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
Gangland Crime in Ireland
Options
Comments
-
How would you think buying a standardised "safer" product bought from the government would be in any way similar to buying a product of a scumbag junkie dealer that was made in dodgy conditions and can have some much more toxic additives then the purer product produced by a then legalised manufacturer.
I'm sure chemists would follow the money and would have no problem producing drugs, I'm also sure there is many recreational drug using chemists that where almost inspired into the trade due to their love of syntetic drugs.
I even know one for example!
I would much prefer my money to be going towards the public purse rather then lining fat freddie's pockets! And I think your being silly saying that you wouldn't.
Is this him?
0 -
How would you think buying a standardised "safer" product bought from the government would be in any way similar to buying a product of a scumbag junkie dealer that was made in dodgy conditions and can have some much more toxic additives then the purer product produced by a then legalised manufacturer.
I'm sure chemists would follow the money and would have no problem producing drugs, I'm also sure there is many recreational drug using chemists that where almost inspired into the trade due to their love of syntetic drugs.
I even know one for example!
I would much prefer my money to be going towards the public purse rather then lining fat freddie's pockets! And I think your being silly saying that you wouldn't.
Is this him?? 0 -
Yup, we should ignore tales of addiction and death
Where did I say that. You are making the usual mistake that drug prohibitionists make that because a minority, and I admit sometimes a significant minority, abuse drugs then it is better off illegal.
This is obviously wrong because the majority of responsible drug users have their civil liberties infringed upon and also because the addicts will find the drugs anyway, they are just less safe and more expensive.
I'm sure we all know a person whose life has been destroyed be alcohol. Should anyone else be allowed drink because of this man's addiction? I think they should.
Out of interest do you think drugs like MDMA, LSD or cannabis, which are not particularly harmful, should be legal?0 -
Because it's forbidden in their religion. In a country where religion is taken too seriously your not going to talk up about sinning. Not a good example at all.
Thats my point. For probabtion to work, people's mindset needs to change first. As long as alcohol is considered a part of the culture, people are going to want to consume it.
Now image if drugs were legal and 50-100yrs from now the city were full of pubs, clubs and cafes which did everything from cocaine, ecstasy, heroin to possibly even more exotic stuff and it was socially acceptible to do a bit of cocaine or heroin with some booze and that all became the part of the culture.
There's already a huge problem with alcohol consumption here would you want to add cocaine, heroin, stimulans etc. to this problem too?
Once these drugs become a part of the culture as alcohol has become, it would become impossible to get rid of it from society as well. Especially when you'ld have large powerful drug manufactures pushing these drugs through advertising and other means as they do with alcohol and did with cigarettes.
Legalizing everything is really not the solution to such problems.
Its not the direct health effects from the drugs that are harmful its also all the indirect social and family problems that stem from addiction which are even more harmful.0 -
af_thefragile wrote: »Thats my point. For probabtion to work, people's mindset needs to change first. As long as alcohol is considered a part of the culture, people are going to want to consume it.
People's mindset isn't going to change. You need to accept this. People have been taking mind altering substances for thousands of years and that is not going to stop.af_thefragile wrote: »
Now image if drugs were legal and 50-100yrs from now the city were full of pubs, clubs and cafes which did everything from cocaine, ecstasy, heroin to possibly even more exotic stuff and it was socially acceptible to do a bit of cocaine or heroin with some booze and that all became the part of the culture.
There's already a huge problem with alcohol consumption here would you want to add cocaine, heroin, stimulans etc. to this problem too?
.
The benefits outweigh the harms. Safer drugs, increased tax take, jobs created, reduction in incarceration and killings and so on outwiegh any potential harm from a sensible adult deciding what substance he or she puts in his body.af_thefragile wrote: »
Once these drugs become a part of the culture as alcohol has become, it would become impossible to get rid of it from society as well. Especially when you'ld have large powerful drug manufactures pushing these drugs through advertising and other means as they do with alcohol and did with cigarettes.
You could limit the advertising if necessary. But why would you want to rid society of drugs? If you don't like drugs, then don't take them and encourage your kids not to take them, but don't impose your morals on everyone else in society.af_thefragile wrote: »Legalizing everything is really not the solution to such problems.
Its not the direct health effects from the drugs that are harmful its also all the indirect social and family problems that stem from addiction which are even more harmful.
