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

Time to legalise some drugs?

Options
24567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    "Most people"? Where did you get that from? Most people who use drugs do so recreationally - i.e. a bit of indulgence on a Saturday night and that's it. Again, you could apply what you said to drink - plenty of people don't know how to drink sensibly.


  • Options
    #33
    chickenhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭chickenhawk


    Dudess wrote: »
    You could apply that to alcohol.

    I just haven't been brainwashed by anti drugs propaganda, that's all. Saying stuff like drug users can rot in hell and all that crap is just laughable.

    Apart from heroin, drugs can be taken recreationally and most people don't develop problems - just like alcohol.

    Have you never heard about anyone dieing after taking ecstasy or a good well known example is Katy French who died after taking illegal drugs.


  • Options
    #34
    ~Rebel~
    Registered Users Posts: 31,207 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    In theory its all well and good, but if its just us doing it, we end up turning into a holiday destination for stoners, like Amsterdam did. Couldn't see it happening anyway, this being the country that put a nationwide ban on mushrooms overnight, effectively on a whim. Yeah a guy died after jumping off a roof, but how many have died doing stupid things while pissed.


  • Options
    #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I have seen the damage drugs has done to some people i knew.
    Drugs are illegal for a reason, cop on.


  • Options
    #36
    ~Rebel~
    Registered Users Posts: 31,207 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    LittleNipper wrote: »
    I have seen the damage drugs has done to some people i knew.
    Drugs are illegal for a reason, cop on.

    theres 2 issue's from this imo.
    1) Alcohol is legal and I would imagine spawns far more problems then drugs.
    2) Freedom of choice. People who take drugs aren't forced to (well in most cases id imagine!), they choose to. Anything in excess is a bad thing, drink, drugs, food. I just think more education about the drugs and how you should use them If you're going to would go a lot further then scare-mongering, whether they become legalised or not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    gogglebok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 696 ✭✭✭gogglebok


    LittleNipper wrote: »
    I have seen the damage drugs has done to some people i knew.
    Drugs are illegal for a reason, cop on.

    Prosecuting people and putting them in prison is damaging. The damage people do to themselves with drugs is their responsibility. They have a right to assess the risks and make their own decisions.

    Do you want to ban everything that has potentially harmful consequences? Kids choke on Lego.


  • Options
    #38
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Im not trying to scare monger. i have done drugs in the past but i have been too many cocaine/heroin related funerals and im only 20.
    You're right that people need to be educated about drink and drugs.


  • Options
    #39
    ~Rebel~
    Registered Users Posts: 31,207 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    LittleNipper wrote: »
    Im not trying to scare monger. i have done drugs in the past but i have been too many cocaine/heroin related funerals and im only 20.
    You're right that people need to be educated about drink and drugs.

    Oh sorry, i didnt mean to imply that you were scare mongering, i just meant the government would be better off giving out useful and truthful information about proper usage etc rather then their usual scare mongering.


  • Options
    #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    gogglebok wrote: »
    Prosecuting people and putting them in prison is damaging. The damage people do to themselves with drugs is their responsibility. They have a right to assess the risks and make their own decisions.

    Do you want to ban everything that has potentially harmful consequences? Kids choke on Lego.
    No i dont, im just saying it would be ridiculous to legalize the likes of Heroin or Cocaine. Will end up with people ie Dying, losing all their money and homeless.


  • Options
    #41
    gogglebok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 696 ✭✭✭gogglebok


    ~Rebel~ wrote: »
    In theory its all well and good, but if its just us doing it, we end up turning into a holiday destination for stoners, like Amsterdam did.

    Which does sound horrible. But our primary responsibility is to our own citizens, and giving them control of their own bodies should not be negotiable.
    c - 13 wrote: »
    Because no one in the country have ever been mugged by a junkie so they can get their next fix?

    People get mugged for a lot of reasons. If you're suggesting that muggings will increase when the prohibition on drugs is relaxed, I think we'd need to see some evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,963 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    ah the neverending cyclical conversation about the legalisation of narcotics. mmmm.

    im on the fence. ive done weed in the past but i still have siblings that havent given the habit up. especially the girl - is simply unmotivated, and dropping out of school :/ and the drugs arent helping the situation. but to turn the cost of enforcing drug laws around would help a lot.


  • Options
    #43
    gogglebok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 696 ✭✭✭gogglebok


    LittleNipper wrote: »
    No i dont, im just saying it would be ridiculous to legalize the likes of Heroin or Cocaine. Will end up with people ie Dying, losing all their money and homeless.

    So you want to ban everything that someone can die during, spend money on, or leave home for?

    People do harmful things to themselves. If they're not hurting anyone else, why is it the government's business to stop them?


  • Options
    #44
    TPD
    Registered Users Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    chickenhawk wrote: »
    If weed was legalised the amount of people that would take it up or continue to do it would not be enough of an incentive tax wise to the problems it would cause in other areas i.e. people saying other drugs should be legalised and others trying to get it banned again.

    What about the 'legalisation will cause more people to start using it' argument? Slap similar tax onto weed as is on drink or smokes and the government will me rolling in the dough. Couple that with a booming tourist trade we'd no doubt generate, and id would more than pay for the few snacks hospitals would need to give the users.

    People are already saying that it should be legalised or kept illegal, it doesnt cost the government money to let people talk.

    And to whoever said the government would dumb down the strength: They do that with alcohol because it is dangerous in stronger volumes. Hash and weed are harmless no matter how strong, and a user will generally stop smoking once they reach their ideal level anyway.


  • Options
    #45
    chickenhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭chickenhawk


    ~Rebel~ wrote: »
    theres 2 issue's from this imo.
    1) Alcohol is legal and I would imagine spawns far more problems then drugs.
    2) Freedom of choice. People who take drugs aren't forced to (well in most cases id imagine!), they choose to. Anything in excess is a bad thing, drink, drugs, food. I just think more education about the drugs and how you should use them If you're going to would go a lot further then scare-mongering, whether they become legalised or not.

    Alcohol causes far more problems because it is taken on such a wide scale. If drugs were taken at the level that alcohol is taken the problems it would cause would far outweigh the problems alcohol causes.

    Freedom of choice is all well and good but as stated befoe the knock on effect of people needing to feed their habbits or losing their jobs etc due to drugs taking over their lives is something that will affect more than one person.


  • Options
    #46
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    gogglebok wrote: »
    So you want to ban everything that someone can die during, spend money on, or leave home for?

    People do harmful things to themselves. If they're not hurting anyone else, why is it the government's business to stop them?
    Read my posts. I said Cocaine/Heroin, hard drugs. Did i say i want to ban everything? No i didnt.
    Why would i ban it when its already banned.


  • Options
    #47
    chickenhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭chickenhawk


    TPD wrote: »
    And to whoever said the government would dumb down the strength: They do that with alcohol because it is dangerous in stronger volumes. Hash and weed are harmless no matter how strong, and a user will generally stop smoking once they reach their ideal level anyway.

    Ya cause people never over indulge? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #48
    TPD
    Registered Users Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    chickenhawk wrote: »
    Ya cause people never over indulge? :rolleyes:

    You become less motivated the more stoned you are. By the time you get to that 'one joint too many' you'll more than likely be too lazy to look for a packet of papers.

    The odd few will keep going no matter what, and the possible sore stomach is their burden for doing so.


  • Options
    #49
    ~Rebel~
    Registered Users Posts: 31,207 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    chickenhawk wrote: »
    Alcohol causes far more problems because it is taken on such a wide scale. If drugs were taken at the level that alcohol is taken the problems it would cause would far outweigh the problems alcohol causes.
    Drugs will never be used and abused to the same extent that drink is, it simply doesn't have the same social aspect drink does.
    Freedom of choice is all well and good but as stated befoe the knock on effect of people needing to feed their habbits or losing their jobs etc due to drugs taking over their lives is something that will affect more than one person.



    I would only be arguing for Marijuana and maybe a form of ecstacy to be honest, nothing heavily addictive that can trap someone and effectively take away their freedom of choice.


  • Options
    #50
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    darkman2 wrote: »
    Is legalisation something which is inevitable to deal with the criminal suppliers and dealers?

    No. Having a nation of druggies is not the solution.

    The solution is to introduce draconian anti-drugs laws, for example, dealing is an automatic life sentence, etc.

    The problem is we are too soft on crime in this country. We should take the scum off the streets permanently. I'd be willing to pay more tax to accomplish that.


  • Options
    #51
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    chickenhawk wrote: »
    Have you never heard about anyone dieing after taking ecstasy
    One case - Leah Betts. The coroner ruled her death was actually due to too much water consumption.
    I don't mean to diss you but I think you've been taken in a bit much by moral guardian types. It is possible to do drugs recreationally and be responsible about it - and I have never touched ecstasy/MDMA, cocaine or speed so I'm not speaking from personal bias. The most I'd do is a few drags off a spliff once in a blue moon. I do however have many, many friends, relatives and acquaintances who take drugs now and again - those who are at my age now (late 20s, early 30s) rarely use them, but they will during the summer for stuff like music festivals. Most of them phased it out as they got older. I could count on one hand those who have a problem now, and I'd know far more people with a drink problem.
    I would be very much in agreement with the notion that cocaine tends to be done by wanky, flash types (as well as people who aren't wanky and flash) but they're tossers anyway, the cocaine is only part of their image. And they don't deserve to be poisoned...
    or a good well known example is Katy French who died after taking illegal drugs.
    Sorry but that's incorrect. She overdosed. If you overdose on anything you dramatically up your risk of dying.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    gogglebok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 696 ✭✭✭gogglebok


    dublindude wrote: »
    The solution is to introduce draconian anti-drugs laws, for example, dealing is an automatic life sentence, etc.

    Dealing aside, would you imprison people for taking drugs?


  • Options
    #53
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    gogglebok wrote: »
    Dealing aside, would you imprison people for taking drugs?

    No, I feel sorry for people who take drugs. I've never met someone in their 30's who is a "happy" drug taker - they're always running from something.

    Teenagers and people in their early 20's are just being kids.

    People who are caught taking drugs should be forced to get counselling.


  • Options
    #54
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,379 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    chickenhawk wrote: »
    If someone wants to take cocaine they deserve the rat poison imo.
    The same people will complain about crime on the streets and yet they are funding it.
    I imagine in prohibition times people were saying the same thing about people who continued to buy illegal alcohol, "if somebody wants to drink whiskey they deserve the deadly methanol IMO". And I am sure that many illegal alcohol users also did complain about crime on the streets too. Many people are hypocritical about their drug use, when Cowen admitted smoking cannabis everybody was up in arms, yet in a interview Bertie said he never smoked it, but when asked if he took a pint he says "yes, plenty of those", and nobody bats an eyelid.
    Research published in the medical journal The Lancet rates the most dangerous drugs (starting with the worst) as follows:
    1. Heroin
    2. Cocaine
    3. Barbiturates
    4. Street methadone
    5. Alcohol
    6. Ketamine
    7. Benzodiazepines
    8. Amphetamine
    9. Tobacco
    10. Buprenorphine
    11. Cannabis
    12. Solvents
    13. 4-MTA
    14. LSD
    15. Methylphenidate
    16. Anabolic steroids
    17. GHB
    18. Ecstasy
    19. Alkyl nitrates
    20. Khat

    chickenhawk wrote: »
    If marijuana and ecstasy were legalised I don't think the drug dealers would stop. The government would probably weaken the effects of these drugs (most drink is limited to 40%) and some people would want to have more of a hit so they buy the illegal stuff.
    Do you know people who buy 95% illegal alcohol to have more of a hit?

    Some use the faulty logic that high strength cannabis is worse for you, but you simply have to smoke less to achieve the same high, so inhale less smoke overall. You simply adjust your intake to suit strength, just like drinking whiskey rather than beer, you do not stick to the same 6 pints.

    Of course dealers would still exist, just like people smuggle smokes and make poitin. But I imagine the vast amount of people would by in shops, just like smokes & beer. Most people do not want to have to buy contaminated drugs on the street, when prohibition was lifted in the US the illegal trade dropped dramatically, simple common sense would say why.

    Some people also have weird ideas about illegal drugs, that it would be impossible for anybody to take them at low doses. Many people I know would take drugs at very low threshold doses, people have no trouble accepting that their mother could enjoy 1 glass of wine, but refuse to believe somebody could have a barely noticeable amount of cannabis. Users are portrayed as degenerate insatiable scum, if alcohol was illegal lots would probably presume all users were winos on the street, pissed all day, and would laugh at the notion of somebody drinking a single beer and stopping "all those alcoholics are mugging people for their next fix".

    chickenhawk wrote: »
    Have you never heard about anyone dieing after taking ecstasy
    Yes, and in most cases it was not MDMA that killed them. The extremely low level of deaths from ecstasy for the massive user base is one of the reasons the drug is so attractive to many.


  • Options
    #55
    slipss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭slipss


    chickenhawk wrote: »
    Dublinwriter. There is a difference between alcohol and heroine.

    Sorry had to point that out, just wrecks my head.


  • Options
    #56
    FunkZ
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,179 ✭✭✭FunkZ


    slipss wrote: »
    Sorry had to point that out, just wrecks my head.

    Haha that's such an arsehole thing to do! Excellent :pac:


  • Options
    #57
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    chickenhawk wrote: »
    Have you never heard about anyone dieing after taking ecstasy
    Google 'Leah Betts'.


  • Options
    #58
    ~Rebel~
    Registered Users Posts: 31,207 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    Google 'Leah Betts'.

    just did (well actualy did after Dudess post earlier)...it says she didn't die from ecstasy, she died from water intoxication...
    An inquest determined that her death was actually not directly due to ecstasy consumption, but rather the large quantity of water she had consumed, apparently in observation of an advisory warning commonly given to ravers to drink water to avoid dehydration resulting from the exertion of dancing continuously for hours. Leah had been at home with friends and had not been dancing, yet consumed about 7 litres in less than 90 minutes, resulting in water intoxication and hyponatremia (low sodium levels; in this case due to the dilution of blood), which in turn led to serious swelling of the brain (cerebral oedema), irreparably damaging it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Betts


  • Options
    #59
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Even if you don't die from ecstacy, it has been shown long term use causes dementia in rats.

    It's not good for you.

    Anyway the reason its illegal has as much to do with people "not being themselves" when they're on drugs than about how harmful it is.

    No one thinks the current system is particularly good, but personally I prefer knowing the average person I meet around me isn't off their heads on something. We already have a ridiculous amount of selfishness/moronic behaviour/scumbags during sobriety.

    /Non-drinker


  • Options
    #60
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    ~Rebel~ wrote: »
    just did (well actualy did after Dudess post earlier)...it says she didn't die from ecstasy, she died from water intoxication...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Betts
    One of the side effects of E is a constant thirsty sensation. Leah Betts wouldn't have drunk the huge amount of water she did if it wasn't for the E she took.

    It wasn't an isolated case, but her folks decided to make her death-bed pictures public in a hope of turning other kids away from E. It was also ironic considering her Dad was a retired Detective Sergeant from a Drugs Unit of the UK Police.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    unreggd
    Registered Users Posts: 3,835 ✭✭✭unreggd


    They should ILLEGALISE behavior mod drugs

    so then people will take them, thinkin they're rebels, then get a job!


Advertisement