Labour delegates call to legalise cannabis

Bottle_of_Smoke

Delegates at Labour's 62nd annual conference will make calls for the legalisation of cannabis and marijuana at the event in Wexford today.

The move is backed by the party's chief whip, Emmett Stagg.

Party Leader Eamon Gilmore will his give keynote address later tonight.

Last night, the conference got underway with a stinging attack on the government. Deputy Leader Joan Burton attacked plans by the government to accept pay rises while working people have to do with pay restraint.

She spoke out against co-location of private hospitals on public land. She described it as, "a development that will deliver massive profits for Fianna Fáil's developer friends but which will widen even further the two-tier nature of the health service".

The party will also commence informal planning today for the 2009 local and European elections.


http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhmhgbidcwoj/

Go Labour!

Merry Ploughboy

About time, the flights to Amsterdam are costing me a fortune!

Overheal

dont tempt me I've been off it for quite a while. cant ever find anything but sh1tbrick around anyway.

Terry

Stagg won't be getting my vote again.

Back to the phoenix park with ya.

keen

Go Labour indeed, don't think it will happen though.

astrofool

If ever a party was desperate for the "youth" vote...

Maybe they should go into coalition with SF, they can manage the supply side.

Time Magazine

Note that it's been called on by some delegates folks, hasn't been passed by a majority and/or adopted as a policy.

Sinn Féin had a similar motion at an Ard Fheis a few years back. At the same meeting, calls were made for the banning of sale of tobacco. Neither motion passed.

I doubt Labour's motion will past tbh.

Terry wrote: »

Back to the phoenix park with ya.

Wertz

Meh, it's not as if they'll ever get into power with a mandate like that, not in this post papal moralistic hellhole, so it's a moot point.
10/10 for effort though.
As someone who voted greens last time around and ended up regretting it, I'll probably give labour a vote next time....but there's no real way of stopping the FF muppets from retaining power considering the amount of sheep who give them their #1...

Lands Leaving

This is NEVER EVER going to happen. Where would it even be sold or consumed? There's a smoking ban for gods sake, and I cant see good old Ireland being lenient enough to say oh yeah go home, get stoned. No worries. Plus no-one cares about the labour party anymore thanks to everyone loving the slightly wealthier status quo, and being oblivious to the obvious economic collapse thats on the way. Then they'll beg for socialism!! but now no cannabis for anyone.

Bloody Ireland.

Overheal

Lands Leaving wrote: »

I cant see good old Ireland being lenient enough to say oh yeah go home, get stoned. No worries.

why? that seems to be the unspoken truth of underage drinking smoking sex and drugs anyway

cornbb

Lands Leaving wrote: »

This is NEVER EVER going to happen. Where would it even be sold or consumed? There's a smoking ban for gods sake, and I cant see good old Ireland being lenient enough to say oh yeah go home, get stoned. No worries.

This is all true. But the strongest point of their argument is that legalisation would take the supply and control of the drug out of the hands of criminals and into the control of the government. Plus they do love laws that will create new revenue for themselves. I agree that its very unlikely to happen here in the forseeable future, though, the government are completely incapable of radical and rational thought.

Lands Leaving

Yeah but they have to pretend they're doing something about those problems, so they're hardly going to add something they see as another problem. The majority of voters (I'm saying it - the elderly) are going to be against legalising cannabis. We live in a conservative country, just one trip to mainland Europe is eye opening, especially Holland or Denmark (and any other country with some sort of legalisation in place)

ecoli

labour are just trying to do somethin to promote the party at a time when FF and the greens are losing suppost by the day with stupid mistake after stupid mistake

TheOlster

oh wow labour is delving into headline grabbing politics without thinking it through.Legitimise another drug and through it into the mix eh? how foolish this would be,this would put an enormous strain on the health service in the future with new cases of lung cancer etc,if this measure was introduced it would be a ticking time bomb,legitimising it would lead to people having less of a problem doing it putting aside the fact that it would be more easily available,and what about the effects of long term abuse,psychiatric illnesses anyone?It couldn't do a whole lot of good for the economy either ,people wouldn't get out of bed!...but hey ,the measure would do wonders for the snacks industry,which would bring us to the obesity problem,slight use of hyperbole on this point ,i grant thee.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you'd agree with criminalising the posession and sale of alcohol/tobacco then ?

Wertz

^ It's exactly that short sighted scare monger attitude that keeps us at the current status quo which isn't working and is criminalising people for using a relatively safe and benign drug.
Lung cancer? Please, from a country that makes so much tax profit off the back of cigarettes and diesel, our lung cancer rates are barely going to blip from any change in the legal status of cannabis. Besides, many people who smoke cannabis already smoke or have smoked cigarettes. Anyway, you don't have to smoke it, there are plenty of alternative methods of delivery
Getting out of bed? Not had a problem myself in ~15 yrs of use...I think you're confusing cannabis with alcohol in this regard. Any "sickie" I ever pull is invariably due to a raging hangover from drink. I'd imagine that's the case for a large swathe of the populace.

My only concerns with legalising is with kids and students getting their hands on it. Cannabis can lead to motivational problems and it's almost impossible to learn or reatin knowledge whilst under it's influence. That said though, students and kids already have access to it and ;legal status could add some regulation to supply.
I'd also have some concerns over road safety. We certainly have more problems on the roads than a few stoned drivers, but it wouldn't help either.

Realistically speaking if Labour (or anyone else) are serious about this, then a move to reclassify the drug would do more good in the medium term; far too many people up in court for what is a relatively harmless crime (possesion or use of) and too much prison space devoted to smaller dealers.
Another realistic approach would be to move for legal status for medical usage.

But again, all moot points. Nothing is actually going to change.

thebman

TheOlster wrote: »

oh wow labour is delving into headline grabbing politics without thinking it through.Legitimise another drug and through it into the mix eh? how foolish this would be,this would put an enormous strain on the health service in the future with new cases of lung cancer etc,if this measure was introduced it would be a ticking time bomb,legitimising it would lead to people having less of a problem doing it putting aside the fact that it would be more easily available,and what about the effects of long term abuse,psychiatric illnesses anyone?It couldn't do a whole lot of good for the economy either ,people wouldn't get out of bed!...but hey ,the measure would do wonders for the snacks industry,which would bring us to the obesity problem,slight use of hyperbole on this point ,i grant thee.

Do you honestly believe that people that want to smoke cannabis now don't do so because its illegal?

Everyone I know who wants to smoke it smokes it and some people don't smoke it but eat it as you can do it that way too.

The law isn't being enforced like about 90% of the laws in this country so people who don't see it as being wrong are doing it. Its seen about as wrong as underage drinking is by 17 year olds.

Should be made legal IMO.

Wez

Gange is being used all over the country, used by people of all ages, but if was legalised and enforced as it is in Amsterdam, then there would be no problems! They're very strict on id over there!

And for whoever asked where they could sell it.. Pharmacies! They're packed full of other drugs that are way more dangerous than weed is! It's also where it'd be kept for medicinal use too!

It's something that would do this boring country a lift!

Kold

Whip out the vapouriser in the canteen at lunch. Nice.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

that'd be awesome, why should that be any more offensive than an office lunch at the pub?

EamonnKeane

As for lung cancer, I'd say that's extremely unlikely: there are very few 20-a-day stoners.

griffdaddy

There's a vapouriser party on in Barnies in Amsterdam right this minute. There's guys walking around with bags full of G-13 Haze vapour, spraying it in people's mouths like those vodka water pistols. Ah, what a city.

Wertz

EamonnKeane wrote: »

As for lung cancer, I'd say that's extremely unlikely: there are very few 20-a-day stoners.

Ahem

Seriously though, the smoke of five unfiltered spliffs containing most of a cigarette and a sprinkle of weed is damaging, especially when you consider you inhale it more deeply and tend to hold it longer.
Add to this in our current legal system of criminal supply that most of the hash and some of the weed is contaminated with several nasty cutting agents and it's actually worse for getting lung cancer now as it would be if legal status was changed.

In a legal situation, you'd ideally have a regulated supply with more guarantee of quality and personally speaking I wouldn't use a quarter of the tobacco that I currently use in my rolls because I'd have a more ready supply instead of eeking it out now, cos you don't know the next time something good might be available. That wouldn't mean I'd necessarily smoke much more than what I do now but either way it would actually work out healthier for me. I can't speak for everyone on that though.

TheOlster

this is more of a general reply rather than a targeted one.my point is that increased availability could/would lead to increased consumption per individual,supply on demand(some dope smokers might already have this option,but I wouldn't say all).I'm aware of the culinary approach to cannabis but would it not be in fair in assuming that smoking it is the most common way of consuming it?People have questioned my point on lung cancer,someone saying they dont know too many 20 a day stoners,but i'd put this to that person,say if they were trying to quit tobacco they could get sucked straight back in by consuming joints,and before one raises the eating option,how many yoghurts does anyone see ever going around at a party,it's not exactly a very social thing passing on a yoghurt,or have I been out of the game too long?, and where did you get your 90% statistic,sounds like you're picking it out of the air.No-one seems to be interested in addressing the psychiatric (or would it be psychological)illnesses point,swerving around it.

Wertz

Someone who has never smoked anything in their lives are unlikely to run out into the streets the day after a legal change and start toking on a rastafarian scale.
Of course you're going to get new people trying it (just like they do now) and of course you'll get people who overuse and abuse it (like they do now) and maybe you get extra numbers occasionally using it because of the legal change, but for the most part many users out there now already flaunt the law and don't rate it as a reason not to smoke, just a reason not to get caught.
Have you ever thought of the possibility that some people out there who drink a lot, perhaps too much, might benefit from having another way to chemically recreate? So much trouble is caused in Irish society by alcohol, it's more or less the only social outlet we have as a nation...perhaps an alternative might offer people who might otherwise never have used cannabis to try it, find they like it and drink less. Despite it's bad name cannabis is a social drug, but the high, whilst perhaps damaging in other ways does not lead you to injure oneself, argue, fight or a whole host of other things that's gotten up to when inhibitions are dampened by drink.

It's a fair point on smoking being the preferred method of ingestion, but I know plenty of people who eat it because they don't like smoke. If people are scared of lung cancer they won't smoke fullstop, and no-one is forcing them to do so. It'd be nice to have the choice since we can already freely do so with cigarettes...

keen

Someone who has never smoked anything in their lives are unlikely to run out into the streets the day after a legal change and start toking on a rastafarian scale.

Exactly, if people want it they will take regardless of it's legality.

People who haven't tried it thus far won't all of a sudden think to themselves "Do you know what I'm going to start smoking blow today just because it's now been announced that it's legal."

Once there's an age limit on it's consumption and strict checking of ID I can see no problems that it would cause and would take a lot of business away from the people that are dealing it now, the Government would make a fortune on it instead.

Wertz

Of course, no matter if it's illegal or not, you'll always have some unscrupulous bastard willing to sell it to those below the age limit for personal gain. In the case of legalisation, penalties for supply to minors would need to be introduced with stiff consequences. Right now we lock up people for selling dope to adults or kids alike.

I'm not suggesting that it would be an easy thing to introduce and I'm not outright advocating it, but as it stands now, we (the nation, not potheads) are worse off than we'd probably be in the wake of an era of illegality.

Who sells it? Who supplies it?
Who get licenses for those things and how?
All that would need to be ironed out...if it did ever happen it'd have to be a structured integration rather than an overnight transition.

Perhaps in the end, the Gardaí, the legal system and the prisons could turn their limited resources away from cannabis and it's surrounding crimes and point it toward something which might benefit society, not least the focus on hard drugs that are doing damage on so many levels...

Ekancone

TheOlster wrote: »

this is more of a general reply rather than a targeted one.my point is that increased availability could/would lead to increased consumption per individual,supply on demand(some dope smokers might already have this option,but I wouldn't say all).I'm aware of the culinary approach to cannabis but would it not be in fair in assuming that smoking it is the most common way of consuming it?People have questioned my point on lung cancer,someone saying they dont know too many 20 a day stoners,but i'd put this to that person,say if they were trying to quit tobacco they could get sucked straight back in by consuming joints,and before one raises the eating option,how many yoghurts does anyone see ever going around at a party,it's not exactly a very social thing passing on a yoghurt,or have I been out of the game too long?, and where did you get your 90% statistic,sounds like you're picking it out of the air.No-one seems to be interested in addressing the psychiatric (or would it be psychological)illnesses point,swerving around it.

Does alcohol abuse not lead to psychiatric illnesses?

InFront

Depends on whether you include alcoholism. In terms of something like schizophrenia, such a link hasn't been documented or reported to anywhere near the same extent with alcohol as with marijuana.

Neither drug are without some very serious potential repercussions.

Wertz

Nor has it been with adult usage of marijuana/cannabis. The most their "conclusive" tests have proved is that it may increase your exposure to, or lead to an earlier onset of, an already inherent mental illness, especially if abused within the formative teenage years.

Besides why wouldn't you include alcoholism in a list of psychiatric illnesses? It's as much a mental condition as it is a physical addiction.
Additionally, heavy use of alcohol (not necessarily by an alcoholic) has been proven to cause brain damage...so it's neurologically damaging also.

Ekancone

Wertz wrote: »

Nor has it been with adult usage of marijuana/cannabis. The most their "conclusive" tests have proved is that it may increase your exposure to, or lead to an earlier onset of, an already inherent mental illness, especially if abused within the formative teenage years.

Besides why wouldn't you include alcoholism in a list of psychiatric illnesses? It's as much a mental condition as it is a physical addiction.
Additionally, heavy use of alcohol (not necessarily by an alcoholic) has been proven to cause brain damage...so it's neurologically damaging also.

Plus alcohol can bring about psychotic mood disorders such as paranoid psychosis.

InFront

Wertz wrote: »

Nor has it been with adult usage of marijuana/cannabis. The most their "conclusive" tests have proved is that it may increase your exposure to, or lead to an earlier onset of, an already inherent mental illness

It's pretty certain that genetic susceptibility to a psychotic illness "muddies the waters" alright, but you're wrong to suggest the above. There is a wealth of evidence to go further than what you suggest, but I'm wary of getting into this argument because the last time I did, a few people started suggesting that such evidence is all a big Government/ Drug Company/ Academic conspiracy

Besides why wouldn't you include alcoholism in a list of psychiatric illnesses?

I didn't say I wouldn't. I said it depends on whether or not one does. Many people argue that it is a physical, chemical addiction as opposed to a psychological one, and while I don't think that is a perfect description of its nature, it makes far more sense than simply claiming "it's a psychiatric illness"

Dave!

Fair play for proposing it... But it won't be passed.

Jeebus

TheOlster wrote: »

oh wow labour is delving into headline grabbing politics without thinking it through.Legitimise another drug and through it into the mix eh? how foolish this would be,this would put an enormous strain on the health service in the future with new cases of lung cancer etc,if this measure was introduced it would be a ticking time bomb,legitimising it would lead to people having less of a problem doing it putting aside the fact that it would be more easily available,and what about the effects of long term abuse,psychiatric illnesses anyone?It couldn't do a whole lot of good for the economy either ,people wouldn't get out of bed!...but hey ,the measure would do wonders for the snacks industry,which would bring us to the obesity problem,slight use of hyperbole on this point ,i grant thee.

Most incredibly ill-researched post I have EVER in my 9 or so years of constant posting on the internets.

Suppose people can't help being a victim of propaganda though.

Rhonda9000

DaveMcG wrote: »

Fair play for proposing it... But it won't be passed.

Indeed. And fair play to the hysterical, screaming, inarticulate labour candidates for the chaotic presentation of the idea at their conference. Who knew politics could be such fun.

Wertz

InFront wrote: »

It's pretty certain that genetic susceptibility to a psychotic illness "muddies the waters" alright, but you're wrong to suggest the above. There is a wealth of evidence to go further than what you suggest, but I'm wary of getting into this argument because the last time I did, a few people started suggesting that such evidence is all a big Government/ Drug Company/ Academic conspiracy

I didn't say I wouldn't. I said it depends on whether or not one does. Many people argue that it is a physical, chemical addiction as opposed to a psychological one, and while I don't think that is a perfect description of its nature, it makes far more sense than simply claiming "it's a psychiatric illness"

Before I replied to your last post I googled just to make sure I hadn't been usurped by some new study....the last ones that held any sway are the ones everyone refers to in this argument from June '05; a Danish study and one carried out in New York. Neither drew conclusive proof or could point to a definitive link (unlike that of alcohol dementia with physical brain damage).

The gist of both studies can be read here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4486548.stm

If there's any new evidence then I haven't seen and would like to.

As for alcoholism being defined as a psychiatric disorder, you'll find that alcoholism itself isn't physically treatable....the most a doctor can do for an alco is give them valium and a course of antibuse, the rest is up to them.
A psychiatrist is of far more value in treating the condition (with the patients will to stop)....of course a balanced approach to treatment needs to be taken, you have to treat the underlying mental causes of why the person drinks in the way that they do and treat the physical withdrawal and cravings.

I believe I was the one you ended up in an argument last time in a thread like this with me citing government/drug company collusion in keeping marijuana in it's current legal state. No-one's asking you to believe that, but you can't for one moment say that major drug company's aren't sh*tting themselves that some of their most lucrative products could be rendered defunct by medicinal cannabis.

To sum up, the mental disorder link is still somewhat tenuous although it obviously carries water. Using it as a reason for not decrimnalising cannabis is shortsighted, since as already mentioned, the users are all out there already, all smoking themselves into padded rooms.
It's also hypocritical to cite such studies and yet continue to keep alcohol legal when it is proven to cause brain damage, and many other physical conditions.
Is brain damage, cirrhosis of the liver, or stomach cancer on the minds of thousands of revellers heading down to the pub at the w/e? I doubt it; it was never on mine. Same way as schizophrenia or lung cancer doesn't really cross the minds of dope smokers.
Vis a vis, most people don't actually care, they just want to get high...and if the product they're using to do that is taxed in such a way as to recoup any losses to later health conditions, like it is with tobacco and alcohol then what's the problems?

keen

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

Indeed. And fair play to the hysterical, screaming, inarticulate labour candidates for the chaotic presentation of the idea at their conference. Who knew politics could be such fun.

Indeed what a ****ing over the top moron.

Terry

There's a study under way in TCD at the moment.
I can't find a link to it, but they give you a €50 voucher for shops if you take part.

It's basically a study on the effects of drugs on long term users.
I'm sure quite a few of you fit that catergory.

keen

Terry wrote: »

There's a study under way in TCD at the moment.
I can't find a link to it, but they give you a €50 voucher for shops if you take part.

It's basically a study on the effects of drugs on long term users.
I'm sure quite a few of you fit that catergory.

If you find the link PM me.

Wertz

Is that the one on ecstasy that had Joe Duffy's listeners up in arms about a year back? People were ringing in saying that the €50 book voucher was too much of an incentive and was encouraging students to go out and take lots of dangerous tablets.
I felt like calling in and saying "Whooooosh"...

Sonnenblumen

Terry wrote: »

Stagg won't be getting my vote again.

Back to the phoenix park with ya.

Oh the fickle voters, thin on policy, high on prejudice.

Time Magazine

It's not the same study, Wertz. There's always new research being conducted.

InFront

Wertz wrote: »

the last ones that held any sway are the ones everyone refers to in this argument from June '05

You're completely wrong, and if you're using Google to authenticate your beliefs you're probably far more wrong than you realise. Research on marijuana and psychotic illness has now got to the stage where this link is now taken as having been established comprehensively. Journals will often only collate series of papers establishing these links and discuss their collective findings as opposed to any one paper establishing a link to psychosis, such is the abundance of evidence in this regard.
I refer you most recently to The Lancet (Vol 370) of last July and August which ran a particularly impressive collection of these papers establishing the link, but again I'd reitierate I'm not willing to debate the thing with someone who can simply disregard such evidence by shrugging it off as a big Government and drug company conspiracy again, without producing evidence to the contrary.

3greenrizla's

Lands Leaving wrote: »

This is NEVER EVER going to happen. Where would it even be sold or consumed? There's a smoking ban for gods sake,

It probably wont happen, & it is only going to be debated by a minor party (or one who wont form a government on their own)

If it does happen, it would probably be a change in the law relating to possession.... it may still be an offence to supply.

Terry

Wertz wrote: »

Is that the one on ecstasy that had Joe Duffy's listeners up in arms about a year back? People were ringing in saying that the €50 book voucher was too much of an incentive and was encouraging students to go out and take lots of dangerous tablets.
I felt like calling in and saying "Whooooosh"...

Ibid wrote: »

It's not the same study, Wertz. There's always new research being conducted.

It is the same one.
I read about it in some paper last week.
Said it was the same one and gave a bit of detail about the Joe Duffy listeners and quoted the professor as saying something like 'We're just looking for people who would be doing drugs anyway and have been doing them for a few years. We are not giving cash to anyone. We are giving vouchers for shops, but they can't be used in head shops.'

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Oh the fickle voters, thin on policy, high on prejudice.

Oh the fickle posters.
So quick to jump to conclusiopns and unable to read sarcasm.

Regardless, he got my #1 vote, so I'm entitled to question his policies.

InFront wrote: »

You're completely wrong, and if you're using Google to authenticate your beliefs you're probably far more wrong than you realise. Research on marijuana and psychotic illness has now got to the stage where this link is now taken as having been established comprehensively. Journals will often only collate series of papers establishing these links and discuss their collective findings as opposed to any one paper establishing a link to psychosis, such is the abundance of evidence in this regard.
I refer you most recently to The Lancet (Vol 370) of last July and August which ran a particularly impressive collection of these papers establishing the link, but again I'd reitierate I'm not willing to debate the thing with someone who can simply disregard such evidence by shrugging it off as a big Government and drug company conspiracy again, without producing evidence to the contrary.

But, yeah, man. Like they're just, like, trying to kill our buzz, maaaan.

Hardcore stoners refuse to believe any negative findings about cannabis.
You only need to read some of their ramblings here to see that.

mise_me_fein

I think the way it is at the moment is fine here. No one really gets into trouble for using it.

Leave the law the way it is. I actaully think if we had a referendum that it would get defeated. We're a conservative country as many people have said.

Hash/Weed/Whatever can be a lot more damaging to some people than you think. It can really derail "some" people from whatever they are doing in life to become complete wasters.

If you want it you can get it, but lets not make it readily available.

The smoking ban has helped a lot of people quit smoking.

It wasn't a call to legalise cannabis, it was a call to decriminalise cannabis.
There is a difference!

ScumLord

There is no political party that I would support, I usually vote for independents or minority party's just to take the vote away from the bigger party's. If labor go ahead with this they will have my vote and the votes of allot of my friends.

There is no doubt cannabis has side effects, everything does. Long term use of real butter will cause health problems but that's life. Cannabis is not a dangerous drug in the sense you can use it all your life and suffer little if any serious health problems (as long as you don't over do it).

How many people die every year from an overdose?
Have you ever even heard of a cannabis anonymous?
How many cannabis users do you see begging on the street?

This thought that cannabis the country will grind to a halt because everyone will be too stoned to go to work is pure stupidity. The vast majority of people that do drugs (inc. alcohol) don't like going around in a stupor the hole time. Having a drink/smoke is a reward or a way to relax after a long days work.

mise_me_fein

ScumLord wrote: »

There is no political party that I would support, I usually vote for independents or minority party's just to take the vote away from the bigger party's. If labor go ahead with this they will have my vote and the votes of allot of my friends.

There is no doubt cannabis has side effects, everything does. Long term use of real butter will cause health problems but that's life. Cannabis is not a dangerous drug in the sense you can use it all your life and suffer little if any serious health problems (as long as you don't over do it).

How many people die every year from an overdose?
Have you ever even heard of a cannabis anonymous?
How many cannabis users do you see begging on the street?

This thought that cannabis the country will grind to a halt because everyone will be too stoned to go to work is pure stupidity. The vast majority of people that do drugs (inc. alcohol) don't like going around in a stupor the hole time. Having a drink/smoke is a reward or a way to relax after a long days work.

Who says you have to die for a drug to be a bad thing for some people?

People can suffer breakdowns or can become complete wasters. I'm against legalizing where it would be sold in cafes or shops.

I think the Brits have it correct.

ScumLord

Your never going to have the coffieshop setup you have in the dam but we could have restaurants that serve it in the starters. Although the best way IMO would be a registered grower, allow any one that wants to go up to 6 plants for there own personal use. They would be registered and subject to inspections to prevent criminal gangs growing tons of it. Everyone's happy.

mise_me_fein wrote:

Who says you have to die for a drug to be a bad thing for some people?

I don't know? I know I didn't. I am just highlighting the fact that this "terrible scourge of a drug" hasn't actually killed anyone.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

aspirin kills people, and the sick ****s still sell it in pharmacies.
there's no justice.