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

gara

tayto lover wrote: »

He had a habit of doing that. (excuse pun).

I'd say he has a lot of 'habits' by the sounds of things -or at least likes condoning other people's. I stopped replying when he mentioned that taking MDMA is the same as riding a horse -it would almost be funny if it wasn't so tragic

gaffer91

tayto lover wrote: »

The people who write the articles are professionals like that doctor in my last link.

So what? Doctors get things wrong as well. His views are not backed up by scientific evidence.

tayto lover wrote: »

No the war on drugs will never be won but it will help control the problem. Legalizing drugs will not cure the problems they cause either. Many agree that it would add to the problem.

The "problem" of taking fairly harmless substances? Any only blinkered ideologues would say that legalisation would make things worse.

gaffer91

Tym wrote: »

Of course there would be a link.

Any high cuases a low (even in relation) and many teenagers would be using it to cover their own problems, so there would be a proven link regardles.

Unless there are several properly controlled studies that directly and correctly link cannabis use to suicide, and do not mix up correlation and causation he might be right. Regardless, because cannabis use can cause suicidal thoughts in a tiny minority of users, it is no reason for it to be banned.

gara wrote: »

I'd say he has a lot of 'habits' by the sounds of things -or at least likes condoning other people's. I stopped replying when he mentioned that taking MDMA is the same as riding a horse -it would almost be funny if it wasn't so tragic

Did you actually read the link provided?

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

So what? Doctors get things wrong as well. His views are not backed up by scientific evidence.



The "problem" of taking fairly harmless substances? Any only blinkered ideologues would say that legalisation would make things worse.

Did this doctor also manufacture the pictures too?
Are you of the opinion that any doctor or expert who is against the drug culture is totally wrong in what they say?

Odysseus

tayto lover wrote: »

The people who write the articles are professionals like that doctor in my last link.

No the war on drugs will never be won but it will help control the problem. Legalizing drugs will not cure the problems they cause either. Many agree that it would add to the problem.

I'm a profession who has pulished on addict, I teach on various courses and have worked in the aera for a long time, I believe in increasing access to controlled drugs; so are a lot of professionals.

The are professionals who diagree with me, so quoting a professional to back up you opinion means little really on a topic like this.

gaffer91

tayto lover wrote: »

Did this doctor also manufacture the pictures too?
Are you of the opinion that any doctor or expert who is against the drug culture is totally wrong in what they say?

The pictures don't prove any link with cannabis.

I am of the opinion that drugs are not completely safe, but the negative effects of them are vastly overstated by people like you and this doctor.

Tym

I am of the opinion that drugs are not completely safe, but the negative effects of them are vastly overstated by people like you and this doctor.

The vibe i'm getting from this is that any specialist that disagrees with you is wrong, or has ulterior motives.

tayto lover

Odysseus wrote: »

I'm a profession who has pulished on addict, I teach on various courses and have worked in the aera for a long time, I believe in increasing access to controlled drugs; so are a lot of professionals.

The are professionals who diagree with me, so quoting a professional to back up you opinion means little really on a topic like this.

What are you trying to prove? I know "professionals" that I wouldn't let look at my cat.
It is for everyone to read and either agree with or disagree with.
You obviously don't agree. I do. But then I don't take drugs as I don't need artificial highs. I have the evidence of my own work with young addicts and the things I have seen to base my opinions on.

mikom

tayto lover wrote: »

But then I don't take drugs as I don't need artificial highs.

No chocolate, coffee, tea, or alcohol?

Are you Mitt Romney?

Snowie

I Heart Internet wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0626/drugs-dublin-kildare.html

Fair play to the Gardai on this one.

Middle-classs drug users might have to pay a little more for their fix.

theres always somebody waiting to take some ones place when it comes to drugs thus were the term "Layer Cake" came from...

gara

mikom wrote: »

No chocolate, coffee, tea, or alcohol? Are you Mitt Romney?

Are you stupid? Or do you realise that this conversation is about heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances and not chocolate? Or are you actually trying to insinuate that those things all fall into the same category?

Odysseus

tayto lover wrote: »

What are you trying to prove? I know "professionals" that I wouldn't let look at my cat.
It is for everyone to read and either agree with or disagree with.
You obviously don't agree. I do. But then I don't take drugs as I don't need artificial highs. I have the evidence of my own work with young addicts and the things I have seen to base my opinions on.

What I'm saying is that on this issue you cannot rely upon the authority of professionals as there is too much division on the matter.

mikom

gara wrote: »

Are you stupid? Or do you realise that this conversation is about heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances and not chocolate? Or are you actually trying to insinuate that those things all fall into the same category?

