently being looked at as a cure for alcoholism. There would be far more progress on the front of drug treatments if it wasn't for the outright outlawing of these substances.

MDMA in most recent studies, and there have been long term studies, shows no negligible effect on the brain. Some tests that showed there was a detrimental effect were later shown to be poorly done. The people that took pills tended to live rougher life styles all round to the control group, with alcohol and drug use being mixed with a lot of dancing/raves. Less bias tests show MDMA as one of the safest things to take full stop. - Safer to use occasionally than regular drinking and smoking.

Now if you take MDMA everyday then you'll have problems, but that's neither here nor there. People destroy themselves with alcohol and it's not being made illegal.
MDMA is also being looked at to treat post traumatic stress/depression and a host of other psychological disorders, again something that was set back decades be ridiculous laws.

Something tells me that neither LSD or MDMA will ever be considered for medicinal use.

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

What I see:
John Gilligan - jailed.
Dundons - jailed.

Ask any of these big dealers, they're screaming to get off the rollercoaster but cant, they are in too deep and you cant just opt out at that stage. They just wish for normality when they dont know if their friends are really friends.

There will always be someone for these young lads to emulate unfortuantely. Doesn't matter how many you lock up someone will always take their place.

As for the big dealers, many would probably have enough money to stop, but don't. Either because they've grown used to it or they enjoy the power or want more money or whatever. Have you evidence to say they're "screaming to get off the rollercoaster"?

PucaMama wrote: »

i had a **** start in life on the money side of things. im still not a drug dealer, or even a user. not that i was never offered illegal drugs. i used the magic word "no". i believe all people have "no" in their vocab.

Good for you, and I actually mean that. Unfortunately it is not that simple for everyone. Choice between life of poverty or selling drugs, many people are going to go with selling drugs.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

Wow, what a fantastic refutation of my argument and links provided. I hereby retract everything I said and am now firmly of the belief that people cannot be trusted to take relatively harmless drugs safely and we should continue this costly and useless war indefinitely, whatever it takes.

Whats with the attitude, you are very touchy on this subject.

I also know of at least ten people who destroyed their lives with drugs, starting off with the harmless hash, lsd, xtc that you maintain are harmless.

Why does this upset you so much?

PucaMama

gaffer91 wrote: »

There will always be someone for these young lads to emulate unfortuantely. Doesn't matter how many you lock up someone will always take their place.

As for the big dealers, many would probably have enough money to stop, but don't. Either because they've grown used to it or they enjoy the power or want more money or whatever. Have you evidence to say they're "screaming to get off the rollercoaster"?



Good for you, and I actually mean that. Unfortunately it is not that simple for everyone. Choice between life of poverty or selling drugs, many people are going to go with selling drugs.

why cant they just say "im getting out of this by myself, not by drugs". poverty cant always be an excuse.

Logical Fallacy

bohsboy wrote: »

Whats with the attitude, you are very touchy on this subject.

I also know of at least ten people who destroyed their lives with drugs, starting off with the harmless hash, lsd, xtc that you maintain are harmless.

Why does this upset you so much?

Because people are legally allowed to do this everyday with other substances. Many of us hate contradictions and a lack of constant procedure and logical with regard to law making.

I mean, it is my personally belief that the sale of alcohol should be illegal in Ireland.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

As for the big dealers, many would probably have enough money to stop, but don't. Either because they've grown used to it or they enjoy the power or want more money or whatever. Have you evidence to say they're "screaming to get off the rollercoaster"?

They cant stop, they've made too many enemies to simply walk away instead spending the rest of their life jumping between houses and going for a drink with a kevlar vest on.

We all know if they could turn back the clock and do things differently they would. Only vermin and scum could be proud of a life like that.

bohsboy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I mean, it is my personally belief that the sale of alcohol should be illegal in Ireland.

I agree with you.

Pottler

So, anyway, the cops got a load of drugs. Anyone know any of the dealers involved? Anyone see the raids? Any goss? Jasus, moralising and problem solving is hard going to read, isn't it.

gara

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

"You should be responsible for what you choose to do, but also you are not allowed do certain things! Accept personal responsibility and also this statute of limitations on that responsibility!".

The simple truth is that we created room for sob stories with prohibition, true personal responsibility would mean allowing people to do the things they wanted that didn't harm anyone else and forcing them to accept and deal with the consequences...like refusing to treat minor injuries of drunks in A+E at weekends.

The simple truth is that drug-users have diminished personal responsibility as a direct result of using mind-altering substances, which is also why it's within everyone's best interests that said substances remain illegal

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

Whats with the attitude, you are very touchy on this subject.

