Off Topic Thread 4.0

Squidgy Black

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I was really taken aback by how out in the open it was and it wasn't just groups of kids at central bank (is that still a thing) or Stephens green - there was an chap in his 50s who looked fairly respectable and the smell of what he was smoking was unmistakable.

I've no issue with it at all, part of me thinks though that like Alcohol it would be better not entirely out on the street. It's probably moving towards legal but you wouldn't want to see people falling around in public either.

Make it legal and only sold from dispensaries, but implement fines for smoking in public.

I think the government are mad to not entertain the idea. It's ridiculously common these days (availability and the price has dropped quite a bit over the last 5-10 years), and it also takes money away from the wrong crowds funding other stuff. Regulate and control. Massive tax return, and a decrease in antisocial behaviour.

With an older generation of Irish people, I've noticed sometimes there's a perception of cannabis to be a gateway drug. In some cases, this is an issue, as you'll always get someone abusing it and chasing bigger highs. But my argument is that a lot of people who've ever sold green has ended up selling more than green because of the profit margins being higher. And it's generally what everyone starts out selling.

And then you've the medical aspect. But that's just my opinion. I respect the counter arguments, that some people will abuse it, and there can people can become dependent if they're using it as a crutch.

b.gud

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Make it legal and only sold from dispensaries, but implement fines for smoking in public.

I think the government are mad to not entertain the idea. It's ridiculously common these days (availability and the price has dropped quite a bit over the last 5-10 years), and it also takes money away from the wrong crowds funding other stuff. Regulate and control. Massive tax return, and a decrease in antisocial behaviour.

With an older generation of Irish people, I've noticed sometimes there's a perception of cannabis to be a gateway drug. In some cases, this is an issue, as you'll always get someone abusing it and chasing bigger highs. But my argument is that a lot of people who've ever sold green has ended up selling more than green because of the profit margins being higher. And it's generally what everyone starts out selling.

And then you've the medical aspect. But that's just my opinion. I respect the counter arguments, that some people will abuse it, and there can people can become dependent if they're using it as a crutch.

I hate the gateway drug argument. If people want to ban cannabis because it's a gateway drug that's fine but they also need to ban drink because that, to me is way more of a gateway drug. I've seen loads of people who are drunk try weed or coke even though when they are sober they won't go near either. The vast majority of people I know who smoked, myself included, never went onto anything stronger.

I think it's crazy, and it doesn't just apply to Ireland, that we all accept drink as a reasonable everyday socially acceptable, when taken in moderation, thing but at the same time look down of weed. At the end of the day they are both drugs that have, at a high level, the same effect on a person.

I should say that apart from the very odd time, maybe once every year or two, smoke anymore but I just think that weed is something that should be seen as the exact same as alcohol by society

Squidgy Black

b.gud wrote: »

I hate the gateway drug argument. If people want to ban cannabis because it's a gateway drug that's fine but they also need to ban drink because that, to me is way more of a gateway drug. I've seen loads of people who are drunk try weed or coke even though when they are sober they won't go near either. The vast majority of people I know who smoked, myself included, never went onto anything stronger.

I think it's crazy, and it doesn't just apply to Ireland, that we all accept drink as a reasonable everyday socially acceptable, when taken in moderation, thing but at the same time look down of weed. At the end of the day they are both drugs that have, at a high level, the same effect on a person.

I should say that apart from the very odd time, maybe once every year or two, smoke anymore but I just think that weed is something that should be seen as the exact same as alcohol by society

Yeah I think it's a daft argument myself, but it's something that always pops up and is one of those things (like other referendums we've had) that will only change when generations pass over.

Ireland is a weird little country sometimes, and can be very stuck in the mud when it comes to social issues.

molloyjh

pickarooney wrote: »

That's... not what it means. Neil is right.
There's no implied chronological order; it's a simultaneous state of being. Schroedinger's cake.

As opposed to Pavlov's pavlova

Are you sure? My understanding is that the original phrase was all about not being able to have it both ways. Once you’ve eaten the cake then it’s gone.

Edit: some incredibly brief googling suggests his interpretation is correct....

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/to-have-your-cake-and-eat-it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_have_your_cake_and_eat_it

Synode

molloyjh wrote: »

Are you sure? My understanding is that the original phrase was all about not being able to have it both ways. Once you’ve eaten the cake then it’s gone.

That's still what it means. You can't have your cake and eat it. It's one or the other

molloyjh

Synode wrote: »

That's still what it means. You can't have your cake and eat it. It's one or the other

Well yes, but it makes more sense the original way. The modern way suggests getting a cake and not eating it, which is just confusing. Why would you have it if you couldn’t eat it? Why could you not eat a cake that you have? The original order makes it a much clearer statement. Once you’ve eaten it, it is gone. So you can’t still have it after that.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that “in the end of the day” makes no sense at all.

Sabre0001

Somewhat on-topic as it's the rugby forum, but a little off-topic (hopefully) as it's tag rugby related. Playing on fairly slippy pitches, especially with winter showers and absolute downpours, and I have a nasty habit of travelling too fast for my own good. I've skinned myself pretty frequently and looking for ways to avoid it - not the worst injury to get for sure, but would be nice to prevent!

Picked up compression pants and wear a long sleeve t-shirt under jersey. Neither has really helped. Don't really want to go down the knee and elbow pad route How do contact players survive these pitches? Any other options greatly appreciated!

Sabre0001

Sabre0001 wrote: »

Somewhat on-topic as it's the rugby forum, but a little off-topic (hopefully) as it's tag rugby related. Playing on fairly slippy pitches, especially with winter showers and absolute downpours, and I have a nasty habit of travelling too fast for my own good. I've skinned myself pretty frequently and looking for ways to avoid it - not the worst injury to get for sure, but would be nice to prevent!

Picked up compression pants and wear a long sleeve t-shirt under jersey. Neither has really helped. Don't really want to go down the knee and elbow pad route How do contact players survive these pitches? Any other options greatly appreciated!

Cover yourself in Vaseline.

No idea how to solve the rugby issue though.

b.gud

b.gud wrote: »

I hate the gateway drug argument. If people want to ban cannabis because it's a gateway drug that's fine but they also need to ban drink because that, to me is way more of a gateway drug. I've seen loads of people who are drunk try weed or coke even though when they are sober they won't go near either. The vast majority of people I know who smoked, myself included, never went onto anything stronger.

I think it's crazy, and it doesn't just apply to Ireland, that we all accept drink as a reasonable everyday socially acceptable, when taken in moderation, thing but at the same time look down of weed. At the end of the day they are both drugs that have, at a high level, the same effect on a person.

I should say that apart from the very odd time, maybe once every year or two, smoke anymore but I just think that weed is something that should be seen as the exact same as alcohol by society

I read an interesting article last year in I think rolling stone magazine about the whole 'gateway' idea with cannabis.

During the Reagan years they were looking much more directly at drugs, but they never treated alcohol as a drug and didn't include it in their statistics.

They found that kids who smoked pot went onto harder drugs more commonly than people who didn't - hence the term 'gateway' drug came about.

Because of the way they looked at figures, they didn't realise that alcohol was almost always the starting point. The vast majority of kids who smoked - started with drink and went from there. Ultimately the common denominator was publicly blamed on cannabis, but poverty, mental health and social / family issues were the main culprit and the kids were just getting their hands on what ever was available.

As alcohol was the first available thing (usually at home) it was what they started with. Cannabis was the next most available and so on.

So alcohol has always been the 'gateway' drug, but it's a false positive because it's always been factors that have driven people to substances.

Yeah_Right

Didn't the Unabomber get caught due to eating cake and having it too?

The gateway drug argument is BS. Well certainly in my case. I just like drugs

stephen_n

Petrol and Tipex thiners were my gateway drugs, ban em I say... no oh wait...

errlloyd

b.gud wrote: »

I hate the gateway drug argument. If people want to ban cannabis because it's a gateway drug that's fine but they also need to ban drink because that, to me is way more of a gateway drug.

My biggest pet peeve with the drugs debate is that people always compare other drugs to alcohol and say "well that is legal". It's a crap argument because the world would probably be a better (though unrecognisable place) without alcohol.

The only argument that Weed is a gateway drug is that oftentimes the same guy who sells you weed (or at least sells weed to the guy who sells you weed), upsells the other harder drugs. Take it into dispensaries and problem solved.

A friend of mine got diagnosed with Esophageal cancer recently, which is really not good news for those of you who know it. A doctor quietly recommended that Cannabis Oil is beginning to be observed doing great things, and sort of said to try get some hands on some. I'd hate it if Ireland fell behind on medicine because "medicinal cannabis" is somehow scarier than calling morphine "medicinal heroin".

Buer

errlloyd wrote: »

My biggest pet peeve with the drugs debate is that people always compare other drugs to alcohol and say "well that is legal". It's a crap argument because the world would probably be a better (though unrecognisable place) without alcohol.

Agreed. I find the comparison to alcohol a complete red herring. If alcohol was discovered today, there's no way it would be legalised. It's addictive and can cause massive health damage and social issues. The idea that weed should be legal because alcohol is, holds no real sense.

If anything, it should be a case of alcohol should be illegal because weed is.

With that said, there's a significant swing towards social acceptance of weed. Personally, I would be all for it and allowing a controlled, legal consumption of weed which could generate economic benefits. But if that came to pass, I'd only want it if it was viewed in the same social scope as alcohol is currently i.e. it is not to be consumed in public, smoking and driving is deemed socially and legally reprehensible (not uncommon whatsoever at the moment) and it can only be sold by adequately licensed outlets in responsible quantities.

Squidgy Black

Zero point in comparing it to alcohol, when we've huge societal issues when it comes to alcohol and in a lot of cases destroys lives and families. If anything it hurts the argument for legalisation.

stephen_n

Buer wrote: »

Agreed. I find the comparison to alcohol a complete red herring. If alcohol was discovered today, there's no way it would be legalised. It's addictive and can cause massive health damage and social issues. The idea that weed should be legal because alcohol is, holds no real sense.

If anything, it should be a case of alcohol should be illegal because weed is.

With that said, there's a significant swing towards social acceptance of weed. Personally, I would be all for it and allowing a controlled, legal consumption of weed which could generate economic benefits. But if that came to pass, I'd only want it if it was viewed in the same social scope as alcohol is currently i.e. it is not to be consumed in public, smoking and driving is deemed socially and legally reprehensible (not uncommon whatsoever at the moment) and it can only be sold by adequately licensed outlets in responsible quantities.

Alcohol is legal and it proves prohibition is a failure, it doesn’t work and just creates more social problems, by criminalizing the supply chain. The same is true for all drugs, but seemingly delusion and denial are the way to go politically.

thomond2006

https://twitter.com/MiamiDolphins/status/1071874769333567488

This just happened in the NFL.

Squidgy Black

thomond2006 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MiamiDolphins/status/1071874769333567488

This just happened in the NFL.

Fairly funny that they put Gronk out to try stop the hail mary and in the end it was his defending that led to the Dolphins getting in the end zone.

Pats certainly aren't the team they were last season.

Buer

Texans blew it at home so not much actually changes for them. They'll still go to Kansas for the Championship game after winning in Boston.

If the Texans had won, it would have been big.

troyzer

My Broncos are still in this, that's all that matters.

They should be able to win out, they just need a bit of help from the teams ahead of them in the wild card chase

dregin

thomond2006 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MiamiDolphins/status/1071874769333567488

This just happened in the NFL.

They tried to play rugby? Why not just watch the real thing?

Buer

troyzer wrote: »

My Broncos are still in this, that's all that matters.

They should be able to win out, they just need a bit of help from the teams ahead of them in the wild card chase

Well you've cursed them.

troyzer

Buer wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

My Broncos are still in this, that's all that matters.

They should be able to win out, they just need a bit of help from the teams ahead of them in the wild card chase

Well you've cursed them.

Yep.

I'm going to sleep now.

**** my life.

bilston

thomond2006 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MiamiDolphins/status/1071874769333567488

This just happened in the NFL.

I don't watch NFL a lot but I've always wondered why that doesn't happen more.

awec

Watch a real sport. I think the billiards are on the telly at the moment.

thomond2006

bilston wrote: »

I don't watch NFL a lot but I've always wondered why that doesn't happen more.

A backwards pass that is dropped by the receiver is a fumble. The risk/reward means backwards passes are only used in desperate situations like today's or on trick plays.

Podge_irl

thomond2006 wrote: »

A backwards pass that is dropped by the receiver is a fumble. The risk/reward means backwards passes are only used in desperate situations like today's or on trick plays.

I'm still pretty convinced that they should absolutely be used more. On top of which, when they do use them the passes are often absolutely appalling.

troyzer

Podge_irl wrote: »

thomond2006 wrote: »

A backwards pass that is dropped by the receiver is a fumble. The risk/reward means backwards passes are only used in desperate situations like today's or on trick plays.

I'm still pretty convinced that they should absolutely be used more. On top of which, when they do use them the passes are often absolutely appalling.

There's probably a bit of a niché there that a good coach could exploit.

But realistically, it makes little sense. The risk reward isn't there and you're better off having battering rams in front of you can block tacklers away from you than having them next to you ready to take an offload.

Buer

There's probably a bit of a niché there that a good coach could exploit.

The Seahawks hired a coach to work with their secondary specifically to teach them to rugby tackle and put carriers to ground. It is insane that these guys don't know how to take someone down effectively.

Anyone looking for a perfect example should watch Derrick Henry's 99 yard TD this week against the Jags. In the NFL, it is considered one of the most impressive plays of recent years. In rugby, the focus would have been on a defensive embarrassment and the worst tackling efforts in recent memory.

troyzer

Buer wrote: »

There's probably a bit of a niché there that a good coach could exploit.

The Seahawks hired a coach to work with their secondary specifically to teach them to rugby tackle and put carriers to ground. It is insane that these guys don't know how to take someone down effectively.

Anyone looking for a perfect example should watch Derrick Henry's 99 yard TD this week against the Jags. In the NFL, it is considered one of the most impressive plays of recent years. In rugby, the focus would have been on a defensive embarrassment and the worst tackling efforts in recent memory.

I agree with you but I don't think he was talking about tackling technique.

Podge_irl

troyzer wrote: »

I agree with you but I don't think he was talking about tackling technique.

No, but its two sides of the same coin. There are some serious skill deficits in key areas of the game. I understand there are different aims, and in NFL they are often trying to dislodge the ball with the way they tackle. However some situational awareness wouldn't go amiss - the aim with Henry was just to stop the guy.