Garda now admit state has lost war on drugs

SDTimeout

One if not both of the next presidential U.S candidates will be pro legalization I think.

You should also read this http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

Fizzlesque

nevaeh-2die-4 wrote: »

they where smoking in there bedroom next to my childrens, the houses were built in 2007 so i say that plays a part, it was defo weed

Badly built housing, fair enough. Probably would have filled the room with tobacco smoke too in that case, that stuff really knows how to travel.

kincsem

frag420 wrote: »

The demand will never go away. When anti drug folks stsrt to realise this the better. So it's up to us as a society to decide how this demand is administered, either by gun carrying murdering track suit dwelling scumholes or by the scumholes in the government!! One supplies hangs with guns, money and power. The other makes money for society through taxes!!

Better tbe devil you know eh!!

Drug dealers will -
steal drugs from pharmacies or official suppliers / warehouses
undercut official taxed sources in the same way they undercut taxed cigarettes
will burn out / bomb / intimidate official sources

The market will be bigger, and big money attracts low life.

robman60

The "War on Drugs" is pretty farcical in my opinion. Prohibition of weed is just indefensible, whatever about proscribing harder drugs.

PizzamanIRL

This isn't news. They never had a grip of the war on drugs.

Armin_Tamzarian

nevaeh-2die-4 wrote: »

i lived next door to someone who smoked weed all day, the smell inside my house was sicking, the smell would come into my children's bedroom,there room became un usable as the smell was so strong.

Are we talking about weed or plutonium here?
Get a grip Buddy!

snubbleste

Marijuana on the medical card?
Growers make money selling to the State and the population will be too sedated to protest.
win win.

Icyseanfitz

kincsem wrote: »

Drug dealers will -
steal drugs from pharmacies or official suppliers / warehouses
undercut official taxed sources in the same way they undercut taxed cigarettes
will burn out / bomb / intimidate official sources

The market will be bigger, and big money attracts low life.

i dont and never have touched drugs (bar alcohol) but if weed became legal and i had two options to get it, from a safe legal shop or a dodgy looking fela undercutting i would certainly go with the former,
its just like you dont see people buying illegal booze over the legal stuff

MagicSean

MagicSean wrote: »

The reality would be quite different though. First you have the issue of licensing and sourcing imports. Where do you get it from?

Treat it like alcohol.

How do you ensure you are not funding crime in another country because you can be sure they won't appreciate it if you are.

Treat it the same as alcohol.

Maybe we should focus domestic production?

Bit inefficient but might be better by saving on transport costs.

Do you let people grow as much as they want or do you licence large scale production.

If they're not selling it they can grow what they want without declaring. Kind of like roses now.

How would you secure such a large growing facility from interference or theft?

Security guards?

Who distributes the stuff? Chemists? Off licences? Anyone?

Have a licencing system. Off licences would be the handiest right now but on-premises consumption could be allowed too unless people got very nimby-ish.

What limits do you put on distribution?

Same as alcohol.

Will you tax it?

Yes.

At what rate?

A sensible one, not at the ludicrous level that cigarettes are at now.

How do you get customers away from the dealers?

It'll be cheaper.

How do you protect the legitimate sellers from the dealers who want to protect their income?

Similar to the illegal distilleries.


Any more questions? To be honest the biggest problem I'd see with the legalisation process is that grass is too cheap. Even right now someone could easily get stoned for an evening for a euro or two and that's someone making a profit after half a dozen other people have made a profit, people have been paid off, etc. etc. Legal production would cause weed to be so cheap (sans-tax) that the drinks companies would never allow it and home-grown stuff would make economic sense if stupidly taxes were put on it.

frag420

kincsem wrote: »

Drug dealers will -
steal drugs from pharmacies or official suppliers / warehouses
undercut official taxed sources in the same way they undercut taxed cigarettes
will burn out / bomb / intimidate official sources

The market will be bigger, and big money attracts low life.

Similar to the spate of robberies and break ind of Off Lucenses snd pubseh!! All the criminals robbing booze so they can undercut the government eh?

Cop on!!

Grayson

nevaeh-2die-4 wrote: »

they where smoking in there bedroom next to my childrens, the houses were built in 2007 so i say that plays a part, it was defo weed

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but your kids are smoking weed and blaming it on the neighbours.