I also know of at least ten people who destroyed their lives with drugs, starting off with the harmless hash, lsd, xtc that you maintain are harmless.

Why does this upset you so much?

Well you just get sick of people posting useless arguments tbh, not bothering to read threads and giving responses that have already been debunked, or making strawmen, or zoning in on tiny issues for justification. (Not saying this necessarily applies with you). It does get quite tiresome and it is disappointing to see such close minded opinions.

On a larger scale though, I just think the war on drugs is a complete fiasco. The war, moreso than the drugs themselves has destroyed at a lot of the areas and families that need help the most. I believe, as I said previously that the war on drugs has resulted in the criminalisation of the poorest members of society. Then the fact it is wasting so much money and missing out on money that could be generated. And the way it infringes on people's liberty.

I believe the way on drugs will be looked back on by future generations the same way as prohibition , only far, far worse

usernamegoes

I find it very hard to understand the mentality of people the wish to tell other people how to live their lives. Provided they're not harm to other people, I would let people live their lives as they wish. By harm to other people, I mean not a remote causal link that is to say, drugs make some people quit their jobs and upset their family. But rather something like, you can't rob someone's property.

I understand that these people believe this sincerely and it's probably something that no amount or argument will change, and I accept they view me as some sort of lunatic who doesn't care about people. But ultimately if someone takes drugs and dies it was their decision, whereas some people that have nothing to do with drugs will be killed in the crossfire which arises through the criminalisation.

Shryke

bohsboy wrote: »

Something tells me that neither LSD or MDMA will ever be considered for medicinal use.

They already are considered and have been for many years. The problem is that it's difficult to get proper trials let alone treatment plans going when the substance is made illegal, and that has set back real and beneficial treatments by decades, but there is real movement on that front. The war on drugs is a failure. It will happen, and sooner than you might think.

You have some incorrect notions about what these drugs are and what they do going by your comments. I'll say it for a third time in this thread, LSD, MDMA and Coke are less harmful when taken occasionally than smoking and drinking regularly. And as I've outlined they actually have real benefit. It's acknowledged now that weed does, these will follow.

gaffer91

PucaMama wrote: »

why cant they just say "im getting out of this by myself, not by drugs". poverty cant always be an excuse.

Because they want/need the money. I mean, some of them can't even get a job never mind a minimum wage one, and selling drugs is perceived as being easy money. I accept that not everyone from a poor area becomes a criminal. But the ones who do are not necessarily thugs or scum or whatever.

sancho panza

coke is for dopes who have no confidence in expressing themselves.

Yokes , now, are another matter. great drug .

and Dope/Hash/Grass is the most pointless drug known to man.
Its the smoking version of bulmers or budweiser.

Logical Fallacy

gara wrote: »

The simple truth is that drug-users have diminished personal responsibility as a direct result of using mind-altering substances, which is also why it's within everyone's best interests that said substances remain illegal

I would personally dispute that. Every user of drugs I know has, if anything, and increased concept of responsibility...they are very much aware that taking drugs is the same as booze...too much can be a risk.

It's the same reason that fact based drug campaigns do a lot more to reduce drug use than fear based ones like D.A.R.E

If you give people correct information you give them a better foundation to make healthy and safer choices.

bohsboy

Shryke wrote: »

You have some incorrect notions about what these drugs are and what they do going by your comments.

Elaborate please.

usernamegoes

Shryke wrote: »

You have some incorrect notions about what these drugs are and what they do going by your comments. I'll say it for a third time in this thread, LSD, MDMA and Coke are less harmful when taken occasionally than smoking and drinking regularly. And as I've outlined they actually have real benefit. It's acknowledged now that weed does, these will follow.

I accept that for LSD and MDMA as I have read studies, however I have not read that re coke. I have seen it ranked quite high up with heroin. It does not mean that it's right to ban it.

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

I agree with you.

But why? Look at the failed prohibition attempts in the States. Why would you want to go back to that because 10% of drinkers can't drink responsibly?

Shryke

bohsboy wrote: »

Elaborate please.

Sure. This:

bohsboy wrote: »

Possibly hash but I cant understand what good LSD could do even if it was legalised. Its brain frying stuff.

Ecstacy? Another ten years at least until we see the effects its had on the brains of the 90's ravers. I can see this being a problem in the future as that generation gets older. Could be some serious long term effects.

I didn't mean to sound rude or anything.

dodderangler

Gonna be some drought now

tayto lover

I am not naming names but you know that there many who have died. Don't play silly games.

usernamegoes

I wonder if those who advocate banning drugs for health reasons would allow the state to give a promise to pharm companies that if they invent a perfectly or highly safe version of coke or MDMA that it would not be banned

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

But why? Look at the failed prohibition attempts in the States. Why would you want to go back to that because 10% of drinkers can't drink responsibly?

