Drugs in Dublin

steveland? · 12-01-2006 5:18am

amazingemmet wrote:

In theory your right but a conserviative estimate by the dept of health stated that 25% of prescription drugs are counterfits (as in not made by the companies that claim made them) kinda scary really.

That is scary...

Amsterdam has the right attitude. I've been reading up on it a lot recently (going there on the 28th) and their attitude is that by legalising marijuana they take a big chunk of the market away from dealers. I'm not saying that dope is a large part of any dealers' dealings since it's not the most profitable substance but most people would "know" dealers from getting dope off them... That's how most people start with taking drugs...

By eliminating people meeting the dealers to buy dope they cut down on the amount of people that are going to ring them up asking for a gram of coke or a hit of smack...

They also have the belief that if someone is addicted to hard(er) drugs (depeding on your standpoint on the matter) they shouldn't be ostrisised (I can't spell that word... I just thought of an ostrich and adapted it...) or locked up. They know that these people need help and provide it.

There's a problem now (according to a few websites I've read regarding the subject) of people inadvertantly becoming addicted to opium through "Black Hash" which is a substance imported from Afghanistan that since the war began has seen the opium levels in hash upturn. Originally opium was added to cut with the hash because it was cheaper to process and pads out the actual dope.

Black hash is a kind of legal grey area as it's legal to sell (also a kind of grey area... they're allowed to sell up to 5 grams per person because it's an offence to have more than that at a time... still not totally legal but a very petty misdemenor in Amsterdam) as it comes through the back door and isn't regulated.

I know this is a little off topic but I think it relates somewhat to Dublin (and indeed other parts of the world) where drugs are a problem. If they decriminalise and regulate hash, the drug that most people who do drugs start off with, and take the business away from the dealers the likelyhood of someone going and finding a dealer is lessened...

I know it's not the ideal solution as it's inherently flawed if you believe in the whole "gateway drug" effect.

Hash was the first drug I tried and I have since tried harder drugs but I don't know how much I'd blame smoking a few spliffs for that... I'd call it more youthful experimentation than anything else...

steveland? · 12-01-2006 5:23am

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

Check with Martindale, the standard medical reference book, which records that heroin is used for the control of severe pain in children and adults, including the frail, the elderly and women in labour. It is even injected into premature babies who are recovering from operations. Martindale records no sign of these patients being damaged or morally degraded or becoming criminally deviant or simply insane. It records instead that, so far as harm is concerned, there can be problems with nausea and constipation.

That's morphine though isn't it?

There's a big difference between getting an injection of morphine to help ease pain, during or after an operation or when in extreme pain, and heroin you go and buy off some dodgy guy down a lane in the city centre...

Dar · 12-01-2006 6:33am

steveland? wrote:

That's morphine though isn't it?

There's a big difference between getting an injection of morphine to help ease pain, during or after an operation or when in extreme pain, and heroin you go and buy off some dodgy guy down a lane in the city centre...

As Wertz detailed above, its not Heroin itself which is dangerous - its **** that it's diluted with. Legilisation would allow regulation of quality and in one fell swoop eliminate the vast majority of heroin related deaths.

turbot · 12-01-2006 7:03am

My perspective is this:

1) Governments waste a huge amount of money attempting to fight drug use

2) Governments do the population an injustice by touting propaganda about drug use that promotes "just say no" as opposed to "be educated, be smart, be wise". Most teenagers learn about life through exploration. Due to the dissonance between government information and their life experiences, they figure out drugs for themselves, occassionaly to their detriment

3) Drugs are not all bad. It's possible to enhance your experience of music, life, people, dancing, art by purposefully changing your neurochemistry and altering your perceptions. Drugs are a convenient and easy way to achieve this, though not without risks. Many of the risks are due to a lack of decent education about drugs, brain chemistry, physical effects, quality of knowledge and a lack of information about "best practice" in taking drugs. If people are going to take them anyway, they may as well take them wisely.

4) It's possible to take some drugs, be enormously successful, live well, and for drugs to enhance your life, as opposed to harming it. To achieve this you need to be very educated, smart, and know exactly what you are doing. The disinformation about drugs often prevents this kind of intelligence from occuring.

5) Many issues associated with drugs are due to the appauling quality of drugs available on the street. The different between soap bar hashish and the purest of pure Nepalese pollen is huge, both in terms of the amount required to get high, and the after effects. The same is true of many things in life. Restrictions on the sale and trafficking of drugs tends to lead to poor quality drugs being generally available, and higher quality ones only available to people "in the know"

6) The use of psychotropics is often interwoven in different approaches to spirituality, and drugs arguably can help people develop appreciation for nature, etc.

7) If the government were smart in how they legalised and regulated all drugs, then:
- It would be possible for more people who took drugs to only take drugs that are of an excellent quality
- It would be possible to educate people about "best practice" in drug use and thus help mitigate many of the associated risks
- The process of helping people who have experienced adverse side effects of drugs could become more self funding
- Organised crime would find a major drop in its sources of income
- The thrill factor of doing whats not allowed would be no longer associated with drugs
- People who wanted to take drugs anyway, could do so more responsibly, and infrastructures could be created within society that encourage the safe usage of drugs, and the mitigation of side effects through nutrition, proper education, easy and simplified availability of nutrients and people trained in maintaining the safety of people who were taking drugs

Instead of blanket banning anything that pleasantly alters your neurochemistry, mankind could become wiser about exploring such things, and do so more intelligently. More better research could lead to safer approaches in these areas. Surely this is smart?

Perhaps this is too progressive an opinion for conservative society.

CiaranC · 12-01-2006 9:40am

Good post there turbot. If more people saw drugs in their non-sensationalist, cultural, historical context we wouldnt be in this mess.

Tha Gopher · 12-01-2006 10:37am

Rollo Tamasi wrote:

I'd agree with CM Tranny that coke is ruining irish night clubs. It's becoming really sleazy and boring with clubbers on coke instead of pills, the buzz is gone completely. Bring back the mitsubishi and roles royces, now thats old school baby!

Coke is the biggest heap of ****e ever. I'd prefer to spend money on jack daniels tbh, i'd get a better bang for my buck anyway.

Agreed. If I had a time machine, Id make my parents meet way earlier in the 70s. That way Id be born in 1976 odd, and would have been a proper age for Dublins early/mid 90s club scene

You get so jealous when you talk to taxi drivers and old men of rave at events/the dance forum here and they harp on about how great the old days were

Tbh for its price coke is a pretty boring drug. Dont do it often myself , several of my mates do it constantly, some verging on problem use, but I really cant see the attraction. Its alright, but its not all that. Maybe it just hits me less hard than most (dont know why, im average height/weight), but it dont compare to the good oul yip yip yips

As someone said, the profits for ecstasy are simply too small these days. However there is still a demand- Id imagine the rise in ecstasy seizures near Christmas was a reaction to the huge demand- lack of supply that was seen at events such as Oxegen and Godskitchen lately. However, it is still primarily the main drug of choice for country folks and East Europeans these days (many of the Lithuanians etc are crazy into their club/dance culture, and its traditional drug). Ive been told in Dublin alot of the 14/15 year olds, jobless kids who cant afford coke, still do alot of e. I know one or two people who will refuse to take ecstasy because they are terrified of dropping dead 2 mins after they swallow it, yet these same people are well prepared to hoover line after line of coke up their nose

Theres a survey out saying 3% of Irish have taken it. In most of North Dublin I would say the figure of those who tried it must be well into the majority amongst young males (Id go as high as 80%), and probably the 40-60% mark for women, probably over 50%.

As for the jacks being given the anti sniff treatment, I know of certain clubs where, because so many of the punters are on coke, they seem to tolerate it/turn blind eye. People drink pretty much the same when taking coke as not in my view (unlike e, where the alcohol sales will suffer if the whole crowd is on it). If you go in all you can hear around you is the sound of snorting every 3 seconds from every cubicle. If they cared theyd post a bouncer in there (the black lads working as attendants will usually turn a blind eye, its rather a social etiquette by now that if you have been sounding like the Dyson test lab in the cubicle for 3 minutes you tip the guy handsomely to say nothing)

And is it just me or is the OP a journalist taking the lazy route of fishing for opinions? Off yer arse and on the street ya lazy git!

By the way kids I should add speed is a nasty nasty dirty drug

Jaysus the day i went to work after that sh1te, it was horrendous.

BigArnie · 12-01-2006 10:43am

coolsmileygirl wrote:

i never would becuase i've the way people act when on it and its pathetic

I feel the same way about alcohol. I generally wouldn't say it though because it makes me look like a self-righteous pratt.

OsamaBinLaden · 12-01-2006 1:11pm

Tha Gopher wrote:

Ive been told in Dublin alot of the 14/15 year olds, jobless kids who cant afford coke, still do alot of e.

yeah, those kids who couldn't get jobs in the factories are real e heads.

Theres a survey out saying 3% of Irish have taken it. In most of North Dublin I would say the figure of those who tried it must be well into the majority amongst young males (Id go as high as 80%), and probably the 40-60% mark for women, probably over 50%.

why would you say that?
is it because people in north Dublin are stereotyped as being serial drug users?

SpAcEd OuT, why don't you go and try some of this good heroin and tell us what it's like. come back to us in a year and let us know of your orgasmic experiences.

listen, drugs are addictive and they alter your perceptions. that's why they are illegal. do you really want to meet someone on the street who is out of their head on coke/heroin/whatever every day of the week? you can legalise drugs, but you can't stop people from walking the streets while out of their heads. it's for your own safety that these things are illegal. we have enough problems with drunk people on the streets. do we really need to add heroin users to that list. there is also no breathalyser currently available to tell you if someone is driving while under the influence of drugs. cop the **** on, get your head out of your arse and s look at drugs in a sensible way.

yes, you can OD on paracetemol. you can also slit your wrists and bleed to death by falling out a window while off your head on heroin.

amsterdam isn't some paradise where everyone is all happy because weed is legal. it also has a seedy side that many of tyhe weekend hash tourists don't get to see.

just to reiterate: drugs are illegal for your own safety. it's not some government conspiracy to keep us from being happy. user beware.

on topic: cocaine is widespread here in Leixlip. go to any p[ub on any night of the week and people are doing it. someone mentioned something about having an outdoor area for coke users. i've seen people doing coke while i was out having a smoke and was offered some by those taking it. it's everywhere.

for the record, i have taken coke on ocasion and found it to be the most overrated drug ever. i smoked hash for years as a teenager. i've done speed twice. it was crap both times. i had my drink spiked with "E" and lost three hours. i've never enjoyed any drug more than i've enjoyed a few beers.

StupidLikeAFox · 12-01-2006 1:17pm

OsamaBinLaden wrote:

yeah, those kids who couldn't get jobs in the factories are real e heads.

Ah in fairness he could have been talking about schoolkids as well, he just said "jobless"

I agree with pretty much everything else youve said though

LegacyUser · 12-01-2006 1:18pm

BigArnie wrote:

I feel the same way about alcohol. I generally wouldn't say it though because it makes me look like a self-righteous pratt.

No it doesn't. If you don't like the way people behave under the influence of alcohol you have every right to let it be known.
It doesn't make you a self- righteous pratt, it makes you a person with an opinion based on personal experience.

Coolsmielygirl has based her opinion on personal experience, as have I.

I am completely against the use of substances, such as cocaine, and, just because some people may feel differently, It doesn't make me a self-righteous pratt for saying so.

OsamaBinLaden · 12-01-2006 1:22pm

coke turns nice people into arrogant assholes.
just thought i'd add that.
carry on.

amazingemmet · 12-01-2006 1:31pm

OsamaBinLaden wrote:

listen, drugs are addictive and they alter your perceptions. that's why they are illegal. do you really want to meet someone on the street who is out of their head on coke/heroin/whatever every day of the week? you can legalise drugs, but you can't stop people from walking the streets while out of their heads. it's for your own safety that these things are illegal. we have enough problems with drunk people on the streets. do we really need to add heroin users to that list. there is also no breathalyser currently available to tell you if someone is driving while under the influence of drugs. cop the **** on, get your head out of your arse and s look at drugs in a sensible way.

Not every person is gonna be doing drugs 24/7 and the people that are doing them 24/7 are would be doing them legal or illegal. Heroine user are alot easier to deal with then angry drunks. While there is no breathalyser currently in use there is swab test where you can swab peoples sweat or saliva and it indicates if the person has been using various substances in the recent time period. Personally i think you should get your head out of your arse and get properly educated about drugs:v:

Siogfinsceal · 12-01-2006 1:55pm

ah theres loads of coke and pills in dublin. To be honest though if I was a club owner I wouldnt be too bother about people doing coke in my club- its done everywhere. If it sa dance club of course people are going to be doing pils its the dance culture though to be honest people who are on pills wreck my head far more than peopl who are on coke

Dustaz · 12-01-2006 2:36pm

Christ, its spelt HEROIN. It's like copper faced jacks - There is no E.

Some of the rubbish in this thread is disconcerting to say the least. The poster who reckons that 80% of young north dublin males do E needs to take a lesson or two in statistics i think and not base his judgements on 6 months spent in Spirit and Heaven.

Of course drugs feel good, otherwise noone would take them. Of course they are dangerous, hence the illegality (ok, with the exception of cannabis.)

12-01-2006 3:06pm

Dustaz wrote:

Christ, its spelt HEROIN. It's like copper faced jacks - There is no E.

Some of the rubbish in this thread is disconcerting to say the least. The poster who reckons that 80% of young north dublin males do E needs to take a lesson or two in statistics i think and not base his judgements on 6 months spent in Spirit and Heaven.

Of course drugs feel good, otherwise noone would take them. Of course they are dangerous, hence the illegality (ok, with the exception of cannabis.)

Great quote about copperface jacks.its owned by two ex guards.isnt it?

Wertz · 12-01-2006 6:58pm

Da Gopher wrote:

People drink pretty much the same when taking coke as not in my view (unlike e, where the alcohol sales will suffer if the whole crowd is on it).

The beautiful irony of that is that the interaction between cocaine and alcohol is much much more likely to kill or seriously harm a user than mixing your pills with a skinful of booze, but since we've all been made so aware by the sensationalist media that you should never mix E and drink, we associate that as being the more dangerous of the two, when the opposite is more the case...

Oh and totally agree on the speed thing- worst.comedown.ever.

jonny68 · 12-01-2006 7:25pm

BigArnie wrote:

The drugs in Dublin are crap anyway. I don't know why anyone bothers.

True trying to score some decent coke is impossible almost

Fraggle Rocks · 12-01-2006 7:45pm

steveland? wrote:

That's morphine though isn't it?

There's a big difference between getting an injection of morphine to help ease pain, during or after an operation or when in extreme pain, and heroin you go and buy off some dodgy guy down a lane in the city centre...

No, heroin is used medicinally as a painkiller.Its proper name is diamorphine.

slipss · 12-01-2006 8:20pm

just thought I'd add for the people that say they don't see the attraction of taking coke and that its really over rated.

The attraction is that you can be out of it on coke but you still have a clear head, your motor functions are far less affected than with most other drugs, you can still interact with people exactly as coherently as when your totally sober (sometimes better), you are still (for the most part) able to make good decisions (although you can become paranoid or aggresive, with the majority of people this only is an issue with heavy or habitual use) you suffer virtually no hangover, and for a lot of people it makes them feel really good/euphoric moreso at higher doses.

also a lot of people that do coke and think its sh1t usually only do a few small lines of poor quality stuff, and don't get the full effect.

That being said it's true, as with any drug, that some people just won't like it.

Tha Gopher · 13-01-2006 10:37am

OsamaBinLaden wrote:

yeah, those kids who couldn't get jobs in the factories are real e heads.

why would you say that?
is it because people in north Dublin are stereotyped as being serial drug users?

on topic: cocaine is widespread here in Leixlip. go to any p[ub on any night of the week and people are doing it. someone mentioned something about having an outdoor area for coke users. i've seen people doing coke while i was out having a smoke and was offered some by those taking it. it's everywhere.

.

The reason I said jobless, or working a crap job, is because they spend 8 quid getting high on yokes rather than 50-150 plus on coke.

And no Im not stereotyping. Im from North Dublin. Im basing it on the people I know in Dublin in general. You have yourself said that drugs are everywhere in Leixlip. If coke is everywhere, then logically alot of people must be using it.

Dustaz, i didnt say 80% of males do pills or coke regularly. Id say however that this amount have done it a few times. Thats my life experience. Quit disecting my posts for petty points, its childish

Slipps- ive done bad and good. The good was.....good, but not a high thats worth the money it costs. And no hangover? You obviously havent experienced the sheer hilarity of post binge paranoia.

My mate was convinced after an all nighter that the Garda helicopter chased him to his house like in Goodfellas

rubadub · 13-01-2006 10:57am

Dustaz wrote:

Christ, its spelt HEROIN. It's like copper faced jacks - There is no E.

I was waiting for somebody to point that out, didn't think it would be in such a harsh way. You are wrong, get your facts right before berating people, you end up looking like an ignorant asshole. Heroine is a perfectly acceptable spelling, many medical journals/texts would insist on spelling it that way. "ine" is a suffix on many compounds, it is acceptable to drop the e.

13-01-2006 11:20am

OsamaBinLaden wrote:

coke turns nice people into arrogant assholes.
just thought i'd add that.
carry on.

Yeah I love the way people think they are really interesting and think whatever **** is spewing from their mouth is gospel. And they won't ****ing shut up either.

I really hate talking to people on coke.

joejoem · 13-01-2006 11:22am

Drugs are just bad m'kay?

13-01-2006 11:26am

slipss wrote:

The attraction is that you can be out of it on coke but you still have a clear head, your motor functions are far less affected than with most other drugs, you can still interact with people exactly as coherently as when your totally sober (sometimes better), you are still (for the most part) able to make good decisions (although you can become paranoid or aggresive, with the majority of people this only is an issue with heavy or habitual use) you suffer virtually no hangover, and for a lot of people it makes them feel really good/euphoric moreso at higher doses.

I'm sorry but everything you have said there is bollocks frankly.

No hangover? pulllllesse...

You could add "You think that you can.." to each of your points there and make them true.

Make good decisions on coke??
hahahahahahaha you must be joking

Lux23 · 13-01-2006 11:38am

Drugs are just as prevalent in the towns like Drogheda and Navan as in Dublin. I have experimented with drugs in the past but I just don't like the idea of lining the pockets of drug pushers so I avoid them. . I have never see anyone who was taking XTC or smoking weed behave in a agressive manner. But Cocaine is a different story altogether and I have seen a couple of decent people turn in to complete C**ts while using it. I know of one girl who had an amazing life, great job in a record company and a lovely boyfriend. But she just got too much into cocaine and couldn't cope with the real world anymore. She is 34, a recovering addict but lives with her parents and seems to have no interest in socialising or returning to work. But then there are 1000's of people who will take coke in this city tonight who will never end up like this. But they are still part of the problem.

Time Magazine · 13-01-2006 11:39am

Dustaz wrote:

Of course they are dangerous, hence the illegality (ok, with the exception of cannabis.)

http://212.58.226.40/1/hi/health/4305783.stm

Are you sure? Would you legalise a chocolate bar that reports from universities said doubled the chance of becoming mentally ill?

Dustaz · 13-01-2006 12:30pm

http://www.themeparkinsider.com/news/response.cfm?ID=1296

Ban this evil mode of transport NOW!

Yes, i would legalise canabis, search back through the 1,000,000 threads on the subject over the years to see why and save me rubbishing your limited point.

You are wrong, get your facts right before berating people, you end up looking like an ignorant asshole. Heroine is a perfectly acceptable spelling, many medical journals/texts would insist on spelling it that way. "ine" is a suffix on many compounds, it is acceptable to drop the e.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/heroine
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/heroin
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/heroine?view=uk
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=heroine

Its quite possibly that in medical and chemical books and papers there is an added e. However, since I and the vast majority of the population lack a Phd in medicine, we stick with the STANDARDISED spelling so that other people dont think were talking about a gutsy lady winning against all the odds. Generally, I leave it to the ignorant assholes to use the non-standard spellings.

Dustaz, i didnt say 80% of males do pills or coke regularly. Id say however that this amount have done it a few times. Thats my life experience. Quit disecting my posts for petty points, its childish

I still think you need a lesson in statistics. Did you come up with this figure after a straw poll of people on the dancefloor in Spirit? People that you get on with in your social circle? learn2sample.

13-01-2006 12:51pm

Dustaz wrote:

http://www.themeparkinsider.com/news/response.cfm?ID=1296

Ban this evil mode of transport NOW!

What a bad analogy.

You can fix rollercoasters and make them safer not so with cannabis (if it even is dangerous to begin with).

Tha Gopher · 13-01-2006 1:20pm

Dustaz wrote:

Its quite possibly that in medical and chemical books and papers there is an added e. However, since I and the vast majority of the population lack a Phd in medicine, we stick with the STANDARDISED spelling so that other people dont think were talking about a gutsy lady winning against all the odds. Generally, I leave it to the ignorant assholes to use the non-standard spellings.

The irony of all this being that you mispelled cannabis at the start of your post.......

rubadub · 13-01-2006 1:49pm

ronoc wrote:

What a bad analogy.

You can fix rollercoasters and make them safer not so with cannabis (if it even is dangerous to begin with).

The analogy is more along the lines of people engaging in risky activity for the sake of entertainment or enjoyment. People should research their activities be it skydiving or smoking cannabis, then make an informed decision whether or not to take up the activity.
If there is even a slight chance of another rollercoaster failing then why not ban them? they serve no medicinal purpose so nobody should use them :rolleyes: (yes a fuking ridiculous argument, just like that non-medicinal argument to keep recreational drugs illegal)

rubadub · 13-01-2006 1:53pm

Dustaz wrote:

Its quite possibly that in medical and chemical books and papers there is an added e.

Quite possibly? no doubt you found it in several of the online dictionaries you searched for but only posted those without it.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+heroine&meta=

Dustaz wrote:

However, since I and the vast majority of the population lack a Phd in medicine, we stick with the STANDARDISED spelling so that other people dont think were talking about a gutsy lady winning against all the odds. Generally, I leave it to the ignorant assholes to use the non-standard spellings..

You dont need a Phd to know it or use it, and I really don't think there was any confusion whatsoever that he was talking about the drug. How is he ignorant?he is not lacking the knowledge that it can be spelt either way. I presume you were ignorant of that fact until now.

Dustaz · 13-01-2006 1:57pm

rubadub wrote:

Quite possibly? no doubt you found it in several of the online dictionaries you searched for but only posted those without it.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+heroine&meta=
.

lol, one result from a medical web page? gg.

Thats pretty much why i used the above 3 dictionaries as references and dont bother searching teh intraweb.

rubadub · 13-01-2006 2:16pm

Dustaz wrote:

lol, one result from a medical web page? gg.
.

1 out of 3 definitions by google and it was there, whats so funny about that. Like I said no doubt you found plenty and just didnt post them. I can't be arsed finding a load of dictionaries that list it, I have no doubt there are plenty out there. I am sure "my first dictionary" wouldnt list it, decent ones do.

you listed 4, if I get 5 do I win :rolleyes:

egan007 · 13-01-2006 2:19pm

boo2u wrote:

There is so much publicity about drugs in dublin these days with reports that pub owners are putting baby oil on cisterns in toilets to stop people snorting cocaine is dublin that bad???

Yeah it's bad - they should be providing flat mirrors and razor blades.

13-01-2006 2:44pm

rubadub wrote:

The analogy is more along the lines of people engaging in risky activity for the sake of entertainment or enjoyment. People should research their activities be it skydiving or smoking cannabis, then make an informed decision whether or not to take up the activity.
If there is even a slight chance of another rollercoaster failing then why not ban them? they serve no medicinal purpose so nobody should use them :rolleyes: (yes a fuking ridiculous argument, just like that non-medicinal argument to keep recreational drugs illegal)

Well if rollercoasters were illegal to begin with your argument might make some sense.

But I agree with the research bit.

buzzerxx · 14-01-2006 1:15am

cocaine is here forever,i think most people that use it are a bit shy and they like the confidence it gives,i also think its too expensive.

Time Magazine · 14-01-2006 1:55am

rubadub wrote:

The analogy is more along the lines of people engaging in risky activity for the sake of entertainment or enjoyment. People should research their activities be it skydiving or smoking cannabis, then make an informed decision whether or not to take up the activity.

There are a few very important pieces of information missing from your analysis.

Firstly, sky-diving is, by and large, very safe. This site shows that the death-rate from sky-diving stands at 0.0003%. This, in my opinion, is an acceptable level of risk. More people die from coconuts landing on their head than that sort of a thing.

What is an unacceptable level of risk? I can't quantify for that you exactly. But I am of the opinion that doubling the chance of schrizophenia is an unacceptable level of risk.

Additionally, sky-diving is some what of an art that you can become better at and safer at. It is possible to sky-dive hundreds of times with no detremental effect to your health; it's actually probably good to get the exercise. Smoking cannabis, on the other the hand, is pretty much always carcinagenic. If you do it hundreds of times it increases your chances of cancer. You must also accept that, at the very least, there is a large body of evidence to suggest that it is psychologically devastating to many people.

The State has the authority to enforce its health rules on its citizens. Should the State not have the power to force blood transfusions [free registration needed] on children of Jehova's Witnesses? What about force feeding an 18 year old girl who suffers bulimia? Of course it can.

I completely agree with the concept of free healthcare and education. But I point-blank refuse to allow people to willingly harm themselves and then still expect the use of the health service (note: unless someone is actually self-harming; then they're ill etc). Nor do I accept the principle of paying for health services if you have cannabis-induced cancer. The only logical conclusion: illegalityof its possession.

sweety4uall · 14-01-2006 3:45am

mise_me_fein_V2 wrote:

Anyone here ever take Heroin?

I've heard it's better than sex.

whoever told u that obviously just having bad sex.

SpAcEd OuT · 14-01-2006 12:43pm

From what I hear Heroin is nothing like an orgasm. You know the feeling after sex.. Relaxed, happy, refreshed, carefree, and this placidness that lets you stare off for a minute and relish in it.. Thats how you feel on Heroin. A feeling of "Ahhhhhhhh".

egan007 · 14-01-2006 1:03pm

Angry Banana wrote:

The State has the authority to enforce its health rules on its citizens. Should the State not have the power to force blood transfusions [free registration needed] on children of Jehova's Witnesses? What about force feeding an 18 year old girl who suffers bulimia? Of course it can.

I completely agree with the concept of free healthcare and education. But I point-blank refuse to allow people to willingly harm themselves and then still expect the use of the health service (note: unless someone is actually self-harming; then they're ill etc). Nor do I accept the principle of paying for health services if you have cannabis-induced cancer. The only logical conclusion: illegalityof its possession.

1. the state holds no authority over a citized outside the agreed law.
2. i can only assume you find it ok to do cocaine if you have private heath care

rubadub · 14-01-2006 5:17pm

Angry Banana wrote:

Firstly, sky-diving is, by and large, very safe. This site shows that the death-rate from sky-diving stands at 0.0003%. This, in my opinion, is an acceptable level of risk. More people die from coconuts landing on their head than that sort of a thing.

Right, I didn't bother researching that, you could put any other activity in place of what I said, it is not just death I am worried about but injury. My mates play hurling and have injuries all the time but still play. Other activities could be drinking alcohol, eating fatty foods, drinking coffee, smoking cigarettes.

Angry Banana wrote:

What is an unacceptable level of risk? I can't quantify for that you exactly. But I am of the opinion that doubling the chance of schrizophenia is an unacceptable level of risk.

Well your signature says a lot, having sex obviously increases your chance of getting aids or any other STD. Crossing the road when the man is not green probably doubles your chance of being run over, I evaluate the risk and do what suits me. I am not going to live holed up in my room worried about what % risks are out there.

Angry Banana wrote:

Smoking cannabis, on the other the hand, is pretty much always carcinagenic. If you do it hundreds of times it increases your chances of cancer. You must also accept that, at the very least, there is a large body of evidence to suggest that it is psychologically devastating to many people.

Of course it increases the chance of cancer, so did going into smoky pubs, alcohol is pyhsically and psychologically devestating to many people too, but there seem to be a lot of people taking that risk and still drinking. The amount of cannabis I smoke is miniscule compared to what most tobacco smokers would take in a day, maybe 0.05g of hash in a night.

Angry Banana wrote:

But I point-blank refuse to allow people to willingly harm themselves and then still expect the use of the health service (note: unless someone is actually self-harming; then they're ill etc). Nor do I accept the principle of paying for health services if you have cannabis-induced cancer. The only logical conclusion: illegalityof its possession.

Then logically you would like to see possesion of nicotine, alcohol, caffeine illegal too?
Out of interest do you take any of the 3 drugs I just menitoned in any form? You do realise cannabis can be eaten too, lettuce can be dried and smoked so should its possesion be illegal if there was a sudden surge of lettuce smokers in hospital?
What other activities would you not engage in due to the risk to your health? driving, eating junk food, walking down a dark lane.

slipss · 14-01-2006 5:49pm

Ok I'm doing a complete u-turn, if the result of taking drugs is that people end up in pointless arguments about sky diving and correct spelling then I say they are crap afterall.

BigArnie · 14-01-2006 6:19pm

sillysausage wrote:

No it doesn't. If you don't like the way people behave under the influence of alcohol you have every right to let it be known.
It doesn't make you a self- righteous pratt, it makes you a person with an opinion based on personal experience.

Coolsmielygirl has based her opinion on personal experience, as have I.

I am completely against the use of substances, such as cocaine, and, just because some people may feel differently, It doesn't make me a self-righteous pratt for saying so.

Well as far as I'm concerned, people who drink alcohol and lambast coke users are hyprcritical at best and judgemental, ignorant and self-righteous in general.

nesf · 14-01-2006 6:27pm

Please don't use this thread to discuss drug experiences. Keep it on topic and discuss the drug issues in Dublin and the rest of the country and possible solutions.

Cheers.

nesf · 14-01-2006 6:30pm

Angry Banana wrote:

I completely agree with the concept of free healthcare and education. But I point-blank refuse to allow people to willingly harm themselves and then still expect the use of the health service (note: unless someone is actually self-harming; then they're ill etc). Nor do I accept the principle of paying for health services if you have cannabis-induced cancer. The only logical conclusion: illegality of its possession.

I think you are confusing willingly harming themselves and taking risks.

And what is the difference between self-harming and willinging harming one's self? Surely they are the same thing no?

nesf · 14-01-2006 6:32pm

BigArnie wrote:

Well as far as I'm concerned, people who drink alcohol and lambast coke users are hyprcritical at best and judgemental, ignorant and self-righteous in general.

I think people's issues are with the one's who overdo the coke and become hyper aggressive or hyper-talkative and thus extremely annoying. I don't think it's hypocritical or judgemental to have issues with such. It's similar to having issues with people who get pissed off their head tbh.

Time Magazine · 15-01-2006 5:30pm

egan007 wrote:

1. the state holds no authority over a citized outside the agreed law.

And the agreed law is that possession of cannabis is not permitted.

.

2. i can only assume you find it ok to do cocaine if you have private heath care

There are a couple of issues here. One of them is that the effects of cocaine extend beyond the realm of individual choice; insofar as your actions are interfered with. I can't be arsed sourcing a link at the moment for this; but we can all agree (from personal anecdotes) that coke can and does make people aggressive. I can name at least one person who would not have been assaulted had cocaine never reached this country.

rubadub wrote:

Right, I didn't bother researching that, you could put any other activity in place of what I said, it is not just death I am worried about but injury. My mates play hurling and have injuries all the time but still play. Other activities could be drinking alcohol, eating fatty foods, drinking coffee, smoking cigarettes.

And similarly you could put just about any legal activity in place of what I said! I'm thinking, and I don't think there is any activity as potentially damaging as the regular, "reasonably-quantified" consumption of cannabis that is legal, with the exception of tobacco.

The State actively tries to rid society of cigarrettes. It is (if I'm not mistaken) the most heavily taxed good in the country. It is the biggest cause of preventative death in Ireland, and, as such, the State is warring with it. We have legislation banning its consumption in public places. We have Office of Tobacco Control. We have enacted tobacco legislation. Under the Health Promotion Unit of the Department of Health, we have National Smokers' Quitline, with local officers to help you personally. We should learn our lesson. The difference between trying to combat tobacco use and criminalising cannabis-use is not (for me) a theoretical stand-point. It's actually about realpolitik. I don't think a ban on smoking would work because it's so widespread. I think it would be burdensome, and we're better off trying to get to a position where maybe one day we could criminalise it rather than do something which is un-manageable.

On the other hand, if you take me as an example, there's a chance I would have tried cannabis had it been legal. I didn't, at least partly because it was a crime. I think there's an overwhelming body of evidence to suggest that these things get out of control. Prohibition, the dirty word it is, is not perfect. Yes, scum get rich because of it. But I think that's only because people continue to buy it (directly or indirectly) off scum (both Irish and foreign); and even at that the situation is better off as it is.

Well your signature says a lot, having sex obviously increases your chance of getting aids or any other STD. Crossing the road when the man is not green probably doubles your chance of being run over, I evaluate the risk and do what suits me. I am not going to live holed up in my room worried about what % risks are out there.

My sig is sarcastic, in an attempt to attract people to my now defunct website. (I should really change that.) About STD's, the State also has massive burdens of advertisting informing people. It is illegal to cross the road when the man ain't green. I don't live in a quarantined space. But nor do I support legalising something that's highly dangerous. There is no contradiction here.

Of course it increases the chance of cancer, so did going into smoky pubs

Which is now banned.

Alcohol is pyhsically and psychologically devestating to many people too, but there seem to be a lot of people taking that risk and still drinking.

See the problem of tobacco as detailed above. And even at that rate, two pints of Guinness can be good for you.

The amount of cannabis I smoke is miniscule compared to what most tobacco smokers would take in a day, maybe 0.05g of hash in a night.

Careful about the illegality thing, I think we both agree we don't want this locked by necessity?

Then logically you would like to see possesion of nicotine, alcohol, caffeine illegal too?

Acceptable risk and realities determine: no.

Out of interest do you take any of the 3 drugs I just mentioned in any form?

I drink.

You do realise cannabis can be eaten too

Yep.

lettuce can be dried and smoked so should its possesion be illegal if there was a sudden surge of lettuce smokers in hospital?

The psychological argument still holds true.

What other activities would you not engage in due to the risk to your health? driving, eating junk food, walking down a dark lane.

That sort of pseudo-personal attack, anti-holier-than-thou approach is inflammatory, derogatory and does not stand up to attack. Yes, I walk down dark lanes. I don't do it if I see a group of carcinagens hiding behind the dumpster.

nesf wrote:

I think you are confusing willingly harming themselves and taking risks.

What matters is acceptable risk. Yes, there're risks involved with allowing motor-vehicles. Yes, there're risks with allowing hurling. I played hurling, football, soccer and basketball every day growing up. The worst I ever got was a scraped knee. I've never been in a car accident. Had I comsumed weed in the quantities I've been in a car or played sport my mind would be absolutely bollixed. Hell, even had I used weed as a tiny proportion of my sport activities I'd have doubled my chances of schizophrenia and have a lung little growth in my chest. I ask ye this: do you honestly think that regular consumption of this is safe? Would you allow a chocolate bar onto the market that was as carcinagenic as twenty John Player and as psychologically damaging as an evening with Dale Winton?

And what is the difference between self-harming and willinging harming one's self? Surely they are the same thing no?

I was just differenciating between medically-ill people hurting themselves (depressed people, etc.) and lads who run into walls for the craic.

GrumPy · 15-01-2006 5:30pm

the amount of drug users and pushers in dublin is getting out of control, i seen so many junkies in town yesterday, and got offered drugs twice :eek:

nesf · 15-01-2006 6:28pm

Angry Banana wrote:

What matters is acceptable risk. Yes, there're risks involved with allowing motor-vehicles. Yes, there're risks with allowing hurling. I played hurling, football, soccer and basketball every day growing up. The worst I ever got was a scraped knee. I've never been in a car accident. Had I comsumed weed in the quantities I've been in a car or played sport my mind would be absolutely bollixed. Hell, even had I used weed as a tiny proportion of my sport activities I'd have doubled my chances of schizophrenia and have a lung little growth in my chest. I ask ye this: do you honestly think that regular consumption of this is safe? Would you allow a chocolate bar onto the market that was as carcinagenic as twenty John Player and as psychologically damaging as an evening with Dale Winton?

Ah, but acceptable is an extremely subjective term. For instance, full contact martial arts. High risk of injury over time, a change of disability or death but perfectly acceptable to some people. Others would completely disagree. When you start talking about acceptable risk you are drawing lines in the sand.

The question more accurately is: do we allow people to weigh these risks for themselves and decide what is acceptable or do we make these decisions for them in advance? This is what is at the heart of this. This becomes extremely complicated when one takes issues of today where half the information is not in plain simple english.

For instance, for hash and psychotic disorders (such as schizophrenia) is it a global increase in tendency for users or is it people who are already inclined towards it that have their chances increased? It most definitely is not as simple as "doubling your chances". Remember, there are statistics behind these statements and unless you understand the way the statistics were calculated and how the test group was formed and analysed, then you don't really understand the statements made.

Angry Banana wrote:

I was just differenciating between medically-ill people hurting themselves (depressed people, etc.) and lads who run into walls for the craic.

There isn't a sharp line seperating the two. I appreciate what you were trying to say but the issue isn't as black and white as you'd like it to be, I'm afraid.

Dustaz · 15-01-2006 6:59pm

Angry Banana wrote:

I don't live in a quarantined space. But nor do I support legalising something that's highly dangerous. ....

Hell, even had I used weed as a tiny proportion of my sport activities I'd have doubled my chances of schizophrenia and have a lung little growth in my chest.

Describing cannabis as 'highly dangerous' and assuming that casual use will automatically lead to lung cancer shows a pretty tenous grip on the real world.

I'd also question in exactly what quantities one would need to smoke cannabis to double the risk of schizophrenia. I suspect that it can trigger schizophrenia in those who are susceptabile to it and will have no lasting effect on others. Just as plastic pills can massively increase your chances of an allergic reaction - if your suseptible to that.

Drugs in Dublin

Comments