Yeah.... I'm stupid.......... stupid the way I linked my post to "artificial highs" as Taytolover mentioned.
You're new here, right?
You might wanna relax a bit........ just sayin'....

gara wrote: »

What kind of bullsh1t logic

gara wrote: »

that's just a simpleton statement

ScumLord

Snowie wrote: »

theres always somebody waiting to take some ones place when it comes to drugs thus were the term "Layer Cake" came from...

Especially when this seizure is completely over blown and worth no where near 200 million, probably didn't cost them even 10% of that number. It's not the big set back to the criminal gangs the guards and media would have us believe it is.

gara

mikom wrote: »

Yeah.... I'm stupid.
You're new here, right?
You might wanna relax a bit........ just sayin'....

Or you could just stay on topic and quit trying to play the 'part of the old brigade' card, as though it somehow makes you more informed :rolleyes:

mikom

gara wrote: »

Or you could just stay on topic and quit trying to play the 'part of the old brigade' card, as though it somehow makes you more informed :rolleyes:

Sooo muuuuccch anger.

gaffer91

gara wrote: »

Are you stupid? Or do you realise that this conversation is about heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances and not chocolate? Or are you actually trying to insinuate that those things all fall into the same category?

Congratulations on completely missing the point for the 54th time in a row.

You keep going on about the cocaine and heroin; leaving those aside for the moment, do you believe that drugs that have proven to you to be relatively harmless over the course of the thread, such as LSD, MDMA and cannabis should be legal?

mikom

gara wrote: »

Are you stupid? Or do you realise that this conversation is about heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances and not chocolate? Or are you actually trying to insinuate that those things all fall into the same category?

gaffer91 wrote: »

Congratulations on completely missing the point for the 54th time in a row.

You keep going on about the cocaine and heroin; leaving those aside for the moment, do you believe that drugs that have proven to you to be relatively harmless over the course of the thread, such as LSD, MDMA and cannabis should be legal?

Glad someone can help explain this to the lad.
The ould red mist seems to be clouding things for him.

Tym

You keep going on about the cocaine and heroin; leaving those aside for the moment, do you believe that drugs that have proven to you to be relatively harmless over the course of the thread, such as LSD, MDMA and cannabis should be legal?

They haven't been proven to be relatively harmless...

Quick question, do you believe the media is deliberatly hyping up the dangers of drugs?

gaffer91

Tym wrote: »

They haven't been proven to be relatively harmless...

Quick question, do you believe the media is deliberatly hyping up the dangers of drugs?

Yes they have. Read the thread.

And yes the media and education policies are often deliberately disingenuous about the dangers of drugs.

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

Yes they have. Read the thread.

And yes the media and education policies are often deliberately disingenuous about the dangers of drugs.

Oh my God. They're all out of step except my Johnnie.

Dyr

mikemac1 wrote: »

Should be deported when his sentence is over

Alan's probably made him a citizen already, possibly twice :pac:

gaffer91

tayto lover wrote: »

Oh my God. They're all out of step except my Johnnie.

Read the thread, read the studies, your every argument on this thread has been defeated. This is evidenced form the fact that you can rarely follow up on any of your arguments, so quickly are they shot to pieces.

In the long run, I'm sure history will prove the socially liberal position on this issue, and practically every other issue, absolutely correct and show the socially conservative one to be almost laughably idiotic.

Tym

Yes they have. Read the thread.

No they haven't. The various links and info haven't proven to me that drugs are relatively harmless.

In the long run, I'm sure history will prove the socially liberal position on this issue, and practically every other issue, absolutely correct and show the socially conservative one to be almost laughably idiotic.

I am not socially conservative. I think there should be collasal changes to our society, but I do not believe legalizing drugs should be one of them. And no, your arguments haven't trumped any anti-legislation arguments...unless you've managed to persuade the majority of people viewing the thread that drugs should be lagalized?

Pantsface

gaffer91 wrote: »

No every reason the prohibitionists have given has been completely taken apart, not just that one. I provided a link showing that MDMA was as dangerous as horse riding, which you just ignored. The point we were trying to make was if drugs should be illegal because they are harmful, should every activity dangerous to oneself be prohibited as well? The answer is no.

The prohibitionist argument has consisted of lies, hyperbole, strawmen and ignorance of basic facts surrounding drugs and the war on drugs. I would politely advise to give up this argument as you have already been resoundingly defeated and you are just making yourself look worse.

Imagine doing both, at the same time

gaffer91

Tym wrote: »

No they haven't. The various links and info haven't proven to me that drugs are relatively harmless

Yes they have. Do your own research on this topic and you will come to the same conclusions as the legalisation side. It is likely the whole thing would be wasted on you though, as you would not approach it with an open mind and would look for shoddy evidence that backs up your already formed opinions.

MDMA, LSD and Cannabis are not particularly detrimental to a users health, and certainly not to the point that they should be illegal.

gaffer91

Tym wrote: »

I am not socially conservative. I think there should be collasal changes to our society, but I do not believe legalizing drugs should be one of them. And no, your arguments haven't trumped any anti-legislation arguments...unless you've managed to persuade the majority of people viewing the thread that drugs should be lagalized?

Well you are not liberal on this position at the very least.

Any neutral observer with an open mind would indeed have come to the conclusion that those in favour of drug legalisation have scored a resounding victory in this thread. As stated previously,This is evidenced form the fact that prohibitionists can rarely follow up on any of their arguments, so quickly are they shot to pieces.

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

Read the thread, read the studies, your every argument on this thread has been defeated. This is evidenced form the fact that you can rarely follow up on any of your arguments, so quickly are they shot to pieces.

In the long run, I'm sure history will prove the socially liberal position on this issue, and practically every other issue, absolutely correct and show the socially conservative one to be almost laughably idiotic.

I think those links and arguments you posted are complete rubbish.
I will be defeated only when they legalize drugs and that's not likely to happen so in actual fact you are being defeated not that its about winning or losing which was a childish thing to come out with on your part.
The only things shot to pieces are the veins of the poor old heroin users i'm afraid. Many of them who started on the "harmless" cannabis.

Dyr

tayto lover wrote: »

The only things shot to pieces are the veins of the poor old heroin users i'm afraid. Many of them who started on the "harmless" cannabis.

bwahahahaha

oh deary me, should you not be posting that in the all things retro forum?

scamalert

pffft largest seize :pac: probably every day theres a ship container coming into country with 0.5 ton of coke

tayto lover

Bambi wrote: »

bwahahahaha

oh deary me, should you not be posting that in the all things retro forum?

Hit a nerve ?

gaffer91

tayto lover wrote: »

I think those links and arguments you posted are complete rubbish.
I will be defeated only when they legalize drugs and that's not likely to happen so in actual fact you are being defeated not that its about winning or losing which was a childish thing to come out with on your part.
The only things shot to pieces are the veins of the poor old heroin users i'm afraid. Many of them who started on the "harmless" cannabis.

Presumably because they do not back up your preconceived notions.

The only childish about this thread is the prohibitionists attitudes- unreasonable, close minded, ignoring facts presented to them.

Again, you are mixing up use and abuse.

Tym

as you would not approach it with an open mind and would look for shoddy evidence that backs up your already formed opinions.

I'd say the same to you.

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

Presumably because they do not back up your preconceived notions.

The only childish about this thread is the prohibitionists attitudes- unreasonable, close minded, ignoring facts presented to them.

Again, you are mixing up use and abuse.

Then produce links showing how users lives improved with drug use.

scamalert

gaffer91 wrote: »

Yes they have. Do your own research on this topic and you will come to the same conclusions as the legalisation side. It is likely the whole thing would be wasted on you though, as you would not approach it with an open mind and would look for shoddy evidence that backs up your already formed opinions.

MDMA, LSD and Cannabisare not particularly detrimental to a users health, and certainly not to the point that they should be illegal.

of course people even should be encouraged to especially drive while on them
cannabis isnt that big of danger compared to synthetic drugs,but dont see any of them becoming legal anytime soon,not in recession when theres to many already climbing the walls without work.
for the end

Boombastic

First drug they probably started on was tea/coffee or cigarettes

tayto lover

Boombastic wrote: »

First drug they probably started on was tea/coffee or cigarettes

Bonjela I believe

gaffer91

Tym wrote: »

I'd say the same to you.

And you'd be mistaken to do so. Its because I read up on the drugs issue with an open mind that I hold the opinions I hold.

tayto lover wrote: »

Then produce links showing how users lives improved with drug use.

My God, this is what you are reduced to-forget the harms of drugs or the drugs war, I know have to prove how users lives improve with drug use.

People enjoy taking drugs so that is a good thing. Cannabis has therapeutic properties, and MDMA and LSD could have them as well. Steve Jobs described his LSD use as being one of the most important events in his life.

My advice would be to bow out, read up on the matter with an open mind, and once you have changed your opinions come back and claim you always held such opinions.

Boombastic

tayto lover wrote: »

Bonjela I believe

Don't get me started on that stuff, it nearly always leads to the harder drugs like calpol :eek: Its a gateway drug.

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

And you'd be mistaken to do so. Its because I read up on the drugs issue with an open mind that I hold the opinions I hold.



My God, this is what you are reduced to-forget the harms of drugs or the drugs war, I know have to prove how users lives improve with drug use.

People enjoy taking drugs so that is a good thing. Cannabis has therapeutic properties, and MDMA and LSD could have them as well. Steve Jobs described his LSD use as being one of the most important events in his life.

My advice would be to bow out, read up on the matter with an open mind, and once you have changed your opinions come back and claim you always held such opinions.

Bow out !!! Not likely. I will stick around until all these artificial highs and society wreckers are legalized. If I live another few centuries.

gaffer91

tayto lover wrote: »

Bow out !!! Not likely. I will stick around until all these artificial highs and society wreckers are legalized. If I live another few centuries.

Bow out of the thread. What does it matter if a high is artificial or not? And what constitutes "artificial"? As for being "society wreckers" that has obviously been debunked.

Would you not think it could be fairer if people who wanted drugs could get them, and people who were opposed choose simply not to partake?

Tym

@gaffer91

Why should anybody who disagrees with you bow out of a thread? Wouldn't it be in your own best interests for the anti-legalisation crowd to keep arguing because you see your argument as proving your point?

gaffer91

Tym wrote: »

@gaffer91

Why should anybody who disagrees with you bow out of a thread? Wouldn't it be in your own best interests for the anti-legalisation crowd to keep arguing because you see your argument as proving your point?

From the prohibitionists point of view, it would ensure you cease making foolish and unfounded arguments and prevent you from looking even more foolish than you already look, with every single one of your arguments having been chewed up, spat out and left in the gutter.

From a personal point of view, it grows wearisome debunking the same old points time and again.

By all means stay, but the prohibitionists would do themselves a big favour if they simply accepted they were wrong and admitted defeat.

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

Bow out of the thread. What does it matter if a high is artificial or not? And what constitutes "artificial"? As for being "society wreckers" that has obviously been debunked.

Would you not think it could be fairer if people who wanted drugs could get them, and people who were opposed choose simply not to partake?

No i've seen too many lives ruined because of these drugs. I have no wish to see my country become what the U.S. is but it is already happening.

http://deep6inc.com/previewcoc08.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewcoc11.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewcoc17.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewcoc17.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewcoc25.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewcoc27.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewcoc28.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewher09.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewher12.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewher13.html

gaffer91

tayto lover wrote: »

No i've seen too many lives ruined because of these drugs. I have no wish to see my country become what the U.S. is but it is already happening.

http://deep6inc.com/previewcoc08.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewcoc11.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewcoc17.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewcoc17.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewcoc25.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewcoc27.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewcoc28.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewher09.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewher12.html
http://deep6inc.com/previewher13.html

Those are all from the same website that I dismissed earlier for being unscientific. It relies solely on shock pictures and the authors word, without citing any studies or scientific evidence. In other words nonsense.

To establish- you have a problem if your one of your neighbours peacefully takes cannabis, MDMA or LSD in his own home?

Chuck Stone

tayto lover wrote: »

shockfactor.pics.

The 'parade of horribles' non-argument.

A parade of horribles is also a rhetorical device whereby the speaker argues against taking a certain course of action by listing a number of extremely undesirable events which will ostensibly result from the action

If I were to show you victims of car crashes would it then make it reasonable to ban all cars or would you say those people were reckless?

You're in love with your dogma.

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

Those are all from the same website that I dismissed earlier for being unscientific. It relies solely on shock pictures and the authors word, without citing any studies or scientific evidence. In other words nonsense.

To establish- you have a problem if your one of your neighbours peacefully takes cannabis, MDMA or LSD in his own home?

I see several youngsters injecting heroin every day. I see the queues outside the methadone clinic. I see young women of 17/18 snorting cocaine weekly. I regularly see 15/16 year olds rolling joints on the street before going into secondary school in the mornings. Are any of those things normal ? I don't believe they are and I will shout my opinions as loudly and as often as I can. I do not need scientific evidence to tell me what I already know and witness on a regular basis.

gara

The amount of drug advocates here is frankly, disturbing.

Gaffer91 -two questions: 1. Do you have children? (Yes or no will suffice please) and 2. Would you prefer that he/she does or does not take drugs? (Prefer or would not prefer will be sufficient here)

gaffer91

tayto lover wrote: »

I see several youngsters injecting heroin every day. I see the queues outside the methadone clinic. I see young women of 17/18 snorting cocaine weekly. I regularly see 15/16 year olds rolling joints on the street before going into secondary school in the mornings. Are any of those things normal ? I don't believe they are and I will shout my opinions as loudly and as often as I can. I do not need scientific evidence to tell me what I already know and witness on a regular basis.

What nonsense, never minding the fact it ignores my question. You have brought up things like this before and it has all been debunked.

What about all the drug users you don't see with little or no adverse effects?

Surely if you do witness all these things it is hardly evidence of the 'success' of the war on drugs?

Also, no one is saying smoking joints before school is ok either. Time and a place.

tayto lover

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The 'parade of horribles' non-argument.



If I were to show you victims of car crashes would it then make it reasonable to ban all cars or would you say those people were reckless?

You're in love with your dogma.

If a picture paints a thousand words .......