drug use

punisher5112

I like alcohol but know when to stop and don't use it every day to get a high or a fix or whatever.....

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Alcohol is, by denfinition, a drug. It induces a physiological effect when ingested, take it or leave it. That was the only part of your post I refered to.

I’ll take it, in the same context as I already acknowledge that by that same definition you use for alcohol, so too love is a drug as it induces a psychological effect, food, as it induces a psychological effect, sex, as it induces a psychological effect, irrational discussion, as it induces a psychological effect, and so on, and so on.

As I said in the post you responded to - it’s hardly a compelling argument to make the point that alcohol is a drug when using that definition means that anything which induces a psychological effect is considered a drug.

The Bishop Basher

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As I said in the post you responded to - it’s hardly a compelling argument to make the point that alcohol is a drug when using that definition means that anything which induces a psychological effect is considered a drug.

Google “most harmful drugs”.

You’ll find many scientists and experts disagree with you and not only consider alcohol to be a drug but to be one of the most dangerous and harmful drugs of the lot.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

punisher5112 wrote: »

I like alcohol but know when to stop and don't use it every day to get a high or a fix or whatever.....

Same as all drugs. They can be used or abused and some people can get addicted. No denying that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll take it, in the same context as I already acknowledge that by that same definition you use for alcohol, so too love is a drug as it induces a psychological effect, food, as it induces a psychological effect, sex, as it induces a psychological effect, irrational discussion, as it induces a psychological effect, and so on, and so on.

As I said in the post you responded to - it’s hardly a compelling argument to make the point that alcohol is a drug when using that definition means that anything which induces a psychological effect is considered a drug.

That's more a phrase than a scientific biologicial fact, but I get yout point and I'm not really disagreeing with you. I mean, I could argue that drugs are have to be substances, but that would be pedantic.

One eyed Jack

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

Google “most harmful drugs”.

You’ll find many scientists and experts disagree with you and not only consider alcohol to be a drug but to be one of the most dangerous and harmful drugs of the lot.

I don’t need to google most harmful drugs. Any chemical substance is harmful depending upon any number of factors, it’s one of the reasons why drugs are categorised into different classes depending upon their chemical characteristics or their uses whether chemical, medicinal, recreational, and their effects on the human body or their influence in society.

I’m not arguing that alcohol isn’t a drug. For the third time now I’ve agreed that not only is alcohol a drug, but any chemical substance is a drug, even the chemical substances that constitute tide pods, ingested by space cadets.

Any chemical substance which induces a chemical reaction in the human body is a drug, and I don’t need either a scientist nor an expert to point out to me that alcohol is one of the most harmful and dangerous drugs of the whole lot because I’m well aware that ingesting alcohol is harmful, and addiction to it, as addiction to any substance, can be lethal.

That’s why I don’t really understand why anyone would point out that alcohol is also a drug as though it’s some sort of a counterpoint to the fact that alcohol for example is legislated for under certain conditions, where other substances are not.

FHFM50

I've never taken drugs because no ones ever offered me any.

The Bishop Basher

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Any chemical substance is harmful depending upon any number of factors, it’s one of the reasons why drugs are categorised into different classes depending upon their chemical characteristics or their uses whether chemical, medicinal, recreational, and their effects on the human body or their influence in society

If we class drugs based on their effects on the human body and influence on society, why does weed remain illegal when so much research and so many studies tell us that weed is far less harmful to both the individual and society then alcohol ?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s why I don’t really understand why anyone would point out that alcohol is also a drug as though it’s some sort of a counterpoint to the fact that alcohol for example is legislated for under certain conditions, where other substances are not.

It’s relevant because we should be legislating for less harmful substances like many other countries are currently doing and not criminalising people for enjoying a relatively harmless flower.

Attitudes like yours are getting in the way of reform for now but it will happen regardless.

Stateofyou

Lyan wrote: »

Everyone I've known who smokes weed on a regular basis has been a complete waster with no direction in life.

I've worked in 2 US states where it's legal, and even provided by the employer with the drink and food at work parties. It was as common to indulge in as alcohol was. Fancy vape and weed shops every other block catering to whatever high/experience/treatment one was looking for. In my experience those I knew who regularly used marijuana are among the best in their line of work and industry. Very involved in their communities, great parents, and amazing friends. Tended to be more calm and laid back too. Perspective is a mad thing.

One eyed Jack

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

If we class drugs based on their effects on the human body and influence on society, why does weed remain illegal when so much research and so many studies tell us that weed is far less harmful to both the individual and society then alcohol ?

Because we don’t want to add to the harm caused to individuals and to society already caused by alcohol. The harm caused to individuals and to society is also one of the reasons why here in Ireland at least, legislators are constantly introducing legislation to discourage the use of tobacco and e-cigarettes, and encourage smokers to quit as a matter of public health policy.

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

It’s relevant because we should be legislating for less harmful substances like many other countries are currently doing and not criminalising people for enjoying a relatively harmless flower.

You’ve already pointed out the harm caused to individuals and to society of using drugs, yet you want to use the harm you already acknowledge is caused by drugs, to argue that even more types of drugs which are currently illegal should be made legal? I suppose that makes sense in your mind. It isn’t even approaching a rational thought, from where I’m sitting.

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

Attitudes like yours are getting in the way of reform for now but it will happen regardless.

Sure it will. This is exactly why most people don’t bother engaging with people who are in favour of decriminalising drugs which are currently illegal in Irish jurisdiction, they already have themselves convinced that they’re able to predict the future and it’s all coming up golden brown.

White lighting

Just seen thread name jumped in havnt read a post so dont no where ye are at in it. Im 3 quarters way through bag charlie at the moment couple of cans. Work monday to Friday yeah ita not ideal doing drugs but **** it i like a bag now and again and im only going live once do what you enjoy.

punisher5112

Weed plays with the mind especially the very potent stuff available now...

Potential-Monke

mr_fegelien wrote: »

...like comparing weed to heroin...

I had a sergeant who was a garda in the drugs unit and newly promoted. He compared the two like for like, and even once said that weed was worse than heroin. I didn't ask him for much advice after that.

Lyan wrote: »

Everyone I've known who smokes weed on a regular basis has been a complete waster with no direction in life.

I like this. Waster. What constitutes a waster to you may not be to another. Do you mean they don't work as hard as you (or don't work), or don't have the same aspirations and life goals?

I'd argue that weed makes you re-evaluate life and makes you more content with what you have, rather than what you have not, and it definitely makes you care less about what other people think, which is a good thing imo.

Then again, like all substances that can be consumed, some people take it too far and fall into the stereotypical 'stoner' regime, the ones who are always referenced aside from the fact that they're a minority. Mad world we have.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because we don’t want to add to the harm caused to individuals and to society already caused by alcohol...

...This is exactly why most people don’t bother engaging with people who are in favour of decriminalising drugs which are currently illegal in Irish jurisdiction, they already have themselves convinced that they’re able to predict the future and it’s all coming up golden brown.

Two points. Maybe legalisation will turn alcoholics off alcohol? I know that I have no intention of becoming a 'drinker' again, but i'll dabble on the very odd occasion, which will be even less now because covid has me even more hermitised, and will for years. I also know of other people who are very different, but vastly better, when smoking instead of drinking. One of my friends has been 'forced' (ultimatum) off the weed, but she has no problem with all the drink he's replaced it with instead.

Re: engaging, well, the current system isn't working really is it? So there are 2 options really unless we're ok with the current situation re alcohol and drugs. A: Make drink illegal, increase the jail terms for consuming alcohol or drugs, and enforce it on all evenly. Or B: Leave alcohol legal, legalise the 'softer' drugs which are currently showing medical benefits, and see how that goes.

A: We have 'Merica to thank for what happens when you outlaw alcohol.
B: We can't predict the future, but studies and other countries have shown promise with this approach.

If I had to chose, I'd chose B, because I don't want it to keep going the way it currently is, as it's not working, and total prohibition of all drugs, including alcohol, would be a disaster. Just my opinion though.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Weed plays with the mind especially the very potent stuff available now...

While it's illegal, yes, that's a danger. You don't know what you're getting, what strain, thc content, cbd content, how it was grown, where it was grown, no guarantee of no additional elements to make it heavier.

If legal, it would be like going to the offie and deciding on cans (low thc strains), spirits (high thc strain) or getting on to yer man your parents know to get a bottle of poitin (super skunk weed). Legalisation would take the criminal and most dangerous elements out of the equation, and you can make informed decisions.

Again, with another friend of mine, you can tell if he's after getting a sativa or indica strain. One, he's stuck to the couch, munching like there's no tomorrow. The other, he's detailing his car to immaculate perfection, after cleaning the house from top to bottom and firing up the Green Egg with a ham hock. Different people, and he knows this himself. If he had a choice, he would always pick the energizing one and have the couch one for blowouts.

Keeping it illegal is not working. Now is the time to legalise, it will create jobs, it will bring in massive amounts of revenue and taxes for the country, when it's now badly needed. It will take money out of criminals hands. It will ensure better quality products, and a wider way to consume, taking the smoking side out it out of the equation for a lot of people. Yeah, some people will not be able for it, just like drink, but those few shouldn't be the reason to keep it in criminals hands.

I believed this before being a smoker, while a Garda. I firmly believe it now.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because we don’t want to add to the harm caused to individuals and to society already caused by alcohol. The harm caused to individuals and to society is also one of the reasons why here in Ireland at least, legislators are constantly introducing legislation to discourage the use of tobacco and e-cigarettes, and encourage smokers to quit as a matter of public health policy.





You’ve already pointed out the harm caused to individuals and to society of using drugs, yet you want to use the harm you already acknowledge is caused by drugs, to argue that even more types of drugs which are currently illegal should be made legal? I suppose that makes sense in your mind. It isn’t even approaching a rational thought, from where I’m sitting.





Sure it will. This is exactly why most people don’t bother engaging with people who are in favour of decriminalising drugs which are currently illegal in Irish jurisdiction, they already have themselves convinced that they’re able to predict the future and it’s all coming up golden brown.

Surely the point is to scale them to the extent the most harmful ones (heroin, alcohol, etc.) are illegal?

Buck_rodgers

Ketamine is the business
everyone should try it at least once

hatrickpatrick

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Why do so many people assume that every drug user is a homeless person in tracksuits? Talking to my family and a friend, when you mention weed, the first thing that pops into their mind is someone completely out of it on O'Connell Street, they don't even think of the millions that have smoked it in this country and are financially and mentally functioning.

There's no point in having rational discussions about drugs with some people who show astounding ignorance. I mean everyone is ignorant about some things but willfully talking **** like comparing weed to heroin when you don't have any experience with them makes me lose respect in your eyes.

It's simple, the propaganda effort started by those who saw drugs as a threat to "public morality" was extremely effective and its aftershocks continue to this day. It'll die out in time but don't forget that most recreational drugs were outlawed in and around the late 1960s and early 1970s on public morality grounds, that's not that long ago in terms of how long it takes for cultural propaganda to fade away.

Buck_rodgers

Drugs are no different than drink
some can partake with no problems while some go crazy
so the question is why are the majority deprived of a enjoyable experience because the minority cant handle it?

Potential-Monke

Exactly, and laws are meant to be changed, updated with the times.

One eyed Jack

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Two points. Maybe legalisation will turn alcoholics off alcohol? I know that I have no intention of becoming a 'drinker' again, but i'll dabble on the very odd occasion, which will be even less now because covid has me even more hermitised, and will for years. I also know of other people who are very different, but vastly better, when smoking instead of drinking. One of my friends has been 'forced' (ultimatum) off the weed, but she has no problem with all the drink he's replaced it with instead.

That seems incredibly unlikely. I mean, I’m not going to argue anecdotes with you as it wouldn’t be fair, I’ve seen far too many negative outcomes of drug addiction that by far and away outweigh the tiny number of high functioning addicts who are able to function and their addiction has an overall positive effect on them as individuals than the negatives of their drug use. I mean, one guy I used to know was entirely correct in pointing out to me that I spend more on cigarettes in a year than he spends on weed, we’d both have spent about the same amount on alcohol. He’s dead now. I was always statistically more likely to die than he was as he led an overall far healthier lifestyle than I did, but he suffered terribly with ill many health and one day he simply had enough of everything, couldn’t do it any more, and that was that. My point is that with anecdotes, there’s going to be an awful lot of information left out either way depending upon what way someone wants to argue their point - portray all the positives of the effects of drugs this one single individual, or all the negatives, when in reality nothing is actually so black and white and neatly packaged in favour of, or against the many, many different types of drugs and their effects on individuals lives.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Re: engaging, well, the current system isn't working really is it? So there are 2 options really unless we're ok with the current situation re alcohol and drugs. A: Make drink illegal, increase the jail terms for consuming alcohol or drugs, and enforce it on all evenly. Or B: Leave alcohol legal, legalise the 'softer' drugs which are currently showing medical benefits, and see how that goes.

A: We have 'Merica to thank for what happens when you outlaw alcohol.
B: We can't predict the future, but studies and other countries have shown promise with this approach.

If I had to chose, I'd chose B, because I don't want it to keep going the way it currently is, as it's not working, and total prohibition of all drugs, including alcohol, would be a disaster. Just my opinion though.

...

Keeping it illegal is not working. Now is the time to legalise, it will create jobs, it will bring in massive amounts of revenue and taxes for the country, when it's now badly needed. It will take money out of criminals hands. It will ensure better quality products, and a wider way to consume, taking the smoking side out it out of the equation for a lot of people. Yeah, some people will not be able for it, just like drink, but those few shouldn't be the reason to keep it in criminals hands.

I believed this before being a smoker, while a Garda. I firmly believe it now.

I think the current system works fine, could be better, but the lack of resources in all areas is always an issue no matter what policies are introduced, so I don’t think it’s as simple as choice A or B. I acknowledge that some studies from other countries have indeed shown promise in using approach B, but they only contribute in part to the argument for legalising, licensing and regulating softer drugs for medicinal and recreational purposes. I mean, if we actually do look at evidence from ‘Murica, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that this whole idea of legalisation actually hasn’t had the intended positive effects on the economy such as massive increases in taxes and revenue, employment opportunities, a reduction in the black market economy for drugs and so on. But one doesn’t need to be a genius either to have known that was inevitable -


Cannabis' Black Market Problem

How Legal Marijuana Is Helping the Black Market


Now you could of course if you wanted to, point and say “look at Canada” by way of suggesting that it’s decriminalisation and regulation is working well there, but I’d be looking at it and thinking - It’s Canada, I wouldn’t do that to my worst enemy, you’d need to be on some sort of drugs to try and argue the positives of living in Canada overall, rather than just cherrypicking the bits you like about it and ignoring the bits that don’t suit your argument.

Overall, I wouldn’t want to live in either Canada or Portugal, they’re completely different societies to Ireland, and therefore we can’t simply transplant one aspect of what appears to be having a positive effect there and apply it to Ireland. It would be like trying to argue that weed takes all your troubles away, you should try some, while neglecting to mention the potential for the risk of increased paranoia in that particular individual.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Surely the point is to scale them to the extent the most harmful ones (heroin, alcohol, etc.) are illegal?

We do that already though, that’s why some drugs are legal, some drugs are highly regulated and monitored, and some drugs remain illegal.

The Bishop Basher

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sure it will. This is exactly why most people don’t bother engaging with people who are in favour of decriminalising drugs which are currently illegal in Irish jurisdiction, they already have themselves convinced that they’re able to predict the future and it’s all coming up golden brown.

Meh..

I couldn’t be arsed spending my Sunday typing out long multi quote replies and trying to educate you out of your archaic “all drugs are bad” mindset.

Thankfully your attitude is dying out, quite literally with the older generations, and as the world slowly educates itself and realises how utterly futile and pointless the “War on drugs” has been.
.

The Bishop Basher

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We do that already though, that’s why some drugs are legal, some drugs are highly regulated and monitored, and some drugs remain illegal.

Not true.

If what you say is correct we would have no choice but to ban alcohol and legalise weed.

This is just one of many studies you could start to educate yourself with.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext

Findings

MCDA modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places.

One eyed Jack

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

Meh..

I couldn’t be arsed spending my Sunday typing out long multi quote replies and trying to educate you out of your archaic “all drugs are bad” mindset.

Thankfully your attitude is dying out, quite literally with the older generations, and as the world slowly educates itself and realises how utterly futile and pointless the “War on drugs” has been.
.

I never asked you to educate me about anything, that’s inviting you to preach to me, and frankly I too would rather you didn’t.

You’ve definitely got the wrong end of the stick though if you imagine I’m suggesting that all drugs are bad. I have on numerous occasions now acknowledged that any given drugs influence, efficacy and outcomes is dependent upon numerous factors and the issues aren’t so black and white as “drugs are good/drugs are bad”, etc.

On that basis, it’s your own simplistic mindset just either hasn’t caught up to the fact that people are indeed becoming more educated about drugs, and that’s why for example we understand that in Victorian times cocaine was a popular drug among the upper classes, and religion was a popular drug among the underclass, Marx for all his philosophical failings wasn’t all that far off in that observation at least.

We also know from studying the period of prohibition in American history that there were numerous health benefits to prohibition of alcohol, lower rates of cirrhosis of the liver among the population for example, and that kind of information influences public health policies to this day. In that respect at least I would argue that no, the “war on drugs” as you put it, hasn’t been futile, we’ve learned a lot from it, and what are effective policies, and what are advantages and disadvantages of one policy over another, all sorts of nuance really, that preachy fundamentalist types would rather we ignore in their quest to promote their own ideological nonsense that previous policies have failed so let’s just not bother our holes and decriminalise drugs altogether.

There have always been people with your attitude throughout human history, and there always will be, but because you lack the motivation to make your ideology a reality (you admit yourself you can’t even be arsed to educate people who don’t see things the way you do), it’s never going to become a reality. Nothing ever happened without someone making an effort to make it happen, and judging by the lack of effort you’re making, I don’t think I need be too concerned that your opinion is likely to be popular enough to gain sufficient support among the public any time soon, let alone sufficient support among politicians in this country. The last hope you had in Ming Flanagan grew up and fcuked off to a cushy job as an MEP and abandoned his silly little campaign that he’d been waging for a long time in this country to legalise cannabis, fcuking head melt. And that’s the sort of peanut headed advocate you have to represent your interests, again - I’m not too concerned about your opinion gaining sufficient traction to be taken seriously.

You should be happy with the fact that Government haven’t chosen to regulate cannabis or you’d still have to pay black market dealers for it because the price for consumers in a regulated market is too much to be considered worth paying for, it doesn’t matter that they can be more picky about the quality when the reality is it’s simply beyond their means unless they engage in criminal enterprise themselves in order to afford the good stuff.

One eyed Jack

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

Not true.

If what you say is correct we would have no choice but to ban alcohol and legalise weed.

This is just one of many studies you could start to educate yourself with.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext

Findings

MCDA modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places.

What I say is true, and that’s precisely why some drugs are legal, some drugs are highly regulated and monitored, and some drugs are illegal. The findings of that particular study are as I pointed out earlier just one aspect of the whole range of issues involved in legislation regarding drugs. I don’t dispute the findings, didn’t need to be a genius to be aware of them either, but they are only one aspect of a larger perspective, one that you don’t appear to want to acknowledge, but it’s due to the fact that most people do acknowledge it that we have the legislation we currently do, and which all evidence suggests is becoming even more restrictive regarding all types of drugs, not just alcohol, tobacco or indeed weed.

Instead of being preachy about it and coming off like you really need to spark up and chill out a bit, perhaps a more lighthearted approach might be more effective campaign strategy -


15 Reasons Why Smoking Weed Is Actually Really F*cking Good For You

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We do that already though, that’s why some drugs are legal, some drugs are highly regulated and monitored, and some drugs remain illegal.

Em - no, we don't. Have a look at the drugs I mentioned again.

This is not being preachy, this is adhering to sceintific evidence.

Sam Hain

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers... and also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of Budweiser, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.

Fear and loathing in lockdown

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Em - no, we don't. Have a look at the drugs I mentioned again.

I’m looking -

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Surely the point is to scale them to the extent the most harmful ones (heroin, alcohol, etc.) are illegal?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This is not being preachy, this is adhering to sceintific evidence.

That is being preachy - according to you we’re doing it wrong because we don’t scale them as harmful according to evidence which suits you. Simply calling it scientific evidence doesn’t actually mean a whole lot in legislative terms. It’s as poor an argument for legalising drugs which are currently prohibited as the other poster presenting the findings from a report of a one day conference commissioned by a charity organisation to justify their own existence and continued funding - present something as harmful and then argue that it should be prohibited, while at the same time arguing that something else which is even more harmful should be decriminalised.

The scale already exists, you just don’t like where the positions of the various drugs are placed on that scale according to the harm they present to society. However where they are currently on that scale already represents the harm they present to society, which is why alcohol isn’t as restricted as weed, and e-cigarettes are becoming as restricted as the bath salts they used sell in head shops, and people sourcing new drugs faster than the legislation can keep up -

Nine new legal highs replace banned drugs

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Jesus Chrsit, you really know how to make people waste posts, don't you?

I never actaully mentioned a scale, but seeing as you don't want to use any scale that I can link to that we should use - link me to a scale detailing drugs linked to harm that you think we should use.

Also - I'm not trying to leaglaise drugs - I'm trying to make the legalisation more consistent!

Eh? Take responsibility for your own decision to respond to my points. You’re certainly under no obligation to respond!

I never said I don’t want to use any scale that you link to, I’m making the point that the evidence you’re presenting, while it can certainly inform the discussion, it’s not the slam dunk in terms of evidence you need it to be in order to make legalisation of all the various types of drugs consistent. They aren’t going to be consistent because there are numerous differences between them and factors which are considered when drafting legislation, which isn’t simply based upon scientific evidence.

If it were, then pointing out that e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than cigarettes would be a good argument against introducing further legislation to restrict sales and use of e-cigarettes. But that’s not the only factor which is considered, which is why the legislation was introduced to comply with an EU directive -

European Tobacco Products Directive (EUTPD) (2014/40/EU)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Eh? Take responsibility for your own decision to respond to my points. You’re certainly under no obligation to respond!

I never said I don’t want to use any scale that you link to, I’m making the point that the evidence you’re presenting, while it can certainly inform the discussion, it’s not the slam dunk in terms of evidence you need it to be in order to make legalisation of all the various types of drugs consistent. They aren’t going to be consistent because there are numerous differences between them and factors which are considered when drafting legislation, which isn’t simply based upon scientific evidence.

If it were, then pointing out that e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than cigarettes would be a good argument against introducing further legislation to restrict sales and use of e-cigarettes. But that’s not the only factor which is considered, which is why the legislation was introduced to comply with an EU directive -

European Tobacco Products Directive (EUTPD) (2014/40/EU)

Jesus Chrsit, you really know how to make people waste posts, don't you?
Here - link number one:
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-the-most-dangerous-drug

ANd if that doesn't do it for you, here's a whole batch of graphs with nearly every single one of them listing alcohol at the top. Furthermore, mostof them have illegal drugs such as LSD well down the list.
https://www.google.com/search?q=most+dangerous+drugs&sxsrf=ALeKk02mjMP2Tvr7hTeaj94T7T16NalIkA:1590313264378&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihs9HJmszpAhVFXBoKHbCHAoAQ_AUoAXoECAwQAw&biw=1366&bih=663

Proven - the scale on which we rank and ban drugs is NOTHING to do with harmfulness of drug to either the user or society; because if they did alcohol would be one of the first ones banned.

---

You've become the person the OP talks about when he says "people who show astounding ignorance. I mean everyone is ignorant about some things but willfully talking ****

Proof:
In the course of this argument, you've gone from not actually knowing what a drug is, to not knowing how dangerous some are and aren't and not being able to tell, to teling people that they are "preachy" because they disagree with you, to strawman arguments (I'm never said I'm pro legalisation) and finally to desperatly linking to 10-year-old stories about e-cigarettes to specifying tobacco...?
That's NOT me being preachy - all the evidence can be seen in your post history of this thread alone - nor is my highlighting this preachy. Disagreeing with you and highlighting you flaws in the argument is not preachy.

Next step is usually the moral highground and ad homeinem name calling, but I'm hoping you won't stoop that low.

One way or ther other, I've proven what I came here to prove - wilfull ignorace as the OP put it - and I've done it.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Proven - the scale on which we rank and ban drugs is NOTHING to do with harmfulness of drug to either the user or society; because if they did alcohol would be one of the first ones banned.

You haven’t actually proven what you claim though. You’ve presented evidence which suggests that there is a poor correlation between the classifications which are used to ban or regulate drugs on the basis of their harmful effects on individuals or society, but as I’ve already pointed out, the criteria used in your evidence is determined by what the commissioning body considers harmful.

The economist link you posted refers to the same ten year old report from the lancet that was posted earlier in the thread by another poster, so it’s a bit rich on your part that you’d be berating me for presenting out of date data when the article you linked to is based upon an article which is ten years old already and is based upon a charity organisations commissioned report.

That’s why alcohol isn’t banned outright, because it’s not considered as harmful to society as other drugs. To say the way we regulate alcohol and other drugs has NOTHING to do with their harmful effects on individuals or society simply isn’t true. It’s just that you don’t agree with how harm is defined, which is fair enough.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You've become the person the OP talks about when he says "people who show astounding ignorance. I mean everyone is ignorant about some things but willfully talking ****

Proof:
In the course of this argument, you've gone from not actually knowing what a drug is, to not knowing how dangerous some are and aren't and not being able to tell, to teling people that they are "preachy" because they disagree with you, to strawman arguments (I'm never said I'm pro legalisation) and finally to desperatly linking to 10-year-old stories about e-cigarettes to specifying tobacco...?

That's NOT me being preachy - all the evidence can be seen in your post history of this thread alone - nor is my highlighting this preachy. Disagreeing with you and highlighting you flaws in the argument is not preachy.

Next step is usually the moral highground and ad homeinem name calling, but I'm hoping you won't stoop that low.

One way or ther other, I've proven what I came here to prove - wilfull ignorace as the OP put it - and I've done it.

Again, you haven’t proven what you claim. You’re claiming I’m wilfully ignorant, while I haven’t disagreed with you that alcohol is a drug. I also didn’t say that poster was being preachy because I disagreed with them. I said it was being preachy because that poster made the point that they didn’t want to educate me, and I said your point was being preachy because according to you - we’re doing it wrong.

We’ve already stopped that low when you’re telling me I’m the kind of person the OP talks about when he says "people who show astounding ignorance. I mean everyone is ignorant about some things but willfully talking ****“, if that’s not an ad hom when all else fails, then you and I have very different ideas of what constitutes a personal attack while falling to refute the central point of an argument.

All you’ve actually proven is what I suggested earlier -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I did take it up with the OP. You chose to respond to my post, but when your idea of rational discussion amounts to “well they should be, because it is”, that’s the very definition of preachy, as opposed to rational discussion.

That appears to be the source of the OP’s frustration too - nobody wants to have a discussion with him on his terms.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Just like nobody is saying alcohol is a drug, only the space cadets who are wasting their lives on drugs and bemoan the fact that nobody wants to have a rational conversation with them about their drug use.

dePeatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m looking -








That is being preachy - according to you we’re doing it wrong because we don’t scale them as harmful according to evidence which suits you. Simply calling it scientific evidence doesn’t actually mean a whole lot in legislative terms. It’s as poor an argument for legalising drugs which are currently prohibited as the other poster presenting the findings from a report of a one day conference commissioned by a charity organisation to justify their own existence and continued funding - present something as harmful and then argue that it should be prohibited, while at the same time arguing that something else which is even more harmful should be decriminalised.

The scale already exists, you just don’t like where the positions of the various drugs are placed on that scale according to the harm they present to society. However where they are currently on that scale already represents the harm they present to society, which is why alcohol isn’t as restricted as weed, and e-cigarettes are becoming as restricted as the bath salts they used sell in head shops, and people sourcing new drugs faster than the legislation can keep up -

Nine new legal highs replace banned drugs

Was just reading your link there, it is obvious that making legal highs illegal is a waste of time and possibly dangerous as other untested drugs replace them. This is creating a problem not solving one.

Prohibition has not worked, it has created a drain on resources for Garda, Prisons etc and a violent criminal class just like alcohol prohibition did in the US.

Decriminalise the lot same as Portugal and end this madness.

The Bishop Basher

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but as I’ve already pointed out, the criteria used in your evidence is determined by what the commissioning body considers harmful.

88 people die every month from alcohol in this country.

0 people die from cannabis.

That's 1056 people a year dying from alcohol versus 0 from cannabis.

I would contest that the commissioning bodies considerations are wrong.

I could give you any number of stats like the fact that 76% of rape defendants were drinking at the time of the rape or that almost 50% of murder perpetrators were drunk when they carried out the murder. We could talk about the fact that 97% of public order offenses were alcohol related or that over half of those found guilty of assault were drinking at the time and alcohol is also, surprise surprise, the most common drug involved in sexual assaults.

We could then go on to talk about the significant role that alcohol plays in both domestic violence and sexual abuse in the home. It's effect on society through increased crime, it's effects on our health system through increased admissions to A&E and the increased pressure on our Gardai and court system.

We could talk about how absenteeism due to alcohol costs the state hundreds of millions every year and in a survey about the affect alcohol consumption has on other people around the drinker, 58% of those responding said they had been negatively impacted by someone else's drinking.

I assume you must have similar stats for cannabis given your position so let's compare the dangers using facts rather then opinions.

One eyed Jack

dePeatrick wrote: »

Was just reading your link there, it is obvious that making legal highs illegal is a waste of time and possibly dangerous as other untested drugs replace them. This is creating a problem not solving one.

Prohibition has not worked, it has created a drain on resources for Garda, Prisons etc and a violent criminal class just like alcohol prohibition did in the US.

Undoubtedly, prohibition is a massive drain on resources, no argument from me there, but it doesn’t, and did not create a violent criminal class that didn’t exist already, just like it didn’t do during alcohol prohibition in the US -


Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.

Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.

...

Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after.


Actually, Prohibition Was a Success

The article was written in 1989 by a professor of criminal justice at Harvard. Now before you have a go at me for posting out of date sources, I would remind you that you brought up Prohibition in the US as an example, which is 100 years out of date at this stage.

dePeatrick wrote: »

Decriminalise the lot same as Portugal and end this madness.

That’s just not going to happen. Ireland is not the same society as Portugal, nor have we the same socialist influence as Portugal in politics, nor is our economy in the crapper the same as Portugal’s was when they introduced decriminalisation. People in this country just don’t want to decriminalise drugs, and it’s not because of ignorance, it’s because of quite the opposite - they’ve experienced the devastating effects and consequences of drugs which have destroyed their communities and had devastating effects on their families and the people they care about. Attempting to sweep that under the carpet or ignore the evidence which doesn’t suit your argument doesn’t make the evidence go away, and that’s why so many people are so resistant to drugs being decriminalised, because they don’t want that sort of devastation to become a socially acceptable consequence of decriminalisation.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s Canada, I wouldn’t do that to my worst enemy, you’d need to be on some sort of drugs to try and argue the positives of living in Canada overall

Canada is one of the best countries in the world to live in. Proof that the bigger the desire to state one's opinion as fact, repeatedly, at great length, the less that that opinion is worth listening to.

jam_mac_jam

punisher5112 wrote: »

Different really though as one is legal the rest aren't.....

Yes it's a drug and the majority can handle it and enjoy a few at the weekend or every so often....

Of course there are those that can't handle it at all but what's really taken off is the dangerous cocktail of the mixing of both....

That's the danger.

So the same as illegal drugs then.

endacl

fineso.mom wrote: »

'Your' family and 'a' friend hardly counts as 'so many' people.

It's all the people he's ever spoken to. 'All the people' certainly qualifies as a lot of people.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s just not going to happen. Ireland is not the same society as Portugal, nor have we the same socialist influence as Portugal in politics, nor is our economy in the crapper the same as Portugal’s was when they introduced decriminalisation.

SF won the most votes in the election.
We are heading for a 30bn deficit this year.
Your assertions do not correspond with reality.

People in this country just don’t want to decriminalise drugs

Remember the 'good old days' when the same was repeatedly asserted as fact about abortion? How did that work out for you?

and it’s not because of ignorance, it’s because of quite the opposite - they’ve experienced the devastating effects and consequences of drugs which have destroyed their communities and had devastating effects on their families and the people they care about.

This is, of course, complete bollocks in relation to legalising cannabis which is the drug under discussion.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Canada is one of the best countries in the world to live in. Proof that the bigger the desire to state one's opinion as fact, repeatedly, at great length, the less that that opinion is worth listening to.

I take it the same standard applies to your own opinion then?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

SF won the most votes in the election.
We are heading for a 30bn deficit this year.
Your assertions do not correspond with reality.

This only happened in the last couple of months, and doesn’t counter what I said at the time when decriminalisation happened in Portugal.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Remember the 'good old days' when the same was repeatedly asserted as fact about abortion? How did that work out for you?

This is, of course, complete bollocks in relation to legalising cannabis which is the drug under discussion.

What are you doing trying to talk about abortion for then in a discussion about drugs? And what I said applies equally to cannabis as any other drugs.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I take it the same standard applies to your own opinion then?

No. Because I don't post opinion as fact. Repeatedly. At great length. Like you do.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What are you doing trying to talk about abortion for then in a discussion about drugs?

Because you are making the same, empty, assertion of your opinion as fact about the views of the Irish public as was repeatedly and entirely wrongly made about abortion.

So, exactly which communities have been "destroyed" by cannabis then?

Rodin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This only happened in the last couple of months, and doesn’t counter what I said at the time when decriminalisation happened in Portugal.



What are you doing trying to talk about abortion for then in a discussion about drugs? And what I said applies equally to cannabis as any other drugs.

Can't walk around Lisbon without being tortured by drug dealers.
Pain in the hole.

The Bishop Basher

*snip*

Indeed. Or alcohol..

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No. Because I don't post opinion as fact. Repeatedly. At great length. Like you do.

Well we both only mention Canada once - in my opinion I wouldn’t do it to my worst enemy, I wouldn’t want to live there. In your opinion it’s a great place to live. Neither of us went on about it at great length, at least I don’t think we did, and that’s why I asked do the same standards apply to you. And in your opinion of course they don’t.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Because you are making the same, empty, assertion of your opinion as fact about the views of the Irish public as was repeatedly and entirely wrongly made about abortion.

I’m not, any opinions I’ve expressed I’ve always presented evidence for it, and so far the evidence of an appetite to decriminalise drugs among the Irish public just doesn’t exist. My opinion regarding any appetite among the Irish public for abortion is still borne out by the fact that only one third of the Irish electorate voted in favour of repealing the 8th amendment. The arguments are still ongoing about the provision of any services, and I provided evidence already that 80% of GPs do not wish to provide abortion services -


We must respect the right of the remaining 80% who do not want to provide this service, the vast majority of whom will facilitate their patients through onwards referral to those who will.


'Abortion is not part of routine general practice. 85% of GPs are of this opinion'

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So, exactly which communities have been "destroyed" by cannabis then?

Communities across Ireland, the length and breadth of the country have been destroyed by it, and families and young people particularly whose lives have been devastated by it -


Ten years ago, I used to meet the odd teenager who was referred to our services because he/she was caught smoking a bit of hash, this being cannabis resin.

The associated problems were quite minimal and these cases were at the mild end of the ‘addiction’ spectrum. Now, I am frequently meeting young people who look a lot like the caricatures of addiction portrayed in the scaremongering B movies of 1930s America, like Reefer Madness.

I used to lampoon these movies, during lectures, as great examples of how to do prevention work really badly. I have had to think again.

What has changed? Hash has disappeared and has, instead, been replaced by ‘weed’, the dried plant material. This plant is genuinely complicated in its chemical make-up, containing dozens of psychoactive substances, which we call cannabinoids.

The best-known, and most important, are THC and cannabidiol. Modern ‘weed’ contains lots of the former and little of the latter. THC is addictive and associated with adverse mental health problems.

Against this backdrop of a change in the type of cannabis available in Ireland, there has been a surge in use. The recently published population survey by the NACDA reports that 8.1% of people aged 15 to 34 years used cannabis in the past month, this being almost the double the rate of the preceding ten years.

About 10% of people who use a drug like cannabis are dependent upon it. This suggests that there are 9,000 young people in Ireland, today, whose lives are being damaged by this drug, and this damage is collateral, too, in terms of negative impact on family and loved-ones, who are left to pick up the pieces.


It’s time to smoke out the lies about cannabis


And on the bill at that time to introduce legislation to allow cannabis for medicinal purposes -


This is a bill to legalise the use and distribution of cannabis, for any purpose, albeit asking doctors to provide it with a fig leaf of respectability.

Most doctors will run a mile from it. However, enough of them will be happy to facilitate this charade for a range of diverse motivations. I struggle to see how the Medical Council could, or would, provide oversight for such a practice.


But what would the author of that article know, having the temerity to express their opinions as fact?


Dr Bobby Smyth is lecturer in public health at Trinity College Dublin and consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist in the HSE’s Adolescent Addiction Service.


As for what became of that bill, sponsored by the usual socialist suspects?


The Oireachtas Health Committee has thrown out a bill proposing to legalise cannabis for medicinal use.

According to the committee report released today, the bill poses “major legal issues, unintended policy consequences and a lack of safeguards against harmful use of cannabis by patients.”

The committee claimed the bill required too many amendments – insisting it could act as a Trojan horse on the road to the full legalisation of the drug.

...

Deputy O’Connell warned that “cannabis has many psychoactive effects which are potentially harmful,” adding that it is “not possible to regulate the whole plant extract of a plant which has over 100 varieties and several hundred components.”

“While the Committee said it appreciated the aim of the Bill - which claimed to be about alleviating suffering - aspects of the Bill caused them huge concern as to how it would be implemented in a careful way,” she said.

“The Committee members found the Bill to be as much about decriminalising the use of cannabis as it is about promoting it for medicinal use.”

She said the committee’s primary role is to safeguard the public, adding that she believes today’s report “does just that.”


Health Committee throws out medicinal cannabis bill

Gooey Looey

Rise Of The Simps wrote: »

No comparison. One bad pint won't kill me. I don't make it my identity like drug morons do, I don't claim whiskey is harmless and cures cancer.

MORE THAN 1,000 people die from alcohol-related deaths in Ireland every year, that’s three people per day.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Rise Of The Simps wrote: »

No comparison. One bad pint won't kill me. I don't make it my identity like drug morons do, I don't claim whiskey is harmless and cures cancer.

Bad pints are a myth. There are no bad pints - just bad drinkers.

Gooey Looey

Rise Of The Simps wrote: »

Not my problem there's weak people with no self control. Point is a bad pint won't kill me like a dodgy pill will.

But hey drugs are cool and legalise them everything will be perfect.

There would be no dodgy pills and no black market if they were regulated and taken in a safe environment.

Gooey Looey

Rise Of The Simps wrote: »

Right and how is that going to happen exactly? Who is going to make the drugs? And the criminals are just going to quit? Don't you think they'll just extort those making and selling the drugs?

I'm sorry but this childish fantasy of legalising hard drigs is not happening.

Great. This is exactly what we need our politicians to discuss going forward, what has worked, what is safe, what is unsafe, what we can do to make things safer. Not this blanket "all drugs are bad" malarkey you jumped in with!!

I would start with small steps, make it legal to grow a plant for consumption in your own home. That's not hurting anyone. I lived in Holland 20 years ago where they offered pill testing in clubs and made sure there was plenty of water.

Gooey Looey

Rise Of The Simps wrote: »

And what exactly is good about cocaine or weed? You realise the world is not run by college students? Sorry pal, your drugs uptopia ain't happening.

What harm is someone consuming cannabis in their own home causing? And for the record it's a long time since I was a student, I'm 46, father of a 21 and 22 year olds both finished college

Gooey Looey

Rise Of The Simps wrote: »

Cannabis is not harmless. It can do a lot damage, especially to the mental health of young people. The fact you have such an immature attitude towards drugs proves the point.

You were the one who claimed alcohol was completely harmless!!

Gooey Looey

Rise Of The Simps wrote: »

Lol no. I said one bad pint won't kill me the way a pill can.

You said it's not your problem there's weak people with no self control. If you're calling for drugs to be banned you should also be accepting that alcohol should be banned for the exact same reasons. Alcohol kills 3 people per day, ok just the weak ones who have no self control

MadYaker

Rise Of The Simps wrote: »

And what exactly is good about cocaine or weed? You realise the world is not run by college students? Sorry pal, your drugs uptopia ain't happening.

But anybody who wants them can get them very easily so them being illegal makes absolutely no difference. I could have anything I want delivered to my door by An Post before the end of the week. I can do it all on my phone.