Garda now admit state has lost war on drugs

bedrock#1

RustyNut wrote: »

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.

Sure I know, it's a joke, I was quite lucky the Garda didn't turn up. I reckon he was trying to put the sh1ts up me. Judge was none too pleased when he didn't show!

It'll be interesting to see how Ming gets on in April with his private members bill. But it would seem that the dominoes are beginning to fall in relation to weed at least.

Piliger

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.

You seem without imagination. Repeating the same point about the woes of the present situation is meaningless. The worthwhile and valuable question people are most interested is the future, not the past and the present.

There will always be people who want to take drugs. This is part of human nature and of what it means to be free and to live in a free society. Society should not be trying to somehow 'stamp' it all out. It needs to accept that as a free society, it is people's choice.

Clearly Ireland cannot move alone in this anyway. It is simply not feasible. But we can have a voice in the growing European and global discussion.

Someone talks about Portugal. The problem is that they went only part of the way and therefore didn't reap the benefits of legalisation. If Europe moved to legalisation, there would be an enormous financial from savings on security, policing, prisons. A huge dividend to spend on a massive education program at school level and on health treatment for addicts.

This would ensure that young people know what using drugs mean and what happens to them if they chose that path. It will also mean good treatment to help addicts.

The end goal, as I say, is not to reduce drug taking to zero. That is silly and pointless to imagine. People will ALWAYS smoke, people will ALWAYS take drugs. The end goal should be to keep it as low as possible within a free society and to ensure that it does not damage the rest of society - which it is doing now.

Kidchameleon

kupus wrote: »

Religious don't want it as there's no mention of JC ever getting stoned in the bible (afaik)

Did he not get stoned at the cross?:D

charlemont

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.

Oh Yes I did I wouldn't post it if it was a lie but even in the last few years I'v been to court for an actual makings. The Garda even said it was worth €5.


Maybe you live in Dublin in which the cops aren't as assed about personal possession but here in Munster its their bread and butter..Or else you named names !! I'v seen blokes get a month for as little as 3/4 yolk's.

bedrock#1

charlemont wrote: »

Oh Yes I did I wouldn't post it if it was a lie but even in the last few years I'v been to court for an actual makings. The Garda even said it was worth €5.


Maybe you live in Dublin in which the cops aren't as assed about personal possession but here in Munster its their bread and butter..Or else you named names !! I'v seen blokes get a month for as little as 3/4 yolk's.

I do live in Dublin. Way more heroin addicts to worry about for the fuzz here. A month for 3/4 pills you say? Wonder how the feckers sleep at night knowing they have ruined someones life.....

Sunnyisland

A step forward ? It will be interesting to see who votes one way or another and what are there reasons ?

A bill aimed at legalising cannabis is being brought before the Dáil in April next year by an Independent TD.
Roscommon TD Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan is to bring a Private Members’ Bill before the Oireachtas to fully legalise the drug for purchase. "I have been campaigning for years for the legalisation of cannabis and I am preparing a Private Members’ Bill that I will be putting before the Dáil in April of next year," he said.

Mr Flanagan has been a long-time supporter of the full decriminalisation of cannabis, though he no longer smokes the drug.

"I wouldn't be naive in thinking I will get a lot of support in the Dáil but it would certainly show some of them up for the hypocrites they are. I’m a legislator and I have a mandate.

"There is this preconception that it is bad for you but the fact is, people are smoking it and the Government is losing a massive amount of money by not regulating it and taxing it. I’m launching this campaign and I aim for it to be successful," he said.

