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
12357…10

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Irishcrx
    Registered Users Posts: 2,861 ✭✭✭Irishcrx


    chickenhawk wrote: »
    You are joking right?

    Most large companies in America do a drugs test before you can start and randomly during the year. It has happened to me and I think the legalisation of some drugs would bring random drug testing by companies into Ireland. It's an extra hassle I don't need.

    Em no?...and if it is an extra hassle then don't smoke it simple just because it could be legal doesn't mean it is being forced upon you, and i'm sure the policy's of company's would change depending on the type of job you are doing if the law changed. And the US seem to coping with it quite well , not to mention the medical benefits it has brought forward.


  • Options
    #123
    daveharnett
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    chickenhawk wrote: »
    Ok. So that means that if someone is shot by another person (in a drug war for example) the shooter is the cause of that incident and people should just ignore the reasons behind the attack because it was not immediately evident?
    Good answer chickenhawk. My point was that
    A: regardless of drug legislation, there are perfectly good laws to deal with muggers and robbers.
    B: regardless of the habits of the mugger/robber in question, he/she is ultimately responsible for his actions. He/she cannot legally or morally blame the drugs.

    To address the example you posed, yes understanding the context in which the crime took place might be useful. However, the bottom line is that the shooter is responsible for his actions. His crime is murder, not gang membership.


  • Options
    #124
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Terry wrote: »
    Then you would be extremely naive.
    These are people who have no problem shooting their rivals, friends and customers.
    Do you remember the recent damp cocaine thing?
    Have you ever heard of contaminated heroin being sold?

    These are people who prey on the weaknesses of others for their own profit.
    They really don't give a damn about their customers because there will always be some jackass looking to buy.
    All the more reason to legalise them and ensure they are produced in a high-standard environment so, no?
    Dragan wrote: »
    Personally know one would be able to put forth a compelling argument for the legalisation of cocaine, heroine, or any of those types of drugs.

    I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing for that, or at least i hope not.
    Dragan, it would stop heroin from being cut with whatever ****e is going into it. The dirty stuff being sold in this country is not pure heroin.


  • Options
    #125
    daveharnett
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    Terry wrote: »
    Mine eyes have seen.
    Twenty years ago, the idea of doing cocaine would have bee abhorrent to most people. However, as it became more popular, more people decided that it was not abhorrent and started using it.
    So a drug's popularity can increase regardless of it's legal status. That's fine, but not really the point.
    Terry wrote: »
    Decriminalise these drugs and you remove the stigma.
    I'm not so sure Terry. I think perhaps you may be overestimating the extent to which people are led by the law. How many people choose not to try heroin because it's illegal?

    Nutmeg is legal, there is no stigma associated with it's use, and yet I've never been tempted. The problem is that it's just not a good drug.


  • Options
    #126
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Ok say drugs were legalised for use here,why would that stop drugs being cut with sh!t?Columbia,afghanistan et al are not going to legalise their drug trade any time soon.Weed in amsterdam has been shown to be contaminated on more than one occasion,what would stop this?Do people envisage being able to walk into a corner shop and pick up an ounce of opium,like sherlock holmes?Deluded if so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Dudess wrote: »
    All the more reason to legalise them and ensure they are produced in a high-standard environment so, no?

    Dragan, it would stop heroin from being cut with whatever ****e is going into it. The dirty stuff being sold in this country is not pure heroin.

    Again you are just removing the stigma and making the drugs more accessible.

    It's not rocket science.

    Remove the stigma, more people do it, more get addicted, more steal to support their habit, more crimes are committed.
    It doesn't matter if it's pure or not, people will still take it if they are addicted.

    A simple analogy would be a smoker out of cigarettes. He'll smoke a different brand to ease the craving. He won't really like it, but it will do until he gets to the shops for more of his own brand.

    Also, don't think that heroin wouldn't be sold on the streets.
    There's going to be some guy cutting it and selling it to kids who will then get hooked and continue to buy the street gear until they come of age and are able to buy the legal stuff.


  • Options
    #128
    daveharnett
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    Dragan wrote: »
    Personally know one would be able to put forth a compelling argument for the legalisation of cocaine, heroine, or any of those types of drugs.

    I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing for that, or at least i hope not.

    I would argue for that. Calling for an activity to be decriminalised does not equate with advocating that activity.

    IIRC, we decriminalised suicide a while back, and nobody accused the government of promoting it.


  • Options
    #129
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    daveharnett wrote: »
    So a drug's popularity can increase regardless of it's legal status. That's fine, but not really the point.



    I'm not so sure Terry. I think perhaps you may be overestimating the extent to which people are led by the law. How many people choose not to try heroin because it's illegal?

    Nutmeg is legal, there is no stigma associated with it's use, and yet I've never been tempted. The problem is that it's just not a good drug.[/QUOTE]
    Curiosity killed the cat.
    Also, given the choice between heroin and nutmeg, most would choose the latter as it gives a better high.
    brianthebard wrote: »
    Ok say drugs were legalised for use here,why would that stop drugs being cut with sh!t?Columbia,afghanistan et al are not going to legalise their drug trade any time soon.Weed in amsterdam has been shown to be contaminated on more than one occasion,what would stop this?Do people envisage being able to walk into a corner shop and pick up an ounce of opium,like sherlock holmes?Deluded if so.
    Sadly, I think some people see the legalisation of drugs leading to some sort of utopia.


  • Options
    #130
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    Dudess wrote: »
    All the more reason to legalise them and ensure they are produced in a high-standard environment so, no?

    Dragan, it would stop heroin from being cut with whatever ****e is going into it. The dirty stuff being sold in this country is not pure heroin.

    All the really bad effects that we see from Heroin are down to two things. The substance itself that causes the addiction and then the agents it is cut with.

    Is pure heroin "safer" that cut to **** heroin? Yes, it is. No doubt, but it is still just as addictive. I was talking to a guy one night who has been on heroin for 25 years. A very successful man, great job, happy family, lots of money. Able to get himself the best of stuff and had the avenues to do so.

    However, he was a still a junkie and was still able to list to me all the things that heoin has cost him.

    I fail to see any viable argument for the legalisation of such things. When something can get you so strongly addicted to it, it can never be a good thing.


  • Options
    #131
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    daveharnett wrote: »
    I would argue for that. Calling for an activity to be decriminalised does not equate with advocating that activity.

    IIRC, we decriminalised suicide a while back, and nobody accused the government of promoting it.
    Suicide is not addictive, does not get you high (ok, sometimes an attempt will) and you won't do it again if you are successful.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    nibble
    Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭nibble


    Dragan wrote: »
    Personally know one would be able to put forth a compelling argument for the legalisation of cocaine, heroine, or any of those types of drugs.

    I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing for that, or at least i hope not.

    Well I honestly am in favour of blanket legalisation of drugs, that means everything (ducks!!).
    Like I said, people have free will and will do heroin and cocaine if they wish. Is it directly hurting anyone else? No, it isn't so why should it be the choice of legislators to decide what I can legally do to myself?

    Also I feel people are a bit misinformed when it comes to the effects/dangers of various drugs. I mean if you take H as an example, it really really isn't that "bad for you". I know this might shock some of you who think instant death is a side effect of the drug, but it honestly does have very few negative health impacts, this isn't conjecture it's fact. Just look at its (along with morphine etc.) medicinal use, the only real negative aspect of their use is addiction and dependence.


  • Options
    #133
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    I'm with nibble. :)


  • Options
    #134
    chickenhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭chickenhawk


    Irishcrx wrote: »
    Em no?...and if it is an extra hassle then don't smoke it simple just because it could be legal doesn't mean it is being forced upon you.

    I don't smoke and yet I have already been tested once this year and three times last year.
    daveharnett wrote: »
    B: regardless of the habits of the mugger/robber in question, he/she is ultimately responsible for his actions. He/she cannot legally or morally blame the drugs.

    An addiction is a powerful thing. If a person is mugged then the mugger is responsible. However if that person was not addicted to drugs and was in less need for the money (and I know people get mugged by people other than addicts) the chances of them committing a crime is lessened because they have less need for it.
    Dudess wrote: »
    Dragan, it would stop heroin from being cut with whatever ****e is going into it. The dirty stuff being sold in this country is not pure heroin.

    Why should we spend our taxes to make sure that a high grade of heroin is available for junkies?


  • Options
    #135
    daveharnett
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    Terry wrote: »
    Suicide is not addictive, does not get you high (ok, sometimes an attempt will) and you won't do it again if you are successful.
    The point was that suicide is not something that any sensible person would recommend, It's not good for the individual, or society, and it's certainly not good for dart drivers. Despite all of these drawbacks, we can all agree that it should not fall within the scope of criminal justice.

    I would regard the use of ALL recreational drugs in the same light, regardless of their merits or lack thereof.


  • Options
    #136
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    nibble wrote: »
    Well I honestly am in favour of blanket legalisation of drugs, that means everything (ducks!!).
    Like I said, people have free will and will do heroin and cocaine if they wish. Is it directly hurting anyone else? No, it isn't so why should it be the choice of legislators to decide what I can legally do to myself?

    Also I feel people are a bit misinformed when it comes to the effects/dangers of various drugs. I mean if you take H as an example, it really really isn't that "bad for you". I know this might shock some of you who think instant death is a side effect of the drug, but it honestly does have very few negative health impacts, this isn't conjecture it's fact. Just look at its (along with morphine etc.) medicinal use, the only real negative aspect of their use is addiction and dependence.

    The only way to really know how a drug will affect you is to take it.

    Sure, Heroin is not that "bad for you" as i already detailed, but it is still a highly addictive substance in it's pure form. It is really not good to be psychologically or physiologically addicted to something to the point that prolonged Heroin usage will get you.

    That is definitely not healthy. Some things have no real place in a functioning society and should simple not be available to people with a degree of ease.

    At the end of the day the role of our Government is to make the decisions based around what would or would not be good for us.

    I just happen to disagree with them but i most certainly agree with them with regards to keeping Heroin illegal.


  • Options
    #137
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    nibble wrote: »
    Well I honestly am in favour of blanket legalisation of drugs, that means everything (ducks!!).
    Like I said, people have free will and will do heroin and cocaine if they wish. Is it directly hurting anyone else? No, it isn't so why should it be the choice of legislators to decide what I can legally do to myself?

    Also I feel people are a bit misinformed when it comes to the effects/dangers of various drugs. I mean if you take H as an example, it really really isn't that "bad for you". I know this might shock some of you who think instant death is a side effect of the drug, but it honestly does have very few negative health impacts, this isn't conjecture it's fact. Just look at its (along with morphine etc.) medicinal use, the only real negative aspect of their use is addiction and dependence.
    Not hurting anyone except for the person at the wrong end of the blood filled syringe.

    Oh, you can live with addiction, but it's not very nice.
    This is coming from someone with addictions to four legal drugs.


  • Options
    #138
    chickenhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭chickenhawk


    nibble wrote: »
    the only real negative aspect of their use is addiction and dependence.

    You don't think that is a serious negative aspect?

    Addiction and dependence can ruin lives and make people only think about where their next high is coming from.

    Our health service can barely deal with the amount of obese people stuffing their faces with chocolate and fast food. People should be able to regulate themselves is an argument you put forward. Yet many people are dieing because they eat food that is less addictive than drugs. If drugs were taken to the same extent can you imagine how full the hospitals would be?


  • Options
    #139
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    nibble wrote: »
    Is it directly hurting anyone else? No, it isn't so

    Go tell that to the families in the inner city. Heroin destroys communities.
    nibble wrote: »
    why should it be the choice of legislators to decide what I can legally do to myself?

    Because your actions affect those around you.

    You may not care if you affect other people, but the legislators do.
    nibble wrote: »
    Also I feel people are a bit misinformed when it comes to the effects/dangers of various drugs. I mean if you take H as an example, it really really isn't that "bad for you". I know this might shock some of you who think instant death is a side effect of the drug, but it honestly does have very few negative health impacts, this isn't conjecture it's fact. Just look at its (along with morphine etc.) medicinal use, the only real negative aspect of their use is addiction and dependence.

    It's the affect heroin has on society which is damaging.

    Again, I hate having to repeat myself, but drugs aren't banned because they are or aren't bad for you, they are banned because they are bad for society.


  • Options
    #140
    daveharnett
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    dublindude wrote: »
    Again, I hate having to repeat myself, but drugs aren't banned because they are or aren't bad for you, they are banned because they are bad for society.
    Follow that line of thinking and you end up in china.


  • Options
    #141
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    daveharnett wrote: »
    Follow that line of thinking and you end up in china.
    Legalise drugs and we'll end up with anarchy.

    Sorry your honour, I only did it because I was high.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    chickenhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭chickenhawk


    Terry wrote: »
    Sorry your honour, I only did it because I was high.

    There was a song about that a couple of years ago.


  • Options
    #143
    daveharnett
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    Terry wrote: »
    Legalise drugs and we'll end up with anarchy.
    Sorry your honour, I only did it because I was high.
    That excuse doesn't wash in any court anywhere. Unless somebody literally forces you to take the drugs in question. I don't quite advocate that approach:P


  • Options
    #144
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    daveharnett wrote: »
    That excuse doesn't wash in any court anywhere. Unless somebody literally forces you to take the drugs in question. I don't quite advocate that approach:P
    It works for alcoholics. All they have to do is go to a few AA meetings and they walk.
    Legalise drugs and just swap AA with NA.


  • Options
    #145
    Earthhorse
    Registered Users Posts: 14,714 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    I can picture it now; Dublin's criminal underworld waking up to a city in which drugs are decriminalised.

    "What are we gonna do now?"

    "Well, we could flood the market with cheaper equivalents, sabotage farmer's crops, burn out our competitors and generally strongarm anyone who co-operates with this out of co-operating with it."

    "Nah, I'm gonna finally write that musical I've always dreamed of."

    AH, AH, it's a hell of a board!
    daveharnett wrote: »
    Follow that line of thinking and you end up in china.

    Yeah, Ireland feels exactly like China to me.

    Don't tell anyone this but I'm not an only child.


  • Options
    #146
    slipss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭slipss


    Earthhorse wrote: »
    I can picture it now; Dublin's criminal underworld waking up to a city in which drugs are decriminalised.

    "What are we gonna do now?"

    "Well, we could flood the market with cheaper equivalents, sabotage farmer's crops, burn out our competitors and generally strongarm anyone who co-operates with this out of co-operating with it."

    "Nah, I'm gonna finally write that musical I've always dreamed of."

    AH, AH, it's a hell of a board!

    Finally someone talking sense. I mean remember the bombing of St James' Gate a couple of years ago, that was horrific, and the string of assassination attempts on B&H employees that plagued Tallaght back in 2002?


  • Options
    #147
    rowlandbrowner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 263 ✭✭rowlandbrowner


    Currently Ireland needs to legalise 4 things, abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage and prostitution (amoung other things.. but those I feel are the most important) But another drug is a bad idea. We have too many people abusing the currently legal ones as it is. We need to get our drink problem under control first.


  • Options
    #148
    Earthhorse
    Registered Users Posts: 14,714 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    slipss wrote: »
    Finally someone talking sense. I mean remember the bombing of St James' Gate a couple of years ago, that was horrific, and the string of assassination attempts on B&H employees that plagued Tallaght back in 2002?

    Yes, I remember when the manufacture and distribution of alcohol and cigarettes was in the hands of international criminal gangs. It's completely analogous. Well played.


  • Options
    #149
    slipss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭slipss


    Earthhorse wrote: »
    Yes, I remember when the manufacture and distribution of alcohol and cigarettes was in the hands of international criminal gangs. It's completely analogous. Well played.

    Analogous huh? I'll have to take your word for it. (You really think a bunch of kids, and beer bellied oul fellas from finglas would be able to strong arm the types of corporation {like malboro or diageo} that would develop if ecstacy for example was legal?) I think you overestimate the all encompasing power of a 26 year old heroin addict with a rusty sawn off shot gun, my freind.


  • Options
    #150
    Earthhorse
    Registered Users Posts: 14,714 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    Good man.

    Ah, you edited your post. Couldn't just take my word for it, eh?

    You really think criminal gangs are going to let a market slip away without a fight. I think you underestimate the power of greed my friend.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    slipss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭slipss


    Well how much of a grip did the chicago mafia have on alcohol by the 40's or 50's? I'm gonna leave it there and we can agree to disagree, these drug threads never go anywhere productive.


Advertisement