Incidentally, how does opening 300 drug treatment facilities make matters worse? Surely treating addicts and helping them is a good thing that makes society better? Otherwise there are junkies with a problem that are unable to get help.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

Any more questions? To be honest the biggest problem I'd see with the legalisation process is that grass is too cheap. Even right now someone could easily get stoned for an evening for a euro or two and that's someone making a profit after half a dozen other people have made a profit, people have been paid off, etc. etc. Legal production would cause weed to be so cheap (sans-tax) that the drinks companies would never allow it and home-grown stuff would make economic sense if stupidly taxes were put on it.

That's the thing. A gram would keep most occasional smokers going for a week or two. and that costs about 10-15 in the netherlands.

For non smokers, think of it like this. you'd get about as much use of a gram as you would from a bottle of whiskey. Obviously there are some who have higher or lower tolerances than others but as a guideline, think of it like that.

How often do most people go through a bottle of whiskey. maybe in a night with some friends. But normally, it could take a couple of weeks at a drink or two every few nights. If a coffee house is selling it at 15 quid a gram, that could be split three ways between supplier, shop and government. It would be damn hard for criminals to under cut it.

minidazzler

LostBoy101 wrote: »

Legalising drugs is like a receipe for disaster. Take long-term marijuana smoking for example, does increasing tax stop them from smoking? No because it's addictive and this will apply to dangerous illegal drugs.

The only way to prevent big amount of drugs coming in is to increase the security strictness on the harbours.

You have absolutely no clue how drugs get into this country.

And you don't have to have the tax stopping people, it will deter people from starting, but at that it would create millions in revenue.

frag420

Spiritual wrote: »

It is. The extra income your mate gets and passes onto the revenue is always a good thing.



I have always been in favour of legalising drugs though I am still to be convinced that the long term affects to society will be anything but negative.

We are a society that still can't use alcohol responsibly.

I'm sure the long term effects can't be any worse than those caused by prohibition, namely the power it has handed criminal gangs, the countless murders, beatings, standings, robberies by these gangs etc.

Time for a new approach me thinks!!

the purple tin

RustyNut wrote: »

I wonder could you point to somewhere this approach has worked, it certainly has been tried the US this year has spent well over $30,000,000,000 on the war on drugs and they are far from a drug free societie.

I would argue that that money would be better spent educating people as to the effects of drugs, good and bad and providing treatment for those people who are suffering negative effects from drug use.

I agree. I saw a documentary about heroin users living in a filthy squat a few years ago. One addict showed a hideous looking wound in his leg caused by missing the vein when injecting. It looked like half his leg had just been eaten away:eek: if they showed that doc in schools it might help.

MagicSean

frag420 wrote: »

Similar to the spate of robberies and break ind of Off Lucenses snd pubseh!! All the criminals robbing booze so they can undercut the government eh?

Cop on!!

I find it very odd that people think this doesn't happen. Booze gets stolen all the time. And I mean kegs, not just stock from off licences.

Cigarettes get stolen all the time in robberies and burglaries too and then get sold on the black market.

Pharmaceuticals can be added to the list too. Pharmacies, doctors offices and even vets get broken into for drugs, and not just by junkies.

Why exactly do you think this doesn't happen?

mikom

MagicSean wrote: »

I find it very odd that people think this doesn't happen. Booze gets stolen all the time. And I mean kegs, not just stock from off licences.

Cigarettes get stolen all the time in robberies and burglaries too and then get sold on the black market.

Pharmaceuticals can be added to the list too. Pharmacies, doctors offices and even vets get broken into for drugs, and not just by junkies.

Why exactly do you think this doesn't happen?

You'd better let recently legalised Washington state and Colarado police force know this.
The can use the man hours saved from not busting simple possession charges to instead bust those breaking into Pharmacies, doctors offices and even vets.

frag420

MagicSean wrote: »

I find it very odd that people think this doesn't happen. Booze gets stolen all the time. And I mean kegs, not just stock from off licences.

Cigarettes get stolen all the time in robberies and burglaries too and then get sold on the black market.

Pharmaceuticals can be added to the list too. Pharmacies, doctors offices and even vets get broken into for drugs, and not just by junkies.

Why exactly do you think this doesn't happen?

I didn't say it didn't happen. But it doesn't happen anywhere near as much as was suggested in the post I replied to.

Cars get stolen too and sold on for profit!! Should we shut down car sales rooms because a junkie robbed a car to feed his habit?

ArmaniJeanss

kincsem wrote: »

Drug dealers will -
-steal drugs from pharmacies or official suppliers / warehouses
-will burn out / bomb / intimidate official sources

The market will be bigger, and big money attracts low life.

Every existing warehouse/office/shop is potentially a target for thieves, theres nothing new about that and its not a good reason to veto any new industry.

As for burning/bombing the official sources, theres no evidence from the countries where it is legal that this happens - e.g., I've never seen heightened security in an Amsterdam coffeeshop because of the fear of a pipebomb coming throught the window.

MagicSean

frag420 wrote: »

I didn't say it didn't happen. But it doesn't happen anywhere near as much as was suggested in the post I replied to.

Cars get stolen too and sold on for profit!! Should we shut down car sales rooms because a junkie robbed a car to feed his habit?

You are also ignoring the fact that there is much more money in drugs and transporting and reselling would also be easier. It's not like you can hide a car in your sock.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

That's the thing. A gram would keep most occasional smokers going for a week or two. and that costs about 10-15 in the netherlands. .

I don't know what weed costs in weight terms because every year or two it seems to completely change but I know a tenner would easily have someone properly stoned every night for a week rather than how drunk they'd be each night for a week with a couple of whiskeys. It's gotten awfully cheap the last 5 years or so.

frag420

MagicSean wrote: »

You are also ignoring the fact that there is much more money in drugs and transporting and reselling would also be easier. It's not like you can hide a car in your sock.

And how many beer kegs or vodka bottles or box of pills can you fit in your sock??

hatrickpatrick

Victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes.

Sunnyisland

The Dutch do not see their tolerant policy towards limited soft drug use as some miraculous solution. They try to prevent the drug abuse through the educational measures, closely monitoring the scene of the drug abuse, fighting with the consequences of the abuse by the health measures such as the free testing of the ecstasy pills, the free syringe exchange program and the free methadone (surrogate of heroine) supply program for the heroine users. Today in 60 Dutch cities, hundreds of these programs operate om daily basis, deeply influencing life in the country. At the same time, Dutch authorities try to eliminate deadly illegal drugs by combating drug trafficking. Then again, through their tolerant policies towards soft drugs, they hope to be able to better control the social phenomena of drug abuse. For example, the statistical data certifies that among young people of medium age 28 in the Netherlands, only 16% ever smoked marijuana. Soft drugs when widely accessible seem to lose much of their appeal.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=who%20grows%20the%20weed%20in%20amsterdam&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amsterdam.info%2Fdrugs%2F&ei=1fWoULieM4jIhAfJ3oDIAg&usg=AFQjCNGDVAXhHkTb6Nc9ykvfUsCQ54p-ug

joseph brand

LostBoy101 wrote: »

Legalising drugs is like a receipe for disaster. Take long-term marijuana smoking for example, does increasing tax stop them from smoking? No because it's addictive and this will apply to dangerous illegal drugs.

The only way to prevent big amount of drugs coming in is to increase the security strictness on the harbours.

Why didn't anyone else think of that? Quick, waste NO time. Call the Dáil and the harbour police.
Fly to Brussels so the EU may learn of this easy fix plan of yours. There's no time to lose.

MagicSean

frag420 wrote: »

And how many beer kegs or vodka bottles or box of pills can you fit in your sock??

That's my point. Grass would be much easier to steal and resell than any of those other things.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be legalised, im saying you shouldn't just dismiss legitimate concerns and assume it will be anything but a long and complicated process

cup of tea

cup of tea wrote: »

The older generation would never approve so realistically your probably talking 20/30 years

I think you underestimate the older generation.

The objective of legalisation will be to kill the crime gangs and also to stop all the muggings and burglaries linked to drugs. To achieve that we need to go much further and legalise everything especially heroin and cocaine. Supply must be put into the hands of people who can distribute and give the government their tax cut. Cigarette companies might undertake the work.

Remember nobody will be forced to take drugs, and there is already no scarcity of supply so it should have minimal impact on society, except of course the reduction in crime and the increase in tax revenues; almost a virtuous circle.

kupus

Anybody that is against this should look up the history of the mafia and prohibition.

It will explain a lot of things.

Then come back here and debate.

And as somebody else mentioned the vintners lobby group will be up in arms about this, which has ties to publicans, which has ties to drinks manufacturers, which has ties to politicians so its a never ending vested interest circle....like most of Irish life and business.

Hamiltonion

Where can I buy this magical E10 gram of weed that lasts a week? More like E50 for 3-4g of variable quality, would last average user 1-2 weeks

gb40

At what stage did the Garda have control of the war?

Snake Pliisken

MagicSean wrote: »

That's my point. Grass would be much easier to steal and resell than any of those other things.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be legalised, im saying you shouldn't just dismiss legitimate concerns and assume it will be anything but a long and complicated process

Just like every other business ever, the cannabis trade will evolve a solution to this small fry problem and adapt. Legitimate business' get legitimate security, it won't be a staffe terrier and baseball bats guarding this stuff once the growers don't have to hide anymore. There'll be every modern convenience available to these people; from CCTV and safes to alarms directly linked to police.

I get what you're saying, legalisation is a bureaucratic operation that would span the country. Of course it would be complicated- just like every other country wide initiative ever taken. I see no reason to believe it would be much more complicated than any other roll-outs the government has preformed.

kupus wrote: »

And as somebody else mentioned the vintners lobby group will be up in arms about this, which has ties to publicans, which has ties to drinks manufacturers, which has ties to politicians so its a never ending vested interest circle....like most of Irish life and business.

It's not even a vested interest circle, it's a feckin incestuous web of back scratching...

Hamiltonion wrote: »

Where can I buy this magical E10 gram of weed that lasts a week? More like E50 for 3-4g of variable quality, would last average user 1-2 weeks

Take a holiday from weed for a few weeks and when you come back realise you don't have to get do it every single day. And buy a pipe/bong/vaporizer!

Plus this is magical, after-legalisation cannabis that's been bred from the best of what we can grow now, pumped up by science and even better levels of production, that's been treated like Dick Cheney on his death bed by the best ethnobotanists in the world... It's good hypothetical weed is what I'm saying.

The publicans will love this.

grizzly

gb40 wrote: »

At what stage did the Garda have control of the war?

1952

Dionysius2

slavetothegrind wrote: »

i did not know that!
i did witness a chap in court who admitted to fighting in a chipper and resisting arrest get away scot free with a warning where as the next chap who was accused of not having current insurance on a new vehicle ( and produced evidence to say he had) get a 300 euro fine because he didn't have it displayed.
my assumption had been that the judge allowed for the other lad being drunk.

i learn something new every day!

Some judges maintain privately that lumping big fines onto miscreants who are living on social welfare increases the likelihood that these will simply resort to more crime to pay the fines. Drug addicts, for example, apparently are terrified at the thoughts of being locked up in prison where their access to drugs is constrained both by officialdom and the criminal underworld and their supply is very uncertain. When these wrongdoers get fined in the courts and the judge tags on the line at the end of the sentence : "one month in default" or whatever is deemed appropriate, that in cases where the defendant is a drug addict, such fines can only be met by further criminality, i.e. either from drug dealing or cash robbery. And that as many will say is the start of the vicious circle !

Ellis Dee

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

The publicans will love this.

It would sugar the pill for them somewhat if they were allowed to retail the stuff (subject to whatever controls are brought in after legalisation).

bgrizzley

Ellis Dee wrote: »

It would sugar the pill for them somewhat if they were allowed to retail the stuff (subject to whatever controls are brought in after legalisation).

good idea, but if the publicans were selling it, it would be 15 times the cost of Tesco Finest...

Haelium

"Drugs" have long since become a scape-goat for deeper social problems.

Kids not trying hard in school because they don't see the point? Blame drugs.
Some psychopath murders a guy because he's ****ed in the head? Blame drugs.
Increase in violence in a certain area? Blame drugs, usual "gangs".
Increase in psychological conditions? Blame drugs.

Drug use is just a result of social problems. Alcoholism included. People don't turn to heroin because all the kids are doing it and they want to be cool, people turn to heroin because their lives are so miserable that they need something to ease the pain of their lives. The same can be applied to many drugs.

But it's harder for politicians to get votes from being "Tough on depression and mental illness".

Substance abuse should not be treated as its own issue, if we continue to examine it in a vacuum then it will never be resolved.

asherbassad

cup of tea wrote: »

I think it should be legalised.Could either raise the governments income or reduce taxes in other areas. The older generation would never approve so realistically your probably talking 20/30 years

Like we need to give more revenue to the bloody government only for them to spunk it up the wall. Better off to give the cash to a little panel of 6 year olds. They'd appropriate it in a more prudent and intelligent manner.

bedrock#1

Spiritual wrote: »

Sometimes the obvious just stares you in the face.
I find great hilarity in the number of wage slaves that will line up to collect their pills and coke every weekend and seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that they are feeding the illegal drug industry.

Ignorant of that fact?? Really??

TBH you sound like the ignorant one.

Spiritual

bedrock#1 wrote: »

Ignorant of that fact?? Really??

TBH you sound like the ignorant one.

So your reasoning must be that they are not ignorant of the facts, this being the case they are then showing no regard for the problems they are causing society by funding the drug dealers.

UCDVet

Hang on, let me set down my cigarette, pour another shot of Whiskey into my coffee, take another Xanax and I'll tell you all about how bad drugs are!

Oh, no, not those drugs. THOSE drugs are fine.
I'll tell you how the *OTHER* drugs are evil.

Nasty stuff them other drugs.

Spiritual

UCDVet wrote: »

Hang on, let me set down my cigarette, pour another shot of Whiskey into my coffee, take another Xanax and I'll tell you all about how bad drugs are!

Oh, no, not those drugs. THOSE drugs are fine.
I'll tell you how the *OTHER* drugs are evil.

Nasty stuff them other drugs.

At least wait until you have a clear head before you lecture us. :pac:

Piliger

LostBoy101 wrote: »

Legalising drugs is like a receipe for disaster.

I take issue with that assessment.

The "War" on drugs has always been a moralising war, driven by a flawed dogma of controlling people's lives 'for their own good'.

It should have been abandoned years ago and has damaged our society more than anything else we have done in a 100 years, including two world wars.

And it is only now that we are getting a real and serious examination by the Media of this "War", and the impact that it has had on society.

I would suggest to you that ..
It has created Local, National and Global Organised Crime networks that have now become almost unconquerable.

It has sucked billions of pounds every year out of our economies that could be spent on better things such as education, health, and reduce tax and produce more jobs.

It has exploded the level of crime at all levels and the prison population. The vast majority of people in prison are there for drugs offences. Usually to acquire money to pay criminal gangs for drugs.

Our lives are blighted by fear of petty crime and assault on our most vulnerable, simply to get money to pay for drugs.

It has criminalised private behaviour that has no impact on others, in a terrible and damaging way.

It has eroded our civil liberty and our every day freedom to an enormous extent.

It has fuelled and financed global terrorism all around the world in a way that is second only to the poisonous effect of the Israeli-Palestine issue.

It has the been the craziest and most self destructive campaign ever followed by any civilisation in history.

I suggest that this 'war' has done orders of magnitude more damage to our society than drugs have ever done to our individual people.

There is and there always has been a small element in all of our societies that is attracted to drug use. It is irrational to bring such insane damage to ALL of society in a misguided effort to stop them. We need to accept them and help them in a way that does not damage the rest of society. It will be, in the long term, a LOT cheaper and more effective I suggest.

frag420

Spiritual wrote: »

So your reasoning must be that they are not ignorant of the facts, this being the case they are then showing no regard for the problems they are causing society by funding the drug dealers.

How about we talk about how we could solve these problems by taking this trade out of the hands of illegal drug dealers??

Crazy idea just may work eh!!

Spiritual

frag420 wrote: »

How about we talk about how we could solve these problems by taking this trade out of the hands of illegal drug dealers??

Crazy idea just may work eh!!

I have always voted for the idea that the Government hires mercenaries and they wipe all the drug gangs in the country off the face of the earth.

Problem here is that the drug gangs are probably better armed.

frag420

Spiritual wrote: »

I have always voted for the idea that the Government hires mercenaries and they wipe all the drug gangs in the country off the face of the earth.

Problem here is that the drug gangs are probably better armed.

And how does that adress demand for drugs? Demand will never go away!! Therefore there will always be a ready supply. Who supplies it and benefits from it is the issue.

If you want gangs to benefit from a huge untaxed income, more power, more violence etc then keep your head in the sand and keep drugs illegal. If you want to try something a bit radical and different then keys try legalising drugs, regulating them, taxing them, educating people!!

bedrock#1

Spiritual wrote: »

So your reasoning must be that they are not ignorant of the facts, this being the case they are then showing no regard for the problems they are causing society by funding the drug dealers.

What's your point?

MagicSean

bedrock#1 wrote: »

What's your point?

While it is correct that prohibition of drugs has resulted in a lot of crime and suffering, this does not negate the responsibility of those who purchase drugs and fund the criminals.

bedrock#1

MagicSean wrote: »

While it is correct that prohibition of drugs has resulted in a lot of crime and suffering, this does not negate the responsibility of those who purchase drugs and fund the criminals.

Right, so what should be done about it then?

Spiritual

bedrock#1 wrote: »

Right, so what should be done about it then?

Stop buying them.