drug use

Wanderer78

Rise Of The Simps wrote:

'Crack and meth have to be legal because some people go overboard on the pints'.

I've never consumed illegal drugs, and I think they should also be legalised, alcohol is one hell of a dangerous drug

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

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?

Accountability, Simp(le)s!

Same as any other moderated or regulated good or practice

Of course, there'll still be a black market, just as there is for the legasl dangerous drugs.

MadYaker

Rise Of The Simps wrote: »

Ok round up the drug dealers so. What was that guy in America, Ross Ulbricht? (Not sure of spelling). He's going to die behind bars. Keep those sentences coming please.

Doesn’t matter how many get locked up there will always be more and more and more because the demand is never going away.

Drug laws have been the same since the 60s or 70s and drugs are cheaper and more widely available now than they have ever been. The quality is also excellent now as well. I don’t really want anything to get legalised because it won’t make them any easier to get and the prices will go up.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Rise Of The Simps wrote: »

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

Well, if you can't drink responsibly, I can totally understand why you wouldn't want other drugs to be legalised, but then that's just you!

The rest of us manage fine after a few pints.

Strumms

weisses wrote: »

People who are drinking alcohol are drug users ....

But only in very rare occasions does alcohol and the consumption thereof, contribute to crime, harm or violence... it does yes from time to time also but not nearly on the same scale as drugs...

99.9999% of people this weekend who go out for a pint say if covid isn’t hanging around, cause no trouble out, when they get home the same...

Look again at drug users/abusers... the domino effect of financing serious criminality and criminals that goes further beyond the acts of buying and using... people are and have been killed because of drugs... you don’t see publicans shooting each other if a new pub opens on what they perceive is ‘ their patch ‘... publicans generally operate responsible, safe and ethical business... drug dealing scumbags, by their nature, don’t.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Strumms wrote: »

But only in very rare occasions does alcohol and the consumption thereof, contribute to crime, harm or violence... it does yes from time to time also but not nearly on the same scale as drugs...

99.9999% of people this weekend who go out for a pint say if covid isn’t hanging around, cause no trouble out, when they get home the same...

Look again at drug users/abusers... the domino effect of financing serious criminality and criminals that goes further beyond the acts of buying and using... people are and have been killed because of drugs... you don’t see publicans shooting each other if a new pub opens on what they perceive is ‘ their patch ‘... publicans generally operate responsible, safe and ethical business... drug dealing scumbags, by their nature, don’t.

When have you seen this happen with any drug other than cocaine?

Strumms

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

When have you seen this happen with any drug other than cocaine?

Cocaine isn’t enough ? Many instances for heroin, ecstasy and more besides, many..

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

When have you seen this happen with any drug other than cocaine?

You don’t remember the bould Cornelius Price?

(With a name like that it’s hard to forget :pac: )


Bid to smuggle mind-bending Spice into Wheatfield Prison foiled after gardai discover drone outside slammer’s walls


Things didn’t go so well for Cornelius after that -


Gangster Cornelius Price with links to gang suspected of brutal murder of innocent couple rushed to hospital after getting battered in jail attack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Strumms wrote: »

Cocaine isn’t enough ? Many instances for heroin, ecstasy and more besides, many..

Ya see, THIS is what we can't have sensible discussions about drugs. People think that one drug cases a problem, therfore every drug must do.

When have you ever heard of a truf war over ecstacy?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don’t remember the bould Cornelius Price?

(With a name like that it’s hard to forget :pac: )


Bid to smuggle mind-bending Spice into Wheatfield Prison foiled after gardai discover drone outside slammer’s walls


Things didn’t go so well for Cornelius after that -


Gangster Cornelius Price with links to gang suspected of brutal murder of innocent couple rushed to hospital after getting battered in jail attack

Nope. But your lack of credibility on the subject has been proven and a lack of summation of relevance of subkect and linking to articles in the Sun doesn't help.

corner of hells

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

When have you seen this happen with any drug other than cocaine?

Snow blow, spice , head shop products .

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Rise Of The Simps wrote: »

Do you have an IQ in the 10s? I said one pill can kill you. It happens every year to kids who fall for the 'drugs are cool and harmless' meme.

Get served a bad pint and what happens? You feel a bit sick. No comparison.

As I said, no such thing as bad pints - just bad drinkers.

If you got sick or died from drugs - legal or otherwise - it's because you were a ****ing idiot who shouldn't have imbibed in the first place.

Only take what you can handle and only take from tried and trusted sources. Drugs 101. And thats ALL drugs - legal and illegal.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Nope. But your lack of credibility on the subject has been proven and a lack of summation of relevance of subkect and linking to articles in the Sun doesn't help.

Unnecessarily salty there Princess!

You asked the question, you were provided with evidence.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If you got sick or died from drugs - legal or otherwise - it's because you were a ****ing idiot who shouldn't have imbibed in the first place.

Only take what you can handle and only take from tried and trusted sources. Drugs 101. And thats ALL drugs - legal and illegal.

Yeah y’see that attitude right there is exactly why drugs are prohibited, because of a selfish lack of responsibility towards others. That’s cool and all as it applies individually, but the State doesn’t have the luxury of your individualistic indifference - they have a duty to protect people from themselves, even those people who imagine they know aaaaaallll about drugs, and everyone else is just ignorant, of course.

Strumms

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Ya see, THIS is what we can't have sensible discussions about drugs. People think that one drug cases a problem, therfore every drug must do.

When have you ever heard of a truf war over ecstacy?




Nope. But your lack of credibility on the subject has been proven and a lack of summation of relevance of subkect and linking to articles in the Sun doesn't help.

Sensible eh.. you might want to procure a dictionary and look up the meaning. :rolleyes:

Same for credible, you have zero credibility the guff you are coming out with, remember, google is your friend...


Turf wars over ecstasy..

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/children-young-eight-caught-up-14009167

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/ireland/arid-10065515.html

Gooey Looey

Rise Of The Simps wrote: »

So a naive 18 year old who dies is a '****ing idiot'. Wow, so compassionate.

One of those weak people with no self control who are not your problem

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Unnecessarily salty there Princess!

You asked the question, you were provided with evidence.

The Sun and a name is not evidence.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah y’see that attitude right there is exactly why drugs are prohibited, because of a selfish lack of responsibility towards others. That’s cool and all as it applies individually, but the State doesn’t have the luxury of your individualistic indifference - they have a duty to protect people from themselves, even those people who imagine they know aaaaaallll about drugs, and everyone else is just ignorant, of course.

if that was the case, alcohol would be banned as you well know.

I only claim to know all about the drugs I've taken. I did the research before I took them. If I haven't taken it, I can't claim to know about it and vice versa.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Rise Of The Simps wrote: »

So a naive 18 year old who dies is a '****ing idiot'. Wow, so compassionate.

If s/he died because s/he took a drug he knew nothing about and/or from soenone he didn't know, then yes - a ****ing idiot. Being 18 or niave is no excuse. You can vote, drive a car and have sex at 18. You cna go to jail for life for muder at 18. You're an adult at 18. No reason you can't be an idiot and people die from being idiots.

(EXCEPTION BEING - if said 18 year old did not know they were consuming the drug or took it against their will)

Gooey Looey

Rise Of The Simps wrote: »

Big difference between some old guy downing a bottle of whiskey a day and a kid who took a gamble on a pill.

Make it safe then if you're worried about their safety!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Strumms wrote: »

Sensible eh.. you might want to procure a dictionary and look up the meaning. :rolleyes:

Same for credible, you have zero credibility the guff you are coming out with, remember, google is your friend...


Turf wars over ecstasy..

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/children-young-eight-caught-up-14009167

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/ireland/arid-10065515.html

First one carried a whole load of drugs - not just ecstacy, second one probabyl did as well, but fair enough.

Question then is: would legalising them make it safer? Legal drugs are traded on the black market as well, as we all know.

Necro

Rise Of The Simps wrote: »

Ok big man, don't forget to tell the grieving parents their child was a moron.

Mod Note:

Rise of the Simps, watch the tone of your posts, this is not acceptable. If you have an issue with a post, report it.

MadYaker

Strumms wrote: »

But only in very rare occasions does alcohol and the consumption thereof, contribute to crime, harm or violence... it does yes from time to time also but not nearly on the same scale as drugs...

99.9999% of people this weekend who go out for a pint say if covid isn’t hanging around, cause no trouble out, when they get home the same...

Look again at drug users/abusers... the domino effect of financing serious criminality and criminals that goes further beyond the acts of buying and using... people are and have been killed because of drugs... you don’t see publicans shooting each other if a new pub opens on what they perceive is ‘ their patch ‘... publicans generally operate responsible, safe and ethical business... drug dealing scumbags, by their nature, don’t.

What are you on about? Alcohol contributes to more crime and violence than any other drug in this country. Before the pubs got closed a & e was full of people hurt in alcohol related incidents every weekend. It’s the number one cause of addiction here.

Publicans operate safely and responsibly because the drug they are selling is legal.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The Sun and a name is not evidence.

I linked to the articles?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

if that was the case, alcohol would be banned as you well know.

That is the case, and that’s why the sales, supply and consumption of alcohol is heavily regulated, and other substances such as weed, are prohibited, and for good reasons too according to Kate O’ Connell, a qualified pharmacist, who was a member of the Oireachtas Health Committee which threw out the bill to legalise marijuana for medicinal purposes, as it was quite obvious it would lead to marijuana being legalised for recreational purposes.

Gino’s made claims that his bill was sabotaged by Kate O’ Connell and that the Health Committee ignored the scientific evidence (similar to claims you made yourself earlier actually), but does it sound credible to you that a qualified pharmacist would either be ignorant of, or ignore the scientific evidence?

I’d say myself she’s more well educated and better qualified to offer an opinion on drugs and public health than Gino tbh.

MadYaker

You're absolutely right. Just look at The Netherlands. Marijuana has been legal there since the 80s and its basically a third world country! Just like Canada and all the US states that legalised it. Absolute disaster.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I linked to the articles?





That is the case, and that’s why the sales, supply and consumption of alcohol is heavily regulated, and other substances such as weed, are prohibited, and for good reasons too according to Kate O’ Connell, a qualified pharmacist, who was a member of the Oireachtas Health Committee which threw out the bill to legalise marijuana for medicinal purposes, as it was quite obvious it would lead to marijuana being legalised for recreational purposes.

Gino’s made claims that his bill was sabotaged by Kate O’ Connell and that the Health Committee ignored the scientific evidence (similar to claims you made yourself earlier actually), but does it sound credible to you that a qualified pharmacist would either be ignorant of, or ignore the scientific evidence?

I’d say myself she’s more well educated and better qualified to offer an opinion on drugs and public health than Gino tbh.

My point was: society is not proected from alcohol, so your "protection of society" argument is factually dismissed. YOu know as well as I do how much damage alcohol causes in soceity. If it wanted to protect people from harm, a society would have to ban alcohol outright. Would that be fair? No. Would it be safe? Yes.

I never mentioned any other drug, and I don't know enough about the one you stated.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

My point was: society is not proected from alcohol, so your "protection of society" argument is factually dismissed.

I never mentioned any other drug so stay on topic.

This was your original point -

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If you got sick or died from drugs - legal or otherwise - it's because you were a ****ing idiot who shouldn't have imbibed in the first place.

Only take what you can handle and only take from tried and trusted sources. Drugs 101. And thats ALL drugs - legal and illegal.

Your original point was about more than just alcohol. I said that attitude is exactly why the State needs to protect people from themselves, to which you responded that if that were true, alcohol would be banned, “as i well know”, apparently!

I pointed out to you that I know why it isn’t banned, but rather it is heavily regulated, and that’s the protection I’m talking about, just like weed is prohibited in order to protect people from themselves, particularly young people who wouldn’t have the benefit of your superior intellect and be of a mind to have done their due diligence before ingesting prohibited substances.

That’s why they remain prohibited, whereas sale, supply and consumption of alcohol and tobacco and other substances are highly regulated.

As for your “criedibility” shtick, if I’m ever writing a submission on the topic of weed, alcohol, love and other drugs, I’m absolutely certain I won’t be citing Princess Consuela Bananahammock as an authority

Potential-Monke

Rodin wrote: »

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

That's because it's a known tourist spot for people who want to take drugs, because they're illegal in their own country. Just like if I wanted to go for a holiday on a Spanish island, I wouldn't go to Ibiza, as those days are behind me.

Could say the same about Dublin, can't walk around without being tortured by junkies asking for a few euro. Pain the hole.

Rise Of The Simps wrote: »

Point is a bad pint won't kill me like a dodgy pill will.

Let's pretend alcohol was illegal, like "pills". You want a pint, you get onto a dealer who is selling you a pint. All you know is it's alcohol. It looks the same with maybe slightly varying degress of colour tinges. You get it. You drink it. Turns out, it was a pint of poitin. That can kill some people. That's why a lot of us want weed legal, so we can make informed decisions about what we consume, just like alcohol currently is. Have the choice, and less people will be negatively affected.

Or, if alcohol was illegal, dealers would be using other liquids to 'bulk' it up to make more profit. God knows what they could be mixing it with. That's another issue with illegal weed, you just don't know what's in it, but millions still chance it as it's far preferred to poisonalcohol.

Strumms wrote: »

But only in very rare occasions does alcohol and the consumption thereof, contribute to crime, harm or violence... it does yes from time to time also but not nearly on the same scale as drugs...

Ah you're completely wrong here. Alcohol is the number 1 cause of most crimes in this country, or is linked to it. I was a Garda for 9 years, and at least 90% of the people I remember arresting either had alcohol taken, or were robbing to feed an alcohol habit (which strangely gets overlooked when they just happen to be taking drugs too). I've never, in the hundreds of people I've arrested, arrested someone for being stoned, or doing something while stoned. Never. Other drugs, yes, mainly cocaine and heroin. Never weed. Rarely MDMA.

But I'm open to correction if you can prove your statement.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...according to Kate O’ Connell, a qualified pharmacist, who was a member of the Oireachtas Health Committee which threw out the bill to legalise marijuana for medicinal purposes, as it was quite obvious it would lead to marijuana being legalised for recreational purposes.

If you can find me the opinion of a doctor/pharmacist who doesn't have ties to owning a pharmacy, I'd be more likely to believe them. She owns a couple of pharmacies, which make money from the legal drugs sold to help people get over their illegal drugs. Just something I believe personally, if they have ties to something which profits from something else staying legal/illegal, I'm less likely to believe them as I believe their views are not impartial, they have vested interests. Not taking away from her qualifications, just my opinion on it.

Plenty of doctors/pharmacists say otherwise. A study in the University of Kansas (in 2015) found that 58% of pharmacy students were in favour of legalisation of cannabis, compared to the 70% of students in 1971 who were in favour of prohibition. The world is changing, new studies are showing the positive aspect of this plant, but old timey views and opinions are stuck in the 'drugs are bad' brigade and refuse to even entertain the thought.

I've said it already, now is the time for legalisation. It will make jobs, provide a big increase in taxes, and it's something the people of Ireland will consume regardless, and I reckon most would prefer to be able to order from a menu than from a dealer.

riclad

I think hash should be legalised. It has many positive medical uses and positive effects. It could be sold and taxed. It's not as if it's not widely available in every Irish town and city. Let adults decide if they want it or not.
Sometimes people ask me for a euro I ignore them
They are young people well dressed, they don't look like
junkies. Maybe they are homeless, I do.,nt know
Junkies go to the local clinic, they get drugs for free I read
Some junkies even get drugs delivered to them by hse workers . there's a whole industry in America selling hash
from legal dispensarys

One eyed Jack

Potential-Monke wrote: »

If you can find me the opinion of a doctor/pharmacist who doesn't have ties to owning a pharmacy, I'd be more likely to believe them. She owns a couple of pharmacies, which make money from the legal drugs sold to help people get over their illegal drugs. Just something I believe personally, if they have ties to something which profits from something else staying legal/illegal, I'm less likely to believe them as I believe their views are not impartial, they have vested interests. Not taking away from her qualifications, just my opinion on it.

Plenty of doctors/pharmacists say otherwise. A study in the University of Kansas (in 2015) found that 58% of pharmacy students were in favour of legalisation of cannabis, compared to the 70% of students in 1971 who were in favour of prohibition. The world is changing, new studies are showing the positive aspect of this plant, but old timey views and opinions are stuck in the 'drugs are bad' brigade and refuse to even entertain the thought.

I've said it already, now is the time for legalisation. It will make jobs, provide a big increase in taxes, and it's something the people of Ireland will consume regardless, and I reckon most would prefer to be able to order from a menu than from a dealer.

No in fairness you make a fair point - as the owner of a couple of pharmacies and a politician, she would absolutely have a vested interest in Irish legislation regarding drugs, and how those drugs would be provided and by whom, to whom. If there were a way to increase sales in her pharmaceutical business, then surely it would make sense that she would want to get in on the whole sale and supply of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

The fact that she doesn’t, and went as far as to reject the bill proposing legalisation of medicinal cannabis surely suggests that while it’s true that legalisation would increase taxes and provide jobs, the benefits aren’t compelling enough to outweigh the downsides of legalisation? I don’t think anyone’s stuck in the “drugs are bad” mentality, they’re just not entirely convinced that any positives are enough to outweigh the negatives when it comes to public health.

It’s really not a question of science or medicine, but rather it’s a question of politics and law, and public policies with regards to public health. The reason I pointed specifically to Kate O’ Connell and Gino Kenny as opponent and proponent of legalisation of medicinal cannabis is because of a number of posters here who are of the opinion that they’re something of an authority on the subject, and those who don’t share their perspective are just ignorant and all the rest of it, as suggested by the opening poster.

That’s why I pointed out that here’s Gino with no scientific qualifications to speak of, and Kate O’ Connell, a qualified pharmacist, so accusations of ignorance, or lack of credibility, or being incapable of having a rational discussion on the topic, are somewhat reminiscent of Gino’s attitude throwing a fit like a petulant teenager when nobody agrees with him -


”There was the context why I called the Dáil a kip. The bill was sabotaged, it was outrageous. I stand by what I said. I take the Dáil very serious, I’m very proud of being a TD. But the way the Bill was rejected is an affront to democracy, I would like to think the person who puts a bill forward is given some courtesy, rather than hearing about it on radio.”

Mr Kenny confirmed the Ceann Comhairle had taken issue with the language he used and said the Dáil should not be called a kip, adding that the TD would be given an opportunity to withdraw it. Mr Kenny maintains that an alternative cannabis programme proposed by Health Minister Simo Harris is too restrictive and ignores scientific advice on the medicinal benefits proposed.


Gino Kenny stands over Dáil ‘kip’ remark

Birdie Num Num

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Let's pretend alcohol was illegal, like "pills". You want a pint, you get onto a dealer who is selling you a pint. All you know is it's alcohol. It looks the same with maybe slightly varying degress of colour tinges. You get it. You drink it. Turns out, it was a pint of poitin. That can kill some people. That's why a lot of us want weed legal, so we can make informed decisions about what we consume, just like alcohol currently is. Have the choice, and less people will be negatively affected.

Or, if alcohol was illegal, dealers would be using other liquids to 'bulk' it up to make more profit. God knows what they could be mixing it with. That's another issue with illegal weed, you just don't know what's in it, but millions still chance it as it's far preferred to poisonalcohol.gs too). I've never, in the hundreds of people I've arrested, arrested someone for being stoned, or doing something while stoned. Never. Other drugs, yes, mainly cocaine and heroin. Never weed. Rarely MDMA.

You’re all over the shop here. Why pretend alcohol is illegal? There is lots of illegal alcohol available. Bootleg alcohol and cigarettes account for a huge % of black market goods. ...The pint of poitin you refer to is illegal.

There is lots of criminality in illegal booze sales. Similarly there is already legalised drugs that are for sale in illegal markets and plenty of them that are also recreated and packaged illicitly.

Potential-Monke

Fair points. I just still find it hard to take the advice of someone with vested interests. From what I've researched, there's far more evidence showing that cannabis legalisation is far more a positive than a negative, for many reasons, but the main one being the quality of the product and the removal of the criminal gangs who control it (and subsequently add other substances to make it heavier, ie: fiber glass!). It's obvious that cannabis use is not going away, and demand is on the increase (according to the 8 people I asked last week for some!). No issues with supply still, just not getting enough for everyone any more.

But again, that's my opinion based on my own research. I can't say hand on heart that all research was unbiased, as it seems quite hard to get a neutral study that isn't funded by some organisation (ie: church funded studies or studies from pro/anti-groups). Having worked as a Garda, I think it's well overdue, as the time and resources spent on tackling cannabis alone is not worth the result, and legalisation would do all the above, and give the Gardai more time to tackle the far harder, far more dangerous illegal drugs.

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

You’re all over the shop here. Why pretend alcohol is illegal? There is lots of illegal alcohol available. Bootleg alcohol and cigarettes account for a huge % of black market goods. ...The pint of poitin you refer to is illegal.

There is lots of criminality in illegal booze sales. Similarly there is already legalised drugs that are for sale in illegal markets and plenty of them that are also recreated and packaged illicitly.

I understand that, but it's the point I was trying to make. Would you continue to drink what is being sold to you as beer but you've no guarantee that it is? It's hard to imagine, because alcohol is legal, and people would still drink it regardless of legality at this stage, but not knowing if you're drinking a pint of poitin or beer until you've drank it would be the worry (with weed, it's very hard to tell just by smell, look and taste alone, especially in Ireland where you don't get told what the strain is the majority of the time).

Legalising cannabis would take that worry out, we would have safer strains, people could make informed decisions, and there would be less problems with cannabis consumption then. Giving a strain of super skunk to a first timer or early user could cause issues, but if they knew what it was, had a list of the usual effects and potency, and still took it, well that's just on them then. Whereas keeping it illegal, they've no idea and are taking a chance.

Just seems silly at this stage to keep it illegal, when money can be made for the country, jobs can be made, criminals would lose a high earner, quality would be better. Not to mention all the uses of hemp, which Ireland used to grow and use/sell - building, paper, clothing, bioplastics, CBD products, fast turnaround in growing time, carbon neutral, needs little to no pesticide.

It's actually a wonder plant, but people are too focused on the variations that give the high. So much so that there's already legislation to get a growers licence for growing hemp (very restrictive I'm led to believe), and a company in Westmeath last year were looking for farmer to grow 5,000 acres of it. Seeds cost about €160/acre and sales are expected to be €2,250/acre for the flower/top of the plant (stalks can be used in other products not yet regulated for).

Rubberchikken

I don't assume any drug user is homeless etc.

I firmly believe any drug user is a moron. And nothing will ever change that.

Gooey Looey

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I don't assume any drug user is homeless etc.

I firmly believe any drug user is a moron. And nothing will ever change that.

Are you including alcohol, or is it's problems or dependence something completely different

Strumms

MadYaker wrote: »

What are you on about? Alcohol contributes to more crime and violence than any other drug in this country. Before the pubs got closed a & e was full of people hurt in alcohol related incidents every weekend. It’s the number one cause of addiction here.

Publicans operate safely and responsibly because the drug they are selling is legal.

Nobody is getting shot over a few pints...

Nobody regularly ODs through alcohol consumption , yes it HAPPENS but it’s not common place.

Nobody is.. sticking up a post office, sticking a syringe to somebody’s neck ( as happened to me) to get money for pints.

Alcohol is safe, once not abused regularly. Drugs aren’t.

The production of alcohol is quality controlled, drugs are not.

A&E will see more admissions due to alcohol abuse, this is only due to alcohol being more prevalent due to its legal status, therefore availability...make drugs availability the same as alcohol, carnage follows.

Potential-Monke

Strumms wrote: »

Nobody is getting shot over a few pints...

Because it's legal...

Strumms wrote: »

Nobody regularly ODs through alcohol consumption , yes it HAPPENS but it’s not common place.

In 2016, the Health Research Board published data highlighting there were three deaths every day in Ireland due to alcohol consumption. In 2018, the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016, estimated alcohol attributable deaths for Ireland at 2,790 (1800 men and 990 women) per annum. Might not be OD's, but still deaths directly attributed to alcohol. Someone doesn't have to OD to be a victim of alcohol abuse.

Strumms wrote: »

Nobody is.. sticking up a post office, sticking a syringe to somebody’s neck ( as happened to me) to get money for pints.

But they do rob shops quite often. Sometimes violently, sometimes sneakily. Just because it's not headline news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There was one fella in particular who every Garda in the station had arrested multiple times for shoplifting alcohol, sometimes there were fights. So it does happen, but because drink it legal it doesn't make as good a headline.

Strumms wrote: »

Alcohol is safe, once not abused regularly. Drugs aren’t.

The production of alcohol is quality controlled, drugs are not.

Because alcohol is legal. Legalise cannabis and criminalise alcohol, and the sentences would be reversed. And alcohol is far from safe, depending on which studies you want to believe. I feel alcohol gets defended because so many people use it, and the thought of it being bad for you is just crazy talk, whereas study after study are pointing out that it's one of the most destructive drugs out there. But shur it's legal, it can't be bad.

Strumms wrote: »

A&E will see more admissions due to alcohol abuse, this is only due to alcohol being more prevalent due to its legal status, therefore availability...make drugs availability the same as alcohol, carnage follows.

I would counter your opinion with my own. A&E would see a decline in alcohol related cases, but a very small increase in cannabis related cases (i'm all for cannabis legalisation, maybe MDMA/LSD for medical purposes, but not the rest). Unless you think that someone smoking a joint is going to go out and rob a bank, or hold a syringe to someones throat for their next fix. That doesn't happen. At all. It's never for just weed, it's always for coke, heroin, meth, etc. Never weed. The only time I've ever dealt with someone who was causing a bit of trouble was because he wanted a smoke of weed to stop him going back on the heroin. Lovely chap, bad life decisions, and couldn't get the 1 thing which was stopping him from going back on heroin (methadone is worse than herion - his words).

And that's the problem, people lump cannabis in with the harder, more unpredictable drugs. You physically cannot overdose on cannabis herb. Any article will tell you the death toll from direct cannabis consumption is 0. Zero. Nill. Nada. There are 2 cases out there where doctors in the US and UK have ruled death by cannabis, but both cases have been stringently reviewed and both came to the conclusion due to lack of any other evidence, ie: well it wasn't anything else we could find, so it had to be the cannabis. Couldn't have just been SADS.

Someone would have to take 40,000 times the normal amount of cannabis to die. Other estimates say that a smoker “would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within 15 minutes to induce a lethal response” or “smoke 20 to 40,000 joints with .9 grams of weed each before dying.”

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I don't assume any drug user is homeless etc.

I firmly believe any drug user is a moron. And nothing will ever change that.

And you're entitled to your incorrect opinion.

Strumms

The only crime which I’ve ever been the victim of was drugs related...

Being assaulted by a junkie with zero provocation, zero interaction and my back to him walking down the street in central Dublin.. ended up in The Mater having had a bottle smashed over my head and my head smashed open for no reason, wasn’t an attack motivated by money, the dude was drugged off his tits..

Being threatened by a guy with a syringe in the Iilac one Tuesday afternoon as the guy and his girlfriend demanded money. I was about 19 and it took me weeks to summon up the courage to go back in on my own again, the first fûcking time I ended having a panic attack anytime a tracksuit wearing scrote passed me and dove into a pub in the end...

Having my phone robbed during a hospital stay... this wasn’t a&e, it was an orthopedic unit, and an ex junkie and his dubious current junkie mates relieved me of my new phone when I went to the bathroom, they must have copped it under my pillow..

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This was your original point -





Your original point was about more than just alcohol. I said that attitude is exactly why the State needs to protect people from themselves, to which you responded that if that were true, alcohol would be banned, “as i well know”, apparently!

I pointed out to you that I know why it isn’t banned, but rather it is heavily regulated, and that’s the protection I’m talking about, just like weed is prohibited in order to protect people from themselves, particularly young people who wouldn’t have the benefit of your superior intellect and be of a mind to have done their due diligence before ingesting prohibited substances.

That’s why they remain prohibited, whereas sale, supply and consumption of alcohol and tobacco and other substances are highly regulated.

As for your “criedibility” shtick, if I’m ever writing a submission on the topic of weed, alcohol, love and other drugs, I’m absolutely certain I won’t be citing Princess Consuela Bananahammock as an authority

I wouldn't advise you to - I've never done one of those drugs and would be an awful authority; and you'll probably find far more experienced then me in the others - especially alcohol.

Trying to say "Aha! I can slip off the hook by interpret that to mean a specific drug and strawman the argument" deflects away from the point I made. What you've basically said here, is that ANY drug in the wrong hands is dangerous - and I would agree with you.

The rest of my point stands: if you want to protect a society from something, you don't regulate it, you ban it; and it's been highlighted several times - by me here that you have neither the personal experience nor have conducted the research to comment accurately on such a scale, and thus, I would be a far more experienced authority on such matters (weed aside) than you.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's people who are anti-drugs, but who drink alcohol and swear blind that "it's not really a drug" that gets me.

Cases in point.

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I firmly believe any drug user is a moron. And nothing will ever change that.

Strumms wrote: »

Alcohol is safe, once not abused regularly. Drugs aren’t.

The production of alcohol is quality controlled, drugs are not.

---

mr_fegelien wrote: »

There's no point in having rational discussions about drugs with some people who show astounding ignorance.

This, sadly, is true. Any posts that reply to mine and show said ignorance will be dismisse dfrom here on in.

igCorcaigh

All drugs are different and hold differing risks and benefits. They should be treated with respect.

The psychedelics can offer a beautiful life changing experience. Society lacks the cultural framework to engage with these substances. We lost what our ancestors had.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The rest of my point stands: if you want to protect a society from something, you don't regulate it, you ban it, and it's been highlighted several times - by me here that you have neither the personal experience nor have conducted the research to comment accurately on such a scale, and thus, I would be a far more experienced authority on such matters (weed aside) than you.

You’re obviously not a far more experienced authority on such matters if you fail to recognise that just because alcohol isn’t banned, it doesn’t mean that efforts aren’t made to protect people from themselves.

Just like people who are in positions to legislate for controlling substances and public health examine the overall effects on society of either legislating for, or not legislating for anything really - they have the authority to do that. As I said, it’s not simply a question of scientific evidence, it’s a matter of law and public health. That’s why the sale, supply and consumption of some drugs are legal, and highly regulated, and some drugs are banned.

By your rationale, simply because they don’t agree with you either, you’re also a far more experienced authority on such matters than Kate O’ Connell, the Health Products Regulatory Authority and the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, who are of the opinion that -


Ms O’Connell said the arguments for legalisation rested on “fake facts”, anecdote and hearsay, separate from scientific evidence about the effectiveness and safety of cannabis.

“I see this Bill as undermining the current regulatory framework we have with the Health [Products] Regulatory Authority and the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, who are internationally recognised as the competent authorities,” she told the committee.

She pointed out that a recent report from the authority found a complete lack of clinical and scientific evidence for medicinal cannabis and patients could already obtain a cannabis product provided that a competent, qualified hospital consultant judges that it is needed.


Plans to legalise medicinal cannabis are ‘madness’, says TD


Your opinion of yourself in relation to people who disagree with you is an example of exactly why I wouldn’t usually waste my time arguing with people who display a similar mentality -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Anyway, no point in trying to have a rational conversation about anything with a space cadet, never mind trying to have a rational conversation about drugs and why it’s hardly a compelling argument to make the point that alcohol is a drug. So is love, according to some people.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re obviously not a far more experienced authority on such matters if you fail to recognise that just because alcohol isn’t banned, it doesn’t mean that efforts aren’t made to protect people from themselves.

Never said it wasn't. Strawman arguement. I said if you want to protect, you ban. Take for example MUP: that's not being brought in to protect anyone from anything.

Just like people who are in positions to legislate for controlling substances and public health examine the overall effects on society of either legislating for, or not legislating for anything really - they have the authority to do that. As I said, it’s not simply a question of scientific evidence, it’s a matter of law and public health. That’s why the sale, supply and consumption of some drugs are legal, and highly regulated, and some drugs are banned.

That doesn't make sense. It's banned because it's the law and nothing to do with science...?

By your rationale, simply because they don’t agree with you either, you’re also a far more experienced authority on such matters than Kate O’ Connell, the Health Products Regulatory Authority and the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, who are of the opinion that -

This is the differene between us. I have said repeatedly that I have no experience and with this particular drug, so I dont comment.
You have no experience of said drugs, don;t know what a drug is and yet still assume to preach to people who have...?

Conclusion:
If the drug is dangerous and proven to be - then ban it.
If it's not, don't.

And use science for the rationale. Kate O'Connell could be right for all I know about that specific substance.

Your opinion of yourself in relation to people who disagree with you is an example of exactly why I wouldn’t usually waste my time arguing with you -

ANd therin lies the differenfce between us. I don't comment on substances I don't know about while you go full forward commenting on substances you have no experience of and no done no research on. Prove me wrong.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Prove me wrong.

Sure I don’t feel a need to prove you wrong about anything? You do you and all that and whatever you need to tell yourself to get you through. If you think that protecting people from themselves means a complete ban on things in the interests of public health rather than legislation and regulation, y’know, fair enough, that’s how you see it. No point in arguing with you as I have literally nothing to gain from doing so, I’m quite satisfied with the law as it is currently regarding the prohibition on weed and the regulation of alcohol in the interests of public health.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sure I don’t feel a need to prove you wrong about anything? You do you and all that and whatever you need to tell yourself to get you through. If you think that protecting people from themselves means a complete ban on things in the interests of public health rather than legislation and regulation, y’know, fair enough, that’s how you see it. No point in arguing with you as I have literally nothing to gain from doing so, I’m quite satisfied with the law as it is currently regarding the prohibition on weed and the regulation of alcohol in the interests of public health.

Finally - some honesty.

But one last question: why spend so much time ranting on about something you're quiet satisfied about and have no knowledge in...?

jh79

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No in fairness you make a fair point - as the owner of a couple of pharmacies and a politician, she would absolutely have a vested interest in Irish legislation regarding drugs, and how those drugs would be provided and by whom, to whom. If there were a way to increase sales in her pharmaceutical business, then surely it would make sense that she would want to get in on the whole sale and supply of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

The fact that she doesn’t, and went as far as to reject the bill proposing legalisation of medicinal cannabis surely suggests that while it’s true that legalisation would increase taxes and provide jobs, the benefits aren’t compelling enough to outweigh the downsides of legalisation? I don’t think anyone’s stuck in the “drugs are bad” mentality, they’re just not entirely convinced that any positives are enough to outweigh the negatives when it comes to public health.

It’s really not a question of science or medicine, but rather it’s a question of politics and law, and public policies with regards to public health. The reason I pointed specifically to Kate O’ Connell and Gino Kenny as opponent and proponent of legalisation of medicinal cannabis is because of a number of posters here who are of the opinion that they’re something of an authority on the subject, and those who don’t share their perspective are just ignorant and all the rest of it, as suggested by the opening poster.

That’s why I pointed out that here’s Gino with no scientific qualifications to speak of, and Kate O’ Connell, a qualified pharmacist, so accusations of ignorance, or lack of credibility, or being incapable of having a rational discussion on the topic, are somewhat reminiscent of Gino’s attitude throwing a fit like a petulant teenager when nobody agrees with him -


”There was the context why I called the Dáil a kip. The bill was sabotaged, it was outrageous. I stand by what I said. I take the Dáil very serious, I’m very proud of being a TD. But the way the Bill was rejected is an affront to democracy, I would like to think the person who puts a bill forward is given some courtesy, rather than hearing about it on radio.”

Mr Kenny confirmed the Ceann Comhairle had taken issue with the language he used and said the Dáil should not be called a kip, adding that the TD would be given an opportunity to withdraw it. Mr Kenny maintains that an alternative cannabis programme proposed by Health Minister Simo Harris is too restrictive and ignores scientific advice on the medicinal benefits proposed.


Gino Kenny stands over Dáil ‘kip’ remark

Kate O Connell is also pro the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use.

Gino's bill was one of the most amateur pieces of legislation ever put before the dail but the evidence of clinical uses of medical marijuana for any illness is extremely poor.

But marijuana is relatively safe to use if using alcohol as a barometer of acceptable harm so there is no logical reason for prohibition.

The issue with medical marijuana has always been its effectiveness not its safety.

Potential-Monke

jh79 wrote: »

Kate O Connell is also pro the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use.

Wait, so she rejected the bill, but if she's pro-legalisation for recreational use, does that mean she just wasn't happy with the proposed bill?

Edit: Nevermind, I googled. And yes, she wasn't against it, she was against that version of it (and in fairness, the proposal apparantly had 'consumers' instead of 'patients' and measurements in ounces instead of mg, as is the standard. Sounded like yer man was chancing his arm! Also sounds like if someone came up with a decent proposal, she'd get behind it. Interesting.

The Bishop Basher

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m quite satisfied with the law as it is currently regarding the prohibition on weed and the regulation of alcohol in the interests of public health.

Ah there we have it. I’m alright jack. Well not every one is alright with our current laws and last time I checked we live in a democracy.

This really is the crux of your argument because the rest of it makes zero sense in light of the growing body of scientific research which consistently elevates the dangers of alcohol while reducing the perceived harm cause by cannabis.

Alcohol is only safe in tiny quantities because it is quite literally a poison. That’s why the safe limits are constantly being reduced to what most drinkers now consider to be laughably low. You’ve been brainwashed into believing alcohol is fine because it’s legal but it’s not. It’s an incredibly addictive and carcinogenic depressant which is destroying families and lives up and down the country. That’s why we continue to make it less appealing through banning advertising and placing such stringent rules around it’s sale. Because it’s literally killing people. 3 every day in our country alone.

No matter what way you swing it, study after study has shown that cannabis is far less dangerous then alcohol, by a very wide margin, which makes a complete ass of our current law and your ill thought out arguments.

Honestly, I’d recommend educating yourself on the facts before engaging in debates on this topic. No problem with some one being against decriminalisation but at least string a half decent argument together to support your position.

All we’ve got from you so far on this thread are long non sensical rants and ramblings that completely ignore the latest research, facts and studies.

It’s your call obviously but you’re really demonstrating your ignorance of the topic in this thread.

One eyed Jack

jh79 wrote: »

Kate O Connell is also pro the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use.

Gino's bill was one of the most amateur pieces of legislation ever put before the dail but the evidence of clinical uses of medical marijuana for any illness is extremely poor.

Yeah that’s the thing really. When it’s advocates for the legalisation of marijuana are peanut headed politicians, it’s made that much more difficult to take them seriously. The bill itself was just a slightly modified version of the bill that Ming Flanagan had tried to introduce years before that had also been rejected. The Minister for Justice at the time Frances Fitzgerald was also of the opinion that the bill was unfit for purpose -

However, Tánaiste Frances Fitzgerald said there were very serious problems with the Bill and it was not fit for purpose.

“It had many unintended consequences and it was the health committee itself that decided it should not proceed to the next stage,” she said.


It’s as though some advocates for legalisation of marijuana are chancing their arm as opposed to putting forward a serious proposal. Either that, or they think people are so dumb that they don’t see the proposals for legalisation for medicinal purposes as what they actually are. Either way I don’t imagine people take kindly to being treated like mugs.

jh79 wrote: »

But marijuana is relatively safe to use if using alcohol as a barometer of acceptable harm so there is no logical reason for prohibition.

The issue with medical marijuana has always been its effectiveness not its safety.

I don’t compare it to alcohol though, and the comparisons to alcohol just don’t stand up to any sort of scrutiny. We’re all aware of the harmful effects of alcohol both at an individual level and at a societal level, and there is constant work ongoing to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. Proponents for the legalisation of marijuana for recreational purposes like to draw the comparisons to alcohol as though people find the harm caused by alcohol acceptable, so they shouldn’t have an issue with the harm caused by marijuana. It’s a presumption based upon a lie that they have to tell themselves. Most people don’t find the harm caused by alcohol acceptable, they don’t find the harm caused by tobacco acceptable either. Sure, there’s no logical reason for the prohibition on marijuana if one is prepared to accept the harmful consequences of alcohol and tobacco, but most people don’t, any more than they don’t find the harm caused to individuals and to society by marijuana acceptable.

It’s quite obvious that marijuana for medicinal purposes and marijuana for recreational purposes are two different and completely separate issues. That’s why marijuana for recreational purposes is viewed in terms of it’s safety, and whether or not the benefits of legalisation for recreational purposes outweigh the harm caused to society by legalisation for recreational purposes. People just aren’t convinced that the arguments for increased revenue from taxation and licensing are enough to overcome the effects of increased availability of marijuana on the black economy, much cheaper and easier accessible to young people than purchasing marijuana legally.

It’s not about the pothead who knows what’s what about all the different strains and potencies who enjoys a toke in his man cave at the weekend, or sparks up around her time of the month because it helps with the cramps - they know what they’re doing, they’re fully aware of their decisions and the cost of their habit. It’s the vast majority of young people who don’t have the same level of awareness who we try to protect and prevent from taking up the habit in the first place.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

That's not true. Turnout was 64.1% and the vote in favour was 66.4%. So 42.5% of the entire electorate voted yes.

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

That article is two years old, well before the legislation came in.

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 -

A few people overindulging in weed is not even remotely the same thing as "destroying a community". Now, heroin, that destroyed whole communities alright. Cannabis is not even remotely comparable.

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

Your bias is obvious.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Your bias is obvious.

That’s a fair point, I’m not a fan of either socialism or leftist politics, that likely explains our differences of opinion on Canada, but in this country at least, it’s just unfortunate for socialists and leftist leaning types that their interests are represented by idiots as opposed to the many people who hold socialist and left leaning views who, while I still don’t agree with them, they actually have some credible ideas. I can’t think of any examples right now though.

I’m not against legalisation of marijuana for recreational purposes, I don’t see it as a bad thing in and of itself, what I see as bad are ill-thought out policies which are presented as one thing when their real aim is something else entirely. So instead of presenting a realistic proposal for what they really want, they present unrealistic and unworkable proposals instead. Those sorts of proposals appeal to a younger demographic more than they do a middle aged or older demographic, and that’s why there has been a surge in popularity for parties which present ill-thought out socialist and left leaning policies.

Thankfully for the rest of the country at least, these people haven’t yet been able to form a Government, or we’d end up like Canada.

cj maxx

Stop making threads like this, all I want now is a spiff.
Goodnight 😚

StupidLikeAFox

[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.

...in the hold of the Irish roooover