Progessive Ireland

WayneMolloy

One of the main reasons id legalise weed is to take its distribution out of the hands of the absolute vermin who currently profit from its sale. Privitise its distribution, legalise and tax it.

The state needs the revenue.

Magenta

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I did refer to euthanasia as careless killing. And I stand by it. We should be working to cure people, researching new treatments instead of putting them down like a sick dog.

And we're not doing that already, no? Cancer research is non-existent, yes?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Abortion ends the potential of human life.

NO ****!!!

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Euthanasia ends a human life the doctor is morally obliged to protect. Instead of killing people with incurable diseases we should be doing everything to protect them.

"Killing people" is very dramatic. If someone has Locked In Syndrome and is going through endless mental trauma and does not want to live, how are they being protected by being forced to live against their will?

Plumpynutt

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No not seedy at all that's why you see them dealing in broad day light on O'Connell street.

Dunno man, I think myself and yourself have differing definitions of seedy. Broad daylight doesn't scream seedy to me, and I've personally never had a problem or been intimidated by the presence of junkies in town, I've had a smoke with them on occasion if they ask for one etc etc, although I'm aware that I'm probably in the minority there

Iwasfrozen

Gbear wrote: »

It isn't about intelligence, it's about ignorance.

That's a two edged sword. I see you as being ignorant, ignorant and selfish because you don't take into consideration how your actions affect other people.

Gbear wrote: »

The prohibition of drugs is based on ignorance.
Ignorance of the fact that there was never any real justification for it being illegal.
Ignorance of the counter-productivity that making drugs illegal has - criminalising people who are doing nothing wrong by consuming drugs and making millionaires of scumbags who control the illegal drug trade.
Ignorance of the relative harms that drugs entail - cannabis is far less dangerous than, for example, driving, smoking, drinking, having sex, eating fatty foods......

1. Cannabis can act as a gate way drug.

2. It's long term psychological affects are not properly known and remain controversial.

3. There is no widely affected medicinal use except as a mild pain killer.

4. Legalising it in Ireland means more profits for the war lords who grow it in Afghanistan.

Gbear wrote: »

What education is doing is not only reducing ignorance, but also doing away with willful ignorance, which is what all relgious doctrine is based upon (faith is another name for it).

What education does is provide people with the means to see the evidence and make up their own mind on an issue. I'm an agnostic but I find your religion bashing distasteful and frankly bigoted. It was the Chruch who held onto educated learning after the fall of Rome.

Gbear wrote: »

The same applies for faith-driven beliefs about abortion and civil rights like gay marriage.
Virtually the entirety of the arguments against abortion and gay rights are based on religious doctrine - the "sanctity of life", "purity", the "sanctity of marriage".
These aren't rational beliefs so it's no surprise the opinions they inform aren't rational either.

I'm agnostic and I support gay marriage, oppose abortion, and oppose euthanasia. What does that make me? Ignorant? Am I only informed if I agree with you?

And for the record the fact ideas like the "sanctity of life", "purity" and the "sanctity of marriage" mean nothing to you says more about you then anything else.

ScumLord

Gbear wrote: »

The prohibition of drugs is based on ignorance.

I'm not sure it's about ignorance anymore. It's about an agenda that revolves around getting elected or religious abstinence.

The politicians don't want to touch the issue until they can be assured it's the popular decision, you can be guaranteed they'll follow the popular line once their PR people tell them the tide was turned.

Iwasfrozen

Magenta wrote: »

And we're not doing that already, no? Cancer research is non-existent, yes?

No it's not non-existent, we as a society have made huge in roads in preserving human life. The last thing we need to do is start killing people. We have a moral duty to cure not kill.

NO ****!!!

Which is exactly why it should be illegal.

"Killing people" is very dramatic. If someone has Locked In Syndrome and is going through endless mental trauma and does not want to live, how are they being protected by being forced to live against their will?

Then our duty is to help them over come that trauma. Anyone going through huge mental trauma is not in the position to make such a decision anyway.

Gbear

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's a two edged sword. I see you as being ignorant, ignorant and selfish because you don't take into consideration how your actions affect other people.

Care to elaborate?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1. Cannabis can act as a gate way drug.

