Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Terry wrote: »
    Angry stoners in legalise drugs aruguement shocker.
    More at 11.

    Where are the junkies going to get the money to pay for their legal drugs?

    How many more people are going to take drugs when the stigma of illegality is removed?

    And who will answer the question posed by Meditraitor?
    You're asking the wrong person, I'm against drugs.


  • Options
    #93
    cooperguy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,650 ✭✭✭cooperguy


    People really are getting away from the point of the argument here. This is not another "Drugs should be legalized" thread. The Bishop was saying that buying drugs increases gangland criminality and if you buy drugs from the scum of the earth you are in part responsible for the crime and murders as you are encouraging the drug trade. The reply of "Ya well, drugs should be legal anyway" really doesnt take away from the fact that you are contributing to the problem which is what the Bishop was saying.

    So enough with the "Legalize It" rants and take up the (valid in my opinion) point that the Bishop was making. You have to deal with the reality of modern day Ireland where drugs are illegal and not some fantasy world that you would like to live in.


  • Options
    #94
    Rob_l
    Registered Users Posts: 2,905 ✭✭✭Rob_l


    cooperguy wrote: »
    People really are getting away from the point of the argument here. This is not another "Drugs should be legalized" thread. The Bishop was saying that buying drugs increases gangland criminality and if you buy drugs from the scum of the earth you are in part responsible for the crime and murders as you are encouraging the drug trade. The reply of "Ya well, drugs should be legal anyway" really doesnt take away from the fact that you are contributing to the problem which is what the Bishop was saying.

    So enough with the "Legalize It" rants and take up the (valid in my opinion) point that the Bishop was making. You have to deal with the reality of modern day Ireland where drugs are illegal and not some fantasy world that you would like to live in.

    When the priests of this nation were running hedge scools and holding religious service against the law, they aided people in breaching the law when will the irish catholic church apologise for these offenses


  • Options
    #95
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    cooperguy wrote: »
    People really are getting away from the point of the argument here. This is not another "Drugs should be legalized" thread. The Bishop was saying that buying drugs increases gangland criminality and if you buy drugs from the scum of the earth you are in part responsible for the crime and murders as you are encouraging the drug trade. The reply of "Ya well, drugs should be legal anyway" really doesnt take away from the fact that you are contributing to the problem which is what the Bishop was saying.

    So enough with the "Legalize It" rants and take up the (valid in my opinion) point that the Bishop was making. You have to deal with the reality of modern day Ireland where drugs are illegal and not some fantasy world that you would like to live in.
    If no one ever spoke out against or protested against any unjust law, then women would still not be able to vote, homosexuality would still be illegal and black people would still be second class citizens.

    And life is too short and the experiences drugs offer too important to those who seek them to be bothered waiting around and abstaining from any illegal drug use until they maybe become legalised.

    As was mentioned in the post above me, Catholics didn't stop practicing their religion just because there was a law against it.


  • Options
    #96
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    If no one ever spoke out against or protested against any unjust law, then women would still not be able to vote, homosexuality would still be illegal and black people would still be second class citizens.

    And life is too short and the experiences drugs offer too important to those who seek them to be bothered waiting around and abstaining from any illegal drug use until they maybe become legalised.

    As was mentioned in the post above me, Catholics didn't stop practicing their religion just because there was a law against it.
    What unjust law are you referring to and why is it unjust?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    You know full well what I'm refferring to. Give your arguments as to why you think it's not unjust if you wish, but please, stop the non-constructive posts.


  • Options
    #98
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Nope.
    No idea what you're talking about.

    You just rambled on about an unjust law. You never said what law is unjust.


  • Options
    #99
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    I'm sure Terry will jump into the argument whenever he forms a coherent one in his head... But for the foreseeable future it's probably better to ignore him...


  • Options
    #100
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    DaveMcG wrote: »
    I'm sure Terry will jump into the argument whenever he forms a coherent one in his head... But for the foreseeable future it's probably better to ignore him...
    He's right.

    In the mean time, drugs are still illegal and comparisons to hedge schools are really pushing it.

    I'm off to the pub now to enjoy some legal drugs.
    Have a good one.


  • Options
    #101
    Ninja_scrotum
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Ninja_scrotum


    I remember a guard came to my school to speak about the dangers of drugs. It went a bit like this.
    Guard: Why do people take drugs?

    Scumbag at the back of class: Cos they're deadly boy!

    Spot on. Drug taking cannot be stopped. I don't give a shit if the weed I'm smoking came out of a nigerians hole, I'm having a good time and that's all that's important.

    Anyways, I know my weed doesn't come from a nigerians hole. It's canadian. Real nice mmmmmmmmm.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    cooperguy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,650 ✭✭✭cooperguy


    Rob_l wrote: »
    When the priests of this nation were running hedge scools and holding religious service against the law, they aided people in breaching the law when will the irish catholic church apologise for these offenses
    When did these offences ever facilitate or fund gangland criminals? Where was the harm to society? AGAIN it doesnt really matter, you are coming off the point. Discuss the point the Bishop was making and whether that is correct or not. Not whether hedge schools were just, or the history of the church or whether some drugs are really great and should be legal and that its really unfair that they arnt.

    To summerise: Is the point the Bishop made accurate. Do people who purchase drugs play a part in gangland activity. Are they in part responsible for what happens. This is the point you are supposed to be discussing.


  • Options
    #103
    leninbenjamin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,983 ✭✭✭leninbenjamin


    he's right, jim


  • Options
    #104
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    cooperguy wrote: »
    To summerise: Is the point the Bishop made accurate. Do people who purchase drugs play a part in gangland activity. Are they in part responsible for what happens. This is the point you are supposed to be discussing.
    Fair enough. In direct response to the question, "Do people who purchase drugs play a part in gangland activity?", the simple and neutral answer is yes, they do, as they are inevitably a big part of the drugs market which is what funds gangsters. However, if they are to blame or not for the prevalence of gangsterism is a different and more relevant question, and it all depends on your view of the drugs situation.

    If you envision a society where drug related gangsterism doesn't exist because every potential drug user supresses their urge to experiment and to enjoy different types of highs, then yes, you could place a lot of blame on the drug users themselves

    If you envision a society where drug related gangsterism doesn't exist because drug users are free to experiment with drugs legally, then you'd place most of the blame on our current drug laws.


  • Options
    #105
    l3LoWnA
    Registered Users Posts: 890 ✭✭✭l3LoWnA


    Drugs should be legalised!! That's all I have to say on the topic! All the crime-lords of the country would be fooooked if drugs were legalised and controlled in a proper manner.....drugs would be far less "enticing" to the young if they were legal also!

    Yes, they're bad for you/can kill you.....but so is over-eating and under-eating and drinking too much alcholol and smoking and promiscuity and not least provisional drivers being let on the roads, but these things are also legal! You don't see people getting shot because they're handin out fake driving licences/cigarettes/kebabs in Mickos patch do you?!


  • Options
    #106
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    cooperguy wrote: »
    When did these offences ever facilitate or fund gangland criminals? Where was the harm to society? AGAIN it doesnt really matter, you are coming off the point. Discuss the point the Bishop was making and whether that is correct or not. Not whether hedge schools were just, or the history of the church or whether some drugs are really great and should be legal and that its really unfair that they arnt.

    To summerise: Is the point the Bishop made accurate. Do people who purchase drugs play a part in gangland activity. Are they in part responsible for what happens. This is the point you are supposed to be discussing.
    No the topic ISN'T whether the Archbishop is correct. If that were the case I might have asked a single question in the OP. I might even have included a poll, "is he correct?"

    Of course he's correct!!! That's what happens when you outlaw a commodity -- a certain sector of society then gets the monopoly over that, and they have no problem killing people to hold onto their monopoly.

    They've continued with this prohibition for decades, and it's had little or no impact. But yet they continue stubbornly in spite of this. Time for a bit of imagination, lads.

    Regardless your brow-beating does not convince me. The Minister for Justice can damage organised crime easily, but he doesn't.


  • Options
    #107
    togster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭togster


    Was't going to get involved here but i can see the two sides of the argument and having ahemm.. being partial to lots of "herbal" substance in my past i can appreciate the argument for and against. I don't think it should be legalised though. I've seen alot of heartache around people involved in 2recreational drug taking. Friends have died/ become addicted etc much more so than those who drink heavily. Drugs are bad, IMO worse than alcohol etc etc. Im just speakin from experience that many friends of mine are now messed up on harder drugs having started on cannabis.


  • Options
    #108
    meditraitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,207 ✭✭✭meditraitor


    togster wrote: »
    Was't going to get involved here but i can see the two sides of the argument and having ahemm.. being partial to lots of "herbal" substance in my past i can appreciate the argument for and against. I don't think it should be legalised though. I've seen alot of heartache around people involved in 2recreational drug taking. Friends have died/ become addicted etc much more so than those who drink heavily. Drugs are bad, IMO worse than alcohol etc etc. Im just speakin from experience that many friends of mine are now messed up on harder drugs having started on cannabis.

    This is a common experience of long term users/ex users after a certain age and is the reason why drugs(marajuana/coke/e/speed/acid/shrooms) will never be legalised.

    The vast majority of the pro lobby are teenagers full of piss and vinegar who have yet to experience the cons associated with drug use.


  • Options
    #109
    Kipperhell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    meditraitor wrote: »
    This is a common experience of long term users/ex users after a certain age and is the reason why drugs(marajuana/coke/e/speed/acid/shrooms) will never be legalised.

    The vast majority of the pro lobby are teenagers full of piss and vinegar who have yet to experience the cons associated with drug use.

    I have heard people say stuff like this before and I don't know it to be true. Not one of the people I grew up with taking drugs is dead or an addict. I don't consider it lucky just simply not true for the vast majority.

    Organised crime is due to legislation and demand you can't blame the demand without the legislation. So basically the bishop is incorrect because he ignores the other factors and puts sole responsibility on one component.

    The question you really should ask is why legally around the world people try to stamp out drugs? Countries are forced to agree to drugs laws to be able to trade with other countries, why? Is there a bigger perceived threat than an actual threat?

    Don't forget all the urban legends about people taking acid and believing they can fly, have rats eating their flesh etc... People do stupid things on drugs and drink but it is drink that I have seen and heard more about in my life.


  • Options
    #110
    cooperguy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,650 ✭✭✭cooperguy


    JC 2K3 wrote:
    If you envision a society where drug related gangsterism doesn't exist because every potential drug user supresses their urge to experiment and to enjoy different types of highs, then yes, you could place a lot of blame on the drug users themselves

    If you envision a society where drug related gangsterism doesn't exist because drug users are free to experiment with drugs legally, then you'd place most of the blame on our current drug laws.

    I envision reality where drugs are illegal and I have to take responsibility for the actions I take. Its not the laws fault. The laws dont fund the criminals the people who break them do. The laws may not be perfect but you cannot shift your responsibility because of that. Simple fact is when you here of a drug related murder on the news you are (in part) responsible.


  • Options
    #111
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    You know there's 2 groups that can take business out of criminals' hands, don't you?

    The government, and the drug users.

    Why is it the drug users who should be putting an end to organised crime? I would have thought it was more in the minister for justice's job description than my own.

    I could stop buying drugs, or the minister for justice could change his drug strategy.

    Is there something so innately immoral about drug use that it simply must remain illegal? It seems to me that that's the prejudice that most policy-makers (in most countries) come to the debate with.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Kipperhell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    cooperguy wrote: »
    I envision reality where drugs are illegal and I have to take responsibility for the actions I take. Its not the laws fault. The laws dont fund the criminals the people who break them do. The laws may not be perfect but you cannot shift your responsibility because of that. Simple fact is when you here of a drug related murder on the news you are (in part) responsible.

    Good for you. Take responsibility for your actions now don't forget to make sure you know where EVERYTHING you buy comes from. Since you are taking responsibility for what you buy and who that funds. It is very easy to be preachy but are you actually doing what you say?

    Should I take responsibility for a murder that I had nothing to do with the market place? Should I fund an organisation that has a history of torture, sex abuse, theft, racism, etc? No I should not pay the church any money or mind. What this bishop is saying has the air of being correct but it lacks accuracy.


  • Options
    #113
    cooperguy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,650 ✭✭✭cooperguy


    DaveMcG wrote: »
    You know there's 2 groups that can take business out of criminals' hands, don't you?

    The government, and the drug users.

    Why is it the drug users who should be putting an end to organised crime? I would have thought it was more in the minister for justice's job description than my own.

    I could stop buying drugs, or the minister for justice could change his drug strategy.

    Is there something so innately immoral about drug use that it simply must remain illegal? It seems to me that that's the prejudice that most policy-makers (in most countries) come to the debate with.
    The minister for justice usually doesnt go about ending crime by simply making things legal. Thats a bit ridicules. Also there isnt anything innately immoral about it. Just innately dangerous. You can argue that possibly marijuana is relatively safe but you really dont have a leg to stand on when it come to anything stronger than that.
    Kipperhell wrote:
    Good for you. Take responsibility for your actions now don't forget to make sure you know where EVERYTHING you buy comes from. Since you are taking responsibility for what you buy and who that funds. It is very easy to be preachy but are you actually doing what you say?

    Should I take responsibility for a murder that I had nothing to do with the market place? Should I fund an organisation that has a history of torture, sex abuse, theft, racism, etc? No I should not pay the church any money or mind. What this bishop is saying has the air of being correct but it lacks accuracy.

    No I never claimed that I researched everything I bought. But are you saying when you are 100% aware that something you are buying is directly funding murders/crime that its ok? When you put cash directly into a scumbags hand is that ok?

    And again going back to the churches past! But I suppose at least you have admitted that it is in the past. They have done some awful things but they are trying to correct that. You could turn on your radio tomorrow morning and hear about another guy being shot dead.

    I should also point out at this stage I am not very religous but this church bashing is also pointless.


  • Options
    #114
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    cooperguy wrote: »
    No I never claimed that I researched everything I bought. But are you saying when you are 100% aware that something you are buying is directly funding murders/crime that its ok? When you put cash directly into a scumbags hand is that ok?

    And again going back to the churches past! But I suppose at least you have admitted that it is in the past. They have done some awful things but they are trying to correct that. You could turn on your radio tomorrow morning and hear about another guy being shot dead.

    I should also point out at this stage I am not very religous but this church bashing is also pointless.

    Passing the buck.

    If it's not the church, its pubs or tobacconists or caffiene drinkers or fat people or something else.

    Pro-drug people will always find someone to point the finger at and say 'that's legal. Why can't I legally get out of my bin on coke?'

    It's a pointless arguement and always just goes in circles.


  • Options
    #115
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    cooperguy wrote: »
    The minister for justice usually doesnt go about ending crime by simply making things legal. Thats a bit ridiculous.

    Of course not, he goes about ending crime by the same methods employed by other stubborn governments, which work remarkably well...(!)
    cooperguy wrote: »
    Also there isnt anything innately immoral about it. Just innately dangerous. You can argue that possibly marijuana is relatively safe but you really dont have a leg to stand on when it come to anything stronger than that.

    So then you'll be backing me in my campaign to outlaw tobacco and alcohol...?

    If you accept the research of the UK Parliament Select Committee on Science and Technology, then this is the order of most harmful drugs:

    Heroin
    Cocaine
    Barbiturates
    Street Methadone
    Alcohol
    Ketamine
    Benz...something
    Amphetamine
    Tobacco
    Bup...something
    Cannabis
    Solvents
    4-MTA (wtf is that?)
    LSD
    something
    Anabolic Steroids
    GHB
    Ecstacy
    bleh
    bleh
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5230006.stm#drugs

    So if drugs are regulated on the basis of how dangerous they are, then ecstacy, LSD, and cannabis (as well as that other crap) should all be legal, and alcohol and tobacco should be illegal (along with coke and heroin of course).

    You still think we should classify drugs on this basis?


  • Options
    #116
    cooperguy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,650 ✭✭✭cooperguy


    I remember seeing that before and maybe there is a point to it. I am all for science and fact. However a number of similar studies would have to be done to show that the results are repeatable. Thats the way science works. Then you could legislate using it as a guide.

    HOWEVER that is moving away from the fact that it is illegal now. Also governments and politics rarely follow scientific fact if they have the Joe Duffy brigade arguing against it. Therefore we are back to the point of the thread that buying drugs today means you are funding criminals and are partly the cause of all those murders etc. you hear abou on the radio.


  • Options
    #117
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    cooperguy wrote: »
    The minister for justice usually doesnt go about ending crime by simply making things legal. Thats a bit ridicules. Also there isnt anything innately immoral about it. Just innately dangerous. You can argue that possibly marijuana is relatively safe but you really dont have a leg to stand on when it come to anything stronger than that.
    I dunno. The distinction between "hard drugs" and "soft drugs" is very vague and the fact that both terms is a load of bs IMO and were probably just invented so the pro-cannabis lobby could try and separate cannabis from other drugs.
    cooperguy wrote: »
    No I never claimed that I researched everything I bought. But are you saying when you are 100% aware that something you are buying is directly funding murders/crime that its ok? When you put cash directly into a scumbags hand is that ok?
    No one said it was ok, it's just not that hard to live with when you know the majority of society are funding disreputable activities anyway.

    I mean are you trying to say that simply because it's easier to be naive about where your money goes and that it funds unjust activities in a less direct manner, that it's more justifiable for someone to buy goods made in sweatshops etc. than it is for someone to buy drugs?


Advertisement