The Department of Health has said it hopes to bring forward legislative proposals by early 2013, enabling cannabis-based medicines to be prescribed in Ireland. The legislation would allow the prescription of Sativex, a drug containing cannabis extract, for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Sativex is already available in the North.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/flanagan-to-bring-bill-to-dail-on-legalising-cannabis-214361.html&ct=ga&cad=CAcQAhgBIAAoATAAOABAn8mrhQVIAVAAWABiBWVuLUlF&cd=uikgLdNzHyU&usg=AFQjCNHc8ZgKuDw1ZANZ9Ei7sv1BbbwXrg

charlemont

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1120/breaking9.html


Another large haul, Rathcormac ? I wouldn't even carry a packet of skins on me up around there, That's how hot that area is.

tayto lover

I don't smoke at all so it doesn't effect me either way if it's de-criminalised or not but I would like to hear how we could afford the extra Re-Hab, medical expenses, treatment facilities etc that we would need if it happens. Especially if the links to psychosis are real.
People say we should legalise and tax it but if people still continue to sell without the tax then people will buy from them. Not everyone will grow their own.
The debate has a long way to go yet.

What links to psychosis would they be, then? "i'm not for or against but i have a real strong opinion based on bull****"

Give us break and keep your misiformation to yourself.

TPD

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't smoke at all so it doesn't effect me either way if it's de-criminalised or not but I would like to hear how we could afford the extra Re-Hab, medical expenses, treatment facilities etc that we would need if it happens. Especially if the links to psychosis are real.
People say we should legalise and tax it but if people still continue to sell without the tax then people will buy from them. Not everyone will grow their own.
The debate has a long way to go yet.

You say we'd need extra facilities as if consumption would increase with legalisation, which has been shown not to happen in the Netherlands and Portugal if I'm not mistaken.

Anyway, the price is only so high to buy it illegally because of all the danger involved in producing, shipping and selling it. A legal crop would cost a pittance - I'd say the government could tax at a few hundred percent and still be cheaper than current illegal prices. The tax then going to pay for drugs education and rehab centres etc.

Chuck Stone

tayto lover wrote: »

I would like to hear how we could afford the extra Re-Hab, medical expenses, treatment facilities etc that we would need if it happens.

I would like to know why you think there will be a massive surge in weed smoking? Where is your evidence for this view?

Remember too that if weed is legalised there'd be a lot less cost incurred to the tax-payer in prosecuting people, locking them up, putting them on probation, police work etc.

tayto lover

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

What links to psychosis would they be, then? "i'm not for or against but i have a real strong opinion based on bull****"

Give us break and keep your misiformation to yourself.

Did you not see the word "if" ?
Maybe they are bull**** but the arguments are there to be shot down at least and i'm sure the argument will form part of the basis for legalisation or not. Only a fool would think otherwise and that's why I mentioned it.
These are only samples from a quick google - I didn't even bother to read them yet but they are there and that why it has to be faced up to.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/07/25/first-marijuana-use-linked-to-psychosis-in-vulnerable-people/42256.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/02/us-psychosis-cannabis-idUSTRE72102F20110302

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2005559,00.html

bedrock#1

tayto lover wrote: »

Did you not see the word "if" ?
Maybe they are bull**** but the arguments are there to be shot down at least and i'm sure the argument will form part of the basis for legalisation or not. Only a fool would think otherwise and that's why I mentioned it.
These are only samples from a quick google - I didn't even bother to read them yet but they are there and that why it has to be faced up to.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/07/25/first-marijuana-use-linked-to-psychosis-in-vulnerable-people/42256.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/02/us-psychosis-cannabis-idUSTRE72102F20110302

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2005559,00.html

On the previous page i posted a link to a lecture given by David Nutt leading psych-pharmacologist. Look at it from 23:30 onwards.

tayto lover

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I would like to know why you think there will be a massive surge in weed smoking? Where is your evidence for this view?

Remember too that if weed is legalised there'd be a lot less cost incurred to the tax-payer in prosecuting people, locking them up, putting them on probation, police work etc.

I read somewhere years ago that there was a big increase in tourist drug use in Amsterdam in the early years of the tea shops. I also read posts on Boards talking about the money we would make from visitors coming here to smoke legally. It is just a view and could be wrong.

