Time to legalise some drugs?

Tigger

Shazbot wrote: »

Everything is a toxin, it just depends on the dose. Hell, water could become toxic at a ludicrous dose.

this is not correct

toxin
A toxin generally refers to a naturally occurring substance that is poisonous (toxic) to your body in some way1. Toxins can be secreted by bacteria (examples: food poisoning, bacterial gastroenteritis, toxic shock syndrome, scarlet fever or scarletina), diphtheria, or perhaps be found in a plant (example: poisonous mushrooms) or food (example: aflatoxin, a toxin in peanuts).


water can harm in crazy amounts as it causes salt leeching which affectsthe sodium/potasium ionic gates in ones nervous system

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i want it to be made clear that i almost never use the following emoticon. I save it for the most ridiculous of ridiculous comments i come across: :rolleyes:

are you seriously saying that because i haven't worked out every detail of how to distribute drugs with budget estimates included my opinion on a thread on the internet isn't worth listening to ?

in your reply i would like a link to your project plan for solving the current drug problem without legalising them.

Look at the comment I quoted from your good self:

again, it's not really about the addicts. i don't give a **** if addicts destroy their lives.

I was replying directly to that statement, not budgetary concerns. Is the concept of quoting and responding to a quote a difficult concept for you to grasp? At this point I would insert a 'roll eyes', but we must remain civil!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

it seems you've completely missed the point i was making. criminals already sell everything that there is a demand for and they make as much money as they can from them. if drugs were made legal tomorrow, the demand for these other illlegal things wouldn't suddenly sky rocket.

what i mean is that they'd move onto something else because they'd be forced to but they wouldn't be moving into a new market, they'd be trying to squeeze extra money out of currently existing boot leg markets. the result would be far less money for them

What are you talking about? What do I care if the price of bootleg DVDs or whatever does or does not sky-rocket? What relevance does the criminal business plan have to do with this conversation?

Though not involved in drugs, we both agree that the criminal would still operate elsewhere. The only difference between our two positions was that I believe that this wouldn't constitute an overall advantage.

Tigger

ScumLord wrote: »

Drugs where no where near the huge international problem they are now, before prohibition came along. FACT. There was a slight opiates problem in china but it was nowhere near as bad as some would have let on.

You won't find any stat anywhere that can tell you anythings gotten better since prohibition came into affect.

but think of the shildren

Prohibition is the cause of the worlds drug/crime problem not drugs.


Scumbags don't do legitimate business all that well, or taxes. Their lazy and there isn't enough profit margin in legitimate business. Regulating drugs means we can have traceability like we do with Irish food.

It's never going to happen it seems politicians and the public at large prefer living in ghettos and having 50 cent wannabes roaming the streets making insane amounts of money. It makes us look cool like all the other developed countries.

fear is a brilliant marketing device
to have a rich liberal class one needs a strong middle/working class motivated by striving to stay out of the ubderclass

Shazbot

Tigger wrote: »

this is not correct

toxin
A toxin generally refers to a naturally occurring substance that is poisonous (toxic) to your body in some way1. Toxins can be secreted by bacteria (examples: food poisoning, bacterial gastroenteritis, toxic shock syndrome, scarlet fever or scarletina), diphtheria, or perhaps be found in a plant (example: poisonous mushrooms) or food (example: aflatoxin, a toxin in peanuts).


water can harm in crazy amounts as it causes salt leeching which affectsthe sodium/potasium ionic gates in ones nervous system

You really solidified my point. Everything is a toxin. Speaking in a pharmacological sense. Everything that we come into contact with can harm us, it's simplely dose depedant. Your dictionary quote only says naturally occurring substances but artificial substances can also be toxic.

slipss

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For instance:
*Have you thought about legislation?
*(1)How would you go about building a system that could dispense substances? *Would this be a state run body, a semi-private body, or a private body?
*(2)Can anyone purchase these drugs whenever they like? Or would it more of a rigid system - certain amounts at certain time for certain people? Which, in itself, could lead to a form of sub-dealing.
*3Do you have in mind age limits where people can take crack etc?
*4Would you expect the levels of addiction to rise or fall?
*5Do you believe it 'moral' for the State to dispense harmful substances given that it's function is to serve the best interests population? Or is the current illegal status of drugs the immoral choice?

I know that was asked of someone else, and it's not like I sit around all day trying to develop this system, or have an aptitude towards that kind of thing, so I'm sure there will be problems with this (i'm sure thier would be problems with a system I came up with to ensure efficiency in a telesales centre ect, (hopefully a team people whos jobs these things are could do worlds better) but:

(1) Private enterprise working under strict state guidlines enforced by severe consequences for breaching them would seem to make the most sense.

(2) Well age restrictions would certainly have to apply, you can't have 10 year olds buying coke or ecstacy any more than you can have them buying cars or alcohol, thats a give in. As for that leading to a form of sub-dealing i.e people targeting kids directly, well that could certainly prove to be a problem, but that happens already. We can agree it would certainly happen less, can't we? For one thing it is far more socially unexceptable to exclusively target drugs to children than it is just to sell drugs. Anyone selling drugs outside of regulation would be known to be specifically targeting children and I mean how many people do you know that earn a living by exclusively selling alcohol to children in thier neighbourhoods? I know none, maybe I live a sheltered life.

3 Well I'd imagine 18, that seems to be the standard for these sorts of things as its the age you are considered an adult.

4 I know some people will disagree with me here, but I would say in time they would fall dramatically. For one thing people using the drugs would already be in the system instead of waiting untill it has gotten to the stage that they are so addicted that they have come to the attention of the police or are incapable of living a productive life. For another (and we may differ of opinion here again) the drugs would be far far less available to people 13, 14, 15 years old and clearly someone is far more likely to become severley addicted the younger they start using. Also alot of drug dealers will do absalutely everything in thier power to ensure someone becomes addicted and remains that way. Things like purposefully aloowing to build up huge debts. Threatening them and thier families. Pretending to be thier best friend. Actually tracking them down when they are trying to quit and pushing the drug into thier hands. These things would obviosly violate the state guidlines and land you in prison, with a fine and have you stripped of your license permanently in a regualted system.

5 [This is really a matter of personal politics ect and could fill a 100 page thread on its own] What one considers moral differs greatly from person to person but I personally believe that as long as I am not harming anyone else then its none of the state's business. I fund them, I elect them, they are not supposed to enforce thier will on me they are supposed to do what I tell them to. This is a republic, they work for us, not the other way around.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Look at the comment I quoted from your good self:



I was replying directly to that statement, not budgetary concerns. Is the concept of quoting and responding to a quote a difficult concept for you to grasp? At this point I would insert a 'roll eyes', but we must remain civil!

fair enough i apologise. I misread your post. But your point is still invalid. I'm not making decisions for drugs addicts. I'm not in a position to be making decisions at all. All i care about is reducing the crime rate and saving taxes. they're adults and if they want to take drugs it's none of my business

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What are you talking about? What do I care if the price of bootleg DVDs or whatever does or does not sky-rocket? What relevance does the criminal business plan have to do with this conversation?

Though not involved in drugs, we both agree that the criminal would still operate elsewhere. The only difference between our two positions was that I believe that this wouldn't constitute an overall advantage.

so you're saying they'd just move onto something else and i mentioned several areas where criminals make money and you're asking what relevance this has to the advantage or lack thereof of removing the money they make from drugs........................?

The advantage is that all of the other illegal markets that criminals can make money from are already saturated and there's no way they can generate even a fraction of a percent of the money they make from drugs by trying to squeeze more money out of these markets

Do you think that if oil ran out tomorrow all the oil companies would "just move onto something else" and their revenues wouldn't be affected?

Tha Gopher

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you trotted out this argument a few months ago. It was ridiculous then and it's ridiculous now. I went through the whole argument point by point the last time but is cba this time. I'll just say that hash has been smoked since 10,000bc according to wikipedia so if you're suggesting that something is going to fundamentally change in ireland to make it the first country to eliminate hash for 12,000 years you haven't a clue what you're talking about

LOL What in the name of jesus does the fact people in Mesopotamia smoked ganj in 10,000 BC have to do with Ireland in 2020. As I said, cannabis will always be available worldwide. It will always remain obtainable in Africa, the Caribbean, basically anywhere with a suitable climate. It will not remain cheap or affordable in Ireland, due to the fact the Morrocans will eventually all but win their war on drugs, and the grass here is generally so badly cut it is not worth buying.

You my friend are still trotting out the same utter arse as all the rest did back then.

And I would be fairly sure you are one of the guys who never bothered replying to any response I gave to you. Because, of course, you didnt have one.

slipss

Tha Gopher wrote: »

It will always remain obtainable in Africa, the Caribbean, basically anywhere with a suitable climate.

Like Ireland? I agree.

Terry

Tha Gopher wrote: »

LOL What in the name of jesus does the fact people in Mesopotamia smoked ganj in 10,000 BC have to do with Ireland in 2020. As I said, cannabis will always be available worldwide. It will always remain obtainable in Africa, the Caribbean, basically anywhere with a suitable climate. It will not remain cheap or affordable in Ireland, due to the fact the Morrocans will eventually all but win their war on drugs, and the grass here is generally so badly cut it is not worth buying.

You my friend are still trotting out the same utter arse as all the rest did back then.

And I would be fairly sure you are one of the guys who never bothered replying to any response I gave to you. Because, of course, you didnt have one.

Indeed.
They also thought the world was flat back then.

brianthebard

Tha Gopher wrote: »

LOL What in the name of jesus does the fact people in Mesopotamia smoked ganj in 10,000 BC have to do with Ireland in 2020. As I said, cannabis will always be available worldwide. It will always remain obtainable in Africa, the Caribbean, basically anywhere with a suitable climate. It will not remain cheap or affordable in Ireland, due to the fact the Morrocans will eventually all but win their war on drugs, and the grass here is generally so badly cut it is not worth buying.

You my friend are still trotting out the same utter arse as all the rest did back then.

And I would be fairly sure you are one of the guys who never bothered replying to any response I gave to you. Because, of course, you didnt have one.

do you not see an inherent contradiction in claiming cannabis will be obtainable worldwide,but that if morocco stops producing it it won't be affordable in ireland?

rubadub

Dudess wrote: »

But heart attacks under 30 are so very rare, a large number of them are bound to be caused by drug misuse.

Also the fact is people snorting "cocaine" are not using pure cocaine, it is full of all sorts of crap. People will continue to use it still though no matter what. Before prohibition in the US I would imagine the figures for blindness from alcohol were pretty low, then it gets prohibited, yes the users drop dramatically, but blindness and death increase.

Another problem is unexpected purity, people will often get heavily cut cocaine and then easily overdose on purer product, this effect is compounded since you are talking small amounts of powder, while with alcohol you would taste it, but possibly not the contaminants. In the US they copped on the citizens were still using it despite the law and causing more health problems even though the user base had dropped.

Before its prohibition cocaine was in wide use in dublin, available over the counter in pharmacies, I am not sure if there were many cocaine related deaths during that time.

dublindude wrote: »

So two wrongs make a right?

No one is disputing alcohol causes all kinds of problems.

Do we really want to introduce more problems?

2 wrongs remove the hypocrisy from the laws, if the legal harmful recreational drugs were illegal I would actually have no real problem, that's the way it would always have been, I probably never would have drank alcohol if it had been illegal growing up. Imagine the media scares about booze. "rat poison" in stimulant drugs is simply strychnine, used as a stimulant and also a poison. Another cutting agent ketamine is usually described as "horse tranquiliser", looks good in the Sun, better than its other medical uses for humans, and the recreational dose is a fraction of what a child would be prescribed. If alcohol was around but only started to be drank by humans today it would be described as "industrial solvent used to degrease tractor engines, make you go mad and beat your wife, get sick and have extreme comedowns (hangovers)."

I could safely say if it was illegal and I experienced a bad hangover I would not have used it again.

As for more problems, as I said previously many people just have desires to experience altered states, many would choose cannabis over alcohol for health reasons among other reasons, but they may fear the law more than their health, so just accept alcohol as the only drug on offer to them. Alcohol is so ingrained in our culture it is frightening, if cannabis was legalized I could not imagine my boss handing out tokens for joints at the christmas party along with booze vouchers, or companies sending gifts of other drugs to other companies.

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.

The point was they are not adding them specifically to harm people, the media infer this when they say "rat poison". I certainly agree they are adding crap but it is not to kill customers, it is a cheap filler which is also a stimulant, be it caffeine or strychnine or just plain bulking glucose. Most dealers have no control over the drug production so have no idea, most are not chemists so will not know the dangers of damp cocaine. Injecting anything off the street is a bad idea.

Terry wrote: »

It works for alcoholics (in court). All they have to do is go to a few AA meetings and they walk.
Legalise drugs and just swap AA with NA.

Junkies play the heroin addict card too, I expect many are not real addicts at all and just play the helpless lad led astray by the wicked addiction.

Terry wrote: »

Illegal drugs are nature's way of weeding out the stupid people in society.

Nature didn't make them illegal, do you think the harmful legal drugs are also natures way of weeding out stupid people? You being the mod of the "giving up smoking" forum and all. You made similar comments about addicts in another thread recently.

nibble wrote: »

Anyway I'd have to say the chart listing how dangerous various drugs are above is frankly, bs. How could you even meaningfully rank them like that, whats it based on; instant death after ingesting x or y? And besides how could methadone and bupe be ranked differently to H?

The chart was from the peer reviewed medical journal The Lancet, not The Sun. You can see the program yourself here. They explain how they list was decided on.

Tha Gopher wrote: »

It will not remain cheap or affordable in Ireland, due to the fact the Morrocans will eventually all but win their war on drugs, and the grass here is generally so badly cut it is not worth buying.

Home grown will rise in popularity, and grit weed is well known by now with buyers refusing it more and more. People have no problem paying €
50-100 for a nights drinking in the pub, even though they could buy illegal alcohol for a fraction of that.

JC 2K3

Ah, an AH drugs debate - more addictive than any drug I've ever tried. Glad to have my latest fix.

As always, it's been a disorganised, point scoring affair, with the stubborn posters, the informed posters, the misinformed posters and those who are far too rigid in their views all dissecting each others' arguments in a messy fashion. Generally, there's been little development in I think the problem is the question is so large and no one knows exactly what they're arguing, or they just doesn't care as long as they get a negative or positive view of drugs across in their post.

Firstly, it's important to define exactly what's being discussed here. While there are thousands of substances out there with possible recreational potential, there are really only a handful that are being discussed when we talk about legalisation. Would I be correct in stating that the following are the only drugs that people are really concerned about here:
-Cannabis
-Cocaine
-MDMA (Ecstasy)
-LSD (and, along the same lines, Mescaline and Psilicobin)
-Heroin

Essentially, all that's being argued about is the legalisation of 5 drugs (and possibly a few others with similiar effects (I know there are a few different types I could have included, but for the sake of this discussion, just leave it at these 5)), only 2 of which are massive problems for people here: Heroin and Cocaine.

In the interest of making this a more interesting discussion, might I suggest that from now on, Heroin and Cocaine be left out of the discussion. I personally acknowledge that there is a massive difference between them and the other 3, because of their addiction potential and all the problems that come with them. I do think that some change of law is needed with relation to them, but I think that it is a distinctly different area of discussion to these other 3 drugs.

So, cannabis, MDMA and LSD/other similar psychedelics. Rather than reasons for them to be legalised, I think reasons should have to be given to support their illegal status. I think we'll all agree that humans should have the right to legally do anything they want to unless there's a very good reason to have something illegal, such as it harming others.

So what are possible arguments for the illegalisation of these substances? I'd put it down to 3 things: Physical Health, Mental Health and Dangers While Under the Influence.

(keep in mind that I'm talking about these drugs below as if they were legal, so being cut with other substances or gang violence doesn't come into it)

Physical Health:
Lung cancer from smoking cannabis aside, since that is something that can be avoided with vaporisation or ingestion, all 3 of these are fairly safe physically, MDMA being the only one with any realistic danger. Overdose is possible, but not likely. Overheating is a possibility but is very related to one's environment, and water intoxication is possible but could be easily stopped with information campaigns.

Mental Health:
Along with causing the user to have enlightening thoughts and epiphanies about their lives, LSD can potentially force someone to face memories one has happily suppressed. Depending on the severity of past trauma, this could unearth psychological problems if one has a bad trip, however, this can be controlled if a friend is close by and the person is in a familiar environment. Bad trips are quite rare, however.
Cannabis is generally used by most without problems and research into its negative effects is extremely inconsistant. It's quite easy to understand how those with mental illness would be attracted to it. However, increased cannabis usage not causing any rise in mental illness in any country, ever, is probably the most compelling argument for it not actually causing mental illness.
MDMA overuse is proven to be bad for memory and even occasional use can cause temporary depression, but is generally not considered a problem drug in terms of mental health. If overused, it is probably the most apparently bad of all 3.

Dangers While Under the Influence
Cannabis wouldn't really have any dangers associated with being under the influence of it, since it generally makes the user lethargic and relaxed. The main issues with being on MDMA would be the environment in which it is usually taken, which could possibly cause overheating. For LSD and other psychedelics, the setting is important, as one can become very scared and have a bad trip if in an unfamiliar place. The myths about drilling holes in ones skull etc. are generally misattributed to LSD and similar psychedelics, however, and would be more likely on delerients like datura (scopolamine), which cause actual hallucinations as opposed to altered perception.

Now, I think there're some things there which would make a case for looking at regulating these substances strictly, but not illegalisation. Feel free to dissect that and disagree with me.


As for what dublindude said about most people being idiots and us having to give up certain things because others can't handle them responsibly, and how legalising drugs would cause more problems than we currently have with alcohol. I have to ask how legalising drugs would cause any more problems than we currently have with alcohol? More drugs doesn't mean more problems, it would just mean an equal amount of problems, just with a few more substances involved, no?

Wow, that was long.....

Sam Vimes

Tha Gopher wrote: »

LOL What in the name of jesus does the fact people in Mesopotamia smoked ganj in 10,000 BC have to do with Ireland in 2020. As I said, cannabis will always be available worldwide. It will always remain obtainable in Africa, the Caribbean, basically anywhere with a suitable climate. It will not remain cheap or affordable in Ireland, due to the fact the Morrocans will eventually all but win their war on drugs, and the grass here is generally so badly cut it is not worth buying.

what it has to do with ireland in 2020 is: people have wanted to smoke hash since the stone age. if this demand has not subsided in the last 12,000 years, the chances of it subsiding in the next 10 are precisely nil. you may as well suggest that people will lose their fondness for burgers and embrace carrots.

so unless you're living in your own imaginary world, you have to admit that the demand will still be there in ten years. so your argument then becomes that prohibition will start to work in the next ten years

this argument fails for two reasons. firstly, you assume that the moroccan government will succeed in the next ten years where every single government in the world has failed since prohibition began. this is simply not going to happen. secondly, it assumes that the only place that we can get cannabis from is morocco. this is not the case. in fact, in can be grown in ireland so by your own logic, it will never be eradicated here. you yourself say it'll be available worldwide so why this focus on morocco?

you also assume that people will get sick of the perceived low quality of the hash we get and stop doing it. this argument also fails for two reasons. firstly, because they haven't got sick of it so far and there's absolutely no reason to suggest that they will in the next ten years. secondly, because it assumes that the drug dealers will simply give up if people go off their low quality hash, rather than improving the quality as all good businessmen do.


the fact is, there is a huge demand for drugs. this demand is not going to go away unless we change the nature of the human brain and as long as there is a demand, drug dealers will find a way to satisfy it, period. to suggest otherwise is just lunacy

Tha Gopher wrote: »

And I would be fairly sure you are one of the guys who never bothered replying to any response I gave to you. Because, of course, you didnt have one.

now you're just making assumptions about me. any examples?

Terry

rubadub wrote: »

The point was they are not adding them specifically to harm people, the media infer this when they say "rat poison". I certainly agree they are adding crap but it is not to kill customers, it is a cheap filler which is also a stimulant, be it caffeine or strychnine or just plain bulking glucose. Most dealers have no control over the drug production so have no idea, most are not chemists so will not know the dangers of damp cocaine. Injecting anything off the street is a bad idea.

My point was that they don't care what's in it or who buys it.
They are ruthless bastards who don't give a crap about anyone.

Junkies play the heroin addict card too, I expect many are not real addicts at all and just play the helpless lad led astray by the wicked addiction.

Indeed they do.
Imagine it was legal.
Would you mind if the guy who mugged you got a light sentence because the judge felt sorry for him because of his government approved addiction?

Nature didn't make them illegal, do you think the harmful legal drugs are also natures way of weeding out stupid people? You being the mod of the "giving up smoking" forum and all. You made similar comments about addicts in another thread recently.

Thkis has nothing to do with nature. Well, human nature, but that's about it.
Just because something is there, it doesn't mean it's good for society.
I don't care if people have smoked weed for thousands of years. They also traded in slaves for thousands of years. They pick on those naturally weaker than them. That doesn't make it right.

as for smoking, I hve said before that I believe all tobacco products should be illegal. Really pointless drug and I write this with a cigarette in my hand.

As for those still advocating the legalisation of heroin, come back to me when you have an addiction to benzodiazepines and I'll talk to you, because then you will know something about addiction.

Sam Vimes

Terry wrote: »

My point was that they don't care what's in it or who buys it.
They are ruthless bastards who don't give a crap about anyone.

Indeed they do.
Imagine it was legal.

i can. it would no longer be sold by ruthless bastards who don't give a crap about anyone

Terry wrote: »

Would you mind if the guy who mugged you got a light sentence because the judge felt sorry for him because of his government approved addiction?

what you have there again is a problem with the irish judicial system, not drugs. who says that the sentences for drug induced crime would have to go down if they were legalised?

brianthebard

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i can. it would no longer be sold by ruthless bastards who don't give a crap about anyone

but who would grow and supply it?As i already pointed out weed in amsterdam still gets contaminated from time to time.

Sam Vimes

brianthebard wrote: »

but who would grow and supply it?As i already pointed out weed in amsterdam still gets contaminated from time to time.

farmers could grow it. I'm sure cannabis does get contaminated from time to time but it's still better than the current situation where you don't know what you're getting

ScumLord

brianthebard wrote: »

but who would grow and supply it?As i already pointed out weed in amsterdam still gets contaminated from time to time.

There's to much of a grey area in Amsterdam. They don't really control anything and are basically just taxing illegal activity.

The Cannabis plant can be a very lucrative plant. It's simple enough to grow, if your only growing it for hemp then it can grow outdoors in Ireland. If Ireland could legalize it the industry could be worth millions (well it is worth millions as it is but it could be worth allot more as a legitimate crop). Hemp is still a valuable crop but it costs allot due to restrictions on growing (even though cannabis grown for hemp is useless for getting high) Irish suppliers would find a big international market waiting for them and little or no competition. There's the same international market for medical cannabis.

There's allot of money in the cannabis plant, there would be plenty of domestic farmers willing to exploit it.

Tha Gopher

Sam Vimes wrote: »

what it has to do with ireland in 2020 is: people have wanted to smoke hash since the stone age. if this demand has not subsided in the last 12,000 years, the chances of it subsiding in the next 10 are precisely nil. you may as well suggest that people will lose their fondness for burgers and embrace carrots.

They have wanted to smoke it for 12,000 years in Ireland?!!?

Though I cant be arsed checking, and tbh in terms of landmass movement 12,000 years is probably a very short time, I dont deny that we may have once had a climate in which weed growed wild. It does in parts of Poland and Russia during the summer after all, so it isnt impossible.

But if you reckon anyone bar the well educated and well travelled sailors had even heard of grass before the 50s, you are having a laugh. The first commoner Irish to experience it were probably emigrants to the US in the 60s, or migrants in England who associated with Jamaicans. It arrived on the college and hippy scene here by the late 60s but was still very much an elitist drug until the mid 70s, and even then was largely unheard of outside the main cities.

so unless you're living in your own imaginary world, you have to admit that the demand will still be there in ten years. so your argument then becomes that prohibition will start to work in the next ten years

Demand will certainly be there. People born pre 1996 or thereabouts will reminisce about warm summer evenings in fields with a few cans getting completely toasted.

These same people, unless they have an absoloute addiction, will not be paying god knows how much for small quantities of Afghan hash that slip through. They will not be paying massive amounts for bags of weak weed nowhere else in Europe wanted. They will not be going to Amsterdam as the Dutch will eventually ban the stuff. Additionally, as the developing world gains more wealth and law and order less people will grow drugs on a large scale. It is already happening in Morocco.

this argument fails for two reasons. firstly, you assume that the moroccan government will succeed in the next ten years where every single government in the world has failed since prohibition began.

Fail.

While California grown weed is certainly available it is not at the level of the likes of Morocco where, until recently, the law largely turned a blind eye to cannabis growing. [/quote]

this is simply not going to happen. secondly, it assumes that the only place that we can get cannabis from is morocco. this is not the case. in fact, in can be grown in ireland so by your own logic, it will never be eradicated here. you yourself say it'll be available worldwide so why this focus on morocco?

Oh ffs.

I said it will never be entirely eradicated from Ireland. Yes, a small minority of people will go to the bother of spending a significant amount of money on grow lights, hydro systems, grow spaces etc etc etc for personal use or sale to friends.

Of course, the above generally excludes people who are house sharing with non friends, people living with parents etc etc etc.

And finally, the vast majority of our smoke does come from Morocco. Nigerian, South African and British home grown also comes in. Again, it is mashed to pieces, making alot of it less strong than evem common soap.

you also assume that people will get sick of the perceived low quality of the hash we get and stop doing it. this argument also fails for two reasons. firstly, because they haven't got sick of it so far and there's absolutely no reason to suggest that they will in the next ten years. secondly, because it assumes that the drug dealers will simply give up if people go off their low quality hash, rather than improving the quality as all good businessmen do.

The decline in the popularity of cocaine in Dublin didnt make them up their quality. Greed always wins.

the fact is, there is a huge demand for drugs. this demand is not going to go away unless we change the nature of the human brain and as long as there is a demand, drug dealers will find a way to satisfy it, period. to suggest otherwise is just lunacy

Teenagers born in this century who by 2020 may have smoked it a handful of times are not going to be hooked enough to demand it.

now you're just making assumptions about me. any examples?

The thread died after I rebuked all arguements. Go check if you want.

rubadub wrote: »

Home grown will rise in popularity, and grit weed is well known by now with buyers refusing it more and more. People have no problem paying €
50-100 for a nights drinking in the pub, even though they could buy illegal alcohol for a fraction of that.

And where could they drink the moonshine? People go to a pub or nightclub to socialise, meet people, watch sport. People are paying for a night out as much as the drink. ffs, you can get as drunk in your home on under 20 euro of Bavaria as you would in a pub. Difference is, it isnt as much fun.

brianthebard wrote: »

do you not see an inherent contradiction in claiming cannabis will be obtainable worldwide,but that if morocco stops producing it it won't be affordable in ireland?

Distance ffs.

Less cut cocaine is cheaper in the US.
It is most expensive in the likes of Eastern Europe given the distance it travels.

Similiarly, with its proximity to Afghanistan heroin is much more affordable to street junkies in Russia than it is after passing through Iran, Turkey, Greece, the fmr Yugoslavia, Italy, Germany, Holland, London, Liverpool and finally Dublin. Genuine Afghan hash would be the same.

Ecstasy has a production price of 5 cent per pill in Holland, where the chemicals for making it are more easily obtainable than elsewhere. It is bought in bulk by traffickers for as little as 25 cent, sold here for a fiver a pop.

Given the distance and location of Australia a single pill goes for 40 euro there. Around 15 euro in the US.

rubadub

Terry wrote: »

My point was that they don't care what's in it or who buys it.
They are ruthless bastards who don't give a crap about anyone.

I totally agree. Your previous post was just in reference to somebody who said "Although I doubt drugs would be cut with harmful substances - why would a dealer try to kill potential customers?"
The drugs are potentially harmful, they cut them with other potentially harmful products too, but these are usually added as a cheap way to increase effect, a lot of the time they are legal, such as caffeine and more recently BZP etc. I think the poster meant they do not add stuff specifically and solely to kill or harm customers, which some gutter press rags do tend to infer.

Terry wrote: »

Would you mind if the guy who mugged you got a light sentence because the judge felt sorry for him because of his government approved addiction?

I would mind, just as I would mind being robbed by a wino wanting a few cans, or a judge letting a guy off assaulting me since he was drunk. A lot of them end up that way by choice, it is a cop out for some, just giving into the addiction, legal or not. Thing is I think some judges currently do fall for the heroin addiction card even more so because its addictive nature tends to be exaggerated by the media. The second "heroin user" is mentioned people presume they are addicts, but many are not, hopefully most judges have more sense.

Some people automatically view heroin users as muggers, but may scoff at the idea of a "legal addict" robbing to feed a habit, I am sure many proceeds of crime go towards buying legal drugs.

Terry wrote: »

This has nothing to do with nature. Well, human nature, but that's about it.
Just because something is there, it doesn't mean it's good for society.

I agree. I was not saying they should be legal if natural, just your point was sort of "nature taking its course", while it is not really the case since man has effectively made nature illegal, some even considering eradicating the cannabis species from the planet.

Terry wrote: »

as for smoking, I hve said before that I believe all tobacco products should be illegal. Really pointless drug and I write this with a cigarette in my hand.

It is pointless, and highly addictive. Most people take cannabis along with it too, making it an even more highly addictive drug, since the cannabis high does give the drug a "point" to users, yet many refuse to admit they are addicted. Many smoke joints daily, yet are convinced they "do not smoke cigarettes", just leads to over indulgence in cannabis and as it is usually unfiltered and with other crap from the hash it has a bad effect on health.

If tobacco was made illegal would you still use it? i.e. buy from drug dealers?

brianthebard wrote: »

but who would grow and supply it?As i already pointed out weed in amsterdam still gets contaminated from time to time.

Cannabis is not legal in holland and as such it is not controlled in anyway. Coffeeshops trade on goodwill/reputation.

Terry

Too tired to quote the whole post, but:

rubadub wrote:

If tobacco was made illegal would you still use it? i.e. buy from drug dealers?

No. I would get down on my knees and give head to the minister who had the guts to implement the ban, even if it was Harney.

Sam Vimes

Tha Gopher wrote: »

They have wanted to smoke it for 12,000 years in Ireland?!!?

Though I cant be arsed checking, and tbh in terms of landmass movement 12,000 years is probably a very short time, I dont deny that we may have once had a climate in which weed growed wild. It does in parts of Poland and Russia during the summer after all, so it isnt impossible.

But if you reckon anyone bar the well educated and well travelled sailors had even heard of grass before the 50s, you are having a laugh. The first commoner Irish to experience it were probably emigrants to the US in the 60s, or migrants in England who associated with Jamaicans. It arrived on the college and hippy scene here by the late 60s but was still very much an elitist drug until the mid 70s, and even then was largely unheard of outside the main cities.

see what you did there was add two words to my post which i didn't say, "in ireland" and then rebutted that point instead of the one i made*. Fail tbh. I was talking about the human desire for cannabis and what i said had nothing to do with ireland.

*i did mention ireland but not in the point that you rebutted. I just pointed out that it grows here

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Demand will certainly be there. People born pre 1996 or thereabouts will reminisce about warm summer evenings in fields with a few cans getting completely toasted.

These same people, unless they have an absoloute addiction, will not be paying god knows how much for small quantities of Afghan hash that slip through. They will not be paying massive amounts for bags of weak weed nowhere else in Europe wanted. They will not be going to Amsterdam as the Dutch will eventually ban the stuff. Additionally, as the developing world gains more wealth and law and order less people will grow drugs on a large scale. It is already happening in Morocco.

you have yet to give any evidence that any of the above will happen. You just asserted that morocco will solve their drug problem in ten years and that ireland can't get drugs anywhere else. You're just wrong. Apparently it's cheaper to import sheep from NZ than to buy in ireland. You're vastly over estimating how much it costs to ship stuff

also, i want your crystal ball that tells you so much about the future policy and financial circumstances of so many countries

Tha Gopher wrote: »

While California grown weed is certainly available it is not at the level of the likes of Morocco where, until recently, the law largely turned a blind eye to cannabis growing.

so people in california just stopped did they? Or did they just buy it somewhere else where it was less hassle? People will do only what is necessary. The government in california cracked down and hash was easily available in thousands of over places so they just didn't bother. if it couldn't have been gotten so easily elsewhere it wouldn't have gone down so easily. And of course, even with the crackdown they didn't eliminate it

Tha Gopher wrote: »

And finally, the vast majority of our smoke does come from Morocco. Nigerian, South African and British home grown also comes in. Again, it is mashed to pieces, making alot of it less strong than evem common soap.

that situation isn't set in stone. If that situation becomes more difficult or the quality drops, the market will react and a new source will be found. It's how capitalism works

Tha Gopher wrote: »

The decline in the popularity of cocaine in Dublin didnt make them up their quality. Greed always wins.

so rather than upping the quality they just voluntarily lost out on a massive customer base? How did greed win there?

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Teenagers born in this century who by 2020 may have smoked it a handful of times are not going to be hooked enough to demand it.

seriously, where can i get one of these crystal balls that says that teenagers will stop wanting to do drugs in ten years

and you're misunderstanding the desire for hash. People don't do it because they're addicted or hooked, they do it because they want to.

Tha Gopher wrote: »

The thread died after I rebuked all arguements. Go check if you want.

i'm afraid you've rebuked nothing mate. You go back and check. All you have is predictions that human nature will change, policy that has never worked will start working, capitalism will stop working, teenagers will lose their desire for drugs, the third world will become too rich to bother growing cannabis and the dutch government will enact new policy banning hash all in the next ten years. None of this is going to happen


your prediction is dependent on changes in the world not seen since the industrial revolution. If you gave a figure of 100 years it might just start to come into the realms of plausibility but the world just doesn't change that fast unless there's some kind of massive cataclysmic event to cause it like a world war

Davidius

gogglebok wrote: »

No-one here is talking about whether they do drugs. I haven't said I fund criminals, and neither has anyone else. I'm not trying to "spin" anything, and I believe everyone else is also arguing honestly. And nobody is suggesting that all the crime is the government's fault.

Wouldn't it achieve more to argue your case instead of caricaturing the people you disagree with?

Why do you think drugs should be banned?

I do not care about the legalisation of drugs personally but these threads always bring people who use that argument far too often. It's my way of saying to them "You don't need these drugs and yes, it actually is your fault".

rubadub

Tha Gopher wrote: »

And where could they drink the moonshine? People go to a pub or nightclub to socialise, meet people, watch sport. People are paying for a night out as much as the drink. ffs, you can get as drunk in your home on under 20 euro of Bavaria as you would in a pub. Difference is, it isnt as much fun

My point was people have no trouble paying over the odds for recreational drugs, so I do think the likes of cannabis will always be available. High grade cannabis is out there, most can afford it, they just consider it expensive next to the crap they usually get. I see far more people smoking cannabis when out these days, the smoking ban has made it FAR easier to do so in a discrete manner. Most people I know would have less pints when smoking too, so a night out can become cheaper. Since they are smoking in the pub beer garden the price is more comparable to the pints. I have heard of ounces going for €400+ here, in dutch coffeeshops it can be €20-30 per gram for the best of weed, over €60 for real hash.

I am shocked E is not more popular amongst teenagers who may not have much cash. 15 years back you would get maybe 3-5 pints for the price of an E, now it is 1-2Es for the price of a pint!

The comment about illegal alcohol was not really aimed at you, more to the point of people saying if cannabis was illegal dealers would still thrive, but people will pay for quality, many consider drink expensive yet still go to the offie and load up on €100 worth at a time. On a per hit basis cannabis is quite cheap, people tend to buy a lot at once for various reasons, especially if they can afford to do so. I found the older I get the better quality I come across, proper importers can charge a premium for good stuff, they do not want to deal to kids, if a kid is caught they are hit hard, an older customer who is not off their nut in the pub or smokes at home and has the cash to pay for it is a more attractive customer. Many are growing it themselves and selling, others get it from other sources and pay a premium, the initials BM spring to mind. I am surprised there are not more house raids in Ireland. A lot of countries are becoming far more tolerant of personal home growers.

JC 2K3

rubadub wrote: »

I am shocked E is not more popular amongst teenagers who may not have much cash. 15 years back you would get maybe 3-5 pints for the price of an E, now it is 1-2Es for the price of a pint!

Might just be the people I know/the places I go, but it seems to be pretty popular amongst 18-25 year olds.

wordcount

No.

psilocybe

Have any you read the argruments of Casey Hardison who is curently languising at Her Majestys Pleasure for producion of LSD, 2c-b and DMT.

Listen

Shulgin

MDMA, LSD (and other psychedelics), and cannabis are three substances that should be freely available legally.. Its a shame there has been such scaremongering from governments and vested interests.

MDMA and Psychedelics are beautiful and amazing when used correctly.
People need to be educated properly on this stuff, not just told "drugs are bad" etc.

Cocaine and heroin on the other hand are a different story altogether.

Shulgin

Shulgin wrote: »

MDMA, LSD (and other psychedelics), and cannabis are three substances that should be freely available legally.. Its a shame there has been such scaremongering from governments and vested interests.

MDMA and Psychedelics are beautiful and amazing when used correctly.
People need to be educated properly on this stuff, not just told "drugs are bad" etc.

Cocaine and heroin on the other hand are a different story altogether.

No, you're wrong. MDMA is a killer drug! It kills people! Srsly. I can prove it. Leah Betts was murdered by ecstasy because it forced her to kill herself through water intoxication! See? It's evil!

And if you take LSD three times, you're legally insane dontcha know?

Do people here actually believe prohibition is working? Lollers. Anyone in Dublin can source illegal drugs from within walking distance of their own home. No matter how many people are arrested or "quantities" seized, there will be even more to take their place.

Drugs should be legalised and reputable, independent growers/manufacturers should be able to sell them from head shops to people over the age of 18. Pure and safe is the way to go. Of course, so many people here would rather just leave the selling of drugs in the hands of scumbags, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

mise_me_fein

People like my Dad and my grandmother would not want drugs to be legalized. Also I think that most of the people from this generation would have the same opinion and a lot of people from my generation.

I am democratic and liberal.

For all it's problems most people don't mind alcohol being legal, but they do have a problem with a lot of the other drugs such as cocaine and even hash.

That's the way it is here. If you don't like it, move to Holland