Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Drugs/Murdering Gangs & public apathy

2»

Comments

  • #52
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Only taking the market back from the criminals will end the current situation. All other discussion is a pointless waste of time.

    thats what i meant by legislation. no need to be a negetive nelly


  • #53
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Only taking the market back from the criminals will end the current situation. All other discussion is a pointless waste of time.

    Not strictly true. Destabilising the drugs market could be a (potentially successful) tactic in the 'war on drugs'. Flooding the market with bad drugs, indistinguishable from better cut drugs, would curb consumption. Demand goes down in an uncertain market. People only suggest making the market safer for drug users through legalisation and regulation (the old 'you cant be certain what a dealer has cut the drug with' argument) - you could always make it more unsafe to the point where even as I've demonstrated, an advocate for drug use would 'stay well clear'
    Pace2008 wrote: »
    Would this be brought about through a single dose, or infrequent recreational use, or regular use of the drug? And are you talking about a slight decrease in cognitive function or significant loss of faculty? If the latter could happen through sporadic use I'd stay well clear, obviously

    You still of course have the choice to take drugs, you will just be far more uncertain whether your choice will lead to brain damage. As we've seen with the financial markets, trust is a necessary ingredient to keep things moving. I can trust the food I eat because it is regulated. Keeping the drugs trade unregulated and purposely making it more unsafe would quell demand -

    But nobody would have the stomach for that


  • #54
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    r3nu4l wrote: »
    You see? Point proven. Do you really think you would stay out of a debate like this when you obviously have a vested interest?

    It's not about keeping people out of the debate. As it stands, the anti-prohibitionist side is not given any platform to express their views. The wishes I expressed earlier were idealistic to a fault, and I don't think it's possible for humans to be completely politically neutral, but some semblance of rational discussion would be better than what we have at the moment ie. none at all.


  • #55
    Elevator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 844 ✭✭✭Elevator


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Portugal did

    and Czech republic, also Germany inceased the amounts of drugs you can carry recently, think you can now carry 15 grams of cannabis


  • #56
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    Laminations wrote: »
    How is that a compromise? It sounds like drug users getting what they want. A compromise would be to legalise the drugs, package them with warnings and if you get addicted and need help, tough luck, thats free will for you. solution
    That is a compromise, though I don't see why drugs should be treated any differently in this regard from food and alcohol - alcoholics and the obese are offered help by the state to deal with their problems (as are drug addicts for that matter). Likewise, decriminalisation or legalisation of certain drugs would be a compromise of sorts. At one end of the spectrum we have the current situation, where with the new psychoactive bill all drugs except the ones the legislators like will be criminalised. The other extreme would be the legalisation of all drugs, including the hyper-addictive ones like heroin. I don't want this either.
    Laminations wrote: »
    Not strictly true. Destabilising the drugs market could be a (potentially successful) tactic in the 'war on drugs'. Flooding the market with bad drugs, indistinguishable from better cut drugs, would curb consumption. Demand goes down in an uncertain market. People only suggest making the market safer for drug users through legalisation and regulation (the old 'you cant be certain what a dealer has cut the drug with' argument) - you could always make it more unsafe to the point where even as I've demonstrated, an advocate for drug use would 'stay well clear'

    You still of course have the choice to take drugs, you will just be far more uncertain whether your choice will lead to brain damage. As we've seen with the financial markets, trust is a necessary ingredient to keep things moving. I can trust the food I eat because it is regulated. Keeping the drugs trade unregulated and purposely making it more unsafe would quell demand -

    But nobody would have the stomach for that
    Oh right, introduce new adulterants that would have the effect you described earlier. We've come to the stage in this part of the world where social cleansing isn't considered ethical practice. Good thing too, I say.


  • #57
    petergfiffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 234 ✭✭petergfiffin


    There seems to be 2 myths that are doing the rounds in this thread that really bug me:

    Headshops sold legal drugs
    They didn't, they sold drugs which weren't illegal. I know it seems like splitting hairs but legal drugs are those which have gone through a proper approval process and while they may not be safe, the risk has been quantified. Headshops seem to be protrayed by some people as if they were corner shops selling sweets, they were selling potentially lethal mind altering drugs by pretending they didn't know how they were intended to be used. Are you telling me these guys only sold "bath salts" to people over 18?

    Legalise drugs and the criminals go away
    Ok...so what do we legalise? Hash, cocaine, heroin, crystal meth? Where do we stop? There will always be things which are illegal and these people make their living by exploiting that, if they can't make it from drugs they'll make it from prostitution or some other means, these peope have NO morals. The only way to take out the criminal element is to take out the criminals!


  • #58
    r3nu4l
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,399 ✭✭✭✭r3nu4l


    petergfiffin wrote: »
    Legalise drugs and the criminals go away
    Ok...so what do we legalise? Hash, cocaine, heroin, crystal meth? Where do we stop? There will always be things which are illegal and these people make their living by exploiting that, if they can't make it from drugs they'll make it from prostitution or some other means, these peope have NO morals. The only way to take out the criminal element is to take out the criminals!
    On that point too. Cigarettes are legal but it hasn't stopped scumbags smugglingthem in without paying duty and selling them on the streets.

    So are you telling me that the stoner who buys hash is going to buy a piece for €12 in a shop that he could get for €10 on the street?

    Who will manufacture these drugs that are lgalised? Will wheat growers start growing poppies instead so they can make heroin or will we import our heroin from the Taliban?

    These are practical questions!


  • #59
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Yawn. Legislation and law enforcement are as irrelevant today as they have been for the last several thousand years of drug taking. People have always taken drugs, and always, always will.

    The fact that a bunch of gob****es have decided to prohibit and criminalise normal human behaviour is to blame for handing the market to criminals, nothing else.

    Only taking the market back from the criminals will end the current situation. All other discussion is a pointless waste of time.
    It would definitely fetter the drug gangs in the country but that's not the only issue at hand here. A balance has to be struck between preserving the health of the nation, curbing criminal activity, and maximising individual liberty. The latter is not a factor in some people's minds and that plays a large part in the difference of opinion.


  • #60
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    That is a compromise, though I don't see why drugs should be treated any differently in this regard from food and alcohol - alcoholics and the obese are offered help by the state to deal with their problems (as are drug addicts for that matter).

    Eating disorders are different in that food is necessary. Like I said before, the existence of alcoholics shouldn't be justification to load more social problems on the taxpayer.
    Likewise, decriminalisation or legalisation of certain drugs would be a compromise of sorts. At one end of the spectrum we have the current situation, where with the new psychoactive bill all drugs except the ones the legislators like will be criminalised. The other extreme would be the legalisation of all drugs, including the hyper-addictive ones like heroin. I don't want this either.

    No instead you want to see the drugs you like legalised,and others criminalised. There is a legitimate argument for decriminalising canabis, jailing users is a waste of space and the scientific evidence suggests canabis use is relatively harmless.
    Oh right, introduce new adulterants that would have the effect you described earlier. We've come to the stage in this part of the world where social cleansing isn't considered ethical practice. Good thing too, I say.

    I never said you'd like it, I just suggested there is another way. And no one would force you to take drugs that'd be harmful so you can't say it's social cleansing, no more than CJD put people off beef for a while


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    It would definitely fetter the drug gangs in the country but that's not the only issue at hand here. A balance has to be struck between preserving the health of the nation, curbing criminal activity, and maximising individual liberty. The latter is not a factor in some people's minds and that plays a large part in the difference of opinion.

    How does destabilising the drugs Market encroach on individual libertry? You still have total choice over taking drugs or not


  • #62
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    Laminations wrote: »
    Not strictly true. Destabilising the drugs market could be a (potentially successful) tactic in the 'war on drugs'. Flooding the market with bad drugs, indistinguishable from better cut drugs, would curb consumption.
    LOL

    The waltermittyism on this thread is hilarious. You want governments to go into direct competition with the existing illegal drugs market, selling drugs that kill people.

    Just LOL.

    This is what you are up against in the drug debate.


  • #63
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    CiaranC wrote: »
    LOL

    The waltermittyism on this thread is hilarious. You want governments to go into direct competition with the existing illegal drugs market, selling drugs that kill people.

    Just LOL.

    This is what you are up against in the drug debate.

    Sorry on the one hand people argue that legalisation will make it safer as people don't have full confidence in what their dealers cut their drugs with. Destabilising a Market (while wholly unpalatable in this case) is a legitimate way to quell demand and collapse a Market. It put the brakes on British beef for a while and took down Concorde. Just as you can argue making it safer will somehow reduce demand (cos if it increased demand it would not be considered), one can argue making it more unsafe can reduce demand


  • #64
    invinciblePRSTV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    r3nu4l wrote: »
    On that point too. Cigarettes are legal but it hasn't stopped scumbags smugglingthem in without paying duty and selling them on the streets.

    Thats a problem of excessive taxation on a product. Silly Irish anti smoking lobby think that this will prevent people from smoking.
    r3nu4l wrote: »
    So are you telling me that the stoner who buys hash is going to buy a piece for €12 in a shop that he could get for €10 on the street?

    Depends on whether cannabis is decriminalized or legalized. If it's sale and consumption is decriminalized but regulated then i imagine we'll have a similar situation price wise and production wise as we have now.

    If it's sale is fully legalized i'd imagine big pharma & the tobacco companies will use their economies of scale to deliver a product which would be cheaper & higher quality then small time growers will produce.
    r3nu4l wrote: »
    Who will manufacture these drugs that are lgalised? Will wheat growers start growing poppies instead so they can make heroin or will we import our heroin from the Taliban?

    These are practical questions!

    As mentioned above, it'll probably be big pharma & tobacco companies who will manufacture the products. They already grow and manufacture opiate based products.


  • #65
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    Laminations wrote: »
    Eating disorders are different in that food is necessary. Like I said before, the existence of alcoholics shouldn't be justification to load more social problems on the taxpayer.
    Overeating is not a necessity. Drug use is not a necessity but there is obviously a strong desire in a significant portion of the population to seek an altered state of consciousness. Part of the rationale behind legalising and taxing certain drugs is that the revenue collected could go some way to treating the minorities that encounter serious problems as the result of drug use.

    I'll try to leave alcohol out of the debate. It is one of the worst drugs going but it's an integral part of our society and there's no changing that in the near future. It's a more pertinant argument when addressing those who believe drug use is intrinsically bad yet imbibe the poison every week without fail.
    No instead you want to see the drugs you like legalised,and others criminalised. There is a legitimate argument for decriminalising canabis, jailing users is a waste of space and the scientific evidence suggests canabis use is relatively harmless.
    They are not simply the drugs I like (though I do, very much), they are the drugs least likely to present serious societal problems. I'm partial to the odd line of charlie but I think the negatives of outright legalistion could outweigh the problems alleviated.
    I never said you'd like it, I just suggested there is another way. And no one would force you to take drugs that'd be harmful so you can't say it's social cleansing, no more than CJD put people off beef for a while
    We could shoot all illegal immigrants on the spot as well, that should curb their influx a bit. It's their choice to cross our borders without permission, after all.

    Though I assume you wouldn't agree with this approach yourself; more of a thought experiment.


  • #66
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    Sorry i havent gone through the thread.
    Did anyone hear them talking about it last night on 104?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    caseyann wrote: »
    Sorry i havent gone through the thread.
    Did anyone hear them talking about it last night on 104?

    Im guessing Caller A called Caller B sap and Caller B retorted that Caller A was spa?


  • #68
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    rovert wrote: »
    Im guessing Caller A called Caller B sap and Caller B retorted that Caller A was spa?

    A Caller was his mate and the stuff shouldnt have been said about them.And then members of his family ringing who also and saying they werent what newspapers are making them out to be.
    But also this stuff shouldnt be on front of newspapers when families are grieving.
    And yes then there was the usual slagging going on.


  • #69
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    rovert wrote: »
    Im guessing Caller A called Caller B sap and Caller B retorted that Caller A was spa?

    Caller B then won the arguement by pointing out that caller A could not judge her as she had 4 kids.


  • #70
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,882 ✭✭✭SeanW


    r3nu4l wrote: »
    On that point too. Cigarettes are legal but it hasn't stopped scumbags smugglingthem in without paying duty and selling them on the streets.
    Only because the tax is so ridiculously high: every time you increase tax on something (cig taxes in Ireland are AFAIK the highest in the world and still rising) you increase the incentive to go on the black market.

    Even though I hate cigarettes and wish everyone would stop smoking, I would prefer a cut in cigarette taxes because of the negative effects (and possible missed revenues) of the current rate.
    So are you telling me that the stoner who buys hash is going to buy a piece for €12 in a shop that he could get for €10 on the street?
    Yes, absolutely. Do you go on the black market to save the VAT on a chocolate bar? Big user of illicit liquor? How about washed diesel for your car (assuming you're not a taxi driver)?

    I didn't think so.

    For that reason I would suggest decriminalisation of cannibis with a 25-33% tax rate.
    Who will manufacture these drugs that are lgalised? Will wheat growers start growing poppies instead so they can make heroin or will we import our heroin from the Taliban?

    These are practical questions!
    I don't particularly care to legalise heroin - at least not initially - so I'll go back to cannibis, while it could theoretically be imported from another country where it's legal, I don't know of any such place.

    The most likely probability would be that individuals and/or small business would set up "cottage industries" of growing weed.

    You would have:
    1. Less gardai, court and prison resources being wasted on victimless crime. More of these resources for crimes with actual victims, like assault, vandalism, robbery etc.
    2. More tax revenue.
    3. More jobs and business in the legal occupation of growing and selling. This in turn would benefit other businesses patronised by those employed in the business.
    4. Less business in the hands of criminal scumbags: Think of what happened in the United States when the Volstead Act was repealed.
    5. Less interface between the general public and the black market. Reduced potential for cannibis to act as a "gateway drug" for this reason.
    6. More freedom and less government in general.


  • #71
    Lando Griffin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,952 ✭✭✭Lando Griffin


    SeanW wrote: »
    Only because the tax is so ridiculously high: every time you increase tax on something (cig taxes in Ireland are AFAIK the highest in the world and still rising) you increase the incentive to go on the black market.

    Even though I hate cigarettes and wish everyone would stop smoking, I would prefer a cut in cigarette taxes because of the negative effects (and possible missed revenues) of the current rate.

    Yes, absolutely. Do you go on the black market to save the VAT on a chocolate bar? Big user of illicit liquor? How about washed diesel for your car (assuming you're not a taxi driver)?

    I didn't think so.

    For that reason I would suggest decriminalisation of cannibis with a 25-33% tax rate.

    I don't particularly care to legalise heroin - at least not initially - so I'll go back to cannibis, while it could theoretically be imported from another country where it's legal, I don't know of any such place.

    The most likely probability would be that individuals and/or small business would set up "cottage industries" of growing weed.

    You would have:
    1. Less gardai, court and prison resources being wasted on victimless crime. More of these resources for crimes with actual victims, like assault, vandalism, robbery etc.
    2. More tax revenue.
    3. More jobs and business in the legal occupation of growing and selling. This in turn would benefit other businesses patronised by those employed in the business.
    4. Less business in the hands of criminal scumbags: Think of what happened in the United States when the Volstead Act was repealed.
    5. Less interface between the general public and the black market. Reduced potential for cannibis to act as a "gateway drug" for this reason.
    6. More freedom and less government in general.

    7. All the drug tourists that want to take drugs without being paranoid about being arrested.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Laminations wrote: »
    I imagine these people did not want to see the free and legal sale of drugs and drug substitutes

    Okay, so you're saying that people had no problem with the illegal sale of drugs, it's only the legal drugs that annoyed them. That sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

    I think that those who campaigned against head shops did so to stop the negative effects of drug use.
    Laminations wrote: »
    The demand is there because people dont understand the harmful consequences

    That's not true. When people go on a night out and drink a few naggens of vodka they're well aware that they'll end up pucking in a side alley. I've only ever talked to one person who admitted taking cocaine; he followed this admission with "I know it's stupid". People know the risks, they just feel the benefits outweigh them.
    Laminations wrote: »
    Rather than simply acquiescing to the demands of drug users, can you think of any way to stifle demand in a market??

    Your liberty argument is very backwards, in my opinion. I would be of the opinion that if the government wants to curtail something they have to justify it to the people; you seem to say that the onus is on the people to go to the government and beg for permission to do something.

    In any case, we've had our expensive (both in terms of money and lives) War on Drugs and that has demonstrably failed. No, I don't think you can stifle demand, but you may be able to curtail it slightly with education.
    rovert wrote: »
    Im not dodging the question, you are dodging the question on who are these people exactly you keep referring to.

    Erm, no I'm not. I answered that question in the paragraph you quoted. Did you accidentally miss the second sentence? I'll requote it on its own to make it really hard to ignore:
    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    I'm talking about everyone who protested against head shops, and everyone who was in favour of the ban.


  • #73
    petergfiffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 234 ✭✭petergfiffin


    SeanW wrote: »
    Less gardai, court and prison resources being wasted on victimless crime. More of these resources for crimes with actual victims, like assault, vandalism, robbery etc.
    As dealers get squeezed the fact is rather than going out of business they will diversify to where the higher margins are i.e. heroin, cocaine and "designer drugs", more competition would drive down the price of these even further making it more attractive for people - look what's happened with the fall in price of cocaine over the last 10-15 years.
    SeanW wrote: »
    More tax revenue.

    Seriously doubt this, the guys who were selling hash before will continue to sell it albeit tax free, those people who already have their regular dealers are unlikely to pay more just for the privilege of going to a shop now. Also, what about the extra burden on the health service? It's ineviatable usage will rise once it's been legalised which will amplify any current problems
    SeanW wrote: »
    Less business in the hands of criminal scumbags: Think of what happened in the United States when the Volstead Act was repealed.
    But the Volstead banned ALL alcohol and then legalised ALL alcohol, just legalising hash would be like if they legalised beer but not whiskey.


  • #74
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,882 ✭✭✭SeanW


    As dealers get squeezed the fact is rather than going out of business they will diversify to where the higher margins are i.e. heroin, cocaine and "designer drugs"
    So you accept that as a bulk low margin business like alcohol or cannibis migrates into the open market, criminals have to find some other business to get into? Where they might better be isolated from society at large and/or fought by the forces of the law?
    Seriously doubt this, the guys who were selling hash before will continue to sell it albeit tax free, those people who already have their regular dealers are unlikely to pay more just for the privilege of going to a shop now.
    You don't think users would go to the shop to buy cannibis, instead choosing to use black market dealers down back alleys to save the 25% tax rate I suggested? That isn't entirely credible.
    Also, what about the extra burden on the health service?
    The question is: will the disadvantage of the extra burden on the health service exceed the advantages of decriminalisation as referred to in my last post? I believe the advantages (similar to those of the U.S. repeal of the Volstead Act) will massivley outwiegh this cost.
    But the Volstead banned ALL alcohol and then legalised ALL alcohol, just legalising hash would be like if they legalised beer but not whiskey.
    Which is precisely what I want to do. Decriminalise ALL cannibis.


  • #75
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    petergfiffin wrote: »
    As dealers get squeezed the fact is rather than going out of business they will diversify to where the higher margins are i.e. heroin, cocaine and "designer drugs", more competition would drive down the price of these even further making it more attractive for people - look what's happened with the fall in price of cocaine over the last 10-15 years.
    I was posting up a reply but it seems SeanW has addressed you already and I don't want to double-team.

    Had to point this out though: do you not realise designer drugs are engineered specifically to circumvent existing drug laws? If MDMA was legal, mephedrone would not have seen the light of day. If mephedrone wasn't banned there would never have been a naphyrone - a nasty, dangerous stimulant that made me lose any sympathy for the head shop owners when they released it.


  • #76
    petergfiffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 234 ✭✭petergfiffin


    SeanW wrote: »
    So you accept that as a bulk low margin business like alcohol or cannibis migrates into the open market, criminals have to find some other business to get into? Where they might better be isolated from society at large and/or fought by the forces of the law?
    SeanW wrote: »
    You don't think users would go to the shop to buy cannibis, instead choosing to use black market dealers down back alleys to save the 25% tax rate I suggested? That isn't entirely credible.
    What I'm saying is while some people will use shops why would the majority who already have an access route from somebody they "trust" choose to a pay an additional premium to get it legally, clearly the same people have no problem stepping outside the law to get it now, when you look at the lengths people go to currently to get cheap booze up North I don't see them queuing up at the "Hash Shop"
    SeanW wrote: »
    The question is: will the disadvantage of the extra burden on the health service exceed the advantages of decriminalisation as referred to in my last post? I believe the advantages (similar to those of the U.S. repeal of the Volstead Act) will massivley outwiegh this cost.

    Which is precisely what I want to do. Decriminalise ALL cannibis.
    That's the same as if Volstead legalised ALL beers. It only works if you decriminalise ALL drugs including heroin, cocaine etc. If you want to push for the legalisation of Cannabis that's a different issue but I don't think it stacks up to say that by legalising just 1 drug you're going to put these guys out of business.
    Pace2008 wrote: »
    ...do you not realise designer drugs are engineered specifically to circumvent existing drug laws?..
    My use of terms may have been a little off, I was basically referring to E, Speed etc


  • #77
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    petergfiffin wrote: »
    My use of terms may have been a little off, I was basically referring to E,
    Synthetic/semi-synthetic drugs? There hasn't been a match for MDMA created yet, nor do I think there will be, and none of the synthetic cannabinoids were a patch on weed. I don't see there being a significant market for replacements when you can buy the best legally.


  • #78
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    petergfiffin wrote: »
    What I'm saying is while some people will use shops why would the majority who already have an access route from somebody they "trust" choose to a pay an additional premium to get it legally, clearly the same people have no problem stepping outside the law to get it now,
    The price of weed should it be legalised would not be the price of cannabis as it stands plus a premium. There is a colossal mark-up on all drugs from the point of production to sale because a) the risk involved in distribution is so great and b) the number of channels the drug usually has to go through to reach the end user, with each making a profit on/buying selling on the produce. The risk attached is offset, from the dealers' point of view, by the massive profits. In order to undercut regulated market they'd have to drop prices and reduce their margins. At this point, the risk of incarceration may not warrant the depleted income.

    Another factor, possibly the most significant, is the guarantee of quality and purity a legalised product would bring. The ecstasy market has taken an interesting turn in the last few months. From 2007 onwards, the the scene was flooded with cheap (<€3) pills purporting to be ecstasy , but containing piperazines like the much-reviled BZP as their active ingredient. From 2009 to the first part of 2010, MDMA went completely AWOL until people copped on that the pills they were getting weren't what they used to be. The demand fell as the then-legal mephedrone muscled in on both the ecstasy and cocaine market - further evidence that people will take the legal route if the option's there - until MDMA pills finally filtered back into circulation towards the end of spring - at €10+, three or more times the price of the bunk that had been going around. People will pay for quality, and if the criminals want to compete, they'll have to stop cutting and adulterating their wares, again reducing the bottom line.

    when you look at the lengths people go to currently to get cheap booze up North I don't see them queuing up at the "Hash Shop"
    Would they be queuing up at a moonshine distillery, run by a violent criminal, if it was selling cheep booze of questionable quality?
    That's the same as if Volstead legalised ALL beers. It only works if you decriminalise ALL drugs including heroin, cocaine etc. If you want to push for the legalisation of Cannabis that's a different issue but I don't think it stacks up to say that by legalising just 1 drug you're going to put these guys out of business.
    If cannabis is legalised it will leave a void that no other drug could completely fill. The number of cocaine users is far lower than the number of cannabis smokers. Heroin even less so. You're talking about completely different chemicals with completely different effects, and you won't just be able to simply "push" these drugs onto your former customers if they have no interest in trying them. Heroin in particular relies on a relatively small user base of chronic addicts; daily users who are for the most part from backgrounds of abuse and poverty. There is almost no market for the drug amongst the middle class due to the stigma attached, and I can't see this market growing any time soon.


  • #79
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Perhaps before getting to preoccupied with the top-end of the criminal market we,non crims,need to become more aware of the capability of the State,on our behalf to actively condone and encourage the seed bed of criminality.

    The happy young camper starring in this episode has been given quite a psychological boost.......

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/8364280000-arsonist-walks-away-with-a-suspended-sentence-2243164.html

    However the proprietors of the garage,being businessmen,are apparently required by the State to simply STFU and take their beatin like men.

    One would have to wonder at the motives behind Judge Patricia Ryan`s substantial amount of "Taking into account" in regards to her sentencing in cases such as this.

    It does appear to many that the Judiciary spend an inordinate amount of time "Taking stuff into account" on belhaf of the criminal fraternity whilst regarding the victims as more of an impediment to the smooth-running of the judicial process.

    It`s also worth considering the effect on Garda morale and resolve as the officers who investigate cases such as this watch the little victory dance on the courthouse steps....

    Oh well...Modern Ireland...No Place for the Faint Hearted....or the law abiding !!


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • #80
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Okay, so you're saying that people had no problem with the illegal sale of drugs, it's only the legal drugs that annoyed them. That sounds pretty ridiculous to me.


    I think that those who campaigned against head shops did so to stop the negative effects of drug use.

    Thats not what I'm saying. I'm guessing the people who campaigned also have a problem with the illegal sale of drugs. With the drug argument people always fall back on cannabis, this is what most people want to see decriminalised/regulated/legalised - and its the one that you can make the best argument for, an argument I support. However, head shops were not merely selling cannabis substitutes, they were operating in an unregulated area, selling bath salts that were strictly not illegal but had psychoactive properties. The drug substitutes they were selling were not all as 'harmless' as marijuana. Most people here are even saying they are not in favou of decriminalising harder drugs. I'd guess that rather than just being anti-drugs, the people who protested thought that head shops would increase demand for these substances as they would be less illicit.

    That's not true. When people go on a night out and drink a few naggens of vodka they're well aware that they'll end up pucking in a side alley. I've only ever talked to one person who admitted taking cocaine; he followed this admission with "I know it's stupid". People know the risks, they just feel the benefits outweigh them.
    Knowing the risks and feeling the benefits outweigh them means you dont actually kno the risks. People are terrible are weighing up temporally displaced consequences. You could argue that people know the risks of not saving or investing in a pension. The knowledge alone is often not good enough to overcome the biological drive for immediate gratification. And drug use is reinforcing. Again the cannabis issue aside, head shops were selling harder more addictive substitutes, completely unregulated, should people be allowed the free will to self-destruct? Being a libertarian I already know your answer.
    Your liberty argument is very backwards, in my opinion. I would be of the opinion that if the government wants to curtail something they have to justify it to the people; you seem to say that the onus is on the people to go to the government and beg for permission to do something.
    Of course governments need to justify bans. Head shops were unregulated, ficticiously selling bath salts while really selling drug substitutes not just on the level on cannabis for which there is the basis for an argument on decriminalisation. Their drugs did not go through the rigourous testing that any other legal drug would have to go through for quality assurance. Its not about begging permission, its about the state and society not endorsing certain acts - drug use, self harm, gambling, suicide, manic behaviour.
    In any case, we've had our expensive (both in terms of money and lives) War on Drugs and that has demonstrably failed. No, I don't think you can stifle demand, but you may be able to curtail it slightly with education.
    You are educated, do you have a pension? have you taken drugs? ever have unprotected sex? I'm educated on the risks of all these things and while I agree education may decrease the incidence of 'risky' behaviour, it will not eradicate it. The banking crisis happened because educated people took educated risks in the hope of making immediate fortunes but at the expense of weakening future stability and market health. It comes back to all intertemporal choice behaviour and whether we are rational enough to make those choices when in the situation - when the lure of immediate gratification is there, does our rationality go out the window, psychology says yes quite often (and economics is catching up). I know in terms of the examples above that many times mine did.

    Should we have regulated coffee shops or cannabis growers here? possibly, based on the evidence of the relative damage weed/grass does to users. But this is not what the head shops were- they were unregulated codsters.


  • #81
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    Another factor, possibly the most significant, is the guarantee of quality and purity a legalised product would bring. The ecstasy market has taken an interesting turn in the last few months. From 2007 onwards, the the scene was flooded with cheap (<€3) pills purporting to be ecstasy , but containing piperazines like the much-reviled BZP as their active ingredient. From 2009 to the first part of 2010, MDMA went completely AWOL until people copped on that the pills they were getting weren't what they used to be. The demand fell

    This was my argument for curtailing use. While I wouldnt want to see governments introduce lethal drugs (as I threw out there earlier in the thread), there has to be ways that they can diminish trust in the drugs market.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    Laminations wrote: »
    This was my argument for curtailing use. While I wouldnt want to see governments introduce lethal drugs (as I threw out there earlier in the thread), there has to be ways that they can diminish trust in the drugs market.
    Would it even be legal to interfere with the black market in this manner, though?


  • #83
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,882 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    Would it even be legal to interfere with the black market in this manner, though?
    Not to mention completely and totally depraved beyond belief with no morally redeeming features whatsoever.

    Laminations is right about one thing, these kinds of measures, along with say Orwellian 1984 type spying, are the only ways to deal with the "problem" of people wanting certain substances.


  • #84
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    delop wrote: »
    I was distressed last night to see some old familiar stories start appearing in the press again. Huge cocaine finds , 2 brothers murdered brazenly on the streets with automatic weapons and a politician murdered in mexico by drug Gangs...

    What is the solution to this? Harsher prison sentences dont seem to work, and no amount of murder seem to put these gangs off. It seems there is a lucrative market that these gangs what to feed.

    What is the solution to you reading these stories? Well, the gardai could stop doing the sterling work they are currently doing to bring down criminal gangs or we could restrict the freedom of the press.

    The gardai have been doing great work to get more prosecutions than ever, for more serious offences, but rather than interpret this as a good thing people get the false impression that we are living in an increasingly lawless land. It seems that people were happier living in ignorance of what's going on and would be happier if we could brush all these things under the carpet and not deal with them.

    When I hear about these large seizures I say well done those guards.


  • #85
    rightwingdub
    Registered Users Posts: 725 ✭✭✭rightwingdub


    All drugs should be legalised and regarding scum killing scum I couldn't care less.


  • #86
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Laminations wrote: »
    Thats not what I'm saying...

    Fine. So why didn't they campaign for regulations? At the end of the day you're going to have to deal with the fact that a sizable chunk of this country were in favour of this ban, presumably because they felt it was good for society, when in fact it was bad for society.
    Laminations wrote: »
    Knowing the risks and feeling the benefits outweigh them means you dont actually kno the risks.

    Erm, yeah it does! Okay, I imagine that in your books the benefits never exceed the risk (it's a sentiment I mostly share). But you see, this personal position of yours didn't form because you are aware of the risks, it formed as a result of what you did with that awareness (ie made your substances position). I think you're making the mistake of thinking that if someone doesn't share your personal stance on drugs, then it's because they're unaware of the risks. I'd feel that they have the same knowledge of the risks that you do, but they have just reacted differently to that knowledge/awareness.

    Sorry, but it's difficult to communicate this! :D
    Laminations wrote: »
    Being a libertarian I already know your answer.

    In fairness Laminations, there's only one person who brought personal liberty into this argument and that person was you. I'm not arguing this on the basis of personal liberty: I'm keeping within the thread topic and arguing it on the basis of the militarising effects of a presence of an illegal drugs trade in a country.


Advertisement