Drugs in Dublin

rubadub

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Lady_Macbeth

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

So i'm sure you also believe that people on this site shouldnt be advertising the feel-good factor of alcohol as well? after all alcohol is harmful and potentially fatal, it was judged to be the most harmful recreational drug known to man, more lethal and potentially fatal than this 'demon drug' heroin that you speak of.

the difference between alcohol and heroine is that alcohol is regulated somewhat such that it becomes only potentially fatal through the user's own abuse, rather than use of it. Heroin is unregulated, unstandardised, unchecked and illegal. Therefore there is no protection for the user.

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

if you can get good quality heroin its actually quite safe despite what propaghanda has been drilled into our heads by the govt. the problem is the average heroin on the street, is harmful for you.

My point exactly. And since there is no other heroin available except the 'average heroin on the street' it is therefore, harmful as you say yourself. As a harmful substance, its qualities should not be propogated.

The difference between illegal and legal drugs is regulation. Legal drugs are regulated such that they are at least of good quality and therefore the proper use of them is not harmful. Illegal drugs are not regulated and therefore even using them in what would be considered safe quantities is potentially harmful, because the contents of them are not known and the purpose of them is to maximise profits, not benefit the end-user. That is the justification for my argument and the difference between noting the feel-good factor of alcohol versus that of heroin. The first time someone takes heroin it might be of a safe standard and enjoyable, the second time, third and successive times it may be of equal high standard. The problem comes into play when it is low quality drug that has serious consequences. With alcohol, it will always be of an equal standard and the responsibility rests upon the end user whether they wish to use or abuse it.

- Lady

JC 2K3

The reality of life is that people will use substances for enjoyment, alcohol being the main one since it's legal and easily obtainable. Now I know you can enjoy alcohol without going over the top, but let's face it, how many people don't go over the top and get absolutely plastered a good few times in their lifetimes? They're harming their bodies by doing so yet they still do it. Why? Because it's fun. Why would anyone do E or Coke? Because it's fun, not becuase they want to fund a criminal empire. Why are so many people against drugs? Because of government propoganda. It's stupid, rather than evaluating each drug they simply ban the lot of them, and by doing this you are denying the people the chance to (legally) experience highs which they never would otherwise feel.

I personally would be for legalising drugs, banning advertising of alcohol and any other drug and only selling them in special drug shops. The drugs would be of regulated good quality and proper information about the drugs should be widely available.

Lady_Macbeth

JC 2K3 wrote:

The reality of life is that people will use substances for enjoyment, alcohol being the main one since it's legal and easily obtainable. Now I know you can enjoy alcohol without going over the top, but let's face it, how many people don't go over the top and get absolutely plastered a good few times in their lifetimes?

My argument is that it is easier to recover from an alcohol binge than a dose of other substances because it's legal. It's regulated. The only harm it can cause is from its abuse, not from the actually substances that are contained within it.

Wertz

Lady Macbeth wrote:

Legal drugs are regulated such that they are at least of good quality and therefore the proper use of them is not harmful. Illegal drugs are not regulated and therefore even using them in what would be considered safe quantities is potentially harmful, because the contents of them are not known and the purpose of them is to maximise profits, not benefit the end-user.

Therefore, legalisation and subsequent regulation is a much better way of dealing with narcotics than outright prohibition and criminalisation.

Talk to any recovering alcoholic about how easy it is to kick their habit and stay clean. Try and tell them that it's their fault they are alcoholics because they abused what is a safe regulated substance (that also just happens to be a very lucrative revenue generator for the exchequer)....go visit any A&E on a weekend night and see how many of the casualties are there as a direct result of alcohol as opposed to a direct result of any and all other illegal drugs combined.

As someone (spacedout?) posted earlier, something like heroin (which I am not for one minute glorifying here) causes no long term damage to any bodily system even at times of severe abuse, whereas a life of alcohol abuse causes mostly irreversible damage to several major bodily organs and to the brain itself.

I'm not even going to bother going into the drastic negative social effects of alcohol consumption in our society, it's effect on the general crime rate (assault in particular) or it's contribution to road deaths.
It's very short sighted to say that just because alcohol is legal and regulated that it's not harmful or should be put on a pedestal above any and all other mood altering substances...

StupidLikeAFox

JC 2K3 wrote:

Why are so many people against drugs? Because of government propoganda.

How do you know that, its a big assumption.

Also, as tommy tiernan puts it, all these drugs are already available in your head, you just have to contact the dealer in there.

rubadub

nesf wrote:

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.

Yes you can twist stats into anything you want. How did they get the figure? ask schizophrenics if they smoke cannabis? It is meant to be popular amongst schizophrenics. Ask a nymphomaniac if they have used poppers/amyl nitrate in the past, it would not surprise me if double the amount of nymphomaniacs have taken it compared to normal women, I would not conclude that using amyl nitrate doubles your chances of developing nymphomanism.

Here is a link debating it, mentions cocaine and homosexuality in a similar way.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/327/7423/1070-c#40423

rubadub

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: illegalityof its possession.

Angry Banana wrote:

I drink.

So you don't even take caffeine in any form? not even a chocolate biscuit?

You drink and think it shouldnt be made illegal because it is so widespread that its banning is unmanageable? At what alleged % risk of schizoprenia would you think is an "acceptable risk", almost every drug has some side-effects. Alcohol has large risks associated with it, I am sure taking it more than doubles your chance of being an alcoholic! No doubt it increases the risk of liver disease, or is it only mental illness that bothers you so much? Studies show that binge drinking can lead to a higher rate of dementia in later life. Binge drinking is considered to be 4 pints of beer in a night. Have you ever gone binge drinking?

I just find it odd and a bit hypocritical that you drink yourself yet are so vehemetly against people using other drugs which many would consider less far less harmful. Yes a glass of wine a day is supposed to be good for health, apparently cannabis is also considered beneficial by many doctors who prescribe it, the US government give out joints to some patients.

Wertz

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4486548.stm

For everyone harping on about the THC/Schizophrenia link, please take the study's results in context. The above BBC link is easier reading than a lot of the stuff online.

One of the two studies mentioned was performed on adolescents and implied that heavy usage at an early adolescent age, especially of the stronger varieties of marijuana could expose the users to pschosis and onset of schizophrenia later in adult life. However both studies mentioned that such mental illnesses may have become apparent with or without cannabis consumption as the subjects may already have been predisposed to mental illness through genetic traits or through socio-economic factors.

Neither study states emphatically that smoking dope = nutjob.
It's akin to saying that crossing the road a lot especially at an early age heightens your risk of being flattened by a lorry.

I'm sure there have been numerous similar studys on the effects of alcohol on the adolescent body/mind and that heavy usage of it in teenage years predisposes you to stuff like diabetes, alcoholism and a plethora of other ailments.

nesf

Wertz wrote:

Neither study states emphatically that smoking dope = nutjob.
It's akin to saying that crossing the road a lot especially at an early age heightens your risk of being flattened by a lorry.

Well, key to it is that the first study dealt with people who had cannabis induced mental illnesses. That changes the implications hugely. i.e. smoking cannabis seems to increase your chances of developing schizophrenia if you smoke enough of it to develop a mental illness (rather than just casually smoke it). An important finding but not the one people seem to think it had.

Wertz wrote:

I'm sure there have been numerous similar studys on the effects of alcohol on the adolescent body/mind and that heavy usage of it in teenage years predisposes you to stuff like diabetes, alcoholism and a plethora of other ailments.

Heavy alcohol use leading to alcoholism? Don't be making such unfounded statements while not backing them up!!


Actually, alcohol induced mental illness is a serious problem in this country. Far greater than people seem to realise. Substance abuse in general can be at least a contributing factor in mental illness. Isolating cannabis while ignoring other legal substances is pointless. Yes cannabis can induce mental illness, anyone saying otherwise does not know what they are talking about, but so can alcohol. Education, legalisation and regulation is the best course imho. It would a) raise tax money, b) take the revenue streams away from criminal gangs etc.

rubadub

Dustaz wrote:

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.

Well looks like common sense prevailed and it is remaining class C due to the "very small risk". We are copying the brits on their shroom laws, why aren't we copying their cannabis laws if they are so right?

Change to cannabis law 'ruled out'
January 18, 2006 - icsurreyonline

Home Secretary Charles Clarke is expected to rule out another reclassification of cannabis on Thursday, despite fresh fears about the drug's side-effects.

Concerns about a link between super-strength varieties and mental illness have mounted since his predecessor David Blunkett down-graded the drug from Class B to C.

But Mr Clarke is expected launch a major public information campaign instead of adding to confusion by again changing the classification.

His announcement follows an unpublished report from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which apparently found the impact of smoking cannabis on mental health was more serious than previously thought.

The council is said to have stopped short of recommending reclassification and many drugs experts believe that would be counter-productive.

The council report is said to have concluded: "The risk to an individual of developing a schizophreniform illness as a result of using cannabis is very small."

"The harmfulness of cannabis to the individual remains substantially less than the harmfulness caused by substances currently controlled under the act as Class B."

Mr Clarke was apparently warned by council members that some would consider quitting if he reclassified the drug.

New Tory leader David Cameron was a member of the Commons committee which recommended down-grading it and his party is no longer pushing for reclassification.

The Home Secretary has been criticised for spreading confusion after voicing concerns about the effects of cannabis.

Wertz

rubadub wrote:

Well looks like common sense prevailed and it is remaining class C due to the "very small risk". We are copying the brits on their shroom laws, why aren't we copying their cannabis laws if they are so right?

Because it's just simpler to keep the status quo and not make a fuss about downgrading it (even though it would free up garda and court resources/time).

Downgrading makes an issue of the fact that it's not as evil and dangerous as was once thought. with an election imminent the govt don't want to put that message out there to parents who are potential voters.

As for the mushies thing; we kinda have to follow the UK on it or we could see something along the lines of mushroom farms along the border being converted from button and chanterelle growing to thai and mexican mushy cultivation and mushroom tourism :v:

c_man

Diplomatic immunity won't save you this time.

mynamejeff

the vast majority of what is sold as coke in ireland is in fact "bubble" or some other head shop trash methdrone or pvp or some such chemically tweaked thing,

just as well that most people dumb enough to take it are also dumb enough not to know the difference

weed fairly harmless unless you smoke a lot of it while young , then you develop psychosis and kill your self

Tombi!

Mod: Unfortunately due to me being possible incredibly stoned I'm going to lock this thread since y'know, 2006 was the last time it was active