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

gaffer91

gara wrote: »

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)

I do not have kids.
As for taking drugs, depends on what age and what drugs.

When someone is reduced to a "think of the children" argument you know you've almost won.

Chuck Stone

gara wrote: »

Would you prefer that he/she does or does not take drugs? (Prefer or would not prefer will be sufficient here)

Children shouldn't be taking any drugs - legal or otherwise.

Also if they did happen to start taking drugs wouldn't it be better that they didn't have life chances greatly affected by them being labelled a criminal?

gara

gaffer91 wrote: »

I do not have kids.
As for taking drugs, depends on what age and what drugs.

So in instances where you approve of the chosen drug you would, in fact, prefer that your child take them as opposed to not? Wow.

And, this ladies and gentlemen is why some people should never be allowed to procreate -I rest my case!

Pantsface

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.

your neighbourhood sounds lovely....

Chuck Stone

tayto lover wrote: »

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

Images are great for propaganda. Try sticking to the facts and you might have a chance of not looking so entrenched in your erroneous dogma.

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

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.

You are wasting your time arguing a no-win argument. Drugs will never be acceptable to the vast majority of Irish people and especially to the establishment. You will never convince non drug users that drugs are harmless as like me they can see the damage every day.

gaffer91

gara wrote: »

So in instances where you approve of the chosen drug you would, in fact, prefer that your child take them as opposed to not? Wow.

And, this ladies and gentlemen is why some people should never be allowed to procreate -I rest my case!

No, I'd don't mind what they do as long as they are an adult, it's not what I'd "prefer". I'd rather they didn't take heroin for example, but if my 18 year old son or daughter wants to take cannabis, MDMA or LSD recreationally I wouldn't have too much of a problem.

tayto lover

Pantsface wrote: »

your neighbourhood sounds lovely....

I'd safely say that your friends would all have neighbours in the same boat if they got their way. It's the scourge of drugs and we all have to fight it.

Jame Gumb

gaffer91 wrote: »

if my 18 year old son or daughter wants to take cannabis, MDMA or LSD recreationally I wouldn't have too much of a problem.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you do realise that the majority of people would be appalled by your views.

gara

gaffer91 wrote: »

No, I'd don't mind what they do as long as they are an adult, it's not what I'd "prefer". I'd rather they didn't take heroin for example, but if my 18 year old son or daughter wants to take cannabis, MDMA or LSD recreationally I wouldn't have too much of a problem.

You'll make a wonderful parent gaffer -seriously, they'll be lucky to have a father who doesn't 'mind what they do'

gaffer91

tayto lover wrote: »

You are wasting your time arguing a no-win argument. Drugs will never be acceptable to the vast majority of Irish people and especially to the establishment. You will never convince non drug users that drugs are harmless as like me they can see the damage every day.

Eventually they will be. Things like the internet enable large amounts of information to be shared quickly and precisely. The 'dangers' of drugs will eventually be exposed for what they are, not really dangers at all, on the most part. And most non drug users could be convinced when presented with overwhelming evidence. Could take 50 years, could take 100 but it will happen eventually. All this notwithstanding that the war on drugs has been such an expensive failure it could not continue indefinitely.

Again I'll ask you- do you have a problem if your one of your neighbours peacefully takes cannabis, MDMA or LSD in his own home?

gaffer91

Jame Gumb wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion, but you do realise that the majority of people would be appalled by your views.

Only because the majority of people are absolutely clueless about drugs.

gara wrote: »

You'll make a wonderful parent gaffer -seriously, they'll be lucky to have a father who doesn't 'mind what they do'

Thanks. It only applies once they reach adulthood obviously. Assuming you have children, would you mind them going out and getting drunk with their friends?

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

Eventually they will be. Things like the internet enable large amounts of information to be shared quickly and precisely. The 'dangers' of drugs will eventually be exposed for what they are, not really dangers at all, on the most part. And most non drug users could be convinced when presented with overwhelming evidence. Could take 50 years, could take 100 but it will happen eventually. All this notwithstanding that the war on drugs has been such an expensive failure it could not continue indefinitely.

Again I'll ask you- do you have a problem if your one of your neighbours peacefully takes cannabis, MDMA or LSD in his own home?

Yes I would have. These illegally gotten drugs are the cause of illness, shootings and serious assaults and cause untold hardships all over the world. He is lining the pockets of criminals so therefore is one himself.
Unlike you I would prefer to see my children score on the football field and not up some seedy alleyway with the dregs of society. I would prefer to see them well educated and getting a good job and not dropping out of school early or being expelled because of their illegal cannabis use, which is very common.

gara

gaffer91 wrote: »

Thanks. It only applies once they reach adulthood obviously

Oh really, changing the goalposts now? You're the one espousing the harmlessness of drugs so what difference does it make if they're 15 or 50 taking them?

gaffer91

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes I would have. These illegally gotten drugs are the cause of illness,

You greatly overestimate these 'illnesses'.

tayto lover wrote: »

shootings and serious assaults and cause untold hardships all over the world. He is lining the pockets of criminals so therefore is one himself.

This is all because drugs are illegal, not the drugs themselves. As for lining the pockets of criminals I already debunked that as you well know.

tayto lover wrote: »

Unlike you I would prefer to see my children score on the football field and not up some seedy alleyway with the dregs of society. I would prefer to see them well educated and getting a good job and not dropping out of school early or being expelled because of their illegal cannabis use, which is very common.

Who says they can't do both? Who says responsible drug use can't be an enjoyable part of a well rounded life? Who says drug use in and of itself prevents one from getting a good education and a good job? Also why does the alleyway have to be 'seedy'?

As for getting expelled, this again would be by virtue of the fact they are illegal.

mikom

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.

Disappointed in you tayto lover to be honest.
Never took you for a "gateway" man.

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

You know you are dealing with a man of science when he comes out with lines like this.......

Public response to this web site has been mostly favorable, except for a few junkies who hate it and regularly accuse us of blowing smoke.http://deep6inc.com/index.html

gara wrote: »

And, this ladies and gentlemen is why some people should never be allowed to procreate -I rest my case!

a brave future in eugenics awaits you.

Pantsface

tayto lover wrote: »

I'd safely say that your friends would all have neighbours in the same boat if they got their way. It's the scourge of drugs and we all have to fight it.

My friends?

What are you banging on about?

Also, tayto lover - taytos are not good for you either, in some lives they are a scourge, you see that kid over in England who they had to knock a wall down to get her out?

What did she like?

Lots of taytos

Its a scourge

gaffer91

gara wrote: »

Oh really, changing the goalposts now? You're the one espousing the harmlessness of drugs so what difference does it make if they're 15 or 50 taking them?

Most tests are done on adults, who have a slight difference in body composition than children or adolescents, so whether studies done can apply to children or not is unclear. They probably still do but it is better to err on the side of caution.

15 year olds would not, on the most part, be mentally mature enough to take drugs either.

tayto lover

Pantsface wrote: »

My friends?

What are you banging on about?

Also, tayto lover - taytos are not good for you either, in some lives they are a scourge, you see that kid over in England who they had to knock a wall down to get her out?

What did she like?

Lots of taytos

Its a scourge

It could have been worse. She could have been like this guy
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/news_archives/ronald-poppo-zombie-miami-causeway-cannibal-attack-victim-is-amazing-doctors-say

Pantsface

tayto lover wrote: »

It could have been worse. She could have been like this guy
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/news_archives/ronald-poppo-zombie-miami-causeway-cannibal-attack-victim-is-amazing-doctors-say[/QUOTE]

she has a different addiction, and its almost killed her

Dyr

gara wrote: »

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)

Are you are a copper? (yes or no will suffice)

does the illicit drugs industry keep you in a job? (yes or no will suffice)

etc etc

gara

gaffer91 wrote: »

15 year olds would not be mentally mature enough to take drugs

I know plenty of teenagers who are far more mature and responsible than those in their twenties -age and maturity are two entirely different things. Your own naiviety regarding drugs is a working example of this (assuming you're an adult, although I'm beginning to wonder considering you've expressed a preference for your potential children to be drug-takers)

gaffer91 wrote: »

it is better to err on the side of caution

Do you even know what this phrase means? Because erring on the side of caution would mean not taking drugs

Tym

with every single one of your arguments having been chewed up, spat out and left in the gutter.

None of the anti-legalizations arguments have been chewed up, so on so forth, by your arguments. Of course the pro-legalize group would think so, but that's because they're the ones making the argument.

gaffer91

gara wrote: »

I know plenty of teenagers who are far more mature and responsible than those in their twenties -age and maturity are two entirely different things.

Well we can't do it on a case by case basis. On the whole people in their 20's are more mature than those who are 15. Society has decided that the age of adulthood is 18 and I'm quite happy with that.

gara wrote: »

Your own naiviety regarding drugs is a working example of this (assuming you're an adult, although I'm beginning to wonder considering you've expressed a preference for your potential children to be drug-takers)

I am not the naive one, that much is very clear. And I never said I preferred it, I said it was there decision once they become adults and I didn't mind either way. Obviously I would encourage them to do it responsibly.

gara wrote: »

Do you even know what this phrase means? Because erring on the side of caution would mean not taking drugs

No, it is because we don't know either way. With drugs like cannabis, MDMA and LSD we know that they are not too harmful. What is life without a little fun and risk anyway?

bohsboy

Pantsface wrote: »

your neighbourhood sounds lovely....

Possibly our capital's main thoroughfare?
http://www.herald.ie/news/oconnell-street-is-too-violent-for-me-to-walk-down-alone-senator-3151865.html

csi vegas

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So you'd be okay with China meddling in the US if they decided to outlaw tobacco and the US still produced it?

Would you be okay with the Chinese funding anti-tobacco militias in US tobacco growing states?

It's only a pity some outside nation wouldn't come along and clean up Ireland with a gun-bearing drug destruction squad

And anyway sher if a tobacco 'user' suddenly found that tobacco was now illegal in one state/country, they could QUIT out of necessity or they could just move to another where it was legal to 'use', where as drugs are illegal everywhere and always will be and suppliers should have no place to hide without retribution.

Governments for all their faults perhaps think that by seizing at the source/intercepting on entry that users will have to go without (for a time - 'rations' on the street and all that), the cost be driven up and that users be forced to re-think their lifestyle (in the most perfect world imaginable of course), quit and get help....like many smokers who quit because of the cost.
You've got to quell the supply by all means.

But you can not compare something like tobacco with narcotics, even if tobacco were illegal.
Tobacco kills the smoker and "those around them" yes, tobacco costs a small fortune yes, but these are where the comparisons end.
A smokers personality does not change whilst smoking.

Drugs are illegal for all sorts of reasons.
People do not turn in to raving lunatics under the 'influence' of tobacco and go out and burgle and mug/murder people, the crime rate doesn't soar, children don't get taken from their parents because of tobacco,
people don't lose their jobs/family/friends over tobacco and the general public don't generally run across the road to avoid the incoming tobacco user who may harrass them for another smoke...:)

So yeah - the war on drugs. Whatever. Means. Necessary.

Dyr

gara wrote: »

different things. Your own naiviety regarding drugs is a working example of this (assuming you're an adult, although I'm beginning to wonder considering you've expressed a preference for your potential children to be drug-takers)

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the potential children?

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

I am not the naive one, that much is very clear

Your arrogance throughout this thread is breathtaking. Have you read back on your treatment of people who dare to air a differing view to your own. Until you can start putting some credentials up here, you're a nobody, like ourselves with just another point of view.

csi vegas

gara wrote: »

The amount of drug advocates here is frankly, disturbing

+1 (and probably only us two)...

gaffer91

csi vegas wrote: »

It's only a pity some outside nation wouldn't come along and clean up Ireland with a gun-bearing drug destruction squad

And anyway sher if a tobacco 'user' suddenly found that tobacco was now illegal in one state/country, they could QUIT out of necessity or they could just move to another where it was legal to 'use', where as drugs are illegal everywhere and always will be and suppliers should have no place to hide without retribution.

Governments for all their faults perhaps think that by seizing at the source/intercepting on entry that users will have to go without (for a time - 'rations' on the street and all that), the cost be driven up and that users be forced to re-think their lifestyle (in the most perfect world imaginable of course), quit and get help....like many smokers who quit because of the cost.
You've got to quell the supply by all means.

But you can not compare something like tobacco with narcotics, even if tobacco were illegal.
Tobacco kills the smoker and "those around them" yes, tobacco costs a small fortune yes, but these are where the comparisons end.
A smokers personality does not change whilst smoking.

Drugs are illegal for all sorts of reasons.
People do not turn in to raving lunatics under the 'influence' of tobacco and go out and burgle and mug/murder people, the crime rate doesn't soar, children don't get taken from their parents because of tobacco,
people don't lose their jobs/family/friends over tobacco and the general public don't generally run across the road to avoid the incoming tobacco user who may harrass them for another smoke...:)

So yeah - the war on drugs. Whatever. Means. Necessary.

PLEASE tell me you are trolling.

If not, read the thread. All your arguments have been debunked already.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

PLEASE tell me you are trolling.

If not, read the thread. All your arguments have been debunked already.

Classic. Again a differing view is immediately accused of being a troll.

"Debunked" ? By who? You? Who are you? Medals on the table please.

gara

Bambi wrote: »

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the potential children?

You think it's funny that parents don't give a sh1t if their children are on drugs? What a messed up fukking world this is

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

Your arrogance throughout this thread is breathtaking. Have you read back on your treatment of people who dare to air a differing view to your own. Until you can start putting some credentials up here, you're a nobody, like ourselves with just another point of view.

Not really I have backed my opinions up with scientific facts the prohibitionist brigade seem to have a view of drugs that comes from reefer madness. My credentials were presented in links to scientific studies. I am also a two years through a medical degree if that counts for anything.

Tym

If not, read the thread. All your arguments have been debunked already.

No they haven't. Your arguments are miles from bullet proof.

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

Not really I have backed my opinions up with scientific facts the prohibitionist brigade seem to have a view of drugs that comes from reefer madness. My credentials were presented in links to scientific studies. I am also a two years through a medical degree if that counts for anything.

Good man Gaffer. I'm a professor meself.

csi vegas

gaffer91 wrote: »

PLEASE tell me you are trolling.

If not, read the thread. All your arguments have been debunked already.

Do please elobarate. I'm waiting...

gaffer91 wrote: »

Not really I have backed my opinions up with scientific facts the prohibitionist brigade seem to have a view of drugs that comes from reefer madness. My credentials were presented in links to scientific studies. I am also a two years through a medical degree if that counts for anything.

Actually no. Don't. Really. This means that you are right and I am but a lowly serf.

gaffer91

Tym wrote: »

No they haven't. Your arguments are miles from bullet proof.

There is no point in arguing with you. You simply state that you disagree providing no reasons as to why.

tayto lover wrote: »

Good man Gaffer. I'm a professor meself.

Why would I lie? Go through my posting history, I have several posts in the health science forum long before this thread was started.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

My credentials were presented in links to scientific studies.

You crack me up man.

gaffer91

csi vegas wrote: »

Do please elobarate. I'm waiting...



Actually no. Don't. Really.

Read the thread. In brief:

1. Prohibitionists vastly overstate the dangers of drugs and mix up use and abuse.
2. The war on drugs has been a complete failure with regards money wasted, lives lost or ruined by incarceration and income missed out on.

This has been done to death many times by now. Read it.

jonnny68

The so called war on drugs was lost years ago and will never ever be won and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

Legalisation is the only viable solution, if it's controlled properly this will eradicate the criminal element not to mention the recession.

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

You crack me up man.

Do elaborate. And what're your credentials may I ask?

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

You crack me up man.

Actually maybe I have created some misunderstanding here. I'm not saying I penned the articles or contributed to them in any way I just use them to prove my impression of drugs and their dangers, or lack thereof.

csi vegas

bohsboy wrote: »

:DYou crack me up man.

gaffer91 wrote: »

Do elaborate. And what're your credentials may I ask?

Careful now - this may just be a job interview...

gara

gaffer91 wrote: »

Do elaborate. And what're your credentials may I ask?

Since when are anonymous posts in an online forum 'credentials'? Dude, the only thing you are is an absolute comedian!

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

Do elaborate. And what're your credentials may I ask?

As I said yesterday I have spent a lot of time working with drug users/addicts. I have seen the side of drugs, which judging by your pompous posting, you obviously never have. Its not pretty and recovery rates from addiction are sadly very, very low.

I dont want to argue with you but your constant sniping at differing views and aggressive ordering of people to "read the thread" is not doing you many favours. You're not going to change anyone's attitude towards drugs no matter how hard you try.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

Actually maybe I have created some misunderstanding here. I'm not saying I penned the articles or contributed to them in any way I just use them to prove my impression of drugs and their dangers, or lack thereof.

Absolutely no misunderstanding...at all. Dont worry.

gaffer91

csi vegas wrote: »

Careful now - this may just be a job interview...

gara wrote: »

Since when are anonymous posts in an online forum 'credentials'? Dude, the only thing you are is an absolute comedian!

WTF are you bull****ting on about? I'm not the one coming out demanding "credentials" from anyone, bohsboy asked me so I felt it fair to return the question. If you're opinions are backed up by scientific evidence then I don't see why it should make a difference whether you are a neurologist or on the dole when it comes to debating this.

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

WTF are you bull****ting on about? I'm not the one coming out demanding "credentials" from anyone, bohsboy asked me so I felt it fair to return the question. If you're opinions are backed up by scientific evidence then I don't see why it should make a difference whether you are a neurologist or on the dole when it comes to debating this.

This is becoming hilarious now. You couldn't buy this stuff.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

If you're opinions are backed up by scientific evidence

But they are not.
Show me one pro-drug taking article and I'll show you an opposite one.
You're not going to change anyone's opinion no matter what virtual credentials you say you have.

Augmerson

Only goes to show that the country is awash with drugs when they make seizure's of this size.