Ecstasy and Ketamine are currently legal

JP Liz V1

yipeeeee wrote: »

Lad who works for Fm 104 is taking ecstasy live tonight.

Idiot.

Seriously

The other fella

Ireland = Bunny Colvins Hamsterdam

conorh91

nm wrote: »

they're currently priced according to risk

How can anyone possibly claim to know that an unregulated, heterogeneous stock of drugs in a market characterised by chaos, crime and secrecy is priced according to risk?? Such a strange claim to make.

I'm not supportive of tobacco, I just pointed out using the garlic man as an example that a huge% tax on anything at all will cause some scale of black market.

In that case you have to apply this proposition to a black market in drugs, should drugs be taxed.

Even if you consider for a moment that producers of illicit drugs will stop trying to gain a competitive advantage by creating more potent drugs, the potential costs to the State of regulating a legal drug trade, ensuring uniform standards, policing the illicit trade and paying for rehabilitation would be likely to necessitate a high rate of taxation.

So even presuming that producers don't try to increase potency and risks in the illicit trade, the illict trade will already find it easier to make a living, because they have no need to pay income taxes, duties, charge vat or maintain the same level of quality assurance standards.

Suryavarman

thebaz wrote: »

in fairness, most sane countries start by legalising softer drugs , but not us - we are legislated by bafoons up in the High courts , who have no idea about getting high, addiction , drug culture good or bad - just a knowledge of good brandy legal loopholes whilst legislating over our banana Republic, with a tidy stipend

We have legalised all the soft drugs apart from LSD.

Suryavarman

conorh91 wrote: »

How can anyone possibly claim to know that an unregulated, heterogeneous stock of drugs in a market characterised by chaos, crime and secrecy is priced according to risk?? Such a strange claim to make.

Because some people have an understanding of economics so they realise that this is the case.

In that case you have to apply this proposition to a black market in drugs, should drugs be taxed.

Even if you consider for a moment that producers of illicit drugs will stop trying to gain a competitive advantage by creating more potent drugs, the potential costs to the State of regulating a legal drug trade, ensuring uniform standards, policing the illicit trade and paying for rehabilitation would be likely to necessitate a high rate of taxation.

So even presuming that producers don't try to increase potency and risks in the illicit trade, the illict trade will already find it easier to make a living, because they have no need to pay income taxes, duties, charge vat or maintain the same level of quality assurance standards.

Good point. The USA has never been able to do away with those pesky bootleggers since they legalised alcohol

sunshine and showers

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I think the "illegality" is the fact that new drugs were just added to the list by ministers rather than voted on. Seems like a spurious argument.

Not really. It was a breach of the separation of powers.

Stupidity on the part of the government. The AG should have seen it coming.

the dark phantom

IrishSkyBoxer wrote: »

Cost to the health sector over the next 48 hours will be insane. Can't imagine what emergency departments are going to look like.

All the doctors and nurses off their heads on Valium and Morphine, ER will be paartaaaaaay centraaaaal.

Henlars67

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgs9QUtWc3M

sunshine and showers

Love to know how the party animals are going to get the drugs seeing as the sale and supply of them is still illegal.

Maybe people will find them scattered around the roads.

conorh91

Suryavarman wrote: »

Because some people have an understanding economics so they realise that this is the case.

I may not be an economist but I'm pretty sure that just because something has a price, it doesn't mean it's 'priced to risk'?

Were house prices priced to risk during the Celtic Tiger? Are fatty foods priced to risk? How about the spirits consumed by heavy drinkers? Does the price reflect the risk inherent in these items?

sunshine and showers wrote: »

The AG should have seen it coming.

She did. Emergency legislation was planned prior to today.

Unless you mean to say the AG should have foreseen this prior to the High Court application, in which case hindsight is a great thing.

After all, the High Court didn't agree with the Plaintiff in that application. So it wasn't as black and white as is being made out, and may still be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court.

bodice ripper

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Love to know how the party animals are going to get the drugs seeing as the sale and supply of them is still illegal.

Maybe people will find them scattered around the roads.

Im pretty sure most people could put their hands on them if they put their minds to it.

bilbot79

Yurt! wrote: »

Handy get out clause for the state. And scant consolation for those who had their freedom taken away over 40 years unconstitutionally.

Drug laws are a joke.

Such a silly comment. Poor drug dealers were the victims weren't they?? Extortion, forced prostitution. Twas unconstitutional jailing them

bjork

What next? Someone will be murdered, and then where are we? Drive-by shootings in the night, it'll be like "Boyz N The Hood" and we'll have whores selling their wares on the street and the pimps will be using crack to keep the whores under control, I'm going now to lock myself in the basement until they make drugs illegal again, goodbye to you

nxbyveromdwjpg

conorh91 wrote: »

I may not be an economist but I'm pretty sure that just because something has a price, it doesn't mean it's 'priced to risk'?