Your points regarding prosecution are probably right but there could still be a criminality involved in selling stronger and cheaper stuff to underage people without the taxes etc.
I am just throwing out things that might arise in time really.

Piliger

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't smoke at all so it doesn't effect me either way if it's de-criminalised or not

Are you serious ? You are paying more taxes to pay for the huge police and law enforcement efforts to stop drugs coming into the country and to prosecute ordinary drug users and almost a 100k a year to keep them in prison. Money that could be used for education and health services. You are also living with daily crime that is mostly made up of drug related crime, whether it be dealers or ordinary users who steal and assault and burglarise to get the money to buy their drugs.

Imagine if drug users didn't have to commit crime to get that money ? If the crime gangs in Dublin lost all of their income over night ? You don't think life would be a lot better ?

but I would like to hear how we could afford the extra Re-Hab, medical expenses, treatment facilities etc that we would need if it happens.

What evidence or logic do you use to suggest that there will be a sudden increase in drug use ? Anyone can buy drugs today, easily. Why would there be a sudden increase in use just because they are legalised ?

Especially if the links to psychosis are real.

Aren't you aware of the enormous problems caused by alcohol ?

People say we should legalise and tax it but if people still continue to sell without the tax then people will buy from them. Not everyone will grow their own.

Why could they not be bought in Chemists ? in Head shops ?

The debate has a long way to go yet.

I agree. But we need to start somewhere with a real debate that doesn't focus solely on people worst irrational fears.

tayto lover

bedrock#1 wrote: »

On the previous page i posted a link to a lecture given by David Nutt leading psych-pharmacologist. Look at it from 23:30 onwards.

Yes I will read that, thanks.
You will probably get plenty of contradictory stuff too.

Odysseus

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

What links to psychosis would they be, then? "i'm not for or against but i have a real strong opinion based on bull****"

Give us break and keep your misiformation to yourself.

There are plenty of links to its effects on mental health, now I teach on a few addiction studies courses, work with people who experience negative effect of cannabis use.

If you have the ultimate paper that once and for all shows that cannabis has no effects on mental health, I will glady pass it on to every other professional I work with.

The question of drug induced disorders and what role cannabis may play in their development it too big a question to ignore. The same with trying to deny that some people develop an addiction to it.

These are very important facts and if we are ever going to see this country take a rational position in relation to drug use we need to acknowledge them.

Saying the don't exist won't help, as a clinician I see the damage that cannabis can cause in a persons life. However, that doesn't mean that a significant amount of people can use this drug without any major ill effects.

Some of these question are very difficult to answer, but if we don't acknowledge them and look for the answers, we are doing no body any favours.

However, with saying all that I have about 25 years left in this game, but I don't see it being legal before I retire sadly.

tayto lover

Piliger wrote: »

Are you serious ? You are paying more taxes to pay for the huge police and law enforcement efforts to stop drugs coming into the country and to prosecute ordinary drug users and almost a 100k a year to keep them in prison. Money that could be used for education and health services. You are also living with daily crime that is mostly made up of drug related crime, whether it be dealers or ordinary users who steal and assault and burglarise to get the money to buy their drugs.

Imagine if drug users didn't have to commit crime to get that money ? If the crime gangs in Dublin lost all of their income over night ? You don't think life would be a lot better ?

What evidence or logic do you use to suggest that there will be a sudden increase in drug use ? Anyone can buy drugs today, easily. Why would there be a sudden increase in use just because they are legalised ?

Aren't you aware of the enormous problems caused by alcohol ?
Why could they not be bought in Chemists ? in Head shops ?
I agree. But we need to start somewhere with a real debate that doesn't focus solely on people worst irrational fears.

Are you serious? The crime gangs will just disappear like that ??
Criminals will just introduce something else with a better buzz and market it well.
I am well aware of the problems caused by alcohol. I meet them in the Soup Kitchen i work in 2 nights a week but that is a separate argument.

My point was that someone will under-cut the Chemists i.e. sell at reduced price to underage persons.

Chuck Stone

Can people stop banging on about psychosis as if it's a good reason to continue the prohibition farce please?

If anything the risks posed to health from substances provide reasons to legalise it and treat it as a medical issue rather than heaping further misery on people and their families by making criminals out of them.

tayto lover wrote: »

My point was that someone will under-cut the Chemists i.e. sell at reduced price to underage persons.

There are no people out on the streets trying to sell home-brew and nobody would want it anyway because they probably wouldn't trust the maker. Try to apply some logic to your thoughts instead of peering into your crystal ball of doom and making flimsy excuses for a morally bankrupt system that harms people.

TheDoc

slavetothegrind wrote: »

it's true realies, it was me!

i didn't even get the oppertunity to speak!

judge addressed the garda who told him all was in order i just hadn't got an insurance disk in the window as i hadn't got it yet
then in a millisecond gavel strikes wood and i'm 300 euro poorer
didn't even look at me
im not small and was one of the few in a suit in the courtroom, the only one standing up!

i'm a tad bitter, reckon i should have gone in a tracksuit and said i was off me biccie at the time.....

i didn't appeal because i was guilty of non display, even though insured, and i really believe it wopuld have gone against me as there seems to be an attitude of "you know better" for ordinary decent people, and "what would you expect" for scum.

I got pulled in while back at a checkpoint and had no disk on display. I had a letter from the insurance company in my glovebox, which stated my start and endterm of insurance and that my package including my disc would arrive in the coming days.

Guard read it, took my details and told me to pop down to the station when I received it, did and that was the end of it.

That sounds overly harsh, and I've never heard of that EVER happening before, if the driver had an active policy.

Username99

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.

This conversation is about legalising marijuana, not all drugs. I look at it this way, At the moment cigarettes and drink are legal drugs, drink causes more problems up and down the country week in, week out every year. Cannabis use is probably just as prevalent, I've never encountered an antisocial stoner in my life.

Some people seem to pretend that the use of cannabis in Ireland is not widespread. Take your heads out of the sand, the whole place is smoking it already, so the only differences, should it be legalised would be positive ones like increased tax revenue, more tourism etc, etc, etc...

Take Holland for example, a small densely populated country, which is in far better shape economically than our country. Cannabis has been legal there with years, it doesn't seem to have an effect on them. The way I see it, they waste too much money trying to stop it and lets be honest it is never going to work, you can ramp up security on every port and what is that going to solve, your friendly neighbour probably has a garden in his upstairs bedroom.

I don't even smoke myself, if I wanted to I would, I see nothing wrong with it, I have many friends who smoke it on a daily basis and they are very productive upstanding members of society.

The whole fiasco is almost beyond the point of comprehension for me, just legalise it and concentrate your resource on something worthwhile like actually tackling serious crime.

Username99

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't smoke at all so it doesn't effect me either way if it's de-criminalised or not but I would like to hear how we could afford the extra Re-Hab, medical expenses, treatment facilities etc that we would need if it happens. Especially if the links to psychosis are real.
People say we should legalise and tax it but if people still continue to sell without the tax then people will buy from them. Not everyone will grow their own.
The debate has a long way to go yet.

But so many people smoke it already, why if it became legal would you need so many treatment facilities??

tayto lover

Username99 wrote: »

But so many people smoke it already, why if it became legal would you need so many treatment facilities??

I believe if de-criminalised that even more young people would take it up. The fear factor is probably preventing many of them from smoking cannabis now because the consequences of a criminal conviction effects their ability to travel and get employment.

tayto lover

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Can people stop banging on about psychosis as if it's a good reason to continue the prohibition farce please?

If anything the risks posed to health from substances provide reasons to legalise it and treat it as a medical issue rather than heaping further misery on people and their families by making criminals out of them.



There are no people out on the streets trying to sell home-brew and nobody would want it anyway because they probably wouldn't trust the maker. Try to apply some logic to your thoughts instead of peering into your crystal ball of doom and making flimsy excuses for a morally bankrupt system that harms people.

Calm down.
Are you equating home brew and all it might contain with growing and selling a plant? Poor analogy !!

kupus

Another argument for the no side could be...

"With the drop off in drug trade for the criminals, robberies, extortion and other illegal activities have increased to make up the shortfall from the legalization of the drug trade."

Scumbags dont emigrate you know,

Chuck Stone

tayto lover wrote: »

Calm down.
Are you equating home brew and all it might contain with growing and selling a plant? Poor analogy !!

You're the one creating fantastic horrors with shifty bogeymen undercutting legitimate growers and sneaking it into baby formula.

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. Its power lies in the emotional impact of the unpleasant predictions.

kupus wrote: »

"With the drop off in drug trade for the criminals, robberies, extortion and other illegal activities have increased to make up the shortfall from the legalization of the drug trade."

Another horror from the crystal ball of doom.

Organized Crime and Prohibition

The following are statistics detailing how much worse crime got:
Police funding: INCREASED $11.4 Million
Arrests for Prohibition Las Violations: INCREASED 102+%
Arrests for Drunkenness and Disorderly Conduct: INCREASED 41%
Arrests of Drunken Drivers: INCREASED 81%
Thefts and Burglaries: INCREASED 9%
Homicides, Assault, and Battery: INCREASED 13%
Number of Federal Convicts: INCREASED 561%
Federal Prison Population: INCREASED 366%
Total Federal Expenditures on Penal Institutions: INCREASED 1,000%

Source

tayto lover

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You're the one creating fantastic horrors with shifty bogeymen undercutting legitimate growers and sneaking it into baby formula.

I think it was yourself who first mentioned the psychosis

bedrock#1

Username99 wrote: »

This conversation is about legalising marijuana, not all drugs.

Check out the thread title. War on Drugs not War on Marijuana

JRant

tayto lover wrote: »

I believe if de-criminalised that even more young people would take it up. The fear factor is probably preventing many of them from smoking cannabis now because the consequences of a criminal conviction effects their ability to travel and get employment.

The problem with that analysis is that it fails to realise that despite it being criminalised people are still using it.
If one begins by looking at the actual benefits/harms of drugs and compare them to the legislation then we see that they don't match up.
Despite the fact that cannabis is widely available we just don't see the same type of social disfunctionalism caused, for example, by alcohol.

Boombastic

tayto lover wrote: »

I believe if de-criminalised that even more young people would take it up. The fear factor is probably preventing many of them from smoking cannabis now because the consequences of a criminal conviction effects their ability to travel and get employment.

I posted a link about teenage drug use a while back. Irish teenagers smoke more cannibas than their dutch counterparts. I'm on my phone now so can't link it

ScumLord

tayto lover wrote: »

I believe if de-criminalised that even more young people would take it up. The fear factor is probably preventing many of them from smoking cannabis now because the consequences of a criminal conviction effects their ability to travel and get employment.

You may believe it but all evidence points to the contrary.

If anything it would be more difficult, black market illegal cannabis dealers wouldn't be as widespread if cannabis use was legalised. As people started abandoning their illegal dealers in favour of legal ones that can supply much better quality, selection and a much cheaper price kids won't have as easy a time accessing the drugs they're banned from using.

Piliger

tayto lover wrote: »

Are you serious? The crime gangs will just disappear like that ??

Where did anyone say this ? I don't see it anywhere....

Criminals will just introduce something else with a better buzz and market it well.

Is that some kind of argument for keeping them in business ?

My point was that someone will under-cut the Chemists i.e. sell at reduced price to underage persons.

Again what exactly is that an argument in favour of ? Keeping drugs in the hands of organised crime ?

Piliger

tayto lover wrote: »

I believe if de-criminalised that even more young people would take it up. The fear factor is probably preventing many of them from smoking cannabis now because the consequences of a criminal conviction effects their ability to travel and get employment.

You have to be kidding .... What fear factor ? My 15yo bought weed from a guy down the road regularly. My friend buys from a friend at work. Where is this fear factor ? I see absolutely no evidence that there would be any increase ... in fact I suspect the usage will drop because the thrill factor will disappear ...

Piliger

bedrock#1 wrote: »

Check out the thread title. War on Drugs not War on Marijuana

Also tackling Marijuana on it's own is just meddling with the issue. The big dividend for society is to abandon the whole stupid damaging war and use the fortune saved to manage it.

ScumLord

Piliger wrote: »

Also tackling Marijuana on it's own is just meddling with the issue. The big dividend for society is to abandon the whole stupid damaging war and use the fortune saved to manage it.

I think introducing cannabis first is a good start.

Jumping in head first at the deep end may be a bit much for everyone to take and deal with. Test the waters with cannabis legalisation and when that works move onto the other drugs.

Sofiztikated

tayto lover wrote: »

I believe if de-criminalised that even more young people would take it up. The fear factor is probably preventing many of them from smoking cannabis now because the consequences of a criminal conviction effects their ability to travel and get employment.

Fear factor? Seriously?

Do you honestly think that teenagers think about the ability to travel and get employment when they're trying to buy a bit of ganja?

I know I didn't when I was younger.

You're grasping at straws here with your arguments.

nevaeh-2die-4

nevaeh-2die-4 wrote: »

i for one would not like to see drugs legal ,i don't want to see 300 rehab centres set up across the country because we have decided to drop the law and contribute to the downfall of Irish society

Downfall of Irish society? Ridiculous. Anyone can get any drug they want with as much ease as buying a pint. You must understand that prohibition does not work; it does not make getting drugs more difficult, but it does ensure that violent criminals have a monopoly on the market, that people convicted of mere possession end up with criminal records, and that education about safe use is suppressed, resulting in more hospitalisations.

nevaeh-2die-4 wrote:

i have children and don't want them exposed to this crap, imagine if weed was legal that's all you would smell when you walk around town if we sell it in shops..

I've been to the Netherlands multiple times and it's very rare to smell Cannabis outside. Not that it wouldn't be a welcome distraction from the smell of tobacco outside every business's door in Ireland.

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. thankfully i left, but this is what your up against, some people might be ok with this I'm not.

Did you complain to the person responsible? Did you contact the Gardaí? The fact that it's Cannabis is totally irrelevant to your grievance and you are simply looking for some scapegoat to whom you can direct ire. Surely you would have had the same reaction if it was tobacco, or if their chimney was blocked and the smoke was seeping into your home.

nevaeh-2die-4 wrote:

Drugs dealers will undercut the price and you will get more for you money, the drug dealers will always win.they will also benefit from the relaxed laws.

Drug dealers like publicans and tobacconists? Ooh, spooky. Legalisation will bring a regulated market with licensed premises and age restrictions. So long as it is not taxed too much and the product is of high quality, there will be no more black market, and thus no more drug dealers. Are you really just ignorant of basic economics or trying to troll?

nevaeh-2die-4 wrote:

Every time these threads come up people say tax it, why introduce more drugs for the sake of money, its not as if we would ever see anything from tax, we will see tax increases and property taxes each year

You already know a number of people who take drugs, legal and illegal. Perhaps you're not aware, but drugs are everywhere and they're here to stay. They will never go away. For every seizure the Gardaí make, several more shipments slip undetected into the country and into the hands of consumers.

nevaeh-2die-4 wrote:

I know my opinion wont go down well with the pro druggies, I'm not "backing up my facts" its just my opinion like or lump it.

Your opinion is not based on reality, then. You are dishonest if you are unwilling to consider new evidence and change your mind.

nevaeh-2die-4 wrote:

not matter happens nobody will win the drug war with that said it doesnt mean we have to change our laws.

