Time to legalise some drugs?

Dragan

dublindude wrote: »

Nope, you are simply unable to visualise the consequences of legalising drugs. That's not my fault.

LoL, and you have Michael Bay visualising yours.

Me, i'm sitting happy in the middle ground will to accept that there are good and bad points to the legalisation of cannabis, marijuana and thats it.

I firmly agree with you that harder drugs need to stay illegal. I think i have only said that about 10 times in this thread by now.

So sorry, i really do find it hard to believe that the legalising of cannabis will lead to Ireland being overran by junkies.

dublindude wrote: »

Look how many people have destroyed their own lives and the lives around them due to alcohol.

At least one in four people are sexually abused. Alcohol has played a large part in that.

Many people are not mature enough to handle alcohol. The same would go for other drugs if they were legalised.

So why not make alchohol illegal?

AARRRGH

Dragan wrote: »

So why not make alchohol illegal?

I'm sure the Government would love to make alcohol illegal.

There would be hell if they tried though.

Sam Vimes

all of that would be a good point if it was difficult to get these drugs.

dublindude wrote: »

You can get good quality heroin from nice people easy enough?

Fair play to you.

Ask the average person if they can do the same.

I don't think they'll agree with you!

most people couldn't do it straight away because they don't want to take heroin and so never investigated it. anyone who has a desire to do heroin has already done the hour or so of research it would take

dublindude wrote: »

A couple of teenagers get their hands on legal, Government endorsed cocaine or heroin.

the government wouldn't be endorsing it, they'd be reluctantly supplying it to take the money out of the hands of criminals

dublindude wrote: »

(This will happen all the time if drugs are legalised.)

this altready always happens, they're easy to get if you want them

dublindude wrote: »

You don't think there will be peer pressure to take it?

there already is

dublindude wrote: »

Before you say "sure that could happen now" I think it is absolutely reasonable to say the average teenager does not feel any peer pressure to take illegal, possibly dodgy, difficult to get, cocaine and heroin.

then why are there so many people on it?

dublindude wrote: »

Look how many people have destroyed their own lives and the lives around them due to alcohol.

At least one in four people are sexually abused. Alcohol has played a large part in that.

Many people are not mature enough to handle alcohol. The same would go for other drugs if they were legalised.

the same already goes. heroin is a life destroying drug. if it is made legal it will still be a life detroying drug. anyone who is not inclined to take it now won't suddenly forget that it's a life destroying drug if brian cowen announces a measure to cut gang violence

the situation you're describing is the one that we're currently in. legalising it will have little or no affect on this

AARRRGH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

all of that would be a good point if it was difficult to get these drugs.

The average person cannot easily get their hands on hard drugs.

Sure half my druggie friends can't even get grass.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

most people couldn't do it straight away because they don't want to take heroin and so never investigated it. anyone who has a desire to do heroin has already done the hour or so of research it would take

You're really not grasping the fact that if these drugs were legalised they'd be way more common.

No one shows up to parties and openly smokes heroin.

If heroin was made legal, this would happen, and some people would give it a try.

Legalising things removes the stigma attached to it.

It may not happen overnight, but with time it would definitely happen.

Look how socially acceptable it is to get drunk. No one bats an eyelid.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

then why are there so many people on it?

You're living in fantasy land if you think there are loads of teenagers on heroin and cocaine.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

the situation you're describing is the one that we're currently in. legalising it will have little or no affect on this

Eh, no it isn't.

Again, it's fantasy land if you think legalising drugs won't make any difference.

I can't understand how or why you refuse to accept this.

Sam Vimes

dublindude wrote: »

The average person cannot easily get their hands on hard drugs.

Sure half my druggie friends can't even get grass.

i can't really comment your particular group of friends. the people i know have no problem. i could give you the addresses of two people who could help your friends out if you want?

dublindude wrote: »

You're really not grasping the fact that if these drugs were legalised they'd be way more common.

No one shows up to parties and openly smokes heroin.

If heroin was made legal, this would happen, and some people would give it a try.

Legalising things removes the stigma attached to it.

one does not necessarily follow on from the other. there's a difference between a government endorsed free for all and a measure to reduce gang violence. there are certain circles where heroin use is ok and there are circles where it isn't. if it was made legal with heavy restrictions as part of a gang violence reducing measure, these circles would stay the same

dublindude wrote: »

Look how socially acceptable it is to get drunk. No one bats an eyelid.

alcohol has never had a stigma attached to it. lot's of things have stopped being socially acceptable in history and lots of things have become socially accpetable and the law had very little to do with them

dublindude wrote: »

You're living in fantasy land if you think there are loads of teenagers on heroin and cocaine.

and you're living in a fantasy land if you think that's because they're illegal. teenagers are MORE inclined to do something if it's illegal. it's part of the whole teen rebellion thing.

dublindude wrote: »

Eh, no it isn't.

Again, it's fantasy land if you think legalising drugs won't make any difference.

I can't understand how or why you refuse to accept this.

and i can't understand why you refuse to accept what i'm saying. what you're suggesting is a far off notion in the future that assumes that people will forget that heroin destroys lives. to see my point all you have to do is walk around dublin for a few minutes and watch the news every now and then

Dragan

dublindude wrote: »

I'm sure the Government would love to make alcohol illegal.

There would be hell if they tried though.

I doubt it, given how much the tax on sales help our budget each year, the same as any other economy!

Anything on my other points or am i suddenly know fun because i mostly agree with you on the keeping stuff banned thing?:)

AARRRGH

OK, this will be my last post.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i can't really comment your particulat group of friends. the people i know have no problem. i could give you the addresses of two people who could help your friends out if you want?

Do you honestly think if a random survey was done on 10,000 people most would say they know who they can get hard drugs from?

Really?

They know a nice enough person who will sell them quality hard drugs?

I don't think so.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

one does not necessarily follow on from the other. there's a difference between a government endorsed free for all and a measure to reduce gang violence. there are certain circles where heroin use is ok and there are circles where it isn't. if it was made legal with heavy restrictions as part of a gang violence reducing measure, these circles would stay the same

I agree gang violence would reduce if we legalised drugs.

It's a small bonus though, especially since gangs seem most interested in killing other gangs.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

alcohol has never had a stigma attached to it. lot's of things have stopped being socially acceptable in history and lots of things have become socially accpetable and the law had very little to do with them

I think you'll find it's not socially acceptable to do illegal things.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and you're living in a fantasy land if you think that's because they're illegal. teenagers are MORE inclined to do something if it's illegal. it's part of the whole teen rebellion thing.

There's a big difference between getting drunk/stoned and doing heroin/cocaine.

If cocaine and heroin become legalised and accessible they'll become the new bad thing to do.

...

Most of my friends would do heroin if it was legalised.

Luckily heroin will never be legalised.

Sam Vimes

dublindude wrote: »

Do you honestly think if a random survey was done on 10,000 people most would say they know who they can get hard drugs from?

Really?

no, of course not because most people don't want to do heroin. but if they did want to do it, everyone knows someone who knows someone.

dublindude wrote: »

I agree gang violence would reduce if we legalised drugs.

It's a small bonus though, especially since gangs seem most interested in killing other gangs.

gang violence will go down AND the addicts would have access to clean, pure product and instructions from a doctor, resulting in a dramatic drop in deaths AND they could be given the drugs with huge subsidies to prevent them breaking the law instead of having their legs broken for not being able to pay AND they would no longer be criminalised and put somewhere where there's nothing to do but do drugs

dublindude wrote: »

I think you'll find it's not socially acceptable to do illegal things.

it's also not socially acceptable to do many, many legal things and you'll find that a lot of illegal things are quite socially acceptable. it just depends on your circle

dublindude wrote: »

There's a big difference between getting drunk/stoned and doing heroin/cocaine.

i know that, and if they were legal that wouldn't change

dublindude wrote: »

If cocaine and heroin become legalised and accessible they'll become the new bad thing to do.

who says? and they already are the bad thing to do. in fact, by your logic they wouldn't be bad if they were legal. it'd suddenly be ok to whip out syringes at a house party

dublindude wrote: »

Most of my friends would do heroin if it was legalised.

i don't mean to be insulting but if brian cowen is the only thing preventing your friends from flushing their lives down the toilet then they're fucking retards. are you honestly saying that the legal status is the only thing stopping your friends doing heroin even though they see what it does to people every day of the week?

in germany there are no speed limits on the auto bahns. do you see every person on those roads driving everywhere at 200kmph? or is it that people are generally sensible and can make decisions for their own well being without big brother forcing them to?

Boggle

Stayed out of this till now but... why not:

Might I suggest banning the drugs which are highly addictive? For the rest, allow people their freedom but, if your earning revenue from it(tax), at least use it to inform the public on safe use. At least this way, someone who smokes some (e.g.) joints can, if they ever feel the ill effects of the drug or decide that they no longer want it are not physically addicted to it and so are free to quit at any time.
(My opinion is that anything which is highly addictive should be banned and, objectively speaking, I'd expand this to include cigarrettes (what do you roll the joints with?!) to be honest)

My main concern with current policy is the following...
Credibility:You tell a teenager that all drugs are bad and then he or his friends go and try some hash only to discover that its considerably softer than even alcohol(milder after effects, less loss of control, etc). Do they then begin to question the credibility of the entire anti-drugs movement? Do they possibly begin to question whether harder (much more dangeroud drugs) are really so bad?!
Supply Chain:Perfect for dealer and its direct selling at its best. There are now guys who specialise in bringing drugs to parties and offering them to teenagers (often younger siblings of other dealers). No rules, no regulations, no legal alternative source. Once these guys become regulars at parties its easy to offer the next best thing in their pockets.
Ethical: Do you really want a police state whereby your actions, your interests and your hobbies are dictated to you by the government? Imagine the day when they decide rugby is no longer permissibe: Too many injuries and besides you already have the choice of playing soccer or football if you want an athletic outlet! At the minute the accepted outlet is drink or nothing. Personally I know of several people who barely drink any more and instead prefer to socialise with friends over a few joints. Not everyones cup of tea but each to his own surely.

If a group of people were drinking at a house party, and someone showed up with a load of legal, Government approved drugs, two things would happen:

1. He wouldn't be afraid to tell people he has the drugs. After all, they're legal and Government approved.
2. People who would normally not take these drugs would give them a try.

1. If someone is old enough to buy drugs from a reputable source then he'll do so. No one is going to smoke bootleg drugs if they have a choice.
2. If you are saying that more people will try it then its hard to argue but then as long as it not addicitve then so what?? Let them try it and make up their own minds.

(You'll not that my responses are geared towards hash but that only because I don't know enough about the other drugs to consider myself capable of advising)

Boggle

One more thing. Heroine is and (to my mind) should be highly illegal as I believe its way too addictive.

However, taking away those harmless drugs from dealers would at least reduce the flow of people who are exposed to dealers. This, to my mind would help reduce the amount of people who would ever even try heroine.

(actually, even if you legalised it and if its as bad as people say then the damage it does will become blindingly obviouse pretty quickly to even the most hardened of sceptics. Anyone who would still try it, really would deserve to be locked in a sweatbox to sink or swim - policy shouldn't be geared towards protecting self destructive little retards anyway)

mise_me_fein

JC 2K3 wrote: »

How defeatist is that??

Do you not think that the holders of these ignorant, uninformed opinions should have to answer to them?

I guess people of a certain age have one opinion and others with a family that are older have another.

My Dad is not that old. I would not like to see Cocaine ever legalized either.

I don't really care about hash to be honest, whether it's legal or not.....if people want drugs they can get them.

If we asked all the people of Ireland now do they want drugs, maybe alot of the under 30s would say yes, to some drugs but the overall population would say no.

Again, lets rejoice............democracy is a beautiful thing.


SamVines............do you have children? just wondering

JC 2K3

Piste wrote: »

Legalising drugs will only go giving people the notion that it's "ok" to do them "Ah sure it's legal now, it can't be THAT dangerous/addictive".

Sticking to what I said in my earlier post, and leaving Cocaine and Heroin out of this, what is so dangerous/addictive about Cannabis, MDMA or LSD/similar psychedelics?

meditraitor wrote: »

Let me get this straight.

Are you implying that people who thinks drugs should not be legalised are ignorant and uninformed?

Not all, but most are.

I mean, you can hardly say that most anti-drug people have a detailed knowledge of how even the most common recreational drugs work, why they are used or what's supposedly so dangerous about them that they should be illegal.

(Not to say that most pro-drugs people know much either...)

meditraitor wrote: »

Cannabis impairs cognitive development (capabilities of learning), including associative processes; free recall of previously learned items is often impaired when cannabi is used both during learning and recall periods;
Cannabis impairs psychomotor performance in a wide variety of tasks, such as motor coordination, divided attention, and operative tasks of many types; human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 mg of THC in cannabis; there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis.

Under the influence of cannabis, one should not attempt to learn or drive. Exact same with alcohol or even tiredness.

meditraitor wrote: »

Chronic health effects of cannabis use
selective impairment of cognitive functioning which include the organization and integration of complex information involving various mechanisms of attention and memory processes;
prolonged use may lead to greater impairment, which may not recover with cessation of use, and which could affect daily life functions;
development of a cannabis dependence syndrome characterized by a loss of control over cannabis use is likely in chronic users;
cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals;

Guess what? Chronic use of anything is bad.

meditraitor wrote: »

epithetial injury of the trachea and major bronchi is caused by long-term cannabis smoking;
airway injury, lung inflammation, and impaired pulmonary defence against infection from persistent cannabis consumption over prolonged periods;
heavy cannabis consumption is associated with a higher prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis and a higher incidence of acute bronchitis than in the non-smoking cohort;

Smoking is bad indeed. However cannabis can be consumed orally and by vaporisation with none of these ill effects.

meditraitor wrote: »

cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;
cannabis use during pregnancy may lead to postnatal risk of rare forms of cancer although more research is needed in this area

Ditto alcohol, ditto tobacco, ditto many OTC and prescription meds.

Drugs during pregnancy are a no no.


Not really that strong an argument against it, eh?

dublindude wrote: »

Absolutely.

An ex-girlfriend of mine used to smoke herion.

It is by far the best (most satisfying) drug you can take.

Why aren't you taking Kratom or Codeine, which are legal? Pretty similar, although weaker, effects.

Sam Vimes

mise_me_fein wrote: »

SamVines............do you have children? just wondering

no i don't. But if i did, i'd teach them that drugs are bad for their health and that they won't reach their full potential if they do them (talking about hash there)

i won't depend on brian cowen to prevent my kids getting their hands on them because he's not very good at it.

CPT. SURF

Tha Gopher wrote: »

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

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.

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.

Sorry, but I had to respond to some of this stuff. The theory that Cannabis will virtually dissapate in Ireland, or anywhere, is silly. To suggest that cutting off supply will do so is even sillier.

You do know that it is a plant right? And that is can be grown anywhere? Sure you even mention hydroponics yourself. What You must not know is that it only takes a few operational grow houses to supply a very large amount of people. If the supply from outside is cut-off (impossible anyway), it will simply be grown here. Oh, and by the way, setting up a grow house is not that expensive, tecnically difficult, or challenging. I have seen some people of very average intelligence and wealth pull it off with ease.

mise_me_fein

Sam Vimes wrote: »

no i don't. But if i did, i'd teach them that drugs are bad for their health and that they won't reach their full potential if they do them (talking about hash there)

i won't depend on brian cowen to prevent my kids getting their hands on them because he's not very good at it.

I was only looking for a yes or no answer...............anyway, I´m sure you'll remain as strongminded if you ever do have kids.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

no i don't. But if i did, i'd teach them that drugs are bad for their health and that they won't reach their full potential if they do them (talking about hash there)

i won't depend on brian cowen to prevent my kids getting their hands on them because he's not very good at it.

I can't understand your logic.

You think drugs are 'bad' (I'm quoting yourself there, btw) and you would teach your kids as much. But given that you would have all drugs classified as legal, you would also effectively support their right to smoke crystal meth or some such. Do you not see a contradiction there?

Whether Brian Cowen will or wont personally prevent your future children getting drugs isn't the point. Because under your proposals there would be no one to stop them.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I can't understand your logic.

You think drugs are 'bad' (I'm quoting yourself there, btw) and you would teach your kids as much. But given that you would have all drugs classified as legal, you would also effectively support their right to smoke crystal meth or some such. Do you not see a contradiction there?

no i don't see any contradiction. In a democracy you can support someone's right to do something while also thinking it's not a good thing to do. As long as they don't affect me people can do whatever they want

for example, my parents didn't like me going to mc donalds so they taught me that it was bad for me. they didn't call for a worldwide ban on mc donalds, they taught me the dangers and allowed me to make a decision myself

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Whether Brian Cowen will or wont personally prevent your future children getting drugs isn't the point. Because under your proposals there would be no one to stop them.

there's currently no one to stop them because prohibition has failed miserably. The person that is there to stop them is themselves and their own common sense

AARRRGH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As long as they don't affect me people can do whatever they want

You see, that's why I disagree with you. I think your opinions are extremely naive.

If all drugs are legalised it will affect you.

You think life will continue as normal, but it won't.

It won't just be nerds and students taking a few quality pills here and there.

The scum and the weak in our society will become addicts.

Crime will increase. Our streets will become less safe.

Your children will be under greater pressure to experiment with drugs.

The utopian view of everything being happy and lovely and democratic is wrong.

As I've said repeatedly, look what's happening with alcohol. Everyone knows alcohol is bad for them, but they don't care.

Do you really think adding Cocaine, Heroin, LSD, Marijuana, Speed, etc. into the mix will improve things?

No, it won't because it can't.

Yes, they can tax drugs, and yes they can control quality, but these are two minor positives for a whole load of pain we'll see.

We already have a drug problem. Making it easy to get drugs cannot possibly cause less addicts. It is mathematically impossible.

You are extremely naive.

/No offence meant
//This really is my last post on the matter

Bottle_of_Smoke

Sam Vimes wrote: »

it's also not socially acceptable to do many, many legal things and you'll find that a lot of illegal things are quite socially acceptable. it just depends on your circle


i know that, and if they were legal that wouldn't change

who says? and they already are the bad thing to do. in fact, by your logic they wouldn't be bad if they were legal. it'd suddenly be ok to whip out syringes at a house party

I reckon if heroin & moreso coke were legalised people would be more likely to whip them out at 16-17 year old parties. The way you can with joints at present. I get your points but I just can't see a way you could regulate coke & heroin without more people taking it or on the other hand maintaining a black market.

MDMA/dope/mushrooms I'd agree with you.

Sam Vimes

dublindude wrote: »

You see, that's why I disagree with you. I think your opinions are extremely naive.

If all drugs are legalised it will affect you.

You think life will continue as normal, but it won't.

It won't just be nerds and students taking a few quality pills here and there.

The scum and the weak in our society will become addicts.

Crime will increase. Our streets will become less safe.

Your children will be under greater pressure to experiment with drugs.

The utopian view of everything being happy and lovely and democratic is wrong.

As I've said repeatedly, look what's happening with alcohol. Everyone knows alcohol is bad for them, but they don't care.

Do you really think adding Cocaine, Heroin, LSD, Marijuana, Speed, etc. into the mix will improve things?

No, it won't because it can't.

Yes, they can tax drugs, and yes they can control quality, but these are two minor positives for a whole load of pain we'll see.

We already have a drug problem. Making it easy to get drugs cannot possibly cause less addicts. It is mathematically impossible.

You are extremely naive.

/No offence meant
//This really is my last post on the matter

i disagree for the following reasons and at this stage i'm just repeating myself:

1. anyone who wants to get drugs can get them. i guarantee you that as someone who has never bought drugs in his life, i could have a mountain of coke in front of me in an hour

2. everyone already knows the dangers of drugs. people who choose not to do them do so because of the dangers and not because brian cowen says they can't

3. if they were made legal, everyone would still know the dangers and people wouldn't just start doing them despite the dangers just because brian cowen says they can

you're the one who thinks it's difficult to get drugs. i think you're being naive tbh

AARRRGH

Damnit, I'm back.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. anyone who wants to get drugs can get them. i guarantee you that as someone who has never bought drugs in his life, i could have a mountain of coke in front of me in an hour

I could go get heroin right now, but I would have to buy it off a scumbag.

To the average person, that is a difficult thing to do.

Walking into Boots and buying heroin there would be easy.

We're talking easy and pleasant versus difficult and unpleasant.

Things are not black and white.

Buying in Boots is a million times easier than buying from a scumbag.

Yes, in theory giving a scumbag money for heroin is "easy" in the sense that you don't have to learn physics at the same time, but to the average person it is difficult compared to how easy it would be to get it if it were legal.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

2. everyone already knows the dangers of drugs. people who choose not to do them do so because of the dangers and not because brian cowen says they can't

That makes no difference.

Everyone knows alcohol is bad for them but they don't care.

Unfortunately you have to protect people from themselves.

When I was younger (early 20's) I thought like you. I'm 30 now and I know I was just naive and full of optimism for the world.

The reality is a large number of Irish people are thick and they need protection.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

3. if they were made legal, everyone would still know the dangers and people wouldn't just start doing them despite the dangers just because brian cowen says they can

Let me guess, you're either a nerd or a student or at least someone who got an education?

And your friends are fairly similar?

What about the massive amount of people in Ireland who haven't been so lucky?

What about the people who grew up in deprived areas and never got much of an education?

You do realise there are hundreds of thousands of those people?

Or what about the damaged and weak in our society? They are everywhere.

You and your friends might benefit from getting quality drugs, but so many others would suffer.

You need to think about the affect it will have on other people rather than only caring how it will affect you.

JC 2K3

dublindude, Heroin and Cocaine aside, would you support the legalisation of Cannabis, MDMA and LSD/other psychedelics?

And on a different note:

dublindude wrote: »

As I've said repeatedly, look what's happening with alcohol. Everyone knows alcohol is bad for them, but they don't care.

Do you really think adding Cocaine, Heroin, LSD, Marijuana, Speed, etc. into the mix will improve things?

It probably won't improve things (besides the whole gangland crime thing), but how would it make things any worse? What difference does it make if people are off their faces on different drugs to alcohol? It's the prevalance of intoxication beyond a safe level that's the problem rather than the drug doing it.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i disagree for the following reasons and at this stage i'm just repeating myself:

1. anyone who wants to get drugs can get them. i guarantee you that as someone who has never bought drugs in his life, i could have a mountain of coke in front of me in an hour

Sorry, I don't know anyone I could get heroin or coke off. Maybe coke but it would require going through people & would take a while. Heroin my only option would be looking for a junkie on thomas st & there's no way I'd consider that for anything.

2. everyone already knows the dangers of drugs. people who choose not to do them do so because of the dangers and not because brian cowen says they can't

Hah, nonsense. When people experiment with them they gererally don't know the dangers. If you legalise it people will try them earlier. Being young they'll be more likely to get hooked on something very addictive like heroin/coke.

3. if they were made legal, everyone would still know the dangers and people wouldn't just start doing them despite the dangers just because brian cowen says they can

you're the one who thinks it's difficult to get drugs. i think you're being naive tbh

And as I said people would get them younger, and still not know the dangers - especially in working class areas.

What system do you proprose to regulate it by the way? That would stop younger people doing it without maintaining a black market?

Boggle

dublindude wrote:

I could go get heroin right now, but I would have to buy it off a scumbag.

Anone with so little regard for himself cares little about who he has to buy it from. Hope your reasoning improves from here...

(See my last post in this and argue that point - quit just repeating yourself as if it makes a point!)

Unfortunately you have to protect people from themselves.

When I was younger (early 20's) I thought like you. I'm 30 now and I know I was just naive and full of optimism for the world.

The reality is a large number of Irish people are thick and they need protection.

How many? Pease provide numbers or evidence to back up this statement and at least make an attemp to show how this would transfer towards the various types of drugs...

Let me guess, you're either a nerd or a student or at least someone who got an education?

Are you seriously trying to imply that education implies intelligence? I know some naive dumbass fools with degrees and I also know some very smart articulate electricians and barworkers.

Or what about the damaged and weak in our society?

Newsflash for you: most of these people are already taking whatever they want to take - except there's no protection for them as it can contain anything.

I would also argue that it makes it much more difficult to confront the problem as its illicit nature prohibits their ability to discuss their problems.

Bottle_of_smoke wrote:

I reckon if heroin & moreso coke were legalised people would be more likely to whip them out at 16-17 year old parties.

Hands up here who was in school at this stage! Now hands up everyone who found it far easier to get drugs in school!! (Disclaimer: may not to apply to those posh private schools - how am I to know)

Your soundbites are the absolute height of naivety at times. While I agree that heroine is an abhorrent drug, based on what I know, I disagree with you about how it should be dealt with. As long as there's money in it there will always be an ever growing, ever strengthening supply chain ready to benefit from it.

Now for any of you. Please show WHY each drug was classified illegal (the circumstances that lead up to their banning and which must have justified it)

AARRRGH

JC 2K3 wrote: »

dublindude, Heroin and Cocaine aside, would you support the legalisation of Cannabis, MDMA and LSD/other psychedelics?

I wouldn't really support the legalisation of any drugs, but in general I have fairly positive opinions of Cannabis, MDMA and LSD.

I would support their use in medical circumstances, for example, like the way some people smoke weed to ease pain, or if any of the others were proven to help people.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

What difference does it make if people are off their faces on different drugs to alcohol?

We already have too many problems due to alcohol. I don't think we should risk adding more.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

It's the prevalance of intoxication beyond a safe level that's the problem rather than the drug doing it.

If there was some super reliable way we could allow people to take drugs, like if they had to go to a special centre and stay there during their high, for example there were LSD rooms with lots of tactile stuff on the walls or something like that. I would be ok with that, sort of.

Boggle wrote: »

Pease provide numbers or evidence to back up this statement and at least make an attemp to show how this would transfer towards the various types of drugs...

You lost me as soon as you pulled out the "please provide statistics to back up your point" nonsense.

JC 2K3

dublindude wrote: »

I wouldn't really support the legalisation of any drugs, but in general I have fairly positive opinions of Cannabis, MDMA and LSD.

I would support their use in medical circumstances, for example, like the way some people smoke weed to ease pain, or if any of the others were proven to help people.

Is it your world view that sobriety in all situations, where possible, is optimal?

dublindude wrote: »

We already have too many problems due to alcohol. I don't think we should risk adding more.

But we also have too many problems due to other drugs being illegal. It's a case of whether social problems due to intoxication would rise greatly (or fall) if other means for people to become legally intoxicated existed and whether gangland violence would decrease if drugs were legal.

Tbh, there really needs to be a massive rethink of our societal and legal approach and attitudes to drugs, including alcohol. Simply legalising drugs or implementing harsher laws isn't going to achieve anything.

dublindude wrote: »

If there was some super reliable way we could allow people to take drugs, like if they had to go to a special centre and stay there during their high, for example there were LSD rooms with lots of tactile stuff on the walls or something like that. I would be ok with that, sort of.

Heh, I have to say, I've had similar ideas myself. It's nice to have some practical discussion on possibilities for regulation, and exploring ideas that would be a better alternative to the status quo rather than the same, general back and forth arguing about why they should or shouldn't be legal.

The problem with LSD rooms would be the fundamental importance of set and setting to a strong psychedelic experience such as the one it offers. If many people were in one of these LSD rooms, certain people might feel uncomfortable around strangers. The unfamiliar room wouldn't be a great thing either. There's also the fact that an acid trip lasts up to 14 hours. What if someone wanted to go home after 6/7? Could you let them or would you have to keep them in captivity until the time was up?

However, for something like MDMA, such a controlled environment would be extremely workable, IMO. Except instead of a "room", you could have a nightclub where MDMA was permitted and sold. There could be cool down rooms, water easily available, doctors knowledgable about the drug, access to antioxidants, vitamins and other protection products and information on safe use propagated throughout the place.

For psychedelics like LSD, I think the best solution would be clubs, like a golf club, but with psychedelic experiences rather than golf as their form of recreation. People would have to display a good understanding of the seriousness of psychedelic drugs, and be the "right type of person", before gaining admittance, and would be allowed then to take substances of certain strengths and dosages depending on how long they'd been a member. I'm not sure whether letting members use the drugs outside of the club would be a good idea. I think, however, that in a relaxed environment where people knew each other, it would be an adequate place to take psychedelics. There'd be a community and a support network for anyone experiencing a bad trip.

Sam Vimes

dublindude wrote: »

Damnit, I'm back.



I could go get heroin right now, but I would have to buy it off a scumbag.

To the average person, that is a difficult thing to do.

Walking into Boots and buying heroin there would be easy.

i knew you wouldn't be able to stay away

when it comes to heroin, i'm not talking about being able to buy it in boots. I'm talking about a highly controlled system to supply it to addicts so they don't have to buy it from scum or rob people. Something similar to the article i linked to earlier on

dublindude wrote: »

That makes no difference.

Everyone knows alcohol is bad for them but they don't care.

this goes back to the simplistic notion of "drugs are bad". Alcohol can possibly damage your liver after many years of heavy abuse and some people become aggressive with it. The vast majority of people drink with little or no ill effects. on the other hand, if someone takes heroin, the chances of completely destroying their lives are extremely large. You were the one objecting to people lumping in alcohol (i think, sorry if i'm wrong) and here you are comparing a few pints to shooting up. They're not the same thing and people can understand the difference

dublindude wrote: »

Unfortunately you have to protect people from themselves.

no you don't because then where do you stop? Is it only things that you think people should be protected from that should be made illegal? Or who decides what adults in this country can't have because they think some of them are too stupid to handle it?

dublindude wrote: »

When I was younger (early 20's) I thought like you. I'm 30 now and I know I was just naive and full of optimism for the world.

The reality is a large number of Irish people are thick and they need protection.

this thing of protecting people from themselves really pisses me off tbh. If people are stupid enough to ignore all the junkies they see on the street then by denying them drugs we're just delaying the inevitable. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

dublindude wrote: »

Let me guess, you're either a nerd or a student or at least someone who got an education?

And your friends are fairly similar?

What about the massive amount of people in Ireland who haven't been so lucky?

What about the people who grew up in deprived areas and never got much of an education?

You do realise there are hundreds of thousands of those people?

Or what about the damaged and weak in our society? They are everywhere.

You and your friends might benefit from getting quality drugs, but so many others would suffer.

You need to think about the affect it will have on other people rather than only caring how it will affect you.

i have an engineering degree btw. But you don't have to have a degree to be able to see a junkie on the street and say "i don't want to be like that". In fact people from deprived backgrounds have seen the results much more closely than me and are probably in a better position to make an informed choice

and you talk about drugs as if they're not already infesting every level of our society. They are, especially in deprived areas. there is a possibility that legalisation would make drugs more socially acceptable in middle to upper class circles (although i don't think so) but they already are in deprived areas. These are the areas that are over run with junkies and dealers and these are the areas that would see the most benefit from controlled legalisation

Standman

Here's a thread that is very relevant to this issue:

Drug Laws; A Savage Hypocrisy

Read it!

Boggle

You lost me as soon as you pulled out the "please provide statistics to back up your point" nonsense.

Did I?? Funny how people like to spout empty rhetoric at whim but when to actually back up their assertions they consider the request to be nonsense...

AARRRGH

Boggle wrote: »

Did I?? Funny how people like to spout empty rhetoric at whim but when to actually back up their assertions they consider the request to be nonsense...

Can you back that up with stats?

/Just kidding
/Not replying to any more drug posts as I'll be here forever!