Ming's Legalisation of Cannabis Private Members Bill

MadsL

http://www.joe.ie/news-politics/current-affairs/ming-flanagan-to-bring-cannabis-legalisation-bill-before-the-dail-0030659-1

"I have been campaigning for years for the legalisation of cannabis and I am preparing a Private Members’ Bill that I will be putting before the Dáil in April of next year," he said.

Any sign of it? And has any organisation actually polled TDs on this?

henryporter

Not a chance of it passing anyways, not with that bunch of self righteous, misinformed muppets in majority.

MadsL

henryporter wrote: »

Not a chance of it passing anyways, not with that bunch of self righteous, misinformed muppets in majority.

Is there not an argument that it should be put to referendum?

rodento

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.joe.ie/news-politics/current-affairs/ming-flanagan-to-bring-cannabis-legalisation-bill-before-the-dail-0030659-1

"I have been campaigning for years for the legalisation of cannabis and I am preparing a Private Members’ Bill that I will be putting before the Dáil in April of next year," he said.

Any sign of it? And has any organisation actually polled TDs on this?

Sounds like an April fools

I asked him on twitter if he was still working on the private members bill for cannabis decriminalisation.

He said October 29th

ArmaniJeanss

MadsL wrote: »

Is there not an argument that it should be put to referendum?

Not really - its not the sort of area that the constitution deals with.

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

I asked him on twitter if he was still working on the private members bill for cannabis decriminalisation.

He said October 29th

He thinks he will still have his seat in November? Honestly, for a guy who was elected on his stance on the auld weed, two and half years to bring primary legislation is slow even by stoner standards.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

a guy who was elected on his stance on the auld weed,

He was elected because of his record of service in Roscommon Town council, by a large section of the people of Roscommon, because they felt he would best represent them in The Dail because they felt he represented them best in Local government.

You do spout some awful uninformed manure at times.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

He was elected because of his record of service in Roscommon Town council, by a large section of the people of Roscommon, because they felt he would best represent them in The Dail because they felt he represented them best in Local government.

You do spout some awful uninformed ****e at times.

How's he doing?

Lol at you biting at that one.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

Is there not an argument that it should be put to referendum?

On what grounds?
Where in the constitution would there be a call for a referendum?

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

On what grounds?
Where in the constitution would there be a call for a referendum?

Well if one on same-sex marriage is recommended? Why not one on legalisation?

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

How's he doing?

Lol at you biting at that one.

Most people I know from Roscommon are fairly happy with is efforts to try and protect frontline services in the county, which is why he was actually elected, so I'd reckon he's doing pretty well.


lol at a grown man who does nothing by post crap on boards trying to cause pointless debates he actually doesn't give a toss about.


How's poor Madsina doing in her terrible school with those horrid teachers?

Man up yet and support your daughter? or still spouting crap online about it?

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

Well if one on same-sex marriage is recommended? Why not one on legalisation?

Because Marriage is specifically mentioned in the document and canibus isn't?


I'd have thought that's fairly obvious.

MadsL

lol at a guy still up at 4am making personal attacks. Go to bed, you might be drunk.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

lol at a guy still up at 4am making personal attacks. Go to bed, you might be drunk.

lol at no real reply so try undermine poster.

You're not half as smart as you think you are, your time in yankeeland has you going native or something.

And it'd be hard to be drunk when not consuming alcohol.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

lol at no real reply so try undermine poster.

I don't respond to personal attacks dragging up other threads in other fora.

You're not half as smart as you think you are, your time in yankeeland has you going native or something.

And a bit of xenophobia thrown in

And it'd be hard to be drunk when not consuming alcohol.

Then you have no excuse.
This is Politics not AH. You would do well to remember that.

And Article 40.3.1 could be extended to the right of individual to smoke a natural plant by referendum.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

I don't respond to personal attacks dragging up other threads in other fora.


And a bit of xenophobia thrown in



Then you have no excuse.
This is Politics not AH. You would do well to remember that.

And Article 40.3.1 could be extended to the right of individual to smoke a natural plant by referendum.

What part, specifically, of 40.3.1 would deal with that then?

Grasping at straws generally leads to falling.


There is no case for a constitutional referendum, it's not a constitutional matter, at all, rightly or wrongly.


So really, what was the point of this thread other than trying to take cheap shots at a member of Dáil Éireann? And making a tit of yourself in the process?

The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as
practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal
rights of the citizen.

Rather vague, and seeing as nobody in Ireland, by law, has any "right" to buy, sell or consume cannabis or any other controlled substance without the states say so, completely irrelevant to the notion of a constitutional referendum on the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis or any other prohibited substances.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

What part, specifically, of 40.3.1 would deal with that then?

Grasping at straws generally leads to falling.


There is no case for a constitutional referendum, it's not a constitutional matter, at all, rightly or wrongly.


So really, what was the point of this thread other than trying to take cheap shots at a member of Dáil Éireann? And making a tit of yourself in the process?

I think you are the one taking cheap shots and making a tit of yourself, but to answer the question - because he clearly has had a manifesto that included legalisation since Feb 2011 but seems unable to bring primary legislation before the houses. That's not a cheap shot, it is the truth. Now we have another delay to Oct/Nov. Perhaps he will mark the 2nd anniversary of his election by bringing a PMB before the houses.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

What part, specifically, of 40.3.1 would deal with that then?
Rather vague, and seeing as nobody in Ireland, by law, has any "right" to buy, sell or consume cannabis or any other controlled substance without the states say so, completely irrelevant to the notion of a constitutional referendum on the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis or any other prohibited substances.

That only reason that there is no right to buy, sell or consume cannabis is the State's curtailment of the individual's rights in the case that an individual possesses a prohibited substance.

Also something does not have to be mentioned in the Constitution in order to be added by referendum.

Seaneh

Maybe he is doing his job, and focusing on matters within his constituency and matters affecting peoples standards of living and livelihoods, the actual reasons he was elected, and putting his personal agenda on the back burner for the benefit of his constituents?

Or maybe he is pursuing advice from medical, sociological, criminal, economic, psychological and psychiatric experts on the benefits of such a bill and how it would positively impact on the population as a whole through lessened criminal convictions, lessened illegal activities and free access to the substance for people with social, psychological or medical issues which could potentially benefit from access to the drug. Or how it could positively impact on tax returns from taxation of the same of the substance and so forth and including these types of advice within the bill so as to give it the best chance possible of passing?

Or would it be better if he just rushed a quick draft titled "free the weed" with a paragraph about "sure, it's grand like, never hurt anyone, and it's great craic" and put that before the Dail just to meet some imagined deadline before which he has to complete one tiny part of the programme he set himself for his term in the Dail?


Because, whether you want it to pass or not, it would make more sense for it to be a well drafted bill so as to not waste Dail time debating a poorly formed piece of potential legislation.

If it takes him another 2 years and he only does it in his last few weeks in office, who cares, once he does the best job he can on the bill?

MadsL

I would hope it is a well-drafted Bill as he will have been working on it for almost 2 years. Perhaps if he spent less time sorting out his penalty points and turf we might see the legislation quicker

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

That only reason that there is no right to buy, sell or consume cannabis is the State's curtailment of the individual's rights in the case that an individual possesses a prohibited substance.

Also something does not have to be mentioned in the Constitution in order to be added by referendum.

So the part of the constitution you cited as a basis for a referendum doesn't actually give grounds for a referendum?

Well, that clears that up so.

A referendum to make an addition or amendment to the constitution can only happen if the legislation is first approved by both houses and then submitted to the electorate for approval, and in this case, the only thing needed is approval of both houses, and nothing has to change in the constitution, so why waste time and money on a referendum?

The constitution does not, and has no need to, mention narcotics and their control or freedom of use, that is what ordinary legislation is for.


There is the possibility of an ordinary referendum to pass legislation, but it's both unneeded and has never happened in the history of the state.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

I would hope it is a well-drafted Bill as he will have been working on it for almost 2 years. Perhaps if he spent less time sorting out his penalty points and turf we might see the legislation quicker

So your entire point and premis has fallen so lets just go back to trying to lampoon the thick hippy from the bog... Arrah, sure you never let yourself down do ya fella.


Ya wee scamp.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

So your entire point and premis has fallen so lets just go back to trying to lampoon the thick hippy from the bog... Arrah, sure you never let yourself down do ya fella.


Ya wee scamp.

More personal attacks.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

So the part of the constitution you cited as a basis for a referendum doesn't actually give grounds for a referendum?

I said that right could be extended by referendum.

A referendum to make an addition or amendment to the constitution can only happen if the legislation is first approved by both houses and then submitted to the electorate for approval.

Precisely the point I made earlier - that TDs should pass legislation FOR a consititional referendum and amendment rather than voting according to their personal beliefs.

The constitution does not, and has no need to, mention narcotics and their control or freedom of use, that is what ordinary legislation is for.

Cannabis is not by common defintion a narcotic. It is a naturally growing plant.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

Cannabis is not by common defintion a narcotic. It is a naturally growing plant.

moot point.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

moot point.

Pejorative definition actually.

Black Swan

MOD WARNING:
Seaneh and MadsL this is the Politics forum, not a place to conduct a way "too personal" flaming match. Please focus on making contributions to the thread topic, and not each other.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

Pejorative definition actually.

You do know the meaning of moot point, don't you?


It matters not what the dictionary definition of the word narcotic is. In legislation in Ireland, The UK, The US and I'd wager a lot of other countries, Cannabis is regarded as a narcotic, or in the same class as narcotics, and controlled by legislation as such.


Hell, it's identified as a Class B Narcotic in Ireland.
I thought it was Class C, but there ya go, The Law is indeed an ass.
How Cannabis has tighter controls than gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid and Ketamine I have no idea...

Cavehill Red

You two mongs stfu.
This doesn't need a referendum, simply a white paper that proposes legalising, taxing and prohibiting (along the same lines as alcohol) cannabis.
Bring it on.
Lets stop jailing people who cause no harm, lets starve drug gangs of cash, let's free up gardai to deal with real criminality, and lets make lots of money on tourism and tax.
And lets take note of every tosspot that votes no, and turf the short-sighted pricks out of their easy chair on the next election. This is a fucking no-brainer.

MadsL

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1977/en/act/pub/0012/print.html

Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, The primary legislation - the word 'narcotic' does not appear.
Not so moot.

Seaneh

Moot Point:

An issue regarded as potentially debatable, but no longer practically applicable. Although the idea may still be worth debating and exploring academically, and such discussion may be useful for addressing similar issues in the future, the idea has been rendered irrelevant for the present issue.

It is a moot point, whether Cannabis is a narcotic or not is not relevant. It is treated as if it were by Irish law, in that it is categorised in the same way as narcotics in legislation.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

It is a moot point, whether Cannabis is a narcotic or not is not relevant. It is treated as if it were by Irish law, in that it is categorised in the same was as narcotics in legislation.

How is it treated as a narcotic by the law if it is not named as a narcotic in the primary legislation, nor is there a definition of 'narcotic' in the Act? That makes no sense.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

How is it treated as a narcotic by the law if it is not named as a narcotic in the primary legislation, nor is there a definition of 'narcotic' in the Act? That makes no sense.

IT IS CATAGORISED IN THE SAME MANNER AS NARCOTICS IN LEGISLATION.
It is catagorised as a Class B Controlled Drug, along with the likes of Pholcodine, Amphetamines and other narcotics.


And none of this is relevant to this thread, you're arguing over semantics for no reason instead of talking about the actual topic.


Whether it's a narcotic or not has nothing to do with the matter on discussion. And I suspect you are very much aware of that.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

IT IS CATAGORISED IN THE SAME MANNER AS NARCOTICS IN LEGISLATION.
It is catagorised as a Class B Controlled Drug, along with the likes of Pholcodine, Amphetamines and other narcotics.


And none of this is relevant to this thread, you're arguing over semantics for no reason instead of talking about the actual topic.


Whether it's a narcotic or not has nothing to do with the matter on discussion. And I suspect you are very much aware of that.

I pointed out your pejorative language, that's all. The Act does not define Narcotic. Is that not the case?

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

I pointed out your pejorative language, that's all. The Act does not define Narcotic. Is that not the case?

Q)
Is your continued line of questioning in any way relevant to actual subject on discussion in the thread?

A)
No, now lets move on.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

Q)
Is your continued line of questioning in any way relevant to actual subject on discussion in the thread?

A)
No, now lets move on.

I think if we are going to discuss the legislation it would be a good idea not to use language NOT contained by the primary legislation, but since you admit it doesn't say narcotic, let's move on.

The point of a referendum would be to remove the meddling personal feelings of TDs from any consequence for future re-election success. The matter could then simply be passed to the people.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

I think if we are going to discuss the legislation it would be a good idea not to use language NOT contained by the primary legislation, but since you admit it doesn't say narcotic, let's move on.

The point of a referendum would be to remove the meddling personal feelings of TDs from any consequence for future re-election success. The matter could then simply be passed to the people.

I refer you to Mr. Red's last post.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This doesn't need a referendum, simply a white paper that proposes legalising, taxing and prohibiting (along the same lines as alcohol) cannabis.
Bring it on.
Lets stop jailing people who cause no harm, lets starve drug gangs of cash, let's free up gardai to deal with real criminality, and lets make lots of money on tourism and tax.
And lets take note of every tosspot that votes no, and turf the short-sighted pricks out of their easy chair on the next election. This is a fucking no-brainer.

It's not a constitutional issue, there is no need or grounds for a referendum. Having a constitutional referendum on a matter which is not covered by the constitution is a pointless waste of government time and money and a distraction from the real work of the house, running the country.

As Cavehill Red stated, all that is needed is a proposal from a member put to the house and voted on by the members. If it is rejected, redraft it and create a bigger campaign to put pressure on TD's to support it or face a backlash at the next election.

As it is, the constitution is in the process of being reviewed by a constitutional convention in the hopes of simplifying and clarifying the document, adding pointlessness like specific sections for cannabis or other controlled substances, is just wasting time, effort and money.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

I refer you to Mr. Red's last post.




It's not a constitutional issue, there is no need or grounds for a referendum. Having a constitutional referendum on a matter which is not covered by the constitution is a pointless waste of government time and money and a distraction from the real work of the house, running the country.

As Cavehill Red stated, all that is needed is a proposal from a member put to the house and voted on by the members. If it is rejected, redraft it and create a bigger campaign to put pressure on TD's to support it or face a backlash at the next election.

As it is, the constitution is in the process of being reviewed by a constitutional convention in the hopes of simplifying and clarifying the document, adding pointlessness like specific sections for cannabis or other controlled substances, is just wasting time, effort and money.

What is the waste of time, money and effort in adding one more question to the next referendum we are going to have anyway?

Like other emotive issues, TDs simply don't have the balls to pass anything like legislation for legalisation, as we have seen even Ming seems hesitant to raise the Bill.

Seaneh

When has he been hesitant?
It's in his programme for office, he's working on the bill presently, it's currently delayed for whatever reason, that's not being hesitant. At worst it's being lazy, at best it's being thorough. But I genuinely fail to see how he is lacking balls, he's worn that particular heart on his sleeve since the early 90's and never once shied away from it. Maybe he's just decided to not be like half the other gobdaws in the house and is refusing to be a single issue politician and is actually trying to work for his constituents?

Surely even the worlds most adamant pro-cannabis campaigners would agree it's not exactly the most important issue currently facing the nation, what with the the actual constitutional problem of legislating for the x-case, especially in the light of recent events in that area. And other small matters like trying to dig the economy out of the hole it's been driven into by the previous government? Maybe Mr. Flanagan has decided to not take attention away from these far more pressing issues at present?

Or maybe he realises that trying to bring the bill forward right now, when it wouldn't get the public attention it deserves because of the focus on other issues, isn't the brightest idea.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

When has he been hesitant?
It's in his programme for office, he's working on the bill presently, it's currently delayed for whatever reason, that's not being hesitant. At worst it's being lazy, at best it's being through. But I genuinely fail to see how he is lacking balls, he's worn that particular heart on his sleeve since the early 90's and never once shyed away from it. Maybe he's just decided to not be like half the other gobdaws in the house and is refusing to be a single issue politician and is actually trying to work for his constituents?

Surely even the worlds most adamant pro-cannabis campaigners would agree it's not exactly the most important issue currently facing the nation, what with the the actual constitutional problem of legislating for the x-case, especially in the light of recent events in that area. And other small matters like trying to dig the economy out of the hole it's been driven into by the previous government? Maybe Mr. Flanagan has decided to not take attention away from these far more pressing issues at present?

Or maybe he realises that trying to bring the bill forward right now, when it wouldn't get the public attention it deserves because of the focus on other issues, isn't the brightest idea.

Care for a bet on a further delay in Oct on his Bill? I'll give you €20 for your charities if he brings it forward before the end of Oct. €20 for SFF if not.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

Care for a bet on a further delay in Oct on his Bill? I'll give you €20 for your charities if he brings it forward before the end of Oct. €20 for SFF if not.

I'll give the €20 to SFF regardless, and you can give the €20 to SSF too.

Feck it, lets just give SSF the money anyway....

So what if there is another delay? Who cares? I fully believe he will put the bill forward when it's ready and the house isn't preoccupied with other more important matters, as it currently is and will be for the next few months.


Why do you want him to rush it so much? Isn't there more important things to we worrying about, have you seen the price of a kilo of striploin, tis shocking!

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

I'll give the €20 to SFF regardless, and you can give the €20 to SSF too.

Feck it, lets just give SSF the money anyway....

So what if there is another delay? Who cares? I fully believe he will put the bill forward when it's ready and the house isn't preoccupied with other more important matters, as it currently is and will be for the next few months.


Why do you want him to rush it so much? Isn't there more important things to we worrying about, have you seen the price of a kilo of striploin, tis shocking!

Strange you don't want to bet - given your confidence in him. But you are right, there are more important things - like the fines Ireland will pay if Ming keeps cutting turf

On that note bed for me...

PRAF

The war on drugs cannot be won, its time to seriously consider a change of approach.

PRAF

MadsL wrote: »

Strange you don't want to bet - given your confidence in him. But you are right, there are more important things - like the fines Ireland will pay if Ming keeps cutting turf

On that note bed for me...

I'd rather he burned his marijuana than his turf

PRAF

PRAF wrote: »

I'd rather he burned his marijuana than his turf

Because his smoking affects you so much?

Moonshine99

I recently saw Ming speak on this issue in Cork. I must say that I am glad that he is taking his time in drafting the bill. As has been mentioned already, the legislation is not urgently required, so why not take the time to prepare the best draft possible. There are many uninformed opponents of legalising/ decriminalising cannabis who will use any excuse not to vote for it so it’s best not to leave any holes in the draft document. When he does finally bring the bill before the Dáil it will be the first time that TDs are forced to discuss the issue there.

Also, 2 states in the US have recently legalised Cannabis. They did this via plebiscites and the State legislatures are currently finalising the actual wording of the legislation in particular to regulation of the newly legalised plant. Those bills will have important items to consider for Ming’s draft legislation such as determining safe driving limits and penalties for selling the plant to minors etc. Additionally there are many other States in the US preparing for plebiscites on the issue, the experience gained there will no doubt feed into Ming’s approach here in Ireland and indeed he and other pro legalisation/ decriminalisation Irish groups have been in touch with their US counterparts to leverage from their experience. Remember that the US has historically been one of the most outspoken anti-drugs countries on the planet and they are now rapidly approaching a situation where nearly half of their States will have legalised Cannabis, so the US campaigners would certainly have a lot of advice to offer Ming & others who wish to see the same here.

While I agree that a referendum on the issue may not be required by law here, that is not to say that we should not have one. We could even knock a few other issues off at the same time!

Also, not something I have thought through, but if homosexuality was legalised here because of the right to privacy in the home, is there any argument that if someone plants a seed in their home (Seeds are legal in Ireland), lets it grow into a plant in their home, cuts it down in their home and smokes it in their home should be allowed?

PRAF

Deleted User wrote: »

Because his smoking affects you so much?

I couldn't care less about what he chooses to smoke. None of my business as long as it doesn't affect his ability to execute his role as a legislator in Dail Eireann and also as long as he isn't mowing people down in his car if he is under the influence.

I'm more concerned about his populist and environmentally damaging policy of destroying raised bogs just so that he can save himself a few quid (or make profits) from burning one of the least efficient fuels available in Ireland

PRAF

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Lets stop jailing people who cause no harm, lets starve drug gangs of cash, let's free up gardai to deal with real criminality, and lets make lots of money on tourism and tax.

In principle I agree with this. You've perfectly illustrated the 'Pros' of legilisation. I do think that the 'Cons' would also need to be included in the debate. These may include
- Mental health issues
- Physical health effects of smoking
- Employee productivity!

It is certainly a debate worth having. I wish our democracy would spend more time having real debates and less time engaging in parish pump and / or punch and judy style politics.

My concern with Ming is that he's too divisive a figure to raise this issue. Him going away on his own and coming up with legislation is a waste of time. It hasn't a hope of going anywhere. He needs to propose some form of expert group to look at this issue dispassionately, come back with a report, and then have a Dail sub-committee debate it, come up with a list of recommendations, and then move to legislate.

If he doesn't do that, it is just a waste of time and probably only in the interests of his own self-promotion.

MadsL

PRAF wrote: »

In principle I agree with this. You've perfectly illustrated the 'Pros' of legilisation. I do think that the 'Cons' would also need to be included in the debate. These may include
- Mental health issues
- Physical health effects of smoking
- Employee productivity!

Whilst many thousands of working days are lost through hangovers, I doubt anyone ever rang in sick as a result of smoking too much weed the night before.

srsly78

PRAF wrote: »

In principle I agree with this. You've perfectly illustrated the 'Pros' of legilisation. I do think that the 'Cons' would also need to be included in the debate. These may include
- Mental health issues
- Physical health effects of smoking
- Employee productivity!

It is certainly a debate worth having. I wish our democracy would spend more time having real debates and less time engaging in parish pump and / or punch and judy style politics.

Lots of people smoke this already despite it's illegality. Therefore you must be assuming that the population would smoke more of it after legalisation. There would be a brief spike in usage after legalisation but then things would return to normal. Various studies have shown that the usage rate in the countries like the Netherlands are lower than those in prohibitionist neighbours.

So your cons are essentially non-arguments.