Yeah, meanwhile we can maintain the status quo, because that's going so well.

nevaeh-2die-4 wrote:

i await the back lash of my "joe Duffy brigade" view

If you would just be willing to listen to other viewpoints, you would not be a target of derision. People who offer opinions which are based on incorrect information - and then stick their fingers in their ears when others try to respond - are rightly subject to ridicule.

Zillah

tayto lover wrote: »

I believe if de-criminalised that even more young people would take it up. The fear factor is probably preventing many of them from smoking cannabis now because the consequences of a criminal conviction effects their ability to travel and get employment.

This is not reflected by reality. I would be in favour of decriminalisation at least:
http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

The fear factor is probably preventing many of them from smoking cannabis now because the consequences of a criminal conviction effects their ability to travel and get employment.

No, it's not. A huge number of Irish people use it.

tayto lover wrote:

I believe if de-criminalised that even more young people would take it up.

No, they wouldn't. It doesn't matter what you 'believe' if you have no evidence for your claim. What are you basing this belief on? I'm willing to bet 'nothing', because I used to be as opposed to drugs as you are. This is how it works:

- Ugh, drugs, nasty things. I've been brought up to think this way.
- However, I don't have any real reason to justify my hatred of drugs, so I will unconsciously come up with anything that satisfies my mind's need for reason.
- I bet more people will start taking it if it's decriminalised! That sounds good!

All of a sudden, the rationalisation you came up with to justify your position has magically become one of the original reasons why you hold that position.

Odysseus

Deleted User wrote: »

and that education about safe use is suppressed, resulting in more hospitalisations.

What do you base that on? There is good access to info with inthe Addiction Services, it is far from perfect but there is a strong harm reduction element which would include education. I certainly never emcountered qood quality information being suppressed for those or any other reasons.

Odysseus

Odysseus wrote: »

What do you base that on? There is good access to info with inthe Addiction Services, it is far from perfect but there is a strong harm reduction element which would include education. I certainly never emcountered qood quality information being suppressed for those or any other reasons.

Yes, the HSE is okay when it comes to providing information, but you go to the Addiction Services when you have some need. I really just mean in life in general. Young people are given very little information about drugs in the education system. My drug education in secondary school amounted to falsehoods such as: 'LSD stays in your spine forever'.

Ads about drugs (incl. tobacco and alcohol), while they can provide some useful information, include numerous errors and distortions. Their tone is often quite patronising, which I've found can make them appear undesirable as a source of information for young people. It's important that information provided by the government is unbiased, based on solid science and includes the good with the bad. The abstinence angle doesn't really work.

Even third-level awareness campaigns (obviously far more liberal) include mistakes.

Odysseus

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, the HSE is okay when it comes to providing information, but you go to the Addiction Services when you have some need. I really just mean in life in general. Young people are given very little information about drugs in the education system. My drug education in secondary school amounted to falsehoods such as: 'LSD stays in your spine forever'.

Ads about drugs (incl. tobacco and alcohol), while they can provide some useful information, include numerous errors and distortions. Their tone is often quite patronising, which I've found can make them appear undesirable as a source of information for young people. It's important that information provided by the government is unbiased, based on solid science and includes the good with the bad. The abstinence angle doesn't really work.

Even third-level awareness campaigns (obviously far more liberal) include mistakes.

Yeah I see your point, but I'm not sure how you address that in a meaningful manner. Sure, even here you should see the response from some people when they hear that services give advice on safe injecting or supplying crack pipes on health grounds.

Even peoples views on addicts are terrible, I have PMed mods here often enough to try get the use of the term junkie on the ban list.

TBH abstinence does work for some people, and for those it works very well. However, it does not suit everybody and we should be working with everybody, not just those who suit one approach.

Username99

bedrock#1 wrote: »

Check out the thread title. War on Drugs not War on Marijuana

Ok let me rephrase, my argument was on the issue regarding the legalisation of marijuana. My bad for not reading the title properly. I would also like to add, I have absolutely sympathy towards the regulation other illegal drugs (Heroin, Cocaine etc...)

Piliger

ScumLord wrote: »

I think introducing cannabis first is a good start.

Jumping in head first at the deep end may be a bit much for everyone to take and deal with. Test the waters with cannabis legalisation and when that works move onto the other drugs.

What rationale is that based on ? Legalising one drug in isolation has no effect on Organised Crime or on State expenditure or Crime.

tayto lover

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Fear factor? Seriously?

Do you honestly think that teenagers think about the ability to travel and get employment when they're trying to buy a bit of ganja?

I know I didn't when I was younger.

You're grasping at straws here with your arguments.

Many of them actually do worry if they know the law and want to travel. I have spoken to many such young people. It would be one of the first reasons I would back the de-criminalisation of cannabis for.
I am stuck between the de-criminalising and legalising at the moment and trying to make my mind up.

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

No, it's not. A huge number of Irish people use it.



No, they wouldn't. It doesn't matter what you 'believe' if you have no evidence for your claim. What are you basing this belief on? I'm willing to bet 'nothing', because I used to be as opposed to drugs as you are. This is how it works:

- Ugh, drugs, nasty things. I've been brought up to think this way.
- However, I don't have any real reason to justify my hatred of drugs, so I will unconsciously come up with anything that satisfies my mind's need for reason.
- I bet more people will start taking it if it's decriminalised! That sounds good!

All of a sudden, the rationalisation you came up with to justify your position has magically become one of the original reasons why you hold that position.

You are assuming that I am totally on the anti side then because I express worries and opinions. Not entirely true.
I would worry that if legalised more young people might take it up but that is a personal opinion and could be wrong. Both of us could be wrong actually.

tayto lover

Zillah wrote: »

This is not reflected by reality. I would be in favour of decriminalisation at least:
http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7

I would agree with you on that. But the debate for legalising will still go on.

ScumLord

Piliger wrote: »

What rationale is that based on ? Legalising one drug in isolation has no effect on Organised Crime or on State expenditure or Crime.

Of course it'll have an effect, I compared it to Apple not being able to sell iPhones. Another example would be if Diageo had to stop selling Guinness or another one of their most popular brands.

It's not going to kill them off instantly but it would put serious strain on their business and they'd need to restructure, in a legitimate businesses case it means firing people and closing down outlets. Remember these are organised crime gangs, they run like a businesses and in any business if large chunks of money stop going into your bank account every month and your customers stop coming to you it's going to cause huge problems to your ability to do business.

I don't think you'll see spikes in crime in other areas either, the whole appeal of selling drugs is it's relatively easy and there's no immediate, obvious loser or victim. Those guys aren't the type to go out trying their hand at more dangerous and complicated crime.

charlemont

tayto lover wrote: »

Many of them actually do worry if they know the law and want to travel. I have spoken to many such young people. It would be one of the first reasons I would back the de-criminalisation of cannabis for.
I am stuck between the de-criminalising and legalising at the moment and trying to make my mind up.

At least your making the effort to come on here and find out the facts so you can make your own mind up. :cool:

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

You are assuming that I am totally on the anti side then because I express worries and opinions.

I'm not assuming anything. I come to that conclusion based on the content of your posts, which is all I have to go on, since I likely don't know you in real life.

tayto lover wrote:

I would worry that if legalised more young people might take it up but that is a personal opinion and could be wrong. Both of us could be wrong actually.

No, one of us is wrong because it's a dichotomy: either there would be an increase in use or there wouldn't be.

However, just because there are only two opinions doesn't mean both of them are equally valid. One of the opinions is based on science and the other based on speculation and feelings.

There is no substantial evidence that decriminalisation leads to higher rates of use: http://norml.org/marijuana/personal/item/marijuana-decriminalization-its-impact-on-use-2

Since decriminalisation in Portugal, usage rates have not risen.