Cannabis - It must be time for legality.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edenmoar wrote: »

You don't have drug problems in Singapore do you??

I believe legal issues and problems are making some kind of slow come back there or something? Have not looked too deeply into it though.

https://open-access.imh.com.sg/bitstream/123456789/5002/1/Marijuana%20Abuse%20in%20Singapore.pdf

They only recently approved medical use or something as well I think I recall reading. Was it like, last December or something?

Must say I know very little about what they do over there or why.

EmmetSpiceland

It should be legal but only for medicinal purposes. The last thing we need is kids thinking it’s ok to stoned out of their gourds every night of the week.

You’ll end up with a generation of brain dead, overweight, geekazoids with sunken eyes and computer game addictions.

We should be warning of the dangers of recreational use and promoting health and wellbeing through diet and exercise.

nozzferrahhtoo

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

It should be legal but only for medicinal purposes. The last thing we need is kids thinking it’s ok to stoned out of their gourds every night of the week.

And yet alcohol is legal and most people using it are not drunk out of their heads "every night of the week". So why do you think similar is a likely problem with Cannabis?

Is it not a bit contrived to take the absolute worst users of something, and then act like this is in any way representative of the whole?

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

You’ll end up with a generation of brain dead, overweight, geekazoids with sunken eyes and computer game addictions.

Some would suggest we have that already even without Cannabis being in play. We have a thread on increasing obesity problems in Ireland on the forum for example, and the number of people with their face permanently attached to their "smart" phones rarely goes without comment weekly or even daily.

So what you think Cannabis has to do with any of that, is unclear.

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

We should be warning of the dangers of recreational use and promoting health and wellbeing through diet and exercise.

Which are not mutually exclusive and we already do it with Alcohol with Drink Awareness campaigns and more. And the majority of people using Alcohol do so moderately and without life issues.

magic_murph

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Cannabis is an extremely dangerous drug. The top psychiatrist in Ireland was on the radio recently talking about the epidemic of young men presenting to mental health services with life changing psychosis and schizophrenia. Nearly all young men, many from small rural towns, all completely ruined by ‘innocent’ cannabis.

https://m.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/study-proves-cannabis-can-lead-to-psychosis-36917630.html

The hysterical ‘well what about booze’ is the stoners default argument as well. Some losers are going to smoke weed every day anyway, so legalise away. But stop pretending that the drug is not a dirty, dangerous, demotivating substance that makes regular users pathetic and sickly looking creatures.

Last year, a small study of 96 young cannabis users (aged 16 to 21) in Ballymun, north Dublin cast a disturbing spotlight on their financial circumstances. It found that, on average, each user spent about €108 per week on the drug. An extension of the study examined those youths who were unemployed and not in a training programme. Their spend amounted to €152 each week, or almost €8,000 per year.

Hardly a study group that reflects the rest of the country. the results will be very biased

ohnonotgmail

magic_murph wrote: »

Last year, a small study of 96 young cannabis users (aged 16 to 21) in Ballymun, north Dublin cast a disturbing spotlight on their financial circumstances. It found that, on average, each user spent about €108 per week on the drug. An extension of the study examined those youths who were unemployed and not in a training programme. Their spend amounted to €152 each week, or almost €8,000 per year.

Hardly a study group that reflects the rest of the country. the results will be very biased

somebody who smoked 20 cigarrettes a day would spend nearly that much.

magic_murph

yourdeadwright wrote: »

The above is simply not true, it does not give you a better sleep either does alcohol,
Its a different kind of sleep than normal sleep its a sedated sleep which in the long term is horrifically bad for you .,

You do not reach REM (dream sleep ) from Drinking or smoking sleep , your body needs REM so much so that if you don't get it during sleep and deprive it from your body long enough you will start to get it when you are awake,
Have you ever seen a homeless wineo in a park talking to himself and shouting at nothing, That's caused by never getting his dream sleep due to alcohol abuse so he is hallucinating during the day,

Almost all weed smoker who quite report that they start to have crazy vivid dreams when they sleep. Its due to never getting to the required depth of sleep while smoking weed,

Totally Incorrect.
CBD and THC have proven to help with sleep - both compounds have.
THC - helping to get to sleep quicker but the sleep MAY not be as deep as without
CBD - allows for a deeper sleep with REM

Edenmoar

As regards sleeping I can’t smoke it during the week as I’m in absolute bits the next day with a weed hangover. I find it very hard to wake up properly after going to bed stoned.

magic_murph

jh79 wrote: »

As ive already said, i'm familiar with the research that is available.

I'll change my perception if you provide some evidence. Not a documentary.

I'm not aware of any research that shows weed to effective in anything other than the 3 or 4 conditions stated in the American Acadamies review. The most comphrensive review to date.

If i'm wrong should be easy for you to provide a link.

https://www.businessinsider.com/health-benefits-of-medical-marijuana-2014-4?IR=T#theres-also-strong-evidence-medical-cannabis-can-help-with-muscle-spasms-2

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Edenmoar wrote: »

I think these people expect a set of Asian style drug laws where if you're caught with enough for a joint you do 5 years in jail. You don't have drug problems in Singapore do you??

Not entirely sure you know what a "drug" actually is. Or that you understand how to deal with a problem without actually blanket-banning something.

Edenmoar

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Not entirely sure you know what a "drug" actually is. Or that you understand how to deal with a problem without actually blanket-banning something.

I was playing devils advocate darling

nozzferrahhtoo

magic_murph wrote: »

Last year, a small study of 96 young cannabis users (aged 16 to 21) in Ballymun, north Dublin cast a disturbing spotlight on their financial circumstances.

I would have to look at that study more carefully later when I have time but a few warning lights are flashing for me right away. For example you say it was a study of "96 young cannabis users". It was not. `

It was a study of 96 kids, 75 of which had used cannabis at some time EVER and only 58 of whom still were. So it was not at all "96 young cannabis users" but 58, as if 96 was not too small a sample group to be of use anyway.

The first and obvious one is we should not at any point use a study on a very contrived and carefully selected group and extrapolate it to ANYTHING outside that group. This report is not at all representative of the majority of users the majority of the time in our country.

A second less obvious one is what happened when they implemented their methodology. They tried to focus on the kids in one educational center and then, without explaining why, having got the results back they decided to extend it to another center and "the street". This seriously smacks of them not having got the results they wanted, and so they edited their own methodology mid-flow to try and get the figures more in line with their agenda. This does NOT strike me as a good thing, especially contriving to focus on kids that age not linked with any kind of formal education. That would be like me evaluating the use of alcohol in Ireland by only researching long term jobless people on the dole. The results will be skewed. Badly. Changing your methodology mid-stream like this without any explanation is poor form.

A third more important issue here is they were studying people much younger than even the most vocal advocates of Cannabis would not want to see using the drug. If it were legalized I think many of us would be pushing for an age cut off higher than that of even Alcohol. 21 at least. In a recent near three hour debate on Joe Rogan for example advocate Dr. Michael Hart was saying similar. It is a drug we simply do not want to see being used in the younger people. So this "study" is focusing on exactly the people advocates do not want to be smoking it anyway.

They also skew the figures by ignoring the users who have stopped using. So again they appear to be trying to keep in the numbers that fit the results they want to get.

And finally, I did not see why but I might spot it on a closer read.... when they worked out the average spend of the renaming users it went from 58 down to 53. 5 User mysteriously disappear from the users. I might just have missed the explanation for this in my speed read, but it seems concerning. Did they just remove the lowest 5 results so the averages went up?

xckjoo

magic_murph wrote: »

https://www.businessinsider.com/health-benefits-of-medical-marijuana-2014-4?IR=T#theres-also-strong-evidence-medical-cannabis-can-help-with-muscle-spasms-2

It says right there in the intro

But scientists say that limitations on marijuana research mean we still have big questions about its medicinal properties. In addition to CBD and THC, there are another 400 or so chemical compounds, more than 60 of which are cannabinoids. Many of these could have medical uses. But without more research, we won't know how to best make use of those compounds.

There's a big difference in pharma between "this looks like it might be good" and "we've conclusively proven that this provides a measurable benefit". Lack of research might be the reason, but we can't just assume the benefits are there without doing that research step.

Deebles McBeebles

Edenmoar wrote: »

As regards sleeping I can’t smoke it during the week as I’m in absolute bits the next day with a weed hangover. I find it very hard to wake up properly after going to bed stoned.

Practise makes perfect my child.

Edenmoar

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Practise makes perfect my child.

All I did in my teen years was get stoned, I prefer a clear head most of the time these days as I hurtle towards middle age

KikiLaRue

xckjoo wrote: »

It says right there in the intro


There's a big difference in pharma between "this looks like it might be good" and "we've conclusively proven that this provides a measurable benefit". Lack of research might be the reason, but we can't just assume the benefits are there without doing that research step.

Right, but it's difficult to get funding and permissions to do the research while the drug is illegal.

I'm all for legalisation, for recreational as well as health reasons.