Were house prices priced to risk during the Celtic Tiger? Are fatty foods priced to risk? How about the spirits consumed by heavy drinkers? Does the price reflect the risk inherent in these items?

There is no risk in the production, transportation, importation of lega... ah **** it..
This is honestly too stupid of a comparison to reply to.

Suryavarman

conorh91 wrote: »

I may not be an economist but I'm pretty sure that just because something has a price, it doesn't mean it's 'priced to risk'?

Were house prices priced to risk during the Celtic Tiger? Are fatty foods priced to risk? How about the spirits consumed by heavy drinkers? Does the price reflect the risk inherent in these items?

Drug dealers decide whether or not take the market rate for a drug based on whether or not it makes up for the risk of being caught. If drug dealers decide it doesn't then they stop selling and the price goes up. If they think it overcompensates then more people start selling and the price goes down.

The black market price for a good or service is a reflection of the risk involved in providing that good or service.

Eugene Norman

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Not really. It was a breach of the separation of powers.

Stupidity on the part of the government. The AG should have seen it coming.

Elaborate.

anncoates

Got to laugh at people actually thinking the streets will be swarming with people on yokes tonight.

Or even funnier, that they'll be taunting cops.

Ruu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlLWFa1b1Bc

nxbyveromdwjpg

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Love to know how the party animals are going to get the drugs seeing as the sale and supply of them is still illegal.

My understanding is that if they're not scheduled then they're not scheduled and there is nothing illegal about them, sale or otherwise, as they're not included in the Misuse of Drugs act at all.

Ecstasy is not affected by this though, from what I can see from the act. I don't know why the headlines are saying it.

conorh91

nm wrote: »

There is no risk in the production, transportation, importation of lega... ah **** it..

I think you're after awakening to the mistaken path you were about to tread.

If a Government, as a matter of policy, seeks to supply drugs that are currently prohibited, it would need to ensure a safe way of doing so. This would require regulation and quality assurance, and staffing, and limited potency in some cases... problems which just don't arise for the major drug gangs who will always be able to beat the Government, just like private industry usually does.

nxbyveromdwjpg

conorh91 wrote: »

I think you're after awakening to the mistaken path you were about to tread.

If a Government, as a matter of policy, seeks to supply drugs that are currently prohibited, it would need to ensure a safe way of doing so. This would require regulation and quality assurance, and staffing, and limited potency in some cases... problems which just don't arise for the major drug gangs who will always be able to beat the Government, just like private industry usually does.

You're a gas man, you honestly believe that regulation would be cost MORE than the current policy?

I don't have figures for Ireland but the in the USA the 'drug war' costs $41.3 billion annually (at last count - 2008).

To think that relative safety measures and imposing legislation will cost more than the courts, prisons, waste of garda time and so on is laughable.

And this doesn't even take into account the tax take.

Wide Load

Rubberbandits about to be on newstalk to talk about it. Heard they might have necked a few sneaky ones as well.

YFlyer

Is it legal to produce any of the drugs in question?

conorh91

nm wrote: »

You're a gas man, you honestly believe that regulation would be cost MORE than the current policy?

Possibly. I'm far more skeptical of the notion that legalisation would get rid of the black market in drugs, because legalisation would almost certainly demand high taxation on sales and probably high regulatory costs, and as well as that, the black market is already institutionalised.

nm wrote: »

My understanding is that if they're not scheduled then they're not scheduled and there is nothing illegal about them, sale or otherwise, as they're not included in the Misuse of Drugs act at all.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0022/index.html

bjork

conorh91 wrote: »

Possibly. I'm far more skeptical of the notion that legalisation would get rid of the black market in drugs, because legalisation would almost certainly demand high taxation on sales and probably high regulatory costs.



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0022/index.html

How much does a gram of weed sell for on the black market these days?

geosynchronous orbit

bjork wrote: »

How much does a gram of weed in Dublin sell for on the black market these days?

vs a gramme of weed in Amsterdam

YFlyer

bjork wrote: »

How much does a gram of weed sell for on the black market these days?

Less than what the media and Gardai say.

KingBrian2

Ireland has become the Netherlands for a couple of days.

YFlyer

nm wrote: »

My understanding is that if they're not scheduled then they're not scheduled and there is nothing illegal about them, sale or otherwise, as they're not included in the Misuse of Drugs act at all.

Ecstasy is not affected by this though, from what I can see from the act. I don't know why the headlines are saying it.

the seller could be done for not paying tax.

Not G.R

The music that will follow this will be mega :pac:. Come on working class youth horse those drugs into ye and write us another Sargent Peppers. :pac: