Ming's Legalisation of Cannabis Private Members Bill

Seaneh

Moot Point:

An issue regarded as potentially debatable, but no longer practically applicable. Although the idea may still be worth debating and exploring academically, and such discussion may be useful for addressing similar issues in the future, the idea has been rendered irrelevant for the present issue.

It is a moot point, whether Cannabis is a narcotic or not is not relevant. It is treated as if it were by Irish law, in that it is categorised in the same way as narcotics in legislation.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

It is a moot point, whether Cannabis is a narcotic or not is not relevant. It is treated as if it were by Irish law, in that it is categorised in the same was as narcotics in legislation.

How is it treated as a narcotic by the law if it is not named as a narcotic in the primary legislation, nor is there a definition of 'narcotic' in the Act? That makes no sense.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

How is it treated as a narcotic by the law if it is not named as a narcotic in the primary legislation, nor is there a definition of 'narcotic' in the Act? That makes no sense.

IT IS CATAGORISED IN THE SAME MANNER AS NARCOTICS IN LEGISLATION.
It is catagorised as a Class B Controlled Drug, along with the likes of Pholcodine, Amphetamines and other narcotics.


And none of this is relevant to this thread, you're arguing over semantics for no reason instead of talking about the actual topic.


Whether it's a narcotic or not has nothing to do with the matter on discussion. And I suspect you are very much aware of that.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

IT IS CATAGORISED IN THE SAME MANNER AS NARCOTICS IN LEGISLATION.
It is catagorised as a Class B Controlled Drug, along with the likes of Pholcodine, Amphetamines and other narcotics.


And none of this is relevant to this thread, you're arguing over semantics for no reason instead of talking about the actual topic.


Whether it's a narcotic or not has nothing to do with the matter on discussion. And I suspect you are very much aware of that.

I pointed out your pejorative language, that's all. The Act does not define Narcotic. Is that not the case?

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

I pointed out your pejorative language, that's all. The Act does not define Narcotic. Is that not the case?

Q)
Is your continued line of questioning in any way relevant to actual subject on discussion in the thread?

A)
No, now lets move on.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

Q)
Is your continued line of questioning in any way relevant to actual subject on discussion in the thread?

A)
No, now lets move on.

I think if we are going to discuss the legislation it would be a good idea not to use language NOT contained by the primary legislation, but since you admit it doesn't say narcotic, let's move on.

The point of a referendum would be to remove the meddling personal feelings of TDs from any consequence for future re-election success. The matter could then simply be passed to the people.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

I think if we are going to discuss the legislation it would be a good idea not to use language NOT contained by the primary legislation, but since you admit it doesn't say narcotic, let's move on.

The point of a referendum would be to remove the meddling personal feelings of TDs from any consequence for future re-election success. The matter could then simply be passed to the people.

I refer you to Mr. Red's last post.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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.

It's not a constitutional issue, there is no need or grounds for a referendum. Having a constitutional referendum on a matter which is not covered by the constitution is a pointless waste of government time and money and a distraction from the real work of the house, running the country.

As Cavehill Red stated, all that is needed is a proposal from a member put to the house and voted on by the members. If it is rejected, redraft it and create a bigger campaign to put pressure on TD's to support it or face a backlash at the next election.

As it is, the constitution is in the process of being reviewed by a constitutional convention in the hopes of simplifying and clarifying the document, adding pointlessness like specific sections for cannabis or other controlled substances, is just wasting time, effort and money.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

I refer you to Mr. Red's last post.




It's not a constitutional issue, there is no need or grounds for a referendum. Having a constitutional referendum on a matter which is not covered by the constitution is a pointless waste of government time and money and a distraction from the real work of the house, running the country.

As Cavehill Red stated, all that is needed is a proposal from a member put to the house and voted on by the members. If it is rejected, redraft it and create a bigger campaign to put pressure on TD's to support it or face a backlash at the next election.

As it is, the constitution is in the process of being reviewed by a constitutional convention in the hopes of simplifying and clarifying the document, adding pointlessness like specific sections for cannabis or other controlled substances, is just wasting time, effort and money.

What is the waste of time, money and effort in adding one more question to the next referendum we are going to have anyway?

Like other emotive issues, TDs simply don't have the balls to pass anything like legislation for legalisation, as we have seen even Ming seems hesitant to raise the Bill.

Seaneh

When has he been hesitant?
It's in his programme for office, he's working on the bill presently, it's currently delayed for whatever reason, that's not being hesitant. At worst it's being lazy, at best it's being thorough. But I genuinely fail to see how he is lacking balls, he's worn that particular heart on his sleeve since the early 90's and never once shied away from it. Maybe he's just decided to not be like half the other gobdaws in the house and is refusing to be a single issue politician and is actually trying to work for his constituents?

Surely even the worlds most adamant pro-cannabis campaigners would agree it's not exactly the most important issue currently facing the nation, what with the the actual constitutional problem of legislating for the x-case, especially in the light of recent events in that area. And other small matters like trying to dig the economy out of the hole it's been driven into by the previous government? Maybe Mr. Flanagan has decided to not take attention away from these far more pressing issues at present?

Or maybe he realises that trying to bring the bill forward right now, when it wouldn't get the public attention it deserves because of the focus on other issues, isn't the brightest idea.

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

When has he been hesitant?
It's in his programme for office, he's working on the bill presently, it's currently delayed for whatever reason, that's not being hesitant. At worst it's being lazy, at best it's being through. But I genuinely fail to see how he is lacking balls, he's worn that particular heart on his sleeve since the early 90's and never once shyed away from it. Maybe he's just decided to not be like half the other gobdaws in the house and is refusing to be a single issue politician and is actually trying to work for his constituents?

Surely even the worlds most adamant pro-cannabis campaigners would agree it's not exactly the most important issue currently facing the nation, what with the the actual constitutional problem of legislating for the x-case, especially in the light of recent events in that area. And other small matters like trying to dig the economy out of the hole it's been driven into by the previous government? Maybe Mr. Flanagan has decided to not take attention away from these far more pressing issues at present?

Or maybe he realises that trying to bring the bill forward right now, when it wouldn't get the public attention it deserves because of the focus on other issues, isn't the brightest idea.

Care for a bet on a further delay in Oct on his Bill? I'll give you €20 for your charities if he brings it forward before the end of Oct. €20 for SFF if not.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

Care for a bet on a further delay in Oct on his Bill? I'll give you €20 for your charities if he brings it forward before the end of Oct. €20 for SFF if not.

I'll give the €20 to SFF regardless, and you can give the €20 to SSF too.

Feck it, lets just give SSF the money anyway....

So what if there is another delay? Who cares? I fully believe he will put the bill forward when it's ready and the house isn't preoccupied with other more important matters, as it currently is and will be for the next few months.


Why do you want him to rush it so much? Isn't there more important things to we worrying about, have you seen the price of a kilo of striploin, tis shocking!

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

I'll give the €20 to SFF regardless, and you can give the €20 to SSF too.

Feck it, lets just give SSF the money anyway....

So what if there is another delay? Who cares? I fully believe he will put the bill forward when it's ready and the house isn't preoccupied with other more important matters, as it currently is and will be for the next few months.


Why do you want him to rush it so much? Isn't there more important things to we worrying about, have you seen the price of a kilo of striploin, tis shocking!

Strange you don't want to bet - given your confidence in him. But you are right, there are more important things - like the fines Ireland will pay if Ming keeps cutting turf

On that note bed for me...

PRAF

The war on drugs cannot be won, its time to seriously consider a change of approach.

PRAF

MadsL wrote: »

Strange you don't want to bet - given your confidence in him. But you are right, there are more important things - like the fines Ireland will pay if Ming keeps cutting turf

On that note bed for me...

I'd rather he burned his marijuana than his turf

PRAF

PRAF wrote: »

I'd rather he burned his marijuana than his turf

Because his smoking affects you so much?

Moonshine99

I recently saw Ming speak on this issue in Cork. I must say that I am glad that he is taking his time in drafting the bill. As has been mentioned already, the legislation is not urgently required, so why not take the time to prepare the best draft possible. There are many uninformed opponents of legalising/ decriminalising cannabis who will use any excuse not to vote for it so it’s best not to leave any holes in the draft document. When he does finally bring the bill before the Dáil it will be the first time that TDs are forced to discuss the issue there.

Also, 2 states in the US have recently legalised Cannabis. They did this via plebiscites and the State legislatures are currently finalising the actual wording of the legislation in particular to regulation of the newly legalised plant. Those bills will have important items to consider for Ming’s draft legislation such as determining safe driving limits and penalties for selling the plant to minors etc. Additionally there are many other States in the US preparing for plebiscites on the issue, the experience gained there will no doubt feed into Ming’s approach here in Ireland and indeed he and other pro legalisation/ decriminalisation Irish groups have been in touch with their US counterparts to leverage from their experience. Remember that the US has historically been one of the most outspoken anti-drugs countries on the planet and they are now rapidly approaching a situation where nearly half of their States will have legalised Cannabis, so the US campaigners would certainly have a lot of advice to offer Ming & others who wish to see the same here.

While I agree that a referendum on the issue may not be required by law here, that is not to say that we should not have one. We could even knock a few other issues off at the same time!

Also, not something I have thought through, but if homosexuality was legalised here because of the right to privacy in the home, is there any argument that if someone plants a seed in their home (Seeds are legal in Ireland), lets it grow into a plant in their home, cuts it down in their home and smokes it in their home should be allowed?

PRAF

Deleted User wrote: »

Because his smoking affects you so much?

I couldn't care less about what he chooses to smoke. None of my business as long as it doesn't affect his ability to execute his role as a legislator in Dail Eireann and also as long as he isn't mowing people down in his car if he is under the influence.

I'm more concerned about his populist and environmentally damaging policy of destroying raised bogs just so that he can save himself a few quid (or make profits) from burning one of the least efficient fuels available in Ireland

PRAF

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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.

In principle I agree with this. You've perfectly illustrated the 'Pros' of legilisation. I do think that the 'Cons' would also need to be included in the debate. These may include
- Mental health issues
- Physical health effects of smoking
- Employee productivity!

It is certainly a debate worth having. I wish our democracy would spend more time having real debates and less time engaging in parish pump and / or punch and judy style politics.

My concern with Ming is that he's too divisive a figure to raise this issue. Him going away on his own and coming up with legislation is a waste of time. It hasn't a hope of going anywhere. He needs to propose some form of expert group to look at this issue dispassionately, come back with a report, and then have a Dail sub-committee debate it, come up with a list of recommendations, and then move to legislate.

If he doesn't do that, it is just a waste of time and probably only in the interests of his own self-promotion.

MadsL

PRAF wrote: »

In principle I agree with this. You've perfectly illustrated the 'Pros' of legilisation. I do think that the 'Cons' would also need to be included in the debate. These may include
- Mental health issues
- Physical health effects of smoking
- Employee productivity!

Whilst many thousands of working days are lost through hangovers, I doubt anyone ever rang in sick as a result of smoking too much weed the night before.

srsly78

PRAF wrote: »

In principle I agree with this. You've perfectly illustrated the 'Pros' of legilisation. I do think that the 'Cons' would also need to be included in the debate. These may include
- Mental health issues
- Physical health effects of smoking
- Employee productivity!

It is certainly a debate worth having. I wish our democracy would spend more time having real debates and less time engaging in parish pump and / or punch and judy style politics.

Lots of people smoke this already despite it's illegality. Therefore you must be assuming that the population would smoke more of it after legalisation. There would be a brief spike in usage after legalisation but then things would return to normal. Various studies have shown that the usage rate in the countries like the Netherlands are lower than those in prohibitionist neighbours.

So your cons are essentially non-arguments.

PRAF

srsly78 wrote: »

Lots of people smoke this already despite it's illegality. Therefore you must be assuming that the population would smoke more of it after legalisation. There would be a brief spike in usage after legalisation but then things would return to normal. Various studies have shown that the usage rate in the countries like the Netherlands are lower than those in prohibitionist neighbours.

So your cons are essentially non-arguments.

They aren't my cons, they are merely possible cons that should be debated. Whats wrong with having a healthy debate, lets be guided by the experts, and then decide what to do?

PRAF

MadsL wrote: »

Whilst many thousands of working days are lost through hangovers, I doubt anyone ever rang in sick as a result of smoking too much weed the night before.

Really? Have you seen "Ted" the movie. I certainly wouldn't like to hire a stoner if I was running a business. To each their own though!

Godge

Seaneh wrote: »

I refer you to Mr. Red's last post.




It's not a constitutional issue, there is no need or grounds for a referendum. Having a constitutional referendum on a matter which is not covered by the constitution is a pointless waste of government time and money and a distraction from the real work of the house, running the country.

As Cavehill Red stated, all that is needed is a proposal from a member put to the house and voted on by the members. If it is rejected, redraft it and create a bigger campaign to put pressure on TD's to support it or face a backlash at the next election.

As it is, the constitution is in the process of being reviewed by a constitutional convention in the hopes of simplifying and clarifying the document, adding pointlessness like specific sections for cannabis or other controlled substances, is just wasting time, effort and money.

I was drinking a glass of water reading this and nearly choked laughing at the bit in bold.

A backlash at the next election over a failure to legalise cannabis? Ha, ha, ha. Have you not heard of the property tax, the water charges, the public sector pay cuts, the increased VHI/BUPA charges, the cuts to medical card numbers? Thanks for the laugh.

srsly78

Godge wrote: »

I was drinking a glass of water reading this and nearly choked laughing at the bit in bold.

A backlash at the next election over a failure to legalise cannabis? Ha, ha, ha. Have you not heard of the property tax, the water charges, the public sector pay cuts, the increased VHI/BUPA charges, the cuts to medical card numbers? Thanks for the laugh.

Yes this country needs money badly. So why not take one of the most lucrative cash crops in the world and set up a government monopoly with it? Would you not rather the money went to state coffers rather than criminal gangs?

Many people would be quite surprised to find out how much this stuff is worth, it's the #1 cash crop in places like California (legally).

MadsL

PRAF wrote: »

Really? Have you seen "Ted" the movie. I certainly wouldn't like to hire a stoner if I was running a business. To each their own though!

Is it a documentary?

G Power

PRAF wrote: »

I couldn't care less about what he chooses to smoke. None of my business as long as it doesn't affect his ability to execute his role as a legislator in Dail Eireann and also as long as he isn't mowing people down in his car if he is under the influence.

I'm more concerned about his populist and environmentally damaging policy of destroying raised bogs just so that he can save himself a few quid (or make profits) from burning one of the least efficient fuels available in Ireland

I'm reminded of Gerry Adams asking Enda to close the bar while the country was being sold down the swanny on the night of the promissory notes fiasco that's already coming back to haunt us!

G Power

PRAF wrote: »

Really? Have you seen "Ted" the movie. I certainly wouldn't like to hire a stoner if I was running a business. To each their own though!

you're citing a fictional movie as evidence for your beliefs?? :eek::eek::eek: