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

mikom

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.

Good luck with that...

MaceFace

Oh_Noes wrote: »

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?

Not at all.
Berverly Cooper Flynn - helped others evade tax (i.e. break the law) and got elected afterwards by an electorate fully aware.

Jim McDaid - drove three times over the limit on the N7 so was a convicted drunk driver. Got elected after the fact.

Oh_Noes

MaceFace wrote: »

Not at all.
Berverly Cooper Flynn - helped others evade tax (i.e. break the law) and got elected afterwards by an electorate fully aware.

Jim McDaid - drove three times over the limit on the N7 so was a convicted drunk driver. Got elected after the fact.

Yes but neither of them stated in an election campaign that they do this regularly and will continue to do these things if elected.

It's not a valid comparison at all.

HavingCrack

whoopdedoo wrote: »

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

I'm actually a bit sickened that anyone with a medical background would make such blatently unproven statements and attempt to dress it up as a bit of 'won't somebody please think of the children' in some sort of vindictiveness. Is there actually any reputable medical research that links recreational cannabis use to depression?

HavingCrack

Oh_Noes wrote: »

Yes but neither of them stated in an election campaign that they do this regularly and will continue to do these things if elected.

It's not a valid comparison at all.

Clearly it didn't bother the people of Roscommon too much. Darn lawbreakers!

Oh_Noes

HavingCrack wrote: »

I'm actually a bit sickened that anyone with a medical background would make such blatently unproven statements and attempt to dress it up as a bit of 'won't somebody please think of the children' in some sort of vindictiveness. Is there actually any reputable medical research that links recreational cannabis use to depression?

The studies usually seem to go along the lines of "out of 100 people with depression, 20 of them stated that they had used cannabis in the past". So smoking cannabis gives you a 20% higher chance of becoming depressed.

If they interviewed one hundred people who don't have depression, probably the same amount of people out of the hundred would admit to having used cannabis in the past.

There is no real, standout piece of scientific research that clearly and conclusively states that cannabis does in fact cause depression. I know this because if such a piece of research did exist, it would be used in every argument everytime the subject arises in the media or forum debates like this. But it doesn't exist.

whoopdedoo

HavingCrack wrote: »

I'm actually a bit sickened that anyone with a medical background would make such blatently unproven statements and attempt to dress it up as a bit of 'won't somebody please think of the children' in some sort of vindictiveness. Is there actually any reputable medical research that links recreational cannabis use to depression?

it's a flippin joke!! he's an intelligent man and his story is being read by intelligent people yet he feels he can tar Ming with Gerry Ryans brush and in the same breath get away with it by saying "now I'm not trying to compare Ming to anyone but..."

I've emailed and congratulated him and his fellow FF'ers for pushing the issue of prohibition along nicely and for making fools of themselves by being so petty! people voted ye out for a reason and the more ye act like this the better it is for all us normal/decent people!

charlemont

whoopdedoo wrote: »

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

Rats should be treated as such, typical FF crap, that man is probably in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies...put a xxxxxx in him..

SupaNova

I know its the US but video on the economic pros and cons of legalizing drug use:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9dFVa19o&feature=autoplay&list=PLF05444D90522E1FC&index=3&playnext=2

ISAW

Oh_Noes wrote: »

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?

So you would say all the Sinn Fein TD's who have actually served time in gaol are not legitimate?

Oh_Noes wrote: »

Yes but neither of them stated in an election campaign that they do this regularly and will continue to do these things if elected.

It's not a valid comparison at all.

In fact all FF and SF TD's being Republican would say that they agree with the SF first and second Dáil which supported the right to bear arms against Britain. And FG would agree with them since they also came from SF and Labour I suppose given Connolly's citizens' Army.

HavingCrack wrote: »

I'm actually a bit sickened that anyone with a medical background would make such blatently unproven statements and attempt to dress it up as a bit of 'won't somebody please think of the children' in some sort of vindictiveness. Is there actually any reputable medical research that links recreational cannabis use to depression?

Yes I think there is. As there is research linking alcohol to depression to an even greater degree.

Oh_Noes wrote: »

The studies usually seem to go along the lines of "out of 100 people with depression, 20 of them stated that they had used cannabis in the past". So smoking cannabis gives you a 20% higher chance of becoming depressed.

If they interviewed one hundred people who don't have depression, probably the same amount of people out of the hundred would admit to having used cannabis in the past.

There is no real, standout piece of scientific research that clearly and conclusively states that cannabis does in fact cause depression. I know this because if such a piece of research did exist, it would be used in every argument everytime the subject arises in the media or forum debates like this. But it doesn't exist.

I think that is handwaving. I have posted some published research before.
Here is some more:
http://web4health.info/en/answers/add-hash-psychosis.htm
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/3/383
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/187/6/510
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/178/2/116
http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/6/423
http://www.ajhp.org/content/64/10/1037.abstract

On the other side [form a non peer review disclaimed source]
http://web4health.info/en/answers/add-hash-psychosis.htm
Only a small percentage of the estimated 300 000 people who smoke cannabis in Holland become psychotic. As far as we know it only concerns people who are consciously or unconsciously sensitive for psychosis.

BluePlanet

Dunno if this has been asked, but i'm not willing to go through 80 pages of arguments to find out.

- Is there a plan/strategy to push for legalisation?
- If so, where can i find it?
- Is there a national organisation?

SupaNova

- Is there a plan/strategy to push for legalisation?
- If so, where can i find it?
- Is there a national organisation?

http://www.legalisecannabis.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=91:lci-history&catid=42:rokstories

Thats the only group i am aware of.

MaceFace

Very good article on The Journal today which asks serious questions about what Ming actually knows about the issue.

mikom

MaceFace wrote: »

Very good article on The Journal today which asks serious questions about what Ming actually knows about the issue.

I’ve smoked it a handful of times since then, always when I’ve had too much to drink. I’ve always felt sick as a poisoned rat afterwards. Weed is not for me.

I stopped having any respect for the piece when I read this.
Should have read "mixing intoxicants is not for me" or “a heap of pints and a spliff is not for me”.
A joke of a piece.

I'll just leave this here........ http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-luke-ming-flanagan-be-growing-cannabis-2011-3/

MaceFace

mikom wrote: »

I stopped having any respect for the piece when I read this.
Should have read "mixing intoxicants is not for me" or “a heap of pints and a spliff is not for me”.
A joke of a piece.

I'll just leave this here........ http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-luke-ming-flanagan-be-growing-cannabis-2011-3/

Huh?
You dismiss the entire piece and the many different points because the author smoked weed and drank at the same time and felt sick from it?
Two small sentences that are incidental to the article.

That is no different than dismissing everything Ming says because he says there are reports that link masturbation and blindness :rolleyes:

mikom

MaceFace wrote: »

Huh?
You dismiss the entire piece and the many different points because the author smoked weed and drank at the same time and felt sick from it?
Two small sentences that are incidental to the article.

That is no different than dismissing everything Ming says because he says there are reports that link masturbation and blindness :rolleyes:

Forgive me MaceFace

Other choice quotes from the unbiased "piece"

‘Stoner’s Theory of Relativity’

Stoners don’t generally make great students,

Why do stoners have such a problem accepting that dope is bad for your health?

Lovely terms.
Similar to alco for drinkers.
nice to know my ould lad is an alco.

And the doozy...

Not all cannabis smokers will become psychotic or graduate to heroin. The fact remains, however, that some will.

I could easily say....

Not all Tobbacco smokers will become psychotic or graduate to heroin. The fact remains, however, that some will.

or

Not all drinkers will become psychotic or graduate to heroin. The fact remains, however, that some will.

or


Not all gamers will become psychotic or graduate to heroin. The fact remains, however, that some will.

MaceFace

mikom wrote: »

Forgive me MaceFace

Other choice quotes from the unbiased "piece"

Lovely terms.
Similar to alco for drinkers.
nice to know my ould lad is an alco.

And the doozy... I could easily say....

Not all Tobbacco smokers will become psychotic or graduate to heroin. The fact remains, however, that some will.

or

Not all drinkers will become psychotic or graduate to heroin. The fact remains, however, that some will.

or


Not all gamers will become psychotic or graduate to heroin. The fact remains, however, that some will.

Leaving aside any thoughts of biasness and deal with the questions it raises:

1. Why do people who defend weed rarely admit it is bad for you but instead bang on about it being not as bad as other legal drugs.
2. Why do proponents of legalising drugs associate the legal status of drugs with Civil Rights?
3. Will criminals involve in the drugs trade today simply disappear if it was legalised?
4. Has Ming ever truely being honest and insightful into the legalising canabis issue? If so, when?
5. Does he actually care about the legality of it? I don't seem to be able to see his views on his website.

While it is very easy to find issues with most of what is written today as it can be viewed as coming from a biased base (particularly when drugs is involved), After looking at the article again, I don't think it is clear that the author is calling anyone who smokes a joint a stoner. The use of Stoner is people who make a case in defense of its legalisation without anything to back it up by or those that smoke away not even entertaining the view that cannabis is actually bad for you.

chrabo

im not smoke byt agree.

that pull up country from recesion. Milions lads will pop up for joint .

PeakOutput

Why do people who defend weed rarely admit it is bad for you but instead bang on about it being not as bad as other legal drugs.

because relative to everything else we do on a day to day basis it is not bad for you.

Why do proponents of legalising drugs associate the legal status of drugs with Civil Rights?

because, imo, i have the right to do whatever i want to my body(and to any other consenting human beings' body but thats another thread) and they are infringing on my right to do that because of ignorance.

Will criminals involve in the drugs trade today simply disappear if it was legalised?

well the easy obvious answer is yes because it ceases to be a crime but the proper answer is

Criminals involved in the drug trade? no, because we will only be legalising one of the many illegal drugs. the criminals from the cannabis trade will almost (almost) dissapear or move onto dealing something else

Has Ming ever truely being honest and insightful into the legalising canabis issue? If so, when?

first of all who gives a **** about ming? he dosnt represent me or my views and probably dosnt represent most people who would also be of the opinion that cannabis prohibition is an absolute joke. he just happens to have the highest soap box right now

second of all can you give me any examples of himbeing dishonest about the issue?

While it is very easy to find issues with most of what is written today as it can be viewed as coming from a biased base (particularly when drugs is involved), After looking at the article again, I don't think it is clear that the author is calling anyone who smokes a joint a stoner. The use of Stoner is people who make a case in defense of its legalisation without anything to back it up by or those that smoke away not even entertaining the view that cannabis is actually bad for you.

stop trying to apologise for the author its a ridicolous article and again is one written from a position of total ignorance the fact someone has smoked a joint (in ireland in particular were it was more then likely a **** load of tobacco with a tiny bit of **** soap bar hash or brown mouldy weed) does not make him an authority on the issue.

in fact I could, with 99% certainty, guarantee him and prove to him that his nausea after smoking was in fact caused by the tobacco and not the weed

Oh_Noes

PeakOutput wrote: »

stop trying to apologise for the author its a ridicolous article and again is one written from a position of total ignorance the fact someone has smoked a joint (in ireland in particular were it was more then likely a **** load of tobacco with a tiny bit of **** soap bar hash or brown mouldy weed) does not make him an authority on the issue.

There's also spelling errors in his article which speaks volumes about the authority of this guy even as a journalist nevermind speaking as someone with any actual experience of cannabis.

He burned his eyebrows off smoking copybook paper and we're supposed to take him seriously? :pac:

MaceFace

PeakOutput wrote: »

because relative to everything else we do on a day to day basis it is not bad for you.

You think so? I wonder what you get up to on a day to day basis
(and I mean things that you choose to do out of enjoyment rather than neccessity).

PeakOutput wrote: »

because, imo, i have the right to do whatever i want to my body(and to any other consenting human beings' body but thats another thread) and they are infringing on my right to do that because of ignorance.

That is assuming there are no side affects/health implications.
I think it is widely agreed (is it not?) that cannabis, while having certain medicinal benefits, is also in many ways bad for your health. When it is a health issue, the government has an involvement, as the costs of dealing with the health problems has to be paid by someone, and that means me and you.

PeakOutput wrote: »

well the easy obvious answer is yes because it ceases to be a crime but the proper answer is

Criminals involved in the drug trade? no, because we will only be legalising one of the many illegal drugs. the criminals from the cannabis trade will almost (almost) dissapear or move onto dealing something else

I agree, and that is what the author said - you can not justify the legalisation by saying that the current set of criminals will no longer be a drain on society. They will most likely move into a different type of criminal activity.

PeakOutput wrote: »

first of all who gives a **** about ming? he dosnt represent me or my views and probably dosnt represent most people who would also be of the opinion that cannabis prohibition is an absolute joke. he just happens to have the highest soap box right now

If you are a cannabis smoker, you should care about Ming because he is the best chance we have of engaging in real open and honest debate about the issue. The problem we have had to now is there is no one in the public eye that has the forum to demand change. As a member of Dail Eireann with certain speaking rights, he has the ability to force this on the agenda. If he was not in the Dail, the media wouldn't give two hoots about him or his cannabis smoking.
If he isn't going to be the person to bring this to the National attention, who will?

PeakOutput wrote: »

second of all can you give me any examples of himbeing dishonest about the issue?

Maybe the word honest could be debated, but the author of the piece I referenced pointed out said that Ming talked about the WHO and how it says the drug is not as bas as alcohol or toabacco, but he neglected to say what else the WHO says about the drug, specifically the harmful parts of it.
As he said, if Ming is only going to put accross the side that makes the drug look good, he won't get any real debate going on the subject.

PeakOutput wrote: »

stop trying to apologise for the author its a ridicolous article and again is one written from a position of total ignorance the fact someone has smoked a joint (in ireland in particular were it was more then likely a **** load of tobacco with a tiny bit of **** soap bar hash or brown mouldy weed) does not make him an authority on the issue.

I am not apologising for anyone, but I do ignore his points of view just because he is not a regular user of cannabis. I appear to be the only one that will actually read the article and take the important points from it and discuss them rather than the usual tone of this thread which is that unless you either agree with legalising drugs or you are a world class authority on the issue, your point of view is not relevant.

PeakOutput wrote: »

in fact I could, with 99% certainty, guarantee him and prove to him that his nausea after smoking was in fact caused by the tobacco and not the weed

Who cares what his nausea was caused by?
The questions he raised in the article are just questions to ask and they (as well as the other 1000 questions) need to be addressed by the pro-cannabis community before an "honest" discussion on the matter is possible.

Too many of the questions or concerns being raised by individuals or pointed to in papers results in an instant attack on the person raising those questions rather than actually addressing the actual questions and concerns raised.

MaceFace

Oh_Noes wrote: »

There's also spelling errors in his article which speaks volumes about the authority of this guy even as a journalist nevermind speaking as someone with any actual experience of cannabis.

He burned his eyebrows off smoking copybook paper and we're supposed to take him seriously? :pac:

Good man - proving my point on the level of debate in this forum. Only those with the ability to use a spell checker and smoke cannabis are worthy of being listened to :rolleyes:

BTW: What spelling errors are there is the article?

PeakOutput

Here are his questions answered

Why do stoners have such a problem accepting that dope is bad for your health too?

I already responded to this question and you said

You think so? I wonder what you get up to on a day to day basis
(and I mean things that you choose to do out of enjoyment rather than neccessity).

I partake in numerous hobbies that are potentially far far far more hazardous to my health and percentage wise have a far greater chance of killing or seriously injuring me then weed does, and the aftermath of an accident would have a massive effect on other people(people close to me and, if i didnt have specific insurance the hse would be covering my repair bills). Should the goverment BAN me from partaking in these activities as well?

At what age can you start smoking cannabis?

I would say 18, I dont think children whos' brains are still developing should be allowed access to any drug.

Stoners don’t generally make great students, so do we limit its use to those who have finished secondary school?

While I don't agree with his premise yes we should limit its use to people over the age of 18 which would mean most people would be finished or jsut about to finish secondary school

Age restriction doesn’t work with alcohol, so it won’t work with cannabis. Do we bother with age restriction at all?

Yes we bother

The ‘pros’ say legalising will take drug dealing out of the hands of criminals. Will it? Or will they just undercut the legal suppliers, in the same way cigarette smugglers do?

the markup on what you buy on the street is MASSIVE a well organised business could make it impossible for them to be undercut by black market producers. obviously the taxation issue comes into it and it certainly should be taxed but by an amount that does not make the legal producers uncompetitive compared to the black market

Or sell cheaper synthetic alternatives? Should we legalise all drugs?

I am not aware of any cheaper synthetic alternatives that actually are synthetic alternatives rather then just being a series of chemicals thrown together and marketed as being the same as weed. people who want weed legalised do so because they want to smoke the best weed possible they are not going to choose a potentially dangerous chemical concoction from the black market as an alternative (ironic isn't it )

Not all cannabis smokers will become psychotic or graduate to heroin. The fact remains, however, that some will. What constitutes ‘abuse’ in Ming’s view?

cant speak for ming but imo abuse is when your use causes you to be unable to function as a normal member of society and that begins to negatively impact your life and more importantly your family/dependants

Ming is suggesting cannabis legalisation is a Civil Rights issue. It’s not. It’s a health issue. One of his supporters said on this website two weeks ago that Ming was engaging in “civil disobedience”. It would have been funny if it hadn’t been an affront to Norris, Rosa Parks, the early Sinn Fein movement, Ghandi, the Civil Rights protestors in the North etc.

It is a civil right issue I should have the right to choose without being persecuted by the goverment as a result of my choice.

DepecheHead101

MaceFace wrote: »

Very good article on The Journal today which asks serious questions about what Ming actually knows about the issue.

Yeah, fantastic article. I love being belittled by an expert in the school of smoking copybook paper and taking drugs when pig drunk.

mikom

Some sense being spoken here without the use of the words "stoner" "dope" and other labels the writers for rags like to throw around........

The chairman of the new group, Baroness Meacher – who is also chairman of an NHS trust – told The Daily Telegraph: “Criminalising drug users has been an expensive catastrophe for individuals and communities.
“In the UK the time has come for a review of our 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. I call on our Government to heed the advice of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime that drug addiction should be recognised as a health problem and not punished.

“We have the example of other countries to follow. The best is Portugal which has decriminalised drug use for 10 years. Portugal still has one of the lowest drug addiction rates in Europe, the trend of Young people's drug addiction is falling in Portugal against an upward trend in the surrounding countries, and the Portuguese prison population has fallen over time.”


Lord Lawson, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer between 1983 and 1989, said: “I have no doubt that the present policy is a disaster.




From here..... War on drugs has failed, say former heads of MI5, CPS and BBC

For all the supporters of the present drug policies, I'll say this...... "Keep doing what you are doing, then expect the same results"

whoopdedoo

MaceFace wrote: »

Huh?
You dismiss the entire piece and the many different points because the author smoked weed and drank at the same time and felt sick from it?
Two small sentences that are incidental to the article.

That is no different than dismissing everything Ming says because he says there are reports that link masturbation and blindness :rolleyes:

its probably more to do with the reporters admission he only ever smoked when he had too drank much alcohol and then tried to give the impression it was the weeds fault for making him sick as a rat!

flippin eejit is clearly talking out of his hole when he tried to say the first joint he ever smoked somehow mysteriously burnt off both his eyebrows :eek:

I've never heard such bullsh1t in my 30 years living

mikom

MaceFace wrote: »

Very good article on The Journal today which asks serious questions about what Ming actually knows about the issue.

Seems the writer of your "Very good article" in the journal is a whole lot more biased than we first believed Maceface.

It seems his mother is Grainne Kenny.... President of “Eu against drugs” who been quoted as saying “Cannabis is more addictive than Valium or tobacco”.
The same woman accused of this lunacy.....

EURAD (Europe Against Drugs) president Grainne Kenny has launched an outrageous attack on a pub in Limerick, which she has accused of trying to attract customers by planting trees outside which she feels are imitation cannabis trees. "Why do the guards, the chamber of commerce and civil society tolerate this. These trees should be removed. They are giving out a very dangerous message to children", she said. Ms Kenny made her comments to an anti-drugs seminar in the city and displayed leaves she had broken off the trees. But the owner of the bar, Will Rooney denied any wrongdoing. "They may look like something else, but they are called Japanese Maple. We wanted something to replace palm trees that were stolen, and this is what we got", said Mr Rooney. "I noticed one was a bit bare, maybe she'll replace it for us", he added.

More here.... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054886349

Here's another article from a couple of years ago, where David used his position as a "journalist" to further his own and his mother's agenda.

http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2009/apr/19/david-kenny-the-debate-about-legalising-cannabis-i/

Pathetic, to be honest.

PeakOutput

mikom wrote: »

Seems the writer of your "Very good article" in the journal is a whole lot more biased than we first believed Maceface.

It seems his mother is Grainne Kenny.... President of “Eu against drugs” who been quoted as saying “Cannabis is more addictive than Valium or tobacco”.
The same woman accused of this lunacy.....



More here.... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054886349

Here's another article from a couple of years ago, where David used his position as a "journalist" to further his own and his mother's agenda.

http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2009/apr/19/david-kenny-the-debate-about-legalising-cannabis-i/

Pathetic, to be honest.

/facepalm

mikom

PeakOutput wrote: »

/facepalm

That's what you are up against.

Luckily I'm not a stoner, or else I would be asleep on the case.

WeeBushy

I'm sure this has been referenced before, but just thought I'd post it up again as it's a very interesting read...