Progessive Ireland

Odysseus

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

All drugs?

Surely you don't include heroin and cocaine in that?

I know this is going OT but why not? Now clearly there needs to be a system but diamorphine is prescribed to opiate addicts in a few counties. Cocaine is available too but I acknowledge I am not that familiar with the various precedures involved with cocaine.

SeanW

Steve O wrote: »

Radical feminism is a very much minority movement. The likes of Ivanna Bacik spouting incoherent laws is about as far as radical Feminism will go and it's a pity these minority fruitcakes are given a microphone to spout their man-hating bile, normal genuine feminists do not believe this crap.

I wish I shared your confidence.

Feminism is still needed in the likes of Saudi Arabia and other extremist Societies, however so-called radical feminists are too busy being offended at advertising campaigns and men's rights movements.

True for the first part, I'm not so sure about the second.

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

How does that prove it's mainstream? I don't know any women who call themselves Feminists who'd support either of these measures. Catherine Clancy is one of thousands. This article proves nothing. And where's the mention of banning of porn??

The Feminist-Left is already making law in Sweden and Iceland. Ireland may be on the verge of copying the "Swedish model" (i.e. men are bastards) with the help of the Religious-Right. Harsh laws against pornography are already on the books in Iceland and may be extended to include online censorship (perhaps they could borrow a book on it from the Chinese and the Saudis?)

There are also plans for gender-quotas to be imposed Europe wide on company boards and whatnot. Again, this "positive discrimination" crap is front and centre in the demands of Feminist-Leftists.

It's very much mainstream and I fear this insanity will march on until the Feminist-Left is stopped and told to go to hell. Which, although essential for a just society, may never happen.

Galwayguy35

Odysseus wrote: »

I know this is going OT but why not? Now clearly there needs to be a system but diamorphine is prescribed to opiate addicts in a few counties. Cocaine is available too but I acknowledge I am not that familiar with the various precedures involved with cocaine.

Remember what heroin did back in the 1980s?

Can't see any grounds for making it legal.

Yamanoto

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

And in Ireland :

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/council-to-vote-on-banning-buying-sex-208619.html

Bizarre stuff from article above, even by the standards of misinformation that commonly frame the debate.

Ms Clancy said local authorities have a duty to highlight the “hidden” sex trade industry.

“Every hour, over 200 men are buying sex in Ireland. Every day, internet escort sites advertise over 1,000 women and children — girls and boys.

mikom

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Remember what heroin did back in the 1980s?

Can't see any grounds for making it legal.

Heroin was legalised back in the 80's?

Duggys Housemate

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

How does that prove it's mainstream? I don't know any women who call themselves Feminists who'd support either of these measures. Catherine Clancy is one of thousands. This article proves nothing. And where's the mention of banning of porn??

The vote was unanimous. All parties in Ireland's second city. Pretty mainstream. Countries which ban prostitution on feminist grounds tend to also ban strip clubs and attempt a ban on porn - which is prostitution with a camera.

Real Life

The problem with the drug legalisation is, people hear legalise it and think its going to be a free for all. Obviously if its legalised it has to be regulated in the same way alcohol or nicotine is or even more so. It doesnt mean lets legalise it and then forget about it.

Herb Powell

May I ask what is inherintly bad, wrong, or immoral about simply getting high? Because everyone on the fence seems to be saying "YEah I'd support legalisation, but only for medical use. Otherwise people will just be using it to get high". -Yeah, so what?

Galwayguy35

mikom wrote: »

Heroin was legalised back in the 80's?

No

Odysseus

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Remember what heroin did back in the 1980s?

Can't see any grounds for making it legal.

Ireland has had significant issues with opiates before the 80s, however, yes, I remember the 80s a good few lads I grew up with died, some self-harm some AIDS related.

However, which problem or problems from that time-frame are you referring to? If we had quality diamorphine treatment available would those issues be relevant today?

I had worked in addicts for over a decade now; whilst I have seen addicts die, I have seen plenty recover, lead a drug free life, leave behind the the criminality associated with their previous life. Enter the education system, and move on to jobs that pay significantly more thasn me.

I also seen some who do very well on methadone and leave the criminality behind, they can also enter the education system and work force to various levels. They can sometimes be held back by our treatment services but they can do well. They just are not [and in some cases may never be ready to abstaint totally], but they only use what they are prescribed.

Then there are the ones who just can't stablise on methadone for different reasons,they try to address they other aspects of their life but their heroin use draws them back in every time. These guys would be suitable for such treatment.

Then of course there are those who are just not ready to egage with treatment services all they do is collect a daily dose of methadone and go off and do their own thing. Some of these will over time engage with treatment some will not.

Now to be fair the above are gross generalisations but it does cover the various groups of addicts attending for treatment.

I don't like a system that punishs a person for having an addiction, making them criminals just for being in possession of the drug they need to avoid withdrawal.

Through have a treatment service which gives people the drugs they are using in this case diamorphine, we can treat those who want to give up, those who are ready to stabilse their drug use we can stabilse them. Those who are not ready to stabilse we can practice safer use and harm reduction issues with.

We take the criminality out of addiction, we help to manage the health problems caused by the use of impure street drugs, we have contact with addicts that when a window of opportunity to address their addiction presents we are in a position to do something about it. The list just goes on.

What negatives would you see?

Links234

Herb Powell wrote: »

-Yeah, so what?

I agree completely 'Herb'

Galwayguy35

Odysseus wrote: »

Ireland has had significant issues with opiates before the 80s, however, yes, I remember the 80s a good few lads I grew up with died, some self-harm some AIDS related.

However, which problem or problems from that time-frame are you referring to? If we had quality diamorphine treatment available would those issues be relevant today?

I had worked in addicts for over a decade now; whilst I have seen addicts die, I have seen plenty recover, lead a drug free life, leave behind the the criminality associated with their previous life. Enter the education system, and move on to jobs that pay significantly more thasn me.

I also see some who do very well on methadone and leave the criminality behind, the can also enter the education system and work force to various levels. They can sometimes be held back by our treatment services but the can do well. They just are not [and in some cases may never be ready to abstaint totally], but they only use what they are prescribed.

The there are the ones who just can stablise on methadone for different reasons,they try to address they other aspects of their life but their heroin use draws them back in every time. These guys would be suitable for such treatment.

There of course there are those who are just not ready to egaged with treatment services all they do is collect a daily dose of methadone and go off and do their own thing. Some of these will over time engage with treatment some will not.

Now to be fair the above are gross generalisations but it does cover the various groups of addicts attending for treatment.

I don't like a system that punishs a person for having an addiction, making them criminals just for being in possession of the drug they need to avoid withdrawal.

Through have a treatment service which gives people the drugs they are using in this case diamorphine, we can treat those who want to give up, those who are ready to stabilse their drug we can stabilse them. Those who are not ready to stabilse we can practice safer use and harm reduction issues with.

We take the criminality out of addiction, we help to manage the health problems caused by the use of impure street drugs, we have contact with addicts that when a window of opportunity to address their addiction presents we are in a position to do something about it. The list just goes on.

What negatives would you see?

I get what you are saying but, and this is just a personal opinion, it just kind of seems to be saying that when something is legal that it's ok and would this not encourage people who would have not previously tried hard drugs like heroin to sample it and get addicted.

Or do you mean that even though it would be legal that it would still only be available in certain circumstances, e.g given to addicts under supervision of medical professionals?

Herb Powell

Links234 wrote: »

I agree completely 'Herb'

Haha, that's a total coincidence! He's Homer's half-brother.

Odysseus

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I get what you are saying but, and this is just a personal opinion, it just kind of seems to be saying that when something is legal that it's ok and would this not encourage people who would have not previously tried hard drugs like heroin to sample it and get addicted.

Or do you mean that even though it would be legal that it would still only be available in certain circumstances, e.g given to addicts under supervision of medical professionals?

I don't think the first part would be an issue.

I would propose strong regulations to go with it, I would not like to to be medicalised to the extent of our current treatment services. We have come a long way from the 80s treatment wise, but I think we also have a long way to go.

I couldn't give you direct answers, but supply should be accessible yet controlled to a safe level, i.e. a person could not just walk away witha kilo or whatever.

Again some type of age limit so we do our best to keep it our of the hands of minors, like we do with other things.

Current treatment can be very restrictive, the hoops a client has to jump through in order to get enough methadone to go on a holiday can prevent some people from travelling. I think treatment services control too much of the clients life here, so I would like to see it being more felxible.

I certainly don't have the answers but I think there are enough examples out there for us to learn form and start to put a better system together.

Legs.Eleven

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

All drugs?

Surely you don't include heroin and cocaine in that?

Legalisation and regulation of all drugs - heroin above all.

Links234

Herb Powell wrote: »

Haha, that's a total coincidence! He's Homer's half-brother.

I know, Danny DeVito did his voice, I just thought it was funny

Legs.Eleven

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The vote was unanimous. All parties in Ireland's second city. Pretty mainstream. Countries which ban prostitution on feminist grounds tend to also ban strip clubs and attempt a ban on porn - which is prostitution with a camera.

I'm reading through the list of organisations that are part of the Turn off the Red Lights Campaign. Vast majority of them are not feminist groups and the ones that are could be classified as radical.

Odysseus

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Legalisation and regulation of all drugs - heroine above all.

I know it is terrible that such powerful women are illegal, they make such good role models too:pac:

Legs.Eleven

Odysseus wrote: »

I know it is terrible that such powerful women are illegal, they make such good role models too:pac:

Bollocks


*Goes back to change spelling feeling like a dufus...*

Czarcasm

I don't know will it ever happen in Ireland, but for a long time I've been a supporter of euthanasia, so that at least I can specify that I want to die with my mental faculties intact, and not be forced to live in a body that is of no further use to me, or the other side of that; be forced to live in a compromised mental state through mental disease which compromises my mental functions. I don't want to be kept "alive" by artificial means.

lower_league

i hate that term " progressive "

reeks of smug

Odysseus

Czarcasm wrote: »

I don't know will it ever happen in Ireland, but for a long time I've been a supporter of euthanasia, so that at least I can specify that I want to die with my mental faculties intact, and not be forced to live in a body that is of no further use to me, or the other side of that; be forced to live in a compromised mental state through mental disease which compromises my mental functions. I don't want to be kept "alive" by artificial means.

I concur, it would have to be controlled so it wasn't abused, but it is something I would like for myself.

I was heavily involved in my dad's care in his final weeks, especial with certain injections and his pain relife. I watch that poor man suffer to a degree which he should not have hade to.

I know others have gone through worse, but this should not be happening in this day and age.

In the end my dad was put to sleep never to wake up again, I know enough about drug doses and what his tolerance levels where, to be able to conclude that.

And TBH I am grateful to the Hospice team for doing that, at a certain stage a line is croossed and people should not be left sufferring just for the sake of it.

Legs.Eleven

lower_league wrote: »

i hate that term " progressive "

reeks of smug

Why?

Surely progress has positive connotations?

lower_league

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Why?

Surely progress has positive connotations?

i hired a plumber to do some work , he made good progress today and should be finished tommorrow

i watched an interview with mary robinson recently , she used the word " progressive " a lot

Legs.Eleven

lower_league wrote: »

i hired a plumber to do some work , he made good progress today and should be finished tommorrow

i watched an interview with mary robinson recently , she used the word " progressive " a lot

Okely dokey.

tdv123

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Legalisation and regulation of all drugs - heroin above all.

Yep.

This is what I don't like about a lot of the pro-pot people.

There all for cannabis being legalized but then there shocked when somebody mentions heroin.

My uncle had to take prescribed Morphine for over a year & his main complaint was constipation. At the height of his dose he was taking 400mg a day which is a large amount for anybody. He was able to function as normal & work at his job with no problems. They weened him down slowly to small amounts then switched him to Codeine & then Tramadol & never had any addiction problem in his life.

Prohibition creates more problems than it solves.

kingsenny

tdv123 wrote: »

Yep.

This is what I don't like about a lot of the pro-pot people.

There all for cannabis being legalized but then there shocked when somebody mentions heroin.

My uncle had to take prescribed Morphine for over a year & his main complaint was constipation. At the height of his dose he was taking 400mg a day which is a large amount for anybody. He was able to function as normal & work at his job with no problems. They weened him down slowly to small amounts then switched him to Codeine & then Tramadol & never had any addiction problem in his life.

Prohibition creates more problems than it solves.

Well surely because cannabis is the only illegal drug with no known recorded deaths?

(I'm not entirely sure this is true but from various sources on the internet, I gather it is)

ScumLord

smash wrote: »

Because legalised marijuana is as important as same-sex marriage or abortion issues?

Well I can't have an abortion either way and I don't see the sanctity in the spectacle of marriage, it's just a legal agreement to me. So that leaves weed.

Wompa1

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Why?

Surely progress has positive connotations?

In terms of politics, legislation, policies, mindsets etc. the word progressive is pretty subjective. It's also usually lobbied about by activist groups and people who are more left leaning than center or right to make their views seem like they are forward thinking and not as outdated as the opposition

suicide_circus

I'm hopped up on the weed right now, oh I've got the reefer madness alright! my pants are crusted with semen from constantly jacking off when i cant find a rape victim.

banned

AnonoBoy

Progessive Ireland is dead and gone
It's with O'Leary in the grave.

kunst nugget

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Progessive Ireland is dead and gone
It's with O'Leary in the grave.

It must be getting fierce crowded in there at this stage…

AnonoBoy

kunst nugget wrote: »

It must be getting fierce crowded in there at this stage…

It is.

Poor auld O'Leary can't even turn in his grave for all the sh*te that's in there with him.

Grayson

tdv123 wrote: »

There all for cannabis being legalized but then there shocked when somebody mentions heroin.

To be fair stating that is like saying that if you're pro same sex marriage you're in favor of man-boy love.
You can link man-boy love to gay marriage, but it's a tenuous link which is easy to dispel. Same with marijuana -> Heroin

They're just bad slippery slope arguments.

Grayson

AnonoBoy wrote: »

It is.

Poor auld O'Leary can't even turn in his grave for all the sh*te that's in there with him.

Must be like one of his planes then. At least he won't smell. Someone will pop aling in a minute to try and flog some cologne.

dsmythy

I'm sure gay people will be delighted to soon have the freedom to get divorced.

Suryavarman

smash wrote: »

Because legalised marijuana is as important as same-sex marriage or abortion issues?

Yes it is. In fact the ending of drug prohibition is far more important than either of those issues.

People are being murdered on a regular occurrence in Ireland because of drug prohibition. People are taking overdoses because they can't be informed of the correct dosages to take and then they can't be treated properly by doctors because doctors don't have a clue about all the different strains of cannabis, the hundreds of different ecstasy tablets and the various forms other drugs come in. Addicts are also afraid to seek treatment because of the stigma regarding drug use because it is illegal. It is much easier for children to obtain drugs in a black market because drugs dealers don't tend to ask for ID.

The price of drugs are kept artificially high because of a lack of competition leading addicts to rob people in order to fund their habits. Garda, prison and court resources are directed away from dealing with proper crimes in order to punish drug users, suppliers and manufacturers. Tax revenue that could be raised from ending prohibition could be used to cut other taxes or to ease spending cuts. Dole payments to drug dealers could be ended because they would be recognised as having jobs. The ending of prohibition could also attract more tourists to the country.

Ending drug prohibition is a policy that benefits everybody apart from the dealers.

Legalising gay marriage will have none of those benefits. The only people that benefit from the legalisation of gay marriage are gay people. Quite frankly, the legalisation of gay marriage isn't even in the same realm of importance as ending drug prohibition.

The reason abortion is still illegal in this country is because a huge number of people consider abortion to be murder (not a view I agree with btw). So a fairly reasonable case can be made that legalising abortion will increase the number of murders occurring in Ireland every year whereas ending drug prohibition would reduce the number of murders. Apart from the obvious recent case of Savita Halappanavar, how many people are dying because they can't get an abortion?

I realise you only compared the legalisation of cannabis to the legalisation of same sex marriage and abortion but do you really think that the legalisation of abortion or gay marriage is anywhere as beneficial and important to society as the ending of drug prohibition?

tdv123

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair stating that is like saying that if you're pro same sex marriage you're in favor of man-boy love.
You can link man-boy love to gay marriage, but it's a tenuous link which is easy to dispel. Same with marijuana -> Heroin

They're just bad slippery slope arguments.

No, it's like stating that at all. Diamorphine has plenty of medical properties, probably even more than cannabis. It's also less dangerous than a lot of benzodiazepines that are being over prescribed in most western countries.

Deaths from Xanax withdrawl are high were as deaths from strong opiates although very unpleasant are low.

Henlars67

I can see why people would be against abortion as they see it as murder and therefore in their view harmful to society.

I can see why people would be against gay marriage as they view marriage as being between a man and woman only, and therefore the idea of same-sex couples having a family unit the same as straight people, would in their view be harmful to society.

But I don't get why somebody would be against the legalisation of cannabis. It isn't a 'drug' which causes social problems like heroin or meth, or aggressive behaviour like coke does in some people. There is no reason to be opposed to its legalisation.

Galwayguy35

Sure why take the drugs in the first place, you don't have to have a medical degree to know they are bad for you.

Noone gets addicted until they make the choice to either smoke pot or inject that shít into themselves.

tdv123

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Sure why take the drugs in the first place, you don't have to have a medical degree to know they are bad for you.

Noone gets addicted until they make the choice to either smoke pot or inject that shít into themselves.

Well of the top of my head ehh, they make you feel good?

tdv123

Henlars67 wrote: »

I can see why people would be against abortion as they see it as murder and therefore in their view harmful to society.

I can see why people would be against gay marriage as they view marriage as being between a man and woman only, and therefore the idea of same-sex couples having a family unit the same as straight people, would in their view be harmful to society.

But I don't get why somebody would be against the legalisation of cannabis. It isn't a 'drug' which causes social problems like heroin or meth, or aggressive behaviour like coke does in some people. There is no reason to be opposed to its legalisation.

....or alcohol.

a very cool kid

Odysseus wrote: »

I don't think the first part would be an issue.

I would propose strong regulations to go with it, I would not like to to be medicalised to the extent of our current treatment services. We have come a long way from the 80s treatment wise, but I think we also have a long way to go.

I couldn't give you direct answers, but supply should be accessible yet controlled to a safe level, i.e. a person could not just walk away witha kilo or whatever.

Again some type of age limit so we do our best to keep it our of the hands of minors, like we do with other things.

Current treatment can be very restrictive, the hoops a client has to jump through in order to get enough methadone to go on a holiday can prevent some people from travelling. I think treatment services control too much of the clients life here, so I would like to see it being more felxible.

I certainly don't have the answers but I think there are enough examples out there for us to learn form and start to put a better system together.

So we should give out a week's worth of methadone at a go?

Questions:

1) would Methadone get through an airport ( is it not illegal to bring into other countries?)?
2) would they not just sell the excess?
3) someone weak willed enough to get addicted in the first place can be trusted not to take it all in one go?

Really?

Odysseus

a very cool kid wrote: »

So we should give out a week's worth of methadone at a go?

Questions:

1) would Methadone get through an airport ( is it not illegal to bring into other countries?)?
2) would they not just sell the excess?
3) someone weak willed enough to get addicted in the first place can be trusted not to take it all in one go?

Really?

Yes it can be carried, though often a note is given but many do not carry it [the note]. If it is prescribed to the person how can that be illegal?
NO. but some do, most need it so often no.
Weak willed, not really something I see in addiction, it can take a very determined person to get heroin at 3am when there is none around.

Lot of people currently get a weeks supply at the moment, they start off with one day and in a few months provided they stick to the rules the get a full weeks take away.



What does the "Really?" mean?

Henlars67

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Sure why take the drugs in the first place, you don't have to have a medical degree to know they are bad for you.

Noone gets addicted until they make the choice to either smoke pot or inject that shít into themselves.

Smoking pot is harmless so long as one doesn't abuse it. I used to smoke a c few joints a couple of nights a week, never did me any harm. I made a conscious decision to stop a few years back simply because the people who ell it are scumbags.

Still take it on the rare occasion that somebody who just grows a bit for himself gives me some.

it really shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as 'injecting sh1t'.

it's also considered less addictive than caffeine.

No reason whatsoever for its continued criminalisation.

Legalising it would take a lot of money out of the pockets of organised criminals.

It would also render the gateway drug argument null and void.

The reason it can be a gateway drug is because people who smoke it go to a dealer for it, making it easy for them to spontaneously decide to get something else when meeting him/her.

Legalisation of cannabis would mean that in the case of a lot of people the original contact with the dealer would never happen.

As I've mentioned earlier cannabis use causes no social problems. I'd like to see someone argue to the contrary.

mikom

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Sure why take the drugs in the first place, you don't have to have a medical degree to know they are bad for you.

Noone gets addicted until they make the choice to either smoke pot or inject that shít into themselves.

Ah, shur even the lord himself liked a scoop of wine.
Typical him, trying to be the big lad by taking a substance more addicting than cannabis.

Ps. Who is Noone?

padd b1975

tdv123 wrote: »

Well of the top of my head ehh, they make you feel good?

Ask the junkies hanging around the Liffey boardwalk in Dublin how good drugs make them feel.

mikom

padd b1975 wrote: »

Ask the junkies hanging around the Liffey boardwalk in Dublin how good drugs make them feel.

Ask the people relaxing in the evening with a glass of wine how good drugs make them feel.

crockholm

padd b1975 wrote: »

Ask the junkies hanging around the Liffey boardwalk in Dublin how good drugs make them feel.

That feckin boardwalk should have been built with a tilting mechanism in it,save the country millions.;)

Czarcasm

Henlars67 wrote: »

Smoking pot is harmless so long as one doesn't abuse it. I used to smoke a c few joints a couple of nights a week, never did me any harm. I made a conscious decision to stop a few years back simply because the people who ell it are scumbags.


As I've mentioned earlier cannabis use causes no social problems. I'd like to see someone argue to the contrary.

No need for anyone else to argue when you're already contradicting yourself!

I'd like to see these drugs available on prescription, but what I see happening all too often is people on medical cards visiting their GP and being prescribed all manner of unnecessary medications, then when they can't get more off their GP, they can simply buy them on the street from somebody else that was able to obtain them unnecessarily from their GP.

Strict controls would need to be put in place in order to legalise cannaboids and morphines for medicinal purposes and in order to get them, it'd have to go higher up than just a quick trip into your GP. I'd sooner they were prescribed only after a rigorous consultation process.