How does the law currently view users of cannabis for medicine in the court

I have never smoked cannabis, or used illegal drugs and in general terms, I disagree with the use of drugs, legal and illegal, unless they are genuinely needed. If someone is prescribed cannabis and it is being used under the care and instruction of their medical practitioner, there really isn't an issue there imo.

However, legalising it for recreational use is just ridiculous and is too often suggested under the guise of health problems. Saying it is harmless, does not make it true. I have seen the damage of longterm and regular use. I occasionally help clients to stop using. One client had become heavily dependent on cannabis in only 3 years and lost his job and pretty much all motivation as a result. Unless it is needed, it should be illegal.

Though I do believe that Ireland is a bit too restrictive and expensive when it comes to medication. Needing a prescription for my sons overly priced inhalers is just one example. They can be picked up when I am in Spain wihout prescription, for a fraction of the price. No doubt, this is true of most, if not all other EU countries.

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

My experience has been the oppisite.Been smoking it for 26 years and no major side effects.Managed to hold down jobs and function normally.I did loose a house but that was through divorce.Am I lucky?Is my anecdotal evidence better than yours?
Have seen more people that I know fuk up on alcohol tbh.

Anyways back to the OP afaik the law doesnt care what form it is,its still a controlled substance.

No "major side effects"? Someone smoking it for 26 years, even at small amounts, unless it is needed, is of course going to have some negative side effects. Although I could not be certain, the loss of the house, in the divorce, could have been partially as a result of being a cannabis user. It cannot be denied that recreational, regular use of cannabis, will have a negative impact on a person. Even minor side effects are a bad thing when you must rely on a drug. There is such a thing as a functional alcoholic, but that's not what we are discussing.

You only know you've been in the matrix, when you finally get out

Those who stop using cannabis.....even the infrequent users, notice improvements in memory, concentration and motivation. Cannabis inhibits ones normal level of "get up and go". If you stopped using it for a few months, you would know what I am talking about. If you stopped using it for a couple of weeks, you would know that you're addicted. 26 years of smoking cannabis and saying you're not addicted, is just delusional. Oh, and that's another side effect of cannabis use, if you weren't aware.

You did bring up alcohol, so I used it as an example in my post. Would You deny that someone who had a couple of cans of beer most nights of the week for 20 odd years is an alcoholic?

goz83 wrote: »

You only know you've been in the matrix, when you finally get out

Those who stop using cannabis.....even the infrequent users, notice improvements in memory, concentration and motivation. Cannabis inhibits ones normal level of "get up and go". If you stopped using it for a few months, you would know what I am talking about. If you stopped using it for a couple of weeks, you would know that you're addicted. 26 years of smoking cannabis and saying you're not addicted, is just delusional. Oh, and that's another side effect of cannabis use, if you weren't aware.

You did bring up alcohol, so I used it as an example in my post. Would You deny that someone who had a couple of cans of beer most nights of the week for 20 odd years is an alcoholic?

This is a load of balls. I smoked for 20+ years. I kept my half of the house in the divorce. Gave it up when I decided to have kids with the new missus. Easiest thing in the world. I still have a very occasional toke.

I've held down a job for pretty much all of my adult life. Received promotions, held down several mortgages and never missed a payment. Know loads of other people in the same boat.

Plenty of wasters smoke weed, but you can say the same about drink.

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

Gimme a break and stop talking rubbish.


does it now?How much a year do you earn btw?Just curious.



lol more sh1te


Like I said, ive seen more people fecked up on drink.

Did you get kicked out of a pyschology degree after the first semester?

or did you watch this by accident on youtube?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54xWo7ITFbg

A defense by attempting to insult me only strenghtens my point. Are you now trying to say that smoking cannabis increases your earning potential? Plenty of people do fine while smoking cannabis. My point is that they dont escape the negative effects of it, no matter how much they might claim otherwise. People who smoke cannabis regularly, are more likey to waste their time, playing computer games for hours per day, than doing something worthwhile. Though they might argue that the smoking of cannabis is very worthwhile. Paranoia and mood swings generally don't help either

nm wrote: »

Lol - you can't be serious? You were being coherent in your argument but you've just taken a turn for the ludicrous here.

First 10 words were tongue-in-cheek after the two posters above said they were divorced, but the legal forum....sometimes, I forget I am in, which is not necessarily the place for such comments. The rest, is a genuine experience of people I know that cannabis had a significant weight in the breakdown of longterm relationships. Yes, there were other factors, of course. This isn't the thread to get into that though.

It is more than a little delusional for someone to be a frequent user of cannabis for a quarter of a century and claim they are not addicted to it. Then another user pops in and says it was the easiest thing in the world to give up, while in the next sentence, admitting to still using :pac: That's the same as claiming that you don't drink alcohol, but just have the occasional drink on occasion. I would say that that person drinks.....but, isn't necessarily an alcoholic, just because he/she drinks.

The stuff I hear people say would make your jaw drop, it's often so ludicrously contradictory. To me, it's black and white. Either you do, or you don't. Frequency of use, is a secondary consideration.

teddyhead wrote: »

Ever heard of facts or evidence? Some presumptious ,rather patronizing statements there. Who are you ? Joe Duffy?
Half of Europe and many US states disagree with your 1950s view on things.

How about you link your facts and evidence instead of trumping in with sloppy statements.

I speak from personal experience, observation and client stories, much of which I posted is common knowledge.

Are you a cannabis user?

goz83 wrote: »

How about you link your facts and evidence instead of trumping in with sloppy statements.

I speak from personal experience, observation and client stories, much of which I posted is common knowledge.

Are you a cannabis user?

Yes I am. My biggest problem is the financial aspect of the habit. Other than that , it has helped me greatly.

teddyhead wrote: »

We should also take a look at the lucrative 'cannabis rehabilitation' industry , where cynical quacks exploit and cash in on, the fear of cannabis. This industry makes a lot of money from genuinely worried parents by preying on their fears and giving them unscientific information about cannabis. Of course , if your parents think you are ' a crazy junkie' when you are just a typical teen , this will affect a young persons sense of self.

I see you have provided lots of links to the facts. Oh wait, you haven't. You seem also to have made an incorrect assumption, as to the nature of my work, in a rather cynical and arrogant way. I cannot vouch for anyone else, but when people come to me and ask for my help in this particular area (which is infrequent), I keep my opinions of cannabis on hold and simply provide the help requested. If you want to link credible findings to your own claims, please feel free to do so. Though I reckon a few more quid is made in the sale of cannabis, than the treatment of its abuse.

nm wrote: »

Can you not see the blatant hypocrisy and contradiction in what you've written above?

Someone can drink all their lives, but isn't necessarily an alcoholic. But someone that chooses to smoke cannabis, must be an addict?
Rubbish.

And yet another person, who chooses not to read posts correctly. As I alluded to in my previous post, the secondary consideration, is frequency. So, let me try to explain to you, in simple terms, so you cannot miss my meaning again. There is room for opinion in what I am about to say, so I will keep leaps away from the much blurred lines on the subject.

A person can drink their whole lives, lets say, a glass of wine, or beer, once a week. Is this person an alcoholic, because they have drinking their whole lives? If they can say "no" to drinking, in my opinion, that person is a drinker, but not alcoholic.

I would apply the exact same opinion, to a person who smokes cannabis. An occasional smoke, does not make an addict, as long as that person has always been able to say "no" to the substance, with no difficulty.

However, if a person was ever a very frequent user of either substance (perhaps saving for a short period of time in their late teens and early twenties, due to societal norms), I would say that that person is an addict, especially if they have not stopped using the substance completely. When an addict falls off the wagon, they start counting the days again. But only if they admit that they are an addict.

nm wrote: »

Which is why you're so wrong.

Like alcohol and well, the majority of things in life, it isn't just black or white.

Whether one does, or does not, is black and white. Trying to argue that I am wrong here, is colourful.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Okay,

The actual reason cannabis is illegal here.

The people who run the country and make the laws of the land, come from families, where one son gets the farm, another is set up with a pub, another one for the law, there used to be one for the priesthood, but homosexuality is no longer frowned upon as it was, and if it's a fine rancher family, one son for the Dail, after of course a period teaching, a job they were set up with by their uncle the parish priest.

The brother who gets to the Dail looks after all the other brothers. Even though Micky, who gosh the pub, will wipe out half the population whatever godforsaken rat hole village he drains of hope or vitality, he'll never spend a day in jail, of be referred to as a "dealer in death", as his brother Willy, in the law refers to the people brought before his beak for possession with intent to supply a substance with not a single recorded case of lethality in the entirety of recorded history.

You are probably better off posting your musings in the CT forum

nm wrote: »

Yet, you've convinced yourself that a person must be "delusional" when they tell you they're not addicted.

Few people would argue, that someone who frequently abuses a substances for over 25 years, is not addicted. That would be delusional.

nm wrote: »

And what qualifies you exactly to decide where the line of addiction starts and ends?

Again, if you actually read my posts, you might get the actual meaning, rather than the cherry picked, skewed version you seem to be replying to. Where have I claimed to have placed a line between addicted, or not? I did mention a line and that I was commenting on the extremes of those lines, specifically because I do not claim any qualification. As I danceed on the extremes of the scenarios, I would think my points are valid, but you are welcome to disagree.

nm wrote: »

You seem to put people who drink or smoke cannabis in a a default position of an addict and if they can lower the frequency enough for you, well then who knows. On top of that you've also absurdly attributed several divorces and the loss of a house in the settlement to casual cannabis use with little to no information of the circumstances..
I mean your opinion is, to put it politely, obtuse.

Again, I haven't drawn any line of level, or frequency, unless you consider very frequent use to almost none, as a line. I would consider this very blurred and safe for the purpose of my post. As I mentioned above, regarding divorce...my comments were part tongue-in-cheek and part based on personal experience, but you've conveniently ignored that explanation in order to beef up your post. I don't think your opinion of my opinion is valid, because you have blatantly ignored the meanings of my previous posts. Or perhaps you are also a frequent cannabis user? It is known to affect memory and concentration. In that case, I forgive you missing my points.

nm wrote: »

I would hope that we never have anyone with such a black and white view of the world in power, or rather where we do, that it changes sooner rather than later.

And you've completely trampled over my meaning, but I believe most other posters are smart enough to see what I meant, so I need not repeat myself.


I agree that the thread has been derailed, but I think, in actual fact, the derailment serves to show partly why cannabis has not seen any form of legalisation in Ireland. There is too much bickering and not enough understanding.

I hope there is legalisation passed for medical use. I will take my leave from this thread, as I believe my points should stand for themselves, assuming they are read correctly by people with an unbiased view. :cool:

euser1984 wrote: »

Long title.

Legislation was going to be urgently put through to make cannabis available for ms patients and it hasn't done so despite expected last year or 2013. It's legal in the UK plus a number of other well known eu countries including france.

My only guess is an expected toll on mental health services? I don't want to get into an argument but mental health services say a lot of cannabis users arrive at their door.

So, is it a case that the health system is to blame for ms users using cannabis illegally and getting fines or even a sentence if caught a second time; sentence being up to 12 months of your life?

Or are the courts aware of that and perhaps these cases aren't even publicized (conspiracy thing in me)

It is a pity your questions got forgotten about in the ensuing "discussion" :rolleyes:

It would be interesting to find out what the official stance on the delay is.

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Honestly have no idea why even just CBD oil is illegal here. It doesn't cause any kind of a high, provided it's manufactured correctly to contain no THC content. Legalising this kind of thing is completely separate to legalising THC which is the cannabis content that does cause highs which is what most people associate with cannabis.

Although they both come from the same plant, they have entirely different uses. One can be used recreationally and the other can be used to legitimately help with certain medical conditions. Cannabis plants can be made in a way that results in minimal THC content so that more CBD can be harvested and from here they can further reduce the THC content until it's almost entirely CBD. So there's literally no excuse for not having this option available aside from expenses. Having people personally having to produce this themselves or worse get it from some form of a druhg dealer is no good, this just results in an impure medicine that still has THC content and can possibly cause the highs.

Yes. There's two distinctly different types of plant plus hybrids. There's hundreds of different strains.

And there are strains in every possible combination of THC, CBD and THCA.

CBD and THCA have medicinal uses. When people talk about being anxious or paranoid they have consumed a high THC and low CBD strain.

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

If a medical company was growing a specific strain with the sole intention of having it be a high CBD harvest then there wouldn't be any high THC strains just randomly in with them. And they would be testing them all and doing further steps to decrease the THC content even more to purify it as much as possible.

Sorry, but it was the dumbest scaremongering idea that I could think of.

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Wat!


If a medical company was growing a specific strain with the sole intention of having it be a high CBD harvest then there wouldn't be any high THC strains just randomly in with them. And they would be testing them all and doing further steps to decrease the THC content even more to purify it as much as possible.

Here's a guide to strains.

http://www.leafly.com/start-exploring

Ah right.

Its certainly a shame that CBD oil isnt easily available.