Labour delegates call to legalise cannabis

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.

mise_me_fein

ScumLord wrote: »

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.

Hey man, I'm happy with things the way they are.

If you feel that strong about it, set up a party and campaign.

Despite the views here on the boards, I'm pretty sure this is not the view of most of the population - that can vote.

bubonicus

InFront wrote: »

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.

Breaking news :
16 November 2007

MedWire News: Schizophrenia risk is not influenced by variations in the cannabinoid receptor (CNR1) and alpha7-nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (CHRNA7) genes, say UK researchers.

They also found no evidence for the purported effects of cannabis use on schizophrenia according to variation in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene.

Schizophrenia is associated with an increased use of tobacco and cannabis, with evidence suggesting that patients may use the drug to alleviate neurophysiological symptoms. The benefits of these substances are thought to be mediated through their effects on CHRNA7 and CNR1, respectively, notes the team.

They therefore looked at the effects of variants in the genes encoding CHRNA7 and CNR1 on the risk for schizophrenia and the potential effects of tobacco and cannabis use.

Stanley Zammit, from Cardiff University, and colleagues genotyped 750 patients with schizophrenia and 688 mentally healthy controls for the CHRNA7 promoter polymorphism -86C/T and the CNR1 polymorphism rs1049353. They also gathered information on tobacco and cannabis use via interviews and case-note records.

In addition, the team conducted a case-only study of 493 participants from the schizophrenia group, examining interactions between cannabis use and the Val158Met polymorphism in the COMT gene, as well as the rs737865 and rs165599 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

The team reports in the British Journal of Psychiatry that there was no evidence of an association between the CHRNA7 -86C/T genotype and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia patients were 4.4 times more likely than controls to smoke, but among the schizophrenia patients, there was no association between tobacco use and the -86C/T genotype.

Similarly, there was no significant association between the CNR1 rs1049353 genotype and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia patients were 2.6 times more likely than controls to use cannabis, but cannabis use was not affected by rs1049353 genotype among schizophrenia patients.

The results also showed that there were no associations between the Val158Met genotype and cannabis use, or between cannabis use and the variations at rs737865 and rs165599.

The only genetic effect on phenotypes of schizophrenia was a weak association between the -86C/T genotype and a younger age at onset of schizophrenia.

“In summary, we failed to find any evidence that variation at the CHRNA7 or CNR1 locus was associated with schizophrenia, or that the effect of variation at these loci was modified by use of tobacco or cannabis, respectively,” the researchers write.

They add: “Cannabis use was not associated with the presence of valine allele at Val158Met with COMT in our sample, therefore our findings do not support a previous report of a putative gene–environment interaction between COMT genotype and cannabis use on risk of schizophrenia.”

Link:
http://www.psychiatrysource.com/NewsItem/Cannabis-and-smoking-gene-links-to-schizophrenia-u.aspx?l1=3&firstpage=true

*Just to keep all the drinkers happy, I am not saying Cannabis is full of natural goodness, but lets not be calling the election before all the votes are in.

ScumLord

mise_me_fein wrote: »

Hey man, I'm happy with things the way they are.

If you feel that strong about it, set up a party and campaign.

Despite the views here on the boards, I'm pretty sure this is not the view of most of the population - that can vote.

Most people wouldn't really care, they where brought up to believe drugs are bad mmkay and have no interest in hearing anything to the contry.

It's just not right to criminalise anyone for enjoying cannabis. I am involved over at cannabisireland.com but I don't get to spend as much time as I would like there, I'm a busy man I barely have time for a spliff these days.

mise_me_fein

You know the way things are in Ireland. Nobody really goes to jail for smoking hash. Isn't it decriminalized in Britain?

Something like that would be ok but I'm against the situation in Holland personally.

bubonicus

mise_me_fein wrote: »

You know the way things are in Ireland. Nobody really goes to jail for smoking hash. Isn't it decriminalized in Britain?

Something like that would be ok but I'm against the situation in Holland personally.

Well informed post. :rolleyes:

Sonnenblumen

Terry wrote: »

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.



QUOTE]

Its more like cynical prejudice is getting in the way of your search for an answer. Otherwise why not explain what or why the relevance of Stagg's sexual preferences etc?

How modest to dress a prima facia personal attack and consider it sarcasm?

How lame, how redundant.

3greenrizla's

mise_me_fein wrote: »

You know the way things are in Ireland. Nobody really goes to jail for smoking hash.

no but people do get criminal records, which could mean you would not be able to travel to the US or could effect (certain) job oppertunities.



forgot to mention - the fines (I was going to say hefty, but I suppose that depends on how much disposable income you have)

Terry

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Terry wrote: »

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.

Its more like cynical prejudice is getting in the way of your search for an answer. Otherwise why not explain what or why the relevance of Stagg's sexual preferences etc?

How modest to dress a prima facia personal attack and consider it sarcasm?

How lame, how redundant.

You never give up, do you?

It was a joke.

If I was bothered at all by his sexual preferences, he wouldn't have gotten my vote in every election for the past 14 years.

Get over yourself.

Sonnenblumen

Terry wrote: »

You never give up, do you?

It was a joke.

If I was bothered at all by his sexual preferences, he wouldn't have gotten my vote in every election for the past 14 years.

Get over yourself.

Oh now I understand, first I missed your "I voted for him, so therefore I can make fun/mock him" logic, then I missed your "sarcasm", now your rationale is it's OK to make fun of his sexual preferences even though they don't bother you??? It's a rather strange way to demonstrate loyalty?

Why should I give up, you're the one that needs to get up!

Fair game to make fun of the policy but at least respect the person's private life!

End of lesson.

Terry

Shut the fúck up and get off your high horse.

What the hell are you getting so upset about anyway?
Were you in the Phoenix park that night?

You're in serious need of a sense of humour.