Garda now admit state has lost war on drugs

120_Minutes

Luke Flanagan to bring cannabis legislation bill before the dail next April. Article in today's examiner.

Call Me Jimmy

I take it bringing a bill into the dail has little likelihood of succeeding / has happened before?

120_Minutes

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I take it bringing a bill into the dail has little likelihood of succeeding / has happened before?

I may be wrong but this might be his first attempt as a TD.

Call Me Jimmy

A cause I would actually campaign for except for the opening yourself up to 'hippy' jabs and the like.
I couldn't deal with someone calling me a hippy.

Sofiztikated

MagicSean wrote: »

No. I agree that it is hypocritical. But all that means is alcohol should be restricted more.

No. Restriction doesn't educate people. Restriction like that makes more criminals. Education is the key. Proper education.

rubberdiddies wrote: »

i'm still on the fence in relation to legalising cannabis.

on one hand and in theory it should result in a lower price, resulting in less crime to pay for it.......it would brink in much needed tax......it should free up garda and court resources and jail spaces.

on the other hand, it is used as a stepping stone to other drugs, this really is a fact for a lot of people. Most peoples first drug is cannabis........more young kids will have access to it, same as they have access to alcohol now.....secondhand smoke will be a problem for people.......we don't truly know the affect it has on people (the risk of lung cancer is 20 times higher than just smoking a cigarette for example.....there are studies showing a link to schizophrenia, I personally know someone who has been left with schizophrenia for the past 15 years due to heavy use)

i'm currently leaning towards it remaining illegal, though i'm sure anyway it wont be legalised here anytime in the near or distant future

Most peoples first drug is not cannabis. Alcohol is. Alcohol plays a huge factor in what people are willing to take/eat/smoke/snort/use.

There are studies. Yes. But results are interpreted by whoever wants to bend them to their will. A lot studies start with the answer they want.

Can I please have this link to this "study" that cannabis smoke is 20 times more carcinogenic than tobacco? Is it this one? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/ Where it says in line 7, that why tobacco smoke, but not cannabis smoke, causes lung cancer?

Or this one? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16128224 where it says

On the other hand, physiologic, clinical or epidemiologic evidence that marijuana smoking may lead to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or respiratory cancer is limited and inconsistent.

As for the "cause" of schizophrenia. There are as many studies that dispute it as confirm it.

And more young kids will have access to marijuana? More? Seriously? As it is, cannabis can be easier to obtain than alcohol. If you think kids can't access it at the moment, you are very much mistaken.

jasonmcco

http://alcoholireland.ie/alcohol-facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

PERSON DIES EVERY 7 HOURS IN IRELAND DUE TO ALCOHOL.

Either all drugs are banned or all drugs are legal.

My position is legalise them all and allow people to choose which drug they want to use and stop them being corralled into using a very damaging and legal drug(alcohol).

It's all about money for the alcohol dealers and keeping the sheep ill informed.

Sofiztikated

jasonmcco wrote: »

http://alcoholireland.ie/alcohol-facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

PERSON DIES EVERY 7 HOURS IN IRELAND DUE TO ALCOHOL.

Either all drugs are banned or all drugs are legal.

My position is legalise them all and allow people to choose which drug they want to use and stop them being corralled into using a very damaging and legal drug(alcohol).

It's all about money for the alcohol dealers and keeping the sheep ill informed.

See, as soon as you say "The Sheep" or the variation "Speeple," you are immediately come across as an idiot.

Don't use it.

Ash.J.Williams

slavetothegrind wrote: »

i'll trade you the legalisation you wish if you allow me direct the judiciary to remove use/abuse of drugs/alcahol as an excuse or mitigating factor in any illegal behaviour.

and so it should be

Grayson

rubberdiddies wrote: »

i'm still on the fence in relation to legalising cannabis.

on one hand and in theory it should result in a lower price, resulting in less crime to pay for it.......it would brink in much needed tax......it should free up garda and court resources and jail spaces.

on the other hand, it is used as a stepping stone to other drugs, this really is a fact for a lot of people. Most peoples first drug is cannabis........more young kids will have access to it, same as they have access to alcohol now.....secondhand smoke will be a problem for people.......we don't truly know the affect it has on people (the risk of lung cancer is 20 times higher than just smoking a cigarette for example.....there are studies showing a link to schizophrenia, I personally know someone who has been left with schizophrenia for the past 15 years due to heavy use)

i'm currently leaning towards it remaining illegal, though i'm sure anyway it wont be legalised here anytime in the near or distant future

Re: schizophrenia. I read a study that said people that are predisposed to schizophrenia were more likely to be marajuana smokers. So they really weren't sure if it was a chicken or egg scenario. Does it make people schizophrenics or do schizophrenics smoke it. Honestly, a lot more research is needed. And even though it's not legal now, I'm glad there's more discussion because until a few years ago it was illegal to even investigate marajuana.

btw, I read that marajuana has something like 6-10 times more tar than tobacco. However people smoke reletively small amounts compared to tobacco. And on the plus side, al least bongs can be used.
I gave up smoking cigarettes and should I smoke marajuana again, I'll probably use a bong because I don't want to end up smoking cigarettes again.

Even without legalising for general consumption i do believe it should be legal for medicinal use. It's of fantastic value to people on chemo or with MS. to compare it with recent events, it's like legalising abortion to save the life of the mother. It doesn't mean legalising for on demand abortion. They are two separate matters.

Ash.J.Williams

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.

how will that stop the grow houses "epidemic"

ScumLord

rubberdiddies wrote: »

on the other hand, it is used as a stepping stone to other drugs, this really is a fact for a lot of people. Most peoples first drug is cannabis........

It's not really, I'm sure like me most peoples first contact with drugs was either alcohol or tobacco. Mine was tobacco and smoking had all the excitement of any other drug at first, robbing fags, getting dizzy and sick from smoking them to quick. Cigarettes even change your brain chemistry so your more susceptible to becoming addicting to other things later in life.

Legalising cannabis will be a huge financial blow to organised crime, it would be like preventing or limiting Apples ability to sell iPhones. Putting such a big hole in their finances is going to make it difficult for them to maintain the rest of their business. If ordinary people aren't around dealers they won't be as tempted to try other drugs which wouldn't be available at the point of sale for legal weed.

we don't truly know the affect it has on people (the risk of lung cancer is 20 times higher than just smoking a cigarette for example.....there are studies showing a link to schizophrenia, I personally know someone who has been left with schizophrenia for the past 15 years due to heavy use)

He wasn't given schizophrenia by weed, he was born with that condition.

i'm currently leaning towards it remaining illegal, though i'm sure anyway it wont be legalised here anytime in the near or distant future[/QUOTE]

Grayson

the_syco wrote: »

Lets set up such a shop in Donegal.

The reasons;
Next to that border to the UK
They want job creation up there
Lots of room to build greenhouses
They seem to hate the government up there

=-=

OD on alcohol; death
OD on weed; make up a few hours later with serious munchies

marry me so we can run away to amsterdam and set up a shop together.

Actually, there's only one thing I'd add to the list you made. make sure that ID is presented on every transaction.
And personally, I'd grow indoors. Get a warehouse space with plenty of alarms, cctv and possibly a security guard.

If it's done properly you could harvest every two months.

rubberdiddies

Sofiztikated wrote: »

No. Restriction doesn't educate people. Restriction like that makes more criminals. Education is the key. Proper education.



Most peoples first drug is not cannabis. Alcohol is. Alcohol plays a huge factor in what people are willing to take/eat/smoke/snort/use.

There are studies. Yes. But results are interpreted by whoever wants to bend them to their will. A lot studies start with the answer they want.

Can I please have this link to this "study" that cannabis smoke is 20 times more carcinogenic than tobacco? Is it this one? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/ Where it says in line 7, that why tobacco smoke, but not cannabis smoke, causes lung cancer?

Or this one? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16128224 where it says

As for the "cause" of schizophrenia. There are as many studies that dispute it as confirm it.

And more young kids will have access to marijuana? More? Seriously? As it is, cannabis can be easier to obtain than alcohol. If you think kids can't access it at the moment, you are very much mistaken.

like i said, i am sitting on the fence for now. I was giving what I perceive to be some of the pro's and con's. On phone so will find those reports later, however a quick google (like I did), will let you find them yourself for now.

you say that there are studies and that results are interpreted by whoever wants to bend them to their will. I agree somewhat. Sort of exactly like what you (and others) are doing by not seeing the negative side of cannabis/marijuana and arguing against the negative.

I feel that a lot more research needs to be done.

srsly78

rubberdiddies wrote: »

like i said, i am sitting on the fence for now. I was giving what I perceive to be some of the pro's and con's. On phone so will find those reports later, however a quick google (like I did), will let you find them yourself for now.

you say that there are studies and that results are interpreted by whoever wants to bend them to their will. I agree somewhat. Sort of exactly like what you (and others) are doing by not seeing the negative side of cannabis/marijuana and arguing against the negative.

I feel that a lot more research needs to be done.

Science works by consensus. The weight of evidence on the pro-legalisation side vastly outweighs the anti-side, most of which has been discredited. Similarly with other drugs.

What we are left with is a political problem, as evidenced when the UK government sacked it's top drugs scientist for telling the truth (ecstacy less dangerous than horse-riding).

So: a lot of research has been done, but lots of people ignore it.

rubberdiddies

srsly78 wrote: »

Science works by consensus. The weight of evidence on the pro-legalisation side vastly outweighs the anti-side, most of which has been discredited. Similarly with other drugs.

What we are left with is a political problem, as evidenced when the UK government sacked it's top drugs scientist for telling the truth (ecstacy less dangerous than horse-riding).

So: a lot of research has been done, but lots of people ignore it.

and has the evidence on the pro side not also been discredited?

srsly78

Some has, much hasn't. It's about the weight of evidence, sure you can find bull**** points on both sides of the debate.

MagicSean

Sofiztikated wrote: »

No. Restriction doesn't educate people. Restriction like that makes more criminals. Education is the key. Proper education.



Most peoples first drug is not cannabis. Alcohol is. Alcohol plays a huge factor in what people are willing to take/eat/smoke/snort/use.

There are studies. Yes. But results are interpreted by whoever wants to bend them to their will. A lot studies start with the answer they want.

Can I please have this link to this "study" that cannabis smoke is 20 times more carcinogenic than tobacco? Is it this one? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/ Where it says in line 7, that why tobacco smoke, but not cannabis smoke, causes lung cancer?

Or this one? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16128224 where it says

As for the "cause" of schizophrenia. There are as many studies that dispute it as confirm it.

And more young kids will have access to marijuana? More? Seriously? As it is, cannabis can be easier to obtain than alcohol. If you think kids can't access it at the moment, you are very much mistaken.

I'm not sayin alcohol should be banned, I'm saying that the "Alcohol is worse" argument is not a good argument.

jasonmcco wrote: »

http://alcoholireland.ie/alcohol-facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

PERSON DIES EVERY 7 HOURS IN IRELAND DUE TO ALCOHOL.

Either all drugs are banned or all drugs are legal.

My position is legalise them all and allow people to choose which drug they want to use and stop them being corralled into using a very damaging and legal drug(alcohol).

It's all about money for the alcohol dealers and keeping the sheep ill informed.

Insulting people should help the campaign.

MagicSean

120_Minutes wrote: »

Luke Flanagan to bring cannabis legislation bill before the dail next April. Article in today's examiner.

A well organised and respectable campaign to support it would have a real chance of getting it passed.

kupus

charlemont wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cases-too-complex-as-whitecollar-convictions-plummet-3297189.html
More like too much effort involved..
Much easier to bring people to court for smoking..

MagicSean wrote: »

Economically it makes sense. The money saved from providing legal aid alone to people prosecuted for simple possession would probably go along way to counseling and information services.

MagicSean wrote: »

A well organised and respectable campaign to support it would have a real chance of getting it passed.

less people up in court for procession charges means less money for lawyers.....Just because they know the law, do not think for one second they actually give a sh1te about it or the consequences of their actions for the good of the country......
Same goes for Judges.

As I said before, Ireland is a little country with too many finger in the pie....

• Vintners lobby group don't want it as it will effect their business.

• Politicians don't want it as it will effect their Up-standing in the local community.
  
• Religious don't want it as there's no mention of JC ever getting stoned in the bible (afaik)
  
• Lawyers don't want it as it will effect their little money spinner circle jerk called "free legal aid"
  
• Criminals don't want it as it will effect their trade
  

Garda----may---- not want it as it may cause a drop in their funding
Doctors

---

may---- not want it as they may not want to deal with stoners, and the rise in expenditure of having to deal with this.


Anyone im leaving out?

Iwannahurl

ScumLord wrote: »

He wasn't given schizophrenia by weed, he was born with that condition.

I very much doubt it.

A predisposition perhaps, but afaik there is now good evidence that cannabis (especially modern high THC varieties) can trigger psychosis.

srsly78 wrote: »

Science works by consensus.

Science works by the gathering and dissemination of evidence.

Politics works by consensus, or so we hope anyway.

Science can be messy, but to really mess things up you need politics.

srsly78

That has been debunked, has been linked on here many times. There are other studies that show it can even relieve symptoms, go figure.

Iwannahurl

srsly78 wrote: »

That has been debunked, has been linked on here many times. There are other studies that show it can even relieve symptoms, go figure.

What has been debunked, and what is the evidence for alleged debunking?

Odysseus

The whole psychosis question is that; it is still a question. I could fill my office here with papers saying it can result in psychosis and papers saying the opposite.

However, I have working in this game too long now, and I have to said it can cause psycotic episodes in some people. Loads of people can use it with no problems, but for other it is a drug to be avoided.

I have seen it destroy peoples lives like any other addiction; and on the other hand I have seen people use it occassionally with no major issues.

As I said eariler I would like to see people have access to whatever drug the want; but I don't think we can avoid pointing out where use is harmful.

I have seen different types of drug induced disorders, in some people the drug was the causative factor in other cases it was something within the person, then there were other cases still where I could not say what caused it.

srsly78

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What has been debunked, and what is the evidence for alleged debunking?

Read through some of the various cannabis threads on boards, there has been much discussion about this point. Basically it was only 1 flawed study that came out with the whole psychosis thing, the results are not so clear cut. Other studies found no risks involved for adults.

danniemcq

We are losing the war on drugs...

that means the people on drugs are winning the war!

bill hicks

Iwannahurl

srsly78 wrote: »

Read through some of the various cannabis threads on boards, there has been much discussion about this point. Basically it was only 1 flawed study that came out with the whole psychosis thing, the results are not so clear cut. Other studies found no risks involved for adults.

Boards is far from being a reliable source of such information. Or any information, come to think of it.

"Only one flawed study" -- really? Here are a few links to some relevant studies and authoritative sources. A few years old, admittedly, but I don't have time just now to find newer material (which may or may not support the earlier findings).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15574485

http://www.bmj.com/content/325/7374/1195.1

http://www.bmj.com/content/325/7374/1183

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/156/4/319.full

http://www.ukcia.org/research/EffectsCannabisAndPsychosisVulnerability.pdf

SRFC

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/4000-drugs-dad-to-avoid-conviction-if-he-pays-1000-3297469.html





Dont know If its been posted by the justice system is an absolute shambles this man caught with 4 thousand worth of drugs and let off from a criminal record because he paid a 1000e donation :rolleyes: money sure talks in the court rooms in Ireland sends the message out to the vermin drug dealers once you appear a model citizen you wont be seeing the inside of a jail PATHETIC

nxbyveromdwjpg

SRFC wrote: »

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/4000-drugs-dad-to-avoid-conviction-if-he-pays-1000-3297469.html

Dont know If its been posted by the justice system is an absolute shambles this man caught with 4 thousand worth of drugs and let off from a criminal record because he paid a 1000e donation :rolleyes: money sure talks in the court rooms in Ireland sends the message out to the vermin drug dealers once you appear a model citizen you wont be seeing the inside of a jail PATHETIC

Somebody think of the children!

