Our president

mike65

I'd say she guffaws alot on holiday, with her lecherous husband, about the handy number that she has...and she didn't even have to face election for a second term because nobody gave a sh!te.

Is Mr McAleese a lech?

Mike.

Dave!

way-hay

Archeron

I'd do her. And at the end of the day, isnt THAT the important thing?

MagicMarker

Jay D wrote: »

President Mary McAleese has said people need to stop buying drugs if we want to put drug gang out of business.

She was speaking during a Late Late Show interview to mark her tenth year as President.

Mrs McAleese said it was a simple equation; sellers don't have a market unless they have buyers and people who buy the drugs are responsible for the sellers on the street.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1110/mcaleesem.html


who else thinks that she is nothing but a useless cow getting free holidays everywhere and talking complete ****e?

She's absolutely correct.

The Chessplayer

Archeron wrote: »

I'd do her. And at the end of the day, isnt THAT the important thing?

Are you joking me? She's about 60! She's got a head like a bag of hammers.

irishfeller

Jay D wrote:

President Mary McAleese has said people need to stop buying drugs if we want to put drug gang out of business.

Wow what words of wisdom! And she should have kept going to tell us how to sort out all the problems of Ireland:-

- All people have to do is stop getting sick to end the problems in the health service.
- All criminals need to do is stop commiting crime of end the problems in the justice system.
- All people need to do is stop driving cars to end the carnage on the roads.

Its all so obvious - why wasn't it thought of before - thanks Mary for pointing us in the right direction...

Wertz

Boggles wrote: »

The President, who does not have an executive or policy role...

She is a figurehead, not a policy maker. She signs off on constitutional amendments and such by the elected government, which is why IMO it is not her place to patter drug policy hyperbole. She is entitled to her opinion and Pat Kenny is entitled to ask her for it. Doesn't mean to say anyone has to listen to it.

I'll take this with the same grain of salt I took the archbishop's comments last week, the reason being I honestly couldn't give a f*ck; I refuse to be held accountable for my indirect actions or to hold any shared blame for gang violence in this country. I don't do or buy cocaine BTW, whose buyers are seemingly who all these comments are aimed at....but I do buy weed and the occasional pill.

I'm not getting into this whole "alcohol is legal and is worse" argument but if anybody wanted to you can easily turn around and blame drink for just as much crime, violence, suffering and injustice in Ireland as any of the hard drugs....and as ever since it's such a lucrative money spinner for so many people, both directly and indirectly, no-one will ever shake that particular boat.
Some alcohol users have no qualms about using crime to fund their habit if the need arises, fair enough it usually doesn't since drink is relatively cheap and easily available, but it does happen.
Then there's crime commited after drink has been imbibed....they may not be shooting people over 50 quid debts, but kicking the sh*te out of, and possibly killing someone for no good reason after a lock of pints is equally as wrong as someone being injured or killed by a firearm toted by a drug-user/dealer.
Post-alcohol effect also has much to answer for WRT low level crime, criminal damage, petty theft and public order.
But it's legal so not fair game for moral outrage...

Sam Vimes

Mairt wrote: »

She may have come accross a little nieve but a person of her standing should make some kind of stand on drugs.

Her message is a simple, but true one.

Addict or just a muppet when you buy drugs on the street your funding gangland & people die. Junkies die, Dealers die, homes are robbed, neighbourhoods are destroyed (the list goes on) and each and every person who either buys or sells drugs on the street have a share of the blaim.

There's also a good argument for legalising drugs, but since the thread is about the president and not legalising drugs that discussion is for another thread I guess.

this thread is about the president saying that people shouldn't be taking drugs because it fuels gangland crime. the sole reason it fuels gangland crime is that drugs are illegal, forcing people to want to take them to give money to criminals. i think the legalisation issue is extremely relevant to the thread

Steyr

She is a figurehead and chief of Staff of the Defence Forces and as a Soverign Nation what better way to show it than with a President. She has also done an awful lot about cross border relations and an all round great lady and Ambassador for this Nation.

keen

Jay D wrote: »

who else thinks that she is nothing but a useless cow

Would agree with that, just a figure head that doesn't really do anything of importance and spouts her opinions as if she is the wise one and we should all pay attention to her views, just an old woman really with no real job to do.

Jay D

FuzzyLogic wrote: »

I wouldn't underestimate the value of her going abroad and opening variou things, meeting people etc. It does generate a lot of money down the line and keeps the Irish PR machine rolling.


Yes she was, as there were no other candidates. Her appointment fits in with most modern definitions of democracy. In fact, she *was* re-elected, just without contest.

You have to call an election and then the ball rolls.

There was opposition to her move by members of Government

Boggles wrote: »

Or in other words, "Sure we couldn't be arsed going through an election, it doesn't really matter anyway lads, give it to that tall bird with the mullet again"

AngryBadger

Jay D wrote: »

who else thinks that she is nothing but a useless cow getting free holidays everywhere and talking complete ****e?

Ya had me until this sentence man. Don't go for mud-clinging against the opposition before even stating your case.

I disagree with Mary mcAleese on the drugs issue, I also happen to think there are far more important problems, and far more practical ways to solve them. but bad set-up dude.

AngryBadger

keen wrote: »

Would agree with that, just a figure head that doesn't really do anything of importance and spouts her opinions as if she is the wise one and we should all pay attention to her views, just an old woman really with no real job to do.

It's also her brief to refer any un-constitutional legislation for revision. And to be fair, every country needs "just a figurehead" to go to big important dinenrs and talk about the weather. Gives them someone to relate to. And that's kind of important if you want to communicate with other nations.

Overheal

Jay D wrote: »

I don't know whether you realise the precentage of people who are addicted to the drugs they buy - therefore making it extremely hard to kick the habit.

Other than that, these holidays to NZ etc with ****ty reasoning about trade relations etc. Also the fact she re-instated herself. Joke.

the vaster majority of substance abuse isnt addicting, so dont base your argument on that point. People make the choice to explore and quit these substances all the time: one of my friends tried pretty much all of it from the pills to the coke and now he barely smokes hashish. I cant even smoke the hashish anymore: it makes my lungs burn and my gag reflex go wild.

But thats getting somewhat off topic.

As far as McAleese being a figurehead - couldnt agree more. I must admit I don't even understand what her role in the government is at all except to stand on parade once in a blue moon and sign Bills. She could benefit a lot more from public appearance imho, but to come out and give advice like that and expect everyone to just respect it out of hand instead of sitting in their living room asking 'who the **** are you?' is a bit much.

Snarler

Her message is a simple, but true one.

Addict or just a muppet when you buy drugs on the street your funding gangland & people die

There is no logic to this. I don't want to buy my drugs from the gangs. I want to buy them legally from a reputable salesman but I can't. So its the government who are creating the gangs.

From now on this is will be considered the truth around here so no more crap blaming the users for the gangs.

kowloon

Feck it, we can always replace her, better than a monarchy.

DublinWriter

Mordeth wrote: »

well tobacco does kill far more people than any illegal drug, and alcohol does cost the state more money ... but yeah, damn junkies!!!!

Yes, damn those illegal drugs, they're so...untaxable.

tallaght01

To my mind, Jay D is the only one here to have grasped the issue properly.

To eradicate the heroin dealers, for example, you would have to cure all those users of their addictions.

That is an enormous enormous task.

Lots of the cocaine/amphatamine/benzos market are addicted aswell.

Watch the poor ****ers trying to come off that stuff in hospital, and it makes your skin crawl. But, there's not enough detox beds to help even a tiny fraction of addicts. So, as far as I can see it, if she's being serious and this isn't just soundbite, she needs to start using her influence to get a lot more drug rehab beds publicly funded. We can't just rely on a methadone programme forever and expect to get on top of the problem.

cooperguy

Snarler wrote: »

There is no logic to this. I don't want to buy my drugs from the gangs. I want to buy them legally from a reputable salesman but I can't. So its the government who are creating the gangs.

From now on this is will be considered the truth around here so no more crap blaming the users for the gangs.

Haha, god I hope that was a joke. You really have your head twisted dont you! Because YOU go out and give YOUR money to the gangs so YOU get high its the governments fault! You may not want to but you still do therefore you are funding them and it is your fault (along with the rest of the people like you) the these gangs exist.

Wertz

In fairness it's not heroin that's the problem here, it's cocaine, it's perceived use amongst the wealthy middle classes (an overblown myth IMO; most of the over use/abuse is in working class young adults on moderate income) and the inherent links to gangland criminals with turf wars and infighting, with al that that entails.
I saw a recent comparison somewhere (don't have the figures or link to hand) between cocaine users and heroin users WRT actual money spent in a year on either substance. Expenditure on cocaine dwarves the figures for heroin. Add to that the fact that a lot more people use cocaine than heroin and that they're usually better off financially than the average smackhead and you're left wondering why dealers bother with heroin at all; I suppose the fact that you have a ready and stable market for your product rather than a fluctuating level of demand based on time of week, year etc is a bonus....oh and the fact that you can cut the smack to half it's potency and the addict will simply buy twice as much.

People on heroin are far from likely to head off out on an armed robbery spree, shooting random members of the public. They may pose that threat in the search for money to fund a habit, but once they're high, that's it...nighty night. So heroin addicts aren't really the problem here and even if they were, getting them to come off their fix is going to take a bit more than some bleating on a chatshow from someone in a position of power...

Davidius

Snarler wrote: »

There is no logic to this. I don't want to buy my drugs from the gangs. I want to buy them legally from a reputable salesman but I can't. So its the government who are creating the gangs.

From now on this is will be considered the truth around here so no more crap blaming the users for the gangs.

If you're not an addict the solution is to stop buying drugs. The goverment aren't the ones giving the gangs the money which allows them to keep going, you are. The users demand for drugs creates these gangs and their continued willingness to buy drugs from them is what allows them to keep going.

Snarler

The users demand for drugs creates these gangs and their continued willingness to buy drugs from them is what allows them to keep going.

Demand for drugs is a human constant that will never stop or be changed. So accepting that its the governments fault. And its not addicts but users that make up the majority of drug takers.

Still nobody can argue against this. Its faultless logic.

Senna

Overheal wrote: »

to come out and give advice like that and expect everyone to just respect it out of hand

it was her opinion, thats pretty much it.
She's a figure-head and not a policy maker.
She expressed her views on the subject, she wasn't making a new law or anything. get over it.

Outer Bongolia

I wouldn't mind sticking my syringe into her crack

tallaght01

Wertz wrote: »

In fairness it's not heroin that's the problem here,

...

Heroin is a huge problem in Ireland!!! You can talk about the amount of money spent on drugs. But that's not the issue, if you want to just look at it from the financial perspective.

I have no figures to hand, but presumably the problems from heroin use cost the taxpayer more than from use of any other drug, in terms of social problems, crime, medical care etc.

But tos ay heroin "isn't the problem" is naive in my view.

snarler wrote:

And its not addicts but users that make up the majority of drug takers

This is true, if you're including people who smoke a bit of hash etc. But most of the people who run into problems with crime etc are addicted to heroin/coke/benzos etc.
I agree with what I think your point is, though....that those who aren't addicted to drugs still have a significant role to play in stopping the cash flow to these gangs.

It always used to amaze me at college how the most liberal, leftie students wold snort bucketloads of coke at parties, and then the next day would be talking about the plight of trafficking victims etc, or even complaining about our own crime problems etc when they've directly contributed to the problem 24 hours previously.

stolenwine

Thick as pig ****. My favourite sound bite was when she likened northern Protestants to the Nazis , yea way to build bridges Mary. :rolleyes:

johnnyskeleton

Jay D wrote: »

Mrs McAleese said it was a simple equation; sellers don't have a market unless they have buyers and people who buy the drugs are responsible for the sellers on the street.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1110/mcaleesem.html

As the late, great Hunter S Thompson said, cut the body off and the head will die. Don't buy drugs is the laziest solution to the drugs problem - it's not addressing it issues it's only burying your head in the sand.

Jay D wrote:

who else thinks that she is nothing but a useless cow getting free holidays everywhere and talking complete ****e?

Well Mary Robinson, in her 7 years as president referred 4 bills to the Supreme Court, 3 of which (IIRC) were found to be unconstitutional. Mary McAlese has referred one (the retrospective charging for nursing homes scandal, which even the dogs in the street knew was unconstitutional) in her 10 years. During this time some of highly suspect legislation has been rubber stamped onto the statutebooks. Anyone missing their right to silence?

tallaght01 wrote:

Heroin is a huge problem in Ireland!!!

Way to completely ignore what Wertz was saying and go off on a rant. I guess that's what this forum is for.

Wertz

tallaght01 wrote: »

Heroin is a huge problem in Ireland!!! You can talk about the amount of money spent on drugs. But that's not the issue, if you want to just look at it from the financial perspective.

I have no figures to hand, but presumably the problems from heroin use cost the taxpayer more than from use of any other drug, in terms of social problems, crime, medical care etc.

But tos ay heroin "isn't the problem" is naive in my view.

I didn't say Ireland hadn't got a heroin problem....I didn't come down with the last shower.
What I did say was that heroin isn't the problem here (here meaning "in this instance") WRT to gangland crime.
Most of the money in the class A trade nowadays is being made from cocaine...the profits are greater and there's a far wider customer base with more disposable income than the average heroin user. All those factors mean that the gun and all it's trappings are never far away; dealers have territory to look after, rival gang members to keep at bay, non-paying customers to teach lessons to....there are more reasons to have a gun than not. Then you throw into that equation the "getting high on your own supply" factor and you're left with what we currently have...an out of control gun crime culture with no regard for life or liberty and very little way of stopping it....unless all the cocaine users in the country suddenly decide to stick to the booze n fags and starve dealers of their cashflow, which simply isn't going to happen.

Heroin is a problem all of it's own, but you'll probably find that supposed vast swathes of middle class youth aren't heading off into the jacks in the local bar to snort it; they seemingly prefer cocaine...and because this is affecting "real people" (ie not just junkies) we suddenly hear the sound of hand-wringing from community leaders like church figures and now our head of State.
Just to rebut your other point on the cost of heroin to the country....and I'm sorry to make this very jaded point again, I don't have figures to hand (and it's unlikely enough are available) but alcohol most likely dwarves all other drugs when it comes to incurred financial costs of abuse on society. Of course on the flipside it also bankrolls our exchequer by a hefty sum which none of the illegal drugs do....which leads us back to the point on legalisation and tax revenue...

Jesus Wept

I don't like that she got re-elected uncontested.

tallaght01

I did understand your point Wertz. But I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion.

a) how do we know how much is spent on heroin? There are thought to be up to 20,000 people in Ireland addicted to heroin. To use the argument about the middle classes having more disposable income is misleading. Heroin addicts often steal to buy it. The commit about 3/4 of drug related theft.

b) I was under the impression that domestic and international terrorists are reponsible for supplying heroin to the irish market. I would imagine gangland members are also involved. If that's not the case, who's importing it?

c) I should have explained it better, but the money we spend on the effects of heroin in society all take away from the taxpayers ability to fund the fight against organised crime and terrorism.

That is why I think you're looking at the problems naively.
I disagree strongly that you can justify saying "heroin is not the problem here". Heroin is not the only problem, but it's a huge problem.