How does the law currently view users of cannabis for medicine in the court

euser1984

Long title.

Legislation was going to be urgently put through to make cannabis available for ms patients and it hasn't done so despite expected last year or 2013. It's legal in the UK plus a number of other well known eu countries including france.

My only guess is an expected toll on mental health services? I don't want to get into an argument but mental health services say a lot of cannabis users arrive at their door.

So, is it a case that the health system is to blame for ms users using cannabis illegally and getting fines or even a sentence if caught a second time; sentence being up to 12 months of your life?

Or are the courts aware of that and perhaps these cases aren't even publicized (conspiracy thing in me)

euser1984

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/medicinal-cannabis-regulations-in-weeks-1.1862137

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/gps-to-be-allowed-prescribe-medicinal-cannabis-1.1494478

Zambia

euser1984 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/medicinal-cannabis-regulations-in-weeks-1.1862137

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/gps-to-be-allowed-prescribe-medicinal-cannabis-1.1494478

Are you an ms patient?

euser1984

30% of ms users in Ireland are using Cannabis to control their issues when no other treatment has worked..

Zambia

So no?

Edgarfrndly

I'm curious about this too. I was looking into cannabidiol for my muscle twitches. I used to smoke when I was younger, but it didn't agree with me at all. Used to get a lot of panic attacks. I read that cannabidiol is good for twitches and doesn't have the same psychotropic effects of full on cannabis.

There was a cannabidiol vape from France coming out. I wonder if it will be legal here?

euser1984

Zambia wrote: »

So no?

Not sure how that's relevant? Your making me feel like Luke Ming Flanagan

Zambia

euser1984 wrote: »

Not sure how that's relevant? Your making me feel like Luke Ming Flanagan

No just establishing motive, fact is a lot of users just like seeing cannabis legalised in any form. The ms cause is championed as part of that.

goz83

I have never smoked cannabis, or used illegal drugs and in general terms, I disagree with the use of drugs, legal and illegal, unless they are genuinely needed. If someone is prescribed cannabis and it is being used under the care and instruction of their medical practitioner, there really isn't an issue there imo.

However, legalising it for recreational use is just ridiculous and is too often suggested under the guise of health problems. Saying it is harmless, does not make it true. I have seen the damage of longterm and regular use. I occasionally help clients to stop using. One client had become heavily dependent on cannabis in only 3 years and lost his job and pretty much all motivation as a result. Unless it is needed, it should be illegal.

Though I do believe that Ireland is a bit too restrictive and expensive when it comes to medication. Needing a prescription for my sons overly priced inhalers is just one example. They can be picked up when I am in Spain wihout prescription, for a fraction of the price. No doubt, this is true of most, if not all other EU countries.

SpaceSasqwatch

goz83 wrote: »

I have seen the damage of longterm and regular use. I occasionally help clients to stop using. One client had become heavily dependent on cannabis in only 3 years and lost his job and pretty much all motivation as a result.

My experience has been the oppisite.Been smoking it for 26 years and no major side effects.Managed to hold down jobs and function normally.I did loose a house but that was through divorce.Am I lucky?Is my anecdotal evidence better than yours?
Have seen more people that I know fuk up on alcohol tbh.

Anyways back to the OP afaik the law doesnt care what form it is,its still a controlled substance.

goz83

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

My experience has been the oppisite.Been smoking it for 26 years and no major side effects.Managed to hold down jobs and function normally.I did loose a house but that was through divorce.Am I lucky?Is my anecdotal evidence better than yours?
Have seen more people that I know fuk up on alcohol tbh.

Anyways back to the OP afaik the law doesnt care what form it is,its still a controlled substance.

No "major side effects"? Someone smoking it for 26 years, even at small amounts, unless it is needed, is of course going to have some negative side effects. Although I could not be certain, the loss of the house, in the divorce, could have been partially as a result of being a cannabis user. It cannot be denied that recreational, regular use of cannabis, will have a negative impact on a person. Even minor side effects are a bad thing when you must rely on a drug. There is such a thing as a functional alcoholic, but that's not what we are discussing.

SpaceSasqwatch

goz83 wrote: »

No "major side effects"? Someone smoking it for 26 years, even at small amounts, unless it is needed, is of course going to have some negative side effects.

Yeah a bit of fluffy head on me in the morning...for like about 10 minutes till I get into the shower

Although I could not be certain, the loss of the house, in the divorce, could have been partially as a result of being a cannabis user.

It wasnt.Have a better guess.

It cannot be denied that recreational, regular use of cannabis, will have a negative impact on a person. Even minor side effects are a bad thing when you must rely on a drug.

Like I said Im fine after smoking it for years.Apart from the fluffy head in the morning.And granted ,the actual smoking of it might harm me in the future but plenty of people smoke cigs..so ill take the chances they are.Also where you going with me relying on it?You trying to imply I have an addictionas opposed to using recreationly?

There is such a thing as a functional alcoholic, but that's not what we are discussing.

Yes youre right ,we aint discussing addiction of any substance.

goz83

You only know you've been in the matrix, when you finally get out

Those who stop using cannabis.....even the infrequent users, notice improvements in memory, concentration and motivation. Cannabis inhibits ones normal level of "get up and go". If you stopped using it for a few months, you would know what I am talking about. If you stopped using it for a couple of weeks, you would know that you're addicted. 26 years of smoking cannabis and saying you're not addicted, is just delusional. Oh, and that's another side effect of cannabis use, if you weren't aware.

You did bring up alcohol, so I used it as an example in my post. Would You deny that someone who had a couple of cans of beer most nights of the week for 20 odd years is an alcoholic?

SpaceSasqwatch

goz83 wrote: »

You only know you've been in the matrix, when you finally get out

Gimme a break and stop talking rubbish.

Cannabis inhibits ones normal level of "get up and go".

does it now?How much a year do you earn btw?Just curious.

If you stopped using it for a few months, you would know what I am talking about. If you stopped using it for a couple of weeks, you would know that you're addicted. 26 years of smoking cannabis and saying you're not addicted, is just delusional. Oh, and that's another side effect of cannabis use, if you weren't aware.

lol more sh1te

You did bring up alcohol, so I used it as an example in my post. Would You deny that someone who had a couple of cans of beer most nights of the week for 20 odd years is an alcoholic?

Like I said, ive seen more people fecked up on drink.

Did you get kicked out of a pyschology degree after the first semester?

or did you watch this by accident on youtube?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54xWo7ITFbg

stimpson

goz83 wrote: »

You only know you've been in the matrix, when you finally get out

Those who stop using cannabis.....even the infrequent users, notice improvements in memory, concentration and motivation. Cannabis inhibits ones normal level of "get up and go". If you stopped using it for a few months, you would know what I am talking about. If you stopped using it for a couple of weeks, you would know that you're addicted. 26 years of smoking cannabis and saying you're not addicted, is just delusional. Oh, and that's another side effect of cannabis use, if you weren't aware.

You did bring up alcohol, so I used it as an example in my post. Would You deny that someone who had a couple of cans of beer most nights of the week for 20 odd years is an alcoholic?

This is a load of balls. I smoked for 20+ years. I kept my half of the house in the divorce. Gave it up when I decided to have kids with the new missus. Easiest thing in the world. I still have a very occasional toke.

I've held down a job for pretty much all of my adult life. Received promotions, held down several mortgages and never missed a payment. Know loads of other people in the same boat.

Plenty of wasters smoke weed, but you can say the same about drink.

SpaceSasqwatch

stimpson wrote: »

Plenty of wasters smoke weed, but you can say the same about drink.

and people that dont anything recreational....

goz83

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

Gimme a break and stop talking rubbish.


does it now?How much a year do you earn btw?Just curious.



lol more sh1te


Like I said, ive seen more people fecked up on drink.

Did you get kicked out of a pyschology degree after the first semester?

or did you watch this by accident on youtube?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54xWo7ITFbg

A defense by attempting to insult me only strenghtens my point. Are you now trying to say that smoking cannabis increases your earning potential? Plenty of people do fine while smoking cannabis. My point is that they dont escape the negative effects of it, no matter how much they might claim otherwise. People who smoke cannabis regularly, are more likey to waste their time, playing computer games for hours per day, than doing something worthwhile. Though they might argue that the smoking of cannabis is very worthwhile. Paranoia and mood swings generally don't help either

goz83

stimpson wrote: »

This is a load of balls. I smoked for 20+ years. I kept my half of the house in the divorce. Gave it up when I decided to have kids with the new missus. Easiest thing in the world. I still have a very occasional toke.

I've held down a job for pretty much all of my adult life. Received promotions, held down several mortgages and never missed a payment. Know loads of other people in the same boat.

Plenty of wasters smoke weed, but you can say the same about drink.

Another divorce cannabis user. Are we seeing a trend here? The two people I know personally, who smoked for 15 and 25+ years respectively, are both separated from their partners of 10 and 20+ years. No houses to be divided, but broken homes all the same.

For the record, I haven't said that a cannabis user can't hold down a job, or be promoted, or anything of the sort. I have stated that there are negative side effects, which I have listed above. It won't necessarily stop someone from achieving, but, in my opinion, it limits them. Is that clear, or is it still a load of balls?

SpaceSasqwatch

goz83 wrote: »

Another divorce cannabis user

Lol

MarkAnthony

To be fair there are negative effects from smoking, drinking, over eating and pulling on your lad to frequently, none of which is banned, although one does sometimes get funny looks in the library.

There is very little argument for the prohibition of sale of cannabis. The positives almost certainly outweigh the negatives in relation to public policy. Health policy though is a different matter. One could see the benefits of legal cannabis would be that the strength of the drug could be better controlled.

Clearly given the number of people darkening the door of counseling and mental health services coupled with the prevalence of the drug means that banning it simply hasn't worked anyway.

Labarbapostiza

euser1984 wrote: »

My only guess is an expected toll on mental health services? I don't want to get into an argument but mental health services say a lot of cannabis users arrive at their door.

The most likely reason is people with mental health problems trying to self medicate. This would apply to alcohol too.

Put it another way, the A&Es at the weekends aren't jammed with people who've been in fights or accidents because they smoked some weed.

nxbyveromdwjpg

goz83 wrote: »

Another divorce cannabis user. Are we seeing a trend here? The two people I know personally, who smoked for 15 and 25+ years respectively, are both separated from their partners of 10 and 20+ years. No houses to be divided, but broken homes all the same.

Lol - you can't be serious? You were being coherent in your argument but you've just taken a turn for the ludicrous here.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Zambia wrote: »

Are you an ms patient?

Does it invalidate the question if he isn't?

I'd never heard of this until I stumbled across this thread, sources were posted of media reports from over a year ago. What is the delay I wonder.

the_syco

goz83 wrote: »

I have never smoked cannabis, or used illegal drugs and in general terms, I disagree with the use of drugs, legal and illegal, unless they are genuinely needed. If someone is prescribed cannabis and it is being used under the care and instruction of their medical practitioner, there really isn't an issue there imo.

This. What many people don't seem to "get" is that when "weed" is legalised, it won't be weed. It'll be cannabinoid oil that'll be targeted for people with MS or epilepsy, and do sfa for anyone else.

http://www.msreadathon.ie/blog-articles/1818-irish-healthcare-firm-launches-campaign-to-change-medical-cannabis-law

“We want to change the law in Ireland and build a proper research and development facility with the aim of producing cannabis medicines for export, and not just for MS patients but for cancer patients, epilepsy patients and patients with chronic pain,” says Linden.

goz83

nm wrote: »

Lol - you can't be serious? You were being coherent in your argument but you've just taken a turn for the ludicrous here.

First 10 words were tongue-in-cheek after the two posters above said they were divorced, but the legal forum....sometimes, I forget I am in, which is not necessarily the place for such comments. The rest, is a genuine experience of people I know that cannabis had a significant weight in the breakdown of longterm relationships. Yes, there were other factors, of course. This isn't the thread to get into that though.

It is more than a little delusional for someone to be a frequent user of cannabis for a quarter of a century and claim they are not addicted to it. Then another user pops in and says it was the easiest thing in the world to give up, while in the next sentence, admitting to still using :pac: That's the same as claiming that you don't drink alcohol, but just have the occasional drink on occasion. I would say that that person drinks.....but, isn't necessarily an alcoholic, just because he/she drinks.

The stuff I hear people say would make your jaw drop, it's often so ludicrously contradictory. To me, it's black and white. Either you do, or you don't. Frequency of use, is a secondary consideration.

teddyhead

goz83 wrote: »

No "major side effects"? Someone smoking it for 26 years, even at small amounts, unless it is needed, is of course going to have some negative side effects. Although I could not be certain, the loss of the house, in the divorce, could have been partially as a result of being a cannabis user. It cannot be denied that recreational, regular use of cannabis, will have a negative impact on a person. Even minor side effects are a bad thing when you must rely on a drug. There is such a thing as a functional alcoholic, but that's not what we are discussing.

Ever heard of facts or evidence? Some presumptious ,rather patronizing statements there. Who are you ? Joe Duffy?
Half of Europe and many US states disagree with your 1950s view on things.

goz83

teddyhead wrote: »

Ever heard of facts or evidence? Some presumptious ,rather patronizing statements there. Who are you ? Joe Duffy?
Half of Europe and many US states disagree with your 1950s view on things.

How about you link your facts and evidence instead of trumping in with sloppy statements.

I speak from personal experience, observation and client stories, much of which I posted is common knowledge.

Are you a cannabis user?

teddyhead

We should also take a look at the lucrative 'cannabis rehabilitation' industry , where cynical quacks exploit and cash in on, the fear of cannabis. This industry makes a lot of money from genuinely worried parents by preying on their fears and giving them unscientific information about cannabis. Of course , if your parents think you are ' a crazy junkie' when you are just a typical teen , this will affect a young persons sense of self.

teddyhead

goz83 wrote: »

How about you link your facts and evidence instead of trumping in with sloppy statements.

I speak from personal experience, observation and client stories, much of which I posted is common knowledge.

Are you a cannabis user?

Yes I am. My biggest problem is the financial aspect of the habit. Other than that , it has helped me greatly.

hfallada

goz83 wrote: »

Another divorce cannabis user. Are we seeing a trend here? The two people I know personally, who smoked for 15 and 25+ years respectively, are both separated from their partners of 10 and 20+ years. No houses to be divided, but broken homes all the same.

For the record, I haven't said that a cannabis user can't hold down a job, or be promoted, or anything of the sort. I have stated that there are negative side effects, which I have listed above. It won't necessarily stop someone from achieving, but, in my opinion, it limits them. Is that clear, or is it still a load of balls?

Maybe the fact they had no house to divide made getting a divorce easier. There was no significant barrier to them getting divorced. I know a fair amount of pioneers, who have never smoked or drank and would divorce tomorrow if they werent in negative equity. Is there a trend there between people who dont drink and divorce tomorrow if they werent in negative equity? No. As you cant base trends on small size of a few people.

There is millions of recreational drug users in the US with excellent jobs, highly motived and extremely wealthy. Just because they have an odd joint doesnt affect their career, like the way someone having a glass of wine, doesnt turn them into a raging alcoholic.

http://freakonomics.com/2014/04/17/whats-more-dangerous-marijuana-or-alcohol-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

Most scientists will tell you alcohol is far more harmful than cannabis. Yeah Cannabis causes some mental health issues, but so does alcohol. Alcohol long term use to the body is extremely disturbing. You dont see those physical affects to people who smoke cannabis

goz83

teddyhead wrote: »

We should also take a look at the lucrative 'cannabis rehabilitation' industry , where cynical quacks exploit and cash in on, the fear of cannabis. This industry makes a lot of money from genuinely worried parents by preying on their fears and giving them unscientific information about cannabis. Of course , if your parents think you are ' a crazy junkie' when you are just a typical teen , this will affect a young persons sense of self.

I see you have provided lots of links to the facts. Oh wait, you haven't. You seem also to have made an incorrect assumption, as to the nature of my work, in a rather cynical and arrogant way. I cannot vouch for anyone else, but when people come to me and ask for my help in this particular area (which is infrequent), I keep my opinions of cannabis on hold and simply provide the help requested. If you want to link credible findings to your own claims, please feel free to do so. Though I reckon a few more quid is made in the sale of cannabis, than the treatment of its abuse.

goz83

hfallada wrote: »

Maybe the fact they had no house to divide made getting a divorce easier. There was no significant barrier to them getting divorced. I know a fair amount of pioneers, who have never smoked or drank and would divorce tomorrow if they werent in negative equity. Is there a trend there between people who dont drink and divorce tomorrow if they werent in negative equity? No. As you cant base trends on small size of a few people.

There is millions of recreational drug users in the US with excellent jobs, highly motived and extremely wealthy. Just because they have an odd joint doesnt affect their career, like the way someone having a glass of wine, doesnt turn them into a raging alcoholic.

http://freakonomics.com/2014/04/17/whats-more-dangerous-marijuana-or-alcohol-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

Most scientists will tell you alcohol is far more harmful than cannabis. Yeah Cannabis causes some mental health issues, but so does alcohol. Alcohol long term use to the body is extremely disturbing. You dont see those physical affects to people who smoke cannabis

If you took the time to read my posts, you'll find that I don't disagree with any of what you have said, with one small exception. I do believe that frequent use of cannabis will affect most people when it comes to their career and motivation. That is not to say that a cannabis user cannot be motivated, or have a great job/career. The cannabis, imo, will have a negative impact, in most cases, as it causes issues, including mental health issues. Just because alcohol is legal and does more damage, does not make it acceptable to champion the use of other drugs, which may not be as damaging as alcohol.

DoYouEvenLift

Honestly have no idea why even just CBD oil is illegal here. It doesn't cause any kind of a high, provided it's manufactured correctly to contain no THC content. Legalising this kind of thing is completely separate to legalising THC which is the cannabis content that does cause highs which is what most people associate with cannabis.

Although they both come from the same plant, they have entirely different uses. One can be used recreationally and the other can be used to legitimately help with certain medical conditions. Cannabis plants can be made in a way that results in minimal THC content so that more CBD can be harvested and from here they can further reduce the THC content until it's almost entirely CBD. So there's literally no excuse for not having this option available aside from expenses. Having people personally having to produce this themselves or worse get it from some form of a druhg dealer is no good, this just results in an impure medicine that still has THC content and can possibly cause the highs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOa_2Bc-lfY

nxbyveromdwjpg

goz83 wrote: »

It is more than a little delusional for someone to be a frequent user of cannabis for a quarter of a century and claim they are not addicted to it. Then another user pops in and says it was the easiest thing in the world to give up, while in the next sentence, admitting to still using :pac:
That's the same as claiming that you don't drink alcohol, but just have the occasional drink on occasion. I would say that that person drinks.....but, isn't necessarily an alcoholic, just because he/she drinks.

Can you not see the blatant hypocrisy and contradiction in what you've written above?

Someone can drink all their lives, but isn't necessarily an alcoholic. But someone that chooses to smoke cannabis, must be an addict?
Rubbish.

goz83 wrote: »

The stuff I hear people say would make your jaw drop, it's often so ludicrously contradictory.

The irony is strong..

goz83 wrote: »

To me, it's black and white. Either you do, or you don't. Frequency of use, is a secondary consideration.

Which is why you're so wrong.

Like alcohol and well, the majority of things in life, it isn't just black or white.

goz83

nm wrote: »

Can you not see the blatant hypocrisy and contradiction in what you've written above?

Someone can drink all their lives, but isn't necessarily an alcoholic. But someone that chooses to smoke cannabis, must be an addict?
Rubbish.

And yet another person, who chooses not to read posts correctly. As I alluded to in my previous post, the secondary consideration, is frequency. So, let me try to explain to you, in simple terms, so you cannot miss my meaning again. There is room for opinion in what I am about to say, so I will keep leaps away from the much blurred lines on the subject.

A person can drink their whole lives, lets say, a glass of wine, or beer, once a week. Is this person an alcoholic, because they have drinking their whole lives? If they can say "no" to drinking, in my opinion, that person is a drinker, but not alcoholic.

I would apply the exact same opinion, to a person who smokes cannabis. An occasional smoke, does not make an addict, as long as that person has always been able to say "no" to the substance, with no difficulty.

However, if a person was ever a very frequent user of either substance (perhaps saving for a short period of time in their late teens and early twenties, due to societal norms), I would say that that person is an addict, especially if they have not stopped using the substance completely. When an addict falls off the wagon, they start counting the days again. But only if they admit that they are an addict.

nm wrote: »

Which is why you're so wrong.

Like alcohol and well, the majority of things in life, it isn't just black or white.

Whether one does, or does not, is black and white. Trying to argue that I am wrong here, is colourful.

Labarbapostiza

Okay,

The actual reason cannabis is illegal here.

The people who run the country and make the laws of the land, come from families, where one son gets the farm, another is set up with a pub, another one for the law, there used to be one for the priesthood, but homosexuality is no longer frowned upon as it was, and if it's a fine rancher family, one son for the Dail, after of course a period teaching, a job they were set up with by their uncle the parish priest.

The brother who gets to the Dail looks after all the other brothers. Even though Micky, who gosh the pub, will wipe out half the population whatever godforsaken rat hole village he drains of hope or vitality, he'll never spend a day in jail, of be referred to as a "dealer in death", as his brother Willy, in the law refers to the people brought before his beak for possession with intent to supply a substance with not a single recorded case of lethality in the entirety of recorded history.

ohnonotgmail

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Okay,

The actual reason cannabis is illegal here.

The people who run the country and make the laws of the land, come from families, where one son gets the farm, another is set up with a pub, another one for the law, there used to be one for the priesthood, but homosexuality is no longer frowned upon as it was, and if it's a fine rancher family, one son for the Dail, after of course a period teaching, a job they were set up with by their uncle the parish priest.

The brother who gets to the Dail looks after all the other brothers. Even though Micky, who gosh the pub, will wipe out half the population whatever godforsaken rat hole village he drains of hope or vitality, he'll never spend a day in jail, of be referred to as a "dealer in death", as his brother Willy, in the law refers to the people brought before his beak for possession with intent to supply a substance with not a single recorded case of lethality in the entirety of recorded history.

You are probably better off posting your musings in the CT forum

nxbyveromdwjpg

goz83 wrote: »

<snip- attempt to be patronising blah blah blah>

A person can drink their whole lives, lets say, a glass of wine, or beer, once a week. Is this person an alcoholic, because they have drinking their whole lives? If they can say "no" to drinking, in my opinion, that person is a drinker, but not alcoholic.

I would apply the exact same opinion, to a person who smokes cannabis. An occasional smoke, does not make an addict, as long as that person has always been able to say "no" to the substance, with no difficulty.

Yet, you've convinced yourself that a person must be "delusional" when they tell you they're not addicted.

goz83 wrote: »

However, if a person was ever a very frequent user of either substance (perhaps saving for a short period of time in their late teens and early twenties, due to societal norms), I would say that that person is an addict, especially if they have not stopped using the substance completely. When an addict falls off the wagon, they start counting the days again. But only if they admit that they are an addict.

And what qualifies you exactly to decide where the line of addiction starts and ends?

You seem to put people who drink or smoke cannabis in a a default position of an addict and if they can lower the frequency enough for you, well then who knows. On top of that you've also absurdly attributed several divorces and the loss of a house in the settlement to casual cannabis use with little to no information of the circumstances..
I mean your opinion is, to put it politely, obtuse.

I would hope that we never have anyone with such a black and white view of the world in power, or rather where we do, that it changes sooner rather than later.

But none of this has anything to do with the OP or medicinal use at all -

OP they're still talking about it, newstalk, Ireland behind the times but nothing new there.

I would wager the delay is in no small part due to failure to recognise the difference between recreational and medical, and the usual rhetoric and old arguments for and against recreational creeping in, as is evident even by the de-railing of this thread from the very first response.

goz83

nm wrote: »

Yet, you've convinced yourself that a person must be "delusional" when they tell you they're not addicted.

Few people would argue, that someone who frequently abuses a substances for over 25 years, is not addicted. That would be delusional.

nm wrote: »

And what qualifies you exactly to decide where the line of addiction starts and ends?

Again, if you actually read my posts, you might get the actual meaning, rather than the cherry picked, skewed version you seem to be replying to. Where have I claimed to have placed a line between addicted, or not? I did mention a line and that I was commenting on the extremes of those lines, specifically because I do not claim any qualification. As I danceed on the extremes of the scenarios, I would think my points are valid, but you are welcome to disagree.

nm wrote: »

You seem to put people who drink or smoke cannabis in a a default position of an addict and if they can lower the frequency enough for you, well then who knows. On top of that you've also absurdly attributed several divorces and the loss of a house in the settlement to casual cannabis use with little to no information of the circumstances..
I mean your opinion is, to put it politely, obtuse.

Again, I haven't drawn any line of level, or frequency, unless you consider very frequent use to almost none, as a line. I would consider this very blurred and safe for the purpose of my post. As I mentioned above, regarding divorce...my comments were part tongue-in-cheek and part based on personal experience, but you've conveniently ignored that explanation in order to beef up your post. I don't think your opinion of my opinion is valid, because you have blatantly ignored the meanings of my previous posts. Or perhaps you are also a frequent cannabis user? It is known to affect memory and concentration. In that case, I forgive you missing my points.

nm wrote: »

I would hope that we never have anyone with such a black and white view of the world in power, or rather where we do, that it changes sooner rather than later.

And you've completely trampled over my meaning, but I believe most other posters are smart enough to see what I meant, so I need not repeat myself.


I agree that the thread has been derailed, but I think, in actual fact, the derailment serves to show partly why cannabis has not seen any form of legalisation in Ireland. There is too much bickering and not enough understanding.

I hope there is legalisation passed for medical use. I will take my leave from this thread, as I believe my points should stand for themselves, assuming they are read correctly by people with an unbiased view. :cool:

SpaceSasqwatch

goz83 wrote: »

I will take my leave from this thread, as I believe my points should stand for themselves, assuming they are read correctly by people with an unbiased view. :cool:

Posts rubbish ,claims to be misunderstood,back peddles on a poor effort at trolling claiming the post/s were tongue in cheek,leaves thread with tail between legs.Did I miss anything?

As for your posts 'standing for themselves'...more like your posts were staggering around looking for a solid wall to stay upright.

Johnboy1951

euser1984 wrote: »

Long title.

Legislation was going to be urgently put through to make cannabis available for ms patients and it hasn't done so despite expected last year or 2013. It's legal in the UK plus a number of other well known eu countries including france.

My only guess is an expected toll on mental health services? I don't want to get into an argument but mental health services say a lot of cannabis users arrive at their door.

So, is it a case that the health system is to blame for ms users using cannabis illegally and getting fines or even a sentence if caught a second time; sentence being up to 12 months of your life?

Or are the courts aware of that and perhaps these cases aren't even publicized (conspiracy thing in me)

It is a pity your questions got forgotten about in the ensuing "discussion" :rolleyes:

It would be interesting to find out what the official stance on the delay is.

the_syco

goz83 wrote: »

How about you link your facts and evidence instead of trumping in with sloppy statements.

I speak from personal experience, observation and client stories, much of which I posted is common knowledge.

Pot, kettle, black. You talk of links to facts, yet depend on personal information.

goz83 wrote: »

For the record, I haven't said that a cannabis user can't hold down a job, or be promoted, or anything of the sort. I have stated that there are negative side effects, which I have listed above. It won't necessarily stop someone from achieving, but, in my opinion, it limits them. Is that clear, or is it still a load of balls?

I find most addictions limit people. However, some people who fall foul of life blame their addictions for their shortcomings, as opposed to blaming life for taking up their addictions to escape their reality.

goz83 wrote: »

The cannabis, imo, will have a negative impact, in most cases, as it causes issues, including mental health issues.

I know a few people who have had issues with weed, and have stopped because of said reasons. Other people I know have had issue with drink (blackouts, etc), but kept drinking. It's interesting as weed is illegal, thus if something bad happens, give it up, but as drink is legal, if something bad happens, keep drinking.

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Honestly have no idea why even just CBD oil is illegal here.

I'd guessing it's hard to tell the difference between weed that is strong in THC, and strong in CBD. If you have 50 plants of THC weed within 500 plants of CBD weed, it's be impossible to find them unless an independent company tested all the plants.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You are probably better off posting your musings in the CT forum

The government bend over for the teachers, the public service, and the publicans. The first two In understand the reasons, but why try to keep the publicans happy? Can't say it's tax, as they don't really bend over for the tobacco companies. Although there aren't many publicans in power now, the publican lobby is now fairly strong.

goz83 wrote: »

Few people would argue, that someone who frequently abuses a substances for over 25 years, is not addicted. That would be delusional.

To follow on from the above point, it seems that alcohol abuse has been nearly supported by the government, but as irish society says it's normal, no eye is batted over the level of drink consumed.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It would be interesting to find out what the official stance on the delay is.

Although the publican lobby can be blamed for it not being made available for recreational use, I'd say it's due to a lack of medical knowledge of how the various properties of weed can help, and the lack of knowledge of those in power of those pros.

InTheTrees

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Honestly have no idea why even just CBD oil is illegal here. It doesn't cause any kind of a high, provided it's manufactured correctly to contain no THC content. Legalising this kind of thing is completely separate to legalising THC which is the cannabis content that does cause highs which is what most people associate with cannabis.

Although they both come from the same plant, they have entirely different uses. One can be used recreationally and the other can be used to legitimately help with certain medical conditions. Cannabis plants can be made in a way that results in minimal THC content so that more CBD can be harvested and from here they can further reduce the THC content until it's almost entirely CBD. So there's literally no excuse for not having this option available aside from expenses. Having people personally having to produce this themselves or worse get it from some form of a druhg dealer is no good, this just results in an impure medicine that still has THC content and can possibly cause the highs.

Yes. There's two distinctly different types of plant plus hybrids. There's hundreds of different strains.

And there are strains in every possible combination of THC, CBD and THCA.

CBD and THCA have medicinal uses. When people talk about being anxious or paranoid they have consumed a high THC and low CBD strain.

DoYouEvenLift

the_syco wrote: »

I'd guessing it's hard to tell the difference between weed that is strong in THC, and strong in CBD. If you have 50 plants of THC weed within 500 plants of CBD weed, it's be impossible to find them unless an independent company tested all the plants.

Wat!


If a medical company was growing a specific strain with the sole intention of having it be a high CBD harvest then there wouldn't be any high THC strains just randomly in with them. And they would be testing them all and doing further steps to decrease the THC content even more to purify it as much as possible.

the_syco

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

If a medical company was growing a specific strain with the sole intention of having it be a high CBD harvest then there wouldn't be any high THC strains just randomly in with them. And they would be testing them all and doing further steps to decrease the THC content even more to purify it as much as possible.

Sorry, but it was the dumbest scaremongering idea that I could think of.

hullaballoo

I think this discussion is useful from a societal point of view. I've long been of the view that cannabis is less destructive a drug than most other legal ones, ranging from teabags to codeine. I should also say that I've witnessed first-hand how destructive it can be when abused. Like many drugs, the destructive effects are more noticeable where there are underlying psychological issues.

However, it is not acceptable for this discussion to descend into a bickering match with hard-line views crossing with moderate views. If we are going to have a discussion, it needs to remain a civil one. People are going to have opposing views to each other, including mine, but there needs to be a level of acceptance of that before any meaningful theories can be propounded.

For the above reasons, I'm now prohibiting the posting of videos, images, animated gifs or any other disruptive image, video or meme-based discussion.

Let's keep it civil.

InTheTrees

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Wat!


If a medical company was growing a specific strain with the sole intention of having it be a high CBD harvest then there wouldn't be any high THC strains just randomly in with them. And they would be testing them all and doing further steps to decrease the THC content even more to purify it as much as possible.

Here's a guide to strains.

http://www.leafly.com/start-exploring

DoYouEvenLift

InTheTrees wrote: »

Here's a guide to strains.

http://www.leafly.com/start-exploring

I'm talking about the production of CBD oil rather than cannabis to be smoked.

InTheTrees

Ah right.

Its certainly a shame that CBD oil isnt easily available.

InTheTrees

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I'm talking about the production of CBD oil rather than cannabis to be smoked.

Sorry for the slow reply.

The oil is extracted from the plant. You have to grow the plant first, then you extract the oil. If you want the oil to be low THC and high in CBD then you extract it from a strain with those characteristics.

One of the most popular is called "Charlottes Web" named after a child that was suffering from Epilepsy. It has been bred specifically to be high in CBD and have almost no THC.

Which makes it much easier for people who need it. You simply get the seeds, grow the plant and you can make your own oil or bake it into biscuits or whatever form you prefer.

"Charlotte's Web is named after Charlotte Figi, born October 18, 2006 (age 8), whose story has led to her being described as "the girl who is changing medical marijuana laws across America."[4] Her parents and physicians say she experienced a reduction of her epileptic seizures brought on by Dravet syndrome after her first dose of medical marijuana at five years of age. Her usage of Charlotte's Web was first featured in the 2013 CNN documentary "Weed". Media coverage increased demand for Charlotte's Web and similar products high in CBD, which has been used to treat epilepsy in toddlers and children."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlott's_Web_(cannabis)

euser1984

I would just like to know if an ms sufferer was brought to court that had severe disability or an epilepsy patient with severe disability.

Number 1: Where are the special services in prisons to look after such people?
2) What if they have no money to pay a fine?
3) What if they can't do community service?

I suppose that's all that's needed to get it changed.....?