2. It's long term psychological affects are not properly known and remain controversial.

3. There is no widely affected medicinal use except as a mild pain killer.

4. Legalising it in Ireland means more profits for the war lords who grow it in Afghanistan.

1. Wrong - see ignorance
2. Any evidence to back up that it poses any significant danger?
3. It needn't have any medicinal properties at all. People wanting to use it is reason enough.
4. How on earth would it mean more profits?
And why would we get our cannabis from Afghani warlords when it'd be far cheaper to buy it off legitimate companies like those that sell alcohol and cigarettes?
We currently get drugs from Columbian drug cartels and the like because there's little alternative.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What education does is provide people with the means to see the evidence and make up their own mind on an issue. I'm an agnostic but I find your religion bashing distasteful and frankly bigoted. It was the Church who held onto educated learning after the fall of Rome.

Holding up an event nearly 2000 years ago isn't doing much to suggest that religion is progressive.
The notion of making up your own mind on an issue is anathema to religion. Faith is blind obediance. That's what the catholic church wants. It's what they had until quite recently.

Sometimes prejudices are entirely justified. Those against the Catholic church and religion in general are one example.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm agnostic and I support gay marriage, oppose abortion, and oppose euthanasia. What does that make me? Ignorant? Am I only informed if I agree with you?

You're only informed if you base your arguments on rationality. You've thus far demonstrated that you don't.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And for the record the fact ideas like the "sanctity of life", "purity" and the "sanctity of marriage" mean nothing to you says more about you then anything else.

It means that I recognise them for the emotive fluff that they are.
They're used as a crutch for people who have no legitimate arguments.

mikom

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1. Cannabis can act as a gate way drug.



4. Legalising it in Ireland means more profits for the war lords who grow it in Afghanistan.

.

The definition of ignorance right there.

You seem really uninformed.
Are you from the 60's?

Gbear

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not sure it's about ignorance anymore. It's about an agenda that revolves around getting elected or religious abstinence.

The politicians don't want to touch the issue until they can be assured it's the popular decision, you can be guaranteed they'll follow the popular line once their PR people tell them the tide was turned.

To be sure they're a healthy dose of cynicism there, but it's based on the (decreasing) ignorance of the public at large.

The less ignorant you are the less likely you are to be manipulated by politicians.

padd b1975

ScumLord wrote: »

The dangers have been overblown and made up for the most part. It's only in the last decade we've started to see real non hysteric scaremongering facts coming out. I see you're still stuck with the 80s version of drugs.

My version is the one I see at first hand any time I go into Dublin city centre, its not a very dignified sight for anyone to see or experience.

ScumLord wrote: »

I think anyone who goes through their life without trying drugs is missing out. Drugs are an experience that people should be able to try as safely as possible without the threat of criminalisation.

I am afraid you will never convince me to agree with this point of view.

ScumLord wrote: »

The evidence is there and it supports legalisation. The law should be based on science not popular mythology.

If something is accepted in other countries (Portugal,Holland) it does not mean that it is good legislation for Ireland.

thiarfearr

mikom wrote: »

Heroin was legalised back in the 80's?

It was legal until the 50s in the UK, found this article on the BBC, thought it was interesting

As recently as the 1950s, heroin was a popular medicine prescribed by family doctors. But growing fears about the drug's addictiveness led to the start of it becoming criminalised, 50 years ago this week.
"The Case for Heroin" - so ran the headline for the Times leader column of Tuesday, 14 June 1955.

In the course of a short, lucid article the newspaper which had long been the mouthpiece of Establishment Britain set out its argument in favour of heroin.
In the context of all that has happened since, from heroin's link with violent crime to the transfer of HIV among users who share needles, as well as countless other social ills, such an article today would seem unthinkable in all but the most libertarian of newspapers.

But in mid-1950s Britain, the spectre of drug addiction was a long way from the top of the public's concerns.

In fact, as the Times editorial states, in 1955 there were only 317 addicts to "manufactured" drugs in the whole of Britain, of which just 15% were dependent on heroin. That's a national total of 47.5 heroin addicts. History, regrettably, does not record the precise circumstances of the half-addict.
By contrast, in the US, where heroin was outlawed in 1925, it was said to be a "major social problem".

But who were this handful of heroin addicts?

According to Dr James Mills, a historian who has traced drug use through the 20th century, they tended to be doctors or middle-class patients who could afford to sustain a habit.

"In the 1930s, it was really the well-to-do crowd. The working classes might have a bit of heroin in the medicine prescribed to them but it wouldn't be enough to form a dependency," says Dr Mills.

Clearly, the fact heroin was legal and widely prescribed for common ailments such as coughs, colds and diarrhoea, as well as a pain killer, had not led to the sort of widespread dependency that opponents of legalisation fear it would do if legalised today.

In fact, heroin's emergence on to the medical stage was so low-key it effectively sat on the shelf for 20 years. First synthesised in 1874 by an English chemist, from morphine (an opiate) and acetic anhydride, and medically known as diacetylmorphine, it was picked up by the German drugs firm Bayer in 1898.

The name heroin probably derives from the German word heroisch, which means powerful. And it certainly was, with tests proving it was up to eight times stronger a painkiller than morphine.

During the 19th Century, opiates had become a valuable commodity for British-run India, where they were grown and sold to China, which was home to millions of opium addicts. Although this trade began to decline in the early 20th century, the rise of opiate-based medicines was encouraged by the British.

But in the US it was already starting to get a bad reputation as an addictive drug that could produce intense euphoria. The Americans set about banning this dangerous new narcotic and put pressure on other countries to do the same.

In the UK, however, there was great resistance from medics who celebrated heroin's analgesic qualities. Nevertheless, the Home Office set up a drugs branch and began keeping tabs on the small number of heroin abusers.
In the 1930s, this amounted to little more than "one very small circle of heroin addicts", according to Henry "Bing" Spear, who became the government's anti-drug enforcement chief.

According to Spear, the group's three leaders had picked up their habit in mainland Europe and returned there to restock with heroin.

"They met at chemists and doctors' surgeries," according to Richard Davenport-Hines, in his book The Pursuit of Oblivion. "There was a bit of borrowing and lending but no evidence of widespread selling."

"The police had a very tight rein on what was going on. The Home Office kept a register of addicts and there was never more than 500 at one time," says Dr James Mills.

After WWII, the illegal drugs scene began to take off in the UK, but was mainly confined to cannabis. In the US, however, heroin, despite being illegal, was finding its way into the bohemian jazz scene. Musicians such as Miles Davis, Charlie Parker and Billie Holiday all had documented habits.
Britain was tame by comparison, says be-bop trumpeter Dizzy Reece, who came to London in 1948, aged 17.

"You never saw [heroin] in the clubs. Sure, some people were taking it but it was in private, at their house," says Reece, speaking from his home in New York.

"But I do remember people queuing up outside Boots chemist in Piccadilly Circus at midnight to get their heroin pills, on prescription. They called them 'jacks' - heroin pills."

What illegal activity there was, was pounced on by the police who launched a sting in September 1951, after hearing that a man named "Mark" was selling "white drugs" in London's West End. The man - real name Kevin Patrick Saunders - was arrested and found to have supplied heroin to 14 people.
By the mid 50s, international pressure was growing on the Eden government to ban heroin manufacture, imports and exports. And despite committing to such action in 1955, it retreated from the ban on manufacturing in response to doctors' protests, and, perhaps, the Times's leader column.

Iwasfrozen

Gbear wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

I did, and now I shall proceed to defend that elaboration.

1. Wrong - see ignorance

When you say something is wrong you have to back it up.

2. Any evidence to back up that it poses any significant danger?

Evidence? Did you not read my post? It's long term psychological affects are not properly known and remain controversial.

3. It needn't have any medicinal properties at all. People wanting to use it is reason enough.

Except it's not.

4. How on earth would it mean more profits?

Higher number of people buying it = more profits.

And why would we get our cannabis from Afghani warlords when it'd be far cheaper to buy it off legitimate companies like those that sell alcohol and cigarettes?

Because Afghanistan is the largest exporter of cannabis in the world. If you want to keep it regulated so that companies can only grow their own inside Ireland then that's fine but you didn't clarify that.

Holding up an event nearly 2000 years ago isn't doing much to suggest that religion is progressive.
The notion of making up your own mind on an issue is anathema to religion. Faith is blind obediance. That's what the catholic church wants. It's what they had until quite recently.

I don't think so, you seem to me to be someone with a huge chip on his shoulder. The church did a lot of bad but they did a lot of good too, it's not as black and white as you think.

You're only informed if you base your arguments on rationality. You've thus far demonstrated that you don't.

Except I do, but I think I'm wasting my time with you.

It means that I recognise them for the emotive fluff that they are.
They're used as a crutch for people who have no legitimate arguments.

They are important pillars of society. Taking everything else out of context can you not see how important the sanctity of human life and marriage is? And yes I include gay marriage in that. If not then I really don't think there's any point debating with you,

Iwasfrozen

mikom wrote: »

The definition of ignorance right there.

You seem really uninformed.
Are you from the 60's?

Let me check. Nope.

The Clown Man

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1. Cannabis can act as a gate way drug.

2. It's long term psychological affects are not properly known and remain controversial.

3. There is no widely affected medicinal use except as a mild pain killer.

4. Legalising it in Ireland means more profits for the war lords who grow it in Afghanistan.

1. Nope. Proven.

2. Nope. It has no effect, and this has been proven. Here is a link to a pdf of a study done in Australia on 30 years of data.

3, Nope. It's got plenty of uses..

4. What?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's a two edged sword. I see you as being ignorant, ignorant and selfish because you don't take into consideration how your actions affect other people.

I'm agnostic and I support gay marriage, oppose abortion, and oppose euthanasia. What does that make me? Ignorant? Am I only informed if I agree with you?

Just for the record, you are against abortion, cannabis and euthanasia, none of which directly effect you in any way (maybe the irony of life might have you seek an end to life some day and this could change everything) but you are damn sure that you want everyone else to live their lives the way you think they should because ...

... You know what's right for them and they don't?

Out of interest, what's your personal experience with all three of these things?

Magenta

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No it's not non-existent, we as a society have made huge in roads in preserving human life. The last thing we need to do is start killing people. We have a moral duty to cure not kill.

Here we go again, "killing people". You don't seem to be able to understand that some medical conditions CANNOT be cured.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Anyone going through huge mental trauma is not in the position to make such a decision anyway.

Says who?

OCorcrainn

I keep hearing the term 'progressive' all the time. It seems that if you disagree with someone on certain issues you are labelled as unprogressive, which is used to label individuals in a negative & derogatory manner. It mostly used as an ad hominem.

The question is, how do you define what is progressive and why is it deemed as such?

Magenta

The Clown Man wrote: »

1. Nope. Proven.

2. Nope. It has no effect, and this has been proven. Here is a link to a pdf of a study done in Australia on 30 years of data.

3, Nope. It's got plenty of uses..

4. What?



Just for the record, you are against abortion, cannabis and euthanasia, none of which directly effect you in any way (maybe the irony of life might have you seek an end to life some day and this could change everything) but you are damn sure that you want everyone else to live their lives the way you think they should because ...

... You know what's right for them and they don't?

Out of interest, what's your personal experience with all three of these things?

To be honest, he seems to be to be probably either a teenager or just out of college, and looking for something to rebel against.

ScumLord

padd b1975 wrote: »

My version is the one I see at first hand any time I go into Dublin city centre, its not a very dignified sight for anyone to see or experience.

You're seeing drugs at their worst, you're also using heroin addicts to demonise cannabis users. I've smoked weed with people all over Europe and they're nothing like the addicts that inner cities generate.

I am afraid you will never convince me to agree with this point of view.

Because you don't want to believe it. It's not down to anything other than you having a bias that you want to maintain.

If something is accepted in other countries (Portugal,Holland) it does not mean that it is good legislation for Ireland.

Why not, is this the usual, we can't get anything right in Ireland so we shouldn't even try? Every country that decriminalised drug use and introduced addiction therapy over criminalization has seen a reduction in drug abuse and drug crime. That even goes for Iran.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1. Cannabis can act as a gate way drug.

There's no real prove of that and it has as much to do with the criminalisation of drugs. Tobacco has been shown to be as much of a gateway drug.

2. It's long term psychological affects are not properly known and remain controversial.

They're known to the thousands of smokers who've been smoking cannabis all their lifes. Cannabis isn't a new drug, we've been using it for millennia.

3. There is no widely affected medicinal use except as a mild pain killer.

Cannabis is being used in the treatment of cancers too. It goes beyond being an effective pain killer.

4. Legalising it in Ireland means more profits for the war lords who grow it in Afghanistan.

We don't get Afgan hash here, mores the pity. If it's legalised it means regulation and sourcing from regulated producers so that point is pure nonsense.

Iwasfrozen

The Clown Man wrote: »

1. Nope. Proven.

I said cannabis can act as a gate way drug and you are proving that it doesn't in all circumstances. The two are not logically the same argument.

Anyway I found a study by Yale that says it can be, http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Yale-study-Marijuana-may-really-be-gateway-drug-3805532.php

2. Nope. It has no effect, and this has been proven. Here is a link to a pdf of a study done in Australia on 30 years of data.

Nothing has been proven. It's still controversial. http://cmmcs.ca/ashton1999.pdf

3, Nope. It's got plenty of uses..

your link wrote:

· Cannabinoids likely have a natural role in pain modulation, control of movement, and memory.

· The natural role of cannabinoids in immune systems is likely multi-faceted and remains unclear.

· The brain develops tolerance to cannabinoids.

· Animal research demonstrates the potential for dependence, but this potential is observed under a narrower range of conditions than with benzodiazepines, opiates, cocaine, or nicotine.

· Withdrawal symptoms can be observed in animals but appear to be mild compared to opiates or benzodiazepines, such as diazepam (Valium).

So the only clear advantage is number one, the one I admitted. 2 and 3 are neutral and 4 and 5 are mildly bad.

Just for the record, you are against abortion, cannabis and euthanasia, none of which directly effect you in any way (maybe the irony of life might have you seek an end to life some day and this could change everything) but you are damn sure that you want everyone else to live their lives the way you think they should because ...

... You know what's right for them and they don't?

As a people we have to decide collectively what's best for society.

Out of interest, what's your personal experience with all three of these things?

That's none of your business.

Iwasfrozen

Magenta wrote: »

To be honest, he seems to be to be probably either a teenager or just out of college, and looking for something to rebel against.

The pothead calls the conservative rebellious?

Iwasfrozen

Magenta wrote: »

Here we go again, "killing people". You don't seem to be able to understand that some medical conditions CANNOT be cured.

Cannot be cured yet.

Magenta wrote: »

Says who?

The government for a start.

The Clown Man

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So the only clear advantage is number one, the one I admitted. 2 and 3 are neutral and 4 and 5 are mildly bad.

I don't know why I assumed you'd read the whole conclusion. So here:

CONCLUSION: Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC, for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation; smoked marijuana, however, is a crude THC delivery system that also delivers harmful substances.

RECOMMENDATION 2: Clinical trials of cannabinoid drugs for symptom management should be conducted with the goal of developing rapid-onset, reliable, and safe delivery systems.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As a people we have to decide collectively what's best for society.

I agree. Shouldn't we stick to unbiased, rational and scientific reason. Look at the UK as a perfect example of science being overlooked entirely in the decriminalisation debacle.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's none of your business.

I think it's pretty relevant in terms of your own position. You are being labelled as "ignorant", and I ask because you could counter that fairly quickly should you have any direct experience to support your ethos.

Iwasfrozen

The Clown Man wrote: »

I don't know why I assumed you'd read the whole conclusion. So here:

CONCLUSION: Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC, for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation; smoked marijuana, however, is a crude THC delivery system that also delivers harmful substances.

RECOMMENDATION 2: Clinical trials of cannabinoid drugs for symptom management should be conducted with the goal of developing rapid-onset, reliable, and safe delivery systems.

I read it but it didn't contradict my original point.

I think it's pretty relevant in terms of your own position. You are being labelled as "ignorant", and I ask because you could counter that fairly quickly should you have any direct experience to support your ethos.

Then label me as ignorant, I'm not going to give out information about myself like that on boards.

Gbear

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I did, and now I shall proceed to defend that elaboration.

You didn't elaborate as to how you decided I was selfish or didn't care about other people.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

When you say something is wrong you have to back it up.

If you tell me there are unicorns in your sock drawer I don't have to back up my reasoning to dismiss your baseless assertion. That cannabis is a gateway drug is a baseless assertion. I've never seen any evidence that supports such a claim. Can you be the first to provide me with some?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Evidence? Did you not read my post? It's long term psychological affects are not properly known and remain controversial.

So if there's no evidence to suggest it causes harm why are you including it in a list of reasons to have it banned?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Except it's not.

From a moral point of view, yes it is. People should not have the right to dictate to others what they can and can't do if they're minding their own business.

It's quite clear however that even a massive weight of scientific evidence that criminalisation and prohibition don't work is no match for the cowardice of politicians. An obvious example was the removal of Dr David Nutt from his position advising the British government on drugs when he presented facts that were politically difficult.
Thankfully as people are becoming more informed we have to rely less and less on the almost impossible chance that a politician grows a spine.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Higher number of people buying it = more profits.

You're assuming that consumption would increase. Casual use might increase and particularly pretty harmless drugs like cannabis. Drug use in general decreases:http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because Afghanistan is the largest exporter of cannabis in the world. If you want to keep it regulated so that companies can only grow their own inside Ireland then that's fine but you didn't clarify that.

If you're going to legitimise a business it makes no sense to have a large part of the supply chain in the hands of criminals.
It would adversely affect taxation, quality control and the control of the strength of the product.
Hence the reason that a lot of the time someone posts on the anti-prohibition side they include the notion of taxation, regulation and so forth.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't think so, you seem to me to be someone with a huge chip on his shoulder. The church did a lot of bad but they did a lot of good too, it's not as black and white as you think.

You're damn right i have a chip on my shoulder. Religion as a whole has had a massively negative impact on society throughout the world in the recent centuries. Once upon a time they may have been relatively a force for good (ignoring crusades, the inquisition and so forth) but as humans have gotten better educated and more autonomous they've dragged their heels and constantly opposed social progress - on issues of sex, gay rights, women's rights to name but a few.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They are important pillars of society. Taking everything else out of context can you not see how important the sanctity of human life and marriage is? And yes I include gay marriage in that. If not then I really don't think there's any point debating with you,

I'll clarify because the point I was making was ambiguous.

I'm not denying that life is important. I'm not convinced about "marriage" one way or the other - stable loving relationships are what's important.

What I have a problem with is using these concepts as buzzwords in place of actual reasoned argument.

For example "I oppose gay marriage because it undermines the sanctity of marriage" is an emotional and nonsensical argument.
In that context "the sanctity of marriage" is bull****.

Another example is abstinence-based sex-ed. The notion that saving yourself for one partner is "pure" is just total bollocks. That sentence doesn't mean anything.

On abortion, saying that getting an abortion kills babies and wading in with "sanctity of life" based arguments are just nonsense.

In all 3 cases those arguments are based on a point of view that is not only based in ignorance, but is actively hostile to new knowledge and information.

The Clown Man

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I read it but it didn't contradict my original point.

Really? Nausea, appetite and pain treatments you would consider to be of very little use? At least one of the above 3 applies to almost every illness known to man. It's not being touted as a magical cure but to say there is no health benefits or even very few is ridiculous.

Anyway, it's up to the doctors and neurologists to decide how it should be used but any argument that it should be illegal to administer is nuts.

And anyway, it's a only a tangent in the whole legalisation/decriminalisation debate.

My point is though, that a lot of what you have said is just the typical John Doe hearsay and the lack of actual knowledge about what you are talking about is amazingly clear. Hence the "ignorant" label.

And I've been trying not to mention the Afghanistan thing again but if you think that Ireland is going to start importing cannabis from Afghanistan crime lords then your hold on reality in this topic is shaky at best.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then label me as ignorant, I'm not going to give out information about myself like that on boards.

Ok.

mikom

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasfrozen


1. Cannabis can act as a gate way drug.



4. Legalising it in Ireland means more profits for the war lords who grow it in Afghanistan.

mikom wrote: »

The definition of ignorance right there.

You seem really uninformed.
Are you from the 60's?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Let me check. Nope.

Ireland is currently a producer of cannabis, and is actually an exporter at this stage.
The asian grow houses have moved over here from the UK as the police over there were busting too many.
A lot of what is now grown in Ireland is actually exported to the UK.

Warlords in Afghanistan, me arse.
You probably call it all hash as well.

You are making decisions based on shoddy information.
That's no way to go on, and putting your fingers in your ears to any on thread truths won't rectify it.

Magenta

Magenta wrote:

To be honest, he seems to be to be probably either a teenager or just out of college, and looking for something to rebel against.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The pothead calls the conservative rebellious?

How does airing my views on abortion and euthanasia make me a pothead? Can you explain? Do you even know what a pothead is?

old hippy

Magenta wrote: »

How does airing my views on abortion and euthanasia make me a pothead? Can you explain? Do you even know what a pothead is?

It's what that type of poster does. Make out your suffering from delusions/high/mad etc. A recently banned poster on a thread about TDs and communion (only in "progressive Ireland" ) ran out of steam and asked what another poster was smoking.

A tired old tactic.