Cannabis - It must be time for legality.

jh79

Billy86 wrote: »

Drug regulation getting tougher all the time isn't exactly true, it's largely just about getting tougher on the competition. This is how the US got into its opioid crisis and its just starting to creep into Ireland as well.

That didn't start from heroin, it started from them putting 'legal heroin' into their painkillers, getting people hooked, upping the dosages, bribing doctors to prescribe it en masse even running essentially rewards programmes for doctors selling the most of their heroine, and on and on, and being all too aware of what they were doing throughout. Depressingly, bending over for these pharmaceutical companies is probably the single most bipartisan issue that both of their parties agree entirely on). And then the next step was for the patients to switch to or mix with heroin when their prescriptions weren't covering what they wanted (as is often the case with heroin, 'enough' does not exist).

I would suggest listening to this, it's long but alincredibly interesting (if I am correct part 2 deals much more with that modern issue, part 1 I'd largely more historic stuff) -
http://thedollop.libsyn.com/280-opium-in-the-us-part-1

Missed this post, when i said drug regulation getting tougher i meant the approval process. Getting a new drug on the market is getting harder.

Opiods are effective drugs that are over prescribed.

Canabis isn't particularly effective. I don't see the logic where a broken system for opiods justifies the use of ineffective cananbis that can also be abused recreationally. Neither should be allowed happen in medicine.

nozzferrahhtoo

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Indeed... the notion that having a bunch of stoners wandering about the place is somehow going to benefit society is just nonsense.

I am not convinced "benefit to society" is the correct measure however. After all what is the "benefit to society" of reality TV and Soap operas? Yet TV is awash with them. What is the "benefit to society" of alcohol and a "bunch of alcos wandering around about the place"? I could list any number of things there appears to be no "benefit" to. Yet we have them, allow them, sanction them and produce them all the time.

I think the correct question is what is the overall benefit to society of having such things illegal. Or other things like, for example, sex work. So far no one is showing me any such benefits.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I think the presumption that all those criminals making good money off it now will just "go away" is stupid - more likely they'll graduate to petty theft and burglary to replace their incomes.

The argument is not as simplistic as that though, so you are in danger of calling "stupid" an argument no one is actually making.

The argument is more nuanced and deep than that. Firstly the argument is that while the criminals might not simply "go away", the resources for combating them will increase. If you have less crimes to be policed, you have more resources to police the other crimes.

A legal and regulated product also gives us the potential to keep the drugs at a standard that does not allow people to cut in addictive and other substances. Though we have to police that potential well of course, as the tobacco industry did just that.

Further a lot of the "petty theft and burglary" we have right now could be undercut by a legal product as the people engaged in it are often doing so to pay back debts to their criminal sources of drugs. Normalizing and making the use of some drugs less taboo also make an atmosphere more conducive for people with drug dependencies and related issues to seek help.

Drugs being a taxable revenue stream also further increase our ability to provide police resources.

So no, no one appears to offer the arguments that making the drug legal will magically make crime and criminals just "go away". But it certainly gives us the environment and tools and potentials to better combat actual crimes with actual victims and actual potential benefit rather than having whole departments of our law enforcement running around trying (and failing time and time and time again) to enforce and police laws that bring no apparent benefit to anyone at all.

Further though, I think you are making an argument that is of the "pandering to the bully" form of argument. That is to say, you are allowing yourself be held to ransom by the bad guys as to whether you should do the right thing or not. Either making the drug legal is the right thing to do or it is not. Saying "Well even if it is, lets not do it because the bad people might do bad things" is giving in to the criminals. Allowing them to mediate our morality and ethics by way of fear mongering and whatiffery. Simply letting the bad guy win.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I have yet to see any real benefits offered to legalising recreational use.

That stacks the deck somewhat given we have not actually done that yet. Pretty hard for you to see the benefits of doing X before we actually do X is it not?

But I will grant merely making something legal is not going to be a good move. The same for sex work for example. It is HOW we make it legal and what regulations and approaches we take while doing it, that defines the result.

nozzferrahhtoo

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Cannabis is an extremely dangerous drug. The top psychiatrist in Ireland was on the radio recently

Who and how is he the "top" one? Is there a league? How are they ranked in this league?

Anyway the link you offered has a few problems. The first and most obvious one is the comment at the end about "the cannabis of the good old days was much less potent than the now widely-available 'skunk'"

So in other words your link is not at all supporting your contention the drug is dangerous. Rather that recent forms of it are dangerous. SO in fact you are making the argument for legalization for us here. Because with a legal product regulated to industry standards, you would have the tools and potentials to regulate the THC:cannabinol balance and thus mediate for the concerns you have raised.

Imagine for example we were still in prohibition and people were arguing for making alcohol legal and taxed and regulated. Imagine the people AGAINST making it legal did a study based solely on the effects on people of drinking unregulated homemade Poitín. Clearly the results would not look good. But equally clearly would the argument be agenda driven contrived cherry picking of the data set.

The second issue is that the entire article is about psychological issues related to use of the drug in early adolescence. That is to say, users who have used it multiple times before they were even 14/15.

No one I am aware of who is in favor of legalization is in favor of legalizing it for that age group anyway. So your link is in no way a rebuttal to their position. We are also aware that alcohol use in early adolescence is harmful. Which is why we have laws about he sale of alcohol to minors.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The hysterical ‘well what about booze’ is the stoners default argument as well.

Nothing hysterical about it. It is a perfectly cogent move in a world full of drugs, some legal and some not, to question why some are legal and others are not. And a huge majority of the anti cannabis arguments we hear can be just as applicable to alcohol. Often more so.

So it is the opposite of hysterical in fact. It is in fact designed to point out that it is AGAINST your hysterical arguments that alcohol is being offered as a back drop to ground and anchor the discussion rationally. But the hysterical will often decry rationality as hysterical it seems.

nozzferrahhtoo

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The potential respiratory problems are another issue. Have you ever heard the stoner's cough, sounds like an veteran coal miner from the 1930s. Not to mention the link with lung cancer. In a time when we seem to be heading towards eventually banning the sale of tobacco it would seem strange to introduce this.

The use of those kinds of drugs are not limited to smoking however, which is not so easy to say about tobacco products. I can count on my fingers how many times I have used Cannabis and Marijuana products in my life. So I am very far from a regular user. However of those times only twice did I smoke it.

Most of the time I ate it on toast as it happens. And one time it was me and a few other people sitting around what essentially looked like a Genie Lamp in the middle of the room in which a black viscous solution that I was told was called "Charis" was burning.

Those that do smoke it tend often to break open cigarettes and use the contents to re-roll with their drug. And it is the contents of those cigarettes causing the issues, not the drug. Not sure if rolling tobacco is meant to be any healthier than pre-rolled cigarettes..... would love to see a comparative study on that in cannabis users myself.

Gorgeousgeorge wrote: »

I have a friend who has severe mental problems from smoking weed. Brain is totally fried.

And I know people who have severe issues from alcohol. And others from fast food. And others from gambling. And others totally and dangerously deranged by religion.

Even the most seemingly benign things are going to derange, or react negatively, with SOMEONE. That is just the reality we live in.

That said however, how have you actually established that the issues of your alleged "friend" actually were caused by weed? Correlation is not causation you know. There is little (any?) evidence of the drug causing such problems at all. There is however significant evidence of it exacerbating already existing issues. Which, assuming they exist, is more likely what has occurred with your friend.

If medical issues truly are to be our concern, we would benefit the medical health of our population as a whole more from banning alcohol and tobacco than we would banning this stuff.

_Brian wrote: »

People who say legalising it will remove the criminal element need to look at tobacco and the sheer volume of illegal tobacco being pedalled openly everywhere which no doubt feeds illegal groups. Part legitimising another income stream can’t be the way forward. I would have a similar view to prostitution, it damages people and allows for trafficking of women to be hidden in the numbers.

As I said to Kaiser above, the simplistic argument that the crime will magically "go away" is not really what anyone thinking on this issue is making. It is more nuanced and complicated than that.

However pointing to the black market sale of some products seems not to be a great argument given 100% of the current sales are on the black market for this drug. This gives the criminals powers they otherwise would not have if they were competing against a regulated legal product.

Similarly your sex work argument falls foul of the same error in thinking. Women are being trafficked anyway in sex work. The question is does making sex work legal or illegal give us the most tools, potentials, avenues and options for combating that. And so far making it illegal does not seem to offer ANY while making it legal, done the right way, offers many.

kneemos wrote: »

CANNABIS GIVES YOU MAN BOOBS.

So does, I can personally attest, coca cola drunk in the quantities I used to drink it in. In the last 2 years however I have gone from 85 kilo to 67 and I no longer find myself considering buying a training bra.

Deleted User wrote: »

Grown up adults with grown up responsibilities like keeping up mortgage payments or looking after kids just wouldn't be in that, eh, "relaxed" world.

Speak for yourself. The plethora of people from every social class enjoying alcohol every day straight away shows that that pretty much is all you ARE doing.

Deleted User wrote: »

Take all the drugs you want. Just do it at home away from threatening the rest of us with the consequences and don't clog up our health system expecting we'll pay for fixing the healthy life you freely chose to fúck up.

So we should be campaigning for what exactly..... the closure of all pubs? Best of luck with that one.

DickSwiveller Returns

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The use of those kinds of drugs are not limited to smoking however, which is not so easy to say about tobacco products. I can count on my fingers how many times I have used Cannabis and Marijuana products in my life. So I am very far from a regular user. However of those times only twice did I smoke it.

Most of the time I ate it on toast as it happens. And one time it was me and a few other people sitting around what essentially looked like a Genie Lamp in the middle of the room in which a black viscous solution that I was told was called "Charis" was burning.

Those that do smoke it tend often to break open cigarettes and use the contents to re-roll with their drug. And it is the contents of those cigarettes causing the issues, not the drug. Not sure if rolling tobacco is meant to be any healthier than pre-rolled cigarettes..... would love to see a comparative study on that in cannabis users myself.



And I know people who have severe issues from alcohol. And others from fast food. And others from gambling. And others totally and dangerously deranged by religion.

Even the most seemingly benign things are going to derange, or react negatively, with SOMEONE. That is just the reality we live in.

That said however, how have you actually established that the issues of your alleged "friend" actually were caused by weed? Correlation is not causation you know. There is little (any?) evidence of the drug causing such problems at all. There is however significant evidence of it exacerbating already existing issues. Which, assuming they exist, is more likely what has occurred with your friend.

If medical issues truly are to be our concern, we would benefit the medical health of our population as a whole more from banning alcohol and tobacco than we would banning this stuff.



As I said to Kaiser above, the simplistic argument that the crime will magically "go away" is not really what anyone thinking on this issue is making. It is more nuanced and complicated than that.

However pointing to the black market sale of some products seems not to be a great argument given 100% of the current sales are on the black market for this drug. This gives the criminals powers they otherwise would not have if they were competing against a regulated legal product.

Similarly your sex work argument falls foul of the same error in thinking. Women are being trafficked anyway in sex work. The question is does making sex work legal or illegal give us the most tools, potentials, avenues and options for combating that. And so far making it illegal does not seem to offer ANY while making it legal, done the right way, offers many.



So does, I can personally attest, coca cola drunk in the quantities I used to drink it in. In the last 2 years however I have gone from 85 kilo to 67 and I no longer find myself considering buying a training bra.



Speak for yourself. The plethora of people from every social class enjoying alcohol every day straight away shows that that pretty much is all you ARE doing.



So we should be campaigning for what exactly..... the closure of all pubs? Best of luck with that one.

I'm sorry but that is an awful argument. Why does the existence of legal poisons justify legalizing another poison? I've never understood this argument.

DickSwiveller Returns

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The use of those kinds of drugs are not limited to smoking however, which is not so easy to say about tobacco products. I can count on my fingers how many times I have used Cannabis and Marijuana products in my life. So I am very far from a regular user. However of those times only twice did I smoke it.

Most of the time I ate it on toast as it happens. And one time it was me and a few other people sitting around what essentially looked like a Genie Lamp in the middle of the room in which a black viscous solution that I was told was called "Charis" was burning.

Those that do smoke it tend often to break open cigarettes and use the contents to re-roll with their drug. And it is the contents of those cigarettes causing the issues, not the drug. Not sure if rolling tobacco is meant to be any healthier than pre-rolled cigarettes..... would love to see a comparative study on that in cannabis users myself.



And I know people who have severe issues from alcohol. And others from fast food. And others from gambling. And others totally and dangerously deranged by religion.

Even the most seemingly benign things are going to derange, or react negatively, with SOMEONE. That is just the reality we live in.

That said however, how have you actually established that the issues of your alleged "friend" actually were caused by weed? Correlation is not causation you know. There is little (any?) evidence of the drug causing such problems at all. There is however significant evidence of it exacerbating already existing issues. Which, assuming they exist, is more likely what has occurred with your friend.

If medical issues truly are to be our concern, we would benefit the medical health of our population as a whole more from banning alcohol and tobacco than we would banning this stuff.



As I said to Kaiser above, the simplistic argument that the crime will magically "go away" is not really what anyone thinking on this issue is making. It is more nuanced and complicated than that.

However pointing to the black market sale of some products seems not to be a great argument given 100% of the current sales are on the black market for this drug. This gives the criminals powers they otherwise would not have if they were competing against a regulated legal product.

Similarly your sex work argument falls foul of the same error in thinking. Women are being trafficked anyway in sex work. The question is does making sex work legal or illegal give us the most tools, potentials, avenues and options for combating that. And so far making it illegal does not seem to offer ANY while making it legal, done the right way, offers many.



So does, I can personally attest, coca cola drunk in the quantities I used to drink it in. In the last 2 years however I have gone from 85 kilo to 67 and I no longer find myself considering buying a training bra.



Speak for yourself. The plethora of people from every social class enjoying alcohol every day straight away shows that that pretty much is all you ARE doing.



So we should be campaigning for what exactly..... the closure of all pubs? Best of luck with that one.

I mean going by your logic we should have no laws because people are just going to break them anyway

Cabaal

Mutant z wrote: »

If people want to have it for recreational use then surely its their own business.

Can't the same argument be made for drink?
Sure it doesn't effect anyone.

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is an awful argument. Why does the existence of legal poisons justify legalizing another poison? I've never understood this argument.

Well exactly. It is a terrible argument. And I was just giving further examples of other places that terrible argument COULD be used to highlight (and agree with) the fact it is a terrible argument. Thanks for making my point for me The "argument" as you have presented it however is not the one I have offered. You have made it up on my behalf it seems.

To answer your specific question more directly, it is not that the existence of legal poisons justify legalizing another poison. Rather it is that if we are going to have a mature and useful and informative discussion on drugs as a whole, we should do so with some measure of consistency. And if people are using arguments against drug X that they are contriving to ignore about drug Y..... then they should be called on that inconsistency. Especially as more often than not the inconsistency is driven by bias and narrative or by status quo.

However the SPECIFIC point I was making in the text you bolded for me, is that i do not see rare anecdotal cases of people being deranged by a drug as being a valid indictment of that drug. Not least because they are only offering a correlation and have not shown the drug had anything to do with it at all.

Rather what I think occurs is that there are people prone to derangement or illness and that drug or product or service or entertainment or thoughts merely trigger the underlying condition. Or their use of that product or service is just coincidental to their derangement, which would have occurred anyway.

When correlating weed with mental health issues, as the user was..... I see nothing more interesting than people pointing out a handful of shooters who happened to have all read "The Catcher in the Rye". There is little to no reason to think that that book caused them to go shooting anyone any more than there is to think the drug actually caused their mental health issues. Rather, in both cases, something was probably already in play that the drug.... or book..... exacerbated, facilitated, justified or triggered.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I mean going by your logic we should have no laws because people are just going to break them anyway

So by "going by your logic" you appear to mean the logic you have merely made up and assigned to me out of your own imagination. Because at no point have I ever said, or even implied, the nonsense you just spewed here.

But thanks I guess for quoting my entire post twice to offer to empty replies. I am sure the users on touch love you for it.

DickSwiveller Returns

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well exactly. It is a terrible argument. And I was just giving further examples of other places that terrible argument COULD be used to highlight (and agree with) the fact it is a terrible argument. Thanks for making my point for me The "argument" as you have presented it however is not the one I have offered. You have made it up on my behalf it seems.

To answer your specific question more directly, it is not that the existence of legal poisons justify legalizing another poison. Rather it is that if we are going to have a mature and useful and informative discussion on drugs as a whole, we should do so with some measure of consistency. And if people are using arguments against drug X that they are contriving to ignore about drug Y..... then they should be called on that inconsistency. Especially as more often than not the inconsistency is driven by bias and narrative or by status quo.

However the SPECIFIC point I was making in the text you bolded for me, is that i do not see rare anecdotal cases of people being deranged by a drug as being a valid indictment of that drug. Not least because they are only offering a correlation and have not shown the drug had anything to do with it at all.

Rather what I think occurs is that there are people prone to derangement or illness and that drug or product or service or entertainment or thoughts merely trigger the underlying condition. Or their use of that product or service is just coincidental to their derangement, which would have occurred anyway.

When correlating weed with mental health issues, as the user was..... I see nothing more interesting than people pointing out a handful of shooters who happened to have all read "The Catcher in the Rye". There is little to no reason to think that that book caused them to go shooting anyone any more than there is to think the drug actually caused their mental health issues. Rather, in both cases, something was probably already in play that the drug.... or book..... exacerbated, facilitated, justified or triggered.



So by "going by your logic" you appear to mean the logic you have merely made up and assigned to me out of your own imagination. Because at no point have I ever said, or even implied, the nonsense you just spewed here.

But thanks I guess for quoting my entire post twice to offer to empty replies. I am sure the users on touch love you for it.

But who is doing that? Alcohol is irrelevant to the debate because it is already legal.

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

But who is doing that? Alcohol is irrelevant to the debate because it is already legal.

Well lots of people. Consistently. Throughout the entire thread. To take one random example the user who wrote "Take all the drugs you want. Just do it at home away from threatening the rest of us with the consequences" clearly has not noticed pubs.

But no alcohol is not irrelevant just because it is legal, or just because it is inconvenient to you. It is relevant very much because many of the arguments made against cannabis also apply to alcohol.

So this makes it relevant for two reasons:

1) If we have made, and retain, alcohol as legal..... then clearly the arguments being made against cannabis only apply because biased people WANT them to apply, not because they actually apply.

2) The similarity of arguments for and against mean alcohol is a useful template for the dynamics around a legal drug. We can ask questions like "Well what if we put a mildly to moderately addictive drug out into a legal market" and we have some of those answers because that is what alcohol is.

They are not some magical non overlapping magisteria that simply allow you to magically brush one under the carpet and ignore it when it does not suit. But thanks again all the same for quoting my entire post in order to reply to one sentence of it.

DickSwiveller Returns

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well lots of people. Consistently. Throughout the entire thread. To take one random example the user who wrote "Take all the drugs you want. Just do it at home away from threatening the rest of us with the consequences" clearly has not noticed pubs.

But no alcohol is not irrelevant just because it is legal, or just because it is inconvenient to you. It is relevant very much because many of the arguments made against cannabis also apply to alcohol.

So this makes it relevant for two reasons:

1) If we have made, and retain, alcohol as legal..... then clearly the arguments being made against cannabis only apply because biased people WANT them to apply, not because they actually apply.

2) The similarity of arguments for and against mean alcohol is a useful template for the dynamics around a legal drug. We can ask questions like "Well what if we put a mildly to moderately addictive drug out into a legal market" and we have some of those answers because that is what alcohol is.

They are not some magical non overlapping magisteria that simply allow you to magically brush one under the carpet and ignore it when it does not suit. But thanks again all the same for quoting my entire post in order to reply to one sentence of it.

You assume that it would be possible to ban alcohol. It isn't. Once something has been legal for such a long period it is almost impossible to ban it. I would, however, support much harsher laws around alcohol as the damage inflicts on society as a whole is staggering.

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

You assume that it would be possible to ban alcohol.

So from telling me about my logic that I never actually used, you have moved on to telling me my assumptions that I know I do not actually hold. I also do not, like yourself, hold the opposite assumption. So I neither hold the assumption you pretend I do, nor it's corollary which you have asserted as if it is fact.

Perhaps tell us some of your own arguments rather than continuously invent mine for me?

Again the only logic/assumption I have offered, rather than the ones you have invented vicariously on my behalf, is that if we are offering arguments about making something legal, illegal, or retaining the status quo then it helps to check if the arguments for or against doing that are consistent with the same arguments about something else.

In this case they are not. People make arguments against making cannabis legal that also apply to alcohol but they merely ignore. And sometimes they apply even MORE so to alcohol, but they ignore that too.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I would, however, support much harsher laws around alcohol

Such as what?

xckjoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

But who is doing that? Alcohol is irrelevant to the debate because it is already legal.

I don't understand why alcohol being already legal would make it irrelevant to this debate. For one thing, isn't our whole legal system based on precedence?

It speaks to the argument about cannabis being kept illegal as it's potentially harmful. We already allow and regulate far more harmful things.

DickSwiveller Returns

xckjoo wrote: »

I don't understand why alcohol being already legal would make it irrelevant to this debate. For one thing, isn't our whole legal system based on precedence?

It speaks to the argument about cannabis being kept illegal as it's potentially harmful. We already allow and regulate far more harmful things.

And? Again, why does that mean we should legalise another poison?

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

And? Again, why does that mean we should legalise another poison?

Or just as legitimately why does it mean we should invest a multitude of time, resources, money and man power into keeping one "poison" illegal when others are not?

But "poison" is your subjective evaluation of it, which you have not justified. So what makes it worse is that you are asking people to justify something of YOUR invention rather than justify things related to actual reality.

Thats why you need to pretend alcohol is irrelevant, when it is absolutely not, because it does not fit your narrative.

maccored

poison? how many people have died of cannabis overdosing? How many have died from poisoning from cannabis? Does it cause cancer? (cancer.org dont think so - https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/complementary-and-alternative-medicine/marijuana-and-cancer.html)

nozzferrahhtoo

^ It depends a lot what version of the word "poison" someone is using. There are vernacular meanings like the first one google gives you "a substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed." that if taken 100% literally would make cannabis a poison. But it would also make water a poison given that it fits that description too.

Or one could go to an even more vague definition like "prove harmful or destructive to" at which point it becomes a lot more subjective. After all who is defining what is or is not harmful and what measure is being used?

The question is has the drug been actually classified as a poison? If so where? By who? and on what basis?

xckjoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

And? Again, why does that mean we should legalise another poison?

As others above me said, because it's far more harmful to keep it illegal. Or at least that how it looks to be shaping up.
Similar arguments were made when they made alcohol illegal in US. Turned out to be a complete sh1t show which caused an increase in alcohol related deaths, organised crime, corruption and disregard for the law. Kinda like the War on Drugs is doing in our own lifetime.

DickSwiveller Returns

xckjoo wrote: »

As others above me said, because it's far more harmful to keep it illegal. Or at least that how it looks to be shaping up.
Similar arguments were made when they made alcohol illegal in US. Turned out to be a complete sh1t show which caused an increase in alcohol related deaths, organised crime, corruption and disregard for the law. Kinda like the War on Drugs is doing in our own lifetime.

Actually, there is very little evidence for that assertion. In Japan and South Korea they have tough laws against drug use and the number of users is tiny.

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Actually, there is very little evidence for that assertion. In Japan and South Korea they have tough laws against drug use and the number of users is tiny.

And yet the first result I get when I googled that was that an article in 2012 claims that while tiny the drugs are in fact easy to get, and usage had peaked to a national all time high.

The second result an article from 2014 called "Dealing with addiction: Japan’s drug problem"

And the third result was 2018 article called "Japan struggles with growing cannabis use" while a magazine called Spa! ran an article claiming "cannabis use is becoming commonplace among 20- and 30-something professionals".

So it would appear that the tough laws, which they certainly do have, are becoming somewhat dilute in terms of their effectiveness. Prohibition has failed in the past and even in countries still practicing it the walls appear to be crumbling slowly.

And for what? What is the benefit of making it illegal other than your own misuse, yet to be justified, of the word "poison"?

xckjoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Actually, there is very little evidence for that assertion. In Japan and South Korea they have tough laws against drug use and the number of users is tiny.

I'm going to need a source on that because Japan has a number of notorious statistics such as a near 100% success at solving murders while South Korea have similar approach to dealing with social issues and have plenty of societal issues with other addictions such as gaming/internet and drinking. Seems strange that they'd have no issues with such a long established source of addiction. A quick Google search is throwing up a lot of articles that claim things are worse than the numbers imply and are steadily getting worse, but I don't have the time to dig into them and check their veracity. They do seem to mention that methamphetamine is the drug of choice so I'm not sure how that plays into your opinion in relation to marijuana.

Graces7

maccored wrote: »

poison? how many people have died of cannabis overdosing? How many have died from poisoning from cannabis? Does it cause cancer? (cancer.org dont think so - https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/complementary-and-alternative-medicine/marijuana-and-cancer.html)

Poisoning does not mean death-causing. It means... poisoning, toxic. As in alcoholic poisoning,

xckjoo

Graces7 wrote: »

Poisoning does not mean death-causing. It means... poisoning, toxic. As in alcoholic poisoning,

You didn't really clear up that definition there

nozzferrahhtoo

Graces7 wrote: »

Poisoning does not mean death-causing. It means... poisoning, toxic. As in alcoholic poisoning,

You like your cohort above seem to contrive to be very vague about which meaning of "poison" you are using. And introducing more words as synonyms rather than in an explanatory function does nothing but smoke and mirrors that fact.

There are vernacular meanings of the word "poison" and technical ones. Subjective ones and official ones. And what every country classifies as a "poison" and the methodologies for classification vary.

So by all means be clear which one you are using and tell us which countries, and on what basis and by what methodology, you know of that classify cannabis... or specifically Tetrahydrocannabinol as a poison.

But vernacular dictionary definitions tend not to help much as, like I said earlier, even water is a "poison" under some of them.

The Bishop Basher

Alcohol is incredibly toxic to the human body and can kill in very small doses. It is, in every sense of the word, a poison.

Cannabis is a flower and is not toxic to humans. There is no known lethal dose.

There’s no comparison between the two in that regard.

Ash.J.Williams

Rennaws wrote: »

Alcohol is incredibly toxic to the human body and can kill in very small doses. It is, in every sense of the word, a poison.

Cannabis is a flower and is not toxic to humans. There is no known lethal dose.

There’s no comparison between the two in that regard.

Alcohol is a poison, we drink a very diluted version of the poison.

DickSwiveller Returns

I don't know how anyone who has witnessed people under the influence of cannabis can say it is harmless and "just a plant". I've had friends who ruined their lives from smoking too much of the stuff and basically becoming hermits. Why are people so eager to give cynical businessman a chance to exploit vulnerable people? It's baffling.

xckjoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I don't know how anyone who has witnessed people under the influence of cannabis can say it is harmless and "just a plant". I've had friends who ruined their lives from smoking too much of the stuff and basically becoming hermits. Why are people so eager to give cynical businessman a chance to exploit vulnerable people? It's baffling.

You'd rather a criminal get the money? Because that's what's happening. It being illegal has done nothing to hamper the availability, but currently it just costs the state money to fight and brings nothing in in revenue.

DickSwiveller Returns

xckjoo wrote: »

You'd rather a criminal get the money? Because that's what's happening. It being illegal has done nothing to hamper the availability, but currently it just costs the state money to fight and brings nothing in in revenue.

Why is it better for a cynical businessman to control it?

Oh come on, how many people are serving prison sentences for simple possession of cannabis?

xckjoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Why is it better for a cynical businessman to control it?

Oh come on, how many people are serving prison sentences for simple possession of cannabis?

Tax and licensing. How the state manages everything else.

I don't know how many people are in prison for "simple possession" but I also have no idea why you mention it here. How is it related to what I said previously?

DickSwiveller Returns

xckjoo wrote: »

Tax and licensing. How the state manages everything else.

I don't know how many people are in prison for "simple possession" but I also have no idea why you mention it here. How is it related to what I said previously?

I'm trying to counter the 'war on drugs' cliche.

xckjoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I'm trying to counter the 'war on drugs' cliche.

Try addressing it head on then instead of trying to shoehorn it into unrelated comments.

What's the cliche and how is it inaccurate? I might agree with you if I knew what you were getting at.

Doctor Jimbob

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I don't know how anyone who has witnessed people under the influence of cannabis can say it is harmless and "just a plant". I've had friends who ruined their lives from smoking too much of the stuff and basically becoming hermits. Why are people so eager to give cynical businessman a chance to exploit vulnerable people? It's baffling.

By that logic we should ban cake since people harm themselves by eating too much of it.

People are always going to do stuff that isn't good for them, let people make that choice for themselves instead of this nanny state nonsense.

DickSwiveller Returns

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

By that logic we should ban cake since people harm themselves by eating too much of it.

People are always going to do stuff that isn't good for them, let people make that choice for themselves instead of this nanny state nonsense.

Right, lets legalise sex trafficking then. If people want to do it let them. Ridiculous logic.

CerebralCortex

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Right, lets legalise sex trafficking then. If people want to do it let them. Ridiculous logic.

You going to ban Alcohol?

Doctor Jimbob

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Right, lets legalise sex trafficking then. If people want to do it let them. Ridiculous logic.

Sex trafficking harms unwilling participants so that's hardly a valid comparison. Ridiculous logic indeed.

Ash.J.Williams

Schwanz wrote: »

Productivity probably low in a smoker lol

I'm working my arse off here, in fact it's the non smokers here with productivity issues.

DickSwiveller Returns

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You going to ban Alcohol?

No, see my post earlier on why that's a ludicrous argument.

DickSwiveller Returns

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Sex trafficking harms unwilling participants so that's hardly a valid comparison. Ridiculous logic indeed.

And drug abuse doesn't harm family members and people who care about the abuser? I can't stand this "Its my body, Ill do whatever I want" attitude

Ash.J.Williams

People are correct to say cannabis is far from harmless. The current grow house Irish weed makes people very narky in the mornings.

Doctor Jimbob

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

And drug abuse doesn't harm family members and people who care about the abuser? I can't stand this "Its my body, Ill do whatever I want" attitude

Same for alcohol abuse, people who eat junk food, smokers, and so on. If you want to be logically consistent you'd need to argue that all these things should be illegal too, but you seem to keep avoiding doing so. Why?

DickSwiveller Returns

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Same for alcohol abuse, people who eat junk food, smokers, and so on. If you want to be logically consistent you'd need to argue that all these things should be illegal too, but you seem to keep avoiding doing so. Why?

Because they are already legal. Cannabis is not. How is this hard to understand? Do you think anything should be illegal??

partyguinness

It does seem peculiar that drugs derived from opiates are readily available but not medicinal cannabis.

Let's start a conspiracy theory and suggest that because cannabis can be grown at home the big pharmas don't like it....

DickSwiveller Returns

partyguinness wrote: »

It does seem peculiar that drugs derived from opiates are readily available but not medicinal cannabis.

Let's start a conspiracy theory and suggest that because cannabis can be grown at home the big pharmas don't like it....

There's barely any evidence that marijuana has beneficial medical effects. It's generally a tactic used by cannabis propagandists. Paul Cullen of the IT is very good on this.

Doctor Jimbob

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Because they are already legal. Cannabis is not. How is this hard to understand? Do you think anything should be illegal??

Something being legal isn't a valid argument for it continuing to be legal, nor is something being illegal a valid argument for it continuing to be illegal. Our laws should be based on facts, not sticking to tradition for the sake of it.

Billy86

jh79 wrote: »

Missed this post, when i said drug regulation getting tougher i meant the approval process. Getting a new drug on the market is getting harder.

Opiods are effective drugs that are over prescribed.

Canabis isn't particularly effective. I don't see the logic where a broken system for opiods justifies the use of ineffective cananbis that can also be abused recreationally. Neither should be allowed happen in medicine.

Personally I'm in favour of outright legalisation of cannabis for recreational use, and to be honest while I initially thought it was an idiotic plan in Portugal I'll hold my hands up and admit I was completely wrong - because I would now be likely to also favour decriminalisation of harder drugs. The evidence about plummeting cases of accidental overdose deaths, sharing of needles and contracted diseases, etc etc is just too much to argue against.

I am not however in favour of cannabis being pushed left, right and centre by trusted doctors to their patients and rewards schemes given out from whatever 'Big Cannabis' companies emerge over the coming years or decades as it inevitably becomes legalised across much of the western world, trying to convince people it's no different than plinking a solpadeine soluble in a glass or taking a panadol for that morning headache.

I also would want this to be done with a strong and ongoing awareness program that smoking a half dozen joints a night to feel 'normal' is no better than downing a shoulder of vodka or six beers every night and is a problem that would need to be addressed. And to point out the health benefits but far more importantly, risks involved - I still choose to smoke my 6-8 cigs a day and have my 2-3 cups of coffee but I also know it is not good for my health, and have a reasonably strong idea as to why. The same should be held for marijuana - help the public gain a strong understanding of exactly what it is as well as it's benefits and it's dangers.

Billy86

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

You assume that it would be possible to ban alcohol. It isn't. Once something has been legal for such a long period it is almost impossible to ban it. I would, however, support much harsher laws around alcohol as the damage inflicts on society as a whole is staggering.

The problem there is you've now gone and taken the 16 year olds who got someone to go into the off-licence for them or stole some from the parents press, went down to a field with mates and knocked back an unholy amount because they didn't know what they were up to... and given their friends a reason to be scared to call the police or an ambulance if it all goes wrong and they need to get their stomach pumped.

If we're saying to apply that for all ages of alcohol consumption and production/distribution, it then extends to everyone from alcoholics unable to stop drinking and winding up in a similar way, to people just having a few drinks in their house but having to buy dodgy moonshine made by some lad in a field in Cavan with no regulations or oversight as to what he puts into his product.

What could/would otherwise be trips to A&E are now much more likely to be trips to the morgue.

Billy86

Graces7 wrote: »

A blanket ban then? So those of us who suffer pain day and night and were using eg Tylex responsibly and carefully are left to suffer and are offered only paracetemol. With no assessment of need, no evaluation.

This is why folk turn to illegal drugs and become addicts.In desperation for relief from pain 24/7 .Just now hurts even to breathe and if someone offered me anything? Just for respite.

No, a blanket ban is a terrible idea which is why I didn't suggest such a thing. It would be both counterproductive in terms of use, and dangerous in terms of unregulated use, not to mention a waste of resources chasing the people still selling and taking it.

What we should not be seeing are GPs being put on a rewards scheme for throwing out opioids left, right and centre when they should typically be reserved for very severe cases. These are drugs that need to be administered only when absolutely needed, and taken with extreme care on stringent doses. A builder with a chronic bad back is typically not a person who needs to be given legalised heroin. Especially when they do not know what they are getting themselves into and figure it's no different from the painkillers usually given to them.

Graces7 wrote: »

Poisoning does not mean death-causing. It means... poisoning, toxic. As in alcoholic poisoning,

So just like it having a psychoactive effect, this is again a way in which it is no different to the tea and coffee you and your friends drink.

CerebralCortex

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

No, see my post earlier on why that's a ludicrous argument.

Where? Link please.

xckjoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

And drug abuse doesn't harm family members and people who care about the abuser? I can't stand this "Its my body, Ill do whatever I want" attitude

The point isn't whether something can be harmful or not (it can), but if prohibition is having a positive or negative effect.