Cannabis should be legalized in Ireland To pull Our country out of ression

ISAW

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

A four year old article FFS :rolleyes: Things didn't pan out that way.

Actually they did. cannabis was never legal i Holland and still isnt!

Here's an article from 2 weeks ago
Its receiving major opposition and won't go through. The big places like Amsterdam/Eindhoven/Utrecht/The Hague are telling them to get f*cked.

Outside the "big places" cannabis was not tolerated to the same level. Michael Martin isnt wrong in the idea that "liberate cannabis everwhere" is a policy the Dutch didn't want!

Basically all this hype is coming from border towns getting stuck with drug tourism.

some of the opposition to total liberalisation is. Not ALL of it.

Thankfully there's a proper local government system here so there's no way its gonna be banned or restricted everywhere

Because it as tolerated in some places. But that still doeant contradict Martin. He was saying the dutch liberalisation policy was not being applied everywhere in Holland as they themselves thought that unwise.

for health affects see chapter 3
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/annual-report/2010

Buceph

I'm in favour of legislation, but there needs to be a bit of growing up done on both sides of the argument.

For every opponent who thinks that cannabis is a gateway drug, that'll wreck your life the second you have your first toke is a legalisation campaigner who thinks cannabis has zero effect on mental health in 100% of cases. Just like there'll be cases where the anti-lobby are shown responsible, normal, healthy stoners, there will be cases of cannabis ****ing people up. There's ignorance on both sides and that needs to be sorted out. As if cannabis were to be legalised we'd need a mature approach to what is a recreational psychoactive that does have an effect on individuals and society both good and bad. And until people are capable of that, legislation allowing for cannabis will be a long way away.

It's just unfortunate that the status quo is the way it is, because I think more damage is being done at the moment, than if it were legal.

whoopdedoo

and the collective answer from stoners and those sick and brave enough is ; stick your illegality, we'll do it cos we want/need to, doesn't matter what you think cos you're all corrupt b4stards who only change things for you, the monatery system, or your big business and pharma friends!!

fcuk your legislation, I've a plant inside!!


ps. I don't really as I'm moving soon, I'm simply pointing out the inept approach the war against cannabis is when it's so freely available and SO easy to flippin grow it!!

Bottle_of_Smoke

ISAW wrote: »

Actually they did. cannabis was never legal i Holland and still isnt!

No they didn't. It has the exact same status it did 4 years ago

Outside the "big places" cannabis was not tolerated to the same level. Michael Martin isnt wrong in the idea that "liberate cannabis everwhere" is a policy the Dutch didn't want!




some of the opposition to total liberalisation is. Not ALL of it.


Because it as tolerated in some places. But that still doeant contradict Martin. He was saying the dutch liberalisation policy was not being applied everywhere in Holland as they themselves thought that unwise.

for health affects see chapter 3
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/annual-report/2010

I don't care about martin, I don't have youtube anyway. My post was just to show the articles you posted are now irrelevent.

Overheal

Paulie Walnuts wrote: »

Sorreeee! A whole number percentage, are you serious? So you're saying that for it to be worthwhile, the newly formed hypothetical cannabis industry would need to be worth over 1.3 billion per year to make the idea worthwhile!!! Agriculture "only" brings in 5% of our GDP and you're suggesting that to make legalising justified, just one plant should be able to bring in 20% of all the others combined!!! Remembering that the agriculture sector with its 5% of GDP gets grants & subsidies to help it along (1.5 billion in 2008), the potential cannabis industry would be completely organic (in more ways than one).

http://farmsubsidy.org/IE/
http://www.indexmundi.com/ireland/gdp_composition_by_sector.html


Let's do some maths. If 3% of the adult population (approx 3,164,488m...3% of this leaves 94,934) who smoke weed regularly...

http://www.nacd.ie/news/launch_event07102005.html

....and who spend €50 per week on the drug (reasonable to assume) for 52 weeks a year would bring in €246,828,400 or just under quarter of a billion. That's just the from income from Irish stoners (these are conservative estimates by the way).

Add to that the floods of tourists that would fly into Ireland every weekend and stay in local hotels, eat in local restaurants (and boy do stoners eat), buy Irish weed and all the other spin off benefits that come with hoards of tourists. Add to this the savings that could be made by not enforcing current cannabis laws and dragging otherwise law abiding people through the courts. It might not add up to a paltry 1.3 billion euro but I'll refer you to the case of Beggars vs Choosers and let you decide.

"To pull the country out of recession"

You can argue it will have a positive effect all you like, and fair play to you even if I think your math assumptions are slightly wonky. But to say it will pull the economy out of recession and onto the ethereal wings of an economic boom fueled by love and Pink Floyd: You're joking.

bc dub

Cannabis shouldn't be legalised. Self clutivation of 2 or at most 3 plants in a persons home should be legalised.

Can you imagine how bad the government would **** up the legalisation of cannabis? The Taxes? The rules? The quality of the stuff I get now is Amsterdamesque and has been for quite some time. People should be allowed to grow for themselves in their own homes. Limited to 2/3 plants, selling would still be illegal, transportation of large amounts would be, importation, exportation and driving under the infleunce.

aDeener

i don't think there actually is a logical argument against legalisation unless someone is against all forms harmful substances/services - alcohol, tobacco and this could be extended to fast food, gambling etc.

prech101

I felt the answers given on the Digital Debate were insulting, esp. Kenny "the Plank" and Gilmores, at least van winkle put up an argument, and Gormely sure ya know he smokes!!!
Kenny "the plank" did no research on the topic and is completely out of touch with people want who are under 40.
Gilmore did the typical politician thing and gave a general answer to a specific question "ears shut"

The future is green,, green power and legal weed.

And why not!!
Take money out of the hands of gangs
New Revenue stream
New tourist industry
Reduce police time spent on harassing decent citizens who just want a bit of smoke to help relax and come to term with negative equity
Free up space in prisons for citizens who default on bills "bankers excluded of course)
Jobs direct and indirect
A different option for those of us who don't like going out and getting smashed drunk.

In fact, think I will just move to Canada!!

In the words of the late greak Bill Hicks "Sure i did some drugs and guess what, didn't kill anybody, didn't rape anybody, didn't run off any building,, just laughed my ass off and had a fooking great time"

HavingCrack

Even though I support legalisation am I the only one who isn't exactly pro the cannabis tourism some people are promoting? The idea of loads of people visiting Ireland to get stoned just seems kind of unsavoury to me to be honest.

meditraitor

Strange, all the best arguments were argued and beaten down by isaw and still they come back. Maybe dope does have an effect on memory..

ordinarywoman

meditraitor wrote: »

Strange, all the best arguments were argued and beaten down by isaw and still they come back. Maybe dope does have an effect on memory..

ROFL!!!!
yeah all those 'best' strawman arguements, about heroine,child abuse and prosititution....that still have nothing to do with cannabis!!

newtadis

meditraitor wrote: »

Strange, all the best arguments were argued and beaten down by isaw and still they come back. Maybe dope does have an effect on memory..

or mabee isaw just does not like cannabis ,

i believe cannabis should be controlled and decriminalized

as it would take the money out of the dealers hands ,

newtadis

im a smoker i live in ireland , and im never gona stop

i think that people are brain washed into thinking this plant causes more harm than tobacco alcohol
well its not the 2 i just wrote are more of a evil drugs than cannabis will ever be ,

its a shame that this country has so many old people brain washed into voting for the same government policys for the last 50 years
who tell them that cannabis should be outlawed ,
well i asked my gran she told me that most medicines were made from hemp untill the government & pharmaceutical realized that people could make there own

she told me hemp medicines were very good

seriously whats the difference between a doc proscribing antidepressants and cannabis


at the end of the day people are going to use cannabis regardless ,

why not stop gangs making millions , & killing kids for a 100euro
kids being able to get hold of cannabis so easy because its not regulated in the right way .
we have no teaching of drugs in the real way in schools like teaching kids that its not only ilegal drugs that can kill , and showing them the harms of all drugs , including coffee , paracetamol , tobacco , alcohol , etc

newtadis

HavingCrack wrote: »

Even though I support legalisation am I the only one who isn't exactly pro the cannabis tourism some people are promoting? The idea of loads of people visiting Ireland to get stoned just seems kind of unsavoury to me to be honest.

to be honest id prefer 100 smokers to 100 drinkers ,

ISAW

prech101 wrote: »

Take money out of the hands of gangs

It could also put money into their hands like illegal tobacco and booze does.

New Revenue stream

But is it a significant one? How much will it raise in taxes? enough to pay for the police combatting the new illegal unregulated cannabis business?
any figures?

New tourist industry

We could legalise prostution or pedop[helia nd that would also creae a new tourist industry. But just because it will increase tourism isnt sufficient reason to do it is it? You have to establish it is acceptable and if it is not acceptable the tourism argument does not suffice.

I mean take Holland wher cannabis and prostution is a tourist industry. wher do you ever see a dutch government advertisement for proistitution or drugs as a positive part of Dutch culture?

Reduce police time spent on harassing decent citizens who just want a bit of smoke to help relax and come to term with negative equity

But how much time do Gardai waste on this? And you don't need to legalise cannabis for this. We could reduce the penalty of possession to a misdemeanour like a parking ticket.

Free up space in prisons for citizens who default on bills "bankers excluded of course)

I am not aware of any prison spaces being filled for possession unless it is possession of a serious amount and obviously organised crime. It usually involves seisure with other drugs and guns and cash in the tens to hundreds of thousands. That isnt a casual user it is organised crime!

Jobs direct and indirect

How many? And see the prostitution argument above. I mean we could bring back corporal punishment and create jobs for instructors as to how you can hurt a child but cause no permanent physical damage but if it is not considered to be acceptable then saying it will create jobs isn't sufficient is it?

A different option for those of us who don't like going out and getting smashed drunk.

Yes but that option already exists. Don't get smashed drunk!
I really don't think saying "replace one drug with another" is a valid reason for legalisation is it?
If not why not legalise heroine?

In the words of the late greak Bill Hicks "Sure i did some drugs and guess what, didn't kill anybody, didn't rape anybody, didn't run off any building,, just laughed my ass off and had a fooking great time"

If he grew it himself. If not he paid people who were involved in kneecappings extortion rackets and organised crime. who do you pay for your drugs? Where does he get it? Where does the person he gets it from get it? At that level you are at organised crime.

newtadis wrote: »

to be honest id prefer 100 smokers to 100 drinkers ,

But that could be an argument for restrictions or bans of alcohol rather then one for legalised drugs.

newtadis wrote: »

or mabee isaw just does not like cannabis ,

It isn't a question of me liking it or not. the question is is it good for society to make unrestricted recreational availability. We have this to a certain degree with sex. Is society better because of more single parents or because people can have sex whenever with whoever they want?

i believe cannabis should be controlled and decriminalized

I'm not against that if there is good support for that. Particularly for medical use. But what new laws are needed? Medical use may already be available under existing law.

as it would take the money out of the dealers hands ,

But if you already put it into dealers hands isn't what you are doing wrong? If so why are you supporting organised crime?

theg81der

ISAW i`m a non drinker, non smoker etc but you have to be realistic teenagers will try these things and the more you try to stop them the more attractive you make them. I would prefer if it was regulated.

I`m rare in that I was allowed to do more or less whatever I wanted to which has resulted in me making an informed decision not to partake later on. Adults that decide to smoke, drink etc its their right to decide. People under the influence of cannabis don`t present the risk that people under the influence of alcohol do.

professore

Since I don't smoke cannabis and have no strong feelings either way I can try to provide an unbiased view.

It could also put money into their hands like illegal tobacco and booze does.

This would be much much less than the current problem if the price was reasonable.

But is it a significant one? How much will it raise in taxes? enough to pay for the police combatting the new illegal unregulated cannabis business?
any figures?

Obviously the new unregulated cannabis business would be much smaller than the current one thus saving money - UNLESS the price of the legal stuff was exorbitant. How many speakeasies are there in the US today? How much money does the US spend fighting illegal alcohol production and supply ? Compare this with the 1930s which arguably was the reason the Mafia became so powerful.

We could legalise prostution or pedop[helia nd that would also creae a new tourist industry. But just because it will increase tourism isnt sufficient reason to do it is it? You have to establish it is acceptable and if it is not acceptable the tourism argument does not suffice.

This is obvious but not relevant to cannabis. Having some stoned tourists is not a big problem - ask the Gardai which they would prefer in Temple Bar at 2 am - a few stoners or a boozed up stag party ?

I mean take Holland wher cannabis and prostution is a tourist industry. wher do you ever see a dutch government advertisement for proistitution or drugs as a positive part of Dutch culture?

They don't need to. We advertise alcohol as a positive part of Irish culture. Hell we even advertise an airport terminal that has no-one to sell to !!!!!

But how much time do Gardai waste on this? And you don't need to legalise cannabis for this. We could reduce the penalty of possession to a misdemeanour like a parking ticket.

This sounds like a dealer's argument - scared the legalisation will destroy their business which it will. Problem is that this does nothing to stop the drug gangs.

If not why not legalise heroine?

There's an argument for this too - if you register as an addict you could get it from your GP thus destroying the market for the dealers. It's all about the dealers - make it not worth their while and they will stop.

If he grew it himself. If not he paid people who were involved in kneecappings extortion rackets and organised crime. who do you pay for your drugs? Where does he get it? Where does the person he gets it from get it? At that level you are at organised crime.

Agree with this 100%. This is the strongest argument FOR legalisation.

ISAW

newtadis wrote: »

seriously mate wtf would you prefer it was left the way it is . ,

I'm not making the case for legalisation here so it isn't for me to say what I want or not.
If you read over the thread seriously you will clearly see what I think about the issue and what changes can be made and what evidence supports change.

Otherwise look up "shifting the burden" under "logical fallacy"

And don't get into the argument that it was made illegal so i have to justify how it was made illegal in the first place. I have also been over that argument.

because if so you must be brainwashed to pal

That isn't a very strong argument i.e. I must be wrong because you believe I am. Have you any actual evidence? Furthermore you seem to have no idea what I believe or what I have stated. go and read it!

ISAW

theg81der wrote: »

ISAW i`m a non drinker, non smoker etc but you have to be realistic teenagers will try these things and the more you try to stop them the more attractive you make them. I would prefer if it was regulated.

And alcohol? And heroine? Pornography? How about sex? Or do you just stop at cannabis?

Currently it is regulated. It is illegal! If sex is harmless then regulations are not necessary but we have laws against some sex and alcohol.

Cannabis is not shown to be totally harmless. In fact pure heroine is physically less harmful. So iuf we are going to prevent other recreational head shop drugs then why not cannabis? Medicinal use is a different matter.

I`m rare in that I was allowed to do more or less whatever I wanted to which has resulted in me making an informed decision not to partake later on. Adults that decide to smoke, drink etc its their right to decide. People under the influence of cannabis don`t present the risk that people under the influence of alcohol do.

I agree. So what? People on heroine don't present rick either when they are high or zonked. That isn't a reason to legalise heroine is it?

And you admit you are rare. Some people can't handle and it will cause psychotic effects or addiction. Why allow them to use drugs?

newtadis

im out on this discussion , isaw you seriously need to go and learn your self mate , there is very little evidence that you have provided ,

all u are doing is hijacking this thread with rubbish

i wont be replying again to u

ISAW

professore wrote: »

This is obvious but not relevant to cannabis. Having some stoned tourists is not a big problem - ask the Gardai which they would prefer in Temple Bar at 2 am - a few stoners or a boozed up stag party ?

Which is an argument for restriction on alcohol. Gardai might also prefer stoned heroin addicts but that isn't sufficient reason to make heroine legal is it?

They don't need to. We advertise alcohol as a positive part of Irish culture. Hell we even advertise an airport terminal that has no-one to sell to !!!!!

Which is an argument for restricting advertising on harmful things and not an argument on legalising another additional harmful thing!

This sounds like a dealer's argument - scared the legalisation will destroy their business which it will. Problem is that this does nothing to stop the drug gangs.

Not for carrying small amounts. Dealers carry thousands of Euro worth. Most dealers apparently dont make much money and live with their mammy.

There's an argument for this too - if you register as an addict you could get it from your GP thus destroying the market for the dealers. It's all about the dealers - make it not worth their while and they will stop.

Where did a "free heroin" scheme ever work?

Agree with this 100%. This is the strongest argument FOR legalisation.

Where did I say I was against legalisation?
I just dont see any reasonable arguments for legislation to support unrestricted recreational use. all i see is people supporting stoners with no underlying sourced evidence.

Buceph

ISAW wrote: »

Cannabis is not shown to be totally harmless. In fact pure heroine is physically less harmful.

This is crap, a sensationalist bit of rubbish trying to discredit one thing by comparing it to another.

Did you know that inhaling pure water is far more damaging than inhaling cannabis smoke?
:rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

I just dont see any reasonable arguments for legislation to support unrestricted recreational use. all i see is people supporting stoners with no underlying sourced evidence.

Do you really want evidence of the idea that people enjoy smoking weed? Next you'll be asking for evidence the Pope is a Catholic.

Cosimo Salvatore

ISAW wrote: »

Which is an argument for restriction on alcohol. Gardai might also prefer stoned heroin addicts but that isn't sufficient reason to make heroine legal is it?



Which is an argument for restricting advertising on harmful things and not an argument on legalising another additional harmful thing!



Not for carrying small amounts. Dealers carry thousands of Euro worth. Most dealers apparently dont make much money and live with their mammy.



Where did a "free heroin" scheme ever work?



Where did I say I was against legalisation?
I just dont see any reasonable arguments for legislation to support unrestricted recreational use. all i see is people supporting stoners with no underlying sourced evidence.

This thread is about Cannabis.

ISAW

newtadis wrote: »

im out on this discussion ,

Run away if you want it wont win you any discussions or convince anyone you are correct.

isaw you seriously need to go and learn your self mate , there is very little evidence that you have provided ,

When yo cant win the debate do you always resort to attacking the person?

1. I am not making the case so don't shift the burden[ onto me
It is for those making the case to provide the evidence.
Next I suppose we can assumen guilt and hang ISAW before we have any evidence in a trial?

2. In spite of not having to do so I have provided evidence and I have taken up every single piece of published medical evidence and shown the holes in it.

all u are doing is hijacking this thread with rubbish

REally? Care to point to a single piece of rubbish? Or will you just call people names make unsupported allegations and run away?

i wont be replying again to u

I'm not surprised you can't support your position. You really have no hope of changing any legislation with such an attitude.

professore

ISAW wrote: »

Where did I say I was against legalisation?
I just dont see any reasonable arguments for legislation to support unrestricted recreational use. all i see is people supporting stoners with no underlying sourced evidence.

Prohibition is a case study in this. Since cannabis is less harmful than alcohol, either it should be legalised or both should be banned. Does the below not sound familiar ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Many social problems have been attributed to the Prohibition era. Mafia groups limited their activities to gambling and theft until 1920, when organized bootlegging manifested in response to the effect of Prohibition.[29] A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies, leading to racketeering. In essence prohibition provided a financial basis for organized crime to flourish.[30] Rather than reducing crime it seemed prohibition had transformed the cities into battlegrounds between opposing bootlegging gangs. In a study of over 30 major U.S cities during the prohibition years of 1920 and 1921, the number of crimes increased by 24%. Additionally, theft and burglaries increased by 9%, homicide by 12.7%, assaults and battery rose by 13%, drug addiction by 44.6% and police department costs rose by 11.4%. It has been speculated that this was largely the result of “black-market violence” as well as law enforcing resources having been diverted elsewhere. Despite the beliefs of the prohibitionist movement that by outlawing alcohol crime would surely be reduced,the reality was that the Volstead act lead to worse social conditions than were experienced prior to prohibition as demonstrated by more lethal forms of alcohol, increased crime rates, and the establishment of a black market dominated by criminal organizations.

And critically :

When repeal of Prohibition occurred in 1933, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market alcohol profits in most states (states still had the right to enforce their own laws concerning alcohol consumption) because of competition with low-priced alcohol sales at legal liquor stores.

ISAW

Cosimo Salvatore wrote: »

This thread is about Cannabis.

LOL! It is about the principle of legalisation of cannabis particularly for revenue generation. as such it is about jurisprudence i.e. the system of laws we have and why and how we should change them. the law does not operate in a vacuum.

Saying that it is only about cannabis is like saying two apples and three apples are five apples and two oranges plus three oranges are five oranges but that tyou can't answer what two elephants and three elephants are since you only learned to add apples and oranges!

The reason for removing a law can be applied to other laws. This is what "case law" and legal argument is all about.

Buceph

ISAW wrote: »

The reason for removing a law can be applied to other laws. This is what "case law" and legal argument is all about.

That's not entirely true, as that would amount to the courts legislating, which they're prohibited from doing. Past case law has to have a direct causal line equivalent to the case in question. Case law cannot remove another law, unless you're talking about constitutionality, which isn't the case here.

Saying that cannabis being legalised must amount to herion being legalised is a rubbish notion, that has no effect in reality as they each stand on their own. Otherwise people wouldn't be arguing the peculiarities of cannabis in comparison to alcohol as legislation for legalisation would be a fait accompli.

ISAW

professore wrote: »

Prohibition is a case study in this. Since cannabis is less harmful than alcohol, either it should be legalised or both should be banned. Does the below not sound familiar ?

When repeal of Prohibition occurred in 1933, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market alcohol profits in most states (states still had the right to enforce their own laws concerning alcohol consumption) because of competition with low-priced alcohol sales at legal liquor stores.

Let us accept the alcohol argument on the basis that it was so acceptable before it became illegal. Making it illegal therefore was almost impossible because most people accepted alcohol even if they didn't use it themselves.

Let me take a counter argument

Prostitution is prohibited in Ireland. It was rampant in Dublin in the early 1900s. Should we therefore allow prostitution on the basis it reduces criminal activity? I would suggest it doesn't. I have seen illegal prostitution in operation in Holland where it is legally regulated.

Now if we legalise brothels and a porn industry and then find out we made a mistake we would have a hard time trying prohibition then wouldn't we? just as Holland is finding it hard to control prostitution and cannabis availability.

Cosimo Salvatore

ISAW wrote: »

LOL! It is about the principle of legalisation of cannabis particularly for revenue generation. as such it is about jurisprudence i.e. the system of laws we have and why and how we should change them. the law does not operate in a vacuum.

Saying that it is only about cannabis is like saying two apples and three apples are five apples and two oranges plus three oranges are five oranges but that tyou can't answer what two elephants and three elephants are since you only learned to add apples and oranges!

The reason for removing a law can be applied to other laws. This is what "case law" and legal argument is all about.

With respect, I don't have the stamina or indeed the vocabulary to argue with somebody like you. My opinion means sh*t to you. But if this thread is, as you say, " about the principle of legalisation of cannabis particularly for revenue generation "

Then why do you keep bringing heroin into the equation ? What has heroin got to do with, as you say, the legalisation of cannabis, particulary for revenue generation ?

Buceph

ISAW wrote: »

Prostitution is prohibited in Ireland. It was rampant in Dublin in the early 1900s. Should we therefore allow prostitution on the basis it reduces criminal activity? I would suggest it doesn't. I have seen illegal prostitution in operation in Holland where it is legally regulated.

You're looking for a single compelling, black and white reason for something to be done. That's quite naive. There are relatively few areas where things are absolute. And to base all your arguments on such logic is to betray the complexity of the question at hand and results in an obtuse refusal to engage in a constructive discussion.