Luke Ming Flanagan - what is he about?

zonEEE

Czarcasm wrote: »

Suffer? Seriously? I don't think it's me needs to cop on tbh. Suffer... :pac:

Yes suffer, tell that to the man who's dying from cancer and cant get hold of cannabis oil to cure it.

Tell that to the people who suffer from anxiety and depression who could avail of this miracle that just grows in the ground.

Also Whats the percentage of people that can use food responsible? Should we ban food?

Artful_Badger

NIMAN wrote: »

Well if he's not growing his own, then he is helping to fund criminal gangs, that my fundamental point.

Plenty people grow and sell weed that have nothing to do with criminal gangs. They just sell to a small bunch of people they know.

Czarcasm

thiarfearr wrote: »

A couple of people as in an 88% majority

No, you have to remember that's 88% of the 100% of people that do drugs, not 88% of the population.

I would venture too that 88% of the population that don't do drugs would over-rule the 12% that do. Look at the damage that the 12% of the 100% that do drugs actually causes.

I wouldn't imagine you'll see drugs legalised/decriminalised in this country any time soon, and especially not with a flapjack like Ming (Jesus even the name!) representing the 12% of the population that want drugs legalised/decriminalised.

Czarcasm

bedrock#1 wrote: »

You ok with all the thousands of murders each year around the world from the imposition of the prohibition you are "ok with"? what about the farmers all over South America having their crops sprayed by the DEA in their attempts to wipe out the coca plantations? Or the people who get cancer and all manner of respiratory problems from the same sprays? Or the children in ghettos around the world who grow up with this being the only functioning economy where they are and ending up shooting each other, innocent people, cops, judges. What about the millions of orphans world wide, 1.8 million in the US alone, left without parents from death or prison?


You should really get a grip on reality mate. This extends far beyond this little island.

Yeah and guess what? I don't have all the answers to solve world hunger either! I think you need to get some perspective a bit closer to home and take a look at the post I made on the subject of drug use not so long ago here in a thread and then come back and tell me "lets legalise drugs, no harm sure, m'kay!". No matter how much you legalise or decriminalise them, there will always be some toolbags that are easily taken advantage of and the black economy will flourish, and scum will still thieve and rob to get income because they don't want to pay for their drugs- they HAVE to pay for their drugs, but they want to pay as little as possible!

There's much more at play here than just "Oh a couple of addicts spoiling it, sure fcuk em, and fcuk the gubbermint, I should be allowed put what I want into my body". Nobody is stopping you putting what you want into your body, but the government has to legislate for the idiots that don't know when enough is enough.

Czarcasm

zonEEE wrote: »

Yes suffer, tell that to the man who's dying from cancer and cant get hold of cannabis oil to cure it.

Tell that to the people who suffer from anxiety and depression who could avail of this miracle that just grows in the ground.

Also Whats the percentage of people that can use food responsible? Should we ban food?

Oh get off your high horse would you, we both know the majority of users use drugs for recreational use and not for medicinal purposes.

And there's a hell of a difference between food, which is a necessity for everyone, and drugs, which are not a necessity for everyone.

Atlantis50

Who cares what that that joker 'Ming' says.

Use of all of those drugs have left him tapped in the head.

zonEEE

Czarcasm wrote: »

Oh get off your high horse would you, we both know the majority of users use drugs for recreational use and not for medicinal purposes.

And there's a hell of a difference between food, which is a necessity for everyone, and drugs, which are not a necessity for everyone.

Really do we need crips and sweets to surive? Some food has a way more damaging effect then weed . You simple simple simple minded person

J_E

It was mildly amusing at first but now it's kind of distressing to see how ignorant and not clued in many people are to drugs and drug use. Sneering at 'stoners' while they down their pints, the irony.

zonEEE

Cydoniac wrote: »

It was mildly amusing at first but now it's kind of distressing to see how ignorant and not clued in many people are to drugs and drug use. Sneering at 'stoners' while they down their pints, the irony.

Its like talking to a brick wall, a ****ing thick one at that

Jumboman

Odysseus wrote: »

Is that brain damage?

