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

ISAW

UsernameInUse wrote: »

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

In certain cases -yes! I mean do you really thgink you should not tell a child abuser or a rapist they they should not be able to do certain things just because they enjoy them?

It's the principle of it all that you're missing. Not allowing abortion is in direct violation of womens rights

Under Irish Law not allowing abortion is actually a protection of the rights of the unborn.
Without going into specific cases of abortion the principle is clear - we can and do prevent people doing things we don't want them to do and which they do want to do. If they want to be allow do things against the law they have to convince us to change the law. to do that they need evidence and argument. For example ion the case of abortion a right to travel might be prevented and the law subsequently changed because the people want it that way. I have seen scant evidence for the cannabis case here.

- you're not getting the abortion so why do you care about the choices others make?

Nor am I getting raped or starved but I campaign for those who suffer abuse just the same. I think "it does not affect you so why should you care" is disavowing one's duty as a citizen loyal to the State.

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.

But that is the point. Women given the free chose do not want this. I would maintain women who do want it are emotionally damaged anyway. This is a distortion of the idea of "personal freedom".

You are not a Libertarian, so don't pretend you are.

I am a Liberitarian in the social sense. IO do not believe in state and bureaucratic entities running people's lives. But i am not an economic Liberitarian. I believe we may for example need an Army and it is better for the state to have one then have a number of Private Armies. We have had to much of that in Ireland. The Military needs to be paid for and so we have to have tax. I have eleven years national service. How many have you?

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.

He accepts the constitution and that rights have to be protected just as I do. By force if necessary. People can't say they don't want black people in their school and the State must intervene if people do say that and try to prevent them attending school. It IS sometimes the role of the State to enforce laws. especially those defending personal freedom!

Bottle_of_Smoke

ISAW wrote: »

In certain cases -yes! I mean do you really thgink you should not tell a child abuser or a rapist they they should not be able to do certain things just because they enjoy them?

Do you not get that he is making the point that use of cannabis is a certain case where the state should not be interfering. This is due to me consuming cannabis not harming others.

If you raped or abused a child of course the state could tell you not to do it. There is another person in that scenario being raped or abused by you so the argument that you enjoy raping and abusing them is irrelevant (why do you keep ignoring this?)
This has been explained to you so many times. Are you having a laugh at this stage?

invinciblePRSTV

Fairplay to Ming for bringing the issue to the forefront. In the PFG there is a section on a renewal of the NDS to reflect modern realities, the next step is to provide a sane voice in this process beyond the social conservatives like Grainne Kenny and community 'activists' who think blanket prohibition and equating cannabis with hard drugs is a sensible policy.

Bottle_of_Smoke

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?

We're an agricultural country with plenty of indoor growing already in place. Cannabis is very easy to grow.

It is already an established profitable product on the market so there would be landowners lining up to produce it.

Look at Amsterdam, walk around at night you'll get offered E/Coke/Speed etc but not cannabis. If something's available from established premises who can sell it to the public legally people will go there to buy it unless you really tax the bejaysus out of it, like cigarettes are. Even so the majority of smokers will still go for the legal option and not the smuggler

Viper_JB

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Do you not get that he is making the point that use of cannabis is a certain case where the state should not be interfering. This is due to me consuming cannabis not harming others.

But the state has already interferred by making it a banned substance. It's a bit crazy really but it seems highly unlikely that any law currently in place would be revoked unless under preasure from the EU or if the state has been treatened to be sued. It should be legalised imo at least more resources could be put towards serious the crime and serious drugs instead of making criminals out of regular people just looking to relax.
If you chose to smoke on your own property or in a designated area for smoking I honestly cannot see the problem. It would surely be a regulated substance if it were to be legalised and, hell if people really wanna do damage to themselves they would be far more successful with alcohol.
I really don't think we should be jumping to the conculsion that everyone is an idiot and cannot take care of themselves without the government telling them what's wrong and right, don't get me wrong there will always be idiots but they'll find a way to destroy their lives reguardless. Instead the regular people must watch as everything slowly gets banned under the hammer of health and saftey.

Go-Go-Gadget

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

OK seriously, can a Mod look at ISAW's posts and give him an infraction for constantly trying to go off topic?

If you have a problem with someone posts, use the report button ()

I prefer the ignore feature myself.

maccored

ISAW wrote: »

So basically you cant support your unproven claims?
It isn't a question about what I want to believe. It is a question of you pushing your opinion as if it was a fact!

Are you happy to admit the positive clinical medical or other properties of cannabis are not supported by evidence even though you claimed such evidence exists?

A standard rule in argumentation is “he who asserts must prove,” meaning that the writer bears full responsibility to prove that his or her claims are true. Writers and speakers, especially when cornered with tough questions, often speak authoritatively, but they sometimes assume that their assertions are valid and place the onus of proof onto the audience.

QED
...
If someone claims to know a fact, always look at its source. If the arguer cannot validate or justify his own remarks, then they probably are not valid (and cannot be considered valid anyway until proven otherwise). The audience does not bear any responsibility to prove the speaker’s arguments.



This is basically a claim that you are right in FACT and a shift of the burden of evidence for that fact onto me! Carry your own burden and prove your own claims!

QED
...
This fallacy is also called an “appeal to ignorance” because the action of passing this responsibility onto the audience suggests that a group of unprepared non-experts is appearing qualified to speak, when they clearly are not.

eh? methinks you like the sound of your own typing

5) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I): Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice’s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.
4) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II): In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, “in a dose-dependent manner” (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, “Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer,” AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.
3) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III): Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.
2) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV): Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.
1) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE: In response to passage of California’s medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana’s medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, “Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana.” While noting potential risks of smoking, the report added, “we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting.” The government’s refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government “loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened.” Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006

Happy reading .....

UsernameInUse

ISAW wrote: »

In certain cases -yes! I mean do you really thgink you should not tell a child abuser or a rapist they they should not be able to do certain things just because they enjoy them?

You're not a Libertarian in any sense because you don't understand the basic Statement of Principle in Libertarianism and that is - That an individual is free to live his or her life in whatever manner he/she deems fit and acceptable so long as that action or behaviour does not infringe on the rights of others.

Consuming drugs is a victimless crime where the only individual likely to be hurt is the one consuming it. Rape or child abuse as you mentioned is not a victimless crime because your actions are affecting others. I can't believe this needs to be said over and over again. You're borderline trolling at this point - or incredible misinformed.

Under Irish Law not allowing abortion is actually a protection of the rights of the unborn.
Without going into specific cases of abortion the principle is clear - we can and do prevent people doing things we don't want them to do and which they do want to do. If they want to be allow do things against the law they have to convince us to change the law. to do that they need evidence and argument. For example ion the case of abortion a right to travel might be prevented and the law subsequently changed because the people want it that way. I have seen scant evidence for the cannabis case here.

Incorrect.

Ireland has the most negative stance on abortion in the developed world because of our isolated religious background - you must remember that the church ruled Ireland not so long ago and there is specific tendencies and examples to suggest little has changed.

If you believe that the interest of a blastocyst supersedes the interest of a teenage girl with no means of supporting a child, then you're view has been shaped by religious metaphysics and quite frankly, your intellectuality is the equivalent to that of a flat Earth society.

There is no evidence to propose at what second we fully acquire our humanity, but to suggest it corresponds with the moment of conception, you have little to add to this debate, apart from your ignorance.

Nor am I getting raped or starved but I campaign for those who suffer abuse just the same. I think "it does not affect you so why should you care" is disavowing one's duty as a citizen loyal to the State.

The only "duty" you seem to be portraying is some kind of egotistical vigilante who's judgmental side shapes a bully who wishes to live within their own little world and where those who disagree are labeled as something derogatory.

But that is the point. Women given the free chose do not want this. I would maintain women who do want it are emotionally damaged anyway. This is a distortion of the idea of "personal freedom".

So according to you, if 70% of women 'don't want something', then their values are placed on the other 30% of women? Grow up. That's tyranny.

I am a Liberitarian in the social sense. IO do not believe in state and bureaucratic entities running people's lives. But i am not an economic Liberitarian. I believe we may for example need an Army and it is better for the state to have one then have a number of Private Armies. We have had to much of that in Ireland. The Military needs to be paid for and so we have to have tax. I have eleven years national service. How many have you?

I have a full zero years in the military, what's your point? You've somehow come to the conclusion that that was an impressive statement...? Ironically, Libertarians are unequivocally opposed to military intervention, as am I. I don't like armies - peace and love.

He accepts the constitution and that rights have to be protected just as I do. By force if necessary. People can't say they don't want black people in their school and the State must intervene if people do say that and try to prevent them attending school. It IS sometimes the role of the State to enforce laws. especially those defending personal freedom!

Of course, it's the role of the State to enforce laws, nothing un-libertarian about that - as long as those laws are protecting fraud, harm and coercion from occurring and nothing barricading individual freedom and civil liberties. You seem to think Libertarianism is all out Anarchism. You're very wrong. I think you should dive into the subject a little more, the truth will set you free.

ISAW

maccored wrote: »

eh? methinks you like the sound of your own typing




Happy reading .....

5) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I): ... Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.
[/quote]

http://www.drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/cancer/THC_cancer_sep_1975.htm

These results lend further support to increasing evidence that,
...

Hardly conclusive?

The high doses of delta-9-THC (i.e., 200 mg/kg) are not tolerable in humans. On a body-surface basis, this would be about 17 mg/m(2) for mice. Extrapolation to a 60-kg man would require 1,020 mg for comparable dosage. The highest doses administered to man have been 250-300 mg (14).

i.e. results are useless applied at that doseage because they could not be used in humans.

Whether only cannabinoids active in the central nervous system (CNS) exhibit this antineoplastic property is not the question, since CBN, which lacks marihuana-like psychoactivity, is quite active in our systems (15).

i.e. you don't get high from these drugs as the "high2 element of cannabis isn not what is being tested. Stoners wouldn't go near such drugs for recreation so I don't have a huge problem with that.

4) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II): In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, “in a dose-dependent manner” (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, “Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer,” AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.

Exact same arguments as case 3

Where did you get these cases? disposablewisdom?

3) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III): Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers.

Now THIS is the kind of longitudinal study which makes me sit up and take notice. Great thanks for that.

Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers.

I would think people accept the causal link between tobacco and Cancer thatisn't what we are discussing here. By the way guess the most popular way of using cannabis? Yep. smoking it with tobacco! so the vast majority of recreational users have no interest whatsoever in non tobacco use.

Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall.

It is likely that if you don't smoke tobacco you will not get tobacco related problems. Tell us something we don't know!

In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers,

Not THAT is really interesting! Lower to a significant level within a probability lever of say 0.05 or 0.01 level of significance i.e. one in 20 to one in a hundred level of it happening by accident? Medical research usually begins at 0.01 to 0.001 i.e one in a thousand or better.

though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.

Aha! "It was not significant" means just that!

2) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV): Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.

This is just saying the same. Not somking tobacco means you won't be likely to get tobacco related illnessess even if you use cannabis. I mean if they took heroin users who also didn't smoke the level of tobacco related illness would probably also be low. The point is cannabis isnt curing cancer in these cases! If it did the cannabis group would be lower than the control group who dont smoke cannabis or tobacco. It isn't!

1) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE:

Where did i say it didn't! I have no problem in prescribing medicinal cannabis. My problem is with uncontrolled recreational use.

Go-Go-Gadget

ISAW wrote:

These results lend further support to increasing evidence that,
...

Hardly conclusive?

Do you not understand what the word evidence means?

ISAW

UsernameInUse wrote: »

You're not a Libertarian in any sense because you don't understand the basic Statement of Principle in Libertarianism and that is

LOL! You are going to tell me what it is and I had better accept your definition?

- That an individual is free to live his or her life in whatever manner he/she deems fit and acceptable so long as that action or behaviour does not infringe on the rights of others.

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

Libertarianism includes diverse philosophies and organizations; all advocate either minimization or elimination of the state, and a goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom.
Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced, with minarchists advocating reduction to just state protection from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and anarchists advocating complete elimination of the state. Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private individual ownership and often support communal ownership instead.[2][3][4] These are often grouped as right-libertarians and left-libertarians respectively.[5] "Right libertarianism" has been described as better known.[6]

Consuming drugs is a victimless crime where the only individual likely to be hurt is the one consuming it. Rape or child abuse as you mentioned is not a victimless crime because your actions are affecting others. I can't believe this needs to be said over and over again. You're borderline trolling at this point - or incredible misinformed.

Is public lewdness victimless? Is burning a flag affecting anyone? How about defacing a communion host or other sacrilegious acts ? Is taking your own life not hurting anyone but yourself? All these are illegal in Ireland. Incidentally abortion is also illegal as it is seen as depriving the unborn of a right to life.

Do you believe in private ownership of property as a Libertarian?

I am not fond of authority and minarchism has been defined as Libertarian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism,[1] small government, or limited-government libertarianism[2]) is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.[2][3] (Such states are sometimes called night watchman states.) Minarchists defend the existence of the state as a necessary evil.[1][4] Minarchism is closely associated with libertarianism, propertarianism, and classical liberalism.

Incorrect

Actually you are ioncporrect we can and do not allow abortion.

Ireland has the most negative stance on abortion in the developed world because of our isolated religious background - you must remember that the church ruled Ireland not so long ago and there is specific tendencies and examples to suggest little has changed.

Rubbish! If you believe people have the right to believe in God then you believe that right should be protected don't you? There are many many anti Authoritarian Christians including many in the current hierarchy of the Church! to suggest that people believe that abortion should not be available on demand is only because the church tell people that is what they must believe is nonsense!

If you believe that the interest of a blastocyst supersedes the interest of a teenage girl with no means of supporting a child, then you're view has been shaped by religious metaphysics and quite frankly, your intellectuality is the equivalent to that of a flat Earth society.

This isn't an argument about abortion. I'm quite happy to debate that elsewhere. whether or not you agree with the law that is the constitutional position! another example. People do not have the right to declare themselves a slave. The law forbids it! Even if they want it and say that they do it freely and it is not harming anyone.

There is no evidence to propose at what second we fully acquire our humanity, but to suggest it corresponds with the moment of conception, you have little to add to this debate, apart from your ignorance.

Where did i say anything about the moment of ensoulment? I didn't! I justy said we have laws on abortion slavery prostitution suicide etc. which restrict what people do to themselves.

The only "duty" you seem to be portraying is some kind of egotistical vigilante who's judgmental side shapes a bully who wishes to live within their own little world and where those who disagree are labeled as something derogatory.

I am not a bully nor a personal attacker and I resent you calling me such. Take it back!

So according to you, if 70% of women 'don't want something', then their values are placed on the other 30% of women? Grow up. That's tyranny.

If 100% of black people or women or children want to be slaves they are not allowed to do it! thats constitutional justice ! Look it up under "inalineable rights". Right that cant be removed if 30% want them removed!

I have a full zero years in the military, what's your point?

Do you believe the Military should be funded and that people have a duty to the Nation?

Libertarians are unequivocally opposed to military intervention, as am I.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/uscivillibertie1/p/libertarians.htm
Neolibertarians are fiscal libertarians who support a strong military, and believe that the U.S. government should use that military to overthrow dangerous and oppressive regimes. It is their emphasis on military intervention that distinguishes them from paleolibertarians (see below), and gives them reason to make common cause with neoconservatives.

Of course, it's the role of the State to enforce laws, nothing un-libertarian about that - as long as those laws are protecting fraud, harm and coercion from occurring and nothing barricading individual freedom and civil liberties. You seem to think Libertarianism is all out Anarchism. You're very wrong.

Where did I say Libertarianism is always anarchism?

I think you should dive into the subject a little more, the truth will set you free.

I think you should not insult me and claim I am an ignorant bully who makes derogatory remarks about those who do not agree with him.

ISAW

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

Do you not understand what the word evidence means?

I do. It is a hedging comment in a medical paper from 1975. Since then I would recon bout ten million papers were produced. How many followed up on this research and developed the field and confirmed cannabis cures cancer?
P.S In the rest of my message I deal with the paper.
And NB - I supplied the actual paper itself and not just a second hand reference to it.

Go-Go-Gadget

ISAW wrote: »

I do. It is a hedging comment in a medical paper from 1975. Since then I would recon bout ten million papers were produced. How many followed up on this research and developed the field and confirmed cannabis cures cancer?
P.S In the rest of my message I deal with the paper.
And NB - I supplied the actual paper itself and not just a second hand reference to it.

Fine, no more dancing around. Do you disagree with the statement that there is obvious medical benefits to cannabinoids?

ISAW

Go-Go-Gadget wrote: »

Fine, no more dancing around. Do you disagree with the statement that there is obvious medical benefits to cannabinoids?

Which cannabinoids? On which cancers? The strongest in vivo evidence and logtitudinal research above suggests there is something happening in cases of some drugs in cannabis which don't make people high. I think such research should continue and am willing to accept there is something going on. Whether this is another asprin I do not know.

And as I have stated i don't see any big problem in people taking cannabis if it has a proven medical use. 99.999 percent of people do not take it for this reason. More people take alcohol for medicinal purposes. I mean a glass of wine a day or two glasses a week type people. Many people campaigning for legal alcohol would not be doing so on the basis that people should take a glass or two a week.

Go-Go-Gadget

ISAW wrote: »

Which cannabinoids? On which cancers?

Who said cancer? Perhaps you have it stuck in your head due to the research done into that field.

ISAW wrote: »

And as I have stated i don't see any big problem in people taking cannabis if it has a proven medical use. 99.999 percent of people do not take it for this reason.

99.999%? Can you please post where you got this statistic?

I'm sure a lot of people in California were medical marijuana has been legalized and has been celebrated. People who use marijuana to help with chronic diseases such as MS, hypertension, arthritis, GI disorders, tourettes, Parkinsons and spinal injuries.

Here you go some medical proof on the use of marijuana as a muscle relaxant in patients with spinal injuries:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2175265

Double blind clinical trial with obvious results. You cant argue with that.


Furthermore, do you feel that cannabis, as a drug, is more harmful and addictive than others such as tobacco and alcohol?

*Edit - not even going to bother waiting for you to fudge this one up so I can prove you wrong again, I'm going to go ahead and say you're wrong anyway...

Here is a rational scale created to compare different drugs. Drug dependence was plotted against Physical harm:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17382831

Drug misuse and abuse are major health problems. Harmful drugs are regulated according to classification systems that purport to relate to the harms and risks of each drug. However, the methodology and processes underlying classification systems are generally neither specified nor transparent, which reduces confidence in their accuracy and undermines health education messages. We developed and explored the feasibility of the use of a nine-category matrix of harm, with an expert delphic procedure, to assess the harms of a range of illicit drugs in an evidence-based fashion. We also included five legal drugs of misuse (alcohol, khat, solvents, alkyl nitrites, and tobacco) and one that has since been classified (ketamine) for reference. The process proved practicable, and yielded roughly similar scores and rankings of drug harm when used by two separate groups of experts. The ranking of drugs produced by our assessment of harm differed from those used by current regulatory systems. Our methodology offers a systematic framework and process that could be used by national and international regulatory bodies to assess the harm of current and future drugs of abuse.

Scofflaw

This thread is currently generating most of the complaints in the forum, none of which are about anything actionable as such. At the moment, the thread is very much ISAW versus the world, with the world increasingly irritated.

I'll make two points:

1. nobody has to engage with ISAW

2. ISAW doesn't have to engage with everybody

On balance, though, at this stage, I'm going to politely request that ISAW wind down his involvement in this thread, because in the last couple of pages he has made it clear that he is no longer playing devil's advocate impartially, but is defending a personal opinion that he has no intention whatsoever of changing - which makes what he is doing increasingly just trolling.

As usual, don't let the politeness fool you into thinking I'm not serious.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Go-Go-Gadget

Scofflaw wrote: »

This thread is currently generating most of the complaints in the forum, none of which are about anything actionable as such. At the moment, the thread is very much ISAW versus the world, with the world increasingly irritated.

I'll make two points:

1. nobody has to engage with ISAW

2. ISAW doesn't have to engage with everybody

On balance, though, at this stage, I'm going to politely request that ISAW wind down his involvement in this thread, because in the last couple of pages he has made it clear that he is no longer playing devil's advocate impartially, but is defending a personal opinion that he has no intention whatsoever of changing - which makes what he is doing increasingly just trolling.

As usual, don't let the politeness fool you into thinking I'm not serious.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Much love.

Back on topic so, does anyone think that there is any slight chance that the current government will legalize cannabis? I don't think so but if put under enough pressure to review this matter progress could be made.

I feel that the groups currently set up to lobby the government on this issue are unprepared and unequipped to bring about any change.

MoogPoo

I really doubt anything is going to change for a long while. Hopefully Ming and some other independants will at least bring up the issue a bit and start some debate about it anyway. He seems to be getting a lot of media attention with his admitted weed growing and stuff so I think there will probably be some articles and discussions about it more in the future. Would love to see the topic even being talked about more on something like the frontline or vincent browne...

Id say it wont be legalized for ages though. Maybe decriminalisation or growing for personal use would be possible sometime.

new here

Call me old fashioned... but I don't really like the idea of legalizing a drug, merely for the sake of pulling a country out of recession.

Can you imagine kids sitting in a class in 50 years time? "So, kids, all we had to do was get people high!" Uh...

HavingCrack

new here wrote: »

Call me old fashioned... but I don't really like the idea of legalizing a drug, merely for the sake of pulling a country out of recession.

Can you imagine kids sitting in a class in 50 years time? "So, kids, all we had to do was get people high!" Uh...

It's a perfectly fair point. There's lots of arguments you can put forward for legalising cannabis but pulling a country out of recession isn't one of them.

UsernameInUse

HavingCrack wrote: »

It's a perfectly fair point. There's lots of arguments you can put forward for legalising cannabis but pulling a country out of recession isn't one of them.

+1.

I'm all for the legalisation of drugs - but the main purpose of pulling us out of recession, I don't agree with. Drugs should be legal because it's immoral to say what another human can and cannot consume - it's a principle of personal freedom.

Therefore, I don't believe government should have any hand in regulating it to a stage where there's so much red-tape, it can't benefit us as a society because the Free Market's hands would be tied.

This is not only relevant for drugs, of course. If we deregulate industries, we can allow the world to come in, set up shop, and we prosper - yes, the Europeans will be pissed but my concern would be looking after numero uno - us.

DepecheHead101

new here wrote: »

Call me old fashioned... but I don't really like the idea of legalizing a drug, merely for the sake of pulling a country out of recession.

Can you imagine kids sitting in a class in 50 years time? "So, kids, all we had to do was get people high!" Uh...

yeah we dont want a load of thick grateful dead fans performing operations on our sick and elderly LMAO

10belowzero

Gawd , it's geting like yer man on here is making more sense ,why does a simple debate , on cannabis have to decend in to an intellectual tennis match.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIS5n9Oyzsc

PeakOutput

Where did a "free heroin" scheme ever work?

that works in holland actually were if you are a registered heroin addict the goverment will give you free prescribed and controlled heroin as long as you agree to certain conditions. holland has the highest rate of functional addicts in the world

whoopdedoo

it seems a certain fianna fail member is helping to push the pro-legalisation campaign to the forefront of the general publics minds real soon and at the same time fuelling contempt amongst the whole population for FF's grandiose posturing and throwing the rattler well and truly out of the cot!

I can't wait to get in and support brother Ming and help in anyway I can with his campaigns!

off with their heads

Oh_Noes

whoopdedoo wrote: »

it seems a certain fianna fail member is helping to push the pro-legalisation campaign to the forefront of the general publics minds real soon and at the same time fuelling contempt amongst the whole population for FF's grandiose posturing and throwing the rattler well and truly out of the cot!

Source?

whoopdedoo

Oh_Noes wrote: »

Source?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/councillor-to-make-complaint-over-mings-illegal-drug-use-2582998.html

MaceFace

whoopdedoo wrote: »

it seems a certain fianna fail member is helping to push the pro-legalisation campaign to the forefront of the general publics minds real soon and at the same time fuelling contempt amongst the whole population for FF's grandiose posturing and throwing the rattler well and truly out of the cot!

I can't wait to get in and support brother Ming and help in anyway I can with his campaigns!

off with their heads

Hmmm.......
I for one will be demanding every member of the Oireachtas follows the laws of the land no matter what they are.

Oh_Noes

whoopdedoo wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/councillor-to-make-complaint-over-mings-illegal-drug-use-2582998.html

Sorry, I misread your post. I thought a member of Fianna Fail was going to come out in support of cannabis legalisation. An FFer coming out against it is just as good really

Oh_Noes

MaceFace wrote: »

Hmmm.......
I for one will be demanding every member of the Oireachtas follows the laws of the land no matter what they are.

Don't you think that having someone who openly breaks the law and then gets democratically elected puts the legitimacy of that law into question?