Legalize Cannabis Ireland

Ash.J.Williams

Gurgle wrote: »

Make one really stupid statement and the rest of your posts are tainted.

Smoking causes lung cancer, drinking causes liver failure. Smoking marijuana does not cause car crashes. Driving under the influence of marijuana (or alcohol) causes car crashes.

smoking "may" cause crashes

emul8ter25

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

smoking "may" cause crashes

No, driving while under the influence may cause crashes.

Exactly the same as drinking does not cause crashes...


With that dangerous line of logic you could also say...

Driving might cause crashes.

Jimoslimos

I think we're getting a little wrapped up in semantics here and how deaths are recorded. A lot depends on where you get your stats. Take "alcohol-related" for example, in many places it includes both underlying AND contributory causes. These contributory causes can include where accidents where alcohol was involved, say a drunk pedestrian - the alcohol didn't kill him but it is listed as an attributable cause.

Needless to say cannabis may be no more a cause of death than say alcohol or tobacco but to give figures claiming no deaths can be related to cannabis use whilst at the same time attributing many thousands to tobacco is grossly misleading.

Gurgle wrote: »

Make one really stupid statement and the rest of your posts are tainted.

I've passed that point a long long time ago!

Ash.J.Williams

ArseLtd wrote: »

Toxicology is for something which is toxic so that won't be happening. They could, for sh!ts and giggles, test the THC levels to see if it's some heavy sh!t!

THC levels have to do with the strain, lighting, nutrients and a good grower. There's no reason why it wouldn't be as good quality as the Amsterdam stuff but they have some of the best experts over there!

you're missing my point. The stuff coming from irish grow houses seems stronger than abroad but the quality is not as good. Therefore I suspect the THC levels are very high. Commercial high turnover growing.

Gurgle

Jimoslimos wrote: »

to give figures claiming no deaths can be related to cannabis use whilst at the same time attributing many thousands to tobacco is grossly misleading.

Fair point, it's not always clear what 'related' includes.

But there is a direct statistical link between smoking and lung cancer. Its been well established that lung health suffers from inhaling smoke of any form.

If we look at the plant specific effects, there is no reason to single out MJ for banning. Its no worse to inhale than other burning plants.

Besides, it can be taken in food rather than smoked, and there is no evidence (that I'm aware of) that it causes any harm that way.

Jimoslimos

Gurgle wrote: »

If we look at the plant specific effects, there is no reason to single out MJ for banning. Its no worse to inhale than other burning plants.

True enough, even given the similarities to tobacco when smoked I would expect long term use of cannabis to have less of an impact on lung health than cigarettes. If only because cannabis smokers generally wouldn't have more than max one or two a day, compared to a full packet of 10 fags.

ScumLord

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I think the gardai should make the toxicology results from the grow houses public. I suspect the THC levels from irish (industrial) homegrown are through the roof. At least we should see how they compare with the dutch coffee shops.

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

you're missing my point. The stuff coming from irish grow houses seems stronger than abroad but the quality is not as good. Therefore I suspect the THC levels are very high. Commercial high turnover growing.

Irish weed is no stronger than weed you'd find in Amsterdam. You'd get much, much, much stronger stuff in Amsterdam. We're growing the exact same breeds as they do in Amsterdam.

Ash.J.Williams

ScumLord wrote: »

Irish weed is no stronger than weed you'd find in Amsterdam. You'd get much, much, much stronger stuff in Amsterdam. We're growing the exact same breeds as they do in Amsterdam.

I would like to see the THC count of both first before i can agree with you. I'm not talking about overall strength. I know it's the same seed, the growing technique is different. One is for quality one is for quantity.

ScumLord

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I would like to see the THC count of both first before i can agree with you. I'm not talking about overall strength. I know it's the same seed, the growing technique is different. One is for quality one is for quantity.

Quality means high THC, quantity means big bulk. In Ireland they grow for bulk. Half the time they don't even bother drying it their pursuit of bulk is so great. The weed in Amsterdam is in a different league altogether. I had a local bring me to a proper locals coffeeshop last time I was over, we walked a good 15 minutes away from the centre and the stuff we got there was in a different league again from what's in the centre.

Ash.J.Williams

ScumLord wrote: »

Quality means high THC, quantity means big bulk. In Ireland they grow for bulk. Half the time they don't even bother drying it their pursuit of bulk is so great. The weed in Amsterdam is in a different league altogether. I had a local bring me to a proper locals coffeeshop last time I was over, we walked a good 15 minutes away from the centre and the stuff we got there was in a different league again from what's in the centre.

no it means it's strong, but not necessarily quality. If you force the THC at the expense of cbd's you've got a lesser product.

ScumLord

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

no it means it's strong, but not necessarily quality. If you force the THC at the expense of cbd's you've got a lesser product.

I'd agree but it takes added work to get high THC content, it's easy to grow the plant for bulk it takes care to produce the plant for maximum THC content.

Ash.J.Williams

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd agree but it takes added work to get high THC content, it's easy to grow the plant for bulk it takes care to produce the plant for maximum THC content.

I find the irish stuff get's me absolutely binned to the point that i'm too f**ed to even go the the shop, and it also leaves me jaded the next day. Whereas the better stuff is more managable!!!

ScumLord

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I find the irish stuff get's me absolutely binned to the point that i'm too f**ed to even go the the shop, and it also leaves me jaded the next day. Whereas the better stuff is more managable!!!

Your lucky if that's your common experience. There is good stuff around and if you know you have it just smoke less of it. I've had stuff where you have a weed hangover the next day and I can make that last a lot longer.

I've stopped smoking lately because the quality was so low, it was wet, and very low quality to the point you wouldn't get stone or sometimes it had a high that just wasn't weed.

I've found that the imported stuff is often contaminated, the other thing to take into account is that transporting reduces the quality so locally produced weed is always going to seem stronger.

gallag

I have smoked weed for 16 years, I am 31. Home owner, have two kids I love and work hard to provide for. Why do people who get absolutely wasted on alcohol look down on me? Mabey if people realized that the people legislating against weed are alcohol and pharmaceutical company's. In a recession it would be nice to walk out your back and "pick" your carry out or if you have a sore head, can't sleep etc.

It is against my human rights, the government are happy to profit of harmful drugs like tobacco and alcohol but do not want people to use a safer weed that can grow in your garden.

It's all about the $£€¥₩

ArseLtd

Jimoslimos wrote: »

In the same way lung cancer is not death by tobacco smoking or cirrhosis of the liver is not death by alcohol consumption.

If i said the sky was blue you'd still stand outside to correct me. Its quite difficult to get exact data but even a brush through them and you'd see which drugs kill more.

Three sub groups to make it simpler.

1) Direct death, eg poisoning, overdose

2) Very high co-relation, heart disease, liver failure

3) Road Crashes

I am not going through the trouble of finding a study or several studies because after all the time spent it still won't be good enough for you and the thread title suggests a slightly different discussion.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Far more people smoke and drink alcohol than use marijuana so obviously the figures will be higher. Practices of Big Pharma are irrelevant here, yes there is skewing of data with relation to clinical trials but in the real world doctors are obliged to report any serious adverse effect or death caused by the administration of a drug. They are in the best possible position to see any effect on the patient. Regardless of your position posting wildly inaccurate and speculated stats is unhelpful and doesn't lend credence to your cause.

Higher? Its a figure in the hundreds of thousands vs 0. Marijuana is a 400 - 800 million euro business in Ireland still nobody died from the drug itself. Yes they would be higher, but it must surprise you that the death rate for weed is non existent, at least not documented anywhere over thousands of years of use. Practices of Pharma are quite relevant because you brought them up first and because they will lose alot of revenue when people are able to medicate for pain and many other diseases with a cheap environmentally friendly plant.

I apologise for not following the human population around with a magnifying glass for the last thousands of years. All I can do is look up research that's been done which i found on the internet and I have said it is difficult to find statistics but what i posted was neither inaccurate or speculated, marijuana hurt nobody.

If you would like to join in on the thread i think you should find some contrary evidence if that's your aim. You questioned me when i said no deaths are directly related to weed THEN find some study that says otherwise, i want a discussion not tomatoes thrown at me. Also keep in mind the thread is on the topic of legalisation of weed in Ireland. My aim is to post information useful to people who are trying to make up their mind on the subject.


You think big pharma aren't bold watch this. It's a doctor who questions the usefulness of prescription drugs and skewed results.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4MhbkWJzKk

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I find the irish stuff get's me absolutely binned to the point that i'm too f**ed to even go the the shop, and it also leaves me jaded the next day. Whereas the better stuff is more managable!!!

What's probably happening there is the stuff grown in ireland is an indica variety. They're a smaller plant and also have more cbd than thc so more of a body high. Less on your brain. High Thc to cbd is generally the sativa plant and that gives you the giggly intense energetic high.

Jimoslimos

ArseLtd wrote: »

I am not going through the trouble of finding a study or several studies because after all the time spent it still won't be good enough for you and the thread title suggests a slightly different discussion.

Right so, but please refrain from posting misleading stats comparing deaths related to alcohol and tobacco unless you have the evidence to back it up. (May I recommend peer-reviewed papers from a credible source).

ArseLtd wrote: »

Higher? Its a figure in the hundreds of thousands vs 0. Marijuana is a 400 - 800 million euro business in Ireland still nobody died from the drug itself. Yes they would be higher, but it must surprise you that the death rate for weed is non existent, at least not documented anywhere over thousands of years of use.

Again can I request you refrain from posting misleading stats comparing deaths related to alcohol and tobacco unless you have the evidence to back it up. It doesn't surprise me the death rate is non-existent, but the link between smoking and lung cancer wasn't made until quite recently, 1950s in fact and people had been smoking it for hundreds of years.

ArseLtd wrote: »

Practices of Pharma are quite relevant because you brought them up first and because they will lose alot of revenue when people are able to medicate for pain and many other diseases with a cheap environmentally friendly plant.

Are you arguing for legislation for recreational use or medical use? Because the two are different issues.
I'm fascinated to know what these 'other diseases' are, and please serious answers - don't give me a bullsh1t natural medicine website claiming that smoking cannabis can 'cure' cancer (or indeed the other end of the spectrum where researchers have shown an effect in-vitro). Also have you considered the fact that most doctors don't like people self-medicating, but pharma companies would be more than happy with this (it allows them to directly sell to the consumer).

ArseLtd wrote: »

I apologise for not following the human population around with a magnifying glass for the last thousands of years. All I can do is look up research that's been done which i found on the internet and I have said it is difficult to find statistics but what i posted was neither inaccurate or speculated, marijuana hurt nobody.

The inherent danger of quoting stats you found on a website (without sources) is that you have no idea whether they are inaccurate/speculated or not. Same follows for you reposting it.

ArseLtd wrote: »

If you would like to join in on the thread i think you should find some contrary evidence if that's your aim. You questioned me when i said no deaths are directly related to weed THEN find some study that says otherwise, i want a discussion not tomatoes thrown at me. Also keep in mind the thread is on the topic of legalisation of weed in Ireland. My aim is to post information useful to people who are trying to make up their mind on the subject.

My 'aim' was to call you on the wildly inaccurate claims you made with regard to related mortality rates for alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. As for me finding evidence to contradict your claims as unfair as it might seem the burden of proof is on you. That's the way drug approval works these days, otherwise we'd have every pharma company bypassing the FDA.
I'd also argue that the 'information' you posted wasn't useful to those trying to make up their mind and you're in fact closer to damaging the credibility of your cause by posting it.

ArseLtd wrote: »

You think big pharma aren't bold watch this. It's a doctor who questions the usefulness of prescription drugs and skewed results.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4MhbkWJzKk

I'm well aware of Ben Goldacre's work, in fact I'm a big fan. I've extolled the virtues of his book (Bad Science, haven't got around to the new one yet) before and would recommend you get yourself a copy. Covering not just activities of big pharma but also bad stats, misrepresentation of science (and stats) in the media, evidence-based medicine and many more topics. Well worth a read. Or peruse his blog if you get a chance. May I recommend this one from 2007 that you should find interesting, regards the media reporting on THC levels in cannabis.

http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/

My position is fairly neutral, yet to be convinced either way. However I don't like to see science misrepresented by either side. Wildly misleading stats damage the credibility of your cause and end up hindering your aims

ScumLord

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Again can I request you refrain from posting misleading stats comparing deaths related to alcohol and tobacco unless you have the evidence to back it up. It doesn't surprise me the death rate is non-existent, but the link between smoking and lung cancer wasn't made until quite recently, 1950s in fact and people had been smoking it for hundreds of years.

Cannabis supposedly stunts the growth of cancerous cells and in particular lung cancer cells.

While smoking can never been seen as healthy you don't have to smoke it. You always have to discount the fact cannabis can be smoked when looking into the harmful effects of the drug. It's like saying cars are extremely dangerous because I drove this one into a wall on purpose.

Jimoslimos

ScumLord wrote: »

Cannabis supposedly stunts the growth of cancerous cells and in particular lung cancer cells.

Arghhhh! and me specifically asking for NO in-vitro evidence! I'm pretty sure most chemicals have some sort of effect on cells grown in a test-tube.

ScumLord wrote: »

While smoking can never been seen as healthy you don't have to smoke it. You always have to discount the fact cannabis can be smoked when looking into the harmful effects of the drug. It's like saying cars are extremely dangerous because I drove this one into a wall on purpose.

Indeed, but as a public health issue you do need to be aware of how the majority of people will take it, whether through ingestion or inhalation and the implications of both. Would it be feasible to legislate one method and ban the other?
The car analogy isn't quite accurate, you do have to remember that we have licensing laws, rules of the road, mandatory safety features, etc. Without these, yes cars would be extremely dangerous, whether driven into a wall on purpose or not.

otto_26

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't have an issue with legalising cannabis, as long as I have the right as an employer to choose not to employ (or to fire) habitual users. I would also want to see MATs extended to include testing for blood cannabis levels.

If people want to be stoners, whatever; as long as they're kept out of my workplace and off the roads.

As an employer who seems to know what he's talking about I hope your doing the same for Alcohol. Considering Alcohol is a far more dangerous drug with far more negative affects on people.

Do you choose not to employ someone who drinks Alcohol?? or is it as you would put it "If people want to be piss heads, whatever; as long as they're kept out of my workplace and off the roads".

james142

LCIMayo wrote: »

Well let me be your Sherlock Holmes and unravel this mystery. Legalizing cannabis would be a massive economical boost for the country's tourism industry, has many proven medical benefits and its also a drug that cannot kill you.

can contribute to other serious illnesses though.

It can cause death both indirectly (driving while stoned, for instance) and directly (by affecting circulation, for example).

joseph brand

The End of Laughing at Marijuana Reformers.

Voters in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington will decide on election day whether to legalize marijuana in their states. All three initiatives have a chance of passing, and two are ahead in polls. In Massachusetts and Arkansas, voters may legalize medical marijuana. And last year, a Gallup poll found that a majority of American voters supported legalizing marijuana for the first time.

Gallup Poll from last year.

PRINCETON, NJ -- A record-high 50% of Americans now say the use of marijuana should be made legal, up from 46% last year. Forty-six percent say marijuana use should remain illegal.

It's tiring listening to the anti-cannabis posters trotting out the same old lines. If they could just go educate themselves first, like in any debate, there would be no debate. Have they forgotten about prohibition in the US?

What about the US 'Drug War'? A quick Google search will provide images of headless and limbless corpses in Mexico. Here's a video from Vice magazine concerning the mormons fighting the cartels in Mexico.

The drugs flow from Mexico to the US. The money and firepower flow into Mexico from the US. It's a strong business model, except for all the kidnappings and horrific murders.

Back to Ireland. It's a fact that cigarettes and alcohol are far worse than cannabis. So, why are they allowed, but cannabis is not? Ask yourself why? Roll up your sleeves and go digging online.

BTW, are people really okay with producing criminals through possession? Having a criminal record for getting caught with a bit of 'herb' in your pocket.

One thing in defence of the anti-cannabis brigade, if we rid our streets of cannabis, we'll cut out all the weed-fuelled violence. :rolleyes:

mikom

james142 wrote: »

can contribute to other serious illnesses though.

It can cause death both indirectly (driving while stoned, for instance)

Paper tiger argument

ArseLtd

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Right so, but please ...

... hindering your aims

I appreciate the reply but you are impossible to please. My stats were not pin point exact to the single digit, but they also were not "wildly inaccurate". They are plenty accurate to prove that the cannabis plant does feck all damage to people using it and comparing the deaths to regularly used, legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco helps put it into perspective.

I understand that if my stats are found to be wrong that the rest of what i say can be questioned. But to say that alcohol and tobacco kill far more than cannabis ever did is 100pc accurate. If alcohol poisoned 78648 people in America in a year and i said 80000 is it really worth the hassle when the point has already been made? When i say no one ever died from marijuana when perhaps in the 1500's they made a ten foot tall marijuana pipe that killed someone with 100kg of marijuana, does it really matter when the point is already made?

Like I said a simple google search will show no recorded deaths from cannabis alone, however in the same 10 minutes you can find numbers in the tens of thousands in alcohol and tobacco related deaths from poisoning, related diseases and accidents. When people are voting on the subject of cannabis legalisation every one of them will not spend the hours/days required to get the statistics you would like. What's in the way of legalisation now is not high accuracy stats, it's a number of things. The stigma needs to be removed, people need to be educated properly on the difference between substances instead of them all being lumped into one. We are slowly moving towards decriminalisation and legalisation.

The pharma cannot make money from cannabis when it can be grown in your backyard. Yes they can sell it but not at the high price they like to sell things at.

About recreational and medical use i don't see the difference. It's medically beneficial to relax, relieve stress or enjoy yourself. Is it my fault that i trust myself to make the choice of what i put in my body? I indeed don't seek mammy or the doctors approval on everything i do. I thought we were all born free. There are certain laws that benefit the state and laws that benefit the people, we should be able to tell the difference.

I'm surprised that someone of your intellect who seems well informed is not completely pro legalisation. Out of interest could you tell me what you think are the positives and negatives of legalisation?

And also thank you for the link, I could argue that thc is only one thing in cannabis and its full of hundreds of other things including cbd which conteracts thc's effects but blah blah lets leave it for another thread

ArseLtd

http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/business/cannabis-plant-haul-worth-480-000-seized-in-newbridge-1-4423662

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1030/1224325896585.html

Wasted time and effort on both sides would sicken anyone.

Gbear

A blog post in the Economist about the impact on drug cartels in Mexico if cannabis were legalised in the US:

The impact on Mexico could be profound. Between 40% and 70% of American pot is reckoned to be grown in Mexico. According to a recent study (in Spanish) by the Mexican Institute for Competitiveness (IMCO), a think-tank in Mexico City, the American marijuana business brings in about $2 billion a year to Mexico’s drug traffickers. That makes it almost as important to their business as the cocaine trade, which is worth about $2.4 billion.
[...]
In Mexico relatively few people take drugs. But many are murdered as a result of the export business. About 60,000 have been killed by organised crime during the past six years. Thousands more have disappeared. Many Mexicans therefore wonder if America might consider a new approach. Felipe Calderon, the president, has said that if Americans cannot bring themselves to stop buying drugs, they ought to consider “market alternatives”, by which he means legalisation. Vicente Fox and Ernesto Zedillo, the two previous presidents of Mexico, have reached the same conclusion.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/legalising-marijuana?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/viewfromMexico

This is the human cost of prohibition. It isn't just about people wanting to get high. It's about people suffering and dying because of the nonsensical approach to drug policy by most of the Western world.

Rezident

Just heard cannabis has been legalised in at least two states in the US "for recreational purposes". Can't quite look it up in work, can anyone confirm?

UCDVet

Rezident wrote: »

Just heard cannabis has been legalised in at least two states in the US "for recreational purposes". Can't quite look it up in work, can anyone confirm?

Colorado and Washington both passed laws to that effect.

However, those laws are at the state level; there are still federal laws that make it illegal. Putting it into a bit of a grey area.

Truthfully, 'medical' weed has been legal in Colorado for years and it was never anything other than a giant joke. Doctor's working at the weed-shop would rubber stamp everyone who came in asking for a medical card, claiming they had 'back pain' or something.

Cavehill Red

Legalisation is very different to medicalisation or decriminalisation, though. This now permits people to open up cannabis cafes or grow operations and pay taxes on their profits.
The Supreme Court may end up having to rule on it if it goes that far, but this could well end up being the day that the war on drugs began to end.

mikom

Rezident wrote: »

Just heard cannabis has been legalised in at least two states in the US "for recreational purposes". Can't quite look it up in work, can anyone confirm?

More here...

On Tuesday night, Amendment 64 -- the measure seeking the legalization of marijuana for recreational use by adults -- was passed by Colorado voters, making Colorado the first state to end marijuana prohibition in the United States.

The current initiative proposes a fully regulated system of cultivation and sales, which will eliminate the underground marijuana market and generate tens of millions of dollars per year in new revenue and criminal justice savings. It also directs the legislature to regulate the cultivation of industrial hemp, a versatile, popular, and environmentally friendly agricultural crop.

On the same night that Colorado passed Amendment 64, Washington state passed Initiative 502 which regulates and taxes sales of small amounts of marijuana for adults.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/amendment-64-passes-in-co_n_2079899.html

Gbear

That's actually incredible. I didn't realise it was full legalisation.

A bit of faith in humanity restored last night.