As others have outlined:
- it takes power and money out of the hands of gangs
- it frees up Garda resources
- it makes us less hypocritical (why allow tobacco and alcohol but not weed?)
- it stops young people engaging with dealers who may offer/ encourage them to take stronger drugs
- it allows us to take a more proactive approach to educating young people on using cannabis safely

magic_murph

One of the big issues at the moment is people don’t know what they are buying ( for the most part)
Getting a 50 bag from the local dealer is pot luck – he might know the strain but more than likely wont know how clean it was grown, how strong it is or if chemicals were used.

Look at any legal coffee shop – menu available with strain information, some shops are better than other.
Coupled with an app like Leafly the user can research the strain to better understand the Pro’s or Cons and pic a strain that suits the users needs.

In some of the newer stores in the states the budtenders are available to discuss the properties of the strain and advise which best suits what you are looking for. Want to sleep, chill out, get creative, get energized etc – different strains different results. (There are probably thousands of strains with new ones created all the time)

With education and proper training of those selling the user will be correctly informed to buy a product that suits their specific needed knowing that the plant has been cultivated in a correct, natural way rather then rushed and potentially washed with chemicals to get the most profit or give the biggest ‘high’ which may not be what the user actually want.
You want something as mild as a pint of Heineken but end up getting something as strong as a pint of vodka – the only person that win’s is the dealer.

Then you have the various methods of ingesting – smoke, vape, eat, topicals – so again there are options for people that don’t want to or like to smoke.

If it becomes legal I think there will be an initial rush for people to try it out but eventually it will just be the people that want it that will have it. The reality is if somebody wants some weed now there is a good chance they know somebody that could get them some.

I say make it legal, tax it, put the money back into education, provide sellers a support system to invest in the education side of things, the profits will roll in the door when the correct infrastructure is in place.
I can’t see us having the Amsterdam style coffee shops or being allowed to smoke in public but only being allowed to smoke in a private residence

Edenmoar

magic_murph wrote: »

In some of the newer stores in the states the budtenders are available to discuss the properties of the strain and advise which best suits what you are looking for. Want to sleep, chill out, get creative, get energized etc – different strains different results. (There are probably thousands of strains with new ones created all the time)

am I the only person who thinks this is all bullsh*t? Indica and Sativa etc are meant to give you different highs but they all do the exact same thing to me.

xckjoo

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Right, but it's difficult to get funding and permissions to do the research while the drug is illegal.

I'm all for legalisation, for recreational as well as health reasons.

As others have outlined:
- it takes power and money out of the hands of gangs
- it frees up Garda resources
- it makes us less hypocritical (why allow tobacco and alcohol but not weed?)
- it stops young people engaging with dealers who may offer/ encourage them to take stronger drugs
- it allows us to take a more proactive approach to educating young people on using cannabis safely

Ya I'm with you. I think going down the medicinal route first is the wrong way to do it. There simply isn't the proof yet that it has a fraction of the benefits people claim it does and we shouldn't be rushing to weaken our pharmaceutical regulations to create a back door. Legalise it because it's a complete waste of time, money, resources and lives to keep it illegal. Prohibition just doesn't work

magic_murph

Edenmoar wrote: »

am I the only person who thinks this is all bullsh*t? Indica and Sativa etc are meant to give you different highs but they all do the exact same thing to me.

I've smoked both from quality shops and the difference is definitely noticeable - again it all comes down to getting the right product but I would assume in may ways the way a strain impacts me may be totally different to how it feels for you

El_Bee

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

People aren't murdering over it if that's what you mean because it doesn't create territorial disputes.

It is possible to trade and sell things - even on the black market - without murder being involved.

So the violent drug gangs don't import and distribute cannabis? Who does?

So you'd be favour of legalisation then?

10000%, like i said we have to get that money out of their hands.

The Bishop Basher

El_Bee wrote: »

So the violent drug gangs don't import and distribute cannabis? Who does?

It’s a flower that grows on a plant that grows just about anywhere.

It requires no processing, no chemicals, no treatment of any kind.

It’s literally just a dried flower.

Makes banning it sound a little absurd doesn’t it.

El_Bee

Rennaws wrote: »

It’s a flower that grows on a plant that grows just about anywhere.

It requires no processing, no chemicals, no treatment of any kind.

It’s literally just a dried flower.

Makes banning it sound a little absurd doesn’t it.

Why do people not read my posts full? I'm for legalization, but don't try to bull**** me and say that it's currently distributed by harmless activists fighting against the system.

Edenmoar

El_Bee wrote: »

Why do people not read my posts full? I'm for legalization, but don't try to bull**** me and say that it's currently distributed by harmless activists fighting against the system.

It's distributed by all sorts I'd say. Like I get it from a guy who grows a bit himself and sells to friends, he wouldn't harm a fly.

jh79

magic_murph wrote: »

https://www.businessinsider.com/health-benefits-of-medical-marijuana-2014-4?IR=T#theres-also-strong-evidence-medical-cannabis-can-help-with-muscle-spasms-2

Thanks for confirmimg what i've already said. Was that your intention?

magic_murph

jh79 wrote: »

Thanks for confirmimg what i've already said. Was that your intention?

to post random links for the fun of it

jh79

magic_murph wrote: »

to post random links for the fun of it

Sorry if i assumed wrong and you were actually agreeing with me.

magic_murph

jh79 wrote: »

Sorry if i assumed wrong and you were actually agreeing with me.

Absolutely not. I think your view is narrow minded and ill formed.
More research is absolutely needed but the evidence available so far would indicate we are in the early stages of developing something extremely promising, something that when coupled with some more traditional medicines could have life altering impacts – for the good.

xckjoo

magic_murph wrote: »

Absolutely not. I think your view is narrow minded and ill formed.
More research is absolutely needed but the evidence available so far would indicate we are in the early stages of developing something extremely promising, something that when coupled with some more traditional medicines could have life altering impacts – for the good.

Conversely, I think jh is the only one on this thread that is informed on the actual proven benefits of cannabis. Everybody else is spouting stoner science (bro sciences less physically fit brother :pac:). If we want it regulated like a medicine, it has to follow the same procedures as they do. Would you be happy for other medicines to be sold based on someone knowing someone who swears it helped them? Or the pharmaceutical company telling you it definitely helps, they just haven't gotten around to proving it yet because it was difficult and costly to do?

jh79

magic_murph wrote: »

Absolutely not. I think your view is narrow minded and ill formed.
More research is absolutely needed but the evidence available so far would indicate we are in the early stages of developing something extremely promising, something that when coupled with some more traditional medicines could have life altering impacts – for the good.

And my opinion will change with the evidence. But in the meantime it's factually correct to state the evidence only supports a modest benefit in 3 or possibly 4 illnesses and that the current system is appropriate for the evidence base.

STB.

jh79 wrote: »

How is it confirmation bias, assuming the movie is based on the same research already covered by the numerous reviews that all came to the same conclusions why would i watch it?

If it has new research in it just provide a link. I'd get more useful info from the research paper than the movie.

The poster mustn't be too confident that the movie represents the facts if afraid to provide links to clinical trials.

First off I did not make the documentary, it was made by a respected ABC journalist in Australia.

Secondly, I am not here to provide links for your entertainment nor your approval. I have read this thread and you are constantly jumping on people asking for links and research papers. The whole thread is littered with your interruptions.

I had identified you as someone with a very closed mindset on this topic, but you refuse on the basis that you know better.

What is effectively a harmless flower with medical benefits in various strains was demonised in the 1930's for unknown reasons (they were no known scientific reasons to make this a Schedule 1 substance). Yet we have the same scientific guru's trying to justify not dropping its prohibition when medical evidence clearly points that it is not a Schedule 1 substance i.e. that it has "no currently accepted medical use".

Research costs money. Couple that with legislation layers (cannabis is still categorised as a Schedule One drug in the US) and it has been impossible over the past 80 years to get end product in order to do research in the US - the main hive of traditional research, means that its effectively blocked same. That has suited big pharma who will sell you supposed alternative legalised, expensive and many debilitating drugs that can kill you. Opiates are better and safer (aren't they)!

If you think the the "American Acadamies review" is the "most comprehensive review to date", then that is starting point for where you are going wrong.

The program I suggested to you contains contributions from the worlds leading expert on cannabis, Professor Raphael Mechoulam. He has over 350 published scientific articles on the subject. He has been doing research in Israel since the 60s.

Being the expert that you claim to be, I am surprised that you have not read his work. Otherwise you would not be making the same nonsensical and ill informed claims throughout this thread.

Watch the program.

xckjoo

STB. wrote: »

First off I did not make the documentary, it was made by a respected ABC journalist in Australia.

Secondly, I am not here to provide links for your entertainment nor your approval. I have read this thread and you are constantly jumping on people asking for links and research papers. The whole thread is littered with your interruptions.

I had identified you as someone with a very closed mindset on this topic, but you refuse on the basis that you know better.

What is effectively a harmless flower with medical benefits in various strains was demonised in the 1930's for unknown reasons (they were no known scientific reasons to make this a Schedule 1 substance). Yet we have the same scientific guru's trying to justify not dropping its prohibition when medical evidence clearly points that it is not a Schedule 1 substance i.e. that it has "no currently accepted medical use".

Research costs money. Couple that with legislation layers (cannabis is still categorised as a Schedule One drug in the US) and it has been impossible over the past 80 years to get end product in order to do research in the US - the main hive of traditional research, means that its effectively blocked same. That has suited big pharma who will sell you supposed alternative legalised, expensive and many debilitating drugs that can kill you. Opiates are better and safer (aren't they)!

If you think the the "American Acadamies review" is the "most comprehensive review to date", then that is starting point for where you are going wrong.

The program I suggested to you contains contributions from the worlds leading expert on cannabis, Professor Raphael Mechoulam. He has over 350 published scientific articles on the subject. He has been doing research in Israel since the 60s.

Being the expert that you claim to be, I am surprised that you have not read his work. Otherwise you would not be making the same nonsensical and ill informed claims throughout this thread.

Watch the program.

Not all information is equal. Would you be happy if your doctor prescribed you medicine based purely on a documentary they saw? Forget about this being about cannabis. We should always need our medicines to pass basic levels of proof before being accepted and prescribed to people. Haven't we already seen a limited introduction of cannabis based medicine in places with documented evidence of benefit?

The Schedule 1 discussion is interesting. There might be enough medicinal use to argue against this classification.

Forget the medicinal use argument. Just legalise it and be done. If someone then feels like it helps with X, they can go buy it.

jh79

STB. wrote: »

First off I did not make the documentary, it was made by a respected ABC journalist in Australia.

Secondly, I am not here to provide links for your entertainment nor your approval. I have read this thread and you are constantly jumping on people asking for links and research papers. The whole thread is littered with your interruptions.

I had identified you as someone with a very closed mindset on this topic, but you refuse on the basis that you know better.

What is effectively a harmless flower with medical benefits in various strains was demonised in the 1930's for unknown reasons (they were no known scientific reasons to make this a Schedule 1 substance). Yet we have the same scientific guru's trying to justify not dropping its prohibition when medical evidence clearly points that it is not a Schedule 1 substance i.e. that it has "no currently accepted medical use".

Research costs money. Couple that with legislation layers (cannabis is still categorised as a Schedule One drug in the US) and it has been impossible over the past 80 years to get end product in order to do research in the US - the main hive of traditional research, means that its effectively blocked same. That has suited big pharma who will sell you supposed alternative legalised, expensive and many debilitating drugs that can kill you. Opiates are better and safer (aren't they)!

If you think the the "American Acadamies review" is the "most comprehensive review to date", then that is starting point for where you are going wrong.

The program I suggested to you contains contributions from the worlds leading expert on cannabis, Professor Raphael Mechoulam. He has over 350 published scientific articles on the subject. He has been doing research in Israel since the 60s.

Being the expert that you claim to be, I am surprised that you have not read his work. Otherwise you would not be making the same nonsensical and ill informed claims throughout this thread.

Watch the program.

I have read his work but none of his research supports an argument that there is sufficient evidence that cannabis has a therapeutic benefit beyond MS, Dravets , nausea and possibly chronic pain and modest at that.

Take for example his research on autism. His research team says their study suggest a possible improvement in quality of life and that a double blind placebo controlled study is needed to conclusively assess this.

Now, how is it close minded to say in such a situation that the treatments that have proven their therapeutic benefit should be used first. That is essentially the basis of the compassionate access scheme which i fully support.

The Bishop Basher

El_Bee wrote: »

Why do people not read my posts full? I'm for legalization, but don't try to bull**** me and say that it's currently distributed by harmless activists fighting against the system.

Of course drug gangs are involved in the supply of weed bit that could be eliminated overnight quite literally with the strike of a pen.

STB.

jh79 wrote: »

I have read his work but none of his research supports an argument that there is sufficient evidence that cannabis has a therapeutic benefit beyond MS, Dravets , nausea and possibly chronic pain and modest at that.

Take for example his research on autism. His research team says their study suggest a possible improvement in quality of life and that a double blind placebo controlled study is needed to conclusively assess this.

Now, how is it close minded to say in such a situation that the treatments that have proven their therapeutic benefit should be used first. That is essentially the basis of the compassionate access scheme which i fully support.

You have read ALL the professor's work ?

Second and most important question.

What qualifies you to speak critically of someone else's work. Are you actively researching and a recognised expert in this field or are you an armchair crank ?

jh79

STB. wrote: »

You have read ALL the professor's work ?

Second and most important question.

What qualifies you to speak critically of someone else's work. Are you actively researching and a recognised expert in this field or are you an armchair crank ?

Exactly the same qualifications as the professor. And yours?

STB.

jh79 wrote: »

Exactly the same qualifications as the professor. And yours?

My technical qualifications are in another area. I am interested in this subject however.

Can I ask you to watch the documentary and I'll see what I can set up.

xckjoo

Why is everyone so determined to give it magical healing properties

If it has them, they'll be isolated by pharma companies and sold in a shiny foil package like all the rest. Nobody is out there cultivating their own penicillin. Most of us don't even grow our own food and food is better at keeping us healthy than any medicine ever will be.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Rennaws wrote: »

Of course drug gangs are involved in the supply of weed bit that could be eliminated overnight quite literally with the strike of a pen.

Because this is Ireland. It will be taxed to hell and the gangs will continue to supply, undercutting the State like they do with tobacco.

jh79

STB. wrote: »

My technical qualifications are in another area. I am interested in this subject however.

Can I ask you to watch the documentary and I'll see what I can set up.

I will but i'm gonna skip the testimonials and just watch the science parts.

6541

Weed and Dope will be legal within the next 5 years. The push is on everywhere for it now.
I am amazed at how prevalent it is. Any night you are out the smoking areas stink with it.

scamalert

dont think anyone wants it as medical like they have in US just a crap excuse to bypass federal laws there really, legalized as recreational would be way to go, no need pharma crap if people could buy it at try it for themsleves to see if its of any benefit, since given its natural properties its less toxic then alcohol or tobacco.

KevinCavan

What is so great about cannabis legal or illegal?

Ipso

scamalert wrote: »

dont think anyone wants it as medical like they have in US just a crap excuse to bypass federal laws there really, legalized as recreational would be way to go, no need pharma crap if people could buy it at try it for themsleves to see if its of any benefit, since given its natural properties its less toxic then alcohol or tobacco.

Even the hippies are pointing out the toxins that can be found in weed.
https://www.planetnatural.com/marijuana-pesticides/

jh79

STB. wrote: »

My technical qualifications are in another area. I am interested in this subject however.

Can I ask you to watch the documentary and I'll see what I can set up.

So i've watched it. A lot of testimonials with very little in depth science. No real discussion of the research to date and its limitations.

Brian?

KevinCavan wrote: »

What is so great about cannabis legal or illegal?

It makes everything more mellow for a little while, with very few after effects.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

El_Bee wrote: »

So the violent drug gangs don't import and distribute cannabis? Who does?

.

Non violent drug dealers.

Billy86

Brian? wrote: »

I'll say this again. It should be legal because it being illegal makes zero logical sense. I don't indulge in the stuff myself.

I do occasionally if I'm getting anxious or having a sleepless night (an issue I've had since childhood, and coming from a medical family, the impact of sleeping pills more than extremely occasionally are f***ing terrifying), though I live in Canada where I am able to order it online and have it delivered to my door within 2-3 hours, or go about a 5 minute walk down the street and pick one up from my local coffee shop.

It's usually an entirely different setting here (Toronto) to the tourist-focused, loud, gawdy and obnoxious Amsterdam setups - much more like a small independent coffee shop, and when 'at the counter' the exchange is more like a trip to the pharmacy than anything, with the person behind the counter able to tell you exactly about the strain and what you can expect from it (feeling 'high' on sativa strains and 'stoned' on indica ones are entirely incomparable to any difference from one type of alcohol to another that I've ever had). This is a huge distinction - if I smoked sativa trying to get to sleep I would need to smoke so much that I'd barely be able to peel myself from the bed the next day; with a strong indica, about a half a gram will drift me off nice and easy within an hour. The reverse is also true - indica will make you sluggish and 'dopey', so when you see some lads smoking a joint and looking like zombies that is typically why. With sativa, you can smoke and go play a game of football and engage in even complex conversations with sober people no problem (unless you've smoked absolute tonnes of the stuff all together). Dealers in Ireland who will be able to give you a choice of one or the other are extremely rare (I've never known one and was a heavy smoker around a decade back), and hardly anyone knows what they are buying at the time. Most dealers couldn't even tell you much of anything of the composition of what they're selling. This has a huge, huge impact on public perception.

EDIT: 'The counter' part is also completely blocked off behind secured, locked doors and you need ID to be allowed in. Anyone underage (alcohol is 19 here so I'm guessing weed is the same) won't even be able to look at what is there, making the "exposing children" argument completely moot (though I guess it remains applicable to off licences, supermarkets and everyday shops where kids can come in and look at all the booze they like, with it right there for them to take off the shelf so long as staff don't see them).

Also worth mentioning that despite being a 3 minute walk from the campus of the largest college in the country, the average age on any given trip in there would probably be about 30 or just north thereof.

That said, for years I have agreed with but kind of hated the "it's natural and not nearly as harmful as alcohol" type arguments - they are right (until they go off making claims that it's not addictive, cannot be abused etc - just like booze, it absolutely can) but that stuff will convince pretty much nobody who has grown up their whole life to be conditioned to see cannabis in line with heroin. It's a pointless line of argument that too many will point blank refuse to accept, even in the face of irrefutable evidence, and is open to easy derision from due to decades-long stigmas attached.

Instead, I prefer to point to the US states who have and who have not legalised it, and the differences seen in fortunes throughout. Several US states for example are so broke that they have moved to four day school weeks (which is utterly shocking and one of the more under reported stories of the last few years in my opinion), while in others where they have legalised like Oregon or Colorado, they are throwing tens of millions at public services such as police (already massively freed up from not spending time arresting someone for quietly smoking a joint in a park) and indeed schools.

Sarcastic "Woooooohhh yeah, freeee the weeeeeeeeeeeeed man" comments are popular against the more traditionalist line of argument for legalisation (and I've heard many reflexively even throw it at non-smokers in favour of legalisation like yourself), but look as juvenile and idiotic as can possibly be in the face of an economic one.

If people want better social and public services, legalising marijuana is one of the easiest and most obvious ways to go about it. Well, either that or a large increase in income taxes and everyone's take home pay. Any non-marijuana smoker who denies that literally is telling you that they don't want to improve their own quality of life and their own children's access to better educational services without having to pay a penny, and should be reminded of that each and every time they complain about these services lacking.

Blueshoe

Billy86 wrote: »

I do occasionally if I'm getting anxious or having a sleepless night (an issue I've had since childhood, and coming from a medical family, the impact of sleeping pills more than extremely occasionally are f***ing terrifying), though I live in Canada where I am able to order it online and have it delivered to my door within 2-3 hours, or go about a 5 minute walk down the street and pick one up from my local coffee shop.

It's usually an entirely different setting here (Toronto) to the touristy Amsterdam setups - much more like a small independent coffee shop, and when 'at the counter' the exchange is more like a trip to the pharmacy than anything, with the person behind the counter able to tell you exactly about the strain and what you can expect from it (feeling 'high' on sativa strains and 'stoned' on indica ones are entirely incomparable to any difference from one type of alcohol to another that I've ever had). This is a huge distinction - if I smoked sativa trying to get to sleep I would need to smoke so much that I'd barely be able to peel myself from the bed the next day; with a strong indica, about a half a gram will drift me off nice and easy within an hour. The reverse is also true - indica will make you sluggish and 'dopey', so when you see some lads smoking a joint and looking like zombies that is typically why. With sativa, you can smoke and go play a game of football and engage in even complex conversations with sober people no problem (unless you've smoked absolute tonnes of the stuff all together). Dealers in Ireland who will be able to give you a choice of one or the other are extremely rare (I've never known one and was a heavy smoker around years back), and hardly anyone knows what they are buying at the time. Most dealers couldn't even tell you much of anything of the composition of what they're selling. This has a huge, huge impact on public perception.

Also worth mentioning that despite being a 3 minute walk from the campus of the largest college in the country, the average age on any given trip in there would probably be about 30 or just north thereof.

That said, for years I have agreed with but kind of hated the "it's natural and not nearly as harmful as alcohol" type arguments - they are right (until they go off making claims that it's not addictive, cannot be abused etc - just like booze, it absolutely can) but that stuff will convince pretty much nobody who has grown up their whole life to be conditioned to see cannabis in line with heroin. It's a pointless line of argument that too many will point blank refuse to accept, even in the face of irrefutable evidence, and is open to easy derision from due to decades-long stigmas attached.

Instead, I prefer to point to the US states who have and who have not legalised it, and the differences seen in fortunes throughout. Several US states for example are so broke that they have moved to four day school weeks (which is utterly shocking and one of the more under reported stories of the last few years in my opinion), while in others where they have legalised like Oregon or Colorado, they are throwing tens of millions at public services such as police (already massively freed up from not spending time arresting someone for quietly smoking a joint in a park) and indeed schools.

Sarcastic "Woooooohhh yeah, freeee the weeeeeeeeeeeeed man" comments are popular against the more traditionalist line of argument for legalisation (and I've heard many reflexively even throw it at non-smokers in favour of legalisation like yourself), but look as juvenile and idiotic as can possibly be in the face of an economic one.

If people want better social and public services, legalising marijuana is one of the easiest and most obvious ways to go about it. Well, either that or a large increase in income taxes and everyone's take home pay. Any non-marijuana smoker who denies that literally is telling you that they don't want to improve their own quality of life and their own children's access to better educational services without having to pay a penny, and should be reminded of that each and every time they complain about these services lacking.

Checkmate sir

evolving_doors

Billy86 wrote: »

I do occasionally if I'm getting anxious or having a sleepless night (an issue I've had since childhood, and coming from a medical family, the impact of sleeping pills more than extremely occasionally are f***ing terrifying), though I live in Canada where I am able to order it online and have it delivered to my door within 2-3 hours, or go about a 5 minute walk down the street and pick one up from my local coffee shop.

It's usually an entirely different setting here (Toronto) to the tourist-focused, loud, gawdy and obnoxious Amsterdam setups - much more like a small independent coffee shop, and when 'at the counter' the exchange is more like a trip to the pharmacy than anything, with the person behind the counter able to tell you exactly about the strain and what you can expect from it (feeling 'high' on sativa strains and 'stoned' on indica ones are entirely incomparable to any difference from one type of alcohol to another that I've ever had). This is a huge distinction - if I smoked sativa trying to get to sleep I would need to smoke so much that I'd barely be able to peel myself from the bed the next day; with a strong indica, about a half a gram will drift me off nice and easy within an hour. The reverse is also true - indica will make you sluggish and 'dopey', so when you see some lads smoking a joint and looking like zombies that is typically why. With sativa, you can smoke and go play a game of football and engage in even complex conversations with sober people no problem (unless you've smoked absolute tonnes of the stuff all together). Dealers in Ireland who will be able to give you a choice of one or the other are extremely rare (I've never known one and was a heavy smoker around a decade back), and hardly anyone knows what they are buying at the time. Most dealers couldn't even tell you much of anything of the composition of what they're selling. This has a huge, huge impact on public perception.

EDIT: 'The counter' part is also completely blocked off behind secured, locked doors and you need ID to be allowed in. Anyone underage (alcohol is 19 here so I'm guessing weed is the same) won't even be able to look at what is there, making the "exposing children" argument completely moot (though I guess it remains applicable to off licences, supermarkets and everyday shops where kids can come in and look at all the booze they like, with it right there for them to take off the shelf so long as staff don't see them).

Also worth mentioning that despite being a 3 minute walk from the campus of the largest college in the country, the average age on any given trip in there would probably be about 30 or just north thereof.

That said, for years I have agreed with but kind of hated the "it's natural and not nearly as harmful as alcohol" type arguments - they are right (until they go off making claims that it's not addictive, cannot be abused etc - just like booze, it absolutely can) but that stuff will convince pretty much nobody who has grown up their whole life to be conditioned to see cannabis in line with heroin. It's a pointless line of argument that too many will point blank refuse to accept, even in the face of irrefutable evidence, and is open to easy derision from due to decades-long stigmas attached.

Instead, I prefer to point to the US states who have and who have not legalised it, and the differences seen in fortunes throughout. Several US states for example are so broke that they have moved to four day school weeks (which is utterly shocking and one of the more under reported stories of the last few years in my opinion), while in others where they have legalised like Oregon or Colorado, they are throwing tens of millions at public services such as police (already massively freed up from not spending time arresting someone for quietly smoking a joint in a park) and indeed schools.

Sarcastic "Woooooohhh yeah, freeee the weeeeeeeeeeeeed man" comments are popular against the more traditionalist line of argument for legalisation (and I've heard many reflexively even throw it at non-smokers in favour of legalisation like yourself), but look as juvenile and idiotic as can possibly be in the face of an economic one.

If people want better social and public services, legalising marijuana is one of the easiest and most obvious ways to go about it. Well, either that or a large increase in income taxes and everyone's take home pay. Any non-marijuana smoker who denies that literally is telling you that they don't want to improve their own quality of life and their own children's access to better educational services without having to pay a penny, and should be reminded of that each and every time they complain about these services lacking.

So it works in practice. But can it work in theory ??

El_Bee

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Non violent drug dealers.

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here and accept you're pulling my leg.