Would legalization of drugs be passed?

mr_fegelien

In a referendum? Doctors are so stigny on giving out things like melatonin which are available over the coutner in other countries never mind benzos/opiates. The thing is we have an insane drug problem with coke, ecstasy etc.. so obviously people will self medicate no matter what.

Would you vote yes to legalize illegal drugs and make them otc?

The chan chan man

No

AudreyHepburn

Medicinal cannabis should be legal without question. I can’t understand why we haven’t had a referendum on this yet tub but I live in hope.

The actual drug through....as long as we have the same kind of regulation they have in the Netherlands then I see no reason why not.

But hard drugs like heroin, ecstasy, cocaine, lsd, crystal meth etc absolutely not.

Why would anyone want to make legal such destructive and devastating substances?

Fr Tod Umptious

mr_fegelien wrote: »

In a referendum? Doctors are so stigny on giving out things like melatonin which are available over the coutner in other countries never mind benzos/opiates. The thing is we have an insane drug problem with coke, ecstasy etc.. so obviously people will self medicate no matter what.

Would you vote yes to legalize illegal drugs and make them otc?

The Constitution is not the place for drug legislation so it would never be part of a referendum.

One eyed Jack

mr_fegelien wrote: »

In a referendum? Doctors are so stigny on giving out things like melatonin which are available over the coutner in other countries never mind benzos/opiates. The thing is we have an insane drug problem with coke, ecstasy etc.. so obviously people will self medicate no matter what.

Would you vote yes to legalize illegal drugs and make them otc?

There wouldn’t be a referendum on the issue in any case, but it’s not simply a question of legalising and regulating illegal drugs. There are numerous drugs are legal in other countries which are prohibited here, but while people cannot be prevented from self diagnosing and self medicating by ordering their drugs of choice online, the law can certainly discourage people from doing so, in the interests of public health and safety.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Alcohol is legal and very easily obtained... look at the devastating effects that particular drug has had on many people's lives!

Hardly a ringing endorsement for legalizing other dangerous substances.

Personally, I view part of the role of government is to protect certain vulnerable people in society from themselves. As not everyone has the same level of self control as other people in any society.

By legalizing dangerous drugs, you will be complicit in destroying the lives of many vulnerable people, who perhaps lack the same self control you might have around drugs. It sounds great talking about freedom of choice in life... but sometimes there can be such a thing as too much of a good thing!

Complete freedom around drug taking, very much falls under that category for me. It's incredibly dangerous and there is enough evidence out there already, to show that it would not end very well for many people in society if it ever happened...

freshpopcorn

If there was a referendum, I'd doubt it would pass.
Just in my experience people can be fairly conservative about drug us.

Feisar

I think legalization is the pragmatic approach as apposed to the idealistic notions we have at the moment.

Please excuse my ignorance however where would legal coke be got? As in where would it be sourced?

seamus

Even in the theoretical case that you would put it to referendum, there's no way it would pass. Too easy to scare people over it, too many parents who'd fear for their childrens' future.

Far more likely that politicians will legalise it than the population would.

joeguevara

It certainly will never be legalised if persistently called a drug problem as you did in your opening post.

brevity

No chance.

Decriminalisation would be a start though.

I’d also look at medicinal marijuana, medicinal MDMA, and medicinal Psilocybin.

nigeldaniel

Legalize them is pointless, as half the buz comes from buying from bad people and doing dodgy stuff. If they can be picked up in a pharmacy or shop folks will get bored and the bad guys will invent new not so legal stuff anyway.

marieholmfan

I would vote for the legalisation of all drugs with harm mitigation measures in place.
It's one of only three ways to end the criminal violence that is starting to become out of control in Ireland.

JCX BXC

nigeldaniel wrote: »

Legalize them is pointless, as half the buz comes from buying from bad people and doing dodgy stuff. If they can be picked up in a pharmacy or shop folks will get bored and the bad guys will invent new not so legal stuff anyway.

Ah yes because drug addicts somehow lose their addiction to hardcore drugs when they don't have to buy them illegally? I'm not sure your local heroin addict really gives a flying fcuk as to where his gear comes from!

Cannabis legalisation is a no-brainer, decriminalisation of harder drugs is definitely a wiser approach to tackling drug issues in this country.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

There's another thread on AH at the moment (Cocaine) with very good debate and opinions on decriminalisation or legalisation.

One of the major difficulties I see with decriminalisation is that the drug supply is left to a criminal element. In Portugal the policy is if you have amounts for personal supply under a certain weight, it's ok, but over a certain weight is trafficking.

Now, you might be a very nice person who happens to import drugs for sale and have no intention to commit other crimes but I think what will happen is the current gangs involved in the trade will continue unabated. Drugs don't come into the country in sizes of 1 gram, they come as part of large shipments which are then broken down for sale to individuals.

The other problem I see is for legalisation - say the state intervenes and decides drugs should be produced in country by an approved company or by the state itself. This would take drug trade out of the hands of the criminal element but it does mean the state is now responsible directly or indirectly for supply its own citizens with drugs.

It's sort of similar for methadone treatment, but that's to help people get off heroin. It's hard to see such a program being approved for purely recreational drugs.

In both cases there will always be an opportunity for criminal element to offer more powerful forms of drugs, say if you wanted crack cocaine but all that's available is coke.

Decriminalisation or legalisation is about harm reduction. It's no silver bullet but things are fairly bad at the moment and it's time to begin considering new avenues. Some things should just be legalised altogether, like weed - that could be grown by individuals.

sbsquarepants

Not a snowballs chance.......pun intended for all you filthy druggies out there:D

Bobblehats

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Not a snowballs chance.......pun intended for all you filthy druggies out there:D

and I’m not even answerimg the trent question. For shame...

sbsquarepants

Bobblehats wrote: »

and I’m not even answerimg the trent question. For shame...

Only 1 trent I care about and that's the mercurial Mr Alexander Arnold:D

Bobblehats

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Only 1 trent I care about and that's the mercurial Mr Alexander Arnold:D

He has got to be on something. Sup of ribena or what

Graces7

Are you blaming doctors for illegal drugs proliferating? Stingy? Assuring that were they not careful and responsible with the powerful meds you list there would be far more dug addicts. If you need benzodiazepines or opiates you will be given them but not unless there is real clinical need in their assessment.

mr_fegelien wrote: »

In a referendum? Doctors are so stigny on giving out things like melatonin which are available over the coutner in other countries never mind benzos/opiates. The thing is we have an insane drug problem with coke, ecstasy etc.. so obviously people will self medicate no matter what.

Would you vote yes to legalize illegal drugs and make them otc?

sbsquarepants

Bobblehats wrote: »

He has got to be on something. Sup of ribena or what

Yeah, i hear himself and Milner are hoors for it!

iamstop

mr_fegelien wrote: »

In a referendum? Doctors are so stigny on giving out things like melatonin which are available over the coutner in other countries never mind benzos/opiates.

I can (and do) get melatonin at the Dollarama here in Canada. Send me some euros and I'll convert them to melatonin pill for you! :pac:

Samuel T. Cogley

melatonin is ****e

Kimbot

Making some drugs legal would be a great move, cannabis has its medical uses and should be available to people that are suffering even after trying all legal options.

joeguevara

Here is the only argument that anyone needs on this subject:

Who do you want to control the substances that goes into people’s bodies : criminals or pharmacists.

While it is illegal, people are making the choice of criminals controlling what’s ingested. There is no other thing that matters.

People can talk about decriminalisation, harsh sentences, rehabilitation, education. It’s all bs.

Until it is produced legally in a laboratory, we are allowing criminals play Russian roulette.

Until someone can say otherwise there is no point debating.

My opinion of course.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

joeguevara wrote: »

Here is the only argument that anyone needs on this subject:

Who do you want to control the substances that goes into people’s bodies : criminals or pharmacists.

While it is illegal, people are making the choice of criminals controlling what’s ingested. There is no other thing that matters.

People can talk about decriminalisation, harsh sentences, rehabilitation, education. It’s all bs.

Until it is produced legally in a laboratory, we are allowing criminals play Russian roulette.

Until someone can say otherwise there is no point debating.

My opinion of course.

How about we continue the fight against criminals bringing drugs into the country...

But at the same time increase our efforts to help those with drug addiction problems, but don't stop there either... get to kids at a young age, and show them a better life path than taking these drugs in the first place! Give them much better alternative life choices, and hope that most will take those better paths...?

Of course, you'll probably argue that you can never hope to eradicate recreational drug use completely from any society... and I would generally agree... BUT with the right measures, you could drastically reduce it. I have no doubt about that.

Most people would agree that we currently do not do nearly enough to help people with addictions, or to prevent kids from taking drugs in the first place... so why not focus our efforts on those areas, before we start taking the very extreme measure of legalizing dangerous drugs?

Until we can say we have done everything within our abilities on this end of the problem, I do not think there is a strong enough argument for the sorts of extreme solutions you are advocating...

Although counter to your frankly arrogant stance, I actually do think every facet of this is worthy of debate... even the more extreme ideas... I do not favour them, currently, but I welcome their inclusion in the debate.

joeguevara

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

How about we continue the fight against criminals bringing drugs into the country...

But at the same time increase our efforts to help those with drug addiction problems, but don't stop there either... get to kids at a young age, and show them a better life path than taking these drugs in the first place! Give them much better alternative life choices, and hope that most will take those better paths...?

Of course, you'll probably argue that you can never hope to eradicate recreational drug use completely from any society... and I would generally agree... BUT with the right measures, you could drastically reduce it. I have no doubt about that.

Most people would agree that we currently do not do nearly enough to help people with addictions, or to prevent kids from taking drugs in the first place... so why not focus our efforts on those areas, before we start taking the very extreme measure of legalizing dangerous drugs?

Until we can say we have done everything within our abilities on this end of the problem, I do not think there is a strong enough argument for the sorts of extreme solutions you are advocating...

Although counter to your frankly arrogant stance, I actually do think every facet of this is worthy of debate... even the more extreme ideas... I do not favour them, currently, but I welcome their inclusion in the debate.

You have some great points.

I don’t particularly like you saying I have an arrogant stance. I’m the furthest thing from arrogant but will move on.

The main issue i see from what you have posted is you immediately equate drugs with addiction, rehabilitation and reduction. That is why the current debate is flawed because the majority of people who take drugs (I don’t) aren’t addicted, don’t need rehabilitation and do so because they like it.

So when people debate drugs and talk about the very worst part it doesn’t resonate.

So back to the crux. People take drugs. Who should control what they ingest..criminals or pharmacists.

Also, decriminalisation is inherently flawed because society is still allowing criminals decide what poison people take.

Potential-Monke

Decriminalisation of personal use is the first step, imo, to reduce the amount of drug related violence and deaths. Flogging a dead horse here, but just listened to it on the radio, Portugal. They had roughly the same amount of deaths per year directly related to drug use, 330 or something iirc. Ireland has the same with half the population. Portugal decriminalised, and 20 years later they have 23 deaths per year due to drug use. People in the 15-24 year old bracket are taking far less drugs than the same group 20 years ago. People in Portugal caught with a personal amount still have repercussions, but it's more of a helping hand to understand why they take them and help them get off it, rather than banging them in jail or giving them a criminal record. The number of HIV cases dropped from 1016 in 2001 to 56! in 2012.

Pretty good article about it here, with hapes of references for people to check: https://transformdrugs.org/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight/

As said on the radio, putting users into prison or giving them a criminal record benefits absolutely no-one, and further stigmatises people who use them, instead of helping them. Decriminalisation would be a stepping stone to change that, and while it would mean less people in prison for drug offences, and less criminal records, it doesn't exclude the fact that dealers and importers are still dealt with as per current legislation, that is they will get massive fines and prison time. Decriminalising does not mean the drug trade will go crazy and everyone will be off their heads, there's too much evidence out there to the contrary (again, Portugal being the best example as it's one of the few countries to have lots of data on this (20 years).

And I do understand that a lot of people get offered drugs over in Portugal, but I wonder is this only in the main touristy areas, or everywhere. Seems to be the main tourist areas, dealers are just taking advantage of the visitors who actually do want drugs. Portugal should clamp down on this imo.

Also, by legalising cannabis, you're taking one of the most profitable drugs for criminal gangs out of their hands. I've no doubt more people would stop the harder stuff if they could get proper quality cannabis under controlled conditions. Even better, lots of people would start growing their own, saving hundreds which would be then spent on the economy, instead of going to the criminal organisations. I think that people are still too narrow minded when it comes to the big bad wolf that is drugs, cemented by growing up in a Catholic country controlled by the church (chruch: drugs bad, sex with little boys swept under the carpet). A the saving to the Garda time and resources would be astromonical, having served as a member myself. Too much time spent chasing the users (because no one will give a statement against the dealers) that could be re-diverted to the catching the dealers and other associated crime. Even the ex-Commissioner believes decriminalisation of drugs is the best way forward.

I can't see anything happening anytime soon, we just need more of the older generation to die off so we can have a proper talk about it.

joeguevara

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Decriminalisation of personal use is the first step, imo, to reduce the amount of drug related violence and deaths. Flogging a dead horse here, but just listened to it on the radio, Portugal. They had roughly the same amount of deaths per year directly related to drug use, 330 or something iirc. Ireland has the same with half the population. Portugal decriminalised, and 20 years later they have 23 deaths per year due to drug use. People in the 15-24 year old bracket are taking far less drugs than the same group 20 years ago. People in Portugal caught with a personal amount still have repercussions, but it's more of a helping hand to understand why they take them and help them get off it, rather than banging them in jail or giving them a criminal record. The number of HIV cases dropped from 1016 in 2001 to 56! in 2012.

Pretty good article about it here, with hapes of references for people to check: https://transformdrugs.org/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight/

As said on the radio, putting users into prison or giving them a criminal record benefits absolutely no-one, and further stigmatises people who use them, instead of helping them. Decriminalisation would be a stepping stone to change that, and while it would mean less people in prison for drug offences, and less criminal records, it doesn't exclude the fact that dealers and importers are still dealt with as per current legislation, that is they will get massive fines and prison time. Decriminalising does not mean the drug trade will go crazy and everyone will be off their heads, there's too much evidence out there to the contrary (again, Portugal being the best example as it's one of the few countries to have lots of data on this (20 years).

And I do understand that a lot of people get offered drugs over in Portugal, but I wonder is this only in the main touristy areas, or everywhere. Seems to be the main tourist areas, dealers are just taking advantage of the visitors who actually do want drugs. Portugal should clamp down on this imo.

Also, by legalising cannabis, you're taking one of the most profitable drugs for criminal gangs out of their hands. I've no doubt more people would stop the harder stuff if they could get proper quality cannabis under controlled conditions. Even better, lots of people would start growing their own, saving hundreds which would be then spent on the economy, instead of going to the criminal organisations. I think that people are still too narrow minded when it comes to the big bad wolf that is drugs, cemented by growing up in a Catholic country controlled by the church (chruch: drugs bad, sex with little boys swept under the carpet). A the saving to the Garda time and resources would be astromonical, having served as a member myself. Too much time spent chasing the users (because no one will give a statement against the dealers) that could be re-diverted to the catching the dealers and other associated crime. Even the ex-Commissioner believes decriminalisation of drugs is the best way forward.

I can't see anything happening anytime soon, we just need more of the older generation to die off so we can have a proper talk about it.

Again some excellent points in this post and on the face of it nothing to argue against. But it still misses the point. If you decriminalise drugs you are still allowing criminals decide what drugs and mix goes into peoples bodies. The fact that the end user isn’t prosecuted for possession doesn’t mitigate the fact that a criminal has effectively decided the poison he or she will take.

With regards your cannabis argument that may have been true 20 years ago but not anymore. Drug gangs who sell cocaine are rarely involved in cannabis because of grow houses locally. Also look at US states where cannabis can be bought from vending machines after being legally grown and sold, stil have major issues with all other drugs.

At the end of the day, society has to understand that people take drugs and like doing so. Should those drugs be manufactured safely and in clean laboratories or somewhere where the health of end user is irrelevant.

topmanamillion

The "let's copy the Netherlands" argument is weak at best. Its a bit like saying let's copy the French approach to drinking. Ignoring the fact alcoholism is rampant over there and 50,000 French men and women are dying prematurely from alcohol related diseases every year.

Street dealing is widespread in Amsterdam. There's no regulation of Marijuana as it's illegal to grow it but legal to sell or some such nonsense loophole. So the potency of it varies widely from vendor to vendor.

Legalise cannabis and who's going to sell it? It'll be the people in this country that know most about its sale. That's not Jimmy with the 9-5 and 2.5 children.

There'll always be a criminal element to currently illegal drugs. Only strains of cannabis fit for human consumption would be approved for sale meaning the more potent strains would be left in criminals hands.

Legalise cocaine and the same would happen. There's be a newer more deadlier, more potent variety available in the morning made from toxic waste that people would sell their own grandmother's to snort it up their nose for a €100 a go.

But let's continue to believe the myths that Holland is a utopia because Marijuana is semi legal and that the French are sophisticated because they expose their children to alcohol consumption at a young age. We've much to learn from them but not in the way this thread is leaning twoards.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

joeguevara wrote: »

You have some great points.

I don’t particularly like you saying I have an arrogant stance. I’m the furthest thing from arrogant but will move on.

The main issue i see from what you have posted is you immediately equate drugs with addiction, rehabilitation and reduction. That is why the current debate is flawed because the majority of people who take drugs (I don’t) aren’t addicted, don’t need rehabilitation and do so because they like it.

So when people debate drugs and talk about the very worst part it doesn’t resonate.

So back to the crux. People take drugs. Who should control what they ingest..criminals or pharmacists.

Also, decriminalisation is inherently flawed because society is still allowing criminals decide what poison people take.

See now this is where I think there is a massive blind spot on this issue...

So-called moderate users of drugs, not only don't think they are part of the problem... you don't even think you are part of the equation. But you are!

Just because you don't need rehab or your drug use is not taking over your life... this doesn't mean you don't have a problem. You likely do have a problem, it's just not as severe as other people... but you are definitely still part of the problem!

We live in a society where many people can have moderate to serious alcohol addiction, but they don't even recognise it because they are still going to work on a monday morning and managing to function reasonably well... and possibly all their mates are in the same boat. They're not looking at each other and seeing mild alcohol dependency... but that's often exactly what it is in reality!

Or you have people who constantly need drugs from their pharmacy, because they're always mildly sick with some ailment... because they're unhealthy and can't break free from this cycle...

All these people are part of the collective problem in society... you don't need to be sleeping under a park bench with a bottle of wine or addicted to painkillers etc to be a problem...

100,000's or even millions of people needing to take drugs every week of their life in order to have a good time or function at a better level day-to-day... that's a problem in society... and it's actually a much bigger problem overall than many people realize! And of course it puts in place a culture where the serious problem users are more likely to occur...

If drug use in general in society - even moderate use - was much lower, cases of serious problem users would be lower too. If we didn't have such a strong culture of recreational alcohol use... there would be far less cases of serious alcoholics too... both things very much go hand in hand together. They are just different degrees of the same issue!

Now, you might say I'm not harming anyone and it's my choice... I'm in control of my personal use... I'm not here to tell you, as an individual, how to live your life...

But as far as I can see, the push to legalize dangerous drugs is actually coming from a selfish and frankly snobbish mindset... people who feel they are more moderate users or in more control of their usage, don't like being lumped in with problem addicts or in any way connected to underworld criminals... that's the main motivation behind the push for legalization!

But you are connected to those people... you are part of the equation and the wider problem. Just like the rich man or woman sitting at home, polishing off bottles of super expensive wine is still very much part of the problem... You don't exist in a vacuum free from scrutiny or judgement.

And while you are free to live your life how you wish, you should not have the power to change the entire legal framework of a country... just so you can feel better about your chosen lifestyle!

joeguevara

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

See now this is where I think there is a massive blind spot on this issue...

So-called moderate users of drugs, not only don't think they are part of the problem... you don't even think you are part of the equation. But you are!

Just because you don't need rehab or your drug use is not taking over your life... this doesn't mean you don't have a problem. You likely do have a problem, it's just not as severe as other people... but you are definitely still part of the problem!

We live in a society where many people can have moderate to serious alcohol addiction, but they don't even recognise it because they are still going to work on a monday morning and managing to function reasonably well... and possibly all their mates are in the same boat. They're not looking at each other and seeing mild alcohol dependency... but that's often exactly what it is in reality!

Or you have people who constantly need drugs from their pharmacy, because they're always mildly sick with some ailment... because they're unhealthy and can't break free from this cycle...

All these people are part of the collective problem in society... you don't need to be sleeping under a park bench with a bottle of wine or addicted to painkillers etc to be a problem...

100,000's or even millions of people needing to take drugs every week of their life in order to have a good time or function at a better level day-to-day... that's a problem in society... and it's actually a much bigger problem overall than many people realize! And of course it puts in place a culture where the serious problem users are more likely to occur...

If drug use in general in society - even moderate use - was much lower, cases of serious problem users would be lower too. If we didn't have such a strong culture of recreational alcohol use... there would be far less cases of serious alcoholics too... both things very much go hand in hand together. They are just different degrees of the same issue!

Now, you might say I'm not harming anyone and it's my choice... I'm in control of my personal use... I'm not here to tell you, as an individual, how to live your life...

But as far as I can see, the push to legalize dangerous drugs is actually coming from a selfish and frankly snobbish mindset... people who feel they are more moderate users or in more control of their usage, don't like being lumped in with problem addicts or in any way connected to underworld criminals... that's the main motivation behind the push for legalization!

But you are connected to those people... you are part of the equation and the wider problem. Just like the rich man or woman sitting at home, polishing off bottles of super expensive wine is still very much part of the problem... You don't exist in a vacuum free from scrutiny or judgement.

And while you are free to live your life how you wish, you should not have the power to change the entire legal framework of a country... just so you can feel better about your chosen lifestyle!

You seem to have missed where I specifically stated I don’t take drugs. But in any case you make valid points even though reading it it seems directed at me.

But in any case, I don’t understand your use of the adjectives snobby mind set. It is actually irrelevant. But in any case, the crux of your argument is that a particular lifestyle should not be able to change a legal framework. Agreed. But what is the alternative. Again, while illegal criminals decide what is ingested and basically if people love or die. So using your argument, people are deciding a legal framework which allows unregulated and poisonous narcotics to be taken just because they feel that a substance is harmful. Where is the logic in that? Honestly, it is crazy that people are dying and gangs control things just because you don’t want to change a legal framework.

BurnUp78

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Medicinal cannabis should be legal without question. I can’t understand why we haven’t had a referendum on this yet tub but I live in hope.

The actual drug through....as long as we have the same kind of regulation they have in the Netherlands then I see no reason why not.

But hard drugs like heroin, ecstasy, cocaine, lsd, crystal meth etc absolutely not.

Why would anyone want to make legal such destructive and devastating substances?

Written by someone who's never taken a drug in their life.. Grouping LSD and ecstasy with meth and heroin is laughable.

Potential-Monke

Re: Decriminalising, yes, street dealers will still be selling it, but they're selling it now so what difference would it make really. The difference, imo, is that funds currently spent on catching the end user can be spent elsewhere. We can, as a country, help the people with addictions, and other countries have proven that the profits from cannabis sales alone can help combat this. [url=https://coloradosun.com/2019/06/12/where-does-colorados-marijuana-tax-money-go/[/url] shows where Colorado is spending the profits from taxing cannabis, and it mostly goes back into drug addiction rehabilitation and education.

The same could be done here, because people are going to consume cannabis anyway. That's never going to change. That €150 per week some spend on cannabis would be going back into the economy, helping to create and maintain these health benefiting schemes. And that's the main issue right now, people won't accept that (and i'm speaking specifically about cannabis here) cannabis users will not just stop using because it's illegal. It helps so many people, when the alternative is a concoction of chemicals made by a pharmaceutical company whose only interest is profit.

I know myself, personally, would spend the same amount of money buying it legally, having the choice of strain and knowing it's properly regulated and grown. I couldn't care less if Johnno has the newest super strain, I don't need that. I'd still prefer to buy legally and in a controlled environment. Heck, depending on the laws, I might even grow my own and spend that money on other services, still giving back into the economy rather than into a cartels pocket. Convictions and prison sentences won't change this mentality for most cannabis users.

Other drugs, yeah, I'd like to see decriminalisation of MDMA and psilocybin, as they already have lots of evidence of medical use. Having somewhere to check the quality of the drugs you buy would also be of benefit, could prevent some deaths, and will in turn force the street dealers to actually have quality products. It's like any transaction, if the dealer is selling you crap, you won't go back to him, so it's in their interests to sell good quality these days. As stated, not everyone who takes drugs is a junkie just mad to get the next fix, regardless of quality. Most people want to know they're taking a safe version of what they got.

Shur even Leo himself smoked on in college. I think the vast majority of anti-decriminalisation people are just not aware of how many people take drugs. Maybe they don't want to believe it, but I'd wager that most people who take drugs in Ireland are normal looking, upstanding citizens. People seem to only focus on the junkies. I know that I'm in a much better place mentally since I gave up drink and started consuming cannabis. And if it was legalised and properly regulated/sold, I reckon I could even give up smoking.

@Greta, I take your points, and I agree the problem with alcohol is as big as, nay worse, than the problem with drugs. Unfortunately, I'd imagine it's hard to get proper figures, as I'm sure Ireland lumps all deaths where drugs were in the system into the same category, regardless of how much of the drug was in the system. Someone dieing in a traffic accident they caused showing traces of cannabis in their system will be pegged as a drug caused death, even if the last joint they had could have been up to 2 months previous.

But, what's the solution? Convictions and prison time is not working. What is left to try only decriminalisation?

376 people died from drug poisoning in 2017 with a further 410 dying with drugs in their system, but not due to poisoning.
There are almost twice as many deaths due to alcohol in Ireland as due to all other drugs combined. (from 2013, can't find anything more recent)

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

joeguevara wrote: »

You seem to have missed where I specifically stated I don’t take drugs. But in any case you make valid points even though reading it it seems directed at me.

But in any case, I don’t understand your use of the adjectives snobby mind set. It is actually irrelevant. But in any case, the crux of your argument is that a particular lifestyle should not be able to change a legal framework. Agreed. But what is the alternative. Again, while illegal criminals decide what is ingested and basically if people love or die. So using your argument, people are deciding a legal framework which allows unregulated and poisonous narcotics to be taken just because they feel that a substance is harmful. Where is the logic in that? Honestly, it is crazy that people are dying and gangs control things just because you don’t want to change a legal framework.

I did recognise that you don't take drugs... my remarks were not directed specifically at you, I meant 'you' in the more general societal sense.

I don't know if "snobbish" is the correct adjective to use, but it certainly feels a bit like that sort of mentality.

You see a similar mentality around things like fat acceptance... and what I mean by that is, the more people that become overweight and obese in our society... the greater the push there is for general acceptance and normalization of that lifestyle!

They may seem like completely different issues, but I don't really think they are... the behaviour and attitudes are remarkably similar. If you have enough people living a certain lifestyle and making similar choices... there comes a point where there is enough people, and enough peer pressure, that there is a push for normalization of that lifestyle... no matter how irrational it may seem to people who are on the outside looking in.

As a nutritionist I am seeing it more and more... people don't want to be stigmatized for their lifestyle choices, and if they cannot break free from those choices (or don't want to) and there is a big enough number of people in that particular demographic... the push for normalization happens, as a way of removing that stigmatization!

Attempting to normalize your chosen lifestyle is one thing... attempting to change the entire legal framework of a country to better suit your chosen lifestyle, is another thing entirely... and sets a very dangerous precedent going forward...

Potential-Monke

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Attempting to normalize your chosen lifestyle is one thing... attempting to change the entire legal framework of a country to better suit your chosen lifestyle, is another thing entirely... and sets a very dangerous precedent going forward...

But isn't that exactly what happened when drugs were made illegal? We'd just be reverting back to the way it was before America scared the world into thinking cannabis is the devils lettuce.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Potential-Monke wrote: »

But isn't that exactly what happened when drugs were made illegal? We'd just be reverting back to the way it was before America scared the world into thinking cannabis is the devils lettuce.

Most people have forgotten the lessons from history... even recent history!

Many of the claims currently being made around cannabis use, were also made back in the day with drugs like alcohol and tobacco... and other drugs too. Very similar, at least, if not exactly the same.

Alcohol, tobacco and even early versions of cocaine, were used in tonics and remedies... they were promoted for their vast and varied array of health benefits. Most of which have now been debunked, or at least the negative effects have been shown to completely outweigh any potential minor benefits!

The propaganda around cannabis is so strong these days, that it's very much a losing battle trying to fight back against it... but then again, I know many people faced those same frustrating issues, when trying to warn people about the dangers of those other drugs back in the past too!

Sometimes you just have to let things run their course... and allow society to experiment and discover the pitfalls themselves in the fullness of time. It's unfortunate... but history suggests that is how some of these things play out.

joeguevara

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

I did recognise that you don't take drugs... my remarks were not directed specifically at you, I meant 'you' in the more general societal sense.

I don't know if "snobbish" is the correct adjective to use, but it certainly feels a bit like that sort of mentality.

You see a similar mentality around things like fat acceptance... and what I mean by that is, the more people that become overweight and obese in our society... the greater the push there is for general acceptance and normalization of that lifestyle!

They may seem like completely different issues, but I don't really think they are... the behaviour and attitudes are remarkably similar. If you have enough people living a certain lifestyle and making similar choices... there comes a point where there is enough people, and enough peer pressure, that there is a push for normalization of that lifestyle... no matter how irrational it may seem to people who are on the outside looking in.

As a nutritionist I am seeing it more and more... people don't want to be stigmatized for their lifestyle choices, and if they cannot break free from those choices (or don't want to) and there is a big enough number of people in that particular demographic... the push for normalization happens, as a way of removing that stigmatization!

Attempting to normalize your chosen lifestyle is one thing... attempting to change the entire legal framework of a country to better suit your chosen lifestyle, is another thing entirely... and sets a very dangerous precedent going forward...

But the alternative to that precedent is allowing criminals to control. You say it sets a dangerous precedent but surely the current precedent is more dangerous

sbsquarepants

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

And while you are free to live your life how you wish, you should not have the power to change the entire legal framework of a country... just so you can feel better about your chosen lifestyle!

The legal framework of the country is just an agreed set of rules, it's nothing sacrosanct. At the moment it is the set of rules agreed by the older cohort and doesn't really suit the new reality. The idea that it's there to protect people health is just laughable.

My old man for example is an old school hang all the drugies type, burn all the "pushers" he's been hopelessly addicted to nicotine for the last 50 years and will happily buy it off anyone who can get it a bit cheaper for him. He just can't see the contradiction in his words and his actions.

My drug days are behind me, but despite being an out and out drug fiend and taking much "harder" drugs, here i am completely un-addicted and with out an health issues.

I didn't take drugs to numb the pain, or to hide from my horrible life - i just liked to party. Now i have kids and a mortgage and so on, so i have different priorities. Most people who take drugs will follow this same path - it's just not the coming armageddon some would have us believe.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

As a nutritionist I am seeing it more and more... people don't want to be stigmatized for their lifestyle choices, and if they cannot break free from those choices (or don't want to) and there is a big enough number of people in that particular demographic... the push for normalization happens, as a way of removing that stigmatization!

Attempting to normalize your chosen lifestyle is one thing... attempting to change the entire legal framework of a country to better suit your chosen lifestyle, is another thing entirely... and sets a very dangerous precedent going forward...

I think all we need to do is keep all information accurate. If you want to be fat, have at it - but we won't be pretending you either look great or won't be suffering health issues because of it.

If you wan't to take drugs, take drugs - but you are still responsible for the things you do and whereas it's just not the death sentence we've been telling you it is, don't go thinking it's health food. For example - This is cocaine, it's x% pure - if you take so much you'll probably be OK (we can't guarantee it) if you take this much, you'll probably die.

The problem now is nobody knows what's in a line of coke, it varies wildly. You don't walk into a pub order a pint of Guinness and end up twisted drunk because it was stronger than you expected, or buy a bottle of whiskey and drink the whole thing with barely a buzz because it's been cut to shít - you know what you are getting, it's always consistent and we learn our limits much more readily. People still run into problems with it, but sure that's people for you!

Only regulation can yield results like that

Wanderer78

mr_fegelien wrote:

Would you vote yes to legalize illegal drugs and make them otc?

I would vote yes, but it won't happen in Ireland, not yet anyway

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

joeguevara wrote: »

But the alternative to that precedent is allowing criminals to control. You say it sets a dangerous precedent but surely the current precedent is more dangerous

Who controls the supply of dog meat to chinese restaurants?

Who controls the supply of Rhino horns?

Who controls the supply of young girls for sexual exploitation and prostitution?

The problem is not who is supplying these things... the problem is that the culture exists in a big enough way, that there is a significant demand.

But the difference with certain drugs, is that many people don't think drugs are a problem... but these people are VERY wrong... dangerous addictive drugs very much are a huge problem. Even if most people are moderate users... they still create a culture and an acceptance of the practice... and that is the dangerous part...

You can go a long way to getting rid of the criminal gang's influence, by changing the culture of drug use.

People don't eat dogs in this country, because we don't have a culture that exists for eating such animals... most people are repulsed by the very idea of it. But even if the culture did exist, nobody is going to seriously suggest that we bring the supply into the mainstream... Even in China, they are not seriously suggesting this even though many see it as a normal practice!

If you don't want people eating your family pet for dinner... then you make sure the culture doesn't exist for it to be acceptable. And whether you eat one dog per week or you eat 20 dogs per week... you are still playing your part in a culture and practice that will continue to exist...

Changing who supplies something will have very little impact on the end result... if you don't change the culture first...

Same with sexual exploitation or Rhino horns... etc... you could literally pick anything really. The demand comes first, then the supply comes after that. To have any chance of making an impact on these problems, you must attack the issue from the correct side first... or else you are just essentially wasting time and resources. (imho anyway)

Wanderer78

Fcuking hell, we really have brainwashed ourselves with all this supply and demand bollocks, neoclassical economics is potentially one of the worse things we ve created, it has no baring on our reality, logic cannot be used to explain the consumption of illegal drugs ffs!

pure.conya

In both cases there will always be an opportunity for criminal element to offer more powerful forms of drugs, say if you wanted crack cocaine but all that's available is coke.[/quote]

if coke is legal and you want crack you can just make it yourself

pure.conya

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

How about we continue the fight against criminals bringing drugs into the country...

because, the global effort in the war on drugs barely confiscates 1% of all illegal drugs, its a total farce and if the money that's spent already can only get this return then its time to throw in the towel

The Orb

Kimbot wrote: »

Making some drugs legal would be a great move, cannabis has its medical uses and should be available to people that are suffering even after trying all legal options.

It is

pure.conya

The Orb wrote: »

It is

it isnt really though

LeBash

nigeldaniel wrote: »

Legalize them is pointless, as half the buz comes from buying from bad people and doing dodgy stuff. If they can be picked up in a pharmacy or shop folks will get bored and the bad guys will invent new not so legal stuff anyway.

You're getting sh1t drugs if that's where half your buzz comes from

pure.conya

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Who controls the supply of dog meat to chinese restaurants?

Who controls the supply of Rhino horns?

Who controls the supply of young girls for sexual exploitation and prostitution?

The problem is not who is supplying these things... the problem is that the culture exists in a big enough way, that there is a significant demand.

But the difference with certain drugs, is that many people don't think drugs are a problem... but these people are VERY wrong... dangerous addictive drugs very much are a huge problem. Even if most people are moderate users... they still create a culture and an acceptance of the practice... and that is the dangerous part...

You can go a long way to getting rid of the criminal gang's influence, by changing the culture of drug use.

People don't eat dogs in this country, because we don't have a culture that exists for eating such animals... most people are repulsed by the very idea of it. But even if the culture did exist, nobody is going to seriously suggest that we bring the supply into the mainstream... Even in China, they are not seriously suggesting this even though many see it as a normal practice!

If you don't want people eating your family pet for dinner... then you make sure the culture doesn't exist for it to be acceptable. And whether you eat one dog per week or you eat 20 dogs per week... you are still playing your part in a culture and practice that will continue to exist...

Changing who supplies something will have very little impact on the end result... if you don't change the culture first...

Same with sexual exploitation or Rhino horns... etc... you could literally pick anything really. The demand comes first, then the supply comes after that. To have any chance of making an impact on these problems, you must attack the issue from the correct side first... or else you are just essentially wasting time and resources. (imho anyway)

what in the actual **** are you on about?

joeguevara

pure.conya wrote: »

what in the actual **** are you on about?

It is the most bizarre argument I’ve encountered. Equating eatdogs and rhino horns. Don’t know where to begin a counter.

The Orb

pure.conya wrote: »

it isnt really though

It really is though, maybe not in a manner that you like.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

joeguevara wrote: »

It is the most bizarre argument I’ve encountered. Equating eatdogs and rhino horns. Don’t know where to begin a counter.

It's not really that hard to understand where I'm coming from... perhaps I should have picked another example... but the example still works to illustrate my point!

Culture dictates demand, which dictates supply... the main problem is a culture that thinks it's acceptable to consume dog meat, not necessarily that there are people prepared to meet that demand. (or even who they are)

After the Celtic tiger, this country has increasingly become exposed to more exotic drugs than before. So many of our citizens travel abroad, to the states etc and they bring back elements - like more exotic drug use - and this then spreads into our culture!

Once things like coke etc become mainstream in pubs and parties etc... it's obvious you are going to be bringing in a larger element of crime gangs into the country which we didn't really have before. So your average person taking some coke at the weekend, certainly is playing their part in that change of culture and hence playing their part in bringing more crime gangs onto our Island...

Changing suppliers is not the answer... changing the culture is the answer... but then that involves the average joe and jane on the street looking in the mirror and taking their own portion of the blame for that change in culture... and doing something about it on an individual level...

Most moderate or recreational drug users in this country, do not want to shoulder their portion of the blame for the increasing drug culture... they want to blame anyone else... they are not the problem... they are in control because they're not in rehab and they're still managing to function reasonably well... but this is a big lie... everyone who takes drugs on a frequent basis, is part of the problem.

It's the overall popularity of drug taking that is the real crux of the problem, not just the serious addicts... Drug gangs didn't create that culture, we did... they are just meeting the increased demand.