Waterford Mayor on Drug Dealers.

Smondie

Augeo wrote: »

So the state establishes business relations with suppliers of cocaine, heroin etc..... import it, cut it and package for supply.

You're going to need some level of regulation as it's essentially a form of unprescribed medicine, so the IMB or someone will have to get involved. We couldn't have the legally sold daz or junk killing someone so it all has to be done seriously professionally.

Essentially, a gram or bag would cost multiples of what it does now so the crime gangs will continue to supply the bulk of the market with the illegal stuff.

Anyone who thinks legalising class A drugs is the way forward needs their head checked imo.

They already have links to manufactures and suppliers of drugs. Lots of pharmaceutical companies produce opioids and stimulants.

Now in relation to the price and illegal cigarettes. Why in most european countries can cigarettes be bought for 6euro and under, while in Ireland they are over 10 Euro? Our government has taxed them so heavily, they are driving the illegal cigarette trade.

griffdaddy

griffdaddy wrote: »

.........In fact, do you know the mark up the pharmaceutical companies make on legal drugs? ..............

I work in bio pharma and worked in API previously.
Your question is more or less impossible to answer.

Broadly speaking if drugs are legalised and regulated they will be more expensive than they are currently, to think otherwise is head in the clouds stuff. The Ming Flanagan brigade no doubt won't agree.

The control element was mentioned by someone else, at no time did I suggest criminals aren't controlliing the illegal drug market. Take up that chat with whoever brought it up. Which was you actually

PistolsAtDawn

BBM77 wrote: »

Did you ever think that the fact that these drugs are illegal deters most people from using them?

Did you ever think that the fact that these drugs are illegal is the exact reason why a lot of young people start taking them?

PistolsAtDawn

BBM77 wrote: »

Did you ever think that the fact that these drugs are illegal deters most people from using them? Also you don’t need to legalise them in order to try prevent addiction problems in the first place.

I mean the same argument could be applied to Pedophilia and murder. These things are never going to be completely stopped either, why spend Billions on a legal system that tries to prevent, capture and punish the people who do these things. The reason it is done is because it is the right thing to do. But for some reason with drugs some people think that legalisation is somehow going to improve the situation. Sure we have a legal drug now in Alcohol and it costs the country Billions every year to deal with the consequences of its use. Not to mention the personal distress its use causes a large number of people. So by your logic having more illegal hard drugs it is somehow going to improve the situation. I think the people with this “growing consensus” need to wake up.

Did you ever take any illegal drugs yourself?

PistolsAtDawn

robtri wrote: »

no its immature to think of drugs as a health issue, but if your taking advice from russell brand...

drugs and the issues they create are a lot more complex than murder...

any family that has had to deal with drug issues and the effects they have had will tell you.... legalising them will not make these issues go away nor the crime that is involved with users getting money to support their habits..

legalising drugs be similar to legal tobacco, look how no cartels or crime gangs are not involved in that trade as its all legal and tax paying..... ohhhh wait!!!!!

Cartels and crime gangs are involved in every trade; property, investment banking etc... but they don't dominate these trades since these trades are controlled by law abiding people who are in the majority, unlike the current situation with illegal drugs.

Smondie

How much is a gram of weed here vs Holland or Portugal?

O Riain

I know

Suryavarman wrote: »

robtri wrote: »

you really live in fantasy land.. drug use and dealing doesnt hurt anyone....
wow!!!

The only person hurt by drug use is the drug user.

kupus wrote: »

Suryavarman wrote: »

The only person hurt by drug use is the drug user.

Along with their families, parents brothers sisters kids etc,
the victims they rob to fund their habit, the victims family if it's a bad beating.

So no the only person hurt by drug use is not the user. In fact the user is the one person that is able to escape the madness of their own lives by taking drugs.
I knew a guy that contracted a blood infection by injecting a dirty needle, even after losing his arms and legs due to the infection it was always somebody else's fault.

See here's the thing, for every 1 addict, who is destroying everyone's lives around them, there are 100 people out there using drugs for recreation and harming no body, not even themselves. Yes there are people who have addictive personalities or mental health issues who have their problems increased by drugs but many of these people will find whatever substance they can to abuse in the absence of drugs. Some would sniff bleach out of a mop and bucket to get high. Also don't think for a second that I'm saying all people with mental health issues behave like this, just some.

It does get very complicated with the the harder destructive drugs (like Heroin and Meth) and I am in no position to even pretend to know how these could be handled. But for the likes of Weed, Ecstasy and even Cocaine - these should be legalized and regulated without question.

Yes you will probably still get some awful stuff on the criminal black market but you can guarantee that the criminal element will be hugely reduced.

By the way, most peoples impression of drugs on this forum obviously come from Movies, TV Shows and the News and have no sense of the actual reality of recreational drug use. People love to have a great opinion on something they clearly have no idea about. This is frustrating.

griffdaddy

Augeo wrote: »

I work in bio pharma and worked in API previously.
Your question is more or less impossible to answer.

Broadly speaking if drugs are legalised and regulated they will be more expensive than they are currently, to think otherwise is head in the clouds stuff. The Ming Flanagan brigade no doubt won't agree.

The control element was mentioned by someone else, at no time did I suggest criminals aren't controlliing the illegal drug market. Take up that chat with whoever brought it up. Which was you actually

How is my question impossible to answer yet your assumption about cost of regulation is to be taken as gospel? Why would they be more expensive broadly speaking? Because we get ripped off for legal medication in this country it's safe to assume that we'll get ripped off for legalised drugs as well? How is there such a gulf in pricing between here and other EU states.

I'm not part of the Ming Flanagan, free da weed brigade at all. I'm part of the stop shooting people in the streets and systematically wrecking lives brigade. The status quo doesn't work, let's try something else for once. Surely after 50 years of this sh1t not working it's time?

Suryavarman

BBM77 wrote: »

Quite simply this is a complete fantasy.

It isn't. If it was then you'd be able to tell us why it is.

kupus wrote: »

Along with their families, parents brothers sisters kids etc,
the victims they rob to fund their habit, the victims family if it's a bad beating.

So no the only person hurt by drug use is not the user. In fact the user is the one person that is able to escape the madness of their own lives by taking drugs.
I knew a guy that contracted a blood infection by injecting a dirty needle, even after losing his arms and legs due to the infection it was always somebody else's fault.

If I smoke a joint, take a pill or sniff a line nobody is harmed. You seem to be referring to a very, very small minority of drug users displaying your complete ignorance of the topic. You clearly don't know the difference between abuse/addiction and use, which begs the question: why are you even bothering to post your ignorant opinions on the matter?

If someone drink drives and kills someone, it isn't alcohol that hurts people. It's the driver being an a*shole.

Should we criminalise alcohol because some alcoholics beat their spouse?

How exactly does criminalisation make the situation any better? Drugs are already illegal and this person (who I'm 100% sure exists and isn't completely made up to support your views) lost his arms and legs. What exactly do you think is going to happen if drugs are legalised? Is his head going to fall off?

Suryavarman

Augeo wrote: »

I work in bio pharma and worked in API previously.
Your question is more or less impossible to answer.

Broadly speaking if drugs are legalised and regulated they will be more expensive than they are currently, to think otherwise is head in the clouds stuff. The Ming Flanagan brigade no doubt won't agree.

The control element was mentioned by someone else, at no time did I suggest criminals aren't controlliing the illegal drug market. Take up that chat with whoever brought it up. Which was you actually

What exactly is it about working in bio pharma that makes you an expert on the economics of the illicit drugs trade?

Johnboy1951

(My response is broken into several posts because I am unable to properly post on Boards)

Somewhere close to 10% of 'drug users', whether that be the regulated alcohol or unregulated 'street drugs' or prescription drugs', become addicted.
It appears that it matters little which 'drug' is the one of choice, the results are similar.
To my mind alcohol is the closest regulated drug to the unregulated street drugs that are the subject of this thread.

Johnboy1951

Part 2

We have laws governing behaviour of people who take drugs ... long standing 'drink & drive' laws, 'drunk & disorderly' and so on. So we, as a society, have long recognised that there can be some negative effects from the consumption of alcohol and have consequently regulated behaviour through laws.
We are now more aware of the health costs to a proportion of users/abusers of alcohol, such as liver disease and so on. Greater emphasis is also now being placed on the cost of this abuse and subsequent misbehaviour as well as the long term costs to society's health service.
We recognise alcoholism as a disease rather than a choice. We offer support to those who would like to break their habit and go alcohol free. Those who succeed are lauded and recognised for their 'achievement'.

Johnboy1951

Part 3

Unlike alcohol, I cannot legally smoke 'a joint'. The substance is illegal to posses or use. Yet I can legally consume the other drug, alcohol. I see no logic in this situation at all. All drugs, except those prescribed and sold under prescription should be made illegal, or all should be regulated like alcohol. It is, logically, a ridiculous situation we have at the moment.
Addicted users of any drug belong in treatment!
Dealers in illegal drugs belong in prison!
What about the other 90% of users who are not addicted?
Do they too belong 'in treatment' or maybe 'in prison'?
The most reasonable answer is neither. They should be left alone to live their lives as they chose. That could be done if the present illegal drugs were regulated and dispensed only from premises licenced for the purpose.

O Riain

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Part 3

Unlike alcohol, I cannot legally smoke 'a joint'. The substance is illegal to posses or use. Yet I can legally consume the other drug, alcohol. I see no logic in this situation at all. All drugs, except those prescribed and sold under prescription should be made illegal, or all should be regulated like alcohol. It is, logically, a ridiculous situation we have at the moment.
Addicted users of any drug belong in treatment!
Dealers in illegal drugs belong in prison!
What about the other 90% of users who are not addicted?
Do they too belong 'in treatment' or maybe 'in prison'?
The most reasonable answer is neither. They should be left alone to live their lives as they chose. That could be done if the present illegal drugs were regulated and dispensed only from premises licenced for the purpose.

Not to mention the extra tax intake from this. Look at how states in the US and benefitting from extra tax from selling weed. The tax intake is going directly to schools and hospitals. I was reading about schools that were having their budgets cut every year, for as long as they could remember, actually having their budgets increased due to the tax intake from selling Marijuana.

Also those states have not spiralled into chaos like some people seem to think is a sure thing with drug legalisation.

starshine1234

O Riain wrote: »

...
It does get very complicated with the the harder destructive drugs (like Heroin and Meth) and I am in no position to even pretend to know how these could be handled. But for the likes of Weed, Ecstasy and even Cocaine - these should be legalized and regulated without question.
...

Cocaine is not safer than heroin.

Cocaine is probably the most dangerous drug that is considered for legalisation.

Doctors concede that heroin could be used everyday by a user for their lifetime with no real medical downside. The person may not be a huge contributor to society but currently loads of people don't contribute to society.

Cocaine is very dangerous medically. It causes heart problems. Several celebrity users have died at young ages due to cocaine.

I know Philip Seymour Hoffman died from a heroin overdose. But he did manage to function to a high level while being a heroin user. Heroin users often die from overdoses and overdoses are caused by unregulated drugs. A strong batch of heroin is sold and many users die as they inadvertently use too much.
Legalisation would save lives.


Cannabis should be legalised. Immediately less people would be harmed by alcohol.

GHB should be legalised for alcoholics. It provides much the same buzz as alcohol without many of the downsides

E should be legalised as it is more or less completely safe.

Heroin is safe if used correctly, like in hospitals.

Cocaine is dangerous and its danger cannot be limited. It is bad for the heart, and bad for society as users feel like supermen and often or sometimes become violent.

Drugs like mushrooms are medically safe but can cause physcological damage in some cases. Overall, the balance would be to legalise them with warnings.

Smoking tobacco is very dangerous.



The current drugs policy is wrong and I have no respect for Ireland, or for our political system, as a result. This disrespect for institutions is important and should be considered in the debate.

Smondie

Fentanyl sold as herion is the cause of a lot of "herion" overdoses.

Edgarfrndly

I haven't touched anything in a very long time - but as a teen, it was easier to get hash than beers from the off license. Dealers don't ask you for ID. All they care about is if you can pay.

There are pros and cons of the legalisation proposal.

The obvious pros are that the drugs will not be contaminated with other substances, which increase the dangers that go with taking them. Also, it will cut out drug dealers and reduce the crime associated with them. It will also make it easier for drug users to find support and treatment, rather than being locked away for drug use - which only further perpetuates their problems.

I do have some qualms however with making certain drugs legal. I can only speak from experience, but a teenager has a very curious mind and is very easily swayed. When I was a teen, it was mostly just hash flying around in the hands of the average teen drug user.

Nowadays, at least in Waterford - it's scary how many young people are addicted to heroin. I would hate to see a situation where a teen took heroin legally out of pure curiosity and became addicted to it. Heroin is highly addictive and once you're on it - it's extremely difficult to break free.

Most heroin users today only start because they are in a very specific circle of people, and placed in situations where its use is within their grasp.

Most people are thankfully not within this circle - but I feel that legalisation of heroin would perhaps widen this circle and just send someone down the wrong path that would have otherwise never come into a situation where they would have taken it.

There's no perfect answer - it's really about weighing up which is the more functional response.

starshine1234

I would hope that if weed, E, GHB and mushrooms were legalised that that would be enough.

I know that there is nothing for heroin users on that list. Cocaine users might be able to get by using E.

If heroin was fully legalised and sold cheaply I'd be concerned that there'd be an explosion of users. While I think it'd be medically safe for those users I agree that they might well remain as users for ever.
Is that a problem society should seek to avoid?


I also call for a universal income where people receive money for free. If that was the case then it might not matter if people chose to become full time heroin users.



Some people are confused at the cost of drugs. If drugs were fully legal and sold with no restrictions then they'd be extremely cheap. Practically free.

Criminals can only exist in the drugs market because of prohibition. That's the only reason.

Speaking as a pharmacist, legalising all drugs would be a good first step. All the money saved from the "war on drugs" could be invested in rehab facilities and providing services in areas that have a high level of drug use. The issue of drug addiction is a social issue first and foremost. The reason most people start taking heroin is because their lives are bleak and they are looking for respite. Again, if anybody could provide some studies about how the current system is better than legalisation. Id be all ears

StupidLikeAFox

starshine1234 wrote: »

If heroin was fully legalised and sold cheaply I'd be concerned that there'd be an explosion of users.

Why do you think this? Heroin is easier to get in Ireland than alcohol - drug dealers have no closing time and don't ask for ID. There is very little stopping people trying heroin if they choose to.

Also, any form of drug regulation or legalisation is going to result in the drugs being tightly controlled, especially the harder ones. You won't see corner shops popping up all over the place that you can casually drop in for you evening paper and a bag of gear

starshine1234

Heroin is not easier to get than alcohol. Perhaps for a very small cohort of people but certainly not for the majority.

Prohibition does stop a very small number of people who don't want to break laws.

Many people are frightened of heroin and wouldn't use it.

But if it was fully legal and easy to get then I feel many more would try it than do currently. Drugs are good fun and so people may become addicted even if they didn't intend to.



If the drugs under legalisation are tightly controlled then the criminals can step in and sell to everybody.
The whole point of legalisation would be to make the drugs available outside of the criminal network. Make it too onerous to get drugs and you will have failed.

Suryavarman

Anybody that wants to get drugs can get them. The only people that have difficulty getting drugs are the ones that have no interest in taking them.

Also, LOL at thinking cocaine is the most dangerous drug or that ecstasy is a substitute for cocaine.

starshine1234

That simply isn't true.

I'd purchase drugs if I knew any drug dealers. I don't.


What drug is more dangerous than cocaine?
Tobacco is it?

Stop making silly teasing statements and actually make a point. What drug is more dangerous from a medical point of view than cocaine?

starshine1234

Cocaine is the most dangerous of the 'normal' drugs.

I am talking about correct use and not considering the ease of overdosing.

I am not talking about drugs like Krokodil or other new drugs.

Between alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, heroin, weed, E, GHB, mushrooms the most dangerous are alcohol, tobacco and cocaine.

Suryavarman

starshine1234 wrote: »

That simply isn't true.

I'd purchase drugs if I knew any drug dealers. I don't.


What drug is more dangerous than cocaine?
Tobacco is it?

Stop making silly teasing statements and actually make a point. What drug is more dangerous from a medical point of view than cocaine?

Alcohol, crystal meth, crack and heroin are all more harmful than cocaine.

robtri

Suryavarman wrote: »

Alcohol, crystal meth, crack and heroin are all more harmful than cocaine.

interesting graph......

why don't you explain what the red and the blue bars means....

and then explain how you can say earlier that drugs only harm the user.....

starshine1234

But some of the drugs are legal!

And they are harming other people the most!

Alcohol and tobacco!

Alcohol causes immense harm for society. Huge amounts of crime are caused by alcohol. If those alcohol users used E instead crime rates would drop hugely. So would hospital admissions.


Legalised E and cannabis would result in huge public safety benefits. Why doesn't it happen?

I hate our government for their small minded fear of everything. No leadership at all, in Ireland or in Europe really. Our societies are falling apart and yet safe drugs aren't legalised.

Pathetic.

Enda Kenny is a sad pathetic loser.


Heroin is only dangerous for others as it is illegal. Users themselves pose no risk.


If all drugs were legal that graph would be different.

Suryavarman

robtri wrote: »

interesting graph......

why don't you explain what the red and the blue bars means....

and then explain how you can say earlier that drugs only harm the user.....

The red bar refers to crime, economic costs of reduced productivity, environmental damage and loss of relationships.

The only category that makes up the harm to others that can legitimately be considered to be harmful to others and caused by drug use is the environmental damage. Environmental damage only occurs as criminalisation incentivises high intensity farming. The rest of the categories are only as a result of drug abuse and drug criminalisation not drug use.

griffdaddy

griffdaddy wrote: »

.......In fact, do you know the mark up the pharmaceutical companies make on legal drugs?..........

Augeo wrote: »

I work in bio pharma and worked in API previously.
Your question is more or less impossible to answer..........

Suryavarman wrote: »

What exactly is it about working in bio pharma that makes you an expert on the economics of the illicit drugs trade?

Working in the industry was in relation to the mark up on legal drugs not the economics of the illicit drugs trade.

Impossible to answer as patents and generics etc make the variation in markup absolutely huge, several 100% in cases.

robtri

Suryavarman wrote: »

The red bar refers to crime, economic costs of reduced productivity, environmental damage and loss of relationships.

The only category that makes up the harm to others that can legitimately be considered to be harmful to others and caused by drug use is the environmental damage. Environmental damage only occurs as criminalisation incentivises high intensity farming. The rest of the categories are only as a result of drug abuse and drug criminalisation not drug use.

they are tied together ... hence why they are on the chart...
red is damage to others and blue is damage to user....

so if we legalised drugs, you would have no problems then with your kids(if you have any) using meth?? sure they not harming anyone