Archbishop unleashes attack on recreational drug use... that means YOU, scumbag!!!

is_that_so

DaveMcG wrote: »

Is it not a valid point?

Here's an exercise... finish the paragraph:

Alcohol is a drug used recreationally. Marijuana is a drug used recreationally. Both are bad for you. Alcohol is directly responsible for more deaths. Marijuana is illegal because __________________________________ .

The Sindo says so.

lisbon_lions

DaveMcG wrote: »

Is it not a valid point?

Here's an exercise... finish the paragraph:

Alcohol is a drug used recreationally. Marijuana is a drug used recreationally. Both are bad for you. Alcohol is directly responsible for more deaths. Marijuana is illegal because __________________________________ .

Prolonged use frys your brain. If youve ever found yourself standing in a room wondering what it was you came in to the room to look for in the first place- youre there. Oh thats right, it was the bong (but was it really this room?)

Terry

DaveMcG wrote: »

Is it not a valid point?

Here's an exercise... finish the paragraph:

Alcohol is a drug used recreationally. Marijuana is a drug used recreationally. Both are bad for you. Alcohol is directly responsible for more deaths. Marijuana is illegal because I'm a stoner and couldn't be bothered finishing it myself.

That ok?

Dave!

is_that_so wrote: »

The Sindo says so.

Drugs are more damaging to young people than adults, shock-horror! Wouldn't surprise me in the least, but regardless, this crowd say the exact opposite.

Either way, "because it's bad for us" is not the reason for it being illegal, or else alcohol and cigarettes would definitely be illegal.

Terry wrote: »

That ok?

Terry, debater extraordinaire.

Terry

DaveMcG wrote: »

Drugs are more damaging to young people than adults, shock-horror! Wouldn't surprise me in the least, but regardless, this crowd say the exact opposite.

Either way, "because it's bad for us" is not the reason for it being illegal, or else alcohol and cigarettes would definitely be illegal.



Terry, debater extraordinaire.

I am a master.

Let's get back to the topic at hand though.

Do you believe what the bishop said is true?

Dave!

Terry wrote: »

I am a master.

Let's get back to the topic at hand though.

Do you believe what the bishop said is true?

Of course I do. If something is illegal, then the only place to get it is from dodgey characters who get their drugs from more big-time criminals who often end up shooting each other. Al Capone made millions from alcohol during prohibition in the USA, and John Gilligan made millions from cannabis in recent times.

rubadub

Terry wrote: »

Ooh. Didn't see that one coming.

Watch out tea and coffee drinkers. You're next.

If tea & coffee were made illegal then some users would still go on to buy it from dealers, thereby funding killings in the exact same manner. Thats the point I and others are getting at.

Many people buy tobacco from dealers on the street, these people know they might be funding gangs too, at least other users have a choice and can go into a shop and buy their harmful drug of choice over a counter, where it has at least gone under some quality control, and the majority of the cost is being paid back to the government rather than some criminal. Same goes for copied DVDs etc.

You put little blame on the drug users?
They're the ones using the drugs. How the fúck are they not to blame?

I totally agree with you. Trading in illegal goods funds criminals, not really headline news.

Tar.Aldarion

I'd listen to his view if he was an archmage.

Wertz

Kiddie fiddling protectionist society in moral outrage against anything else that can paint them in a positive light-shocker.
This is the exact same tired argument that Mc Aleese made a few months back....it wasn't a groundbreaking theory then and it still isn't.
When are the church going to realise that no-one really cares what they have to say? Just keep marrying/christening/burying us, but stay out of our lives otherwise...

meditraitor

rubadub wrote: »

If tea & coffee were made illegal then some users would still go on to buy it from dealers, thereby funding killings in the exact same manner. Thats the point I and others are getting at.

Many people buy tobacco from dealers on the street, these people know they might be funding gangs too, at least other users have a choice and can go into a shop and buy their harmful drug of choice over a counter, where it has at least gone under some quality control, and the majority of the cost is being paid back to the government rather than some criminal. Same goes for copied DVDs etc.




I totally agree with you. Trading in illegal goods funds criminals, not really headline news.

Can you say for sure that legalizing drug Sale/Use would make society a better place?

And by drug use I mean all drugs because as we all know just legalising so called harmless drugs(cannabis) does not have the effect of reducing drug related crime.
Amsterdam is proof of that,

Mark

DeJa-vu

Earthhorse

c0rk3r wrote: »

What will it take? What needs to happen? Who will people listen to?

Dave McG should start a thread on After Hours about it. Everybody will listen to him.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Can you say for sure that legalizing drug Sale/Use would make society a better place?

has banning them done anything for society other than fund criminal gangs? people want their drugs, and they're not entirely pushed about where itcomes from so long as they don't have to watch someone being shot or beaten up while they're purchasing.

How many people do you know that wear clothes made in sweatshops? Coffee that isn't 'fair trade', etc.
Life sucks, we suck, it all sucks. Just smoke a joint.

Dave!

Earthhorse wrote: »

Dave McG should start a thread on After Hours about it. Everybody will listen to him.

Way ahead of you Earthhorse!

Earthhorse

DaveMcG wrote: »

Way ahead of you Earthhorse!

Whoa! So stoned I didn't even notice.

Mordeth wrote: »

has banning them done anything for society other than fund criminal gangs?

It's prevented people who otherwise would try them from doing so and limited the supply for those who do.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

rofl

you clearly don't take drugs

limited supply

hahahahahahahaha

Dragan

Mordeth wrote: »

Life sucks, we suck, it all sucks. Just smoke a joint.

Bingo.

meditraitor

Mordeth wrote: »

has banning them done anything for society other than fund criminal gangs? people want their drugs, and they're not entirely pushed about where itcomes from so long as they don't have to watch someone being shot or beaten up while they're purchasing.

How many people do you know that wear clothes made in sweatshops? Coffee that isn't 'fair trade', etc.
Life sucks, we suck, it all sucks. Just smoke a joint.

Thats a valid point but you still didnt answer my question!

Can you say for sure that legalizing drug Sale/Use would make society a better place?

If so, can you explain it in detail so I might be swayed from my opinion that it will not......

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Nope, it won't make society a better place. Drugs can't do that, people do that. It would probably reduce crime, and reduce the level of cashflow towards the criminals. It would also free up the legal system, who wouldn't be wasting hours and thousands of euro on johnny who was caught with two e's, and a quarter of hash.. or heaven forbid "herbal cannabis".

Also, just as a side issue.. and probably not very likely to happen, there is the tiny chance that cannabis may help ireland get off alcohol. I think if you've gotta pick a drug for a country to over indulge in, cannabis has def. gotta be the way to go. I'd love to see the streets of Ireland on a saturday night of smoking, with light drinking... one giant love fest.
Except for the one or two idiots freaking out, but the rest of uis would be so stoned we'd just laugh.

Earthhorse

Mordeth wrote: »

you clearly don't take drugs

limited supply

I don't, but know plenty of people that do. Do you honestly think that if we were to reintroduce prohibition you'd have the same supply of alcohol in place? Of course you'd still be able to get your hands on it but not in the same amounts or with the same degree of ease.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

but it would still be around, and very easy to get. Moving from 'really really ****ing easy' to 'very easy' isn't really worth the hassle of prohibition. It just does not work as a strategy.

Earthhorse

I agree prohibition doesn't work as a strategy. Legalised alcohol hasn't worked as a strategy either. And I doubt legalising drugs would work very well either. Though the case for cannabis is certainly the strongest.

rubadub

meditraitor wrote: »

Can you say for sure that legalizing drug Sale/Use would make society a better place?

Nobody could be sure.

If you read his statements I dont think he directly speaks out against drug use itself, more the criminal element that it funds, drug "buying" rather than drug use. There is some mention of "ruined lives", but this could be families of shot gangsters.

meditraitor wrote: »

just legalising so called harmless drugs(cannabis) does not have the effect of reducing drug related crime.
Amsterdam is proof of that,

Well cannabis is not legal in holland. A lot of drugs are tolerated there so it is obviously going to be a worldwide hub for gangsters, one of the biggest ports in the world and one of the busiest airports and central in europe. It would be very odd if that did not attract many criminal gangs to it. And at the higher end of business "punishments" would also increase, so I would expect more murders rather than beatings a small time dealer might get.

meditraitor wrote: »

And by drug use I mean all drugs

Depends how they would be controlled too. A kid should not be able to buy a kilo of heroin. I dont think an 18 year old should be allowed buy cigarettes, it is hypocritical to allow it while others are deemed dangerous. If you go to the fitness forum you will see the Irish Medicines Board has banned many sports supplements in the last few weeks. Shops are being raided for products containing more than the RDA of certain B vitamins! bizarre priorities they have.

If some drugs are to be legal and others not then I would like to see the deciscion made be properly qualified medical professionals, not ignorant gardai, archbishops and mothers who rang joe duffy because their son committed suicide while pissed but also happened to have another drug in their system. The decision makers should be looking at health issues more than economic ones.

There was a study last year where some independent medical board prioritised a list of drugs, in order of "danger". Alcohol and tobacco featured highly- along with heroin, while other currently illegal ones were dropped down in the list.

Of course the criminal gangs will continue to sell illegal items to whoever will buy them. If dvds were made illegal or heavily taxed I would expect the archbishop would be moaning about them- thats my point. People will continue to take drugs, I do think it would be better if some were controlled and the government got a lot of tax back on them. They are a high value commodity, and inherently dangerous since their makeup is unknown- unlike drugs from a pharmacy.

The revenue for the gangs is massive, so great that I cannot imagine another illegal trade (e.g. DVDs) they could take up to warrant the same risks & get the same return -therefore gang numbers should drop.

This is one of the main reasons prohibition was stopped in the US to kerb the gangs, and since some drinkers turned to harder cheaper drugs like heroin instead, to get their "fix".

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y29cDyemV6U

Dave!

This is interesting...
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n753/a01.html

Switzerland is now leading the way out of prohibition. In 1994, it started prescribing free heroin to long-term addicts who had failed to respond to law enforcement or any other treatment. In 1998, a Lausanne criminologist, Martin Kilias, found that the users' involvement in burglary, mugging and robbery had fallen by 98%; in shoplifting, theft and handling by 88%; in selling soft drugs by 70%; in selling hard drugs by 91%. As a group, their contacts with police had plunged to less than a quarter of the previous level. The Dutch and the Germans have had similar results with the same strategy. All of them report that, apart from these striking benefits in crime prevention, the users are also demonstrably healthier ( because clean heroin properly used is a benign drug ) and that they are more stable with clear improvements in housing, employment and relationships.

The Dutch report that only 7.7% of their soft drug users are also using hard drugs. In Northern Ireland, the only part of the UK for which comparable figures are available, 46.7% of soft drug users are also hard users. For those trying to tackle crack, the Swiss heroin programme shows dramatic falls in the use of all illicit drugs. The Swiss are now even reporting that, having stabilised their lives, 22% of one group of users have opted to abstain from all illicit drugs.

Kipperhell

alleepally wrote: »

Regardless of what ones opinion is of the church or of the person making the statement, it's a 100% valid point and has been made by many others before.

Well no not a 100%. Prohibition has to take a share of the blame. By preventing legitimate sales of a desired product they are forcing there to be a black market. Therefore bad legislation has to take a portion of the responsibility.
In the US during alcohol prohibition they reckon more alcohol was consumed in those years than after.
If the war on drugs was working there would be less about and it would not be going down in price. Meanwhile users are exposed to a product that has no quality control and is most definitely more dangerous.
Strange how the church stopped coming out about alcohol in the same manner or even birth control.

BOOBLESS

Trojan911 wrote: »

And there are those who practice paedophilia and those who cover up for their colleagues.... Double standards.... Hmmmmmm

You took the words out of my mouth on that one. Who gives a crap what that fella things. The Church is as much about organized crime as organized crime is.... not much difference. Heres two fingers to the Muppet.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I modern Ireland sometimes, I really do

Red Hand

Whats the equivalent of a speakeasy these days?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

a crackhouse?

Red Hand

Can you still do the Jitterbug in your "crackhouse" like its 1927, though?