Cannabis

FTA69

What would people's opinions be on the subject of legalisation?

Personally I would be in favour of complete legalisation (preferably on an EU wide basis) as opposed to decriminalisation. The reasons being the latter still prevents the legal cultivation and/or supply and therefore still leaves the trade open to control from criminals.

I would propose legalisation for the following reasons:

1) The fact it remains illegal enables gangs to make large profits from its sale and supply.
2) It is a relatively minor psychoactive and its occasional use has less long and short term side-effects than alcohol. I believe it is a freedom of choice issue.
3) It has been used around the world since civilisation began, it predates alcohol and remains a popular substance amongst hundreds of millions of people around the world. Prohibition has not removed its use from society, instead it has simply driven it underground.
4) Legalisation would enable the government to regulate quality as well as tax the substance. They could also restrict supply to those over 18 through selected establishments eg Amsterdam.

RalphCifaretto

I'm in full agreement there.

Time Magazine

Aw jaysus here we go again.

I'm not getting into it. Done to death before.

CiaranC

Out of interest, are any of the parties in the upcoming election advocating any level of relaxation of prohibition?

DarkJager

In full agreement with you. Cannabis has been proven to be less dangerous than alcohol, yet it is still classed as an illegal substance. Yes, a minority of the people who smoke it may get mental side effects after heavy usage, but paranoia is a lot better than destroying your liver. The problem is that the Government know what good it would do to legalise this, but is afraid to do so because of people who have it ingrained in their narrow minds that this drug is bad.

Compare crime stats for Amsterdam to Dublin just to see a case in point of how safe this "illegal" drug is compared to the "legal" drug alcohol.

Akrasia

Cannabis is natures way of telling people to slow down.

All this rushing about is bad for us.

Relax, pull up a bean bag, I'll spark a spliff, and we'll listen to the excellent guitars on The Sultans of Swing and re-discover the lost meaning behind music.

We work too hard, at a job it takes half the day to get to, and then when we go out on our day off to unwind or just be with our friends, we're forced to spend our time and our money in some overcrowded, smelly, boiling hot, barn of a 'super-pub' that blasts out music too loud for conversation because research shows people drink more when they're not able to talk to each other.

FTA69

. Yes, a minority of the people who smoke it may get mental side effects after heavy usage,

This is the latest argument advanced by those who wish to keep cannabis illegal, however despite being almost universally accepted by the media (the examiner had a ridiculous article saying it causes heart failure) it is not wholly substantiated and nor can it be considered fact. Of course prolonged use of cannabis would exacerbate an existing mental condition, but so would any psychoactive, as well as certain medications. Why the substance should be made illegal because of those who shouldn't be taking ANY drugs whatsoever bemuses me. And besides, anybody can purchase cannabis with ease, whether it is illegal or not.

layke

Well growing up in Dublin, going to parties and what not i've come across the odd smoker in my time. Still waiting to meet all these psycho's the scientests say cannabis creates.

That said the only way it should be made legal is for those who need it medically. I think were actually better off without it as is.

DarkJager

No I don't agree it should be legalised exclusively for medical use. Its a recreational drug, used for the same purposes as alcohol - to relax. If it is legalised, then it should be available to the public for purchase as well. Otherwise, there will still be an illegal market for it.

o1s1n

layke wrote:

I think were actually better off without it as is.

??????????
Look around, it's everywhere. We are most definitely not "without it".

RalphCifaretto

I think were actually better off without it as is.

We're not without it though. I remember seeing the figures a while back and I was genuinely shocked. A staggering number of Irish people use cannabis on a regular basis. Calling it illegal and brushing it under the carpet is completely pointless.

As long as it remains illegal, huge numbers of Irish people are being exposed to the health risks associated with unregulated hash.

dulpit

DarkJager wrote:

Yes, a minority of the people who smoke it may get mental side effects after heavy usage, but paranoia is a lot better than destroying your liver.

So you mean to tell me that you have a choice of smoking an illegal narcotic or drinking to excess? That's the only choice we have? No offence buddy but i find that comment stoopid and ridiculous...

o1s1n

dulpit wrote:

So you mean to tell me that you have a choice of smoking an illegal narcotic or drinking to excess? That's the only choice we have? No offence buddy but i find that comment stoopid and ridiculous...

Cannabis is not a narcotic. No one is saying you have to smoke it to excess either.

JC 2K3

dulpit wrote:

So you mean to tell me that you have a choice of smoking an illegal narcotic or drinking to excess? That's the only choice we have? No offence buddy but i find that comment stoopid and ridiculous...

Cannabis isn't a narcotic.

I find that comment stupid and ridiculous.

DarkJager

My point being if cannabis is consumed to excess, it is nowhere near as dangerous or harmful as drinking alcohol to excess. I'm not just offering 2 extremes and I am by no means promoting excess of either substance.

DarkJager

In U.S.legal context, narcotic refers to opium, opium derivatives, and their semi-synthetic or fully synthetic substitutes "as well as cocaine and coca leaves," which although classified as "narcotics" in the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA), are chemically not narcotics. Contrary to popular belief, marijuana is not a narcotic.

Fact.

o1s1n

DarkJager wrote:

Get your facts straight.

You misunderstood his post. He found the comment dulpit made ridiculous. He was agreeing that it's not a narcotic.

DarkJager

Apologies JC 2K3, I misread your post.

JC 2K3

No problem

bonkey

FTA69 wrote:

Personally I would be in favour of complete legalisation (preferably on an EU wide basis) as opposed to decriminalisation.

AS far as I know, the most accurate tests for "driving under the influence" will register a positive for up to 24 hours.

Would you be willing to accept that as a cost of legalisation - that if you smoked some evening during the week, you could lose your license for testing positive whilst driving home after work, the following day, 18 or more hours later.

If not, then how do you propose that you balance legalisation with such issues as "stoned driving"???

DarkJager

The effects of cannabis last for up to 4 hours. Legislation would need to take into account that after a period of time, you are no longer "under the influence" so to speak.

JC 2K3

bonkey wrote:

AS far as I know, the most accurate tests for "driving under the influence" will register a positive for up to 24 hours.

Would you be willing to accept that as a cost of legalisation - that if you smoked some evening during the week, you could lose your license for testing positive whilst driving home after work, the following day, 18 or more hours later.

If not, then how do you propose that you balance legalisation with such issues as "stoned driving"???

I hear this argument often and never understand it. Legalisation with severe driving restrictions is better than it being illegal, I'd accept a law that punished those with any trace of THC in their system while driving severely.

Sure it might reduce the amount of cars on the road

jonny72

As it is, cannabis is fairly easy to get, its incredibly cheap, its fun to 'get' or to 'have' because its illegal.

Out of about 2 dozen people I know who have smoked it for the past 5 to 10 years about half have 'problems' directly related to it. Ranging from panic attacks, change in personality, addiction, recluseness, social problems. Nothing massively serious but enough to affect that persons life.

o1s1n

jonny72 wrote:

As it is, cannabis is fairly easy to get, its incredibly cheap, its fun to 'get' or to 'have' because its illegal.

Out of about 2 dozen people I know who have smoked it for the past 5 to 10 years about half have 'problems' directly related to it. Ranging from panic attacks, change in personality, addiction, recluseness, social problems. Nothing massively serious but enough to affect that persons life.

And I know drinkers who have the exact same problems. It all comes down to the abuse of a substance. Doesn't matter what that substance is.

However, in the case of alcohol abuse vs Cannabis abuse, the former is going to mess your body and mind up a hell of a lot more than the latter. Not to mention the potential to lead to death.

Time Magazine

o1s1n wrote:

And I know drinkers who have the exact same problems. It all comes down to the abuse of a substance. Doesn't matter what that substance is.

So you agree that the legalisation of alcohol is not working well and is, in fact, a serious problem?

I'm sure you could work out the rest of my argument from here, it's exam-time and I'm too busy to re-hash what I've already posted.

Goodshape

Ibid wrote:

So you agree that the legalisation of alcohol is not working well and is, in fact, a serious problem?

I'm sure you could work out the rest of my argument from here, it's exam-time and I'm too busy to re-hash what I've already posted.

The choice to use/abuse alcohol or not is in the hands of the consumer, where it should be. Many people are capable of enjoying a drink without suffering any negative effects. Regardless, alchohol can lead to many personal and social problems. Luckily the [relative] few that suffer from alcohol related issues have a wide range of help available to them. It's unfortunate that these problems exist at all, but such is life. In the interest of freedom, and fairness, we are allowed the choice.

The same is not true for cannabis, and therein lies the hypocrisy. The [relative] few who have problems relating to cannabis abuse have much less in the way of help or support. Them and the rest of us are branded as criminals instead. Why so?

Why can I choose one, but not the other? What secret am I missing here?

lostexpectation

Goodshape wrote:

The same is not true for cannabis, and therein lies the hypocrisy. The [relative] few who have problems relating to cannabis abuse have much less in the way of help or support. Them and the rest of us are branded as criminals instead. Why so?

Why can I choose one, but not the other? What secret am I missing here?

is it illegal to grow hemp here?

bonkey

JC 2K3 wrote:

I hear this argument often and never understand it.

What argument? I was asking a question.

The reason I asked it is because of the post immediately before yours, where DarkJager wants the law to somehow take into account factors that - as I pointed out - cannot currently be tested for.

I believe there is a case to be made for legalisation, but it is up to the people making that case to provide a full and proper framework. Saying "they should find a way..." isn't acceptable. Either propose the way it can be tested, or accept the 24-hour test as the best thats currently available.

You went for option 2. DarkJager went for neither. If I was trying to make a point, DJ has made it for me.

Goodshape

lostexpectation wrote:

is it illegal to grow hemp here?

Um, yes, I believe it is.

It may be possible to grow some for certain uses with a licence, I'm honestly not sure. Why do you ask?

I've been living in the Netherlands for last 5 months. I must say I find the approach here is generally far more sensible and realistic than the situation in Ireland.

stewie01

I dont think it will be legalised in the near future by the simple fact of the relationship between the government and the Irish drinks lobby.
Imagine the losses they would accumilate in there industry if instead of the majority of ppl goin out at the weekend spending €80-90 a night on alcohol, went and just spent €10-15 on a 2-4 'trip'.

and we cant go messin with the drink companies profits now can we?

SeanW

I believe cannibis should be legalised, sold openly in shops subject to a heavy tax and a strict over-18s, maybe 21 law rigidly enforced.

I would never touch the stuff, or maybe once in a very long while, but as a person on whose behalf some of the stupid Nanny State laws exist, I don't feel it's any of my business to tell anyone not to smoke it.

As for drug driving, that should be very clear in legislation if it isn't already. Anyone driving high should be put off the road ASAP regardless of whether or not the drug is legal.

dragonkin

I agree it should be legalised in fact I think most drugs should be made available to people that genuinely want them provided they are given full details about the implications and dangers of the drug along with optional and free counselling.

It would reduce our prison population, free up Garda time and remove a main source of income for most gangs. I've been exposed to pretty much all the major drugs at some stage or another without looking for them as I don't do that stuff, so I feel prohibition has failed pretty comprehensively here.

Unfortunately this would have to be done across Europe as I don't think Ireland could go it alone over something like this.

Tigger

bonkey wrote:

AS far as I know, the most accurate tests for "driving under the influence" will register a positive for up to 24 hours.

Would you be willing to accept that as a cost of legalisation - that if you smoked some evening during the week, you could lose your license for testing positive whilst driving home after work, the following day, 18 or more hours later.

If not, then how do you propose that you balance legalisation with such issues as "stoned driving"???

that should be a non-issue

people can and should be tested for "stoned driving"

why making dope legal would make this more nessiciary is beyond me

i ,think all drugs should be legalised as its ones own body but i also believe that acces to drugs should be based on being a productive member of soceity

in other words i dissaprove of benifitsa being spent on plasm tvs and drink and ciggys

so i would dissagree more with benifits being used on drugs

i'm sure many posters know people who went on the dole to sleep all day and smoke dope

sovtek

rbd wrote:

i'm sure many posters know people who went on the dole to sleep all day and smoke dope

I think pot makes you realize how stupid mean and un natural it is to work for someone else just to make them a hell of a lot richer.

Time Magazine

sovtek wrote:

I think pot makes you realize how stupid mean and un natural it is to work for someone else just to make them a hell of a lot richer.

Roffles. Post of the Month.

sam34

layke wrote:

Still waiting to meet all these psycho's the scientests say cannabis creates.

instead of going to parties maybe you should call in to your local friendly acute psychiatric unit and then you'd get to meet sone people with a cannabis induced psychosis.
google robin murray and you'll come across his research on the topic

dragonkin

Does anyone have a link to what the current legislation regarding cannabis is?

I know that it is covered in the misuse of drugs act from 1984 but I think there have been a few amendments along the way in particular this site mentions that cannabis was legislated separately from other drugs in 2006 I've had a look for statutory instruments from 2006 mentioning this but they seem to be a couple of years behind publishing these online and the latest online ones are from 2005 so I've no idea if this was changed or not...

Anyone have any idea?

Dr Galen

i'm a bit torn on this one, but i do know that I see a hell of a lot more people in the hospital with medical condition relating to excessive or long term alcohol abuse/drinking than drug related.

alcohol really f**cks people up inside, and again I've seen a lot more people in the psych unit with drink issues over cannabis.

personally, its not my thing, but i think legalising it, could give some control to it and there is the obvious benefit of increased tax take on the sales. to out a special "hash tax" would be wrong though, as all this would do is create a black market for it, a la cigarettes.

hopefully legalisation would stem the flow of money to the gangs alright, but my fear would be that legally supplying cannabis to retailers would just become a front operation for the crims. a way of providing legal income to cover for the less than perfect operations

stovelid

I agree with the OP. It sounds obvious to the point of platitude but people are going to use particular drugs whether or not they are proscribed. May as well take it out of criminal control, tax it and free up police and court manpower if this is the case.

Jackz

Imagine every nasty aggressive alcoholic being stoned instead of drunk.

QED.

2 r bine

Can any one verify if the following is an urban legend or fact?
A test in the U.S., where else, showed that after consuming equal amounts of alcohol, and cannabis, (how this was established I don’t know),
It was suggest that the drivers who smoked cannabis were aware of there impairment and drove slower and sometime refused to drive, whereas the group of drivers under the influence of alcohol believed they were in control and sometimes professed to be better drivers after drinking.
If this is true or not it seems to be typical of the way people react in my experience.
If you were to make a comparison, a bottle of whisky or a joint, we all know if you drink down a pint of whisky in half an hour what the result would be, and if you ate a 500g bar of hash would be. So lets get real on this, outlawing hash and grass it’s about tax,control and pandering to the neo conservatives.

Nick_oliveri

Simple confidence and paranoia in the driving case.

Edit: I was still stoned this morning like many mornings from the night before. I think it lasts a bit longer than four hours (depending on the amount inhaled or ingested)

sudzs

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Simple confidence and paranoia in the driving case.

Edit: I was still stoned this morning like many mornings from the night before. I think it lasts a bit longer than four hours (depending on the amount inhaled or ingested)

Suggest you get a little more sleep!

Nick_oliveri

sudzs wrote:

Suggest you get a little more sleep!

Good point, usually staying up till daylight, not good. I blame dunnes, with the ****ty hours they have me on.

shreka

Cannabis is relatively safe compared to many other drugs, including alcohol. It's really the SMOKING of cannabis that makes it somewhat damaging.

While there are people out there who may have a pre-disposition to psychosis or schizophrenia, and might have a bad experience after smoking cannabis, I do not believe that cannabis alone causes psychosis or schizophrenia. As far as I know, there isn't any UNBIASED research that concludes there is a direct link between the two, (without a pre-disposition to a mental illness that is).

Cannabis has been used for thousands of years for medical, spiritual and recreational use. It was only in the last hundred years, probably due to greed and racism, that this hysteria about cannabis turning people into"drug addicts" has come to be.

Perhaps some people cannot tolerate cannabis; indeed I hardly ever have a drink because I feel out of sorts, depressed, the next day.

Cannabis should indeed be legal - for every person that has been negatively affected by it, my guess is that there are millions that have enjoyed positive ones.

Free the weed!!:)

axer

Is there any stats out there as to how cannabis is consumed? i.e. what percentage smoke rather than eat etc?

Tzetze

If dope becomes legalised, the nation will cease to be productive little lab rats. Keep them on nicotine and caffeine!

JC 2K3

shreka wrote:

It's really the SMOKING of cannabis that makes it somewhat damaging.

Source?

Inhaling any type of smoke isn't inherently bad for you, it's the actual toxins in the smoke that do you damage, hence studies showing that weed smoke is much less harmful than tobacco smoke.

If you smoke it with tobacco it's rather harmful, however.

Nick_oliveri

JC 2K3 wrote:

If you smoke it with tobacco it's rather harmful, however.

Indeed, problem is though, if you smoke it without tobacco, you are probably going to get a little more stoned than you wanted and take a whitey.

Herbal tobbaco ftw, the manky taste of it ftl.

Tzetze

JC 2K3 wrote:

Source?

Inhaling any type of smoke isn't inherently bad for you, it's the actual toxins in the smoke that do you damage, hence studies showing that weed smoke is much less harmful than tobacco smoke.

If you smoke it with tobacco it's rather harmful, however.

Link to source

Like tobacco, marijuana smoke contains toxins that are known to be hazardous to the respiratory system. Among them are the highly carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, a prime suspect in cigarette-related cancers...Although there is no proof that marijuana smoking causes cancer, chronic pot smokers have been shown to suffer an elevated risk of bronchitis and respiratory infections.

Users who are concerned about the respiratory hazards of smoking are strongly advised to use vaporizers.