Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Why Is Marijuana Illegal?

1246717

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    TPD wrote: »
    I was just using E as an example of a low danger drug. If alcohol were made illegal, it may become the gateway drug.

    Professionally you don't deal with alcohol, but do you see how easily a comparison is drawn? It's a bit silly to use the gateway argument against cannabis when cannabis is only filling the 'gateway' spot by chance, and a change in law could switch another drug to the 'gateway' position.

    Of course, I agree on that point, but then again can you tell me the difference between a drug, a medicine and a poison. It's not as easy as it first looks. As you noted some food stuffs change mood, some poisons can be used to treat illnesses, some medicines can kill. It's a complex issue, and all our powers to be can do is come up with simple answers, most people who know little about drug use think that the only way to control a problem is to ban it.

    Sadly we are becoming more and more controlled in relation to our laws, look at the thread here about codeine. The benefit's of any medical use it may have is a non-starter here; unless the people who want it legal have a condition that would benefit form it. I doubt anybody discussing the topic here has such a condition.

    There is an unfairness in the law around drugs, if I had my way I would allow regulated access to most drugs. However, is this going to change I really don't think so, well it will but it will be in the other direction with more and more laws restricting access to chemicals.

    This unfairness applies in other areas, how come I'm deemed safe to possess 3 firearms but unsafe to own a 9mm Glock. If you think the drug laws are bad, spend a bit of time on the shooting forum, you will see the laws are just as bad. It's coming from the same place. The drug treatment facilities we have were developed not out of any desire to help people, but out of the general public's fear of HIV in the late 80s, that and an attempt to reduce criminality.

    The only thing that got me involved in this debate were the statement's that is has no negative effects psychologically and that people can't get addicted. It the thing that is missing from most pro-legal viewpoints, will that happen to everybody no, of course not. However, that doesn't mean it can be ignored either. A lot of people seem to think that making a plea to science will win the arguement either way; really at the heart of it is a moral belief that drug taking is wrong.

    Whether you like it or not, a lot of it comes down to that, and I still have 25 years left to work in addiction before I retire, however, I sadly think the laws will still be the same when I'm finally given my clock.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 355 ✭✭I_AmThe_Walrus


    Odysseus wrote: »
    A lot of people seem to think that making a plea to science will win the arguement either way; really at the heart of it is a moral belief that drug taking is wrong.

    Ah yes, the ever reliable words of God and morality...something this country has been struggling to isolate itself from for decades. I understand folks assumption that drugs equals bad but nothing thus far has proved that marijuana differs from any other drugs currently on display in your local supermarket, regarding side effects.

    There is currently a complete lack of education from foundation levels regarding this county and our academic endeavors where drugs are concerned but I am with you on the point one hundred percent about proper regulation of said substances. I just wish people were educated enough to listen to reason and not count the days to the apocalypse seeing it decriminalised.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Newsflash - marijuana is not illegal because marijuana is not a drug. It is not listed in any of the schedules to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 and is not listed as a drug in the WHO lexicon of alcohol and drug terms.

    So there's been all this "discussion" about a non-issue. Just browsing the posts it seems to be yet another of those Daily Mail / Daily Star type polls that has generated more heat than light around the non-subject.

    OP, what next? Could I suggest another scientific poll entitled :

    "Why are Flights to Mars Dangerous?"

    Is it because they :
    1. threaten Martian property values or
    2. lead to overcrowding on intra-galactic shuttles?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭cypharius


    mathepac wrote: »
    Newsflash - marijuana is not illegal because marijuana is not a drug. It is not listed in any of the schedules to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 and is not listed as a drug in the WHO lexicon of alcohol and drug terms.

    So there's been all this "discussion" about a non-issue. Just browsing the posts it seems to be yet another of those Daily Mail / Daily Star type polls that has generated more heat than light around the non-subject.

    OP, what next? Could I suggest another scientific poll entitled :

    "Why are Flights to Mars Dangerous?"

    Is it because they :
    1. threaten Martian property values or
    2. lead to overcrowding on intra-galactic shuttles?


    Try that in court please.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 355 ✭✭I_AmThe_Walrus


    mathepac wrote: »
    Newsflash - marijuana is not illegal because marijuana is not a drug. It is not listed in any of the schedules to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 and is not listed as a drug in the WHO lexicon of alcohol and drug terms.

    So there's been all this "discussion" about a non-issue. Just browsing the posts it seems to be yet another of those Daily Mail / Daily Star type polls that has generated more heat than light around the non-subject.

    Of course it's an issue. Saying one doesn't exist because Marijuana isn't labeled a drug is no less to the point than saying Marijuana shouldn't be legal with no conclusion as to why you hold such views.

    Do you think with an attitude like yours, we would accomplish anything even remotely beneficial to our species? I think not.

    Marijuana is not illegal, you say, yet people are arrested for it everyday all over the globe. The last time I checked, I believe I'd be investigated if I called the local Garda station with info of my twenty tonne stash hid throughout my home.

    Regardless of whether or not it is considered a "drug", trust me, I don't like the term "drug" either in description to cannabis but the fact remains that there are punishments put in place in our society (Ireland) for possession of such substances.
    OP, what next? Could I suggest another scientific poll entitled :

    "Why are Flights to Mars Dangerous?"

    Is it because they :
    1. threaten Martian property values or
    2. lead to overcrowding on intra-galactic shuttles?

    That sounds like an awesome thread. I look forward to reading it. :P


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭Strange Loop


    mathepac wrote: »
    Newsflash - marijuana is not illegal because marijuana is not a drug. It is not listed in any of the schedules to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 and is not listed as a drug in the WHO lexicon of alcohol and drug terms.




    All those convicted of marijuana relatated drugs offences will be dancing a jig at this news.

    I expect there'll be a flurry of activity in the judges chambers next week.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 355 ✭✭I_AmThe_Walrus


    All those convicted of marijuana relatated drugs offences will be dancing a jig at this news.

    I expect there'll be a flurry of activity in the judges chambers next week.

    Wow, I completely misread your username. :o


  • Registered Users Posts: 210 ✭✭chops1990


    I'm a regular user of the so called "drug" and i'm not in anyway shape or form addicted to it. Sometimes I use it days on end, take big breaks and so on so forth, but I've never experienced any form of withdrawal or strong need to consume it.

    How can a plant be called a drug? Just because people get high by smoking/eating it? The only health side effects I've been able to find through research and general use, is that its bad for your lungs, no more than smoking tobacco is!

    The vote on this thread just shows how much people accept it. 81% for it and 18% against. Astronomical difference! As the OP has stated it's never been linked to a fatality, ever, compared to drink and tobacco which have frightening statisitcs!

    I strongly feel it should be decriminalised or even legalized, as long as it isnt placed under massive taxation which in effect would be the same as keeping it illegal. It would topple criminal gangs involved in drugs, which'd be the vast majority if not all of them.

    Many reputable researchers and professors from leading colleges in America such as harvard and other Ivory league schools have done studies on Cannabis and it's ill effects and positive ones. They show hardly any ill effects, and plenty of healthy ones, like alleviating the pain of arthritis sufferers and cancer patients while also helping cancer patients to eat. However the government will not listen to the experts, because the Government use Cannabis for their own needs. For example, during the Vietnam War cannabis smoking was running rampant through the rank and file of the american army. This is when the "War Against drugs" really came into it's own, because you see when people get stoned the last thing they want to do is fight, and that doesn't make good little obedient soldiers!

    Compared to alcohol, excuse me for being insensitve, causes husbands to come home and beat their wives and children, the streets to be littered with drunk people fighting and winding up the Guards in otherwise unneccessary calls, when they could be following up more important things, Murder, Rape, and God knows what else!

    Portugal has already decriminalised most illegal drugs and it has had massive succeess since its introduction 5 years ago. Just google Portugese drug laws.


  • Registered Users Posts: 412 ✭✭IsThisIt???


    The only reason marijuana can even be considered a gateway drug is cos you can get stuck buyin off some scummy dealer who wants to push endless amounts of other stuff on you when all you want is some smoke. Legalising it would end that problem.

    Having said that I don't think it ever will be legalised in Ireland. There has always been a mentality on Ireland that marijuana is dangerous. Howard marks even said how members of the IRA, a group willing to kill innocent people for their cause, were reluctant to get involved in dealing and smuggling.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    chops1990 wrote: »

    How can a plant be called a drug? Just because people get high by smoking/eating it? The only health side effects I've been able to find through research and general use, is that its bad for your lungs, no more than smoking tobacco is!

    Opium comes from what again?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 355 ✭✭I_AmThe_Walrus


    Odysseus wrote: »
    Opium comes from what again?

    Granted, Opium comes from the poppy plant but it is already a tool in medicines arsenal, Morphine. Yes, it has side-effects but Morphine isn't given the same amount of bad press such as Marijuana because it's an accepted medicine but that could be said for Cannabis too, although it remains a property of satan in the media, almost.

    The same can be said for Cocaine, also a natural plant, Coca, which I have several of them sitting beside me right now that I picked up in Peru for my tea. The thing about Cocaine is that it is not used recreationally in it's natural form. It is treated and mixed with very toxic substances to the human body.

    Marijuana can be smoked right from growth. It is more natural than other plant based drugs is what Chops was trying to say, I assume. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 210 ✭✭chops1990


    Marijuana can be smoked right from growth. It is more natural than other plant based drugs is what Chops was trying to say, I assume. :)

    Exactly, Thanks for that!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Some of the content in the last few posts confirmed the suspicion I formed when browsing the thread that in-depth knowledge of the topic under discussion is scarce.

    Please read my initial post again, c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y, before dashing off a response. Read what is actually written, not what you think it suggests.
    ... Do you think with an attitude like yours, we would accomplish anything even remotely beneficial to our species? I think not. ...
    I doubt if much of any import will be achieved using the knowledge base displayed in the thread so far, and my "attitude" is unlikely to be much of an additional hindrance; on the other hand my honesty could be beneficial.

    In racing parlance I fear the handicapper has been unkind to the thread as a potential saviour of the species.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 355 ✭✭I_AmThe_Walrus


    mathepac wrote: »
    Some of the content in the last few posts confirmed the suspicion I formed when browsing the thread that in-depth knowledge of the topic under discussion is scarce.

    Please read my initial post again, c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y, before dashing off a response. Read what is actually written, not what you think it suggests.
    I doubt if much of any import will be achieved using the knowledge base displayed in the thread so far, and my "attitude" is unlikely to be much of an additional hindrance; on the other hand my honesty could be beneficial.

    In racing parlance I fear the handicapper has been unkind to the thread as a potential saviour of the species.

    I disagree.

    I think there are many posters with firm and in-dept knowledge of the topic who have contributed greatly to the debate. Having said that, there are comments who dismiss the idea of decriminalisation without proper and intelligent justification.

    Moreover, I'd like to point out that the information regarding your post about the Misuse of Drugs Act was a nice addition to the discussion but the fact remains that, even though Marijuana may not be included in the "drug list" for lack of a better term, it is a punishable offense in this state.

    Furthermore, I don't see Marijuana legalisation as the savior to our species, I just see double standards being applied within our Government and relevant authorities as to why [enter random legal addictive here] is "okay" and Marijuana is socially unacceptable and a hindrance to mankind when it possesses less or, no more than, harmful effects other "drugs" cause to the human psyche and physical condition.

    The two wrongs (three), don't make a right isn't a great argument either. It is hypocritical.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 386 ✭✭seensensee


    mathepac wrote: »
    Newsflash - marijuana is not illegal because marijuana is not a drug. It is not listed in any of the schedules to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 and is not listed as a drug in the WHO lexicon of alcohol and drug terms.

    So there's been all this "discussion" about a non-issue. Just browsing the posts it seems to be yet another of those Daily Mail / Daily Star type polls that has generated more heat than light around the non-subject.

    OP, what next? Could I suggest another scientific poll entitled :

    "Why are Flights to Mars Dangerous?"

    Is it because they :
    1. threaten Martian property values or
    2. lead to overcrowding on intra-galactic shuttles?


    Hiya mathepac, you may well be correct with what you suggest above, I did'nt bother to check the 1977 misuse of drug act because it is now irrelevant due to the fact that it has been replaced by...
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1984/en/act/pub/0018/index.html
    ...misuse of drug act 1984.
    Have a look and see has "marijuana" been covered by the legislation?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    mathepac wrote: »
    Newsflash - marijuana is not illegal because marijuana is not a drug. It is not listed in any of the schedules to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 and is not listed as a drug in the WHO lexicon of alcohol and drug terms.

    That's because the correct term is Cannabis, ie. Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalis, and all crosses.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 355 ✭✭I_AmThe_Walrus


    seensensee wrote: »
    Hiya mathepac, you may well be correct with what you suggest above, I did'nt bother to check the 1977 misuse of drug act because it is now irrelevant due to the fact that it has been replaced by...
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1984/en/act/pub/0018/index.html
    ...misuse of drug act 1984.
    Have a look and see has "marijuana" been covered by the legislation?
    mikom wrote: »
    That's because the correct term is Cannabis, ie. Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalis, and all crosses.

    Wow, well that argument has just been blown out of the water.

    Anyone else?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    Granted, Opium comes from the poppy plant but it is already a tool in medicines arsenal, Morphine. Yes, it has side-effects but Morphine isn't given the same amount of bad press such as Marijuana because it's an accepted medicine but that could be said for Cannabis too, although it remains a property of satan in the media, almost.

    The same can be said for Cocaine, also a natural plant, Coca, which I have several of them sitting beside me right now that I picked up in Peru for my tea. The thing about Cocaine is that it is not used recreationally in it's natural form. It is treated and mixed with very toxic substances to the human body.

    Marijuana can be smoked right from growth. It is more natural than other plant based drugs is what Chops was trying to say, I assume. :)

    People chew coca leaves for the same thing the active ingredient, it the plant a drug or the active ingredient, but in reference to how can a plant be a drug, that is the answer. Recreational use of morphine is given the same bad press, people don't have as easy access to it, otherwise it would get the same press, no?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 386 ✭✭seensensee


    Wow, well that argument has just been blown out of the water.

    Right on, BS needs to be exposed for what it is.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4 james23993


    folan wrote: »
    Because of pressure from the States which made it illegal in the early part of the last century.

    George Washington grew it on his plantation.

    That was hemp that he grew on his plantation. Completely different strain of cannabis contains barley any THC and was used in textile production.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Kurtosis


    Granted, Opium comes from the poppy plant but it is already a tool in medicines arsenal, Morphine. Yes, it has side-effects but Morphine isn't given the same amount of bad press such as Marijuana because it's an accepted medicine but that could be said for Cannabis too, although it remains a property of satan in the media, almost.

    Oh right, so if cannabis based products were licensed as medicines and put on prescription for various illnesses, would you be happy with that result?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Wow, well that argument has just been blown out of the water. ...
    Not at all - it's just more evidence in support of my original point. The 1984 Misuse of Drugs Act contains this :
    Definition. 1.—In this Act "the Principal Act" means the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977
    mikom wrote: »
    That's because the correct term is Cannabis, ie. Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalis, and all crosses.
    I'd argue that the correct term is probably anything other than the nonsense masquerading as fact in the opening post and elsewhere in the thread.
    Wow, well that argument has just been blown out of the water. ...
    Hardly but then the thread generally has had difficulty letting accuracy or facts get in the way of sensationalism. Wow.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    mikom wrote: »
    That's because the correct term is Cannabis, ie. Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalis, and all crosses.
    mathepac wrote: »


    I'd argue that the correct term is probably anything other than the nonsense masquerading as fact in the opening post and elsewhere in the thread.
    Hardly but then the thread generally has had difficulty letting accuracy or facts get in the way of sensationalism. Wow.

    You have a point there.
    As long as you don't lump us all in the one boat.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,220 ✭✭✭20 Times 20 Times


    50 bags for sale


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 355 ✭✭I_AmThe_Walrus


    mathepac wrote: »
    Not at all - it's just more evidence in support of my original point. The 1984 Misuse of Drugs Act contains this :
    Definition. 1.—In this Act "the Principal Act" means the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977


    I'd argue that the correct term is probably anything other than the nonsense masquerading as fact in the opening post and elsewhere in the thread.
    Hardly but then the thread generally has had difficulty letting accuracy or facts get in the way of sensationalism. Wow.

    So you're thoroughly against the decriminlisation of said substance, medical use and regulation of it...
    penguin88 wrote: »
    Oh right, so if cannabis based products were licensed as medicines and put on prescription for various illnesses, would you be happy with that result?

    Yes. A step in the right direction.
    Sarge wrote: »
    50 bags for sale

    Reported!

    j/k :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 386 ✭✭seensensee


    mathepac wrote: »


    I'd argue that the correct term is probably anything other than the nonsense masquerading as fact in the opening post and elsewhere in the thread.
    Hardly but then the thread generally has had difficulty letting accuracy or facts get in the way of sensationalism. Wow.


    Looks like you are in need of some education...

    Misuse of Drugs Act, 1984
    btn_printact.gif btn_previous.gif btn_next.gif
    2 1984 18
    [GA] New definition of "cannabis" and "opium poppy" and other amendments of section 1 (1) of Principal Act. 2.—section 1 (1) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by—
    [GA]
    ( a ) the substitution of the following definition for the definition of "cannabis":
    [GA]
    "'cannabis' (except in 'cannabis resin') means any plant of the genus Cannabis or any part of any such plant (by whatever name designated) but includes neither cannabis resin nor any of the following products after separation from the rest of any such plant, namely—
    [GA]
    ( a ) mature stalk of any such plant,
    [GA]
    ( b ) fibre produced from such mature stalk, or
    [GA]
    ( c ) seed of any such plant;";

    The act clearly covers all terms relating to cannabis, that includes "marijuana".

    Don't panic if you don't understand the above, it takes time to sink in.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    seensensee wrote: »
    Looks like you are in need of some education...

    Misuse of Drugs Act, 1984
    btn_printact.gif btn_previous.gif btn_next.gif
    2 1984 18
    [GA] New definition of "cannabis" and "opium poppy" and other amendments of section 1 (1) of Principal Act. 2.—section 1 (1) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by—
    [GA]
    ( a ) the substitution of the following definition for the definition of "cannabis":
    [GA]
    "'cannabis' (except in 'cannabis resin') means any plant of the genus Cannabis or any part of any such plant (by whatever name designated) but includes neither cannabis resin nor any of the following products after separation from the rest of any such plant, namely—
    [GA]
    ( a ) mature stalk of any such plant,
    [GA]
    ( b ) fibre produced from such mature stalk, or
    [GA]
    ( c ) seed of any such plant;";

    The act clearly covers all terms relating to cannabis, that includes "marijuana".

    Don't panic if you don't understand the above, it takes time to sink in.

    Now folks, don't forget to read c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y.......


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Kurtosis


    Yes. A step in the right direction.

    I really wish people looking for the legalisation/decriminalisation of cannabis would stop jumping on the campaign for the medical use of cannabis. These are two distinct causes, one does not follow on from the other. To be honest, I actually think the case for medical use is actually damaged by the association with pro-legalisation groups.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 386 ✭✭seensensee


    Sarge wrote: »
    50 bags for sale

    Plastic or paper?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭Strange Loop


    mikom wrote: »
    Now folks, don't forget to read c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y.......
    ( b ) fibre produced from such mature stalk, or

    So, hemp clothes are illegal? :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 386 ✭✭seensensee


    penguin88 wrote: »
    I really wish people looking for the legalisation/decriminalisation of cannabis would stop jumping on the campaign for the medical use of cannabis. These are two distinct causes, one does not follow on from the other. To be honest, I actually think the case for medical use is actually damaged by the association with pro-legalisation groups.

    Sorry your wish cannot be granted, many of us campaign for all the causes. Would you care to elaborate on how pro-legal groups damage the medical cause?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Kurtosis


    seensensee wrote: »
    Sorry your wish cannot be granted, many of us campaign for all the causes. Would you care to elaborate on how pro-legal groups damage the medical cause?

    I think many people would take quite a negative view of pro-legalisation groups (the stereotypical stuff to be honest, "stoners" etc.) and so by associating the legalisation cause with the medical cause, people may apply the same view to the latter. I think each should be judged on its own merits because they are not connected. Giving support to the case for medical use in no way legitimises the campaign for legalisation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 355 ✭✭I_AmThe_Walrus


    penguin88 wrote: »
    I think many people would take quite a negative view of pro-legalisation groups (the stereotypical stuff to be honest, "stoners" etc.) and so by associating the legalisation cause with the medical cause, people may apply the same view to the latter. I think each should be judged on its own merits because they are not connected. Giving support to the case for medical use in no way legitimises the campaign for legalisation.

    That's a valid point and it's clear how you've come to that conclusion but as seensensee touched on beforehand, I think a majority of people who are sitting on the decriminalization bench, see the benefits of the wider spectrum and not solely for medical usage.

    I think it would do us all a great deal of good to accept the fact that those in favour of it's medical use and the decriminization of the substance itself cannot all be categorically classed as "stoners". It's a terrible stereotypical viewpoint of an ignorant and regurgitating individual.

    I'm sure there are many people in here who have never and don't desire to consume Marijuana, yet they are pro-legalization because they've done enough research on their own to make an educated decision. The two may not be linked but both are sought after by the groups, one no less important than the other.

    Saying it has medical benefits is one thing for people to become accustomed to accepting it's place in the medicine world, but I think they need to be educated of the other pro's it has to offer. People who don't reason, cannot reason or dares not to reason are slaves.

    Concerning this poll, the majority of the people are in favour of the regulated legality prospect. It just astounds me that we call ourselves a democracy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 386 ✭✭seensensee


    penguin88 wrote: »
    I think many people would take quite a negative view of pro-legalisation groups (the stereotypical stuff to be honest, "stoners" etc.) and so by associating the legalisation cause with the medical cause, people may apply the same view to the latter. I think each should be judged on its own merits because they are not connected. Giving support to the case for medical use in no way legitimises the campaign for legalisation.

    Yes I tend to agree with what you have stated. It also goes to show how many people fail to distinguish the difference between an individual who requires cannabis based medicine in contrast to an individual who wants get high using cannabis and relax with friends.

    It"s not surprising though, our government ensures that there is an unhealthy link between a lot of cannabis users and criminal gangs, consequently the media broadcast a lot of negativity on the subject... danger, cannabis = criminal activity.
    What many people fail to understand is that pro legalisation groups actually demand an end to criminality, they want a civil society free from persecution and are happy to pay their taxes. They don't want to enrich criminal gangs through cannabis dealing.
    Many people have been misinformed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Kurtosis


    The two may not be linked but both are sought after by the groups, one no less important than the other.

    I have to disagree with you here. I think providing people who suffer from serious and debilitating diseases with treatment that could improve their quality of life/survival prospects is more important than providing recreational users with easier access.
    Concerning this poll, the majority of the people are in favour of the regulated legality prospect. It just astounds me that we call ourselves a democracy.

    You have to consider though that boards is not a great representation of the general population. Also the option are very limited, you haven't differentiated with reclassification for medical use and legalisation.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Kurtosis


    seensensee wrote: »
    Yes I tend to agree with what you have stated. It also goes to show how many people fail to distinguish the difference between an individual who requires cannabis based medicine in contrast to an individual who wants get high using cannabis and relax with friends.

    Agree 100%. My major problem is not with people who fail to differentiate because of ignorance of the issue or being misinformed. The people I have a problem with are those who knowingly fail to distinguish the two in an effort to further their own agenda (as some other posters on this thread have demonstrated).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 546 ✭✭✭clived2


    When kellogs dropped Michael Phelps because they seen a video of him
    hitting a bong, Joe Rogan wrote Kellogs a letter, In it he answers the main reason marijuana is illegal along with some other points,
    This is that letter,






    Dear Kellogg’s,

    I’m writing this letter to express my disappointment in your company in firing Michael Phelps as a spokesperson for your products because he was photographed while enjoying some marijuana.
    I respectfully would like to communicate my opinion on this matter because I think it’s of great public interest.

    First of all, although it is true that Mr. Phelps broke the law, I think any reasonably intelligent person would admit that it’s one of the most ****ed up and corrupt laws that we have today in this country. Marijuana is relatively harmless and certainly far less dangerous than a host of other things that are not only legal but also readily available, like alcohol and prescription drugs. The only reason it remains illegal to this day is because it’s a plant and you can’t patent it and control it’s sale, and because if it were legal it would greatly affect the demand for a host of prescription drugs that rake in billions of dollars each year for pharmaceutical companies.

    That’s it.

    Marijuana has never killed anyone EVER in over 10,000 years of use. We’re not protecting people from themselves, we’re not saving the children - it’s just a horribly illogical law that is in place because of corruption and propaganda.

    The fact that it’s against the law is just a disgusting reminder of how retarded our system is, not a reasonable reaction to a proven threat to society.

    I have to say, this whole thing saddens me, because I personally would like to think that as Americans we’re better than this. These television news anchors will shake their heads at the thoughtless mistake Mr. Phelps had made by “smoking dope,” and then without even the tiniest sense of irony they will cut to a beer commercial.

    This is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, right? We’re not supposed to be a nation of little bitches giving in to the whims of corrupt politicians and the pharmaceutical companies who’s interests they’re representing.

    It’s 2009, and in this day and age with the incredible access to information that we have available there’s no ****ing way that we should be allowing human beings to tell other human beings that they can’t do something that they enjoy that hurts no one including themselves.

    THAT is madness. THAT is ignorant, and THAT is completely ****ing un-American.

    I don’t want to hear any of that, “he’s setting a bad example with the children” nonsense either, because we all know if he had a gin and tonic in his hand instead of a bong this would never have been an issue, even though every single study ever done has shown that marijuana is FAR less dangerous than alcohol.

    Marijuana laws are a horrible waste of resources and law enforcement, and especially in this day and age with our economy in such horrible shape I believe the last thing we need to be doing is wasting tax payers’ money on any of this victimless bull****.

    I find your reactions to Mr. Phelps situation both ignorant and short sighted.

    I think what would have been a far better response from Kellogg’s would be to support Mr. Phelps, and perhaps point out that maybe we as a society should take a closer look at the evidence and possibly reconsider our position on this misunderstood plant that so many of our productive citizens find useful.

    Now, I’m sure if you really were running Kellogg’s and you were still reading my bull**** all the way down to this, you must be thinking, “Why the hell would we stick our necks out like that for pot smokers?”
    And of course the answer to that question would be, because we buy your ****, mother****er.

    Do you guys even know your consumer statistics? Well, let me fill you in on some of my own personal scientific research on the subject, because I have been closely studying my own purchases for over 20 years, and I can tell you that I’ve been high 100% of the time I’ve bought your ****.

    I mean, do you guys ever think about what you sell?

    Pop tarts? Are you kidding me? I would be willing to bet that 50% of the people buying pop tarts are stoned out of their ****ing minds.

    Just to be perfectly clear on my position, I would like you to know that I enjoy your products. I think many of them are quite tasty, but lets be honest; you guys sell sugar-drenched **** that’s horrible for your body - in fact, it’s actually way worse for your body than pot - and you market this **** specifically to children.

    You ****s go as far as putting lovable cartoon characters on the boxes just so that kids will beg their parents for it.

    Now, I don’t want you to misunderstand my point, because I in no way want anything bad to happen to your company. Like I said, I genuinely enjoy your products.

    There’s nothing quite like being stoned out of your mind at 2am watching a Chuck Norris movie and eating a bowl of fruit loops. Your company and its products have been a part of some very pleasurable moments in guilty eating, and I’m glad you’re around.

    All I’m saying is that it’s high time (no pun intended) that you mother****ers respect the stoner dollar. There’s WAY more of us than you might think, and we tend to get upset about dumb **** like this. There are millions of us, and if we decide that we don’t like a company, they’re going to feel it.

    I think if you looked into it carefully, you would be surprised at how many undercover potheads there are out there. Pot smokers don’t all fit into the obvious, negative stereotypes; we come in all shapes and forms - including by the way, the form of the greatest ****ing swimmer who ever lived, EVER.
    Think about THAT **** for a second..

    So in closing, I would like to ask you nice folks to please smarten the **** up.

    I would request that you check the calendar and note that it’s 2000 and ****ing 9, and next time you think about getting all uppity about pot you might want to do a quick google search on the facts.
    It’s 4:40am here in LA, and I’m going to wrap up this blog and to celebrate its completion I’m going to enjoy one of my personal favorite Kellogg’s products: Eggo waffles.

    I’m gonna pop 4 of them bitches into the toaster, and then I’m gonna stuff the bong with some fine, American grown “Train Wreck” and sacrifice the sacred plant to the fire gods in tribute to the unjustly persecuted 8 time Olympian hero. Then I’m gonna get some butter, and I’m gonna smear it on those Eggos, I’m gonna cover them with maple syrup, and I’m going to eat the ever loving **** out of them.

    Good day, sirs.

    Yours truly,

    Joe Rogan.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Doc


    seensensee wrote: »
    All due respect to you doc but it appears your research is totally inconclusive...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/303438.stm

    The above links provide some indication that in fact cannabis is being used in the treatment of mental illness.

    It appears that in an illegal environment there is no quality control regarding the production and distribution of cannabis, therefore the users are subjected to unknown chemical consumption.
    It has been discovered that cannabis with a high THC content but lacking in CBD can exacerbate symptoms of mental illness for some people, however in the legal environment studies are conducted and results show that even schizophrenics benefit from an appropriate cannabis based medicine.

    It's a complex subject, but keeping cannabis illegal ensures a potentially hazardous supply, it can be a bad strain mixed treated with any old toxic crap, is that what you want?

    To be fair I have read a lot more then just the research I posted and know that there is contradicting research however through what I have read and my own personal experiences I have come to my own informed conclusion and I believe it dose act as a trigger to some mental illnesses.

    I have given up trying to change peoples opinion on it but I think people who wish to use Marijuana should be aware of any potential risks to there health.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 852 ✭✭✭moonpurple


    in reply to OP

    it is a gateway drug
    it causes lung cancer (bob Marlay)
    medical specialists describe often how it causes psychosis and other problems for some people
    how would you feel if the pilot of the plane told you and 234 other passengers: "I am just finishing this joint and i will then take off.."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭Strange Loop


    moonpurple wrote: »
    it causes lung cancer (bob Marlay)

    Bob Marley died of cancer to the toe, which untreated went on to cause a brain tumour.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,925 ✭✭✭nix


    moonpurple wrote: »
    passengers: "I am just finishing this joint and i will then take off.."


    Id be very angry to tell the truth, i mean the ****ing nerve if that were to happen....Why would the pilot be allowed to smoke and the rest of us would get arrested??? I would be perfectly fine with a stoned pilot, not a completely baked one that just hit the guts of a bong, but no big whoop if it was just a doob, would have worn off mostly anyway before he lands, and thats the hard part :)

    And no it is not a gateway drug, I'm sorry but your wrong. If anything is a gateway drug, its alcohol. I can gurantee the majority of drug users started off on alcohol ;) Gateway drug is such a lame term too, just humans blaming something for there own lack of will power, if someone is drinking, smoking shooting up, its because they want to, they made the choice.

    Society may have pushed them to that choice, so lets put the focus on that ;)

    If they didnt have access to weed they would be drinking and probably heavily too, is that the vice we want? more drunks causing havoc on the streets? No thanks, gimme mellow stoned content people floating about the streets incapeable of causing any harm...


    And the research regarding psychosis is on subjects who have smoked excessively and the research is still hit and miss and there is no proof that the issues weren't there prior to the testing. If you abuse anything its going to have repercussions, wheter its smokeing, alcohol, eating, heck even too much exercise can be damaging to your health :rolleyes:

    It should be legalised and it should be taken in moderation, not to be abused. But then again its our choice at the end of the day.. oh wait no its not, its someone elses who is basing judgement on ignorance :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 458 ✭✭tadcan


    According to wikipedia, even in the US the ban on growth of industrial hemp is being challenged.

    Perhaps in our lifetime we could see a significant change.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Industrial_growth_under_licence


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,397 ✭✭✭Paparazzo


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I was watching one of the cannabis documentaries that said the cannabinoid receptors have been with us since we where fish.
    You thought you were a fish? PM me your dealers number.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    Conservatives?? What conservatives?

    I see what you are saying, problem is, alocohol and cigarettes are socially acceptable, well smoking is not as much anymore, but you know what I mean. Marijuana is not socially acceptable and no number of positives will change the legality of it whilst the majority of people don't care or don't want it.

    I'd say MJ is pretty socially acceptable. If someone told you they have a few spliffs on the weekend would you never talk to them again?

    Its a plant... Some of the greatest minds that ever was have smoked weed. It causes less problems than alcohol and doesn't split up families, lead to fighting etc...

    PS. I dont actually smoke weed (have tried it once or twice) its just my opinion of it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    moonpurple wrote: »
    in reply to OP

    how would you feel if the pilot of the plane told you and 234 other passengers: "I am just finishing this joint and i will then take off.."

    I thought about that for a few minutes and I'd probably feel better than if he told us he'll take off in a minute once he finishes this JD and Coke.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    clived2 wrote: »
    Dear Kellogg’s,

    I’m writing this letter to express my disappointment in your company in firing Michael Phelps as a spokesperson for your products because he was photographed while enjoying some marijuana.
    I respectfully would like to communicate my opinion on this matter because I think it’s of great public interest.

    First of all, although it is true that Mr. Phelps broke the law, I think any reasonably intelligent person would admit that it’s one of the most ****ed up and corrupt laws that we have today in this country.

    Uh-oh, I'm not going to get far in this.
    Marijuana is relatively harmless and certainly far less dangerous than a host of other things that are not only legal but also readily available, like alcohol and prescription drugs. The only reason it remains illegal to this day is because it’s a plant and you can’t patent it and control it’s sale, and because if it were legal it would greatly affect the demand for a host of prescription drugs that rake in billions of dollars each year for pharmaceutical companies.

    Because the sale of plants can't be controlled. Like tobacco. Or vegetables.
    That’s it.

    Marijuana has never killed anyone EVER in over 10,000 years of use.

    That's it, I'm done.

    Seriously, I'm all for legalisation, even if I don't use it myself, but you need some better spokespeople.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 546 ✭✭✭clived2


    moonpurple wrote: »
    how would you feel if the pilot of the plane told you and 234 other passengers: "I am just finishing this joint and i will then take off.."

    Are you serious, This is your argument, think about it for a second,

    now replace joint with whiskey, now so whiskey is legal but i still dont want my pilot drinking before any flight, so where does that leave your point,


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 370 ✭✭Fallen Buckshot


    Bob Marley died of cancer to the toe, which untreated went on to cause a brain tumour.

    I believe was the result of an untreated football injury .. that means we should make football illegal because it "could" cause cancer


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 546 ✭✭✭clived2


    Uh-oh, I'm not going to get far in this.


    Please explain your reason, for above statement, I prefer valid reasons not just vague opinions



    Because the sale of plants can't be controlled. Like tobacco. Or vegetables.

    Fair point, But he refers mainly to the patent and also alot of people would grow their own pot as it is relatively easy to do so,
    And yes i know people could grow tobacco and vegatables, but they consume those in large quantities and this would take alot of time and space,




    That's it, I'm done.

    Seriously, I'm all for legalisation, even if I don't use it myself, but you need some better spokespeople.
    Please explain your reason, for above statement, I prefer valid reasons not just vague opinions

    ,


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    *sigh* Really?

    Fine.

    Please explain your reason, for above statement, I prefer valid reasons not just vague opinions

    I have to explain why I'm going to be disappointed by a letter that leads with "any reasonably intelligent person would admit that it’s one of the most ****ed up and corrupt laws that we have today in this country"? That's not an argument. It's just a leading statement, provided with no evidence. It's a dismissal of any possible counter-argument before those arguments are made.
    Fair point, But he refers mainly to the patent and also alot of people would grow their own pot as it is relatively easy to do so,
    And yes i know people could grow tobacco and vegatables, but they consume those in large quantities and this would take alot of time and space,

    Most people wouldn't bother, any more than people bother to grow their own vegetables. And if people did, then what difference would it make? Who does he think is objecting to this? Where is his evidence that he's right? It's a poorly thought-out and poorly presented argument.
    Please explain your reason, for above statement, I prefer valid reasons not just vague opinions

    Marijuana has never killed anyone? In ten thousand years? Never? Not a single anapholactic reaction? Not a single corrupt leaf leading to poisoning? Not a single dizziness-causing-someone-to-tumble-off-a-cliff? Where's his evidence? His only "support" for this claim is to write the word "ever" in all capital letters.

    As I said, there are good arguments to be made, but these ones are very poor. There's nothing that's been said in the first three paragraphs of the letter that makes me inclined to read any further.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement