Ming's Legalisation of Cannabis Private Members Bill

MadsL

http://www.joe.ie/news-politics/current-affairs/ming-flanagan-to-bring-cannabis-legalisation-bill-before-the-dail-0030659-1

"I have been campaigning for years for the legalisation of cannabis and I am preparing a Private Members’ Bill that I will be putting before the Dáil in April of next year," he said.

Any sign of it? And has any organisation actually polled TDs on this?

henryporter

Not a chance of it passing anyways, not with that bunch of self righteous, misinformed muppets in majority.

MadsL

henryporter wrote: »

Not a chance of it passing anyways, not with that bunch of self righteous, misinformed muppets in majority.

Is there not an argument that it should be put to referendum?

rodento

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.joe.ie/news-politics/current-affairs/ming-flanagan-to-bring-cannabis-legalisation-bill-before-the-dail-0030659-1

"I have been campaigning for years for the legalisation of cannabis and I am preparing a Private Members’ Bill that I will be putting before the Dáil in April of next year," he said.

Any sign of it? And has any organisation actually polled TDs on this?

Sounds like an April fools

I asked him on twitter if he was still working on the private members bill for cannabis decriminalisation.

He said October 29th

ArmaniJeanss

MadsL wrote: »

Is there not an argument that it should be put to referendum?

Not really - its not the sort of area that the constitution deals with.

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

I asked him on twitter if he was still working on the private members bill for cannabis decriminalisation.

He said October 29th

He thinks he will still have his seat in November? Honestly, for a guy who was elected on his stance on the auld weed, two and half years to bring primary legislation is slow even by stoner standards.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

a guy who was elected on his stance on the auld weed,

He was elected because of his record of service in Roscommon Town council, by a large section of the people of Roscommon, because they felt he would best represent them in The Dail because they felt he represented them best in Local government.

You do spout some awful uninformed manure at times.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

He was elected because of his record of service in Roscommon Town council, by a large section of the people of Roscommon, because they felt he would best represent them in The Dail because they felt he represented them best in Local government.

You do spout some awful uninformed ****e at times.

How's he doing?

Lol at you biting at that one.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

Is there not an argument that it should be put to referendum?

On what grounds?
Where in the constitution would there be a call for a referendum?

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

On what grounds?
Where in the constitution would there be a call for a referendum?

Well if one on same-sex marriage is recommended? Why not one on legalisation?

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

How's he doing?

Lol at you biting at that one.

Most people I know from Roscommon are fairly happy with is efforts to try and protect frontline services in the county, which is why he was actually elected, so I'd reckon he's doing pretty well.


lol at a grown man who does nothing by post crap on boards trying to cause pointless debates he actually doesn't give a toss about.


How's poor Madsina doing in her terrible school with those horrid teachers?

Man up yet and support your daughter? or still spouting crap online about it?

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

Well if one on same-sex marriage is recommended? Why not one on legalisation?

Because Marriage is specifically mentioned in the document and canibus isn't?


I'd have thought that's fairly obvious.

MadsL

lol at a guy still up at 4am making personal attacks. Go to bed, you might be drunk.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

lol at a guy still up at 4am making personal attacks. Go to bed, you might be drunk.

lol at no real reply so try undermine poster.

You're not half as smart as you think you are, your time in yankeeland has you going native or something.

And it'd be hard to be drunk when not consuming alcohol.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

lol at no real reply so try undermine poster.

I don't respond to personal attacks dragging up other threads in other fora.

You're not half as smart as you think you are, your time in yankeeland has you going native or something.

And a bit of xenophobia thrown in

And it'd be hard to be drunk when not consuming alcohol.

Then you have no excuse.
This is Politics not AH. You would do well to remember that.

And Article 40.3.1 could be extended to the right of individual to smoke a natural plant by referendum.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

I don't respond to personal attacks dragging up other threads in other fora.


And a bit of xenophobia thrown in



Then you have no excuse.
This is Politics not AH. You would do well to remember that.

And Article 40.3.1 could be extended to the right of individual to smoke a natural plant by referendum.

What part, specifically, of 40.3.1 would deal with that then?

Grasping at straws generally leads to falling.


There is no case for a constitutional referendum, it's not a constitutional matter, at all, rightly or wrongly.


So really, what was the point of this thread other than trying to take cheap shots at a member of Dáil Éireann? And making a tit of yourself in the process?

The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as
practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal
rights of the citizen.

Rather vague, and seeing as nobody in Ireland, by law, has any "right" to buy, sell or consume cannabis or any other controlled substance without the states say so, completely irrelevant to the notion of a constitutional referendum on the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis or any other prohibited substances.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

What part, specifically, of 40.3.1 would deal with that then?

Grasping at straws generally leads to falling.


There is no case for a constitutional referendum, it's not a constitutional matter, at all, rightly or wrongly.


So really, what was the point of this thread other than trying to take cheap shots at a member of Dáil Éireann? And making a tit of yourself in the process?

I think you are the one taking cheap shots and making a tit of yourself, but to answer the question - because he clearly has had a manifesto that included legalisation since Feb 2011 but seems unable to bring primary legislation before the houses. That's not a cheap shot, it is the truth. Now we have another delay to Oct/Nov. Perhaps he will mark the 2nd anniversary of his election by bringing a PMB before the houses.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

What part, specifically, of 40.3.1 would deal with that then?
Rather vague, and seeing as nobody in Ireland, by law, has any "right" to buy, sell or consume cannabis or any other controlled substance without the states say so, completely irrelevant to the notion of a constitutional referendum on the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis or any other prohibited substances.

That only reason that there is no right to buy, sell or consume cannabis is the State's curtailment of the individual's rights in the case that an individual possesses a prohibited substance.

Also something does not have to be mentioned in the Constitution in order to be added by referendum.

Seaneh

Maybe he is doing his job, and focusing on matters within his constituency and matters affecting peoples standards of living and livelihoods, the actual reasons he was elected, and putting his personal agenda on the back burner for the benefit of his constituents?

Or maybe he is pursuing advice from medical, sociological, criminal, economic, psychological and psychiatric experts on the benefits of such a bill and how it would positively impact on the population as a whole through lessened criminal convictions, lessened illegal activities and free access to the substance for people with social, psychological or medical issues which could potentially benefit from access to the drug. Or how it could positively impact on tax returns from taxation of the same of the substance and so forth and including these types of advice within the bill so as to give it the best chance possible of passing?

Or would it be better if he just rushed a quick draft titled "free the weed" with a paragraph about "sure, it's grand like, never hurt anyone, and it's great craic" and put that before the Dail just to meet some imagined deadline before which he has to complete one tiny part of the programme he set himself for his term in the Dail?


Because, whether you want it to pass or not, it would make more sense for it to be a well drafted bill so as to not waste Dail time debating a poorly formed piece of potential legislation.

If it takes him another 2 years and he only does it in his last few weeks in office, who cares, once he does the best job he can on the bill?

MadsL

I would hope it is a well-drafted Bill as he will have been working on it for almost 2 years. Perhaps if he spent less time sorting out his penalty points and turf we might see the legislation quicker

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

That only reason that there is no right to buy, sell or consume cannabis is the State's curtailment of the individual's rights in the case that an individual possesses a prohibited substance.

Also something does not have to be mentioned in the Constitution in order to be added by referendum.

So the part of the constitution you cited as a basis for a referendum doesn't actually give grounds for a referendum?

Well, that clears that up so.

A referendum to make an addition or amendment to the constitution can only happen if the legislation is first approved by both houses and then submitted to the electorate for approval, and in this case, the only thing needed is approval of both houses, and nothing has to change in the constitution, so why waste time and money on a referendum?

The constitution does not, and has no need to, mention narcotics and their control or freedom of use, that is what ordinary legislation is for.


There is the possibility of an ordinary referendum to pass legislation, but it's both unneeded and has never happened in the history of the state.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

I would hope it is a well-drafted Bill as he will have been working on it for almost 2 years. Perhaps if he spent less time sorting out his penalty points and turf we might see the legislation quicker

So your entire point and premis has fallen so lets just go back to trying to lampoon the thick hippy from the bog... Arrah, sure you never let yourself down do ya fella.


Ya wee scamp.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

So your entire point and premis has fallen so lets just go back to trying to lampoon the thick hippy from the bog... Arrah, sure you never let yourself down do ya fella.


Ya wee scamp.

More personal attacks.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

So the part of the constitution you cited as a basis for a referendum doesn't actually give grounds for a referendum?

I said that right could be extended by referendum.

A referendum to make an addition or amendment to the constitution can only happen if the legislation is first approved by both houses and then submitted to the electorate for approval.

Precisely the point I made earlier - that TDs should pass legislation FOR a consititional referendum and amendment rather than voting according to their personal beliefs.

The constitution does not, and has no need to, mention narcotics and their control or freedom of use, that is what ordinary legislation is for.

Cannabis is not by common defintion a narcotic. It is a naturally growing plant.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

Cannabis is not by common defintion a narcotic. It is a naturally growing plant.

moot point.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

moot point.

Pejorative definition actually.

Black Swan

MOD WARNING:
Seaneh and MadsL this is the Politics forum, not a place to conduct a way "too personal" flaming match. Please focus on making contributions to the thread topic, and not each other.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

Pejorative definition actually.

You do know the meaning of moot point, don't you?


It matters not what the dictionary definition of the word narcotic is. In legislation in Ireland, The UK, The US and I'd wager a lot of other countries, Cannabis is regarded as a narcotic, or in the same class as narcotics, and controlled by legislation as such.


Hell, it's identified as a Class B Narcotic in Ireland.
I thought it was Class C, but there ya go, The Law is indeed an ass.
How Cannabis has tighter controls than gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid and Ketamine I have no idea...

Cavehill Red

You two mongs stfu.
This doesn't need a referendum, simply a white paper that proposes legalising, taxing and prohibiting (along the same lines as alcohol) cannabis.
Bring it on.
Lets stop jailing people who cause no harm, lets starve drug gangs of cash, let's free up gardai to deal with real criminality, and lets make lots of money on tourism and tax.
And lets take note of every tosspot that votes no, and turf the short-sighted pricks out of their easy chair on the next election. This is a fucking no-brainer.

MadsL

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1977/en/act/pub/0012/print.html

Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, The primary legislation - the word 'narcotic' does not appear.
Not so moot.