Legalising RECREATIONAL cannabis

Samuel T. Cogley

pablo128 wrote: »

Weed is legal in Lanzarote, and has been since 2012. I only found out the other day. It's only legal in the coffee shops though. It's still illegal to possess it in public, but it's a start.

Effective decriminalisation in Portugal for possession. Okay it's Wikipedia but note the observations.

KKkitty

RayM wrote: »

Decriminalise its use, but keep the sale or supply illegal. Encourage people to grow their own.

This is the only logical way to deal with it. The people who really want it will be able to grow it for their own use. Alcohol and pretty much everything else has a different effect on every individual. One person could go out for the night and be grand after a few drinks while another may not. Same with cannibas. Making it illegal brings it into criminals hands which is worse.

Samuel T. Cogley

KKkitty wrote: »

This is the only logical way to deal with it. The people who really want it will be able to grow it for their own use. Alcohol and pretty much everything else has a different effect on every individual. One person could go out for the night and be grand after a few drinks while another may not. Same with cannibas. Making it illegal brings it into criminals hands which is worse.

TBH I don't really want to be living near anyone growing their own, especially in a city centre apartment building. Bob Marley already seems to be alive and well and living in Dublin 8.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Weed isn't harmless but prohibition makes it more harmful on an individual and societal level. Don't see why it can't be fully legalised but decriminalisation would be better than nothing.

DickSwiveller

Keep it illegal with a slap on the wrist

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

To this we shall return.



Why, because of the rampant crime it would produce? Not sure you've thought that argument through.



You seem to be suggesting that legalisation would increase the number of people 'who smoke's himself into dullness and laziness' an might I add inject or snort themselves also. That's simply not supported by any evidence.



Your opening few lines...



I couldn't agree more.

Thank you for your intelligent, considered reply.

1. No, because it's wrong to smoke drugs and it should be discouraged by a government interested in keeping law and order. If it's legalised it will be advertised and ruthlessly exploited by cynical businessmen.

2. I'm not sure what evidence you're talking about, but widespread legalization could easily increase the number of people using the drug. Do you really think the illegal trade would suddenly cease? One of the most lucrative illegal markets is illicit cigarettes. Last time I checked cigarettes were legal.

C. Montgomery Gurns

JupiterKid wrote: »

I should know about the dangers of alcohol as I am an alcoholic in early recovery. And yes, alcoholism can reach a point where you need a drink in the morning to function for the rest of the day. ...

It certainly can. Proportionately though, from my experience, needing to stay constantly, unbroken under the influence is more a trait for cannabis users. As is a lack of self awarness. Most alcoholics know they have a problem. Most stoners see nothing remotely wrong with getting high in the morning. Many believe it makes them a better person.

jameorahiely

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Thank you for your intelligent, considered reply.

1. No, because it's wrong to smoke drugs and it should be discouraged by a government interested in keeping law and order. If it's legalised it will be advertised and ruthlessly exploited by cynical businessmen.

2. I'm not sure what evidence you're talking about, but widespread legalization could easily increase the number of people using the drug. Do you really think the illegal trade would suddenly cease? One of the most lucrative illegal markets is illicit cigarettes. Last time I checked cigarettes were legal.

If it's wrong to smoke drugs, would you suggest people mainline them?
I'm sure the illegal cigarette trade has nothing to do with then being double & triple the price here than in our european friends lands.


I know someone who had a cannibas once, they died

Samuel T. Cogley

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Thank you for your intelligent, considered reply.

1. No, because it's wrong to smoke drugs and it should be discouraged by a government interested in keeping law and order. If it's legalised it will be advertised and ruthlessly exploited by cynical businessmen.

2. I'm not sure what evidence you're talking about, but widespread legalization could easily increase the number of people using the drug. Do you really think the illegal trade would suddenly cease? One of the most lucrative illegal markets is illicit cigarettes. Last time I checked cigarettes were legal.

1. That's an arbitrary personal view point.

2. Look at the link I posted. There is a debate over whether such increases actually happen but even if they do they're minimal and there is a massive reduction in harm.

The cigarettes issue one unrelated to legalisation, it's a tax issue.

jimmycrackcorm

Keep it illegal with a slap on the wrist

TallGlass wrote: »

The day I see cannabis legalised is the day I will finally say to myself we are a modern society. Until then, we are backwards and follow everyone else, very rarely do we do things first.

That comes from someone who doesn't even smoke let alone smoke it.

I find it bizarre the we as a society are trying to reduce lung cancer from smoking only to encourage it with smoking cannabis.

The arguments for cannabis legalization are equally valid for any drug such as legalizing cocaine and heroin.

I only object to it because we will simply add drug driving deaths to those from drink driving.

prinzeugen

Keep it illegal with a slap on the wrist

DickSwiveller wrote: »

.

2. I'm not sure what evidence you're talking about, but widespread legalization could easily increase the number of people using the drug. Do you really think the illegal trade would suddenly cease? One of the most lucrative illegal markets is illicit cigarettes. Last time I checked cigarettes were legal.

+1.

The head shop on Capel St was burnt down because it was eating into the scumbag druglords profits.

What do you think would happen to cannabis cafes etc??

And like the cigarettes, you will get fake stuff that will have all sorts mixed in it.

pablo128

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I find it bizarre the we as a society are trying to reduce lung cancer from smoking only to encourage it with smoking cannabis.

The arguments for cannabis legalization are equally valid for any drug such as legalizing cocaine and heroin.

I only object to it because we will simply add drug driving deaths to those from drink driving.

Do you think people are not already driving around smoking cannabis?

And by the way, there are other ways to enjoy cannabis without smoking the stuff.

DickSwiveller

Keep it illegal with a slap on the wrist

pablo128 wrote: »

Do you think people are not already driving around smoking cannabis?

And by the way, there are other ways to enjoy cannabis without smoking the stuff.

Yes there are, and they should be punished severely for engaging in suh irresponsible behaviour. Unfortunately, our dead criminal justice isn't interested in protecting law-abiding citizens.

ScumLord

LexieOnRale wrote: »

If I had to vote, I'd vote keeping it illegal. It isn't harmless.

Neither is water.Most MDMA deaths are actually water intoxication. The bottom line is it's not harmful enough to justify the mess we've created with organised crime instead.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

1. It's simply not an argument to say that because A is legal B should also be legal.

Really, I thought president was fairly important in law. Why shouldn't people be able to use a drug that's been scientifically proven to be less harmful than alcohol in every conceivable way?

2. You, and a number of other posters, have made the tiring remark that a person should be allowed do whatever they like with their own body. How can you make such a remark? A person who smoke's himself into dullness and laziness is affecting other members of his family, and will probably require medical care, paid for by you and me.

Your going to extremes, someone doesn't get high, they turn into a full blown addict that can't do anything. We have a precedent for society using a drug without every user turning into an addict and that drug is way more addictive than cannabis. People use cannabis recreationally every day in Ireland, you talk to these people and don't even realise they use cannabis recreationally, society hasn't fallen apart. Now before you say we have horrible problems with alcohol, we have problems with binge drinking at the weekends. We have addicts, but they're not the norm.

3. Your last few sentences show you to be intolerant of others who hold opposing opinions. Do you really think that's a sensible way of conducting debate? I think you need to grow up a tad.

Lol, pot/kettle/black, your whole post is nothing but an intolerant rant.

Finally, I would plead with people to think seriously about this issue. Don't support it just because it's currently fashionable to so, or because Philly McMahon says it's a good thing. Think for yourself.

That's what's happening, you're just sore that people are coming to different conclusions than have been feed to you by sensationalist media..

DickSwiveller wrote: »

1. No, because it's wrong to smoke drugs and it should be discouraged by a government interested in keeping law and order. If it's legalised it will be advertised and ruthlessly exploited by cynical businessmen.

Why would you assume that? We don't allow advertising for cigarettes, we restrict advertising on alcohol, why would we be so open about promoting cannabis? Cannabis legalisation wouldn't make law and order worse, it would likely improve it as police would be able to spend time solving other crimes rather than the soft target of drug users.

2. I'm not sure what evidence you're talking about, but widespread legalization could easily increase the number of people using the drug. Do you really think the illegal trade would suddenly cease? One of the most lucrative illegal markets is illicit cigarettes. Last time I checked cigarettes were legal.

Cannabis in Ireland has a huge markup, like, massive compared to every other European country, the black market would have a difficult time matching legal cannabis for a number of reasons as long as it's not taxed up to a price above the street price which would be difficult given the markups we have here.. The black market would more than likely consist of friends selling their own crops to friends. The whole black market for drugs would take a serious hit if they lost their biggest selling product. Organised crime runs as a business and a business can't operate at the same level if it loses it's best selling product.

DickSwiveller

Keep it illegal with a slap on the wrist

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

1. That's an arbitrary personal view point.

2. Look at the link I posted. There is a debate over whether such increases actually happen but even if they do they're minimal and there is a massive reduction in harm.

The cigarettes issue one unrelated to legalisation, it's a tax issue.

1. It is not arbitrary. I think it is wrong to take drugs for many reasons, not least the fact that it harms those close to the user. I'm sorry but how are you calculating harm exactly? Who is speaking for the parent who has to put up with stoned children?

2. How do you know the exact same thing wouldn't happen with cannabis?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I find it bizarre the we as a society are trying to reduce lung cancer from smoking only to encourage it with smoking cannabis.

The arguments for cannabis legalization are equally valid for any drug such as legalizing cocaine and heroin.

I only object to it because we will simply add drug driving deaths to those from drink driving.

Arguments that apply equally to cannabis and harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin are far outnumbered by arguments against legalising harder drugs which don't apply to cannabis.

There are already drug driving laws in place, legalising or decriminalising won't change that.

I don't even understand your lung cancer point. The argument isn't "we should encourage people to smoke cannabis", it's "we shouldn't prosecute people for possessing or producing it"

Samuel T. Cogley

DickSwiveller wrote: »

1. It is not arbitrary. I think it is wrong to take drugs for many reasons, not least the fact that it harms those close to the user. I'm sorry but how are you calculating harm exactly? Who is speaking for the parent who has to put up with stoned children?

2. How do you know the exact same thing wouldn't happen with cannabis?

1. I fully sympathise if you've had problems in your personal life, but proceeding from the cold realities of argument you've made my point for me. Read the link and follow the references to the peer reviewed studies.

2. It would, as it would with any drug, commodity or otherwise were the balance of taxation wasn't properly thought out. Diamonds is a reasonable example I suppose.

jameorahiely

DickSwiveller wrote: »

1. It is not arbitrary. I think it is wrong to take drugs for many reasons, not least the fact that it harms those close to the user. I'm sorry but how are you calculating harm exactly? Who is speaking for the parent who has to put up with stoned children?

2. How do you know the exact same thing wouldn't happen with cannabis?

DickSwiveller

Keep it illegal with a slap on the wrist

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

1. I fully sympathise if you've had problems in your personal life, but proceeding from the cold realities of argument you've made my point for me. Read the link and follow the references to the peer reviewed studies.

2. It would, as it would with any drug, commodity or otherwise were the balance of taxation wasn't properly thought out. Diamonds is a reasonable example I suppose.

1. Dont patronise me. I haven't had any personal problems as I'm not stupid/selfish enough to take these drugs. When I was in my late teens, my friends started smoking weed and I straight away noticed a change in them. Nearly all of them stopped after a year because they felt they were damaging themselves.

2. If they were legalized they would be taxed heavily and would therefore cost more. It's a fact.

SEPT 23 1989

Same thread over and over again

DickSwiveller

Keep it illegal with a slap on the wrist

jameorahiely wrote: »

Irresponsible, sneering creeps like you reallly get on my nerves. What age are you?

pablo128

DickSwiveller wrote: »

1. Dont patronise me. I haven't had any personal problems as I'm not stupid/selfish enough to take these drugs. When I was in my late teens, my friends started smoking weed and I straight away noticed a change in them. Nearly all of them stopped after a year because they felt they were damaging themselves.

2. If they were legalized they would be taxed heavily and would therefore cost more. It's a fact.

Zero personal experience of the stuff and you're an expert on it.:rolleyes:

DickSwiveller

Keep it illegal with a slap on the wrist

pablo128 wrote: »

Zero personal experience of the stuff and you're an expert on it.:rolleyes:

Wow...profound comment.

Samuel T. Cogley

DickSwiveller wrote: »

1. Dont patronise me. I haven't had any personal problems as I'm not stupid/selfish enough to take these drugs. When I was in my late teens, my friends started smoking weed and I straight away noticed a change in them. Nearly all of them stopped after a year because they felt they were damaging themselves.

2. If they were legalized they would be taxed heavily and would therefore cost more. It's a fact.

1. Okay, lets keep personal experiences out of it then. Overal harm is down. The methodology would be in the studies conducted and indirectly linked. Taking one example rate of HIV infection down, another drug related deaths reduced from 131 in 2001 to 20 in 2008.

2. Not really sure what your point is.

Samuel T. Cogley

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Irresponsible, sneering creeps like you reallly get on my nerves. What age are you?

But you're doing the exact same to other but in a less amusing way with way more effort. You're a very confusing individual that, given your username, has some sense of humour somewhere.

DickSwiveller

Keep it illegal with a slap on the wrist

ScumLord wrote: »

Neither is water.Most MDMA deaths are actually water intoxication. The bottom line is it's not harmful enough to justify the mess we've created with organised crime instead.

Really, I thought president was fairly important in law. Why shouldn't people be able to use a drug that's been scientifically proven to be less harmful than alcohol in every conceivable way?

Your going to extremes, someone doesn't get high, they turn into a full blown addict that can't do anything. We have a precedent for society using a drug without every user turning into an addict and that drug is way more addictive than cannabis. People use cannabis recreationally every day in Ireland, you talk to these people and don't even realise they use cannabis recreationally, society hasn't fallen apart. Now before you say we have horrible problems with alcohol, we have problems with binge drinking at the weekends. We have addicts, but they're not the norm.

Lol, pot/kettle/black, your whole post is nothing but an intolerant rant.

That's what's happening, you're just sore that people are coming to different conclusions than have been feed to you by sensationalist media..

Why would you assume that? We don't allow advertising for cigarettes, we restrict advertising on alcohol, why would we be so open about promoting cannabis? Cannabis legalisation wouldn't make law and order worse, it would likely improve it as police would be able to spend time solving other crimes rather than the soft target of drug users.

Cannabis in Ireland has a huge markup, like, massive compared to every other European country, the black market would have a difficult time matching legal cannabis for a number of reasons as long as it's not taxed up to a price above the street price which would be difficult given the markups we have here.. The black market would more than likely consist of friends selling their own crops to friends. The whole black market for drugs would take a serious hit if they lost their biggest selling product. Organised crime runs as a business and a business can't operate at the same level if it loses it's best selling product.

1. Do you have evidence for this first statement? I thought we were discussing cannabis?

2. They shouldn't be allowed smoke it because we don't need another poison legalized. I don't subscribe to the "my body my choice" religion; I think a government should protect people form the recklessness of others. Just like they do with drink driving. Do you think people should be allowed drink and drive??

3. See above.

4. From my experience many people support legalization because it is fashionable to do so. Don't underestimate the power of fashion.

5. I answered this already.

6. It's not criminals that cause widespread drug use; it's the people who take the drugs. "Addiction" and "alcoholism" are complete myths that deny human will power. If these people were heavily penalized for committing these crimes then they wouldn't be so quick to use them again. See Japan and South Korea.

jameorahiely

pablo128 wrote: »

Zero personal experience of the stuff and you're an expert on it.:rolleyes:

Always the best kind

DickSwiveller

Keep it illegal with a slap on the wrist

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

But you're doing the exact same to other but in a less amusing way with way more effort. You're a very confusing individual that, given your username, has some sense of humour somewhere.

Oh here we go. Thanks for the amateur pseudo-psychology. You seem to have many talents. I'm not doing the exact same thing. I'm trying to convince people that they are wrong and irresponsible. The other creep who responded wasn't interested in discussing anything and resorted to childlike insults.

DickSwiveller

Keep it illegal with a slap on the wrist

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

1. Okay, lets keep personal experiences out of it then. Overal harm is down. The methodology would be in the studies conducted and indirectly linked. Taking one example rate of HIV infection down, another drug related deaths reduced from 131 in 2001 to 20 in 2008.

2. Not really sure what your point is.

1. How are you calculating harm??

Samuel T. Cogley

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Oh here we go. Thanks for the amateur pseudo-psychology. You seem to have many talents. I'm not doing the exact same thing. I'm trying to convince people that they are wrong and irresponsible. The other creep who responded wasn't interested in discussing anything and resorted to childlike insults.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

1. How are you calculating harm??

jameorahiely

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Oh here we go. Thanks for the amateur pseudo-psychology. You seem to have many talents. I'm not doing the exact same thing. I'm trying to convince people that they are wrong and irresponsible. The other creep who responded wasn't interested in discussing anything and resorted to childlike insults.

You brought stoned children in to the discussion. Would calling someone a creep repeatedly be resorting to child like insults? Can you not express your self in a civil manner? What if a child read this?