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

Go-Go-Gadget

ISAW, you are wrong in every conceivable way. All you are attempting to do is derail this conversation by picking at the way facts are delivered to you. You have been given paper after paper and still do not accept it. You are not of a scientific background even if you believe you are..

This debate ended as soon as evidence was posted and it has been posted. The research provided on mammalian models alone warrants an increase in allowances for clinical trials on the subject. The Irish government do not give permission out realistically. Only a handful of trials have been actually ever been considered. (I know this because I attempted to apply for such research permission) You are more likely to get permission if you research negative effects of cannabis.

Meanwhile this occurs all over the world, for example in America the FDA does everything in its power to prevent research into medical marijuana.


*In before ISAW tries to change the topic back to something unrelated to the main debate like me saying he is not of scientific background while ignoring the rest of the post as he has done in pretty much every poorly thought out response he/she has posted thus far*

10belowzero

Fact's smack , as homer would say , and just like all the hysteria over the head shop's , people seem to lose the plot ,whenever drug's are mentioned.
The new government need's to take a whole new approach to the whole drug's issue(including the national abuse of alcohol), because the whole national drug strategy is just not working and the war on drug's , has long since been lost.
As a nth side dub , i've seen what the effect's of drug's prohibition have been , and lost count of the funeral's , of those who died in abject misery ,long before their time.
One thing I do know is ,that the present hypocrisy of pretending we don't have a national drug pandemic is not going to go away.During the election , there were a number of death's in killkenny , due to a bad supply of heroin ,hardly a word in the press about it , cause it's an every day occurrence, and when poor auld Gerry and Katie went , the same old hoo ha.
Prohibition with alcohol did not work ,and nearly a century later , drug's prohibition is not working - now you can go on all day debating the fact's and pro's and con's of drug's , legal status etc etc , but some where in this country to day , another young soul is being laid to rest and will tomorrow and the day after,unless some change is made in the way we deal with this issue.One FACT that does stand out , and you only have to walk down O'Connelll st or get on the Luas to witness it , is THAT NOT ONE GOD DAMM THING has changed in 20 year's, apart from the problem getting 20 time's worse ,what are we going to do ,wait another 20 year's so it's 40 time's worse.And the most sickening hypocrisy of all this , is we have a nation of rampant alcoholic's , dictating to another section of the population, too do as we say , but not as we do.
We can only hope , that for once ,maybe the nation could take it's collective head , out of it's pint glass , and at least try to have some informed /calm discussion of the whole issue - though I doubt it , considering the country is in complete denial or even aware of it's monumental drink problem or that it dwarf's the drug problem in the scale of it's negative effect's on our great country.We can but only hope.

Snowc

ISAW wrote: »

You would be wrong.

Are you a scientist ?

ISAW wrote: »

You base this calim on WHat evidence?

Can you prove you know what you are talking about in in relation to cannabis staying illegal?

ISAW wrote: »

Where did I say i was right or have to prove anything? I stated that people claiming that cannabis should be legalised have to support their claim with evidence. I haven't seen any strong evidence.

Have you credibly evidence that cannabis should stay illegal ?

ISAW wrote: »

As i have debunked fairly much all the so called medical evidence perhaps you should go and get some?

Have you evidence that cannabis doesn't have any medical benefits ?

ISAW wrote: »

In what way is the following wikipedia link you supply showing a "success"?

How can you prove it was not a success?

ISAW wrote: »

Absolute nonsense! I'd be happy to partake in such a trial if a proper trial was offered. I suffer from a condition which might well be assisted by cannabis. I also suggest you look up "thalidomide"

Why don't you ask your doctor if cannabis would help with you ailment ?

ISAW wrote: »

So what? There is no doubt in people's mind we will have abortion, the death penalty, the birch, the end of the world will come in five years time. Oil will reach $550 a barrel... so what? If you make a claim it is for you to support it. "I believe" is an opinion I believe this is true because of evidence 1 fact 2 and evidence 3 is something a bit stronger. Don't you agree?

Can you prove abortion and the death penalty will be legal in 5 years time?

ISAW

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

ISAW, you are wrong in every conceivable way.

Really ? any evidence to support this? What do you claim I am wrong about and you are right about ? By the way this isn't about MY claimns it is about people supporting THEIR claims of cannabis being legalised.

More opinion!

All you are attempting to do is derail this conversation by picking at the way facts are delivered to you.

I am doing nothing of the sort and I resent that personal attack. I am asking for the so called "expert opinion" or "published sources" and I am showing how the ones offered do NOT suppoort the claims made about cannabis curing cancer etc.

You have been given paper after paper and still do not accept it.

Really? Care to show me say three papers which show cancer in humans was cured by cannabis?

Now people have claimed there are hundreds but usually the same few papers are offered and they are not conclusive.

You are not of a scientific background even if you believe you are..

I fact i have a proven track record in science and several postgraduate qualifications and undergraduate ones and professional ones related to science but as i have stated I don't tend to argue from authority.

This debate ended as soon as evidence was posted and it has been posted.

So you claim! Where is that evidence and what do you say it proves?

The research provided on mammalian models alone warrants an increase in allowances for clinical trials on the subject.

Indeed it does and I wholeheartedly support such research. That however is NOT evidence that cannabis cures cancer in humans nor evidence that it should be freely available for recreational use!

The Irish government do not give permission out realistically.

And you evidence is?

Only a handful of trials have been actually ever been considered.

Only a handful are considered for Plasma Physics or Particle Physics or Astronomy or planetary science. Does that mean that the government wants physics to be illegal?

(I know this because I attempted to apply for such research permission) You are more likely to get permission if you research negative effects of cannabis.

And your evidence is? You got turned down for a grant?
Do you have an MD or PhD in cytology or a related field?
Do you have a track record in publishing or industrial chemistry?
Do you have partners in at least three EU states with similar experience?
Have you ever attended a conference or seminar on how to apply for such research funding e.g. European Framework Programme?
I have and I never came across anyone from any EU country proposiung such research other than the Teagasc research into cannabis for fuel research which I supplied.

Meanwhile this occurs all over the world, for example in America the FDA does everything in its power to prevent research into medical marijuana.

A conspiracy theory into the funding of research even if true is actually evidence FOR my counter argument i.e. that you haven't supported your case with published research.In fact you are admitting there is no evidence because of ...whatever reason

*In before ISAW tries to change the topic back to something unrelated to the main debate like me saying he is not of scientific background while ignoring the rest of the post as he has done in pretty much every poorly thought out response he/she has posted thus far*

Where? Care to cite say five examples?

10belowzero wrote: »

Fact's smack , as homer would say , and just like all the hysteria over the head shop's , people seem to lose the plot ,whenever drug's are mentioned.

So what? what has that to do with free recreational cannabis in Ireland?

The new government need's to take a whole new approach to the whole drug's issue(including the national abuse of alcohol), because the whole national drug strategy is just not working and the war on drug's , has long since been lost.

Ok suppose Yes. So what? What has that to do with free recreational cannabis in Ireland?

As a nth side dub , i've seen what the effect's of drug's prohibition have been , and lost count of the funeral's , of those who died in abject misery ,long before their time.

So you think if all drugs were legal they would not be dead?

... THAT NOT ONE GOD DAMM THING has changed in 20 year's, apart from the problem getting 20 time's worse ,what are we going to do ,wait another 20 year's so it's 40 time's worse.

and you think free recreational cannabis will change all this? what evidence do you have to support that?

Snowc wrote: »

Are you a scientist ?

I argue on the basis of people producing published literature and supporting what they say. the fact that i have qualifications in the field of science or a track record in science policy or publishing has nothing to do with that. I do not "argue from authority".

Can you prove you know what you are talking about in in relation to cannabis staying illegal?

1. Look up "argument from authority"
2. Look up "shifting the burden"

You will find both under "logical fallacy"


It is a fallacy based on specious reasoning.

Look up the Simpsons episode "Much Apu about nothing"
Because of a Bear seen in the town they introduced a big anti Bear police force with helicopters etc. A "fear society "A bit like the "threat of WMD" and Islamists and all the spending on invading Iraq which had nothing to do with WMD and everything to do with creating a securocrat state.

Bear Tax was introduced and Homer tells Lisa it must be working because there are no Bears around. Lisa picks up a rock and points out that she could just as easily say the rock keeps away Tigers because there are no Tigers around. Homer offers to buy the rock.


I don't buy your argument.

Have you credibly evidence that cannabis should stay illegal ?

Have you looked up "shifting the burden"? By the way WHERE did i say it should stay illegal?

Have you evidence that cannabis doesn't have any medical benefits ?

I don't see any tigers around here either so I suppose Cannabis keeps them away?

How can you prove it was not a success?

Did you look up proving a negative?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is it?

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

Why don't you ask your doctor if cannabis would help with you ailment ?

I might. But even if I believed it did I would not come here and argue that it did without properly supported evidence.

http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20110/fallaciesexplained.htm#wishful

Wishful Thinking

An argument in which a strong emotional investment persuades the arguer to advance a completely implausible reason, where it's clear that the arguer merely advances that reason to feel better about himself or herself (rather than because it's the truth).

The arguer adopts the (usually implicit) assumption: "I should believe whatever makes me feel better about myself." An example would be: "I'm not really hurting the environment by driving this gas-guzzling SUV. After all, it lets me go out into rugged places where I can be at peace with nature."

Can you prove abortion and the death penalty will be legal in 5 years time?

I am not claiming they will be. If I did make that claim I would have to support it. Just as people making other claims have to support theirs. I am only offering them as ludicrous examples just as other wishfull thinking examples might pan out such as the end of the world - wishful only in the logical fallacy sense

Go-Go-Gadget

ISAW wrote: »

Really ? any evidence to support this? What do you claim I am wrong about and you are right about ? By the way this isn't about MY claimns it is about people supporting THEIR claims of cannabis being legalised.

More opinion!



I am doing nothing of the sort and I resent that personal attack. I am asking for the so called "expert opinion" or "published sources" and I am showing how the ones offered do NOT suppoort the claims made about cannabis curing cancer etc.



Really? Care to show me say three papers which show cancer in humans was cured by cannabis?

Now people have claimed there are hundreds but usually the same few papers are offered and they are not conclusive.



I fact i have a proven track record in science and several postgraduate qualifications and undergraduate ones and professional ones related to science but as i have stated I don't tend to argue from authority.



So you claim! Where is that evidence and what do you say it proves?



Indeed it does and I wholeheartedly support such research. That however is NOT evidence that cannabis cures cancer in humans nor evidence that it should be freely available for recreational use!



And you evidence is?



Only a handful are considered for Plasma Physics or Particle Physics or Astronomy or planetary science. Does that mean that the government wants physics to be illegal?


And your evidence is? You got turned down for a grant?
Do you have an MD or PhD in cytology or a related field?
Do you have a track record in publishing or industrial chemistry?
Do you have partners in at least three EU states with similar experience?
Have you ever attended a conference or seminar on how to apply for such research funding e.g. European Framework Programme?
I have and I never came across anyone from any EU country proposiung such research other than the Teagasc research into cannabis for fuel research which I supplied.



A conspiracy theory into the funding of research even if true is actually evidence FOR my counter argument i.e. that you haven't supported your case with published research.In fact you are admitting there is no evidence because of ...whatever reason



Where? Care to cite say five examples?





So what? what has that to do with free recreational cannabis in Ireland?



Ok suppose Yes. So what? What has that to do with free recreational cannabis in Ireland?



So you think if all drugs were legal they would not be dead?




and you think free recreational cannabis will change all this? what evidence do you have to support that?





I argue on the basis of people producing published literature and supporting what they say. the fact that i have qualifications in the field of science or a track record in science policy or publishing has nothing to do with that. I do not "argue from authority".



1. Look up "argument from authority"
2. Look up "shifting the burden"

You will find both under "logical fallacy"


It is a fallacy based on specious reasoning.

Look up the Simpsons episode "Much Apu about nothing"
Because of a Bear seen in the town they introduced a big anti Bear police force with helicopters etc. A "fear society "A bit like the "threat of WMD" and Islamists and all the spending on invading Iraq which had nothing to do with WMD and everything to do with creating a securocrat state.

Bear Tax was introduced and Homer tells Lisa it must be working because there are no Bears around. Lisa picks up a rock and points out that she could just as easily say the rock keeps away Tigers because there are no Tigers around. Homer offers to buy the rock.


I don't buy your argument.



Have you looked up "shifting the burden"? By the way WHERE did i say it should stay illegal?



I don't see any tigers around here either so I suppose Cannabis keeps them away?



Did you look up proving a negative?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is it?

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




I might. But even if I believed it did I would not come here and argue that it did without properly supported evidence.

http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20110/fallaciesexplained.htm#wishful

Wishful Thinking

An argument in which a strong emotional investment persuades the arguer to advance a completely implausible reason, where it's clear that the arguer merely advances that reason to feel better about himself or herself (rather than because it's the truth).

The arguer adopts the (usually implicit) assumption: "I should believe whatever makes me feel better about myself." An example would be: "I'm not really hurting the environment by driving this gas-guzzling SUV. After all, it lets me go out into rugged places where I can be at peace with nature."



I am not claiming they will be. If I did make that claim I would have to support it. Just as people making other claims have to support theirs. I am only offering them as ludicrous examples just as other wishfull thinking examples might pan out such as the end of the world - wishful only in the logical fallacy sense

Stop doing this, "ill cut out a few words and attack those only" you need to just stop typing, you're wrong and are so disillusioned you only see your own faulty logic.

Shut up please.

I know this because when I applied (Mary Harneys term) for permission to carry out research into the anti-cancer role of cannabinoids in human cancer cell lines. The preference given to research carried out to discern negative impacts of cannabinoids was explained to me by an academic representative of the previous coalition.

You're arrogance drips from your posts and your attempts to derail this debate is obvious, but maybe its your lack of knowledge and maturity showing itself, you constantly try to discuss what an argument is or what proof is defined as.

Leave the thread if you're going to continue.

ISAW

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

Stop doing this, "ill cut out a few words and attack those only"

It is how the quoting system works! My God if you are having problems with inline quoting you should see usenet!

you need to just stop typing, you're wrong and are so disillusioned you only see your own faulty logic.

Logic is logic. It isn't MY logic or that of anyone else! It is always formally the same which is the whole point of it really.

If you claim my use of logic is faulty then care to show me where this fallacy lies? Restating your opinion is not a proof!

Shut up please.

Look up "ad hominem" please.

I know this because when I applied (Mary Harneys term) for permission to carry out research into the anti-cancer role of cannabinoids in human cancer cell lines. The preference given to research carried out to discern negative impacts of cannabinoids was explained to me by an academic representative of the previous coalition.

What is "an academic representative" of a government?
How did they have any final authority to judge whether a research proposal was valid?
Most research funding of this nature does not relate to the government at all! It comes through EU funding, state agencies and civil authority bodies. I doubt there is a TD who has experience of the system and I'm not aware of any senators who have. But maybe we can change that?

You're arrogance drips from your posts and your attempts to derail this debate is obvious,

Really ? care to supply some evidence for this personal attack?

but maybe its your lack of knowledge and maturity showing itself, you constantly try to discuss what an argument is or what proof is defined as.

If you make a claim about cannabis thalidomide or any other drug it is for you to produce the supporting evidence. It is not arrogant to challenge that and show how the claim is NOT supported by the so called evidence!

Leave the thread if you're going to continue.

I'll draw your attention to "back seat modding" as well in case you are ignorant of it. If you have a problem about me then go an complain to a moderator by hitting the red triangle button and don't lecture me on what I can or can't say. Please try to keep your personal comments about me to yourself or to a PM and don't being them into the discussion. My motivation or lack of it have nothing to do with whether cannabis can be shown to be a social boon and whether it should be freely available.

Go-Go-Gadget

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

Stop doing this, "ill cut out a few words and attack those only" you need to just stop typing, you're wrong and are so disillusioned you only see your own faulty logic.

Shut up please.

I know this because when I applied (Mary Harneys term) for permission to carry out research into the anti-cancer role of cannabinoids in human cancer cell lines. The preference given to research carried out to discern negative impacts of cannabinoids was explained to me by an academic representative of the previous coalition.

You're arrogance drips from your posts and your attempts to derail this debate is obvious, but maybe its your lack of knowledge and maturity showing itself, you constantly try to discuss what an argument is or what proof is defined as.

Leave the thread if you're going to continue.

If you click on a users name, there's an ignore feature. I only use it when someone just won't back down. It's very helpful sometimes.

Shulgin

Papa Smut wrote: »

If you click on a users name, there's an ignore feature. I only use it when someone just won't back down. It's very helpful sometimes.

The problem is, when that ignored user is quoted, you still see what they post. or has that been fixed with recent vbulletins?


While ignoring someone who argues in such a way is not always the best thing to do, this case might be an exception.

Your brain can be a very effective ignore button all by itself!

Shulgin

Shulgin wrote: »

The problem is, when that ignored user is quoted, you still see what they post. or has that been fixed with recent vbulletins?


While ignoring someone who argues in such a way is not always the best thing to do, this case might be an exception.

Your brain can be a very effective ignore button all by itself!

That still hasn't been fixed, but it's a small price to pay. This is the first time I have ever used the feature myself.

Back on topic, will Mings successful campaign do any good for legalising cannabis? Or will he just be ignored in parliament?

UsernameInUse

I can't believe the ignorance in here.

The reason drugs aren't legal is because of the nanny-state, not the individuals in Dail Eireann. The very people (and I know theres others, of course) who want drugs legalised are the ones who go and collect their "free money" every Tuesday without delay.

How can you expect dangerous drugs (and I'm talking about drugs in general, not weed) be legalised if other tax-payers have to foot the bill for your medical bills if you have some negative effects?

That is the underlying issue here. It's not so black and white like some would believe. Get rid of the nanny-state and then legalisation will follow.

Go-Go-Gadget

What is "an academic representative" of a government?
How did they have any final authority to judge whether a research proposal was valid?
Most research funding of this nature does not relate to the government at all! It comes through EU funding, state agencies and civil authority bodies. I doubt there is a TD who has experience of the system and I'm not aware of any senators who have. But maybe we can change that?

Yet again you are wrong, permission for such research needs to be granted by the minister of health. This was not a funding issue.

Go-Go-Gadget

UsernameInUse wrote: »

I can't believe the ignorance in here.

The reason drugs aren't legal is because of the nanny-state, not the individuals in Dail Eireann. The very people (and I know theres others, of course) who want drugs legalised are the ones who go and collect their "free money" every Tuesday without delay.

How can you expect dangerous drugs (and I'm talking about drugs in general, not weed) be legalised if other tax-payers have to foot the bill for your medical bills if you have some negative effects?

That is the underlying issue here. It's not so black and white like some would believe. Get rid of the nanny-state and then legalisation will follow.

Thats a completely different subject but I agree, drugs are not at fault for anything. It's like the argument that guns don't kill people, those that wield them do. Personal responsibility should be taken into account. It's your body and you should be allowed do what you want, if you decide to snort a pound of cocaine while popping E like tic tacs that was your decision and yours alone. No one but you should pay for it.

Also Ming will be ignored, Fine Gael are 100% against any discussion on the matter even. Will be a few years yet before the government consists of people that will openly discuss this matter.

MaceFace

There are comments about how legalising cannabis will actually take the money from the dealers and put it into the state coffers.
I wonder about that.

The legal cannabis would have to be produced at cheap enough level that it would be roughly on par with the street cost. Would it be possible to do that considering the usual cost of doing business in Ireland (rates, health and safety, production, middlemen, distribution, sales people, and then VAT and possibly excise)?

I have no idea if it could, but thinking how much it costs to run any business in Ireland, I just can't see it being cost competitive with the illegal market.

If it can not be made available for much the same price, will you still see the majority of current users happy to go the black market route and instead the "law abiding" citizens, the majority of whom would not smoke it now, going the legal route?

UsernameInUse

MaceFace wrote: »

There are comments about how legalising cannabis will actually take the money from the dealers and put it into the state coffers.
I wonder about that.

The legal cannabis would have to be produced at cheap enough level that it would be roughly on par with the street cost. Would it be possible to do that considering the usual cost of doing business in Ireland (rates, health and safety, production, middlemen, distribution, sales people, and then VAT and possibly excise)?

I have no idea if it could, but thinking how much it costs to run any business in Ireland, I just can't see it being cost competitive with the illegal market.

If it can not be made available for much the same price, will you still see the majority of current users happy to go the black market route and instead the "law abiding" citizens, the majority of whom would not smoke it now, going the legal route?

You hit the nail on the head here.

It's not one precise topic - it's a cycle where one decision affects another. To truly legalise weed, a lot of other areas of the economy must first be looked at. It's a case of deregulation. We need an approach of non-intervention in business activities, something our government would sh!t themselves at the thought of.

Of course, people will buy on the black market because legal weed will be too expensive because of government involvement in the market. They're distorting the market and not allowing for it to balance itself out. To free the weed, the government cannot be involved in taxing, increasing the inflation of the plant before it even reaches the consumer.

10belowzero

Yes let's hope so . it's long over due , I can see no reason , why growing a plant in the privacy of one's own home is the business of anyone except the home owner ,as long as they don't interfere with other's.
There seem's to be an excepted argument for the grower to be allowed to grow a limit of 3 plant's for personal consumption in a growing season/cycle ,or to be in possession of no more than 3 plant's ,at a time , for legal regulation.
The whole area of allowing horticultural grower's to grow , produce ,refine ,import , and export is an area , that could produce huge revenue's for the taxpayer.The licensing and regulation of cafe's ,pub's tobacconist's etc is another area , should a law be passed . It certainly need's a solution , for the domestic recreational user to be able to grow there own or purchase it , from legally licensed outlet's , thus keeping the user and the vendor legal , while providing job's , revenue for government and nothing for the gangster's (and there friend's in academia)- roll on Ming

Oh_Noes

MaceFace wrote: »

There are comments about how legalising cannabis will actually take the money from the dealers and put it into the state coffers.
I wonder about that.

The legal cannabis would have to be produced at cheap enough level that it would be roughly on par with the street cost. Would it be possible to do that considering the usual cost of doing business in Ireland (rates, health and safety, production, middlemen, distribution, sales people, and then VAT and possibly excise)?

I have no idea if it could, but thinking how much it costs to run any business in Ireland, I just can't see it being cost competitive with the illegal market.

If it can not be made available for much the same price, will you still see the majority of current users happy to go the black market route and instead the "law abiding" citizens, the majority of whom would not smoke it now, going the legal route?

There would most likely be a gulf in quality between what's produced and consumed in a legitimate legal system of manufacture and distribution as opposed to the stuff that's going around now. The reason people simply aren't happy with the current cannabis market is that most of what you can get on the street is very poor quality. Often it's the case that people have "dusted" (sometimes with glass) it or even wet it to improve weight.

If it was regulated by Bord Bia or someone we'd get some kind of uniformity of standard of quality.

Your question is a good one but I think it's arbitrary in this case, because it basically applies to alcohol, cigarettes, food, cars and most other consumer products.

My friend homebrews his own beer and it's not the best. I would much rather head to the off license and pay full whack for a nice few cans of Heineken rather than some dodgy homebrew that's slightly cheaper.

UsernameInUse

Oh_Noes wrote: »

There would most likely be a gulf in quality between what's produced and consumed in a legitimate legal system of manufacture and distribution as opposed to the stuff that's going around now. The reason people simply aren't happy with the current cannabis market is that most of what you can get on the street is very poor quality. Often it's the case that people have "dusted" (sometimes with glass) it or even wet it to improve weight.

If it was regulated by Bord Bia or someone we'd get some kind of uniformity of standard of quality.

Your question is a good one but I think it's arbitrary in this case, because it basically applies to alcohol, cigarettes, food, cars and most other consumer products.

My friend homebrews his own beer and it's not the best. I would much rather head to the off license and pay full whack for a nice few cans of Heineken rather than some dodgy homebrew that's slightly cheaper.

Yes, but if a can in the shop was €20 and your friends beer was €2 - then you'd drink the moonshine, no problem - it's just the market at work.
There's no denying that the quality wouldn't be as good as the legal product, but again, by government involving themselves in the industry - they would be, in turn, distorting the market.

I would be in favour of legalisation as I consider it a violation of personal responsibility, however, I'm not in favour of Government taxing the hell out of it either. They should just leave it to the Free Market to take care of it.

Go-Go-Gadget

The thing is, they'd have to be doing it VERY badly to be alot more expensive than criminals. But that is only recreational, if it was legalized for medical use the relatively smaller numbers they would need to cater for would allow the government to get an idea and a handle on the situation and fine tune any systems in place.

If it was legalised recreationally I'm sure the government would follow the amsterdam example and sell licenses. At which point government authorized methods could be utilized by those vendors for the purchase or growth of cannabis.

I don't have all the answers but I'd imagine that to be a better system than just saying "its legal" and walking away :P

UsernameInUse

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

The thing is, they'd have to be doing it VERY badly to be alot more expensive than criminals. But that is only recreational, if it was legalized for medical use the relatively smaller numbers they would need to cater for would allow the government to get an idea and a handle on the situation and fine tune any systems in place.

If it was legalised recreationally I'm sure the government would follow the amsterdam example and sell licenses. At which point government authorized methods could be utilized by those vendors for the purchase or growth of cannabis.

I don't have all the answers but I'd imagine that to be a better system than just saying "its legal" and walking away :P

An interesting point and I'm glad you raised it.

As a Libertarian myself though, I have more faith in walking into a cannabis selling establishment and seeing a certificate stating "Consumers Choice Award For Best Products 2011", than for example, seeing a license which was acquired in 1991 - that was twenty years ago, the grower, may be thoroughly incompetent now.

It's a case of balancing the harms. If the government get involved, the market is distorted leading to higher prices, more regulation and red-tape. If it's left to the Free Market, private enterprise takes over where a product is judged by the consumer and not government bodies.
On the outside, this system looks like pure chaos, but underneath, it is a highly organised structure. The inferior products will die out because no one will buy them, and the best will survive - it would increase the purchasing power of the consumer.

DepecheHead101

I don't see the logic in the cost argument that routinely pops up by people that seem to assume the government would make Cannabis more expensive. As it is it's riddiculously, absurdly overpriced in this country. Overpriced and consistently underweight at street level. It's a plant. It can be grown in massive, massive amounts in an efficient, cheap system and sold on for much cheaper than it's currently going for with the government still making a shed load of money.

Liken it to how much it costs to press a disc, and how much an album retails for.

UsernameInUse

DepecheHead101 wrote: »

I don't see the logic in the cost argument that routinely pops up by people that seem to assume the government would make Cannabis more expensive. As it is it's riddiculously, absurdly overpriced in this country. Overpriced and consistently underweight at street level. It's a plant. It can be grown in massive, massive amounts in an efficient, cheap system and sold on for much cheaper than it's currently going for with the government still making a shed load of money.

Liken it to how much it costs to press a disc, and how much an album retails for.

The reason it's so expensive is because it's illegal.

If it was legalised, the price would drop.

If government kept their hands out of the pot (pun intended), then the price would drop again.

ordinarywoman

Papa Smut wrote: »

Back on topic, will Mings successful campaign do any good for legalising cannabis? Or will he just be ignored in parliament?

I hope so. After over 10yrs campaining for cananbis legalisation i think Ming has a good chance at at least being heard... he wouldn't be the first minister/leader to smoke a joint!
"Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica." - Abraham Lincoln (from a letter written by Lincoln during his presidency to the head of the Hohner Harmonica Company in Germany)

Oh_Noes

ordinarywoman wrote: »

I hope so. After over 10yrs campaining for cananbis legalisation i think Ming has a good chance at at least being heard... he wouldn't be the first minister/leader to smoke a joint!

It's worth noting too that Senator David Norris is pro-legalisation too according to this article from his blog. http://www.senatordavidnorris.ie/blogger/2010/02/statements-on-headshops-3rd-february.html

So you know who to vote for in the presidential election :pac:

ISAW

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

The thing is,...

If it was legalised recreationally I'm sure the government would follow the amsterdam example and sell licenses. At which point government authorized methods could be utilized by those vendors for the purchase or growth of cannabis.

This is a central point. Do people in Ireland want Ireland to be like Amsterdam. I lived there and in Dublin city centre and I don't want the prostitution and drug culture I witnessed no more than I want stag parties people lying in the gutter and puking at three in the morning. Dutch people don't want it.

ISAW

UsernameInUse wrote: »

Yes, but if a can in the shop was €20 and your friends beer was €2 - then you'd drink the moonshine, no problem - it's just the market at work.
There's no denying that the quality wouldn't be as good as the legal product, but again, by government involving themselves in the industry - they would be, in turn, distorting the market.

I would be in favour of legalisation as I consider it a violation of personal responsibility, however, I'm not in favour of Government taxing the hell out of it either. They should just leave it to the Free Market to take care of it.

This is another central point. There are things which people consider not in the public good even though there is a market for it. Drugs prostitution abortion etc. Just as people might say abortion or prostitution or selling human organs or blood is acceptable at €2 but not at €2000 many others would say it isn't acceptable at any price.

ISAW

Papa Smut wrote: »

Back on topic, will Mings successful campaign do any good for legalising cannabis? Or will he just be ignored in parliament?

He didn't fight his election on that issue and there are two other threads on that specific issue.

ISAW

Papa Smut wrote: »

That still hasn't been fixed, but it's a small price to pay. This is the first time I have ever used the feature myself.

So you are ignoring my comments?

whoopdedoo

ISAW wrote: »

So you are ignoring my comments?

do you blame him if he is? I've never seen anyone like you for quoting/replying to each and everyone's replies in a thread, any thread I've ever seen online to be honest!

it's like you take everyone's point of view to be a personal insult or something.

if there was ever a person needing a good smoke it would be you isaw

ISAW

whoopdedoo wrote: »

do you blame him if he is?

Of course I do. The decision is his so the blame if any must be his!
whether ignoring me is justified is for himself to judge. He is totatally entitled to do it if he so wishes and I accept that right.

I've never seen anyone like you for quoting/replying to each and everyone's replies in a thread, any thread I've ever seen online to be honest!

so what? Because I reply to people I that is some sort of crime now is it?
In fact I am the only one asking those who claim cannabis should be legalised to provide evidence and I am being attacked for doing so. I am only asking they make a case. I am showing the flaws in their case. I am not judging whether their case is right or wrong or attacking them personally.

Other people however are attacking me personally.

it's like you take everyone's point of view to be a personal insult or something.

It may be like that to you . It certainly isn't to me. There is however no doubt people are insulting and personally attacking me but that isn't a matter from this discussion.

if there was ever a person needing a good smoke it would be you isaw

Touché!

UsernameInUse

ISAW wrote: »

This is another central point. There are things which people consider not in the public good even though there is a market for it. Drugs prostitution abortion etc. Just as people might say abortion or prostitution or selling human organs or blood is acceptable at €2 but not at €2000 many others would say it isn't acceptable at any price.

So you think others have a right to tell you how to think or live your life?

It's the principle of it all that you're missing. Not allowing abortion is in direct violation of womens rights - you're not getting the abortion so why do you care about the choices others make? I can't understand it.
Prostitution is the choice of anyone who wished to practice this trade, as they should if they wish, under a free, democratic society.

You are not a Libertarian, so don't pretend you are. Ron Paul, a Libertarian, doesn't personally agree with abortion or making drugs legal, however, he understand that it's not his role in life to control the actions of others - that's very admirable.