The legality of cannabis/alcohol prohibition.

def

Is the prohibition of cannabis/alcohol in contadiction to the irish constitution or any international treatys?

If so how and what treaty?
If not how/why is it justifiable?

dermot_sheehan

Misuse of Drugs Act (as amended)
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1977/en/act/pub/0012/index.html

implements un narcotics trafficking convention

Tom Young

OP:

Question 1. No;
Question 2. See answer to question 1.; and
Question 3. The answer to this can come in various ways. I will say that the legislature/government makes decisions in relation to the governance of the state. The Courts independently make decisions based on that legislation and the other organ of state the executive both polices and supports the government in the execution of its functions. There is a doctrine called the doctrine of non-justiciability and a concept called the Separation of Powers.

Reading matters literally an argument could be made that the Constitution or various conventions or Treaties might tend to seem as though they would allow elements of prohibited activities seem to be in contravention of X document.

It is justifiable because the elected representatives we place in power to run the place (such as they are) have not come to decide to repeal, replace or reform any legislation or instrument which may or may not be illogical or appeal outdated. Recently we saw some items here e.g., blasphemy in the new Defamation Act; Advertising of Abortion Services and Religious Advertising etc.

This is a piecemeal answer. Sorry about that but I could write a hell of a lot more on it. If you studying law, get JM Kelly on the Constitution and read the Chapter edited in by Paul Anthony McDermott B.L. in relation to the topics I mention above. It will be clearer if you really want to know academically what it is I have tried to explain above in less than 1000 words.

Tom

def

gabhain7 wrote: »

Misuse of Drugs Act (as amended)
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1977/en/act/pub/0012/index.html

implements un narcotics trafficking convention

what about freedom of religion

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage#Alcohol_and_religion

does/would prohibition not contradict this ?, please i really would like to know why not?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/irish-constitution-1/religious_liberty

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

"freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths."

would application of criminal law not be "persecution"?

dermot_sheehan

Religious freedom guarantees religious thought, not criminal laws enforced in a non discriminatory manner.

Even the U.S. whose constitution has the strongest religious freedom guarantee of all the the industrialised countries ensures that even actions required by a particular religion can be criminalised provided it is a criminal law of general application. Division of Employment v. Smith
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=494&invol=872

Tom Young

I am sorry to say this but the veracity of data on Wikipedia is as veracious as the person or persons who place that data there. In many cases the data is 'ok' ..... In the instances above and indeed in relation to the issue you are chasing clarity on, I say that they are not logically correct.

Use of prohibited substances in relation to religious ends are illegal, there is no trumping effect.

Not sure what the question is relating to persecution ..... are you thinking of the work 'prosecution'?

def

gabhain7 wrote: »

Religious freedom guarantees religious thought, not criminal laws enforced in a non discriminatory manner.

what about worship or practice?

dermot_sheehan

Religious practice is subject to regulation by general criminal law.
Art. 44.2 of the Irish Constitution
Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen

def

Tom Young wrote: »

Use of prohibited substances in relation to religious ends are illegal, there is no trumping effect.

what about the high courts?

"The High Court has the power or "jurisdiction" to cancel any law or part of any law that is repugnant to the Constitution. This means that if you believe that a law breaches the Constitution or your fundamental rights, you may bring "judicial review" proceedings in the High Court.
In order to bring judicial review proceedings, you must simply show that you have "sufficient interest" in the proceedings, i.e., that the legislation affects you in some real way. You must also show that you have an arguable case, i.e., that your case has grounds. Once you have passed this preliminary test, the High Court will allow you to apply for judicial review."


if i could get the hebrew university to verify the plausibility of my interpretation (of the old /new testament),


"In 1980 the Hebrew University in Israel confirmed Sula Benet's interpretation of Kaneh Bosm (kineboisin) as hemp blossoms."

wouldnt this be recognised? because i definitly have "sufficient interest"
ie getting sent to a "camp" full of violent dasterdly characters,

and if they accepted my religious use would it not then be discriminatory tward the rest of the population not to let them use it for medicine or fun?

if i of course provided all the research about it curing cancer ,stimulating nerve cell growth ,protecting nerve cells ,not causing mental illness in its natural "god given" form etc (why i think it could actually belong in the sacred oils mentiond in the old /new testament and so on),

or would i end up in a camp?

def

gabhain7 wrote: »

subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen

i have started another thread about the morality of cannabis prohibitition ,could you pretty please ellaborate as to how its immoral or causes public dis order there ,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055815124

because if you look at up to date research...and crime statistics.....and talk to a few kids

dermot_sheehan

Whether something is contrary to public order or morality it is to be determined by the Oireacthas who under Art. 15 of the constitution has the power to make law. Your arguments about whether canabis criminalisation is moral should be presented to them if you want the misuse of drugs act repealed.

Look at Murphy v. IRTC http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/1997/71.html

unfortunately the Supreme Court decision for it is not online. The courts held that a law criminalising religious advertisements did not infringe the constitution.

def

gabhain7 wrote: »

Whether something is contrary to public order or morality it is to be determined by the Oireacthas who under Art. 15 of the constitution has the power to make law. Your arguments about whether canabis criminalisation is moral should be presented to them if you want the misuse of drugs act repealed.

so prohibition (of cannabis) could be ended by a person/group who bring their case to the Oireacthas?

is there anyway of calling for a national ballot on issues like this?

and no one to your knowledge has done this ,,,, ? how much would this cost? could i get the state to pay if i couldnt afford it?

Victor

def wrote: »

is there anyway of calling for a national ballot on issues like this?

You could have your own (non-binding and likely to be ignored) private ballot or alternatively you would need to get a majority of the Oireachtas to agree to a (non-binding) referendum or alternatively a (binding) constitutional referendum.