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

Time to legalise some drugs?

12346»

Comments

  • #252
    mise_me_fein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 668 ✭✭✭mise_me_fein


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    How defeatist is that??

    Do you not think that the holders of these ignorant, uninformed opinions should have to answer to them?


    I guess people of a certain age have one opinion and others with a family that are older have another.

    My Dad is not that old. I would not like to see Cocaine ever legalized either.

    I don't really care about hash to be honest, whether it's legal or not.....if people want drugs they can get them.

    If we asked all the people of Ireland now do they want drugs, maybe alot of the under 30s would say yes, to some drugs but the overall population would say no.

    Again, lets rejoice............democracy is a beautiful thing.


    SamVines............do you have children? just wondering


  • #253
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Piste wrote: »
    Legalising drugs will only go giving people the notion that it's "ok" to do them "Ah sure it's legal now, it can't be THAT dangerous/addictive".
    Sticking to what I said in my earlier post, and leaving Cocaine and Heroin out of this, what is so dangerous/addictive about Cannabis, MDMA or LSD/similar psychedelics?
    meditraitor wrote: »
    Let me get this straight.

    Are you implying that people who thinks drugs should not be legalised are ignorant and uninformed?
    Not all, but most are.

    I mean, you can hardly say that most anti-drug people have a detailed knowledge of how even the most common recreational drugs work, why they are used or what's supposedly so dangerous about them that they should be illegal.

    (Not to say that most pro-drugs people know much either...)

    meditraitor wrote: »
    Cannabis impairs cognitive development (capabilities of learning), including associative processes; free recall of previously learned items is often impaired when cannabi is used both during learning and recall periods;
    Cannabis impairs psychomotor performance in a wide variety of tasks, such as motor coordination, divided attention, and operative tasks of many types; human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 mg of THC in cannabis; there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis.
    Under the influence of cannabis, one should not attempt to learn or drive. Exact same with alcohol or even tiredness.
    meditraitor wrote: »
    Chronic health effects of cannabis use
    selective impairment of cognitive functioning which include the organization and integration of complex information involving various mechanisms of attention and memory processes;
    prolonged use may lead to greater impairment, which may not recover with cessation of use, and which could affect daily life functions;
    development of a cannabis dependence syndrome characterized by a loss of control over cannabis use is likely in chronic users;
    cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals;
    Guess what? Chronic use of anything is bad.
    meditraitor wrote: »
    epithetial injury of the trachea and major bronchi is caused by long-term cannabis smoking;
    airway injury, lung inflammation, and impaired pulmonary defence against infection from persistent cannabis consumption over prolonged periods;
    heavy cannabis consumption is associated with a higher prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis and a higher incidence of acute bronchitis than in the non-smoking cohort;
    Smoking is bad indeed. However cannabis can be consumed orally and by vaporisation with none of these ill effects.
    meditraitor wrote: »
    cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;
    cannabis use during pregnancy may lead to postnatal risk of rare forms of cancer although more research is needed in this area
    Ditto alcohol, ditto tobacco, ditto many OTC and prescription meds.

    Drugs during pregnancy are a no no.


    Not really that strong an argument against it, eh?

    dublindude wrote: »
    Absolutely.

    An ex-girlfriend of mine used to smoke herion.

    It is by far the best (most satisfying) drug you can take.
    Why aren't you taking Kratom or Codeine, which are legal? Pretty similar, although weaker, effects.


  • #254
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    mise_me_fein wrote: »
    SamVines............do you have children? just wondering
    no i don't. But if i did, i'd teach them that drugs are bad for their health and that they won't reach their full potential if they do them (talking about hash there)

    i won't depend on brian cowen to prevent my kids getting their hands on them because he's not very good at it.


  • #255
    CPT. SURF
    Closed Accounts Posts: 321 ✭✭CPT. SURF


    Tha Gopher wrote: »
    They have wanted to smoke it for 12,000 years in Ireland?!!?

    These same people, unless they have an absoloute addiction, will not be paying god knows how much for small quantities of Afghan hash that slip through. They will not be paying massive amounts for bags of weak weed nowhere else in Europe wanted. They will not be going to Amsterdam as the Dutch will eventually ban the stuff. Additionally, as the developing world gains more wealth and law and order less people will grow drugs on a large scale. It is already happening in Morocco.

    I said it will never be entirely eradicated from Ireland. Yes, a small minority of people will go to the bother of spending a significant amount of money on grow lights, hydro systems, grow spaces etc etc etc for personal use or sale to friends.

    Of course, the above generally excludes people who are house sharing with non friends, people living with parents etc etc etc.

    And finally, the vast majority of our smoke does come from Morocco. Nigerian, South African and British home grown also comes in. Again, it is mashed to pieces, making alot of it less strong than evem common soap.

    Sorry, but I had to respond to some of this stuff. The theory that Cannabis will virtually dissapate in Ireland, or anywhere, is silly. To suggest that cutting off supply will do so is even sillier.

    You do know that it is a plant right? And that is can be grown anywhere? Sure you even mention hydroponics yourself. What You must not know is that it only takes a few operational grow houses to supply a very large amount of people. If the supply from outside is cut-off (impossible anyway), it will simply be grown here. Oh, and by the way, setting up a grow house is not that expensive, tecnically difficult, or challenging. I have seen some people of very average intelligence and wealth pull it off with ease.


  • #256
    mise_me_fein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 668 ✭✭✭mise_me_fein


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    no i don't. But if i did, i'd teach them that drugs are bad for their health and that they won't reach their full potential if they do them (talking about hash there)

    i won't depend on brian cowen to prevent my kids getting their hands on them because he's not very good at it.

    I was only looking for a yes or no answer...............anyway, I´m sure you'll remain as strongminded if you ever do have kids.


  • #257
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    no i don't. But if i did, i'd teach them that drugs are bad for their health and that they won't reach their full potential if they do them (talking about hash there)

    i won't depend on brian cowen to prevent my kids getting their hands on them because he's not very good at it.

    I can't understand your logic.

    You think drugs are 'bad' (I'm quoting yourself there, btw) and you would teach your kids as much. But given that you would have all drugs classified as legal, you would also effectively support their right to smoke crystal meth or some such. Do you not see a contradiction there?

    Whether Brian Cowen will or wont personally prevent your future children getting drugs isn't the point. Because under your proposals there would be no one to stop them.


  • #258
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I can't understand your logic.

    You think drugs are 'bad' (I'm quoting yourself there, btw) and you would teach your kids as much. But given that you would have all drugs classified as legal, you would also effectively support their right to smoke crystal meth or some such. Do you not see a contradiction there?

    no i don't see any contradiction. In a democracy you can support someone's right to do something while also thinking it's not a good thing to do. As long as they don't affect me people can do whatever they want

    for example, my parents didn't like me going to mc donalds so they taught me that it was bad for me. they didn't call for a worldwide ban on mc donalds, they taught me the dangers and allowed me to make a decision myself
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Whether Brian Cowen will or wont personally prevent your future children getting drugs isn't the point. Because under your proposals there would be no one to stop them.

    there's currently no one to stop them because prohibition has failed miserably. The person that is there to stop them is themselves and their own common sense


  • #259
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    As long as they don't affect me people can do whatever they want

    You see, that's why I disagree with you. I think your opinions are extremely naive.

    If all drugs are legalised it will affect you.

    You think life will continue as normal, but it won't.

    It won't just be nerds and students taking a few quality pills here and there.

    The scum and the weak in our society will become addicts.

    Crime will increase. Our streets will become less safe.

    Your children will be under greater pressure to experiment with drugs.

    The utopian view of everything being happy and lovely and democratic is wrong.

    As I've said repeatedly, look what's happening with alcohol. Everyone knows alcohol is bad for them, but they don't care.

    Do you really think adding Cocaine, Heroin, LSD, Marijuana, Speed, etc. into the mix will improve things?

    No, it won't because it can't.

    Yes, they can tax drugs, and yes they can control quality, but these are two minor positives for a whole load of pain we'll see.

    We already have a drug problem. Making it easy to get drugs cannot possibly cause less addicts. It is mathematically impossible.

    You are extremely naive.

    /No offence meant
    //This really is my last post on the matter


  • #260
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    it's also not socially acceptable to do many, many legal things and you'll find that a lot of illegal things are quite socially acceptable. it just depends on your circle


    i know that, and if they were legal that wouldn't change

    who says? and they already are the bad thing to do. in fact, by your logic they wouldn't be bad if they were legal. it'd suddenly be ok to whip out syringes at a house party

    I reckon if heroin & moreso coke were legalised people would be more likely to whip them out at 16-17 year old parties. The way you can with joints at present. I get your points but I just can't see a way you could regulate coke & heroin without more people taking it or on the other hand maintaining a black market.

    MDMA/dope/mushrooms I'd agree with you.


  • #261
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    dublindude wrote: »
    You see, that's why I disagree with you. I think your opinions are extremely naive.

    If all drugs are legalised it will affect you.

    You think life will continue as normal, but it won't.

    It won't just be nerds and students taking a few quality pills here and there.

    The scum and the weak in our society will become addicts.

    Crime will increase. Our streets will become less safe.

    Your children will be under greater pressure to experiment with drugs.

    The utopian view of everything being happy and lovely and democratic is wrong.

    As I've said repeatedly, look what's happening with alcohol. Everyone knows alcohol is bad for them, but they don't care.

    Do you really think adding Cocaine, Heroin, LSD, Marijuana, Speed, etc. into the mix will improve things?

    No, it won't because it can't.

    Yes, they can tax drugs, and yes they can control quality, but these are two minor positives for a whole load of pain we'll see.

    We already have a drug problem. Making it easy to get drugs cannot possibly cause less addicts. It is mathematically impossible.

    You are extremely naive.

    /No offence meant
    //This really is my last post on the matter

    i disagree for the following reasons and at this stage i'm just repeating myself:

    1. anyone who wants to get drugs can get them. i guarantee you that as someone who has never bought drugs in his life, i could have a mountain of coke in front of me in an hour

    2. everyone already knows the dangers of drugs. people who choose not to do them do so because of the dangers and not because brian cowen says they can't

    3. if they were made legal, everyone would still know the dangers and people wouldn't just start doing them despite the dangers just because brian cowen says they can

    you're the one who thinks it's difficult to get drugs. i think you're being naive tbh


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Damnit, I'm back. :)
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    1. anyone who wants to get drugs can get them. i guarantee you that as someone who has never bought drugs in his life, i could have a mountain of coke in front of me in an hour

    I could go get heroin right now, but I would have to buy it off a scumbag.

    To the average person, that is a difficult thing to do.

    Walking into Boots and buying heroin there would be easy.

    We're talking easy and pleasant versus difficult and unpleasant.

    Things are not black and white.

    Buying in Boots is a million times easier than buying from a scumbag.

    Yes, in theory giving a scumbag money for heroin is "easy" in the sense that you don't have to learn physics at the same time, but to the average person it is difficult compared to how easy it would be to get it if it were legal.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    2. everyone already knows the dangers of drugs. people who choose not to do them do so because of the dangers and not because brian cowen says they can't

    That makes no difference.

    Everyone knows alcohol is bad for them but they don't care.

    Unfortunately you have to protect people from themselves.

    When I was younger (early 20's) I thought like you. I'm 30 now and I know I was just naive and full of optimism for the world.

    The reality is a large number of Irish people are thick and they need protection.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    3. if they were made legal, everyone would still know the dangers and people wouldn't just start doing them despite the dangers just because brian cowen says they can

    Let me guess, you're either a nerd or a student or at least someone who got an education?

    And your friends are fairly similar?

    What about the massive amount of people in Ireland who haven't been so lucky?

    What about the people who grew up in deprived areas and never got much of an education?

    You do realise there are hundreds of thousands of those people?

    Or what about the damaged and weak in our society? They are everywhere.

    You and your friends might benefit from getting quality drugs, but so many others would suffer.

    You need to think about the affect it will have on other people rather than only caring how it will affect you.


  • #263
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    dublindude, Heroin and Cocaine aside, would you support the legalisation of Cannabis, MDMA and LSD/other psychedelics?

    And on a different note:
    dublindude wrote: »
    As I've said repeatedly, look what's happening with alcohol. Everyone knows alcohol is bad for them, but they don't care.

    Do you really think adding Cocaine, Heroin, LSD, Marijuana, Speed, etc. into the mix will improve things?
    It probably won't improve things (besides the whole gangland crime thing), but how would it make things any worse? What difference does it make if people are off their faces on different drugs to alcohol? It's the prevalance of intoxication beyond a safe level that's the problem rather than the drug doing it.


  • #264
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    i disagree for the following reasons and at this stage i'm just repeating myself:

    1. anyone who wants to get drugs can get them. i guarantee you that as someone who has never bought drugs in his life, i could have a mountain of coke in front of me in an hour

    Sorry, I don't know anyone I could get heroin or coke off. Maybe coke but it would require going through people & would take a while. Heroin my only option would be looking for a junkie on thomas st & there's no way I'd consider that for anything.
    2. everyone already knows the dangers of drugs. people who choose not to do them do so because of the dangers and not because brian cowen says they can't

    Hah, nonsense. When people experiment with them they gererally don't know the dangers. If you legalise it people will try them earlier. Being young they'll be more likely to get hooked on something very addictive like heroin/coke.

    3. if they were made legal, everyone would still know the dangers and people wouldn't just start doing them despite the dangers just because brian cowen says they can

    you're the one who thinks it's difficult to get drugs. i think you're being naive tbh

    And as I said people would get them younger, and still not know the dangers - especially in working class areas.

    What system do you proprose to regulate it by the way? That would stop younger people doing it without maintaining a black market?


  • #265
    Boggle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Boggle


    dublindude wrote:
    I could go get heroin right now, but I would have to buy it off a scumbag.
    Anone with so little regard for himself cares little about who he has to buy it from. Hope your reasoning improves from here...

    (See my last post in this and argue that point - quit just repeating yourself as if it makes a point!)
    Unfortunately you have to protect people from themselves.

    When I was younger (early 20's) I thought like you. I'm 30 now and I know I was just naive and full of optimism for the world.

    The reality is a large number of Irish people are thick and they need protection.
    How many? Pease provide numbers or evidence to back up this statement and at least make an attemp to show how this would transfer towards the various types of drugs...
    Let me guess, you're either a nerd or a student or at least someone who got an education?
    Are you seriously trying to imply that education implies intelligence? I know some naive dumbass fools with degrees and I also know some very smart articulate electricians and barworkers.
    Or what about the damaged and weak in our society?
    Newsflash for you: most of these people are already taking whatever they want to take - except there's no protection for them as it can contain anything.

    I would also argue that it makes it much more difficult to confront the problem as its illicit nature prohibits their ability to discuss their problems.
    Bottle_of_smoke wrote:
    I reckon if heroin & moreso coke were legalised people would be more likely to whip them out at 16-17 year old parties.
    Hands up here who was in school at this stage! Now hands up everyone who found it far easier to get drugs in school!! (Disclaimer: may not to apply to those posh private schools - how am I to know)

    Your soundbites are the absolute height of naivety at times. While I agree that heroine is an abhorrent drug, based on what I know, I disagree with you about how it should be dealt with. As long as there's money in it there will always be an ever growing, ever strengthening supply chain ready to benefit from it.

    Now for any of you. Please show WHY each drug was classified illegal (the circumstances that lead up to their banning and which must have justified it)


  • #266
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    dublindude, Heroin and Cocaine aside, would you support the legalisation of Cannabis, MDMA and LSD/other psychedelics?

    I wouldn't really support the legalisation of any drugs, but in general I have fairly positive opinions of Cannabis, MDMA and LSD.

    I would support their use in medical circumstances, for example, like the way some people smoke weed to ease pain, or if any of the others were proven to help people.
    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    What difference does it make if people are off their faces on different drugs to alcohol?

    We already have too many problems due to alcohol. I don't think we should risk adding more.
    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    It's the prevalance of intoxication beyond a safe level that's the problem rather than the drug doing it.

    If there was some super reliable way we could allow people to take drugs, like if they had to go to a special centre and stay there during their high, for example there were LSD rooms with lots of tactile stuff on the walls or something like that. I would be ok with that, sort of.
    Boggle wrote: »
    Pease provide numbers or evidence to back up this statement and at least make an attemp to show how this would transfer towards the various types of drugs...

    You lost me as soon as you pulled out the "please provide statistics to back up your point" nonsense.


  • #267
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    dublindude wrote: »
    I wouldn't really support the legalisation of any drugs, but in general I have fairly positive opinions of Cannabis, MDMA and LSD.

    I would support their use in medical circumstances, for example, like the way some people smoke weed to ease pain, or if any of the others were proven to help people.
    Is it your world view that sobriety in all situations, where possible, is optimal?
    dublindude wrote: »
    We already have too many problems due to alcohol. I don't think we should risk adding more.
    But we also have too many problems due to other drugs being illegal. It's a case of whether social problems due to intoxication would rise greatly (or fall) if other means for people to become legally intoxicated existed and whether gangland violence would decrease if drugs were legal.

    Tbh, there really needs to be a massive rethink of our societal and legal approach and attitudes to drugs, including alcohol. Simply legalising drugs or implementing harsher laws isn't going to achieve anything.
    dublindude wrote: »
    If there was some super reliable way we could allow people to take drugs, like if they had to go to a special centre and stay there during their high, for example there were LSD rooms with lots of tactile stuff on the walls or something like that. I would be ok with that, sort of.
    Heh, I have to say, I've had similar ideas myself. It's nice to have some practical discussion on possibilities for regulation, and exploring ideas that would be a better alternative to the status quo rather than the same, general back and forth arguing about why they should or shouldn't be legal.

    The problem with LSD rooms would be the fundamental importance of set and setting to a strong psychedelic experience such as the one it offers. If many people were in one of these LSD rooms, certain people might feel uncomfortable around strangers. The unfamiliar room wouldn't be a great thing either. There's also the fact that an acid trip lasts up to 14 hours. What if someone wanted to go home after 6/7? Could you let them or would you have to keep them in captivity until the time was up?

    However, for something like MDMA, such a controlled environment would be extremely workable, IMO. Except instead of a "room", you could have a nightclub where MDMA was permitted and sold. There could be cool down rooms, water easily available, doctors knowledgable about the drug, access to antioxidants, vitamins and other protection products and information on safe use propagated throughout the place.

    For psychedelics like LSD, I think the best solution would be clubs, like a golf club, but with psychedelic experiences rather than golf as their form of recreation. People would have to display a good understanding of the seriousness of psychedelic drugs, and be the "right type of person", before gaining admittance, and would be allowed then to take substances of certain strengths and dosages depending on how long they'd been a member. I'm not sure whether letting members use the drugs outside of the club would be a good idea. I think, however, that in a relaxed environment where people knew each other, it would be an adequate place to take psychedelics. There'd be a community and a support network for anyone experiencing a bad trip.


  • #268
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    dublindude wrote: »
    Damnit, I'm back. :)



    I could go get heroin right now, but I would have to buy it off a scumbag.

    To the average person, that is a difficult thing to do.

    Walking into Boots and buying heroin there would be easy.
    i knew you wouldn't be able to stay away ;)

    when it comes to heroin, i'm not talking about being able to buy it in boots. I'm talking about a highly controlled system to supply it to addicts so they don't have to buy it from scum or rob people. Something similar to the article i linked to earlier on
    dublindude wrote: »
    That makes no difference.

    Everyone knows alcohol is bad for them but they don't care.
    this goes back to the simplistic notion of "drugs are bad". Alcohol can possibly damage your liver after many years of heavy abuse and some people become aggressive with it. The vast majority of people drink with little or no ill effects. on the other hand, if someone takes heroin, the chances of completely destroying their lives are extremely large. You were the one objecting to people lumping in alcohol (i think, sorry if i'm wrong) and here you are comparing a few pints to shooting up. They're not the same thing and people can understand the difference
    dublindude wrote: »
    Unfortunately you have to protect people from themselves.
    no you don't because then where do you stop? Is it only things that you think people should be protected from that should be made illegal? Or who decides what adults in this country can't have because they think some of them are too stupid to handle it?
    dublindude wrote: »
    When I was younger (early 20's) I thought like you. I'm 30 now and I know I was just naive and full of optimism for the world.

    The reality is a large number of Irish people are thick and they need protection.
    this thing of protecting people from themselves really pisses me off tbh. If people are stupid enough to ignore all the junkies they see on the street then by denying them drugs we're just delaying the inevitable. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

    dublindude wrote: »
    Let me guess, you're either a nerd or a student or at least someone who got an education?

    And your friends are fairly similar?

    What about the massive amount of people in Ireland who haven't been so lucky?

    What about the people who grew up in deprived areas and never got much of an education?

    You do realise there are hundreds of thousands of those people?

    Or what about the damaged and weak in our society? They are everywhere.

    You and your friends might benefit from getting quality drugs, but so many others would suffer.

    You need to think about the affect it will have on other people rather than only caring how it will affect you.

    i have an engineering degree btw. But you don't have to have a degree to be able to see a junkie on the street and say "i don't want to be like that". In fact people from deprived backgrounds have seen the results much more closely than me and are probably in a better position to make an informed choice

    and you talk about drugs as if they're not already infesting every level of our society. They are, especially in deprived areas. there is a possibility that legalisation would make drugs more socially acceptable in middle to upper class circles (although i don't think so) but they already are in deprived areas. These are the areas that are over run with junkies and dealers and these are the areas that would see the most benefit from controlled legalisation


  • #269
    Standman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Here's a thread that is very relevant to this issue:

    Drug Laws; A Savage Hypocrisy

    Read it!


  • #270
    Boggle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Boggle


    You lost me as soon as you pulled out the "please provide statistics to back up your point" nonsense.
    Did I?? Funny how people like to spout empty rhetoric at whim but when to actually back up their assertions they consider the request to be nonsense...


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Boggle wrote: »
    Did I?? Funny how people like to spout empty rhetoric at whim but when to actually back up their assertions they consider the request to be nonsense...

    Can you back that up with stats?

    /Just kidding
    /Not replying to any more drug posts as I'll be here forever!


  • #272
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    dublindude wrote: »
    Can you back that up with stats?

    /Just kidding
    /Not replying to any more drug posts as I'll be here forever!

    ah go on. you can just shoot up to make the time pass easier :D


  • #273
    Piste
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Sticking to what I said in my earlier post, and leaving Cocaine and Heroin out of this, what is so dangerous/addictive about Cannabis, MDMA or LSD/similar psychedelics?

    I was talking about people having that attitude to ALL drugs, not picking and choosing.

    Cannabis makes you go stupid. No I wont quote any sources, but from personal experiences, friends of friends etc. stoners are dumb. Of course most people only have the odd joint here and there and that's grand, but it's still dangerous as it's often mixed with tobacco which is addictive and carcinogenic. Cannabis itself is also carcinogenic.

    Yeah sure it can be eaten, but tbh that vast majority of cannabis is smoked. In all the houseparties I have been at where there has been cannabis I have only ever seen it smoked.

    LSD can cause flashbacks, not the most pleasant of experiences if you happen to be driving. You can do dangerous things on psychadelics, no everyone is going to be responsible and have a babysitter with them.

    I honestly don't know enough about MDMA to say what's so dangerous about it, afaik it's not addictive. Atm while it's illegal I know its cut with all sorts of nasties so a lot of the dangers lie there. It's a bit of a moot point though because those dangers from the additives wouldn't exist were it made legal.

    At the moment while illegal drugs remain so people tend to be a bit wary of them and educate themselves of the dangers, what to avoid etc. Giving drugs the green llight takes away people's need to be a bit more savvy and so they're more likely to go overboard/misuse the drugs.

    I think the entire legalisation of drugs debate comes down to the freedom of the individual -v- the freedom of society.

    A person might decide they have the freedom to take E at a club, I should have the freedom to go to a club without a loved-up stranger on pills humping my leg.

    A person might say "it's my body, i'll put heroin into it if I like". Well likewise I feel I have the freedom to walk down the street without a junkie robbing me blind.

    I would be ok with legalising cannabis as I've found the only effect it has on other people is passive smoking and sure they can just sit somewhere else.

    Basically I feel that as long as your actions have no negative impact on others then go for it. Of course I don't always practice it, but it's a general guideline I like to follow.


  • #274
    Standman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Piste wrote: »
    Basically I feel that as long as your actions have no negative impact on others then go for it. Of course I don't always practice it, but it's a general guideline I like to follow.

    Completely agree! Although I would argue that just because a minority of people misbehave as a result of drug use does not mean that anyone who does drugs should be criminalised.


  • #275
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Piste wrote: »
    Cannabis makes you go stupid. No I wont quote any sources, but from personal experiences, friends of friends etc. stoners are dumb. Of course most people only have the odd joint here and there and that's grand, but it's still dangerous as it's often mixed with tobacco which is addictive and carcinogenic. Cannabis itself is also carcinogenic.

    Yeah sure it can be eaten, but tbh that vast majority of cannabis is smoked. In all the houseparties I have been at where there has been cannabis I have only ever seen it smoked.
    You're right, a lot of stoners are dumb, but I'd argue that it's not the fault of cannabis, but the fact that those who smoke it regularly happen to be quite stupid.

    The whole smoking it thing is a bit moot, since in the vast majority of cases it takes years of cigarette smoking to develop cancer, and if smoked with cannabis it's only going to be a fraction of the amount that a smoker would smoke.
    Piste wrote: »
    LSD can cause flashbacks, not the most pleasant of experiences if you happen to be driving. You can do dangerous things on psychadelics, no everyone is going to be responsible and have a babysitter with them.
    Thing about psychedelics is they're not really all that popular, which immediately lessens the chance of irresponsible people doing them, and see my post a few posts back on a possible way of regulating them.

    And flashbacks are rare enough, are not medically defined and are generally misunderstood as a much bigger deal than they actually are anyway. They're one of those things that have been blown immensly out of proportion by the anti-drugs brigade.
    Piste wrote: »
    I think the entire legalisation of drugs debate comes down to the freedom of the individual -v- the freedom of society.

    A person might decide they have the freedom to take E at a club, I should have the freedom to go to a club without a loved-up stranger on pills humping my leg.
    Bah, I've always hated this argument as much as its polar opposite: "well life just isn't fair". Mainly because they reduce an argument down to far too simplistic terms and generally make a load of assumptions to do it. Also, I see people using one for one argument and the other for another.

    And anyway, once again, see my post on possible regulatory solutions a few posts back. What about clubs specifically for MDMA consumption? Then all you'd have to do would be avoid these clubs to avoid friendly strangers.

    As an aside, it should be noted that MDMA generally distracts one from their sex drive and causes them to become more outgoing and empathogenic, so the liklihood of some random stranger humping you're leg would be quite low.


  • #276
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,382 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    meditraitor wrote: »
    I would start by pointing out the effects of the so called safe drug.
    Cannabis

    This is for the benefit of the ill informed so they can make an informed decision on whether Cannabis should be legalised!

    Acute health effects of cannabis use
    The acute effects of cannabis use has been recognized for many years, and recent studies have confirmed and extended earlier findings. These may be summarized as follows:

    Cannabis impairs cognitive development (capabilities of learning), including associative processes; free recall of previously learned items is often impaired when cannabi is used both during learning and recall periods;
    Cannabis impairs psychomotor performance in a wide variety of tasks, such as motor coordination, divided attention, and operative tasks of many types; human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 mg of THC in cannabis; there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis.
    Chronic health effects of cannabis use
    selective impairment of cognitive functioning which include the organization and integration of complex information involving various mechanisms of attention and memory processes;
    prolonged use may lead to greater impairment, which may not recover with cessation of use, and which could affect daily life functions;
    development of a cannabis dependence syndrome characterized by a loss of control over cannabis use is likely in chronic users;
    cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals;
    epithetial injury of the trachea and major bronchi is caused by long-term cannabis smoking;
    airway injury, lung inflammation, and impaired pulmonary defence against infection from persistent cannabis consumption over prolonged periods;
    heavy cannabis consumption is associated with a higher prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis and a higher incidence of acute bronchitis than in the non-smoking cohort;
    cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;
    cannabis use during pregnancy may lead to postnatal risk of rare forms of cancer although more research is needed in this area.
    The health consequences of cannabis use in developing countries are largely unknown beacuse of limited and non-systematic research, but there is no reason a priori to expect that biological effects on individuals in these populations would be substantially different to what has been observed in developed countries. However, other consequences might be different given the cultural and social differences between countries.

    World Health Organisation
    I read all that and just think, yes, it is a relatively safe drug compared to the other commonly used recreational legal & illegal drugs.

    You missed this bit from the very same page

    Therapeutic uses of cannabinoids

    Several studies have demonstrated the therapeutic effects of cannabinoids for nausea and vomiting in the advanced stages of illnesses such as cancer and AIDS. Dronabinol (tetrahydrocannabinol) has been available by prescription for more than a decade in the USA. Other therapeutic uses of cannabinoids are being demonstrated by controlled studies, including treatment of asthma and glaucoma, as an antidepressant, appetite stimulant, anticonvulsant and anti-spasmodic, research in this area should continue. For example, more basic research on the central and peripheral mechanisms of the effects of cannabinoids on gastrointestinal function may improve the ability to alleviate nausea and emesis. More research is needed on the basic neuropharmacology of THC and other cannabinoids so that better therapeutic agents can be found.

    Alcohol

    Although alcohol consumption has occurred for thousands of years, many of the varied health effects have been discovered fairly recently. Alcohol consumption has health and social consequences via intoxication (drunkenness), dependence (habitual, compulsive and long-term drinking), and other biochemical effects. In addition to chronic diseases that may affect drinkers after many years of heavy use, alcohol contributes to traumatic outcomes that kill or disable at a relatively young age, resulting in the loss of many years of life to death or disability. There is increasing evidence that besides volume of alcohol, the pattern of the drinking is relevant for the health outcomes. Overall there is a causal relationship between alcohol consumption and more than 60 types of disease and injury. Alcohol is estimated to cause about 20-30% worldwide of oesophageal cancer, liver cancer, cirrhosis of the liver, homicide, epilepsy, and motor vehicle accidents.

    Worldwide alcohol causes 1.8 million deaths (3.2% of total) and 58.3 million (4% of total) of Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). Unintentional injuries alone account for about one third of the 1.8 million deaths, while neuro-psychiatric conditions account for close to 40% of the 58.3 million DALYs.

    Globally alcohol consumption has increased in recent decades, with all or most of that increase in developing countries. This increase is often occurring in countries with little tradition of alcohol use on population level and few methods of prevention, control or treatment. The rise in alcohol consumption in developing countries provides ample cause for concern over the possible advent of a matching rise in alcohol-related problems in those regions of the world most at risk.

    Tobacco

    Tobacco continues to be the substance causing the maximum health damage globally. According to WHO estimates, there are around 1.1 thousand million smokers in the world, about one-third of the global population aged 15 and over. While consumption is levelling off and even decreasing in some countries, worldwide more people are smoking, and smokers are smoking more cigarettes. Substantially fewer cigarettes are smoked per day per smoker in developing countries than in developed countries. However, this gap is fast narrowing and unless effective tobacco control measures take place, daily cigarette consumption in developing countries is expected to increase as economic development results in increased real disposable income.

    According to the World Health Report 2002, among industrialized countries where smoking has been common, smoking is estimated to cause over 90% of lung cancer in men and about 70% of lung cancer among women. In addition, in these countries, the attributable fractions are 56-80% for chronic respiratory disease and 22% for cardiovascular disease. Worldwide, it is estimated that tobacco causes about 8.8% of deaths (4.9 million) and 4.1% of DALYs (59.1 million). Unless current trends are not reversed, that figure is expected to rise to 10 million deaths per year by the 2020s or early 2030s, with 70% of those deaths occurring in developing countries.

    Unsurprisingly the WHO do not start listing the minimal theraputic effects of alcohol & tobacco that some might trot out to justify their hypocritical legality.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    Boggle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Boggle


    Can you back that up with stats?

    /Just kidding
    /Not replying to any more drug posts as I'll be here forever!
    Touche:D But seriously.. you'd like me locked up cos I enjoy the odd smoke despite the fact that there is no justifiable reason for making it illegal. At least expand on your reasoning. If anything I have said is incorrect in my previous posts please discuss but the whole head in the sand approach is quite annoying


  • #278
    pclancy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,941 ✭✭✭pclancy


    Down here (New Zealand) its extremly popular with all age groups and backgrounds but the cops still take a pretty heavy hand if you're caught with any. They've got a serious problem here with "P" which is basically meths and causes serious damage to everyone around you much like heroin. Sadly theres no sign at all of legalistation or even the hope towards society agreeing it should be legal but there are some good efforst towards it namely a political party and a big group of activists! Some good reading here if anyones interested... http://norml.org.nz/index.php

    Anyway I always get annoyed with these "should it be legalised" theads because they always go the same way, people that smoke say it should, people that think its a gateway drug or dangerously mind altering say it shouldnt, my view is if you wanna drink your pint or smoke you fag do so....i'll queitly smoke my spliff in the background and you'll be damn sure i wont attack a cop, give my kids lungcancer, drive dangerously or beat my wife when i get home, i'll just marvel at the beauty of the world and listen to some Doors :)


  • #279
    meditraitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,207 ✭✭✭meditraitor


    rubadub wrote: »
    I read all that and just think, yes, it is a relatively safe drug compared to the other commonly used recreational legal & illegal drugs..
    OK this is your opinion but I beleive it is more harmful than good for the individual and I just posted some recognised ill effects to offset the cannabis is great lovefest that this thread had become.
    rubadub wrote: »
    You missed this bit from the very same page.

    No I didnt, It was on the link I supplied if anyone bothered to open it,it was staring them straight in the face.
    Normally I avoid these threads like the plague but sometimes I get sick of morons implying that people who dont think the legalisation of drugs is a positive thing are ignornat and uninformed.Look at the post again in the context it was posted Rub. I only posted one of the reasons that put me off such a change in legislation. I could say that I smoked for 10-15 years and I know how it effects Me. I could also say that I gave up cannabis a long time before I gave up LSD/Speed/MDMA and coke because generally it had a worse effect on me. I could say that the fact I still do drugs and dont believe that increasing the availability of them through legalisation would not contribute to a better society. I could also say that I know many good friends that have lost their lives or had them ruined through drug use. But then the morons who imply that people who think drugs should stay illegal are uninformed and ignorant or shout "Prove what you say to be true because we dont believe you, your experience is a minority" (which it is not in my social circle and in my age bracket)
    Just like drink in this country the majority of people will not use in moderation,apparently over 5 units is bing drinking(about 2 1/2 pints) but over indulge leading to some of the ill effects listed

    rubadub wrote: »
    Unsurprisingly the WHO do not start listing the minimal theraputic effects of alcohol & tobacco that some might trot out to justify their hypocritical legality.

    Are you implying the WHO have an agenda. Can you prove this?

    Bit of a mothful:)


  • #280
    Sherifu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,727 ✭✭✭✭Sherifu


    Boring thread is boring. Anyone got any gear?


  • #281
    Piste
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    You're right, a lot of stoners are dumb, but I'd argue that it's not the fault of cannabis, but the fact that those who smoke it regularly happen to be quite stupid.

    Well from experience I would argue otherwise, I've seen people made dumb because of hash. But fair enough, maybe the people you know who've become total stoners were already a bit thick to begin with.
    JC2K3 wrote:
    Thing about psychedelics is they're not really all that popular, which immediately lessens the chance of irresponsible people doing them, and see my post a few posts back on a possible way of regulating them.

    True, but that's just now, because they're illegal. I'd imagine they'd become much more popular if legalised and commercially available.


    JC2K3 wrote:
    As an aside, it should be noted that MDMA generally distracts one from their sex drive

    Sounds like a crap drug then :p

    But yeah the idea of MDMA-only clubs is a good one. Though of course they'd find their way into other clubs eventually.

    We already had our chance to show that we could handle a mind-altering drug (alcohol) and guess what, we failed. We've shown as a nation that we just can't handle these substances, well done us :(

    But fair enough, drugs that don't turn you into pricks like cannabis and MDMA (in special clubs though) I would have no problem with being made legal (as long as they were heavily regulated).


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    If drugs were legal it wouldn't be long untill almost completely safe drugs are developed (from a medical point of view).

    Almost every negative consequence of drug use would be eliminated except for addiction.

    But even this could be lessened drastically.

    Education is the key.Most people (drug users included) don't have a clue when it comes to the real facts about drugs;

    1.Drugs that directly affect the brains reward system are more addictive than those that don't.

    2. The faster the come-up, the more addictive the drug. Basically,

    with oral use, addiction is not really that prevalent, and when it does appear it's not as severe.

    when "reward system" drugs are snorted,addiction is a strong factor, but most people will avoid it, many of them being compulsive users but not fully addicted.

    when "reward system" drugs are inhaled/injected addiction is almost guaranteed, you'd have to be the most joyless boring fun-hater not to.

    This explains why crack is so much more addictive than cocaine (even though they're the same drug) and why when inhaled tobacco is much more addictive than cannabis (tobacco directly affects the brains reward system (even though the effect isn't that great))

    With legalisation (and education) i see the vast majority of drug users taking their drugs orally, and thus addiction will be less of a problem.

    It's absurd to think that of all the drugs out there,none of them are safer than alcohol.(Alcohol IS quite toxic compared to most other recreational drugs)

    I'd rather have some loved-up weirdo hug me than a drunken weirdo start a fight with me any day.


  • #283
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Piste wrote: »
    We already had our chance to show that we could handle a mind-altering drug (alcohol) and guess what, we failed. We've shown as a nation that we just can't handle these substances, well done us :(
    What happened to not lumping all drugs together as the same thing??


  • #284
    Piste
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    I think in this case it's something you can apply to drugs that change your behaviour dramatically (we can discount cannabis, I've found that people don't change *that* much under the influence of it incidentally I've found I'm a brilliant liar when high >_>). They might be safe enough in small doses, but given with how we deal with alcohol, we as a nation would probably go overboard.


  • #285
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    vinylmesh wrote: »
    If drugs were legal it wouldn't be long untill almost completely safe drugs are developed (from a medical point of view).

    Almost every negative consequence of drug use would be eliminated except for addiction.

    But even this could be lessened drastically.

    Education is the key.Most people (drug users included) don't have a clue when it comes to the real facts about drugs;

    1.Drugs that directly affect the brains reward system are more addictive than those that don't.

    2. The faster the come-up, the more addictive the drug. Basically,

    with oral use, addiction is not really that prevalent, and when it does appear it's not as severe.

    when "reward system" drugs are snorted,addiction is a strong factor, but most people will avoid it, many of them being compulsive users but not fully addicted.

    when "reward system" drugs are inhaled/injected addiction is almost guaranteed, you'd have to be the most joyless boring fun-hater not to.

    This explains why crack is so much more addictive than cocaine (even though they're the same drug) and why when inhaled tobacco is much more addictive than cannabis (tobacco directly affects the brains reward system (even though the effect isn't that great))

    With legalisation (and education) i see the vast majority of drug users taking their drugs orally, and thus addiction will be less of a problem.

    It's absurd to think that of all the drugs out there,none of them are safer than alcohol.(Alcohol IS quite toxic compared to most other recreational drugs)

    I'd rather have some loved-up weirdo hug me than a drunken weirdo start a fight with me any day.

    Where do you get this stuff from? Tell me, how many drugs have been developed that are completely safe (from a medical point of view)? All drugs - from aspirin to heroin - have inherent risks.


  • #286
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Well anything we consume probably has some inherent risks....


  • #287
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Probably. But it wasn't my contention that we could somehow make the current list of illegal drugs (or any drugs for that matter) harmless.


  • #288
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Where do you get this stuff from? Tell me, how many drugs have been developed that are completely safe (from a medical point of view)? All drugs - from aspirin to heroin - have inherent risks.


    you're such a pedant!

    Obviously i meant apart from the obvious overdose risks.

    And even this could be avoided (e.g a drug that needs to be converted by an enzyme to become active.Included with the drug is a certain percentage of enzyme inhibitors and also possibly a certain percentage of extra enzymes to break down the drug once created. If this was developed it COULD make overdose impossible.This is in the far, far future though.

    Also, note my use of the word "almost"


  • #289
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    vinylmesh wrote: »
    And even this could be avoided (e.g a drug that needs to be converted by an enzyme to become active.Included with the drug is a certain percentage of enzyme inhibitors and also possibly a certain percentage of extra enzymes to break down the drug once created. If this was developed it COULD make overdose impossible.This is in the far, far future though.

    Possibly just in your head ;)


Advertisement