Cannabis bill

thekopend

What is the opinion of the ES personnel with regard to this bill that Ming is trying to get through. I know this is a legal matter but the opinion of the personnel who work with people affected by cannabis everyday would be interesting to hear. Personally I think it should not be passed. Just watching prime time there with Ming talking, I didn't know weather to laugh or cry at him. P.S keep the heads cool now!

goldie fish

Gardaí, Customs etc don't make law, they just enforce them. Their opinions count for nothing.

thekopend

Well done captain obvious, we know that. I was asking there personal opinions as to weather they think it should/should not be passed and why.

pa990

It should be put to a public vote


And if we vote wrong the government should make us vote again , until we vote right.

Zambia

You will find most drug addiction starts with tobacco, alcohol , cannabis.

I used to see a point to legalising it then I had kids. Now I reckon the extre hurdle of making it illegal is no bad thing.

thekopend

Ya I think legalising it would make it seem 'ok' to do, thus causing more young people to try it and once a person try's it they are more likely to keep doing. Being illegal it gives some deterrent to minors at leased. A the end of the day if alcohol was illegal there would be less drinking it, simple logic.

Potential-Monke

Zambia wrote: »

You will find most drug addiction starts with tobacco, alcohol , cannabis.

I think you'll find that drug addiction starts with caffeine.

Zambia wrote: »

I used to see a point to legalising it then I had kids. Now I reckon the extre hurdle of making it illegal is no bad thing.

I can understand why you might think that way, but let me ask you this. Which appeals more to a child/teen; something legal or illegal?

Personally, i want it to go through. People who want it will get it regardless. By legalising it, there are so many benefits:

- Tax income would be massive
- Reduced state medical bills
- Would put a lot of criminals out of business
- Free up Garda time
- Creation of lots and lots of jobs
- The product would be pure and unadulterated, thus safer
- Tourism

Plus, there's the plethora of medical benefits, which just cannot be ignored any more. See this and this video. Nothing else manufactured or grown naturally has the benefits that CBD has.

Then you have the environmental benefits, such as hempcrete, hemp clothing and hemp paper. All alternatives to energy consuming and forest destroying products. Hemp is some of the fastest growing plants out there, deforestation will be a thing of the past (6-8 months vs 25+ years).

And before anyone says it, it's not a gateway drug. As i mentioned above, that would be caffeine, or something else which everyone has had well before alcohol or tobacco or illegal drugs. And yes, people will abuse it and turn into zombies, which i'd imagine would roughly be about the same ratio as alcoholics are to alcohol. And yes, some people are better off not smoking it for various psychological reasons, but i'm sure those same people aren't supposed to drink alcohol.

But again, this is all my opinion, and until then i will enforce the law to the best of my abilities. I just hope it changes. Would be nice to have an alternative intoxicant to alcohol.

thekopend wrote: »

Ya I think legalising it would make it seem 'ok' to do, thus causing more young people to try it and once a person try's it they are more likely to keep doing. Being illegal it gives some deterrent to minors at leased. A the end of the day if alcohol was illegal there would be less drinking it, simple logic.

They tried it, prohibition. Didn't work out too well...

thekopend

The bill was defeated in the dail this evening.

Esel

That's a buzz-kill.

Zambia

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I can understand why you might think that way, but let me ask you this. Which appeals more to a child/teen; something legal or illegal?

By that logic we may as well make Joyriding legal and a host of other crimes.

When I was in school a few people did smoke cannabis.

A lot more smoked cigarettes.

A lot of kids tried cigarettes but never tried cannabis.

Now if Cannabis was able to be legally purchased over the counter it would be a lot more available. So hence chances are the gap in the above scenario would be more evenly based.

If a teenager wakes up in the morning and decides he* really wants to try Cannabis well he is going to do it. If so lets make him work for it.

*or she

Now I could be wrong and all your reason of how it could make money, reduce police time taken and ease suffering in the sick I agree with. However I still would not want a poli I put in office voting for such a bill.

Oh and I believe hippy dressing Ming is the bloke who put out this bill (Who the f**k calls themselves Ming). If bills like this are ever going to be given a fighting chance people with a lot more credibility than that eejit. Need to be the ones putting forward the case.

All he tells me is the smoking of pot makes me so lazy I can't be arsed putting on a suit and making myself presentable. If he wants to project a reasoned argument like you have he needs to make an effort. (I wont even go into the whole point thing)

the_syco

thekopend wrote: »

Being illegal it gives some deterrent to minors at leased.

Being illegal means that if you have the cash, it's yours. At least with alcohol, if you don't know an older person to get it for you, you won't be getting any.

Zambia wrote: »

(Who the f**k calls themselves Ming)

He was called Ming by the media for his style of beard and hair. Rather than get offended by it, he instead uses the title.

If a teenager wanted to try weed in the morning, once they had some money, it's only a matter of time. Same can't be said for alcohol.

=-=

I think Ming is going about it in the wrong way for weed, but the right way to gain the populist vote from people who buy into his BS.

=-=

IMO, weed should be legal to people over 21. I say 21 not 18, as at 18 kids just want to get very drunk very quickly. By 21 they'll have mostly copped on, and should have the maturity to only have one or the other.

The second reason why I say 21 is that smoking weed before 18 can affect your brains development. Alcohol also can do damage in the same time frame, but that horse has already bolted long ago.

Finally, as well as making THC weed legal, the government should manufacture CBD weed. FYI, CBD weed doesn't get the user high, and is eaten not smoked. It's often used as an alternative pain medication. There has also been limited studies how CBD weed can help prevent epilepsy seizures happening as much.

Even if THC weed stayed illegal, I would hope that the government would allow CBD weed to be grown under state supervision, to be sold in pharmacies. As the stuff doesn't get you high, IMO, it'd be sought a lot less by criminal organisations.

Barrel

Zambia wrote: »

By that logic we may as well make Joyriding legal and a host of other crimes.

A lot of kids tried cigarettes but never tried cannabis.

Now if Cannabis was able to be legally purchased over the counter it would be a lot more available. So hence chances are the gap in the above scenario would be more evenly based.

If a teenager wakes up in the morning and decides he* really wants to try Cannabis well he is going to do it. If so lets make him work for it.

Saying someone joyriding a car and someone who smokes a spliff inside their own home is not comparable

Cannabis would still be illegal for kids but particullary at school and sporting events where adults are near by and could smell it a mile away

If cannabis was available legally over the counter it would eliminate the market for the dealers that sell cannabis now so in fact it would make it harder for kids/young teenagers to get

Zambia

Zambia wrote: »

By that logic we may as well make Joyriding legal and a host of other crimes.

What? Theft and reckless endangerment of others is comparable to someone having a smoke?

Zambia

Barrel wrote: »

Saying someone joyriding a car and someone who smokes a spliff inside their own home is not comparable

Cannabis would still be illegal for kids but particullary at school and sporting events where adults are near by and could smell it a mile away

If cannabis was available legally over the counter it would eliminate the market for the dealers that sell cannabis now so in fact it would make it harder for kids/young teenagers to get

1) Course it is Legal / Not legal clear comparison

2) Cigarettes are illegal for kids and Alcohol, but the fact they are legal items makes it way easier for kids to get. We cant eliminate kids smoking and drinking underage, now so it would be naive to think the fact making the consumption of cannabis to minors any different.

3)It would make it harder for kids to get, jesus wept any one over the age of 18/21 could buy it for them and sell it on.

Barrel

Zambia wrote: »

1) Course it is Legal / Not legal clear comparison

2) Cigarettes are illegal for kids and Alcohol, but the fact they are legal items makes it way easier for kids to get. We cant eliminate kids smoking and drinking underage, now so it would be naive to think the fact making the consumption of cannabis to minors any different.

3)It would make it harder for kids to get, jesus wept any one over the age of 18/21 could buy it for them and sell it on.

1 ... I dont understand you awnser! Do you still think joyriding and smoking a spliff is comparable?

2/3 ... Every single kid/teenager right now can buy cannabis straight from the horses mouth aka a drug dealer, and even by your own admission they would have to get someone over 18/21 to buy it therefore making it harder to purchase

Esel

Barrel wrote: »

Every single kid/teenager right now can buy cannabis straight from the horses mouth aka a drug dealer, and even by your own admission they would have to get someone over 18/21 to buy it therefore making it harder to purchase

I think the point was that everyone over 18 or 21 could become a small-scale drug dealer if they wanted.

Zambia

Barrel wrote: »

1 ... I dont understand you awnser! Do you still think joyriding and smoking a spliff is comparable?

The comparison is simple Theft of Motor Vehicle is illegal because the will of the majority want this to be the case.

The sale of Cannabis is illegal because the will of the majority want it to be the case.

Dont over think it I can use a lower example of the above if that makes you feel better.

Barrel wrote: »

2/3 ... Every single kid/teenager right now can buy cannabis straight from the horses mouth aka a drug dealer, and even by your own admission they would have to get someone over 18/21 to buy it therefore making it harder to purchase

Esel hit the nail on the head, every person over 18 could become a dealer. The fact you think getting someone over the age of 18 to purchase a legal product is harder than purchasing an illegal product is absurd.

Karl Stein

Zambia wrote: »

I used to see a point to legalising it then I had kids.

I doubt you'd be saying that if one of your kids was caught with weed and faced a criminal conviction on his record for the rest of his life.

It's a nasty puritanical law for a victimless crime.

Zambia

Thats what doing criminal things does, it gets you a criminal record.

If you want Cannabis to be illegal then you have to accept if a member of your family has it they run that risk.

We are all victims of the choices we make.

Karl Stein

Zambia wrote: »

Thats what doing criminal things does, it gets you a criminal record.

Doing criminal things, eh? Like sitting in your room smoking some leaves off a plant. Did you support the criminalisation of gay people not so long ago? Do you support the laws in Saudi Arabia that make criminals out of women for 'doing criminal things'?

We are all victims of the choices we make.

What does this even mean?

Zambia

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Doing criminal things, eh? Like sitting in your room smoking some leaves off a plant.

I said I was against the legalization of cannabis, do I need crayons for you to get this.

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Did you support the criminalisation of gay people not so long ago?

No, nor would I vote for anyone who thought this way.

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Do you support the laws in Saudi Arabia that make criminals out of women for 'doing criminal things'?

No, nor would I vote for anyone who thought this way.

Its called democracy.

Carlos Roca wrote: »

What does this even mean?

It reflects poorly on you that you don't understand it.

In essence if you choose to do something you know is illegal there are consequences in relation to that choice.

Karl Stein

I'll ignore your attitude for the time being.

Zambia wrote: »

No, nor would I vote for anyone who thought this way.

But they were doing criminal things so they should expect to a criminal conviction. This is your defence of a nasty law against peaceful people isn't it?

No, nor would I vote for anyone who thought this way.

But they're doing criminal things and should expect a criminal conviction shouldn't they? This is your defence of a nasty law that makes criminals out of peaceful people isn't it?

It reflects poorly on you that you don't understand it.

Oh I understand it alright. You don't want to engage with the idea that your support for the criminalisation of peaceful people is morally repugnant and indefensible.

In essence if you choose to do something you know is illegal there are consequences in relation to that choice.

Do you think it's moral that peaceful people be made criminals because they choose to smoke weed?

mathepac

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I think you'll find that drug addiction starts with caffeine. ...

Different strokes for different folks. Not all caffeine drinkers become addicted, not all alcohol drinkers become alcoholics, most heroin users in the US forces in Vietnam stopped using heroin after going home, etc

- Tax income would be massive

Argument made time and time again in relation to alcohol and tobacco products and it doesn't hold water. The consequential costs of using those two legal drugs exceed the tax take, partly because there is no tax taken from the smuggled versions (see below)

- Reduced state medical bills

How does that follow? Based on what?

- Would put a lot of criminals out of business

Criminals in this country and the UK (for example) make as much if not more money from smuggling illegal tobacco and alcohol and knock-off designer products as they do from illegal drugs.

- Free up Garda time

How? What percentage of Garda time is currently used pursuing and prosecuting stoners?

- Creation of lots and lots of jobs

How? What sort of jobs? Where?

- The product would be pure and unadulterated, thus safer

Nonsense, total rubbish. What is the product? The main "active ingredient" is delta9- tetrahydrocannabinol but this is ingested along with multiple other compounds (close to 500) contained in the plant material, oil or resin. Ingesting "pure and unadulterated" delta9- tetrahydrocannabinol is likely to lead to extreme reactions, perhaps even death. Unfortunately your views / opinions are ill-informed and potentially dangerous.

- Tourism

Just what we need, more stoners wandering the streets aimlessly

Potential-Monke wrote: »

... Then you have the environmental benefits, such as hempcrete, hemp clothing and hemp paper. All alternatives to energy consuming and forest destroying products. Hemp is some of the fastest growing plants out there, deforestation will be a thing of the past (6-8 months vs 25+ years) ...

If you had done any research you would know that there are primarily two types of cannabis plants; one type produces lots of fibrous material and very little active ingredient; the other produces higher concentrations of active ingredient and relatively little useful fibrous material to use in manufacturing processes.

So you're either in the drug-growing business or growing manufacturing raw materials; you'll never be doing both successfully with the same variety of plant.

All this green, environmentally friendly stuff associated with the drug bearing plant is just hog-wash, stoner propaganda for the ill-informed.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

... And before anyone says it, it's not a gateway drug. As i mentioned above, that would be caffeine, or something else which everyone has had well before alcohol or tobacco or illegal drugs. ...

and the evidence in support of this sweeping generalisation is ... more than likely more stoner propaganda.

Zambia

Carlos Roca wrote: »

I'll ignore your attitude for the time being.

But they were doing criminal things so they should expect to a criminal conviction. This is your defence of a nasty law against peaceful people isn't it?

Forgive my attitude but please don't ask me to repeat myself.

I could peacefully take up residence in your house while your on holiday. Does that make my residence legal of course not. For something to be illegal it does not need a victim or a violent act. It merely needs to be legislated against as cannabis is.

Legislation is passed by people we put in office. Hence they represent our wishes. When they don't we remove them from office in the incoming terms.

Hence my democracy comment are you against democracy?

Carlos Roca wrote: »

But they're doing criminal things and should expect a criminal conviction shouldn't they? This is your defence of a nasty law that makes criminals out of peaceful people isn't it?

Once again you are asking me to repeat myself, yes people who are committing criminal acts deserve criminal records. How is that hard to get?

In relation to cannabis with a low seizure and no priors here they get a fairly decent chance of no conviction recorded they can get cautions or drug diversions etc. However the fact is the chance is always there of a conviction. The best way to avoid a conviction for cannabis is to not have it.

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Oh I understand it alright. You don't want to engage with the idea that your support for the criminalisation of peaceful people is morally repugnant and indefensible.

Thats just your opinion, the fact is the majority of the people of Ireland are against your position and in support of the legislation against cannabis.

If the opposite was the case well then it would be legal wouldn't it?

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Do you think it's moral that peaceful people be made criminals because they choose to smoke weed?

Once again yes, I would be a hypocrite to support a law I saw as immoral.

AngryHippie

mathepac wrote: »

If you had done any research you would know that there are primarily two types of cannabis plants; one type produces lots of fibrous material and very little active ingredient; the other produces higher concentrations of active ingredient and relatively little useful fibrous material to use in manufacturing processes.

So you're either in the drug-growing business or growing manufacturing raw materials; you'll never be doing both successfully with the same variety of plant.

All this green, environmentally friendly stuff associated with the drug bearing plant is just hog-wash, stoner propaganda for the ill-informed.
and the evidence in support of this sweeping generalisation is ... more than likely more stoner propaganda.

I have to correct you a little bit on this one Pat, as in, right back at you in bold....

There are thousands of varieties of the plant with the active ingredient, all with different balances of active ingredients. (there are more than two,[CBD, CVN, etc etc] but you seem to be hung up on THC, so away with you on that one. Many of the medical benefits of the plant actually come from CBD, so maybe you should read up on those.

The "other" variety you are talking about = hemp. of which there are also many varieties, with many many uses, mostly commercial and agricultural


As for all of your sweeping generalizations about Tax income, state medical bills, organized crime, garda time, employment and quality assurance, I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to prove any of your statements, either in this thread or in the several others.

Unfortunately your attitude seems to prevail in Leinster house, but it doesn't change the fact that the law as it stands interferes with civil liberties, and holds back genuine medical research and improvements to the quality of life of some.

To your credit, you haven't mentioned it being a gateway drug, so I presume you have done some amount of factual research, but are not swayed by the perceived damage it may cause to society.

AngryHippie

Zambia wrote: »

Thats just your opinion, the fact is the majority of the people of Ireland are against your position and in support of the legislation against cannabis.

That's an assertion my friend. The majority of the cute hoors in Leinster House are against it. Nothing else has been proven on this one.

A referendum is required to answer that question.

Zambia

Zambia wrote: »

Thats just your opinion, the fact is the majority of the people of Ireland are against your position and in support of the legislation against cannabis.

If the opposite was the case well then it would be legal wouldn't it?

Got any links? Do you think that if there's legislation on anything that the majority of people are in favour of that legislation?

Or are you just taking the piss? Because really, that's how it comes across from your "arguments".

zenno

The problem with some commenter's here not understanding the situation, is the fact that kids can already get cannabis from their location, and of course from their friends, extremely easily already, and this has been the case for decades. The bad part of this is another fact that these kids don't understand, is the crap they are getting.

Hash-block is the cheapest and most widely used compared to cannabis bud, but the amount of garbage mixed into Hash-block is extraordinary. Cannabis bud on the street has it's problems as well in relation to sand-blasting the cannabis bud to make the weight heavier for sale and all of this is damn bad for smokers of cannabis and hash.

Now, the thing is, kids and all others will still continue to purchase this contaminated hash/cannabis and this is what will be causing serious health effects down the road with their lungs and what-not from the added plastics and much that is added to this street stuff.

If it was legalised, then it would be fully clean (as in natural) and less damaging to the health of cannabis smokers. Remember, people are not going to stop smoking cannabis even though they know that the cannabis and hash is contaminated with unknowns, this is worrisome indeed, but as the decades go by, people still continue to purchase it regardless.

Education is the key to understanding this herb and the way it's structure is manipulated on the street market. It is essential that this cannabis herb be legalised and monitored to the full discretion of the law and health service, because I'm telling you now that the stuff going around this country is seriously contaminated and will cause more problems for the health services in the near future.

Would it not be better to legalise/control it and make it clean for people that are still going to purchase it regardless ? because we all know that people are going to purchase it illegally on the street or town/city regardless of the law, and this will continue until the politicians in government wake up and study all of these effects and scenarios.

Pogmothone

Start a poll.

Karl Stein

Zambia wrote: »

I could peacefully take up residence in your house while your on holiday. Does that make my residence legal of course not.

That's trespass and breaking and entering someone's home, it's far from peaceful, it's extremely provocative and harmful to the well being of the owner/resident (unlike smoking weed).

For something to be illegal it does not need a victim or a violent act. It merely needs to be legislated against as cannabis is.

That doesn't take away from the nastiness of the law. You would not make that defence of laws against gay people or women in the Middle East so why do you think it's okay here?

Legislation is passed by people we put in office. Hence they represent our wishes. When they don't we remove them from office in the incoming terms.

Again this is not a reasonable defence.

Hence my democracy comment are you against democracy?

Democracy is imperfect. I'm against stupid 'democracy'.

Once again you are asking me to repeat myself, yes people who are committing criminal acts deserve criminal records. How is that hard to get?

So basically you're saying you do not care how immoral the law is, if that which is prohibited is against the law then tough shit. I find this 'fuck 'em' attitude pretty disgusting and I need not remind you how much misery this attitude has caused, and continues to cause to peaceful people.

the fact is the majority of the people of Ireland are against your position and in support of the legislation against cannabis.

Evidence? You cannot make that claim unless it was put to referendum. Also, majority =/= morally sound.

If the opposite was the case well then it would be legal wouldn't it?

Please familiarise yourself with the appeal to law fallacy. Now you're making me repeat myself.

Once again yes, I would be a hypocrite to support a law I saw as immoral.

Your puritanical conservatism, and appealing to law, is disgusting. It is you, and people like you, who are contributing to the misery caused by the prohibition of this plant.

Karl Stein

Pogmothone wrote: »

Start a poll.

I'd suggest these options.

1. I'm for legalization of marijuana.

2. I'm against legalisation but for decriminalisation of possession of marijuana.

3. I'm against any change in the law as regards marijuana.

4. I'm undecided.

Pogmothone

I'd go for option number 2.

Timmyctc

@Zambia You should really read up on the main man who published the 'facts' on why Cannabis HAD to be criminalized originally wayyy back when in the States. Just a coincidence he profited largely from Alcohol industry (i think) that would have been affected by the legalisation of Cannabis.


Spoiler:

The majority of the negative findings were based on completely racist and fabricated stories.

Some of Harry J Anslinger's "Findings"

"Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with (white) female students, smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy"
"Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of hemp. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis."

The guy really had an issue with mixed race couples.
Spent a whole lot of his report complaining about Marijuana and Jazz musicians too.

Anslinger hoped to orchestrate a nationwide dragnet of jazz musicians and kept a file called 'Marijuana and Musicians

Its a pity he didnt get Jazz banned and kept the smoke legalised. Would have saved me plenty of headaches down the years :pac:

Zambia

AngryHippie wrote: »

That's an assertion my friend. The majority of the cute hoors in Leinster House are against it. Nothing else has been proven on this one.

A referendum is required to answer that question.

So you want a referendum because they people you put in power do do what you want?

If you want a referendum on the issue that's fine, but you cant have a referendum for every little decision the dail is in place for that.

zenno

Zambia wrote: »

So you want a referendum because they people you put in power do do what you want?

If you want a referendum on the issue that's fine, but you cant have a referendum for every little decision the dail is in place for that.

Ireland cannot have a referendum on legalisation of cannabis. It has to be done a different way.

Zambia

Carlos Roca wrote: »

That's trespass and breaking and entering someone's home, it's far from peaceful, it's extremely provocative and harmful to the well being of the owner/resident (unlike smoking weed).

Both are legislated against ....seriously you need to not over think it.

Carlos Roca wrote: »

That doesn't take away from the nastiness of the law. You would not make that defence of laws against gay people or women in the Middle East so why do you think it's okay here?

Asked and answered move on

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Again this is not a reasonable defence.

You can pick and choose the laws you wish to obey, if you dont like a law change it.

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Democracy is imperfect. I'm against stupid 'democracy'.

What ideology would you prefer, the one that lets you do whatever you want?

Carlos Roca wrote: »

So basically you're saying you do not care how immoral the law is, if that which is prohibited is against the law then tough shit. I find this 'fuck 'em' attitude pretty disgusting and I need not remind you how much misery this attitude has caused, and continues to cause to peaceful people.

I don't consider the law immoral. I have said this haven't I?

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Evidence? You cannot make that claim unless it was put to referendum. Also, majority =/= morally sound.

In a democracy of course I can there your politicians you have them change the law. Just get better ones than Ming.

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Please familiarise yourself with the appeal to law fallacy. Now you're making me repeat myself.

My bad, stinks doesn't it

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Your puritanical conservatism, and appealing to law, is disgusting. It is you, and people like you, who are contributing to the misery caused by the prohibition of this plant.

Misery caused by the prohibition of this plant.... Sweet Jesus listen to yourself.

If you need it medically I have no objection to it being legal on prescription in tablet form etc (no piont smoking it as we all know smoking causes cancer).

zenno

@ Zambia

What ideology would you prefer, the one that lets you do whatever you want?

Interesting. Freedom to choose to do whatever one wants, but we all have that freedom don't we. The ideology of it all. Let us take away the freedom to choose shall we.

Zambia

Zambia wrote: »

Both are legislated against ....seriously you need to not over think it.

So part of your reason for believing it should be illegal is that it's illegal?

zenno

Too many people are stuck in a box and cannot see or enter the outside of thinking, that's unfortunate imo.

mathepac

AngryHippie wrote: »

... There are thousands of varieties of the plant with the active ingredient, all with different balances of active ingredients. (there are more than two,[CBD, CVN, etc etc] but you seem to be hung up on THC, so away with you on that one. Many of the medical benefits of the plant actually come from CBD, so maybe you should read up on those. ...

I know just as yields of "stuff" from the same variety of plant grown under different climactic conditions will vary so may yields from male vs female plants. I'm not hung up on delta9-THC but my perception is that proponents of the Stoners' Charter are, hence my focus on it as the only psychoactive cannabinoid so far identified. The other 80 or so may or may not be.

I'm sick to back teeth of listening to people tell me that growing a generic cannabis plant in my garden or loft will get me stoned, control pain, involuntary spasms or tremors associated with certain medical conditions and leave me with enough material to make a shirt, light the fire and start a manufacturing business. Oh and of course because it's natural it can't be harmful.

It is just not true, but the message is still out there and that is what I was responding to. Here's a trio of "generic" cannabis plants:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cannab2_new.png

Let's all make general sweeping statements about them.

AngryHippie wrote: »

... The "other" variety you are talking about = hemp. of which there are also many varieties, with many many uses, mostly commercial and agricultural ....

Incorrect. Hemp is the term used to refer to the fibrous material obtained from the stem of any of the cannabis plants pictured above. The tall one on the left is the most likely candidate to be used for hemp production (long fibers, greater yield per plant, quick re-growth once harvested (depending on climactic conditions), etc.

I blame the Americans for this confusion over the cannabis plant as a source for hemp and the plant itself being called hemp.

AngryHippie wrote: »

... As for all of your sweeping generalizations about Tax income, state medical bills, organized crime, garda time, employment and quality assurance, I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to prove any of your statements, either in this thread or in the several others. ...

To be fair, I was seeking any evidence in support of a group of sweeping generalisations in bullet form made by another poster, as well as debunking the more obviously outlandish claims.

I think we need to stick with what appears in this thread rather than hopping back and forth to what might or might not have been posted elsewhere.

AngryHippie wrote: »

... Unfortunately your attitude seems to prevail in Leinster house, ...

I say fair play to them if certain TDs can boast of an attitude like mine, whatever it is. Can I have the same wages?

AngryHippie wrote: »

... but it doesn't change the fact that the law as it stands interferes with civil liberties ...

You'll have to explain that one to me. How is it my civil liberty to consume a potentially harmful illegal substance?

AngryHippie wrote: »

... and holds back genuine medical research and improvements to the quality of life of some. ...

I don't see how that follows. If the medical and scientific community believes that conducting research into the beneficial use of any substance in this country has potential merit, can't they just apply for a licence to conduct the research or join with like-minded people in a jurisdiction where the substance is already licensed or legal for research?

AngryHippie wrote: »

... To your credit, you haven't mentioned it being a gateway drug, so I presume you have done some amount of factual research, but are not swayed by the perceived damage it may cause to society.

I challenged a poster who said it was not a gateway drug to produce evidence for his statement.

mathepac

zenno wrote: »

.... Remember, people are not going to stop smoking cannabis even though they know that the cannabis and hash is contaminated with unknowns, this is worrisome indeed, but as the decades go by, people still continue to purchase it regardless.
...

So clearly the people you are describing above meet at least one of the critera from the DSM for a diagnosis of substance abuse. These people need help, not more weed.

Zambia

zenno wrote: »

@ Zambia

Interesting. Freedom to choose to do whatever one wants, but we all have that freedom don't we. The ideology of it all. Let us take away the freedom to choose shall we.

If you want in, answer the question what ideology do you want?

Zambia

Deleted User wrote: »

So part of your reason for believing it should be illegal is that it's illegal?

Not what I said at all.

Both acts are illegal that's all I said in that post.

zenno

Zambia wrote: »

If you want in, answer the question what ideology do you want?

I have the luxury of both ideologies if I choose so, I'm flexible.

zenno

mathepac wrote: »

So clearly the people you are describing above meet at least one of the critera from the DSM for a diagnosis of substance abuse. These people need help, not more weed.

No, if these thousands of people are adamant enough and don't care, and of which will still smoke it regardless of other toxic substances integrated into this stuff then in my opinion, seeing that they will not stop smoking it, give them the option of a cleaner purer legalised option than just saying... leave it banned and illegal and feck them.

This is not a sensible way of dealing with it. In forwarding the reply that it is illegal so feck them, sure how on earth can you stop them from purchasing the bad cannabis ? alternatives need to be made to clean the cannabis up, at least they will be smoking clean weed, it's better than what they are smoking now from the street.

Seriously though, you can go on and on about the legality of this herb, but what you people are not understanding is the fact that thousands of people are smoking it now and it's bad weed, they obviously will not stop because we can see this from past decades of the (just say now routine) but people continue to smoke it.

The real first issue is to get them off the bad contaminated weed at least, and then if they are still so adamant in smoking it, they can smoke clean legalised weed. This is a more healthy option than just quoting laws with no substance at the end of the day, as they will continue to smoke the junk on the street either way. Do you not understand what I'm trying to explain to you ?.

We all know cannabis is illegal, but honestly, do you really think young people care ? it's a decades old problem of which has got nowhere. The way you are going on about this, is like all cannabis smokers are unstable or have a disability and cannot think for themselves, kick yourself out of that box you are in and expand the thought-process to cleaning the problem up first for the health of these smokers instead of banging on about the legality of this herb continuously that we already know far too well.

Zambia

zenno wrote: »

I have the luxury of both ideologies if I choose so, I'm flexible.

Ok don't answer the question.

zenno

Zambia wrote: »

Ok don't answer the question.

If you don't understand my reply, then I cannot help you.

Also, there is no way on this earth that cannabis smokers will go to the street to purchase it if it was made legal, and the obvious reason for this would be the fact that they will know that the government run alternative would be strictly monitored, and clean weed, without contaminants, and cheaper even though it is taxed. Why would anyone want to purchase lower grade cannabis from a street dealer when they can get very clean legal cannabis.

If the HSE and the government really care about cannabis smokers health, then they should start at the very bottom and have cannabis legalised and controlled. I am blue in the face trying to explain to people the problems with hash and cannabis sold on the street, it's mixed with things you wouldn't believe, and the health effects are minus 1,000. Clean it up first then regulate it.

Zambia

This has generated into a straight forward Cannabis legalisation debate. A debate better suited for another forum.

So I will leave it on my position.

Based on my own personal experience Cannabis should not be legalised. Medical under prescription is not an issue for me anyway.

There is no piont trying to change my mind for 2 reasons

1) I don't vote in Ireland winning me over serves no purpose.
2) If I change my mind it will be not be a result of what has been presented so far.

AngryHippie

Zambia wrote: »

So you want a referendum because they people you put in power do do what you want?

If you want a referendum on the issue that's fine, but you cant have a referendum for every little decision the dail is in place for that.

For the record, I didn't put them in power. As I am resident overseas for employment purposes, I am not entitled to my constitutional right to vote, unless I return home to my registered electorate on polling day to cast my vote.
Neither postal nor ambassadorial/consular services can apparently cope with providing that service, despite the majority of countries that do.
As for wanting a referendum on the issue, I think that an annual referendum day would be a positive step, dealing with issues like this, gay marriage, abortion, and many others that the elected representatives are afraid/incapable/unqualified/unrepresentative/unwilling to make as they essentially boil down to civil liberties. They decisions on these matters should be up to the people to make.
That would be democracy. Otherwise its a popularity contest to decide who can read minds the best, and they are fooking hopeless at it.

zenno

Zambia wrote: »

This has generated into a straight forward Cannabis legalisation debate. A debate better suited for another forum.

So I will leave it on my position.

Based on my own personal experience Cannabis should not be legalised. Medical under prescription is not an issue for me anyway.

There is no piont trying to change my mind for 2 reasons

1) I don't vote in Ireland winning me over serves no purpose.
2) If I change my mind it will be not be a result of what has been presented so far.

Look, I have made a valid point above, and if you cannot understand it then that's your problem, but things need to be done instead of just spouting the law regarding this herb.

AngryHippie

mathepac wrote: »

I know just as yields of "stuff" from the same variety of plant grown under different climactic conditions will vary so may yields from male vs female plants. I'm not hung up on delta9-THC but my perception is that proponents of the Stoners' Charter are, hence my focus on it as the only psychoactive cannabinoid so far identified. The other 80 or so may or may not be.

I challenged a poster who said it was not a gateway drug to produce evidence for his statement.

On the Male - Female argument, The Male plants provide little to no psychoactive ingredients. Anyone who has grown a plant can tell you that. Hence Sensimilla being prefered. (prevents pollenation, leading to healthy heady buds).

In the absence of evidence to prove something doesn't exist, how about something other than bleating to prove that it is a gateway drug ?
You just destroyed the only thing that made me take you seriously for a bit.:(