Non-violent crime, no previous etc, the punishment was fitting.

srsly78

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Boards is far from being a reliable source of such information. Or any information, come to think of it.

"Only one flawed study" -- really? Here are a few links to some relevant studies and authoritative sources. A few years old, admittedly, but I don't have time just now to find newer material (which may or may not support the earlier findings).

What I meant is that people had posted lots of links to studies in other posts on boards. Sorry I am in work right now so I can't replicate this research.

SRFC

nm wrote: »

Somebody think of the children!

Non-violent crime, no previous etc, the punishment was fitting.

Just a once off that must of been with money and drugs found :rolleyes:



Suppose that rich rapist in drumcondra sentence was fitting because he had no previous and made a donation?

kupus

SRFC wrote: »

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/4000-drugs-dad-to-avoid-conviction-if-he-pays-1000-3297469.html
Dont know If its been posted by the justice system is an absolute shambles this man caught with 4 thousand worth of drugs and let off from a criminal record because he paid a 1000e donation :rolleyes: money sure talks in the court rooms in Ireland sends the message out to the vermin drug dealers once you appear a model citizen you wont be seeing the inside of a jail PATHETIC

WOW, just wow, what else can be said?

Fighting Irish

SRFC wrote: »

Just a once off that must of been with money and drugs found :rolleyes:



Suppose that rich rapist in drumcondra sentence was fitting because he had no previous and made a donation?

:rolleyes:

charlemont

nm wrote: »

Somebody think of the children!

Non-violent crime, no previous etc, the punishment was fitting.

What your saying is true, But its not a fair system of justice, Compare it to me getting caught with the makings of a few joints when I was 18 and getting a conviction for it, My 1st offence too. This guy gets caught with heaps of drugs and gets no conviction..He must have sang like a canary...

Piliger

nm wrote: »

Somebody think of the children!

Non-violent crime, no previous etc, the punishment was fitting.

There should have been no punishment because there should have been no crime. INSANE.

Sofiztikated

I love discussing this with the likes of Overheal and Iwannahurl. Proper rebuttals and links to studies.

As Overheal said, there's a number of arguments for and against cannabis and mental health. I believe that the truth is somewhere in between.

As far as other substances, recreational use, and legalisation, where I stand on it, I don't know.

Of course I like to not be a criminal for consuming my narcotics of choice, but like everyone, I have my line in the sand.

Iwannahurl

srsly78 wrote: »

What I meant is that people had posted lots of links to studies in other posts on boards. Sorry I am in work right now so I can't replicate this research.

Unless you're working as a researcher in an appropriate setting, of course!

What I was getting at is that people post all sorts of stuff on Boards. Much of it is intended to support a particular world view (or prejudice) and too often it's unreliable material that's posted with no thought given to whether it stands up to scrutiny or not.

nxbyveromdwjpg

SRFC wrote: »

Just a once off that must of been with money and drugs found :rolleyes:

Who cares if it was or if it wasn't?

SRFC wrote: »

Suppose that rich rapist in drumcondra sentence was fitting because he had no previous and made a donation?

Well no, because he raped somebody.

Do you honestly not see the difference between the two?? Does this really need to be explained?

tayto lover

nm wrote: »

Somebody think of the children!

Non-violent crime, no previous etc, the punishment was fitting.

Non-violent crime ??
There was me thinking that those reports of gangland murders on the News over the years must have been all in my head.

SRFC

You wouldnt be s accepting of this bloke getting off scot free with a donation if a drug dealer sold your kids drugs and killed them would you?


Not a chance justice system is a shambles pay a dontation or fine and its all good the poverty stricken with no money to pay these donations will spend a holiday in mountjoy.

nxbyveromdwjpg

tayto lover wrote: »

Non-violent crime ??
There was me thinking that those reports of gangland murders on the News over the years must have been all in my head.

Gangland murders are a result of putting the drugs trade into the hands of gangsters.. I..

ah **** it, not gonna bother

MagicSean

nm wrote: »

Gangland murders are a result of putting the drugs trade into the hands of gangsters.. I..

ah **** it, not gonna bother

If drugs were once legal and then made illegal you might have a point. But they have been illegal for many decades. It stands to reason that the vast majority of people using them started while they were already illegal. So theres really no excuse for putting all the blame on prohibition. The people who buy them share equal responsibility as the people who banned them in giving power to the dealers.

kowloon

kupus wrote: »

Weed is not addictive...the person smoking it is....which is why I would like to see a drug rehab place beside every drug shop if it ever came to pass.

This is not such a great idea, for the same reason AA meetings aren't held in the pub.

Chuck Stone

The 'think of psychosis' argument is not any reason to continue the prohibition farce.

How does prohibition prevent it? If people want weed they're going to grow/get it anyway.

Better to educate people on the risks of taking substances and assist them with addiction services.

Odysseus

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The 'think of psychosis' argument is not any reason to continue the prohibition farce.

How does prohibition prevent it? If people want weed they're going to grow/get it anyway.

Better to educate people on the risks of taking substances and assist them with addiction services.

I would fully agree with that, it is the denial of such links and of any negative effects that I can't agree with.

Haelium

MagicSean wrote: »

If drugs were once legal and then made illegal you might have a point. But they have been illegal for many decades. It stands to reason that the vast majority of people using them started while they were already illegal. So theres really no excuse for putting all the blame on prohibition. The people who buy them share equal responsibility as the people who banned them in giving power to the dealers.

So if I buy clothes am I responsible for the existence of sweatshops in Asia?

RustyNut

MagicSean wrote: »

If drugs were once legal and then made illegal you might have a point. But they have been illegal for many decades. It stands to reason that the vast majority of people using them started while they were already illegal. So theres really no excuse for putting all the blame on prohibition. The people who buy them share equal responsibility as the people who banned them in giving power to the dealers.

The reality that there is a demand for drugs that will be filled. I can't find an estimate on how much the Irish recreational drugs market is worth but tens of millions would be my guess.

We as a society have the power to take that money away from the criminals by legalising and regulating the sale and possession of them.

How much profit must there be if it is worth while for Chinese gangs to set up grow houses here or other crims to smuggle coke from south America, smack from Asia etc. This money would be better going into state coffers than supporting the lifestyles of crime lords.

The problems surrounding drugs will still be there, mental health issues, addiction etc which only affect a tiny minority of users but it might be easier to deal with the chronic addicts if it was treated as a public health issue rather than a criminal issue.

At the end of the day stoners gonna stone weather we like it or not.

Just say no kids doesn't work nor does prohibition so I think it's time for a new approach.

bedrock#1

charlemont wrote: »

What your saying is true, But its not a fair system of justice, Compare it to me getting caught with the makings of a few joints when I was 18 and getting a conviction for it, My 1st offence too. This guy gets caught with heaps of drugs and gets no conviction..He must have sang like a canary...

You'd never get a conviction for that. I was caught with a few pills, went to court, struck out, no conviction, no record.

bedrock#1

On the cannabis - psychosis debate have a look at this lecture delivered by Prof. David Nutt one of the worlds leading psycho-pharmacologists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=207J8qMyuOc


View from 23.30 onwards.

Basically he argues that if the rate of schizophrenia and cannabis use are related, then when controlling for all other causes we should see the rate of schizophrenia increase as cannabis use increases. In fact cannabis use has increased by 20x in the last 40 years whereas instances of schizophrenia are declining.

bedrock#1

Haelium wrote: »

So if I buy clothes am I responsible for the existence of sweatshops in Asia?

Yes

RustyNut

bedrock#1 wrote: »

You'd never get a conviction for that. I was caught with a few pills, went to court, struck out, no conviction, no record.

You were lucky, there are other people who were caught in similar circumstance and do have a drugs conviction which will have consiquences for them in relation to their career,where they can travel to etc for the rest of their lives.

This is the biggest risk to the vast majority of drug users and could be removed with the stroke of a ministers pen.