Should Cannabis be Legalised

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by bonkey


When you say "found to be unworkeable" do you mean in general, or specifically when applied to the US structure (healthcare, revenue, etc).

Well of course the study was carried out in the US, but the reasoning outlined in the Davids report seems applicable to most western democracies. The problem with ring-fencing taxes from soft drugs to treat hard drug rehabilitants is basically this- in our current system, tobacco and alcohol cause more damage in the way of health costs than could ever be sustained by even their taxes. Cannabis has no health cost to speak of, yet it cannot by itself even come close to breaking even on the alcohol/tobacco front, never mind hard drugs themselves.

I'm not trying to say that Ireland would be any better, but I think that one nation rejecting something as unworkeable is not a reason for others to blindly do so as well...

jc

I agree, yet one might suppose that given the higher rates of alcohol and tobacco use per person in Ireland, the costs would be similarly high. The plan might be workable in a nation the size of Ireland, but only if alcohol and tobacco were banned, and cannabis legalized. That's never going to happen, so we're back to taxing for general purposes Governments hate ring-fencing tax money because it tends to cruelly show them up at the worst of times (right before an election/re-election campaign).

Well that's very easy to say, but altering one's lifestyle is a very difficult thing to achieve, especially if it involves an addictive drug like nicotine/alcohol, but even just moderating one's diet and exercise regime can be very difficult

That's precisely the point I was trying to make simon- the fact that even simple lifestyle control can be so difficult means that you cannot be unmitigating when it comes to substance abuse which draws similar powerful influences from society. Kill urban poverty and you'll kill the drugs, I believe Keynes said. A tad simplistic perhaps, but his general idea is sound.

Id be curious, though, to see how individual cities rank up against each other, rather than entire nations.

So would I, especially given that cannabis is only available legally in Amsterdam if we discuss drug use in the Netherlands. And that too in a highly selective arrangement with the private sector, and with crops strictly regulated. The regulatory machinery in Holland is easily paid for by the tax, yet its bureaucratic chicanery means that there will inevitably be a small proportion of soft drug use that stays on the black market. Amsterdam is certainly the current model of choice, yet even it is not problem-free.

Occy

Sand

Very odd...the vast majority of alcoholics that I've seen at work anecdotally don't want to admit they have a problem, even when the behavioral patterns and the liver biopsy all but shout it at them.

I dont dispute your own experiences - my own have led me to the opinion that addicts (including alcoholics) are very exploititive of pity and try to externalise the responsibility for their actions - the devil told me to do it. Its easier for them to blame others for their own stupidity.

To use the direct medicolegal analogy, if someone was physically harming themselves without knowing it, society has a duty to help and protect them.

People who take drugs of any kind are extremely aware of the risks in this day and age. The vast majority of people dont use heroin because they know its got more cons than pros, this isnt exactly classified information. The same for nicotine ( Yes, I accept the companies involved did their best to hide it but the government health warnings tend to raise suspicions). So society has no duty to help and protect them - certain people might pity them and want to pay for them, fine - far be it from me to tell you what to do with your money.

Hmmm. So if you were to spend a lifetime eating fatty foods and seldom exercising, the paramedics should just pack their defib away and leave. "Sorry hun, he was just a fat unhealthy b@stard, can't help you there- he should have known what he was doing to his poor heart." Shouldn't these people have your standards applied too?

Bit of a stretch to compare alcohol/nicotine/soft and hard drugs to food. The former are of little to no actual benefit whilst everyone is or should be aware of their harmful effects. Whilst with food, well very few people are capable of knowing the exact calorie ( even general given exact type and serving size) intake associated with each food theyre eating and thus cant really make an educated estimate of the tradeoff involved. When theres a campaign as well publicised and as well known as the anti- drug information campaign against fatty foods in every school and written on every burger wrapping, with stories of victims in every days paper then Ill be more sympathetic to the exstension of my views on junkies to patrons of McDonalds.

Look, you really should have understood the consequences of your actions in having this child sir/ma'am, now there's really no helping you."

Perhaps no helping them but certinaly helping the child which made no decision - its not like Im arguing that children born to heroin addicts should be left to rot.

Personally Im of the view that certain things are well known - like protected sex is wiser than unprotected. If you insist on being stupid dont be surprised if you wind up with 7 kids by the age of 25. If you do drugs dont act surprised if you end up addicted and worse off than before. If your hobby is jumping in front of speeding cars dont be surprised if you get run down.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand


I dont dispute your own experiences - my own have led me to the opinion that addicts (including alcoholics) are very exploititive of pity and try to externalise the responsibility for their actions - the devil told me to do it. Its easier for them to blame others for their own stupidity.

Whoever they hold responsible, the fact that they made a single stupid mistake shouldn't damn their existence. Especially when it is in society's best interest (particularly in a nation with a strong drinking culture) to get these people back on their feet and productive again. Many alcoholics have steady jobs, incomes and families. You might be willing to dismiss them out of hand, but the cost to your nation will be greater than the few tax dollars you as an individual might spend to help care for them. Isn't that after all, what the social contract should entail?

People who take drugs of any kind are extremely aware of the risks in this day and age.

Assuming they went to school and heard these anti-drug campaigns- ever been in a rehab center Sand? Many of these people can barely write their own name (and not because they're high). If perhaps society did a better job educating them, this wouldn't happen, but your assumption that everyone should know isn't correct.

Bit of a stretch to compare alcohol/nicotine/soft and hard drugs to food. The former are of little to no actual benefit whilst everyone is or should be aware of their harmful effects. Whilst with food, well very few people are capable of knowing the exact calorie ( even general given exact type and serving size) intake associated with each food theyre eating and thus cant really make an educated estimate of the tradeoff involved. When theres a campaign as well publicised and as well known as the anti- drug information campaign against fatty foods in every school and written on every burger wrapping, with stories of victims in every days paper then Ill be more sympathetic to the exstension of my views on junkies to patrons of McDonalds.

And of course there are warnings on the fixes you get from your friendly local drug dealer? Several soft drugs have notable and well-documented pharmaceutical benefit, as does heroin (methylated for morphine), ketamine(transaminated to polyaxine a pain killer) and so on. As for the public awareness campaign, cardiovascular health has been aggressively promoted by doctors since the 1950s, whereas the war on drugs truly only began in the 1980s. Consider which of these is a greater risk to society- it's obviously heart disease. As for the exact calorie measurement- that's the biggest load of cr@p...you don't need anything even remotely as precise- just avoid saturated fats for your entire life and you're set. Simple- exclude a single type of fat, and attempt to limit fat intake to 30g a day. Does that take extensive dietary and calorie calculation?

Perhaps no helping them but certinaly helping the child which made no decision - its not like Im arguing that children born to heroin addicts should be left to rot.

The parents and the child are an inseperable unit in most cases Sand- how do you propose to help the child of a sickler without helping the parents? It raises important legal issues of discrimination- if the government is willing to help these parents/children who consciously erred in so important a decision as whether or not to bring a sick child into the world- why the hell should addicts be given the boot? Because bringing children into the world is "an inherently noble act"? Please.

Personally Im of the view that certain things are well known - like protected sex is wiser than unprotected. If you insist on being stupid dont be surprised if you wind up with 7 kids by the age of 25. If you do drugs dont act surprised if you end up addicted and worse off than before. If your hobby is jumping in front of speeding cars dont be surprised if you get run down.

Until you read statistical studies on the public knowledge base regarding addicitive substances, it might be wise to stay away from the "well known" assertion. It is a specious argument which ultimately does not hold as soon as the state fails in a basic duty. If of course the government does a perfect job informing every citizen, then there is no blaming anyone but the participant, but as governments have never done this, the argument has no meaning. Jumping in front of a speeding car is a suicidal action, taking a banned substance is a dependent action- they are incomparable. The 7 kids example is also flawed- sex is in no shape or form physically addictive, and contraception is a consciously controlled thought. An addict cannot help but think of his/her next fix, there is no choice involved- which generates the problems of crime to get money in order to buy a fix, or violence in order to steal a fix. Ignore the individuals if you like Sand- dehumanize them for falling prey to human mistakes- but don't ignore a societal ill that can affect you or me through the medium of crime, for that is to paraphrase, "well known".

Occy

GerK

To throw back to the "gateway drug" points its my personal belief that environment/social grouping are the only real gateways to any drug. In very broad terms, based more on personal experience than statistics:

Having a job in a social atmosphere is the gateway to alcohol use.
Being a student is the gateway to Marijuana use.
Enjoying dance music is the gateway to Ecstasy use.
Being rich is the gateway to Cocaine use.
Living in dismal poverty is the gateway to Heroin use.

Obviously if you are the type of person who craves new experience and is open to experimentation you are more likely to defy the boundaries applied by your social group.

Sand

Isn't that after all, what the social contract should entail?

Its like teamwork I guess, some people doss around and others work twice as hard to try and keep the whole thing flying.

If perhaps society did a better job educating them, this wouldn't happen, but your assumption that everyone should know isn't correct.

Im unaware of what society can do to improve on its rather pervasive message short of grabbing youngsters and literally beating it into them - though civil rights might have a field day. Alcoholics and addicts are consistently portrayed in a poor light from documentaries to sitcoms - children cant even watch South Park without being told drugs are bad mkay, along with being warned about ending up doing handjobs for crack. This merely takes a humourous aproach to the same message thats echoed throughout schooling and popular culture.

The one point I would agree regarding society etc is the advertisment of alcohol, which shows itself as being essential for a good night out and people who drink it date supermodels, drive sports cars, yadda yadda and similar crap. Id support restricting advertisments for alcohol.

As for the exact calorie measurement- that's the biggest load of cr@p...you don't need anything even remotely as precise- just avoid saturated fats for your entire life and you're set. Simple- exclude a single type of fat, and attempt to limit fat intake to 30g a day. Does that take extensive dietary and calorie calculation?

Im sorry Ive no actual concept of what 30g is beyond a figure, so its tricky for me to say "Have i had 30g yet or not? ****ed if I know". I do know If Ive done hard drugs or gone through one or two bottles of vodka in a day. Perhaps its simply a case of availability of information - Id go looking for information on fatty foods etc, for drugs and stuff its shoved into my face. Ive got more of an exscuse on the foods then imo.

if the government is willing to help these parents/children who consciously erred in so important a decision as whether or not to bring a sick child into the world- why the hell should addicts be given the boot? Because bringing children into the world is "an inherently noble act"? Please.

If a child (or anyone ) is harmed by anothers actions you cant hold them responsible for their condition.

Jumping in front of a speeding car is a suicidal action, taking a banned substance is a dependent action- they are incomparable.

Theyre both equally stupid, and known to be stupid, and youll wind up in a bad way from both.

The 7 kids example is also flawed- sex is in no shape or form physically addictive, and contraception is a consciously controlled thought. An addict cannot help but think of his/her next fix, there is no choice involved- which generates the problems of crime to get money in order to buy a fix, or violence in order to steal a fix.

Actually the example was made more in the light of do something stupid, dont be surprised when you end up in a bad way. People make the choice to become addicts, Im not an addcit (denial:x) because ive never chosen to do hard drugs or similar. Sure once you are an addict you have no choice, but you *always* have a choice in the beginning- Much like when you jump of a building, you might change your mind half way down but its a bit late then - should never have jumped in the first place.

Ignore the individuals if you like Sand- dehumanize them for falling prey to human mistakes- but don't ignore a societal ill that can affect you or me through the medium of crime, for that is to paraphrase, "well known".

Hmm, i dont dehumanise them, I simply consider them the equivalent of the guy who injected himself with equine viagra and ended up losing his penis - absolute freaking morons who dont deserve my attention.

In any case this discussin has entered (imo) the swings and roundabouts phase, and it hasnt got a lot to do with the initial discussion - If want to pm me, grand - but i dont know what you can say thatll make me believe that addicts are truly uninformed, victims of society deserving of every aid society/taxpayers can offer them etc etc.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Im sorry Ive no actual concept of what 30g is beyond a figure, so its tricky for me to say "Have i had 30g yet or not? ****ed if I know".

And yet if you were told "exceed this figure regularly and be denied healthcare", I'm pretty sure you could find out in a short time by doing some research and some reading, or just asking somone like the person who suggested it in the first place.

I believe it is mandatory in Ireland (and most other countries I've been in) to mark fat content on all packaged products. That leaves meat and veg. Cant be that hard - no harder than weightwatchers.

The point is that once you start going down the road of "your fault, your cost", it is very hard to ever justify stopping.

jc

GerK

Originally posted by Sand

Im sorry Ive no actual concept of what 30g is beyond a figure, so its tricky for me to say "Have i had 30g yet or not? ****ed if I know".

You are obviously a fairly well educated individual and yet you admit that you find it difficult to ascertain healthy food based on its nutritional information.
Now try and put yourself in the position of someone who is not at all well educated. Someone who has barely even received a rudementary education. Someone who perhaps can't afford a TV. Surely you can conceive the posibility that this person might have the same difficulty making an informed choice about narcotics being thrust upon them, by someone who assures them that its not so bad for you and after all it will make the pain and misery of living in total poverty with no end in sight evaporate for a time.

I might also point out that it is usually the impurities in narcotics which cause most of the health problems. There are many examples of more affluent Heroin addicts who could afford to use pharmacutical grade stuff, suffering remarkably little ill effect.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand


Its like teamwork I guess, some people doss around and others work twice as hard to try and keep the whole thing flying.

And some grossly oversimplify social issues and then pontificate about them. If you truely took that attitude you'd refuse to pay taxes or duties of any kind, after all, you're just paying for the maintenance of lazyass no-good layabouts. Outside of public services (which are pitifully small compared to the size of an economy), your tax dollars (or euros :P) are going towards helping people who can't help themselves. That's what the social contract is about, and that is what is enshrined in law. Only a slight extension of this attitude is to do away with a police force and let people pay for their own protection, close the public schools, let people educate their own too! Heck, who needs public utilities for that matter, or public roads? Just stick tollbooths up everywhere, if you can't afford to pay the toll, don't drive on that road. Forget the penal code too- rich people never break the law after all! :P Reasoning against a social contract is a damned risky business.

And remember, no one's forcing you to live in a welfare state- if your vote isn't doing anything and you're not willing to protest peacefully, then just go to a nation with no welfare plan, there are loads out there. European governments reason ahead of the issues with a moral context to their actions for the most part- that's a good thing surely?

Alcoholics and addicts are consistently portrayed in a poor light from documentaries to sitcoms

Documentaries and sitcoms? I know a lot of people who don't watch TV, not even for the news. Or who own a TV but just use it for a playstation + video player. Putting a message on TV doesn't reach the homeless dude who's shooting up, nor the kid in a bad neighborhood.

children cant even watch South Park without being told drugs are bad mkay, along with being warned about ending up doing handjobs for crack.

So SouthPark is a public awareness programme? Haha, that's brilliant, I think Paramount's PR machine's found another recruit :P

This merely takes a humourous aproach to the same message thats echoed throughout schooling and popular culture.

The healthy eating message is similarly echoed, as are public messages for dental care. Yet people still refuse to eat enough greens and fibre, consume too much fat and soluble sugars for their own good. Hospital beds are full of people who end up there for no better reason than lifestyle. If someone eats so much fat it gives them coronary problems, or eats so much sugar that their teeth fall out and they contract Type I diabetes they shouldn't get any help by your reasoning of the issue.

The one point I would agree regarding society etc is the advertisment of alcohol, which shows itself as being essential for a good night out and people who drink it date supermodels, drive sports cars, yadda yadda and similar crap. Id support restricting advertisments for alcohol.

People don't buy alcohol for advertising reasons any more than they take drugs for advertising reasons. Young people don't take up smoking because of the Malboro man, they do it because it's a societal trend- drug abuse is merely the same problem on a smaller scale.

Im sorry Ive no actual concept of what 30g is beyond a figure, so its tricky for me to say "Have i had 30g yet or not? ****ed if I know". I do know If Ive done hard drugs or gone through one or two bottles of vodka in a day. Perhaps its simply a case of availability of information - Id go looking for information on fatty foods etc, for drugs and stuff its shoved into my face. Ive got more of an exscuse on the foods then imo.

And an alcoholic could say he/she has no concept of what a pint is beyond a figure. Which is just as big a load of cr@p. If you can get your head around so abstract a concept as a "unit" of alcohol, surely knowing how much fat is healthy can be done as well? I'd put it down to sheer bone-laziness/unwillingness, public health programmes are on TV every day too, schools put healthy eating high on their agenda for the most part too. There's no excuse for not knowing, but society should allow for people making mistakes. You would punish people for a single abusive mistake like taking up drug use (which they may not have known about)- and spare those who make a whole slew of mistakes about healthy eating(which they may also not know about). Whatever your system is, it needs to be consistent- that manner of discrimination is not just immoral, but impracticable.

If a child (or anyone ) is harmed by anothers actions you cant hold them responsible for their condition.

So how do you hold an addict responsible? If it's the parent's fault in my example, surely it's the dealer's fault in the case of the addict- both the child and the addict are morally in the same boat.

Theyre both equally stupid, and known to be stupid, and youll wind up in a bad way from both.

Not eating 5 helpings of fruit and veg a day is stupid, so is eating tonnes of candy and processed sugars. If you're going to punish the addict, you need to punish those who don't eat healthily.

Sure once you are an addict you have no choice, but you *always* have a choice in the beginning- Much like when you jump of a building, you might change your mind half way down but its a bit late then - should never have jumped in the first place.

Lifestyle decisions to do with eating/exercise can be altered on a daily basis- it's not as easy to give up drugs. There is a choice in the beginning, but people with mental illness/depression and those who don't know better often can't make the right choice. If they make a single mistake like that we deny them care...but if you make a huge series of bad lifestyle decisions we give you care? Doesn't make sense to me.

Hmm, i dont dehumanise them, I simply consider them the equivalent of the guy who injected himself with equine viagra and ended up losing his penis - absolute freaking morons who dont deserve my attention.

The heart patient, the diabetic and the lung cancer patient who lives in a city would all take exception to being called freaking morons- especially since it is their decisions on a day to day basis that got them into their situation. You can't selectively deny care to people, even those who create their own illness- that is the correct policy, and long may it continue.

Occy

DeVore

The Hypocratic Oath.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.*

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.



* Who are we to judge that these people "deserve" treatment or not.


DeV.

SheroN

we're the people who have to fork out for it. that's who!

Ajnag

while i agree responsibility for treatment is an issue with other drugs(you know the drunk drivers and mutilated bodys etc, bums who never seem to recieve any treatment, and so on), cannabis is different, why, cos unlike the drunkards we wont be pummeling the shíte out of each other on a saterday night, we probably wont be driving due to an inability to move and theres probably something better on t.v, our lung cancer rates will be lower then nicotine if we get a trendy healthy eating dope thing going(ahh master chef with REAL herb )

sorry im just being a smart ass, but if there are as many people who agree with legalising as is shown, may i suggest www.cannabisireland.com a fledgling movement and unless their is a ming fan society, probably the only group out there.


one thing cannabis users can promise is to be the lowest maintence socialy responsible group out there, ahead of other drugs(especially the legal ones) and most activitys.

Sand

Some people sort drug legalistion because they take themselves or just want to be liberal. I support it cos i honestly couldnt give a rats arse what you do so long as you dont bother me, and what youre doing anyway while its illegal, and would prefer you got taxed for doing it.

This isnt good enough though - I must be terribly concerned about the poor people who take drugs, I should sit up all night worrying about it, I should be campaigning for my taxes to be increased so they can get more substitutes drugs for junkies etc etc, blah, blah. Im sorry I dont. Its not a matter of pure luck that I dont do heroin - I kinda gathered along the way the general perception that drugs were bad, that use of them was suicidal.

* Who are we to judge that these people "deserve" treatment or not.

I never took that oath, and if you want to pay for them be my guest...

Only a slight extension of this attitude is to do away with a police force and let people pay for their own protection, close the public schools, let people educate their own too!

And yet people get upset when gates are errected to stop joyriders, or entire walled neighberhoods hire their own private security, or that private school are usually far better equipped than public schools, or that youre better off on private healthcare than public assuming you can afford it. Some people dont seem to be doing all that well from the social contract - probably the people working twice as hard. Anyway Im not much on the old socialism to begin with - so appealing to my loyalty to the social contract is a bit of a dead end:x

So SouthPark is a public awareness programme? Haha, that's brilliant, I think Paramount's PR machine's found another recruit :P

Cant believe you didnt read the next sentence when you quoted it.

The healthy eating message is similarly echoed, as are public messages for dental care.

Hardly as loudly - theyve yet to make Trainspotting: Sickboy visits the Dentist - thats public culture, not some hidden away poster in your dentists office.

So how do you hold an addict responsible? If it's the parent's fault in my example, surely it's the dealer's fault in the case of the addict- both the child and the addict are morally in the same boat.

Hardly. The Child after all didnt visit a dealer and pay them to give them poison did they?

You would punish people for a single abusive mistake like taking up drug use (which they may not have known about)- and spare those who make a whole slew of mistakes about healthy eating(which they may also not know about). Whatever your system is, it needs to be consistent- that manner of discrimination is not just immoral, but impracticable.

Your friend buys a burger- you say, careful there - youll pile on the pounds with those things. Your friend buys heroin - you say, careful there - they can be a bit rough on the old health?!?!? More like you ask him what exactly the feck they were thinking...

Young people don't take up smoking because of the Malboro man, they do it because it's a societal trend- drug abuse is merely the same problem on a smaller scale.

This is a problem i have with your arguments. I say people are well informed and should live with their own mistakes. You use examples of poor, uneducated losers who never had a chance to say theyre uninformed and thus cant be expected to live with their mistakes. You say in the above, in response to me allowing that some weak willed eejits could be swayed by advertising, that information ( advertising is a form of slanted information) doesnt actually play a role in it, that people do it for social reasons. This syncs with your belief that if you kill poverty youll kill drugs - this would imply that rich people dont do drugs, a ridiculous idea that you yourself rubbish early on in your last post. Rich people have access to information, they do have a real choice- and yet plenty of them do drugs .... what makes them do drugs under your reasoning - Why is Danilella Westbrook looking to find a doctor to replace her septum? Why are their reasons so different from poor peoples? Under your reasoning poor people have the exscuse of being poor and having no TVs, what exscuse do rich people have?

Doing drugs is a personal decision that flies in the face of every bit of decent advice youll receive in your life. Im sorry, Ive little to no sympathy with people who are stupid enough to use them. However Ive no interest in stopping them if theyre so intent on killing themselves, I dont know them and theyre not my problem.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Its not a matter of pure luck that I dont do heroin - I kinda gathered along the way the general perception that drugs were bad, that use of them was suicidal.

I notice that the topic in question is actually about canabis, but you keep referring to drugs which have a proven physical addiction, which are proven to be detrimental, etc. etc. etc.

No-one has suggested that heroin be legalised except perhaps you. You seem to be saying "legalise what you want, as long as I dont have to pay for it". All that has been pointed out is that you already pay for many many similar costs from things which are legal.

Your argument as to why its ok to pay for these costs, but not for the potential equivalent costs on the legalisation of drugs is highly suspect.

Food-abuse (obesity etc) is ok in your book because, hey - you need food to live. Drug abuse isnt ok because you had to be an idiot to get hooked on drugs.

I would argue that the people suffering health conditions from non-physically-addictive substances (like food) have even less of an excuse - they cant even blame an initial moment of stupidity for their addiction, they can only blame a continuous choice to be stupid.

This is a problem i have with your arguments. I say people are well informed and should live with their own mistakes.

No - you say that about drugs. You deny it about basic nutrition. You are selectively choosing when you want people to be well informed, and when you dont, so that they only have to live with the mistakes that you arent willing to overlook.

Doing drugs is a personal decision that flies in the face of every bit of decent advice youll receive in your life.

You should really qualify what you mean by "drugs". For a start, aspirin is a drug, and I'm pretty sure you dont mean that.

So, cutting it short, its "obviously" harmful addictive drugs that your talking about. l.

So, you're probably talking about harmful, addictive drugs. Rght?

Stuff like heroin. And alcohol.

However, there is very little solid evidence to show that marijuana is either harmful or physically addictive to any significant extent.

And marijuana is what we're talking about here. Not heroin, which seems to have been the focus of every post you've made on this topic. Marijuana.

Which kinda leads me to ask what your point is. You're not even addressing the issue at hand - you're addressing a seperate question as though you want us to believe that it is the issue.

jc

DeVore

I hate to say it Sand but I think you are bonkers.

You want the doctors not to treat these people, infact anyone who doesnt live by your moral code it would seem.

They took that oath and I'm VERY glad they did. I for one dont want to be judged before getting treatment and if that means I have to pay taxes for others to get treated too, then I'm happy to do that.

Do you smoke? drink? eat red meat? live in a city? Have you ever been in hospital for treatment?

Would you like to answer these questions and others that might be more intrusive before you get treatment?

What if you had aids and were gay. should you be treated?


Please give me a definitive list of the people you would like treated and those you think deserve what they get.


I'm serious, please list the two groups, it doesnt have to be exhaustive, just representative.

Thank you.
DeV.

Typedef

No it shouldn't.

In fact I would support prohibition of cigarettes, alochol and of course hash.

Why? Because it is a well know fact, there is imperical evidence that supports the claim that for example cigarettes cause Cancer. Now in my book the governance of people means the protection of those people,citizens, whatever you want to call them. The government is charged with providing military protection via the army, civil protection via the police force, fire protection and so on. The government must also enact legislation to protect it's citizens.

Thus why is it the case that Cigarettes are still legal? By the criteria laid out above the government is being neglagent by not prohibiting the sale of tobacco, as the government must protect the citizens of state(x).

Thus based on the criteria of safety and not just the physical health aspect of hash which is know to contain carcenogenic agents (I'm not contrasting it with tobacco simply stating that hash has carcenogenic agents), but the emotional and mental health aspects of hash, I would oppose it's decriminalisation.

Regular smokers of hash usually suffer from short term memory deficites up to seven days after their final intake of THC, the active agent of cannabis. Hashish users are for the most part paranoid and lazy, because cannabis is a psycoactive agent with similar (though milder) properties to the much more hallucenogenic LSD and psylopsybin. The reason for the laziness of the cannabis user is that cannabis inhibits the production of seratonin, which is why cannabis users need so much more sleep than most normal people.

If a way could be found such that the side affects of cannabis could be limited to roughly the same time limit as alochol then the substance would not be quite as repellant to me as it is.

In reality though a drug that will still affect your short term memory adversely up to seven days after consumption of say (€7.50) worth of cannabis resin is too potent for people to be using in their day to day lives and be expected to function as a useful part of society.

Cannabis is nicknamed dope specifically because of the fact that if we take the consumption of €7.50 worth of resin (as opposed to unprocessed grass or hash oil), the user will seem slower, and not as quick to understand or interact with people as before it's consumption even long after the high has worn off from the drug, sometimes for two or three days after consumption a user can seem, stupid, though not actually stoned anymore. This is why the drug is called dope.

Like I say, right now, cannabis is too potent and it's side effects last too long, aside from being a cause of cancer.

Thus as I believe that society actually should try to discourage people from doing stupidly dangerous things to themselves as a rule of thumb, I don't believe that cannabis should be legalised.

Regards
Typedef.

Zaphod B

Thanks to cigarette smoking I've never met much of the family on my mother's side apart from maintaining their graves. Cannabis on the other hand has not taken the life of anyone I know, nor has it made them want to try harder drugs. Ask most cannabis users if they do anything harder and you get either the reply "Don't be fvcking stupid" or a look that says the same thing. I have no problem legalising a substance which a few people believe may just possibly lead you to harder drugs, when we know for a fact that some completely legal substances will turn the inside of your lungs into a Pirelli tyre. And someone please compare the medicinal properties of ciggies with those of cannabis... thankyou.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
In fact I would support prohibition of cigarettes, alochol and of course hash.

I would as well, if it were actually practical.

Marijuana, in any form, is illegal in Ireland. It is already prohibited. Yet statistics seem to show that in excess of 30% of the teenage youth have tried it. Statistics from Europe also seem to show that usage is independant from legality/illegality.

Alcohol prohibition - well, when has that ever been successful anywhere. Yes, I know there are still some "dry spots" in the US, and some in the Middle Eastern nations, and anyone I've ever met who has been in those places has always had access to the prohibited substance.

Personally, I'd prefer to see it legal and at least somewhat under control. Besides - isnt it better for the government to receive taxes for usage, rather than fund futile policing to try and prevent usage?

Thus why is it the case that Cigarettes are still legal?

A couple of reasons.

First of all, making them illegal would probably be political suicide, and I know very few influencial politicians (let alone parties) who are willing to sacrifice their career for something they believe in. Sad, but true.

Secondly, it is questionable as to whether or not prohibition would actually work - again, look at figures on marijuana usage and at the lack of success in prohibiting alcohol.

Thus based on the criteria of safety and not just the physical health aspect of hash which is know to contain carcenogenic agents ... I would oppose it's decriminalisation.

I would oppose decriminalisation. I believe it should be legal or illegal. Middle-ground solutions like decriminalisation generally seem to offer you the worst of both worlds.

If a way could be found such that the side affects of cannabis could be limited to roughly the same time limit as alochol then the substance would not be quite as repellant to me as it is.

I need to check up on this, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that THC is counteracted by VitC. Regular, heavy smokers generally suffer from a lack of vit C, and taking excess is a good way of clearing both the substance and its effects.

Like I said - I seem to recall reading this. It may be complete toss. I will see if I can find the reference again.

Speaking of references....this is the second time you have "explained" the etymology of the term dope.

I'm wondering if you could point me at somewhere credible which actually explains this, or is it just something which you've decided makes sense?

I mean - the general belief of hasish and assassin sharing an etymological history is considered little more than "mythical", and the more probable root is :

1598, from Ar. hashish "powdered hemp," lit. "dry herb," from hashsha "it became dry, it dried up."

All I've been able to find on dope is :

dope - 1807, Amer.Eng., "sauce, gravy," from Du. doop "thick dipping sauce." Extension to "drug" is 1889, from practice of smoking semi-liquid opium preparation. Meaning "foolish, stupid person" is older (1851) and may have a sense of "thick-headed." Sense of "inside information" may come from knowing before the race which horse had been drugged to influence performance.

Which means that you might be right. On the other hand, it could be completely unrelated and wrong - much like the widely held hashish/assassin.

In general, marijuana has had a mixed history. Mohammed allowed its use at the same time as forbidding alcohol. Some pope in the 1400s condemned it as being linked the satanic mass (I think), but in general, the modern-day villification of marijuana has come mostly from the 1930's when hemp tried to stage a comeback as an industrial product, only to be stomed on by the paper/petroleum/cotton industries, who cast marijuana in a terrible light in order to condemn hemp by association. Much of what we are taught today about the evils of marijuana is nothing but propaganda from that era which became so widespread it is often accepted as "fact".

jc

DeVore

Jesus Typedef, thank jaysis you arent in power.

I dont need you or my government telling me whats too dangerous for little old me to try.

Would you stop me snowboarding? (an activity with far greater inherent risk then smoking a joint).

How will you enforce your ban? Prison? Executions ala the middle east?

How far will this nanny-state go and what defines when it will allow me to exercise my own judgement and when it will decide for me?

Mindblowingly dangerous and stupid posts in this thread. Scary.

DeV

Dr. Loon

Originally posted by DeVore
Jesus Typedef, thank jaysis you arent in power.


Mindblowingly dangerous and stupid posts in this thread. Scary.

Spot on Dev
Typedef.... you'd wanna educate yourself, before making uninformed posts.

On a slightly related note, there was an article up at online.ie (can't find it now) yesterday about a certain percentage - sorry can't remember - of IT workers used marijuana on a regular basis. Don't know what that says really, although according to Typedef, it'd mean a good lot of IT workers are dopey, and lazy!?

Nobody I know who smokes the shít is lazy or dopey up to 7 days afterwards. If they are, they were before they ever smoked it also. This discussion has been on here so many times. It gets boring.
The usual idiots reply with OTT views on Marijuana and "The gateway effect" and start talking about heroin and crap.

The discussion is "Should cannabis be legalised?"

Ajnag

Originally posted by Typedef
The reason for the laziness of the cannabis user is that cannabis inhibits the production of seratonin, which is why cannabis users need so much more sleep than most normal people.

No that was the original charge against ecstasy, which was shown to unscientific and was lambasted by new scientist.

Originally posted by Typedef
If a way could be found such that the side affects of cannabis could be limited to roughly the same time limit as alochol then the substance would not be quite as repellant to me as it is..

yeah I really like the way alcohol causes pernament liver damage, and how it kills brain cells. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Typedef
In reality though a drug that will still affect your short term memory adversely up to seven days after consumption of say (€7.50) worth of cannabis resin is too potent for people to be using in their day to day lives and be expected to function as a useful part of society..

Your sources please? and as for that stupid fukin potentcy argument, christ gimme a break, do you see people drinking pints of spirits on a regular basis :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Typedef
Cannabis is nicknamed dope specifically because of the fact that if we take the consumption of €7.50 worth of resin (as opposed to unprocessed grass or hash oil), the user will seem slower, and not as quick to understand or interact with people as before it's consumption even long after the high has worn off from the drug, sometimes for two or three days after consumption a user can seem, stupid, though not actually stoned anymore. This is why the drug is called dope..

complete and utter bollox, recent tests concerning cannabis and iq have shown no real impact on i.q, and even older tests carryed by some obscure university called harvard, clearly showed that there was no impairment of memory on long term memory.

Originally posted by Typedef
Like I say, right now, cannabis is too potent and it's side effects last too long, aside from being a cause of cancer..

Well if you dont want cancer eat it, drink it, use a vaporiser, and supposedly youd hold it up that im the one impaired :rolleyes:

and if it really bothers you that much,saudi arabia sounds like your utopia where religion is the only reason why prohibition works.

bonkey

Originally posted by Ajnag
yeah I really like the way alcohol causes pernament liver damage, and how it kills brain cells. :rolleyes:

Well, in fairness, Type has already stated that he thinks both alcohol and nicotine should be banned up alongside canabis :rolleyes:

complete and utter bollox, recent tests concerning cannabis and iq have shown no real impact on i.q, and even older tests carryed by some obscure university called harvard, clearly showed that there was no impairment of memory on long term memory.

None of which shows why what Type is saying is "complete and utter bollox". Read his post again. He is talking about the effects on short term memory and never once mentioned IQ. IQ tests, for the record, are most categorically not based on short-term memory ability.

Well if you dont want cancer eat it, drink it, use a vaporiser, and supposedly youd hold it up that im the one impaired :rolleyes:

He wasnt talking about cancer :rolleyes: He said aside from causing cancer. Hell, pretty much everything causes cancer if you want to look at it that way. Also, and I could be wrong on this, but I was of the opinion that marijuana's carcinogenic effects were not limited to smoking.

The only major problem I have with Type's argument is his complete exaggeration of what the short-term memory loss effects etc. actually are. It is correct to say that the effects may be observed for up to 7 days, but the effects themselves are generally very, very mild except in cases of serious substance abuse. Type, on the other hand, would seem to have us believe that you are a walking zombie who craves sleep for a week after a night with a couple of joints....which is blatantly misleading.

I may disagree with his other points, and I think his etymology of the word "dope" is a bit convenient, but this is the only point where I believe he is either firmly under-informed, or deliberately misleading. Of course, he could say the exact same about my counter-argument

jc

p.s. Look - I can do rolleyes as much as you can

Sand

I notice that the topic in question is actually about canabis, but you keep referring to drugs which have a proven physical addiction, which are proven to be detrimental, etc. etc. etc.

As I noted in my earlier post

In any case this discussin has entered (imo) the swings and roundabouts phase, and it hasnt got a lot to do with the initial discussion - If want to pm me, grand - but i dont know what you can say thatll make me believe that addicts are truly uninformed, victims of society deserving of every aid society/taxpayers can offer them etc etc.

However, there is very little solid evidence to show that marijuana is either harmful or physically addictive to any significant extent.

Grand, saves me a bill.

Which kinda leads me to ask what your point is. You're not even addressing the issue at hand - you're addressing a seperate question as though you want us to believe that it is the issue.

See above - I lost interest in peoples concern over my lack of concern quite sometime ago. Despite me hinting heavily people ( Dev being merely the latest) continue to try and tackle me on it. Why? Obviously theyre very interested in it. Like I said if you want to pm me fine- ill respond because im polite.

You want the doctors not to treat these people, infact anyone who doesnt live by your moral code it would seem.

Let doctors treat them - I just find it objectionable taxpayers have to pay for an *extremely* moronic group of people. Much as say pro-lifers in Texas might be upset their taxes go to kill death row inmates. But how and ever - guess we should all just get with the program.

Please give me a definitive list of the people you would like treated and those you think deserve what they get.

Rather the list should be who should pay to clean up their own messes.

No it shouldn't.

Im actually coming round to Types opinion- terrifyingly scary I know but it would have probably been less bother to me if id come into the thread and said I didnt support legalisation.

How far will this nanny-state go and what defines when it will allow me to exercise my own judgement and when it will decide for me?

And people attack me about my inconsistencies? I dont want a Nanny state to tell me what to do, I do want a nanny state to clear up after my messes though.

The discussion is "Should cannabis be legalised?"

Like I said before, fire away - thats my opinion - everything else has just been swings and roundabouts.

Ajnag

grr just wrote this out once and lost it.


any who, i guess i did flame(it could be argued), but this is a result of having to listen to the opinion of local hillbillys who wouldnt even know the meaning of the word science, which after a while has left me reactionary and narky.

i feel he was equating cannabis use with cancer all along, and as far as i know when not smoked its non carcenogenic.Ill try and get a source for that one.

also type i guess given that you want to ban alcohol and ciggis, you at least stand on better ground in the drugs debate then most other prohibitionists.

but that said, if you think cannabis causes such dramatic short-term memory loss, then maybe you should try it(ill assume you probably have tryed alcohol at one stage or another) and from expericance you will learn that the effects certainly do not last longer then alcohol and the day after isnt as painfull either

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
I just find it objectionable taxpayers have to pay for an *extremely* moronic group of people.

The only problem I have with that whole argument is that society will never be able to come to agree on what constitutes "moronic".

As with all of these problems, its easy to draw vague lines, but when it comes to making the case-by-case decision how could you actually determine what counts as "extremely moronic".

For me, anyone who is obese through nothing more than over-eating is extremely moronic. I cant understand how anyone could possibly not understand that they were living an unhealthy lifestyle through such dietary abuse.

You, on the other hand have argued that these people are not to blame, due to lack of information.

On the other hand, drug awareness is "obvious" to you, but to me, the only places I've ever seen anything about it were in school, and on the occasional "preachy" tv show - both of which are not exactly attention-grabbing spots for people in poor social conditions (where drug abuse is the most rife). Incidentally, these would be the same places I see information about nutrition and diet.

So this is where the problem lies. Society will be as divided as the two of us. Given such division, how can society make a fair decision? The only fair decision is to agree to treat everyone. The only times the hospitals should refuse treatments are when they have limited resources and have to make a decision as to which life to save. Whether we like it or not, such decisions have to be made on a daily basis - people get selected to live and die.

Here, I can agree to a degree of punishment for your sins....but I would be disgusted if the 30 stone obese McDonalds-muching fat-boy was chosen over, say, an alcoholic simply because the alcoholic is deemed to be responsible for his own stupidity and the fat-boy isnt.

Like I said....it is because we cannot agree as a society that we must take the humanitarian approach. Yes, it costs us, and thats a terrible shame. On the other hand, it would be hypocritical of me to protest about the humanitarian conditions in any part of the world if my own local humanitarian decisions were based on nothing more than how many almighty dollars such local aid cost me.

jc

Ajnag

ok i know i here one faq with references to actuall research carryed out:

for type who is quoting a lingering effect
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3475#10

if you dipute this please argue with the authors of the reports quoted.


in general :http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3475 same page at the index.

and as for cancer, well if you inhale the vapours of any burning carbonising item chances are your going to incur cancer, but as yet there appears to be no evidense that cannabis causes cancer when drank,eaten much less when smoked!

http://www.drugtext.org/reports/uklords98/15105.htm

Monkey

Tydef you obviously have little if any actual experience of the drug in real life be it direct or indirect.

"mere prattle, without practise"

DeVore

Sand wrote:

See above - I lost interest in peoples concern over my lack of concern quite sometime ago. Despite me hinting heavily people ( Dev being merely the latest) continue to try and tackle me on it. Why? Obviously theyre very interested in it. Like I said if you want to pm me fine- ill respond because im polite.

Why then did you post it on a public *discussion* forum. Sounds to me like you want to run away because the bad men have cornered you and made you look stupid.

I notice that you completely evaded my question about WHO you would treat and WHO you wouldnt.

Come on then, stand by your convictions and answer the question.

DeV.

Ajnag

going by the poll there are a lot of people here, who do feel that cannabis should be legalised, however its only those who use cannabis who are affect by the current situation with the law.so can i ask who would be intrested in participation, or even just disscussion in the pursuit of legalisation.basicly simple intrest even would improve the irish situation.

and as for the sand,devore and what nots argument, you have a good argument going, just maybe you should start a drugs and legalisation thread or something along those lines to debate responsibility for treatment.

Winters

Yes it should be but within reason...it should not be freely avelable at every shop but only in certain places and stuff... i dont think it should be avelable to everyone but it still should be legalised.

Ajnag

we could use the dutch guidelines winters:

no under 18s
no hard drugs
no alcohol
no advertising
and no people with convictions related to organised crime should be allowed to cultivate or sell (so we can rip the arse out of the scumbags business who run the show at the moment)


reasonable?