Opiods cause no brain damage, now the sh!te mixed with it can cause many different types of damage. If we supplied people with access to good quality drugs such as diamorphine we wouldn't have to worry or waste money on the various bad gear cases we get 5/6 times a year.

My point is that even junkies who are not high can barely string a sentence together.

Are you trying to say that heroin is harmless ?

J_E

Jumboman wrote: »

My point is that even junkies who are not high can barely string a sentence together.

Are you trying to say that heroin is harmless ?

What a terrible generalisation, and a silly argument at that.

Jumboman

Shane Macgowan is a classic example of someone who has been left brain damaged by heavy drug use.

AngryHippie

Czarcasm wrote: »

And that's all fine in theory, but look at how legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco are abused by lets just say for argument sake the same 12%, look at how detrimental that has been on society. While you and a few others might be able to say you could use drugs responsibly, there's still the 12% that won't. "Moderation" is a foreign concept to these people, and while they remain citizens of the state, it is the responsibility of the government to legislate for their welfare.

If that means a couple of people who claim they can use drugs responsibly whose noses are put out by this decision, I for one am ok with that.

This notion of the nanny state really sickens my ar$e.

Yes 12% of people who use drugs will run into some sort of drama with it, but looking after those 12% is going to be far cheaper and easier to deal with if they can openly say
"I'm having a bit of a problem with cocaine" or
"my heroin habit is too expensive to support and I need help"

Rather than the current situation where:
resources are pumped into prohibition which only intercepts or prevents about 10% (on a good day) of the overall use nationally.

People who have problems are ostracized and for their substance abuse problems by bigots in society

Resources to help them are unavailable because they are being pumped into a "war on drugs"


The current policy is retarded, its being kept in place to keep a bunch of bigots happy, said bigots have no connection with the reality of the situation for the rest of the population and in any case spend their time looking for problems in society instead of coming up with fcuking solutions.

zonEEE

Jumboman wrote: »

Shane Macgowan is a classic example of someone who has been left brain damaged by heavy drug use.

Yes heavy alcohol use

Ruudi_Mentari

He was about sitting down to an episode of teletubbies with a bowl of nice tripsies but bogs put paid to that

AngryHippie

Jumboman wrote: »

Shane Macgowan is a classic example of someone who has been left brain damaged by heavy drug use.

Which drug ?

To be fair Macgown would be like trying to figure out which bean made you fart.

He is/was a chronic alcoholic to boot !

Czarcasm

zonEEE wrote: »

Really do we need crips and sweets to surive? Some food has a way more damaging effect then weed . You simple simple simple minded person

Now you're just being silly, this is why I used the word "moderation", because we can both agree that anything, whether it be crisps, sweets, alcohol, or even weed, when it's abused, can have damaging effects on a person.

And you're quite right, I am a simple person who doesn't need to see the bigger picture because I choose to focus on what's happening in my own back yard. I'm not out to solve the world's issues, or even the country's issues, I'd sooner just clean up my own back yard.

This argument will go round in circles anyway as there are no moves to legalise or decriminalise drugs and I wouldn't think there will be in our lifetimes anyway. You can argue the benefits of drugs all you want after that, but if you're really that bent out of shape about it- move to a country where the drugs you want are legal, but remember, you will then be governed by THEIR legislation, and we both know no system is perfect.

zonEEE

Czarcasm wrote: »

Now you're just being silly, this is why I used the word "moderation", because we can both agree that anything, whether it be crisps, sweets, alcohol, or even weed, when it's abused, can have damaging effects on a person.

And you're quite right, I am a simple person who doesn't need to see the bigger picture because I choose to focus on what's happening in my own back yard. I'm not out to solve the world's issues, or even the country's issues, I'd sooner just clean up my own back yard.

This argument will go round in circles anyway as there are no moves to legalise or decriminalise drugs and I wouldn't think there will be in our lifetimes anyway. You can argue the benefits of drugs all you want after that, but if you're really that bent out of shape about it- move to a country where the drugs you want are legal, but remember, you will then be governed by THEIR legislation, and we both know no system is perfect.

Well you see im of a generation that holds this issue very close to their back yard.


So you understand moderation, so whats the difference between me smoking weed in moderation and another drinking in moderation. Why should i be classed as a criminal?


I most definitely think in my life time(im 21), we will see weed being made legal. Once America(It has started already) and the UK wont be long following suit.

The domino's are well and truly starting to fall.

Czarcasm

AngryHippie wrote: »

This notion of the nanny state really sickens my ar$e.

The expression "nanny state" really sickens my àrse, because it's usually the reserve of sullen teenagers who want to "fight da powah" and have no clear policy on how the country should run as long as they have their "rights" to do what the hell they like, without due regard to any of their responsibilities as citizens of this country.

Yes 12% of people who use drugs will run into some sort of drama with it,

Nicely downplayed, kudos to you sir.

but looking after those 12% is going to be far cheaper and easier to deal with if they can openly say
"I'm having a bit of a problem with cocaine" or
"my heroin habit is too expensive to support and I need help"

Right. Good luck with that then. That's even less likely to happen than drugs being decriminalised/legalised. I'd love to see it myself, would make my job a hell of a lot easier, but it's unlikely to happen in all reality. It's hard enough to get addicts to realise they have a problem, never mind get help with it.

Rather than the current situation where:
resources are pumped into prohibition which only intercepts or prevents about 10% (on a good day) of the overall use nationally.

People who have problems are ostracized and for their substance abuse problems by bigots in society

Resources to help them are unavailable because they are being pumped into a "war on drugs"


The current policy is retarded, its being kept in place to keep a bunch of bigots happy, said bigots have no connection with the reality of the situation for the rest of the population and in any case spend their time looking for problems in society instead of coming up with fcuking solutions.

That'd make for a few populist facebook likes, but it's a complete distortion of reality. How's about you have a word with your local drug dealer instead and ask him how much tax he pays on his income and would he be prepared to pay tax if drugs were legalised/decriminalised?

Instead of bleating out a few soundbites to the gallery, how about you spend an afternoon with me and see how easily drugs are available on practically every street corner in Ireland and how easy it is to get your hands on them. Nanny state my hole, when you see the shìt that drugs do to people and their extended families, it might make you think twice about making them available to every idiot on the street.

And before you say "but alcohol this, alcohol that", only last week that other parish puppet healy rae was proposing that people be allowed to drink and drive. The country lambasted him for it. I'm not so sure Ming has the support of "the people" either the way he and people like you think he does.

Czarcasm

zonEEE wrote: »

Well you see im of a generation that holds this issue very close to their back yard.

I'm not sure you understood the expression "in my back yard", it means in my community. But we'll go with what the need for weed means to your generation (We'll say nothing about the generations that were the 60's of free love, the 70's that were a blur for most people, the 80's when people got filthy rich and snow was all a go, the 90's pills for thrills, and the 00's, where anything goes... No, carry on, your generation is the only one that ever did drugs!).

So you understand moderation, so whats the difference between me smoking weed in moderation and another drinking in moderation. Why should i be classed as a criminal?

Absolutely none! But lets be clear- it's the people that can't do things in moderation that are why we have the laws the way they are, and slowly but surely the country is also shedding it's international image as generations gone before you we were a nation of drunks and alcoholics. We are clamping down on the drink culture.

Hell I hate that I can't enjoy a smoke with my pint in the bar and have to go outside where I freeze my balls off while my pint goes flat inside, but thems the breaks!

I most definitely think in my life time(im 21), we will see weed being made legal. Once America(It has started already) and the UK wont be long following suit.

The domino's are well and truly starting to fall.

I'm not that much older than you at 36. America is a very different country to Ireland, as is Britain. You can't even compare like with like.

Those dominos are looking fairly sturdy from where I'm standing and tbh I can't see Ming getting into government any time soon to even blow hot air at said dominos in an attempt to knock them over.

Christ if you're dependent on Ming to effect social change, you'll be waiting, he's been pìssing and moaning about legalising cannabis quite literally since before your àrse was as big as a shirt button. He'll still be doing the same when your children are the age you are now and telling you it's shìt that drugs are illegal in this country!

zonEEE

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm not sure you understood the expression "in my back yard", it means in my community. But we'll go with what the need for weed means to your generation (We'll say nothing about the generations that were the 60's of free love, the 70's that were a blur for most people, the 80's when people got filthy rich and snow was all a go, the 90's pills for thrills, and the 00's, where anything goes... No, carry on, your generation is the only one that ever did drugs

you see from the failings of past generatons, my one has got the education and knowledge to prevail.

Were at a point were we have the knowledge to see drugs can enhance certain parts of our lives.

Point me to the person who can code a computer program while drunk, however in my case and many others i can code if not better while stoned, it lets me take a different view on the problem at hand.

Maybe you should smoke a joint and see what all the fuss is about.

Whats the point in living if you dont take the leap outside the back yard every once and awhile

NIMAN

You can code while stoned?
Good man yourself. If only we could all be like you. The future of this country is safe so.

zonEEE

NIMAN wrote: »

You can code while stoned?
Good man yourself. If only we could all be like you. The future of this country is safe so.

Using it as an example you spastic

NIMAN

I think that reply has told me more about you than anything else you have posted on here.

I think I am finished with this thread now. Nice chatting to you. Back to your spliffs.

zonEEE

NIMAN wrote: »

I think that reply has told me more about you than anything else you have posted on here.

I think I am finished with this thread now. Nice chatting to you. Back to your spliffs.

well after hours of banging my head against a brick wall, what did you expect ?

ro_chez

Czarcasm wrote: »

Absolutely none! But lets be clear- it's the people that can't do things in moderation that are why we have the laws the way they are, and slowly but surely the country is also shedding it's international image as generations gone before you we were a nation of drunks and alcoholics. We are clamping down on the drink culture.

Hell I hate that I can't enjoy a smoke with my pint in the bar and have to go outside where I freeze my balls off while my pint goes flat inside, but thems the breaks!

So, seeing as you believe that drug prohibition laws are there because some other people over do it, I presume you would have no problem never having another pint or smoke, if the government banned these substances with immediate effect, no?

Lionel Messy

He's a druggie loser, Flanagan.

Snake Pliisken

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm not sure you understood the expression "in my back yard", it means in my community. But we'll go with what the need for weed means to your generation (We'll say nothing about the generations that were the 60's of free love, the 70's that were a blur for most people, the 80's when people got filthy rich and snow was all a go, the 90's pills for thrills, and the 00's, where anything goes... No, carry on, your generation is the only one that ever did drugs!).

But there is a difference between the young and previous generations, isn't there? Ignorance is now a choice because of the internet, people have access to information that Mammy and Daddy wouldn't have had, like statistics on harm reduction and metrics on how much damage certain drugs do to society, or whether LSD permanently changes your chromosomes or cannabis drives everyone who tries it insane. There's also the fact we can see the mistakes of previous generations and where they were led astray.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Absolutely none! But lets be clear- it's the people that can't do things in moderation that are why we have the laws the way they are, and slowly but surely the country is also shedding it's international image as generations gone before you we were a nation of drunks and alcoholics. We are clamping down on the drink culture.

Hell I hate that I can't enjoy a smoke with my pint in the bar and have to go outside where I freeze my balls off while my pint goes flat inside, but thems the breaks!

Are those laws doing a good job? Or are the laws at present limiting the freedom of every citizen in this country while empowering drug gangs, the police state and other vested interests in keeping this status quo burning?

There's mountains of evidence continually posted in threads like this one that say again and again that treatment is a better solution than punishment; people like you continually stick your head in the ground to sate some puritanical need to toe exactly the same line that got us here in the first place! Being a judgmental holy joe does nothing but push power into the hands of callous business on both sides of legitimacy!

If you don't want to believe me, the film that won Cannes this year was a documentary called 'The House that I Live In' that's well worth the watch.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm not that much older than you at 36. America is a very different country to Ireland, as is Britain. You can't even compare like with like.

Those dominos are looking fairly sturdy from where I'm standing and tbh I can't see Ming getting into government any time soon to even blow hot air at said dominos in an attempt to knock them over.

Christ if you're dependent on Ming to effect social change, you'll be waiting, he's been pìssing and moaning about legalising cannabis quite literally since before your àrse was as big as a shirt button. He'll still be doing the same when your children are the age you are now and telling you it's shìt that drugs are illegal in this country!

We mightn't be exactly like America but the generic evidences that'll present themselves in the coming years will lead to further, more serious debate on this issue, here and in America; there really isn't that much of a difference between us and Britain, in fact we're probably in a better position to enact new drug policy than they are, considering how bad some of their social problems are compared to ours.

I wouldn't count out anything in today's world, sure twenty years ago the USSR collapsed in front of everyone's eyes and that wasn't in the forecast when you ask the people in power and that was before the internet as we know it existed!

---

It's great seeing all the factually based insults being thrown at Ming right now, very intelligent stuff being rallied by able minded members of the Irish-wide community! I mean, can you feel the sting of 'druggie loser', oh he won't sleep tonight thinking about that one!
You people are trapped and you don't even know it. Enjoy watching the world leave you behind as you get bitterer and bitterer!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ3KEZhuC7U

Treatment and freedom > punishment and oppression.

Caliden

We should copy Portugal and decriminalise everything and increase rehabilitation. Note: Decriminalise does not mean legalise!

It means less junkies in prison which means there's room for convicts of more serious crimes.

Odysseus

Caliden wrote: »

We should copy Portugal and decriminalise everything and increase rehabilitation. Note: Decriminalise does not mean legalise!

It means less junkies in prison which means there's room for convicts of more serious crimes.

Whilst I concur, I feel those in favour of such process; should really just see people with addiction issues as people, I find it hard to see how someone can be support such progress then label people who use drugs in an addicted manner as junkies.

Can you see my point?

TPD

Czarcasm wrote: »

Instead of bleating out a few soundbites to the gallery, how about you spend an afternoon with me and see how easily drugs are available on practically every street corner in Ireland and how easy it is to get your hands on them. Nanny state my hole, when you see the shìt that drugs do to people and their extended families, it might make you think twice about making them available to every idiot on the street.

You mention in your post how easy it is to get drugs currently, then say that seeing the damage might cause second thoughts about legalisation.

They are already available to every idiot in the street. These are the idiots on the street that you see on these afternoons.

Legalising would introduce controls making it harder to get these drugs for the average idiot, not easier. They won't be given out with happy meals because they're legal - I could only imagine they would be under much tighter scrutiny than alcohol sales (rightly or wrongly is a different issue).

Cork Boy

Czarcasm wrote: »

Instead of bleating out a few soundbites to the gallery, how about you spend an afternoon with me and see how easily drugs are available on practically every street corner in Ireland and how easy it is to get your hands on them. Nanny state my hole, when you see the shìt that drugs do to people and their extended families, it (legislation0 might make you think twice about making them available to every idiot on the street.

I can see the cogs turning, very very slowly

harney

zonEEE wrote: »

well after hours of banging my head against a brick wall, what did you expect ?

You could try using some of that fine education from your generation to prevail.

bedrock#1

Czarcasm wrote: »

Yeah and guess what? I don't have all the answers to solve world hunger either! I think you need to get some perspective a bit closer to home and take a look at the post I made on the subject of drug use not so long ago here in a thread and then come back and tell me "lets legalise drugs, no harm sure, m'kay!". No matter how much you legalise or decriminalise them, there will always be some toolbags that are easily taken advantage of and the black economy will flourish, and scum will still thieve and rob to get income because they don't want to pay for their drugs- they HAVE to pay for their drugs, but they want to pay as little as possible!

There's much more at play here than just "Oh a couple of addicts spoiling it, sure fcuk em, and fcuk the gubbermint, I should be allowed put what I want into my body". Nobody is stopping you putting what you want into your body, but the government has to legislate for the idiots that don't know when enough is enough.

Your idea seems to be predicated on the idea that the criminal law in some way acts as a deterrent. However, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that government legislation has any effect on consumption rates. Never mind the fact that government policy isn't devised using the latest criminological data, but is blindly cobbled together in the hope of appeasing people like yourself in the hopes you'll vote for them in the next election.