What about the poorer families today whose lives are being destroyed by drugs being illegal?0 -
Advertisement
-
Same can be said for any drug. Alcohol is considered as dangerous as cocaine in some scientific research and in my experience alcohol encourages a much more aggressive high than the most of the illegal highs. Cannabis is by most accounts a much safer drug.I always find it strange when people compare alcohol to even cannabis, and then it gets ridiculous when people compare it to cocaine and heroine. Yes, alcohol is bad for you, when abused.I'd also be worried about the effect of leaglizing drugs:S Is it really a good thing where a society publicly accepts people taking drugs to "Escape" during their free time? At least Alcahol when you have a bit of cop on not to guzzle it down as fast as you can, enhances an experiance and is used both recreationaly and socially, and yet cannabis mellows people out to the extent that they are not contributing to any activitie.
People have been using psychoactive drugs for a very long time, they could have easily contributed to the early development of culture and religion. These drugs can be used productively, even psychiatrists think LSD has a use in curing all sorts of mental depressions.
So you think we should bring in a religious fundamentalist regime to wipe out drugs?af_thefragile wrote: »Thats my point. For probabtion to work, people's mindset needs to change first.
I don't think all drugs should be readily available to anyone at any time but I do think people should be able to experience them under safe conditions. So the simple solution to your panic about selling drugs in every corner shop is to not allow them to sell them in every corner shop. Instead make it a club setting where people can go to take the drugs socially and safely.Now image if drugs were legal and 50-100yrs from now the city were full of pubs, clubs and cafes which did everything from cocaine, ecstasy, heroin to possibly even more exotic stuff and it was socially acceptible to do a bit of cocaine or heroin with some booze and that all became the part of the culture.0 -
Oh come on. As a percentage of alcohol consumed, how much of it was counterfeit?I'd say a practically negligible amount.
The point is that alcohol is legal and socially acceptable and yet still has a counterfeit market. As I said a better example would be cigarettes the counterfeit and illegal market for which is estimated to cost the exchequer €250 million in 2010 which is hardly negligible.It wouldn't be worth their while, unless the state placed crazy taxes on drugs, because the insane profit margins would no longer exist. Even if they did place crazy taxes on drugs, lots of people would still be more likely to buy from a safer, more accessible seller.
So a dealer buys high quality heroin or coke legally from a Government supplier. He then cuts it with any oul rot and sells it at a far cheaper price. Do you honestly think there would be no market? I think it's been proven at this point in the thread that people will buy anything if it's cheap. Now the dealers can buy from the State meaning the costs of their supply is way down anyway.Gangs probably wouldn't give up crime, but they would give up drug dealing. How many people continued to buy from bootleggers after the repeal of prohibition? Gangs simply turned towards other illegal sources of revenue.
Alcohol and heroin are hardly the same thing. They have parallels as examples of market forces but their addictive qualities are wildly different.So why do you want to continue the failed policy of drug prohibiton? And how do gangsters shove their business into innocent people's homes? Virtually everyone who takes drugs takes them willingly. Murders of innocent bystanders in cases of mistaken identity and so on are obviously a huge problems but these could be drastically cut down on by legalisation.
As I said I don't care what drugs people take themselves but if you think gangsters aren't shoving their business into innocent people's homes by exacerbating and encouraging ever increasing amount of street crime and burglaries to pay for drugs you're very wrong.I agree with this and think that if drugs were legalised the government should use a large portion of the new revenue on things like outreach programmes, urban regeneration, council housing and better education and so on in disadvantaged areas.
Aren't all those outreach projects etc being paid with by the proceeds of crime? In your nirvana how exactly are these junkies paying the State for their drugs except by mugging people or robbing shops. Should we make the Government the largest dealer in the history of the State?There's also the quality issue, in every place cannabis is popular and somewhat legal a connoisseur market pops up with people treating it like fine wine.
That's true but in all fairness I don't think people would feel too worried about cannabis for personal use being legalised. I wouldn't anyway.0 -
What about the families which have become poor because mommy or daddy has spends all the money fueling his drug addiction?
Not everone has been doing drugs and not everyone does drugs. Infact most people I know have never taken any drugs. I'm using alcohol as an example because everyone drinks it despite knowing how harmful it can be.
If consumption of drugs become as widespread as that of alcohol, the society will be in a very poor state. What you'll end up with is even more laws and regulation of these substances, more people trying to dodge these laws, more surveillance and policing to look after not just the drunks but also the ones under the infuence of drugs. More people in hospital after alcohol and drugs related injuries and illnesses. More people getting addicted to drugs, destroying their families and jobs then needing psychatric and social support to get rid of their addiction and get their life back together.
Its all going to cause more problems than it'll solve and end up costing the government more money than they'll make through taxes. The only people who'll benefit will be the drug companies looking to get more people addicted to their product and get richer and more powerful.
Corporations have managed to make people addicted to certain types of food through advertisements and marketing. Its be a breeze for them to get masses of people to become addicted to what are already incredibly addictive substances once drugs become legal.
The whole idea of adventourous chemists brewing drugs and selling them to connoisseurs at exotic paychidelic cafes and together experiencing alternate states of mind is just a fantasy. In reality it's going to be big corporations getting hold of rights to selling these products or their versions of the substances with the soul purpose of looking to get as many people addicted to their product as possibly and filling their pockets with all the cash their product with bring them.0 -
Obviously that would be a stupid way of doing thing and a bit of a nonsense alarmists scenario. The government wouldn't be selling out bails of heroin to dealers. They would have a safe place like current clinics for addicts to come in get their drugs along with treatment.Unavailable for Comment wrote: »So a dealer buys high quality heroin or coke legally from a Government supplier. He then cuts it with any oul rot and sells it at a far cheaper price. Do you honestly think there would be no market? I think it's been proven at this point in the thread that people will buy anything if it's cheap. Now the dealers can buy from the State meaning the costs of their supply is way down anyway.
Iran has shown that proper treatment is what's needed to beat heroin. They have a huge heroin problem being on the heroin trial to the west. They tried life in prison, beatings and cutting off bits of offenders and none of it worked. They switched over to a methadone program with rehabilitation being a major part of it and have had huge success. Studies in the west show moving from methadone to heroin for these treatments is more effective because methadone is a poor substitute for the heroin hit and it doesn't keep most addicts participating in the program. Medical grade heroin is also very safe and would be ten times better than anything on the streets, it would be a big honey trap for addicts.
I don't understand how their violent criminal actions outside of the drug trade is encouraging people to buy drugs off them. People go to the dealers not the other way around.As I said I don't care what drugs people take themselves but if you think gangsters aren't shoving their business into innocent people's homes by exacerbating and encouraging ever increasing amount of street crime and burglaries to pay for drugs you're very wrong.
No a heroin program for example would be an attack on heroin addiction. The idea would be to treat the persons addiction and put them back into society. By treating the addicts you'll reduce numbers and at a certain point the customer base will be to low to fund risky drugs importations.Aren't all those outreach projects etc being paid with by the proceeds of crime? In your nirvana how exactly are these junkies paying the State for their drugs except by mugging people or robbing shops. Should we make the Government the largest dealer in the history of the State?
Free the weed, it's a no brainer.That's true but in all fairness I don't think people would feel too worried about cannabis for personal use being legalised. I wouldn't anyway.0 -
So you think we should bring in a religious fundamentalist regime to wipe out the drugs?
No. Just people need to change their attitude towards alcohol. Like people have started to change their view about cigerettes. While only a couple of decades ago cigerettes were cool and relaxing, now have become horrible, dangerous, smelly cancer sticks.
Similarly people need to learn to see the harmful effects of alcohol more clearly and need to change their attitude towards it.
Its probably not gonna happen in a culture which alcohol is so embedded in but doesn't take away the reality that is a horribly substance which destroys peoples lives.0 -
Advertisement
-
Unavailable for Comment wrote: »The point is that alcohol is legal and socially acceptable and yet still has a counterfeit market.
Given your reluctance to give any figures, I'd wager that it is an absolutely tiny one as a percentage of all alcohol consumed. So legalisation has taken alcohol from the hands of criminal gangs and into the hands of the normal tax paying citizens.Unavailable for Comment wrote: »As I said a better example would be cigarettes the counterfeit and illegal market for which is estimated to cost the exchequer €250 million in 2010 which is hardly negligible.
This is because the tax on cigarettes is too high. This is an argument against the way drug legalisation would be implemented and not against drug legalisation itself.
You also ignore that most cigarettes are still bought through legal avenues, which is infinitely preferable, by virtue of the fact they are legal.Unavailable for Comment wrote: »
So a dealer buys high quality heroin or coke legally from a Government supplier. He then cuts it with any oul rot and sells it at a far cheaper price. Do you honestly think there would be no market?
Most people wouldn't buy it because of the fact it was cut with "any oul rot" when they know they easily could get a better quality and safer equivalent. There probably would be a tiny market but that is still no reason to argue against legalistion.Unavailable for Comment wrote: »I think it's been proven at this point in the thread that people will buy anything if it's cheap.
What a load of nonsense. Nothing of the sort has been "proven". In fact I have proved that when it comes to legal drugs people are far more likely to get them legally even if the option exists to purchase them at a slightly reduced price illegally (alcohol, cigarettes etc.)Unavailable for Comment wrote: »
Alcohol and heroin are hardly the same thing. They have parallels as examples of market forces but their addictive qualities are wildly different.
Don't see the point you are making here. I was just making the point that bootleggers didn't continue to flourish after the end of prohibition, which we can safely assume would be the same with drug dealers.Unavailable for Comment wrote: »
As I said I don't care what drugs people take themselves but if you think gangsters aren't shoving their business into innocent people's homes by exacerbating and encouraging ever increasing amount of street crime and burglaries to pay for drugs you're very wrong.
First of all, do you have any stats to back up these assertions about ever increasing amounts of street crime and burgularies? Anyway these things would not happen after legalistion because it would be so much cheaper to buy the drugs.Unavailable for Comment wrote: »Aren't all those outreach projects etc being paid with by the proceeds of crime? In your nirvana how exactly are these junkies paying the State for their drugs except by mugging people or robbing shops. Should we make the Government the largest dealer in the history of the State?
Why does it have to be the government? How many pubs are government run?
Also not every, or even a majority, of drug users would be a "junkie". I dealt with the point about muggings above.0 -
That's not really a fair association in my mind though. You get nothing out of smoking cigarettes, they're simply an addiction, there is no high. You get something back from alcohol, you can have great conversation, insights and just fun on alcohol.af_thefragile wrote: »No. Just people need to change their attitude towards alcohol. Like people have started to change their view about cigerettes. While only a couple of decades ago cigerettes were cool and relaxing, now have become horrible, dangerous, smelly cancer sticks.
Everyone should give up cigarettes but there's no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to use alcohol. I think part of Irelands problem with alcohol is we don't have the alternatives other countries have. The Spanish eat and drink late into the night where as the pubs in Ireland have a stranglehold on Irish socialising and I think the government is only helping that stranglehold by keeping drink out of other venues. In Paris groups can rent out a space bring their own drink and just chat, no blaring music. You wouldn't be let do that in Ireland.0 -
af_thefragile wrote: »What about the families which have become poor because mommy or daddy has spends all the money fueling his drug addiction?
Here we go again. Most people who take drugs do not become addicted. Not every user is an addict.
There would still be channels for addicts to seek help through, with less stigma because of the drugs being legal.af_thefragile wrote: »
If consumption of drugs become as widespread as that of alcohol, the society will be in a very poor state.
In your opinion. Question- do you think drug prohibition has been a success? Do you think there are any problems with the current approach?af_thefragile wrote: »What you'll end up with is even more laws and regulation of these substances, more people trying to dodge these laws, more surveillance and policing to look after not just the drunks but also the ones under the infuence of drugs. More people in hospital after alcohol and drugs related injuries and illnesses. More people getting addicted to drugs, destroying their families and jobs then needing psychatric and social support to get rid of their addiction and get their life back together.
You are making an emotional argument and it just doesn't wash. You consistently ignore the problems with drug prohibition at the moment and highlight the downsides of drug legalisation without looking at any of the benefits of legalisation.
Yes there could be well be more harm from adults willingly choosing to ingest a psychoactive substance. But the benefits still outweigh the risks.af_thefragile wrote: »Its all going to cause more problems than it'll solve and end up costing the government more money than they'll make through taxes. The only people who'll benefit will be the drug companies looking to get more people addicted to their product and get richer and more powerful.
It won't. And how could you possibly think an increased health bill would come anywhere close to the money raised from jobs created, VAT, increased tax take and so on.
As stated earlier you could limit advertising if necessary.af_thefragile wrote: »Corporations have managed to make people addicted to certain types of food through advertisements and marketing. Its be a breeze for them to get masses of people to become addicted to what are already incredibly addictive substances once drugs become legal.
Most illegal drugs are not "incredibly addictive". Would you be in favour of legalising weed, MDMA or LSD for instance?af_thefragile wrote: »The whole idea of adventourous chemists brewing drugs and selling them to connoisseurs at exotic paychidelic cafes and together experiencing alternate states of mind is just a fantasy. In reality it's going to be big corporations getting hold of rights to selling these products or their versions of the substances with the soul purpose of looking to get as many people addicted to their product as possibly and filling their pockets with all the cash their product with bring them.
It's not really. Corporations could well make the drugs but they would most likely be sold in coffee shop/pub like environments.
You also ignore that no-one will ever be forced to take drugs. People will choose to do it of their own free will.0 -
Halloran springs wrote: »I was just thinking...
With all the gangland shootings and murders currently going on in Ireland, is it only a matter of time before someone innocent gets hurt, or worse still killed? Ok I didn't realise but share your gangland stories anyway. I'm not Irish//
if you want to see an end to it give the guards more power, do not bitch if they beat a scumbag to death and tell the judges to dish out harsher sentences.0 -
Yes, it is. A pure fantasy that would never happen. It's one thing to allow the current long established drugs but quite another to start inventing new ones.af_thefragile wrote: »The whole idea of adventourous chemists brewing drugs and selling them to connoisseurs at exotic paychidelic cafes and together experiencing alternate states of mind is just a fantasy.
That could be a problem in an open and free drugs market, simple solution don't allow that to happen. You could allow certain companies to produce drugs which are only available through registered outlets. Organic drugs will be different from the artificial drugs though.In reality it's going to be big corporations getting hold of rights to selling these products or their versions of the substances with the soul purpose of looking to get as many people addicted to their product as possibly and filling their pockets with all the cash their product with bring them.0 -
I would also wager that alcohol has destroyed far more lives as a percentage of users than cannabis, MDMA or LSD and the likes.
No I actually wouldn't. It's a slippery slope and LSD>Alcohol.Alcohol is considered as dangerous as cocaine in some scientific research and in my experience alcohol encourages a much more aggressive high than the most of the illegal highs.
Sorry, is there a source:) Sorry, if it sounds narky, but I would like to see those studies (in all honesty so I can argue against them, if I have a reason to)People have been using psychoactive drugs for a very long time, they could have easily contributed to the early development of culture and religion. These drugs can be used productively, even psychiatrists think LSD has a use in curing all sorts of mental depressions.
Yup, and people have been losing control to these drugs for a very long time. I actually don't liek the idea of drugging people who have depression, but that's a bit of a sticky subject with lots of pro and cons arguments.0 -
Oh yeah, I asked this in another forum recently, but since it's a current thing I'll ask. :P
Does anybody have any good books on Irish crime (or Drug use, pro or con) in the recent past or present?0 -
nonsense, you've clearly never tried LSD, it's very, very different to other drugs. It's very safe in many respects this notion you go off to a different world and don't know what your doing is mostly nonsense for standard doses.No I actually wouldn't. It's a slippery slope and LSD>Alcohol.
Search for professor david nutt on google there are lots of stories and links to his research.Sorry, is there a source:) Sorry, if it sounds narky, but I would like to see those studies (in all honesty so I can argue against them, if I have a reason to)0 -
Obviously that would be a stupid way of doing thing and a bit of a nonsense alarmists scenario.
That was for Gaffer91 whose posts are against any limits. I'd agree that that's a stupid way of doing it but I hardly think it's alarmist to say so.The government wouldn't be selling out bails of heroin to dealers. They would have a safe place like current clinics for addicts to come in get their drugs along with treatment.
I think it would be a great idea to have a national treatment centre where junkies, as distinct from addicts, can go and live. Basically a giant government opium den where they're fed heroin from the public purse until they want to receive treatment. When and if they're pronounced clean they can come back to society or stay forever suckling at the State's teat. Think how great it would be to have cities free of their blight?I don't understand how their violent criminal actions outside of the drug trade is encouraging people to buy drugs off them. People go to the dealers not the other way around.
People are going to the dealers to feed habits that have been encouraged by those same dealers. The drug addictions that society should concern itself with are the ones paid for with the proceeds of crime. No junkie will rob your phone because he wants an upgrade. He's taking it to get a couple of euro to give to a dealer. That's why they're the root cause.
I wouldn't actually be against the legalising of drugs but I don't believe that doing so is a magic bullet that would fix everything. Dealers won't quit because it's suddenly legal. The markets for smuggling of legal goods prove that.What a load of nonsense. Nothing of the sort has been "proven". In fact I have proved that when it comes to legal drugs people are far more likely to get them legally even if the option exists to purchase them at a slightly reduced price illegally (alcohol, cigarettes etc.)
In your utopia, if the State is operating a quota system for drug addicts you are naive to think they wouldn't buy from outside sources if they didn't feel their quota was enough. If the State is operating a free for all you are even more naive if you believe addicts wouldn't indulge in criminality to afford more.
Also all you have "proved" is that it is not possible for everyone that wants cheap cigarettes, alcohol or fuel to get what they want due to limitations of supply. Obviously if a criminal can only smuggle in two bottles of vodka that bears no relevance to the scale of the demand. Everything that can be smuggled in is obviously sold or criminals wouldn't do it! It's simple market forces.
Oh some stats for you Gaffer! Thefts from people rose 28.3% in 2011 and burglaries rose by 7.9%. Sorry I wasn't being reluctant, I just figured anyone with access to Boards would have access to Google.0 -
Advertisement
-
Their people, not a blight. There many reasons people end up as drug abusers and for the most part social class seems to have a lot to do with it.Unavailable for Comment wrote: »I think it would be a great idea to have a national treatment centre where junkies, as distinct from addicts, can go and live. Basically a giant government opium den where they're fed heroin from the public purse until they want to receive treatment. When and if they're pronounced clean they can come back to society or stay forever suckling at the State's teat. Think how great it would be to have cities free of their blight?
Not necessarily, I would wager the vast majority of drug users are recreational. Hard drugs are something for the weekend. When I was younger I'd do drugs every weekend but now I'm just not able for it any more. I'd do hard drugs once in a blue moon, have an enjoyable night. The same goes for alcohol, I'm just not able to drink what I used to and wouldn't want to. I've gone from a huge tolerance of bottle of spirits on top of dozens of pints to being as drunk as I want to get on 3 bottles of fine ale. Age puts a stop to binging.People are going to the dealers to feed habits that have been encouraged by those same dealers.
They simply couldn't compete with legalised drug prices. They'd could be a fraction of the street price and ten times better quality. The illegal drug trade would become financially unviable and no amount of kicking and screaming is going to change that unavoidable fact. Other criminal activity simply couldn't fill the gap. It's a bit like the argument against a reduced public sector. We have to many public servants for an efficient public servie but we don't want to do the right thing as people will lose jobs. Maybe they'll have to turn to crime if they can't get other jobs.I wouldn't actually be against the legalising of drugs but I don't believe that doing so is a magic bullet that would fix everything. Dealers won't quit because it's suddenly legal. The markets for smuggling of legal goods prove that.
If they get their drugs through social outlets or clubs it's a lot different than running home to hide in your den so no one will see you with the drug. You won't go through as much in the social setting because you'll be doing other things like art classes, learning skills, making music.In your utopia, if the State is operating a quota system for drug addicts you are naive to think they wouldn't buy from outside sources if they didn't feel their quota was enough. If the State is operating a free for all you are even more naive if you believe addicts wouldn't indulge in criminality to afford more.0 -
To say the war on drugs is a failure is far too simplistic a way to look at the illegality of mind altering substances. Between prohibition and legalization there is an enormous variety of solutions in between. You can't have one extreme view on either end of the spectrum if we're looking for answers to the problems of drugs and crime and all of the associated effects.
Personally, I believe going down the road of complete legalisation of all drugs is a very dodgy place to go. You can talk about hash/weed being decriminalised and in many ways that makes sense. When you get to heroin and coke the waters get very muddy to me, they're incredibly dangerous drugs, in fact, I'd go as far to say we'd have a much bigger cocaine (designer/luxury drug) problem if it was legalised, the price of the sh1te is astronomical, you know, most Mr and Mrs. Murphys simply can't afford to become addicted to the stuff, and that's the point of not decriminalising class A drugs such as cocaine, Mr and Mrs Murphy won't take the stuff in most cases essentially.
Irelands drinking culture is demented, I think everyone will agree to that, the way I see it is you have a population ripe for becoming users of all drugs today if they're legalised tomorrow. I think it's the illegality, price and quality of drugs that stops it becoming a bigger problem than it is now.
It is estimated that as many as one-in-five Irish people are taking anti-depressants and that almost causes me to be depressed, prescribe anti depressants if there's a risk of suicide, that's fine, but the answer to life is not through mind altering substances whether legal or not.
I'm fond of a drink, don't get me wrong, don't lock up drug users, I'm all for that, but I think it should be government policy to eradicate the problem of people taking mind altering substances which I know is impossible but a hell of a lot more could be done about it.
How? I don't know but it would make for a better topic of discussion.0 -
Unavailable for Comment wrote: »
In your utopia, if the State is operating a quota system for drug addicts you are naive to think they wouldn't buy from outside sources if they didn't feel their quota was enough. If the State is operating a free for all you are even more naive if you believe addicts wouldn't indulge in criminality to afford more.
When have I ever described it as being a utopia? I am just saying it would be far preferable to the current situation.
Also I'm not sure of the exact way legalisation could be done with regards implementation and so on so I don't know why you are talking about "free for all's" and so on. Also, Scum Lord and I, while both arguing for legalisation are not really arguing for the same thing exactly. While there is naturally a lot of overlap, he seems to be more for treatment of addiction and so on, while I am more in favour of tightly regulated general sale with certain restrictions with drug education and addiction treatment programmes and so on.
You also consistently ignore that there will be a large price drop in the event of legalisation, which should stop any fears you have about a huge jump in robberies etc.Unavailable for Comment wrote: »
Also all you have "proved" is that it is not possible for everyone that wants cheap cigarettes, alcohol or fuel to get what they want due to limitations of supply. Obviously if a criminal can only smuggle in two bottles of vodka that bears no relevance to the scale of the demand. Everything that can be smuggled in is obviously sold or criminals wouldn't do it! It's simple market forces.
To repeat- after the end of prohibition, bootleggers were put out of business by legal supply. A similar situation would almost certainly happen with drugs. Smuggled fuel and cigarettes are only a viable market because of the high taxes placed on legal suppliers, which could be easily rectified for drugs.
You also ignore that smuggled fuel, cigarettes and alcohol make up a tiny percentage of the actual amount of these items sold so despite the poor government policy and high prices people still find it preferable to buy through legal avenues.Unavailable for Comment wrote: »
Oh some stats for you Gaffer! Thefts from people rose 28.3% in 2011 and burglaries rose by 7.9%. Sorry I wasn't being reluctant, I just figured anyone with access to Boards would have access to Google.
Where are you getting these from? As you were the one who cited the figures you are the one who has to provide the information it is not my obligation to do it for you.
According to this link burgularies increased in the commuter belt but declined elsewhere. And this is despite a decrease in drug use, which would leave to believe that there is not much evidence to suggest it is junkies who are the ones doing the robberies.0 -
It would be, but as long as it's not an instant and total conversion to a free for all system it could be done.Fromthetrees wrote: »Personally, I believe going down the road of complete legalisation of all drugs is a very dodgy place to go.
The cost of producing cocaine isn't that high, it only becomes expensive when the drug dealers in western countries get their hand on it and know people will pay the price. Cocaine could easily be sold for the same price as a packet of aspirin under a legal system. Same goes for any manufactured drug. It is highly addictive though and we'd have to be a much more responsible bunch of people before we could consider legalising it. I still think any person should have the right to try it.When you get to heroin and coke the waters get very muddy to me, they're incredibly dangerous drugs, in fact, I'd go as far to say we'd have a much bigger cocaine (designer/luxury drug) problem if it was legalised, the price of the sh1te is astronomical, you know,
The thing about mind altering drugs, especially psychedelics is the pros of using them can be huge. I remember experiencing an effect of LSD that is used as horror stories by other people. I could see though my skin. It sounds horrible but it wasn't, my skin was translucent and I could see the inner workings of my body and I was absolutely amazed by how complex and fantastic my body was. I remember thinking how could I or anyone be depressed when we're such amazing machines.0 -
When have I ever described it as being a utopia? I am just saying it would be far preferable to the current situation.
Well obviously I wouldn't agree that legalising heroin or cocaine for example would be preferable. As for the other drugs like weed I wouldn't really care too much as its users are not known for their propensity for crime to feed their habit.Also I'm not sure of the exact way legalisation could be done with regards implementation and so on so I don't know why you are talking about "free for all's" and so on. Also, Scum Lord and I, while both arguing for legalisation are not really arguing for the same thing exactly. While there is naturally a lot of overlap, he seems to be more for treatment of addiction and so on, while I am more in favour of tightly regulated general sale with certain restrictions with drug education and addiction treatment programmes and so on.
As I said I've no problem with legalisation of some substances, it's just an across the board approach is ridiculous. Do you really think the state should authorise people to supply crystal meth to its citizens? There are heroin addicts with habits worth hundreds of euro a day. Do you really see them only taking their quota and not going elsewhere for top ups? Who is liable if someone overdoses in your drug pub because it's the third one they've visited that evening? Think of the costs of litigation. State sponsored drugs are still drugs but now the state has to take responsibility for their quality. It really would be unsustainable.
Anyway this is all so the State can scramble for a piece of an illicit market that in 2005, according to the Health Research Board, was worth €650 million. Honestly that's kind of sh1t and bar af_thefragile's suggestion of a sustained advertising campaign isn't really worth the effort.You also consistently ignore that there will be a large price drop in the event of legalisation, which should stop any fears you have about a huge jump in robberies etc.
I don't ignore them I just don't believe them. I don't think there will be a huge drop in price as these outreach programmes need to be self funding, i.e. the exchequer would need tax to pay for them. Added to that public order offenses as a result of drugs is bound to climb sharply as can be seen with alcohol. This all costs money.To repeat- after the end of prohibition, bootleggers were put out of business by legal supply. A similar situation would almost certainly happen with drugs. Smuggled fuel and cigarettes are only a viable market because of the high taxes placed on legal suppliers, which could be easily rectified for drugs.
The State would never allow legalisation of drugs if it wasn't going to earn from them therefore your point about low taxes or whatever is make believe. As I said the addictive traits between alcohol and heroin or crystal meth are vastly different.You also ignore that smuggled fuel, cigarettes and alcohol make up a tiny percentage of the actual amount of these items sold so despite the poor government policy and high prices people still find it preferable to buy through legal avenues.
No I don't agree. Increased seizures across the board by customs show that smuggling is increasing. Obviously then it's nothing to do with people's preferences it's to do with the laws of supply and demand. You can only sell what you can get. Access to bigger shipments means access to a bigger market. The fact it might seem negligible to you (although €250 million worth of ciggies is hardly small) doesn't mean it'll remain so if the smugglers can do better.Where are you getting these from? As you were the one who cited the figures you are the one who has to provide the information it is not my obligation to do it for you.
Of course it isn't but if you were trying to refute me I just assumed you'd check anyway. Well I'm getting them from the Central Statistics Office. Thefts from persons were 2871 in 2010 and rose to 3683 in 2011. Burglary was 25420 and rose to 27439 during the same period.According to this link burgularies increased in the commuter belt but declined elsewhere. And this is despite a decrease in drug use, which would leave to believe that there is not much evidence to suggest it is junkies who are the ones doing the robberies.
The apparent decrease in drug crime is explained by the Gardaí's poorer ability to investigate drug crime due to more strained resources. The fact that there was an increase in both importation of drugs and cultivation of drugs shows that the drug issue is increasing.0 -
The only drug that there is any real reason (and there's pros and cons) to legalise is hash/weed and it has to be one of the sh1test drugs there is, people just sit there in silence monged off their face with red eyes not talking, it's such a stupid drug.0
-
This year so far the Gardaí have been seizing both Hash and Weed on a daily basis, The whole island is dry at the moment, That will create a market for Heroin and I'm sure lots of gangs that import Hash/Weed will owe money to their contacts so we can expect an increase in robberies too.0
-
Unavailable for Comment wrote: »Well obviously I wouldn't agree that legalising heroin or cocaine for example would be preferable. As for the other drugs like weed I wouldn't really care too much as its users are not known for their propensity for crime to feed their habit.
You haven't actually given any stats on crime by junkies directly linked to feeding their habits. Heroin and cocaine are also made far more harmful by virtue of the fact they are illegal.Unavailable for Comment wrote: »As I said I've no problem with legalisation of some substances, it's just an across the board approach is ridiculous. Do you really think the state should authorise people to supply crystal meth to its citizens? There are heroin addicts with habits worth hundreds of euro a day. Do you really see them only taking their quota and not going elsewhere for top ups? Who is liable if someone overdoses in your drug pub because it's the third one they've visited that evening? Think of the costs of litigation. State sponsored drugs are still drugs but now the state has to take responsibility for their quality. It really would be unsustainable.
.
I didn't say anything about a quota system. I'm sure there should be regulations and limits and so on but, as I said before, that is a discussion about how legalisation is implemented, not legalisation itself.
I would assume that most drugs would be run in a similar fashion to the way alcohol is done today.Unavailable for Comment wrote: »I don't ignore them I just don't believe them. I don't think there will be a huge drop in price as these outreach programmes need to be self funding, i.e. the exchequer would need tax to pay for them. Added to that public order offenses as a result of drugs is bound to climb sharply as can be seen with alcohol. This all costs money.
Public order offences could rise, but probably not very much for the likes of weed, MDMA or Acid. Penalties for public order also raise money. The amount the state would save on policing and make on VAT and PAYE would cover the purported increased legal costs many times over.Unavailable for Comment wrote: »No I don't agree. Increased seizures across the board by customs show that smuggling is increasing. Obviously then it's nothing to do with people's preferences it's to do with the laws of supply and demand. You can only sell what you can get. Access to bigger shipments means access to a bigger market. The fact it might seem negligible to you (although €250 million worth of ciggies is hardly small) doesn't mean it'll remain so if the smugglers can do better.
You are being deliberately obtuse on this point and I can' see why. I reckon it's because you made a series of bizarre statements regarding smuggling and rather than sensibly backtracking you foolishly decided to adopt this entrenched position. I dealt with it in previous posts so just read them again. Smuggled cigarettes and (especially) alcohol are minor compared to the amount of cigarettes and alcohol consumed. It is also even less likely that punters would ever choose to purchase smuggled alcohol to any large extent because they are not only paying for the beer, they are paying for its relative safety.Unavailable for Comment wrote: »
Of course it isn't but if you were trying to refute me I just assumed you'd check anyway. Well I'm getting them from the Central Statistics Office. Thefts from persons were 2871 in 2010 and rose to 3683 in 2011. Burglary was 25420 and rose to 27439 during the same period.
The apparent decrease in drug crime is explained by the Gardaí's poorer ability to investigate drug crime due to more strained resources. The fact that there was an increase in both importation of drugs and cultivation of drugs shows that the drug issue is increasing.
While our figures don't seem to tally, have any proof that these thefts and burgularies were drug linked? I would say it is more likely they are recession linked.
The drug "issue" is only an issue because of the failed attempt at prohibition which will undoubtedly be looked back on by future generations as one of the biggest disasters of the late 20th/early 21st centuries. It will always be a health issue for some drugs but locking people up and criminalising them has been a complete fiasco.0 -
well i wouldnt know anything about that0
-
Advertisement
-
It's tough here indeed. I hear the Mexicans all cancelled their holidays to Ireland because they are scared of the tracksuit fleets.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement