Drugs/Murdering Gangs & public apathy

delop

I was distressed last night to see some old familiar stories start appearing in the press again. Huge cocaine finds , 2 brothers murdered brazenly on the streets with automatic weapons and a politician murdered in mexico by drug Gangs...

What is the solution to this? Harsher prison sentences dont seem to work, and no amount of murder seem to put these gangs off. It seems there is a lucrative market that these gangs what to feed.

I may be wrong here but it seems to me the Great and good of the middle class Ireland, are just not interested, I hear no debate on the radio yet.

So I had a good think about it and tried and failed to put together a letter for the Minister of Justice ( I didn't send it because, I dont believe he is capable of debate on any issue) :

Dear minister,
Now while the Gardai should be commended for the successful raid lastnight, I do hope you see some tenuous connection to your rushed and ill considered legislation against the headshops, introduced without any debate, these drug finds and the murder of 2 brothers yesterday (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0629/breaking4.html) was shocking, whatever their history. While I would not attribute the blame for these murders to the Government, after all the Government did not pull the trigger, however, In my opinion, it could be argued within reason that Government Policy suddenly created a vacuum in the market that these Gangs were bound scramble to fill.

A serious debate should be considered in the area of Government Drug Policy lest in a few years we end up with these headlines you seen in Mexico.
This seems to me to be spiraling out of control.

yours...

rovert

They are killing their own for the most part thank god. Good riddance really.

I was distressed last night to see some old familiar stories start appearing in the press again. Huge cocaine finds , 2 brothers murdered brazenly on the streets with automatic weapons and a politician murdered in mexico by drug Gangs...

What does either have to with each other?

delop

rovert wrote: »

They are killing their own for the most part thank god. Good riddance really.

You see in my humble opinion, the position you are taking is exactly what I worry, that a large proportion of Ireland passively believe good riddance . What does Mexico have to do with it? Well government policy over there has escalated the violence and now the public in Mexico are very interested because they are killing more than their 'own' .

Its something i do not want to happen here.. We have to figure this out before bystanders start loosing their lives...

Lando Griffin

Have the sale of drugs taken away from these death merchants and sold in a controlled and regulated manner; oh wait we just outlawed it.

rovert

delop wrote: »

You see in my humble opinion, the position you are taking is exactly what I worry, that a large proportion of Ireland passively believe good riddance . What does Mexico have to do with it? Well government policy over there has escalated the violence and now the public in Mexico are very interested because they are killing more than their 'own' .

Its something i do not want to happen here.. We have to figure this out before bystanders start loosing their lives...

I really dont think you understand the Mexico situation particularly.

delop

rovert wrote: »

I really dont think you understand the Mexico situation particularly.

Oh i see, sorry for wasting your time, how do i delete my thread, I hate to look the fool...

rovert

delop wrote: »

Oh i see, sorry for wasting your time, how do i delete my thread, I hate to look the fool...

But you dont last time I checked Ireland has never had a party like the Institutional Revolutionary Party in power.

Eliot Rosewater

The principle fallacy of the recent head shops debacle was that by banning head shops the government could stop consumption of drugs. Wrong. The demand will always be there, now it's just criminals who benefit. These kind of ridiculous decisions come about when hysteria trumps reason.


The legalisation of certain drugs would have some big advantages.

• The main one - it would take the drug trade out of the hands of gangsters who are very willing to kill for their business.
• Consumers of soft drugs, like marijuana, would not form links with drug dealers who also sell drugs like heroin, thus going some way towards preventing hash being a "gateway drug".
• Quality control could be introduced to ensure drugs are safer. Obviously they will never be completely safe, in the same way that alcohol isn't.
• Government could stipulate that drugs be manufactured here, thus (very partly) alleviating the plague of armed militias and organised gangs in drug producing countries.
• Tax - not a very important one compared to the others, but still a factor.

Wolfe Tone

Wait, I dont think we would be allowed to legalize drugs, with the EU?

rubberdiddies

it baffles me to see how people think that the headshops were providing legal drugs in a safe manner.

I've seen first hand, week after week in A&E the damage that these legal highs were causing. That flow of people has suddenly stopped. Coincidence? I think not!

Of course there are still people getting seriously ill/dying on a daily basis from illegal drugs, but making them legal is certainly not the answer. Sure why are they still illegal in 99.9% of the world?

rovert

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The principle fallacy of the recent head shops debacle was that by banning head shops the government could stop consumption of drugs. Wrong.

Sorry what?

CiaranC

delop wrote: »

What is the solution to this? Harsher prison sentences dont seem to work, and no amount of murder seem to put these gangs off. It seems there is a lucrative market that these gangs what to feed.

I may be wrong here but it seems to me the Great and good of the middle class Ireland, are just not interested

The solution is legalisation, strict regulation and taxation of these drugs, to take them out of the hands of the criminals.

We have a solution, but no political will to implement it. Excuse people if they get tired of repeating it over and over and over again. As long as this prohibitionist stance is taken towards the drugs market, things will remain exactly the same, so frankly, there is no need for discussion.

delop

rovert wrote: »

Sorry what?

Man, is it not possible to have a debate anymore? you seem very annoyed about something, dont take internet debate so seriously, its just a conversation, no one is trying to undermine your core values/beliefs, whatever they are, which is difficult to deduce from your one line remarks...

Eliot Rosewater

rovert wrote: »

Sorry what?

People said that head shops should be banned to prevent people from using drugs.

When head shops were banned people could still purchase drugs from illegal suppliers.

The demand is still there. Banning head shops has not erased it.

rovert

delop wrote: »

Man, is it not possible to have a debate anymore? you seem very annoyed about something, dont take internet debate so seriously, its just a conversation, no one is trying to undermine your core values/beliefs, whatever they are, which is difficult to deduce from your one line remarks...

You still havent anwered my question about the Mexico situation please dont lecture me about debating.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

People said that head shops should be banned to prevent people from using drugs.

Which people? Your referred to it as the principle fallacy.

PeterIanStaker

rovert wrote: »

They are killing their own for the most part thank god. Good riddance really.

+1. Let them keep knocking each other off.

Eliot Rosewater

rovert wrote: »

Which people? Your referred to it as the principle fallacy.

Well that was the reason given for the legislation, no? "Drugs are bad for people, let's ban head shops".

rovert

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Well that was the reason given for the legislation, no? "Drugs are bad for people, let's ban head shops".

Isnt wasnt it was to ban the free sale of harmful substances.

That picture doesnt support your argument either.

Eliot Rosewater

rovert wrote: »

Isnt wasnt it was to ban the free sale of harmful substances.

With what goal in mind? Presumably to stop people using drugs.

Vim Fuego

Let's not forget Shane Geoghegan in Limerick, who was murdered due to a case of mistaken identity. He had nothing to do with crime and was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Saying they just kill each other just isn't good enough.

Barring some form of revolution on this subject (legalisation), I think the best way forward in the short-term is restructuring our drug policy and allocating Garda resouces accordingly.

To do so, I believe that 'recreational' drugs such as canibus & ecstacy should be declassified, making personal possession punishable by a spot fine. This should free up Garda time allowing them to focus on the Class A and the upper tiers of the drug trade.

Horrible issue though, no one has dealt with it successfully yet.

delop

rovert wrote: »

You still havent anwered my question about the Mexico situation please dont lecture me about debating.
.

Ok you question about 'the Mexico situation' I included it because it is my belief that the closing of the Head Shops created a vacuum, that Irish gangs are going to try and fill. there will be more violence , a natural increased effort by the politicians and Gardai

from Charlie Flanagan from the Indo
"Fine Gael wants tough measures, including a 25-year mandatory sentence for gangland murder. And we want more gardai freed from routine paperwork duties and returned to frontline policing."

And in Mexico there was a huge political drive by their new president Felipe Calderon that has appeared to backfire creating more violence

Recent days have seen a major escalation in the violence in Mexico as the cartels challenge a clampdown on their activities ordered by Felipe Calderon, Mexico's president.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/5830018/Mexico-drug-wars-violence-escalates-as-cartels-challenge-Felipe-Calderons-war-on-drugs.html

And BTW where do you get the idea that Im lecturing you? For the record Im not.

rovert

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

With what goal in mind? Presumably to stop people using drugs.

If this was the governments MO why isnt coffee, alcohol, cigerettes etc banned?

You still have provide me with instances of "people" saying that head shops should be banned to prevent people from using drugs to the degree that is the principle fallacy.

Additionally I dont know what this has to do with the topic. I thought this about Ireland potentially turning into Mexico. A discuss which frankly would be more fun and lolworthy.

delop wrote: »

Ok you question about 'the Mexico situation' I included it because it is my belief that the closing of the Head Shops created a vacuum, that Irish gangs are going to try and fill. there will be more violence , a natural increased effort by the politicians and Gardai


And in Mexico there was a huge political drive by their new president Felipe Calderon that has appeared to backfire creating more violence


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/5830018/Mexico-drug-wars-violence-escalates-as-cartels-challenge-Felipe-Calderons-war-on-drugs.html

And BTW where do you get the idea that Im lecturing you? For the record Im not.

You still havent answered my question or havent shown an understanding about the particular differences both historical and contextual between Mexico's and Ireland's situations. Clue: it goes further back than 2009 which that story story comes from.

Vim Fuego wrote: »

Saying they just kill each other just isn't good enough.

No one said anything of the sort.

Vim Fuego

Oh right, I see, this is turning into yet another 'quote and complain' thread. I won't bother so, all the best with your discussion.

delop

rovert wrote: »

You still havent answered my question or havent shown an understanding about the particular differences both historical and contextual between Mexico's and Ireland's situations.
.

Ok i give up , you win whatever competition was going on, We are not in a court of law, and I'm not a Journalist. I thought I had explained myself reasonably for a boards conversation.

Obviously I dont know what Im talking about...

Executive Steve

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Wait, I dont think we would be allowed to legalize drugs, with the EU?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization


^ The Portugese model is well worth examining.

rovert

delop wrote: »

Ok i give up , you win whatever competition was going on, We are not in a court of law, and I'm not a Journalist. I thought I had explained myself reasonably for a boards conversation.

Obviously I dont know what Im talking about...

You dont, Mexico is primarily a production and transportation country for drugs, Ireland is not. I think Columbia transports drugs through Ireland to get the lucative US market does it?

The drugs gangs in Mexico at various times have implicit agreements with the Mexico government. I really dont think that situation has occurred in Ireland. The modern wars traced back to the breakdown of such an agreement in the late 1980s. Which created a much large vaccum than the closure of some silly shops over here.

There is systematic, large scale corruption with the Mexican police, drug enfforcement and border control agents. I dont that exists in Ireland either.

piby

rovert wrote: »

You dont, Mexico is primarily a production and transportation country for drugs, Ireland is not. I think Columbia transports drugs through Ireland to get the lucative US market does it?

The drugs gangs in Mexico at various times have implicit agreements with the Mexico government. I really dont think that situation has occurred in Ireland. The modern wars traced back to the breakdown of such an agreement in the late 1980s. Which created a much large vaccum than the closure of some silly shops over here.

There is systematic, large scale corruption with the Mexican police, drug enfforcement and border control agents. I dont that exists in Ireland either.

I think the point that delop was trying to make was that the concerted effort to defeat the gangs in Mexico that was implemented by Calderon in 2006 when he sent in the army has spectacularly backfired. What was supposed to be a massive crackdown has instead turned into an all-out war. Mexico of course is considerably different to Ireland. It is the spine of the drugs trade between South and North America, a billion dollar industry. The gangs over there make the ones here look like the Care Bears (the Zetas are ex-special forces) which are well-equiped and well-trained with a complete disregard for human life. As you say corruption is rife and anybody who tries to do anything about it just gets wasted. Rodolfo Cantu, a candidate for mayor in Tamaulipas was gunned down yesterday:

According to Mexican media, Cantu who was running for governor of Tamaulipas had promised his main path of concentration would be fighting against drug cartels and drug related crimes if elected.

So comparing Mexico to Ireland is probably a serious stretch but the point was valid i.e. that just trying to stamp it out with more soldiers (or in our case Guards) or more force isn't the best solution.

So how do we tackle it? Well the truth is that we'll never beat the supply. The law combats it, slows it down, makes it more difficult but there'll always be a way. As long as such serious sums of money are there for the taking somebody will always be ruthless and intelligent enough to find a way to do it. So if we can't completey destroy the supply then we have to target the demand in one of two ways:

1. Decriminalisation
   
2. Stop people from wanting to take or actually taking drugs

I'm still not so sure about decriminalisation because although I've heard good arguments for it I've heard bad ones too. Irish people are bad enough with alcohol so I can only imagine what would happen if drugs were legal. It would be a social experiment that would end the careers of many people if it failed. Whatever about political will we have to remember we're a couple of people on the internet, doing it IRL with the whole world watching to see how it works out is another matter. Perhaps, as has been suggested, the answer lies in partial decriminalisation but that's a grey are i.e. which drugs etc. Further we've been trying the second option in various guises for years but so far nothing has worked!

Still I reiterate if you want these guys to stop blowing each other away on the streets you got to crush the demand but easier said than done.

Eliot Rosewater

rovert wrote: »

If this was the governments MO why isnt coffee, alcohol, cigerettes etc banned?

Because culturally drugs like marijuana aren't considered in the same league as those things you mentioned.

rovert wrote: »

You still have provide me with instances of "people" saying that head shops should be banned to prevent people from using drugs to the degree that is the principle fallacy.

Why do you think people wanted head shops banned?

rovert wrote: »

Additionally I dont know what this has to do with the topic.

The OP is concerned that the drugs trade in Ireland is become increasingly militant.

A solution to this problem is to take the trade out of the hands of drug dealers.

Banning the head shops had the exact opposite effect as it pushed head shop customers towards illegal avenues of supply.

Hence, government policy is only accentuating the problem outlined in the original post. So I think it is very relevant to the topic.

rovert

Seriously then why bring Mexico into the argument?

Instead of repeating some else's talking points Eliot Rosewater identify these mythical people.

Eliot Rosewater

It's simply: why do you think people are against head shops?

rovert

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It's simply: why do you think people are against head shops?

Who are these people you keep on talking about?

Guy:Incognito

The most likely outcome of headshops being allowed to continue to trade was that the players in the illegal drug trade see a drop off in their own sales and either take over them and /or do away with them and their owners in a violent manner.

rovert

Stekelly wrote: »

The most likely outcome of headshops being allowed to continue to trade was that the players in the illegal drug trade see a drop off in their own sales and either take over them and /or do away with them and their owners in a violent manner.

Agreed but some people are in love with their Hotpress talking points.

Eliot Rosewater

rovert wrote: »

Who are these people you keep on talking about?

I don't see why you're trying to dodge the question. I'm talking about everyone who protested against head shops, and everyone who was in favour of the ban. Why do you think these people assumed that position? Why did these people want head shops banned?

sensibleken

Personally I put most of the blame on the consumer. Its not that difficult to buy ethically at the worst of times. But when its glaringly obvious that you having a bit of coke in the jacks in a nightlclub is funding someones brains being blown out, I dont know what excuse people can have.

invinciblePRSTV

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't see why you're trying to dodge the question. I'm talking about everyone who protested against head shops, and everyone who was in favour of the ban. Why do you think these people assumed that position? Why did these people want head shops banned?

Head shops were banned primarily to appease the Joe Duffy demographic. Generally people with conservative social views like Joe, and also such media whores like Dr. Chris Luke & Grainne Kenny (a one women thinktank), who refuse to accept that prohibition of drugs feeds organized crime were the main movers in the media behind the draconian legislation which FF then lapped up.

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't see why you're trying to dodge the question. I'm talking about everyone who protested against head shops, and everyone who was in favour of the ban. Why do you think these people assumed that position? Why did these people want head shops banned?

I imagine these people did not want to see the free and legal sale of drugs and drug substitutes - its not just lowly marijuana substitutes, there were ecstasy and cocaine substitutes too, all under the one roof and all packaged like candy. Maybe the government should have gone down the road of legalisation and regulation (not very libertarian to regulate) but should they give in to every 'demand'?? You are right, closing head shops will not stop the demand - I disagree with you that this was the intention but why should government facilitatite in supplying this demand?? What if the masses suddenly want ciggies for a euro a pack or kiddie porn? should the government have regulated cheap smoke shops and regulated kiddie porn sites to stem the supply from 'illegal' operators??

The demand is there because people dont understand the harmful consequences - the main one being addiciton. And before you mention alcohol, its problematic existence should not justify the introduction of other problems into society. I'd be for the decriminalisation of marijuana with the revenues used to fight tooth and nail against the 'hard' drugs.

Rather than simply acquiescing to the demands of drug users, can you think of any way to stifle demand in a market??

rovert

Im with Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't see why you're trying to dodge the question. I'm talking about everyone who protested against head shops, and everyone who was in favour of the ban. Why do you think these people assumed that position? Why did these people want head shops banned?

Im not dodging the question, you are dodging the question on who are these people exactly you keep referring to. It is a strawman nothing more unless you prove otherwise.

CiaranC

sensibleken wrote: »

Personally I put most of the blame on the consumer. Its not that difficult to buy ethically at the worst of times. But when its glaringly obvious that you having a bit of coke in the jacks in a nightlclub is funding someones brains being blown out, I dont know what excuse people can have.

Ah grand so, we'll just tell everyone to stop taking drugs, that'll work.

OhNoYouDidn't

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Wait, I dont think we would be allowed to legalize drugs, with the EU?

Portugal did

Pace2008

Laminations wrote: »

Maybe the government should have gone down the road of legalisation and regulation (not very libertarian to regulate) but should they give in to every 'demand'??

No. But there should be an element of compromise.

You are right, closing head shops will not stop the demand - I disagree with you that this was the intention but why should government facilitatite in supplying this demand?? What if the masses suddenly want ciggies for a euro a pack or kiddie porn? should the government have regulated cheap smoke shops and regulated kiddie porn sites to stem the supply from 'illegal' operators??

These are ridiculous comparisons and you know it. The line has to be drawn at some point; the question is where.

The demand is there because people dont understand the harmful consequences - the main one being addiciton.

I'd contest this: not all drug users are impressionable teens or moronic junkies. Plenty of people are aware of the potential harm psychoactives can cause, yet they choose to take them anyway because - and this is why the demand is actually there - drugs make people feel really, really good. There are plenty of people who know how to use drugs in such a way as to minimise the risk of adverse effects, as well.

As a point of note, addiction is not the main harmful consequence of every drug. You can't just conflate a massively diverse class of chemicals into one entity; they have to be judged on their own individual merits and drawbacks.

Rather than simply acquiescing to the demands of drug users, can you think of any way to stifle demand in a market??

Try to eliminate free will whilst getting the experts to work on replacing the contents of Pandora's Box and closing the lid.

r3nu4l

rovert wrote: »

They are killing their own for the most part thank god. Good riddance really.

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

+1. Let them keep knocking each other off.

Ah yes, the surest sign that someone in the topic is completely ignorant as to how drugs gangs work.

Do you really think that if they keep taking each other out, the problem of drugs in Ireland will go away? Somehow if enough of them kill one another there won't be any more dealers left and all the drugs will stop coming into the country?

It won't. We all know that all that happens is that the control over the trade falls to some other scumbag who will in turn kill or be killed, whereupon another muppet steps forward and controls the trade. All the time, cocaine and heroin (amongst others) flow into the country.

Vim Fuego wrote: »

Let's not forget Shane Geoghegan in Limerick, who was murdered due to a case of mistaken identity. He had nothing to do with crime and was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Saying they just kill each other just isn't good enough.

Exactly. Mistaken identity has resulted in innocent people dying as too has simply witnessing the shooting of a drug dealer. This is why apathy is dangerous because these scumbags end up affecting others when they mistake someone for their target or when they kill a witness. Innocent people die. Apathy too has meant that the Gardaí and politicians are not put under enough pressure by the public and these scumbags end up benefitting hugely from their crimes.

Laminations

Pace2008 wrote: »

No. But there should be an element of compromise.

Ok whats the compromise?

Laminations

Pace2008 wrote: »

As a point of note, addiction is not the main harmful consequence of every drug. You can't just conflate a massively diverse class of chemicals into one entity; they have to be judged on their own individual merits and drawbacks.
.

What drugs are not addictive? and I dont mean simply physically addicitve
EDIT: To clarify my definition of addiction, I equate it to substance dependence

sensibleken

CiaranC wrote: »

Ah grand so, we'll just tell everyone to stop taking drugs, that'll work.

Of course that won't work. It still doesn't mean they are not to blame for funding this going on. These **** are funding untold misery. There is no point people passing the blame saying its not their fault because there is no legal alternative.

There is also going to be people who just don't care who their choices affect and thats where the government comes in either through legislation or law enforcement.

Laminations

Pace2008 wrote: »

Try to eliminate free will whilst getting the experts to work on replacing the contents of Pandora's Box and closing the lid.

Would you take drugs if there was a 20% likelihhod you would be brain damaged from it? 30%? 50%? There are ways to quell demand. Unprotected sex had the kybosh put on it after the emergence of AIDS, previously herpes or gonorrhea etc. where not sufficiently disconcerting consequences. There are ways to quell demand, unpalatable ways

Pace2008

Laminations wrote: »

Ok whats the compromise?

The first mature, serious and and pragmatic discussion on drugs in the history of the nation, based on objectivity and uninfluenced by media hysteria and ill-formed preconceptions. This would hopefully lead to the decriminalisation of drugs as a whole, and possibly, in many years to come, the legalisation and regulation of well-researched chemicals like MDMA and cannabis.

I realise Ireland, as a small and somewhat conservative nations, is never going to be at the forefront of such a movement, but watch this space. The EU has stated that current prohibitionist stance is in need of an overhaul, and some European countries have changed their legislation to facilitate a harm-reduction approach: Spain, Italy and Portugal have decriminalised the possession of drugs for personal use.

Laminations wrote: »

What drugs are not addictive? and I dont mean simply physically addicitve
EDIT: To clarify my definition of addiction, I equate it to substance dependence

I never said there were any drugs that weren't potentially addictive. Anything that make you feel good has the potential to be abused. However, ecstasy and the psychedelics would not be considered to be particularly addictive. That's not to say that there aren't potential risks attached to them, as I said earlier.

Pace2008

Laminations wrote: »

Would you take drugs if there was a 20% likelihhod you would be brain damaged from it? 30%? 50%? There are ways to quell demand. Unprotected sex had the kybosh put on it after the emergence of AIDS, previously herpes or gonorrhea etc. where not sufficiently disconcerting consequences. There are ways to quell demand, unpalatable ways

Would this be brought about through a single dose, or infrequent recreational use, or regular use of the drug? And are you talking about a slight decrease in cognitive function or significant loss of faculty? If the latter could happen through sporadic use I'd stay well clear, obviously, but there aren't many, if any, drugs out there that dangerous - you'd expect that sort of outcome from consistent methamphetamine abuse.

We're already told the dangers of drugs throughout school as it stands, in many cases grossly exaggerated. Do you suggest we lie to the populace some more in the hope it will frighten them away from drug use?

r3nu4l

Pace2008 wrote: »

The first mature, serious and and pragmatic discussion on drugs in the history of the nation, based on objectivity and uninfluenced by media hysteria and ill-formed preconceptions.

Impossible imo. Vested interest groups (pro- and anti-legalisation groups) will ALWAYS be present even if they don't publically identify themselves as such at the time.

This would hopefully lead to the decriminalisation of drugs as a whole, and possibly, in many years to come, the legalisation and regulation of well-researched chemicals like MDMA and cannabis.

You see? Point proven. Do you really think you would stay out of a debate like this when you obviously have a vested interest?

I'm not having a go at you. It's a serious problem. Only a couple of months ago the UKs scientific advisors on drugs to the UK Government had two high-ranking members resign because they felt that the Government were responding to media and public pressure rather than scientific evidence.*

On an emotive subject like this people vested interest and lobby groups cannot remove themselves, they just can't.


*That's not to say that science has approved these drugs at all, the debate rages on in science and medicine too, despite obvious medicinal benefits of some compounds!

CiaranC

sensibleken wrote: »

Of course that won't work. It still doesn't mean they are not to blame for funding this going on. These **** are funding untold misery. There is no point people passing the blame saying its not their fault because there is no legal alternative.

There is also going to be people who just don't care who their choices affect and thats where the government comes in either through legislation or law enforcement.

Yawn. Legislation and law enforcement are as irrelevant today as they have been for the last several thousand years of drug taking. People have always taken drugs, and always, always will.

The fact that a bunch of gob****es have decided to prohibit and criminalise normal human behaviour is to blame for handing the market to criminals, nothing else.

Only taking the market back from the criminals will end the current situation. All other discussion is a pointless waste of time.

Laminations

Pace2008 wrote: »

The first mature, serious and and pragmatic discussion on drugs in the history of the nation, based on objectivity and uninfluenced by media hysteria and ill-formed preconceptions. This would hopefully lead to the decriminalisation of drugs as a whole, and possibly, in many years to come, the legalisation and regulation of well-researched chemicals like MDMA and cannabis.

I realise Ireland, as a small and somewhat conservative nations, is never going to be at the forefront of such a movement, but watch this space. The EU has stated that current prohibitionist stance is in need of an overhaul, and some European countries have changed their legislation to facilitate a harm-reduction approach: Spain, Italy and Portugal have decriminalised the possession of drugs for personal use.

How is that a compromise? It sounds like drug users getting what they want. A compromise would be to legalise the drugs, package them with warnings and if you get addicted and need help, tough luck, thats free will for you. Not that I agree with that as a compromise but its more of a compromise than your 'give us the drugs legally' solution