No government policy on drugs is based on evidence. It's all hysteria and knee-jerkery. Until an evidence based policy, taking into account the huge differences between substances and there effects (both social and pharmacological) there is no hope of improvement.

And reducing the argument of those advocating change to "lets legalise drugs, no harm sure, m'kay!" is to intimate that anyone who advocates a different approach to the current one is some mindless stoner and is both absurd and fairly insulting.

mikom

Lionel Messy wrote: »

He's a druggie loser, Flanagan.

http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=550991&showmore=1&date_to=&date_from=&query=*%3A*&forum=598

walrusgumble

anonymous2013 wrote: »

I know he is an avid supporter of the class C drug,which i have no problem with on a personal level..

It has medicinal value and is a low - level recreational drug(although you do laugh a lot on it kind of like laughing gas)..

Recently though (through reading the sunday newspaper) he has come out and said he experimented with class A drugs,and would support legal use of them..

Now im not so sure about ming,although i still do like him,and the fact he gives nearly 50% of his wages to charity and has recently taken a pay cut.

He is not as money orientated as the rest of the gombeens we have in the dail and seems a lot more alive and less sedate in the dail when speaking on issues he speaks passionately about them..

He is my kind of guy if i was going to vote for someone i would still vote for ming.

But his latest statement has me confused what is he about,why class A drugs,doesnt he know the dangers of them.

He even admitted he didnt really 'enjoy' cocaine and found LSD 'dangerous' and 'scary'..

He is no different to many other people who have dabbled in one way or another in Class A Drugs. When you are young, stupid and have spare money, people try things out. Moreover, it was ridiculous how easy is was a "score" E, Cocaine and even LSD as oppose to the auld "ten spot of hash", near the end of the boom. (In my area, anyway)

What actually puzzles me is , why is this coming out? Was he asked a question or did he offer this information. ?

It is hardly a shocker to be honest

One thing I think he was dead right, he does not see himself as a radical, just someone in a Conservative Country. He is not a left wing looney at all.

walrusgumble

Lionel Messy wrote: »

He's a druggie loser, Flanagan.

Was was elected as a TD, probably should get re-elected, if he had not given away half of his salary, he would probably earn more money than many posters here.

Ya, he is a looser all right, good lad

He said that he was off the drugs by the way

Isn't fags and booze a drug?

mikom

Another innocent hurt by prohibition.........

A FORENSIC scientist who was fined for making cannabis oil to treat his own pain is to bring a legal challenge in the European courts.
John Anderson (59) is appealing a conviction handed down at Sligo District Court for possession of cannabis.
He has vowed to take his case to Europe, saying the Government is in breach of EU regulations by not making cannabis-based medicines available on prescription, as they are throughout Europe.


Sligo District Court heard the former UK government scientist admit he developed liquid cannabis 10 years ago and used it to treat a tooth problem and shoulder injuries. He was fined €200 for cultivating the plant.

When he suffered two separate shoulder injuries – one in a fall and one in a traffic accident – he turned again to cannabis.


"My physiotherapist told me the injuries won't heal, so I got some cannabis seeds and made more stuff," said Mr Anderson.
"The Government classes cannabis alongside heroin and cocaine and it states in our laws that cannabis has no medicinal benefits. Research going back 5,000 years says otherwise."


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/scientist-who-made-cannabis-painkiller-will-fight-conviction-3376046.html

walrusgumble

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Who cares what that that joker 'Ming' says.

Use of all of those drugs have left him tapped in the head.

Give us 5-10 examples of why he is tapped in the head. Are you aware of the things that he proposed or suggested in the Daíl and the media, bar the legalisation of cannabis?

Or are you one of those other posters who are really, empty vessels

Dempsey

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There's also the simple morality issue. Peaceful people should be left the fuck alone if they're not harming anyone.

It's totally immoral that people are arbitrarily deemed criminals because they choose to smoke a bit of weed or drop a few E's and have a bit of a dance.

All drug possession for personal use should be decriminalised. Weed should be legalised and highly regulated to start with and then if successful it should be extended to other drugs.

This would also free up huge amounts of police time to fight real crimes that have real victims like rape, home invasions, drink/drug driving, corporate crime/corruption to name a few.