Look at the devestation mind altering substances are doing all around us. There are people eating each other recently while monged off their head on bath salts!

But then again you'll probably tell me they had the freedom to choose to take them. :rolleyes:

gaffer91

tayto lover wrote: »

I am not naming names but you know that there many who have died. Don't play silly games.

From cannabis, MDMA or LSD? I don't know that there is "many who have died" for those drugs actually.

mackg

bohsboy wrote: »

Something tells me that neither LSD or MDMA will ever be considered for medicinal use.

If they worked and there was money to be made from their sale you can bet your ass they would be considered. Attitudes about things can change dramatically, heroin was originally thought to be the ideal replacement for morphine as it was believed it was less addictive. That turned out not to be the case and it was re evaluated why can't the same happen going the other way?

Shryke

usernamegoes wrote: »

I accept that for LSD and MDMA as I have read studies, however I have not read that re coke. I have seen it ranked quite high up with heroin. It does not mean that it's right to ban it.

You are right that Coke is a worse substance than the other two, but it is nowhere near heroine and is safe to use in moderation. I wouldn't personally advocate that heroine be legalized. It is a legitimately dangerous drug compared to the 3 that I am discussing.

bohsboy

Shryke wrote: »

I didn't mean to sound rude or anything.

Far from rude but I cant see what your issue is. With regards to E, Id like to wait another couple of years to see what the effect has been of seretonin being pumped and drained from brains. Its far too early in my opinion to make the assumption that its safe.

LSD? Mental stuff. Im not even going to go into it. I stand by that one. If anyone is foolish enough to be taking trips these days they need to be shot with balls of their own sh ite.

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

Look at the devestation mind altering substances are doing all around us. There are people eating each other recently while monged off their head on bath salts!

But then again you'll probably tell me they had the freedom to choose to take them. :rolleyes:

So you think that prohibition like we had in the US would be preferable to the current situation, where alcohol is legal but regulated?

And yes, most people can take drugs responsibly so they should not be criminalised because a minority can't.

usernamegoes

bohsboy wrote: »

Look at the devestation mind altering substances are doing all around us. There are people eating each other recently while monged off their head on bath salts!

But then again you'll probably tell me they had the freedom to choose to take them. :rolleyes:

Nope anyone who murders someone should be punished, most I imagine would be due to alcohol. Perhaps they got drugs that they didn't know what they were because they got them from some asshole on the street or perhaps they got them because they couldn't find drugs which we know how people usually behave on it. There's many reasons that this isn't a fair argument.

admiralofthefleet

mikemac1 wrote: »

Should be deported when his sentence is over

should be deported now so the nigerian taxpayer can pay for his time in prison and not the irish taxpayer

bohsboy

Shryke wrote: »

and is safe to use in moderation.

Keep telling yourself that mate, seriously.

gara

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I would personally dispute that. Every user of drugs I know has, if anything, and increased concept of responsibility....

So using drugs makes you more responsible? Words literally fail me

usernamegoes

Shryke wrote: »

You are right that Coke is a worse substance than the other two, but it is nowhere near heroine and is safe to use in moderation. I wouldn't personally advocate that heroine be legalized. It is a legitimately dangerous drug compared to the 3 that I am discussing.

I'd advocate the legalisation of heroin for many reasons mainly harm reduction for the users and for non-users.

bohsboy

usernamegoes wrote: »

Perhaps they got drugs that they didn't know what they were because they got them from some asshole on the street or perhaps they got them because they couldn't find drugs which we know how people usually behave on it.

So.....

What should they have done?

mackg

bohsboy wrote: »

Far from rude but I cant see what your issue is. With regards to E, Id like to wait another couple of years to see what the effect has been of seretonin being pumped and drained from brains. Its far too early in my opinion to make the assumption that its safe.

LSD? Mental stuff. Im not even going to go into it. I stand by that one. If anyone is foolish enough to be taking trips these days they need to be shot with balls of their own sh ite.

No offence but going into stuff is the whole point of this kind of thing, at least give us a link if you can't be arsed typing.

bohsboy

gara wrote: »

So using drugs makes you more responsible? Words literally fail me

RSA are going to use this in their next ad campaign! :D

usernamegoes

gara wrote: »

So using drugs makes you more responsible? Words literally fail me

If you're only interested in remaining 100 per cent safe then of course not. If you think that a person that wishes to take risks for pleasure shouldn't be allowed then fine, ban all risks which you deem too risky. I am of the view that people are entitled to take such risks and they are the best judge of that.

usernamegoes

bohsboy wrote: »

So.....

What should they have done?

If drugs were legal they could buy drugs in a store where they know the doses and the effects of the drugs are known.

I am not aruging that a drug which causes its users to eat people to be legal.

Pascaldiddly

seriously though i got some icolator hash from a'dam smoked it with a heroin junkie on the street and well we couldnt stop laughing he swore if they could get this **** proper cannabis very few people wud end up on heroin.

coke is sick leaglise mdma sudden death (thank you media) is possible (get a heart checkup before you take it) although coke kills waaay more people.

education is good let people know even the poor scum deserve to know or great modern war will continue lots of casualtieswatever war its just getting rid undesirables nowadays.


im done here beam me up scotty

bohsboy

mackg wrote: »

No offence but going into stuff is the whole point of this kind of thing, at least give us a link if you can't be arsed typing.

Well its getting late...but if you fully know the effects of LSD on the human brain and links to anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, etc then be my guest.

http://voices.yahoo.com/acid-casualties-life-dangers-lsd-198316.html

I cannot believe Im actually arguing with someone about LSD being safe or not. Astounding.

bohsboy

usernamegoes wrote: »

If drugs were legal they could buy drugs in a store where they know the doses and the effects of the drugs are known.

We tried that, headshops I think they were called? That was a roaring success.

usernamegoes

bohsboy wrote: »

Well its getting late...but if you fully know the effects of LSD on the human brain and links to anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, etc then be my guest.

http://voices.yahoo.com/acid-casualties-life-dangers-lsd-198316.html

I cannot believe Im actually arguing with someone about LSD being safe or not. Astounding.

I can't find the official list but this was the list published in the medical journal the lancet and shown on a BBC doc Horizon.

http://www.listology.com/list/top-twenty-most-dangerous-drugs-according-bbc-horizon

Shryke

gara wrote: »

So using drugs makes you more responsible? Words literally fail me

You'll stop posting things without backing yourself up with reasons then?

bohsboy wrote: »

Far from rude but I cant see what your issue is. With regards to E, Id like to wait another couple of years to see what the effect has been of seretonin being pumped and drained from brains. Its far too early in my opinion to make the assumption that its safe.

LSD? Mental stuff. Im not even going to go into it. I stand by that one. If anyone is foolish enough to be taking trips these days they need to be shot with balls of their own sh ite.

More research can always be done but just so you're aware there is a lot of research already done and a lot already known.
If that's your opinion on acid that's sound. It's not mental at all though. It's great stuff. Not something to be doing of a Sunday but very safe. A person can have a bad trip but that's all.

bohsboy wrote: »

Keep telling yourself that mate, seriously.

Facts, studies and statistics have my back but I don't blame you for doubting. Massive amounts of cocaine are done in Ireland and all over the world, it's a minority that abuse the drug rather than use it and they can do themselves harm as you can with anything.

usernamegoes wrote: »

I'd advocate the legalisation of heroin for many reasons mainly harm reduction for the users and for non-users.

I agree with this but I would not agree with it being legal in a recreational capacity. Harm reduction for users and treatment programs, yes.

usernamegoes

bohsboy wrote: »

We tried that, headshops I think they were called? That was a roaring success.

Nope. We didn't. The head shops sold drugs which weren't tested and were not allowed be sold as drugs so no advice could be given on how to use it. Also I don't think it was a failure, dispite what I said very few issues if I recall correctly.

gara

usernamegoes wrote: »

If you're only interested in remaining 100 per cent safe then of course not. If you think that a person that wishes to take risks for pleasure shouldn't be allowed then fine, ban all risks which you deem too risky. I am of the view that people are entitled to take such risks and they are the best judge of that.

Yes actually, remaining as safe as possible in life is something I'd quite like, believe it or not! And most people I know are also interested in avoiding danger whereever possible. In fact, some actively pursue safety and do things like wear seatbelts and install fire alarms -honestly, are you even aware of what you're actually writing or are you experiencing some drug-induced trauma?

Thousands of people aren't responsible enough to brush their teeth twice a day, never mind giving them free access to narcotics

M cebee

how many cans of coke were seized?

usernamegoes

gara wrote: »

Yes actually, remaining as safe as possible in life is something I'd quite like, believe it or not! And most people I know are also interested in avoiding danger whereever possible. In fact, some actively pursue safety and do things like wear seatbelts and install fire alarms -honestly, are you even aware of what you're actually writing or are you experiencing some drug-induced trauma?

Excellent. I'd be quite similar. I'd never though tell someone if they do a dangerous sport like rock climbing or whatever, I'd lock them up. I think this is where we disagree.

Different stroke, different folks.