Our president

tallaght01

Also Wertz, I agree about the point you made regarding the cost of alcohol to society. I've often made this point vociferously.

There are various arguments for a tolerant attitude being taken towards booze, though. Namely the tax revenue, and the fact that it doesn't fund criminal gangs.

And it helps ugly blokes like me score :P

Wertz

Yes but it's not the problem that Mc Aleese or the Archbishop of wherever were addressing with their public appeal.

A) 20,000? Even if the figure was twice or three times that, it's still only a fraction of the figure with a cocaine habit who at each transaction on average will spend 3 times what a heroin user will spend. How they fund it is neither here nor there for now.
Now the important point;
I cokehead, go out and score a gram for 80 quid or whatever, shovel it down me nostrils, great buzz etc....then an hour or two later I'm looking more and more and so on...the upshot is that there is no real upper limit to what I can take in a day, only a limit on what I can afford and a theoretical point of OD.
I smackhead go out and score a half gram of heroin. I pay about 20-30 quid, get home and chase it or inject it or do whatever....then I go for a nod for a few hours, chill out like. To keep me straight I need to do this twice a day but even if I wanted to I'd probably have it hard to do more than a couple of hundred €'s worth in a day....and if I did that amount I'd run the risk of not being in a fit state to get the cash to score the next day, or the bigger risk of OD.
My point to the above instances is that the longterm heroin user spends considerably less in their day to day habit than an affluent cocaine user could potentially spend on theirs. Tie that in with the figures above and from a financial perspective, cocaine is much more costly.

Of course the gangs are importing it here....and obviously guns come into it. But the heroin market is a more established one than cocaine. You don't rely on new users, you rely on your loyal customers. Turf wars aren't as hard fought any more because everyone's too busy trying to get in on the more lucrative cocaine market where buyers may be more fickle, flock to where the best quality stuff is or the cheapest weight and users usually are younger with more money in their pocket and there's a lot more of them...I'm going on and on here....my point is that guns may be prevalent in the heroin trade but that they are a lot more prevalent in the running of the cocaine trade....and by it's nature, cocaine leaves it's users a lot more receptive to gun use than smack would...

C) No you phrased it grand. I would counter that with the money that we spend as a nation on booze, treating it's direct effects (assault, drink driving accidents, alcoholism, psychological damage, petty crime), it's indirect effects (absenteeism, low production levels, family breakdown) and subsequent fudning of hosptials and prisons to cater for the output of drink abuse would run to perhaps billions of euro. Regardless of it's contributory factor to revenue, that's a huge sum of money and an even greater sum of time and effort by so many hard working people in this country...

tallaght01

A) you're still arguing the point that heroin expenditure is less than cocaine expenditure. That's fine. I agree. It's probably true. Nobody is sure though. There really are no reliable figures either way. That's not the point. The point was that you said heroin wasn't the problem Heroin is a huge problem, regardless of whether less is spent on it than on cocaine or whatever.Breaking the cycle of addiction has to be an integral part of the strategy to stopping the flow of cash to drug gangs.

b) Again, I disagree. I'm no cop, and I'm basing this on what I was taught in college by the drug squad guys who used to come and visit us. That was a few years ago though. But they told us the fallout from the heroin trade has resulted in huge violence within the drug community, both at the level of the users and dealers. Both domestically and internationally. But, again, I'm not sure this is the issue. You're referring to turf wars, whereas president mcaleese was referring to the much larger problem of organised crime in the country. So, she was presumably referring to the spinoff trades like prostitution, money laundering, terrorism etc. What i'm trying to say is that the violence and the gangland problems referred to are not simply the druglords fighting amongst themselves. I'm not sure I'm explaining that very well. Do you see my point?
I also understood that the provos and a lot of the prominent Dublin gangs are involved i heroin dealing? although I guess that's all hearesay.
I'm not sure that heroin dealers can rely on old loyal customers for their business. The shelf life of a junkie is not that long. It's certainly longer than somebody who uses coke at weekends. Go into any hospital in Dublin and you'll be amazed by the amounts of heroin addicts in there at literally any given time with abscesses, HIV, endocarditis etc. These people don't last long enough that their dealer doesn't have to think about his future.

Your example about heroin use and cocaine use is, of course assuming that we have an idea of the true figures for use for each drug. Official sources will give an estimate of heroin addicts, as historically they know what percentage will seek help at a given time. But even then It's all a VERY rough guess. The same goes for cocaine, but even more so. It's really impossible to tell how many people use coke at the weekend, and how much they use. But you also seem to be assuming in your example that the cocaine user is doing this every day. They are more likely to be doing it once or twice a week, unless they're addicted. Whereas the heroin user is doing it every day. And the jukies can put away a serious amount of heroin. Just look at the doses of methadone some of them are on.

I said to you before that I agree about the alcohol issue. I often raise it when people complain about A+E waiting times. A+E is full of drunks, 24 hours a day. But try telling people they should cut back on booze if they're that worried about ahving to spend 16 hours wating to be seen by a doctor and they're not so into it.
I also agree that alcohol is up there as one of the greatest drains on the health sector. Much much bigger than the drug problem, I would imagine.

Davidius

Snarler wrote: »

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.

Humans will also always want to inflict pain on another person whenever they please.

If the majority of drug takers are users then it really is the users contributing to the rise of such gangs. I mean if users aren't addicts then surely it can't be too hard for them to not buy drugs and thus finacially cripple the gangs who are supplying them. There's plenty of things you can do besides getting high anyway.

Besides why is it the government's job to solve every single problem. Can't we as people solve our own problems without the government coming to the rescue?

ircoha

AngryBadger wrote: »

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.

such as?

Terry

Davidius wrote: »

Humans will also always want to inflict pain on another person whenever they please.

If the majority of drug takers are users then it really is the users contributing to the rise of such gangs. I mean if users aren't addicts then surely it can't be too hard for them to not buy drugs and thus finacially cripple the gangs who are supplying them. There's plenty of things you can do besides getting high anyway.

Besides why is it the government's job to solve every single problem. Can't we as people solve our own problems without the government coming to the rescue?

Ahh, but you are forgetting the selfishness factor.

The whole 'why the hell shouldn't I go out and buy coke or whatever?' attitude.

Those calling for legalisation are only looking for a better high. They don't really give a damn where it comes from, they just want a better high than the last time.
They also forget or refuse to acknowledge that regular use leads to a higher level of immunity, which in turn leads to them buying more. Legalisation will not counteract that effect.

They also neglect ot mention that heroin addicts will still steal to feed their habits.
Legal or not, they need to get their money from somewhere.

Yes, you can live a relatively normal life on pure heroin, but you still need to pay for it.
How many heroin addicts just want to take it to feel normal, compared to those who take it for the high it gives?

As for solving our own problems; regular drug users do not recognise that they are causing any problems.
Cathal from Blackrock isn't causing any problems by buying a gramme of coke. All of societies problems lie at the hands of scumbags Anto and Richie and their cans of dutch gold. You only need to read a few drug related threads here to realise that.

Snarler

Cathal from Blackrock isn't causing any problems by buying a gramme of coke. All of societies problems lie at the hands of scumbags Anto and Richie and their cans of dutch gold.

Completely agree.

Some student was killed in Galway this week after falling off a wall whilst pissed. Same thing happened in Dublin a year ago but because the guy happened to be on mushrooms (not to mention bottles of wine) their was uproar and Harney made sure that mushrooms outlawed.

DublinWriter

Terry wrote: »

Ahh, but you are forgetting the selfishness factor.

Cocaine is God's way of telling you that you have too much money.

That applies collectively as well as individually.

Terry

Snarler wrote: »

Completely agree.

Some student was killed in Galway this week after falling off a wall whilst pissed. Same thing happened in Dublin a year ago but because the guy happened to be on mushrooms (not to mention bottles of wine) their was uproar and Harney made sure that mushrooms outlawed.

You do understand the concept of sarcasm, don't you?

Walls should be banned.

Outer Bongolia

Snarler wrote: »

Completely agree.

Some student was killed in Galway this week after falling off a wall whilst pissed. Same thing happened in Dublin a year ago but because the guy happened to be on mushrooms (not to mention bottles of wine) their was uproar and Harney made sure that mushrooms outlawed.

That sucks. He ruined mushrooms for the rest of us

darkman2

Moonbaby wrote: »

She wasn't democratically elected the last time.

In fairness - what was the alternative? - Micheal D Higgins? lol! Dana? lolol!

Lands Leaving

Surely if drugs were legalised and sold under a system where users register or something, there would be no problems. No drug dealers where there's no need for them. There'll a,lways be demand, so why not let the government handle supply. It'd probably be quite lucrative. Users will use drugs either way, so why not just make it less dangerous for everyone, and kill off the majority of crime in the country.

And what does the president even do? Its a glorified monarchial position here.

Sleepy

I totally disagree with her on the drugs issue - who the hell meets their dealer 'on the streets' anyways? :rolleyes:

That said, when it comes down to it, we're incapable of electing a presentable Taoiseach so as much as I dislike the current president, it is important to have one.

mental07

faceman wrote: »

She is the longest serving, democratically elected female head of state in the history of world politics.

Head of state yeah, but only in the figurehead sense. Germany has a female leader (chancellor) who does all the important stuff. And here she is getting the George W treatment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUTwaSPcGno

Executive Steve

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.

buying drugs = funding gangland

true. so why let gangland sell drugs? undercut them - sell a safer product and tax it!

homes are robbed

true! because drugs are expensive! why? because you can go to prison for selling them! guess what? ALL drugs are ridiculously cheap to manufacture! sell them at the actual raw materials cost, maintaining a healthy markup, and you'd still have drugs that cost a tenth of what they cost!

you're right, there ARE good arguments for the legalisation of drugs, and people like you make them all the time!