The war on drugs people has been a costly and comprehensive catastrophe - support for its continuance is thick.

The government and the opposition are too busy playing the blame game to do anything brave & progressive.

Odysseus

God, in is on Mr duffs show now!!!!!!!!!!!

anhedonia

I personally found alcohol to be more toxic and self-destructive than any drug.
I dont drink or do drugs now, but when I did the worst situations that I got myself in were alcohol-related.
I find it absolutely baffling that alcohol is the state-sponsored legal substance.

Its certainly more toxic to the body to be under the influence of alcohol 24/7 than to be under the influence of pharm grade Heroin 24/7. Fact.

Boombastic

He used half his salary last year to do up the playground in castlerea, according to himself on Liveline

PogMoThoin

Boombastic wrote: »

He used half his salary last year to do up the playground in castlerea, according to himself on Liveline

Along with donating to other things: http://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news/local/ming-donates-street-signs-to-boyle-1-3869503

Boombastic

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Along with donating to other things: http://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news/local/ming-donates-street-signs-to-boyle-1-3869503

He also admits he is overpaid, not too many politicians saying that

GTDolanator

Ming making very valid points over on cry ba radio at the mo,fair play to joe giving him the air time!

i reckon joe is a stoner!

aidan24326

Biggins wrote: »

Sounds like one Michael O'Leary then!

Michael may be full of bluster but he knows how to run a business in fairness. Just imagine the fun if he was put in charge of a bloated, over-fed dinosaur like the HSE, or the mountain of uselessness they call FAS.

Dempsey wrote: »

The government and the opposition are too busy playing the blame game to do anything brave & progressive.

They wouldn't know brave and progressive if it slapped them repeatedly on the head. What matters is keeping your arse firmly planted in Leinster House, keeping the party in power and doing/saying whatever it takes to achieve that end, lying through your teeth if necessary. There are very very few exceptions to this, and I don't know enough about Ming to know if he is an exception. He's not the worst of them though, that's for sure.

GTDolanator wrote: »

Ming making very valid points over on cry ba radio at the mo,fair play to joe giving him the air time!

i reckon joe is a stoner!

He wears nipple clamps and a dog collar too you know.

Chuck Stone

Czarcasm wrote: »

lets be clear- it's the people that can't do things in moderation that are why we have the laws the way they are

Bahahhahahahah . BOLLOCKS! What a dumb thing to say.

If that were the case then alcohol would be one of the most illegal drugs out there.

Czarcasm

zonEEE wrote: »

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm not sure you understood the expression "in my back yard", it means in my community. But we'll go with what the need for weed means to your generation (We'll say nothing about the generations that were the 60's of free love, the 70's that were a blur for most people, the 80's when people got filthy rich and snow was all a go, the 90's pills for thrills, and the 00's, where anything goes... No, carry on, your generation is the only one that ever did drugs

you see from the failings of past generatons, my one has got the education and knowledge to prevail.

Were at a point were we have the knowledge to see drugs can enhance certain parts of our lives.

Point me to the person who can code a computer program while drunk, however in my case and many others i can code if not better while stoned, it lets me take a different view on the problem at hand.

Maybe you should smoke a joint and see what all the fuss is about.

Whats the point in living if you dont take the leap outside the back yard every once and awhile

I'd be a proper cnut if I pointed out that you couldn't even quote me properly while I assume you were sober, so I'd sure hate to see what your code is like when you're high!

I did 10 years software development for a large multi-national, five years of that was spent off my face on coke, I couldn't tell you syntax from spaghetti code, so I really do have to question your programming principles if you think you're any better a developer while toking!

Czarcasm

ro_chez wrote: »

So, seeing as you believe that drug prohibition laws are there because some other people over do it, I presume you would have no problem never having another pint or smoke, if the government banned these substances with immediate effect, no?

They brought in the smoking ban with immediate effect overnight, which put a serious damper on my social life, I may not like it, but like I said earlier- the law is the law and thems the breaks. Hell if I went to America as somebody in the thread mentioned earlier, I can't even have a smoke within a mile of JFK. At least here we can still smoke on the street!