Should Cannabis be Legalised

fisifan01

What do you think

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

In the immortal words of Agrajag... Oh no, not again.

(For those who haven't read the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, go read it :P)

I voted yes. There are several reasons for this- but a large part of the debate isn't "should cannabis be legalized"- but HOW it should be legalized. That in itself is a broad and complex enough issue, with more than a few threads pertaining to its discussion.

Occy

bonkey

Fidifan - if you're going to start a thread like this, please offer your own perspective at the start, instead of just posting an empty question.

jc

mike65

I vote yes with the following health warning-

I do so not because I think getting "out of it" is a good thing or because I think pot is without medical risk but simply because
I'd sooner criminals were'nt making a mint by selling it.

I take the same view with all illegal drugs, they should be
made availible on the understanding you'll be on a programme to
get you off the stuff.

(I'd treat tobacco and booze in the same fashion and sod the vitners)

Mike.

Shinji

Out of interest Mike, do you drink alcohol?

I utterly fail to subscribe to this whole "my body is a temple" school of thought on substances. Why don't we have compulsory schools to get people off chocolate and saturated fats while you're at it?

Let's all eat celery and contemplate our navels for 75 years, that's a wonderful idea...

mike65

I don't drink except for the very odd glass of dry cider, my
world view is proberly informed by two matters - I'm diabetic and fags killed my dad at 51, so I tend to a hard-line on bad addictive substances but I'll make an exception for chololate in moderation (well we all need one vice ).

Mike.

p.s. I hate celery!

phreak

i voted yes aswell.

Reason : Because i think that people have the right to make their own choices.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Shinji


I utterly fail to subscribe to this whole "my body is a temple" school of thought on substances.

It's an important signal to send to the public for many reasons Rob- not least of all the huge load on health services (no pun intended) which is in a large part due to obesity & lifestyle disorders. Millions of dollars are spent by insurers and governments everywhere on righting the wrongs people knowingly perpetuate amongst themselves. Cardiologists are swamped not with congenital or developmental disorders, but with people who are taking up hospital beds for no better reason than a horrible diet and chronic lack of exercise. A patient who falls ill because of a communicative disease can't help it very much- one who comes about illness through an unhealthy lifestyle over 40 years could not only help it, but prevent it simply by using common-sense methods for leading a healthy life.

Our species weren't meant to sit at desks in sedentary jobs every day, nor to eat huge amounts of deep-fried meats- we were (mainly vegetarian) hunter-gatherers with a high input of required exercise. Before everyone goes and jumps all over me- I'm not saying we need to start wearing bear-skins and screeching Ooga-booga (with the exception of amp, he might make more sense that way )- I'm saying you cannot ignore our evolutionary roots and how little our natural pattern of adult development has changed. We owe it, if not to ourselves, but to society at large- to keep fit, lead a healthy lifestyle- as much as we owe it to society to live in a lawful manner, or to work and fulfill our duty in that regard to society. Healthy habits I would argue, are as much part of our social contract as paying taxes and finding a job.

Let's all eat celery and contemplate our navels for 75 years, that's a wonderful idea...

No one's suggesting that for a minute. Why does it have to *either* be "Eat only health foods for perpetuity " or "Binge eat T-bone steaks, burgers, do no exercise, faff around at work AND at home like a flabby couch-potato etc." It isn't a choice between black and white- the message of leading a healthy lifestyle is moderation. Pure and simple- it means eat more fruit and veg, not less. Do more exercise, not less. In other words, add things to your routine/diet that you mightn't do already. That's not depriving yourself of anything, just adding to a routine. Unhealthy/fatty foods, if consumed in moderation, and evenly over a period of time shouldn't cause long-term harm.

As for detrimental/carcinogenic products- in an ideal world I would refuse to treat patients who had put themselves in such a position. If that were the case then I'd be all for free choice. Given that doctors are required to treat the patient regardless of how abusive they've been to their body (where do you after all, draw the line?)- I think that patients have a responsibility to lead as healthy a lifestyle as possible, in return for society and medical professionals being willing to care for them should they fall ill through no fault of their own.

As far as cannabis goes- use in moderation is in no way harmful if not smoked with an excess of tobacco- or if medically perscribed for pain-relief purposes. As such, if it were legalized, and proper dosage made public- and responsible behavior enforced in the same way as currently done with alcohol- there should be no problem with it becoming a social activity. Political obstacles in this regard stem largely from ignorance of the electorate, or mistaken prepolicy notions (soft drugs are a gateway to hard drugs, we can't put the genie back in the bottle, and all other kinds of crap).

There have already been numerous arguments about this particular topic on boards, a simple search will bring them up.

Occy

cujimmy

We should follow the UK recent example. We should also allow forward thinking GP's prescribe it

che

Originally posted by cujimmy
We should follow the UK recent example. We should also allow forward thinking GP's prescribe it

although i completly support the legalisation of cannabis, im against the way the uk have introduced it. i ask you ,what is the point of decriminilisation when you still have do go to some dodgy f^ck to get your weed. doesnt it make more sence to take the criminal element out of the process all together. there telling you that on one hand its fine to smoke weed, that you aint gonna get in trouble with the law if you get found out, but to get some somek you still gotta deal with the same process that you had before.
the sooner thay bring in dutch style coffee shops the better. it makes to much sence for it not to happen.
also, the day that i can fly into town and pick up a 1/4 of white widow will be a great day indeed.

Bateman

What should be criminalised is people coming up to me when they can't handle the stuff and think we are all "on their cloud".

Ajnag

Why the hell should i be prosicuted for choosing a safer drug as opposed to alcohol.every night in this country people are fighting and vandelising and acting anti-social due to the effects of alcohol.how many hundreds die due to drink driving in this country, and although i agree that smoking and driving is irresponsible, it has been shown that at least a driver on cannabis is slower, more paranoid, and somewhat more conentious of their surroundings.


as a tax payer why should i be prosicuted for smoking cannabis in my own home, while mara harney can use a fisherys aircraft vital for the safety of my friends lives at sea to go and open a fukin off licence which will no doubt sell alcochol to be consumed by alcoholics who beat up their familys.

and to think that fat cu*t called howard marks "Mr.Evil":rolleyes:

Im frustrated and can you blame me.

Sand

I completely support the legalistion of cannabis, I dont see any problem with distributing and taxing it as is done with alcohol or nicotine. Crap, drink diesel for all I care - so long as Im not picking up the bill....

DadaKopf

I don't see the problem with it being legalised at all. The only thing that worries me is that we Irish already have a fairly unhealthy drinking culture and I wouldn't like to see us becoming too dependent on cannabis either.

fisifan01

Yes i believe that it should be legalised for the following reasons

1) It would stop the dealers and gangsters from making a living out of it.

2)Taxes extracted from it could be used to fund drug treatment programmes.

3)Legalising it would take away the incentive for it to lead to harder drugs. As Cannabis Users often obtain ecstasy and Heroin from the same dealers.

4)The so called mental and physical affects caused by cannabis are only present in people who use the drug excessively. The percentage of heavy smokers is far greater than heavy cannabis users.

Kopf

**** yeah it should!




i'm well wasted.

ACE OwNz J0oO!!

I feel that fisifan is right in saying that it should be legalised ,BUT!, some people may lookfor harder hits and not be staisfied with just that and move on to cocane etc ,post a poll if their isnt one

Sand

I feel that fisifan is right in saying that it should be legalised ,BUT!, some people may lookfor harder hits and not be staisfied with just that and move on to cocane etc ,post a poll if their isnt one

So what? **** em, for want of a better term. If someones is so incredibly dumb as to want to do "harder hits" then theyre probably habitual russian roulette players in the first place. If they want to kill themselves in a search of a high its not your concern or mine so long as were not asked to foot the bill for their rehabilitation.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand

If they want to kill themselves in a search of a high its not your concern or mine so long as were not asked to foot the bill for their rehabilitation.

This is a dangerous argument to make Sand- as I said before in this thread, where do you draw the line? In other words, if a patient is suffering from chronic physical addiction to, say alcohol, society shouldn't help them? What about cardiac illness? If someone eats 10 burgers a day and does no exercise, by your reasoning we should tell them to f*ck off when they keel over with a coronary. Alzheimer's- if people expose themselves to known oxidizing agents by living in an urban area and choose not to keep their mental faculties honed, it's not our responsibility? Of course it is- because people make mistakes, and sometimes can't help them. If society's attitude were that you had to lead a perfect life in order to be deserving of help, then it's not a society I would want to live in. Many of the people who suffer from these addictions *want* to get off them- as such, they are entitled to medical care in my eyes. Whether you fund it as the taxpayer or not, society will still ultimately have to foot the bill.

This is a moot point however, since cannabis is in no way a gateway drug any more than alcohol is a gateway drug. I know few drinkers who decided to look elsewhere for a better depressant/relaxant than alcohol :P The main reason they haven't done so is that alcohol is a legal (and very harmful) drug- so rather than break the law, they'll stick to the old bottle. Legalize cannabis, and this concern goes away. Nicotine and alcohol are unbelievably more harmful than cannabis, particularly alcohol- just look at the number of crimes associated with alcohol intolerance- drink-driving, alcohol-related violence, domicilary abuse brought about by the onset of alcohol, the list goes on. Yet we trust people as young as 16 in some countries with being responsible about this- there is a far stronger case for strictly regulating/banning alcohol than there is for cannabis.

Occy


Occy

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
This is a moot point however, since cannabis is in no way a gateway drug any more than alcohol is a gateway drug.

This is one of the most significant points which I think is all-too-often glossed over.

Anti-marijuana campaigners constantly claim that the substance is a known gateway drug. However, what they fail to mention is that virtually all of the ascertainable reasons as to why it acts as a gateway drug are because of its illegal status, not because of the substance itself.

Put simply, there is no evidence to show that marijuana users progress to harder drugs for a "better high" - or if there is, I have never seen a credible study to that effect. Its the type of stuff your mom or your secondary school teacher come out with during the "drugs are bad, mkay" speeches, but I have never once seen anyone show that marijuana is the base cause.

There is evidence to show that a mentality of experimentation may lead people to try harder drugs - in the same way that it may lead them to try sniffing butane, lighter fluid, glues, etc. In the same way it would lead them to try drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, or indeed smoking marijuana. In other words, marijuana is not a cause in these cases, it is a symptom. It is typically the first illegal substance which people try, so often gets blamed when they continue their experimentations to harder drugs.

There is evidence to show that having determined how to acquire one illegal substance, it becomes far more likely that a user will be tempted (peer pressure, "investigation", salesmanship from the dealer, etc.) to try other substances acquired in a similar manner.

There is evidence to show that a large number of street-level dealers deal in more than just grass, thus creating the possibility of a gateway.

In otherwords, the gateway effect of marijuana tends to be because of its illegality, not because there is any actual evidence which can be used to show that it is a gateway.

jc

Ajnag

American govt test by n.i.d.a scientists have shown that cigarettes effects on dopamine levels in the brain actually increase the assocation of pleasure with all psycotropic drugs(alcohol-> heroin) such that ciggarettes are the closest possible thing to a supposed gateway drug.

Sand

If society's attitude were that you had to lead a perfect life in order to be deserving of help, then it's not a society I would want to live in.

Youre right, my view is a tad pitiless but addicts, particularly alcoholics seeing as you mention them, tend to thrive on pity - their own self pity and the well meant pity of others- as I know from personal experience. Anyone whose ever seen actual physical holes in a junkies arms, or even that british actress whose now missing a fair bit of her nose thanks to her cocaine addiction and still wants to do that sort of stuff is quite simply a moron and is going to end up receiving a Darwin award sooner or later.

Many of the people who suffer from these addictions *want* to get off them- as such, they are entitled to medical care in my eyes.

People who are so witless as to be unaware of the dangers of addiction, particularly to alcohol, nicotine or hard drugs - especially given the *massive* propaganda campaigns against them- are of questionable intelligence/common sense to begin with. They knew the risks, they made a deliberate choice, they made their bed- lie in it.

Thats the problem associated with individual freedom to do what you want, you also accept the consequences of your actions. I dont personally mind what drugs people use, Im not unusual in my use of alcohol for example, and if people want to use nicotine or cannibis or whatever fine. An actual argument for taxes funding rehabilitation might be made if the tax revenue from the sale of drugs was used to treat the addicts when they eventually decide they want out. Other than that.....

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand


Youre right, my view is a tad pitiless but addicts, particularly alcoholics seeing as you mention them, tend to thrive on pity - their own self pity and the well meant pity of others- as I know from personal experience.

Very odd...the vast majority of alcoholics that I've seen at work anecdotally don't want to admit they have a problem, even when the behavioral patterns and the liver biopsy all but shout it at them. The fact that people often don't realize or want to admit they have a problem is often the biggest hurdle to overcome. They don't want your pity because there's nothing to pity- how can you argue with them on that? We can't force treatment on anyone, but we can certainly make them aware of their difficulties- and then treat them. At which stage they don't want pity either, just counseling and guidance. To use the direct medicolegal analogy, if someone was physically harming themselves without knowing it, society has a duty to help and protect them. Just the same is true here- after many mental patients finally realize their problem, they too leave their cells sobbing. Does that mean they're wallowing in self-pity? Of course not- we just tend to have less sympathy for alcoholics because the average person knows the destructive effects of alcohol, while they don't know of the role of "magnified intent" that predominates several types of mental patients.

People who are so witless as to be unaware of the dangers of addiction, particularly to alcohol, nicotine or hard drugs - especially given the *massive* propaganda campaigns against them- are of questionable intelligence/common sense to begin with. They knew the risks, they made a deliberate choice, they made their bed- lie in it.

I take exception to the nicotine analogy, because many of the patients one sees in hospitals are over the age of 50, and at the time they took up the addiction medical studies into the effects of tobacco were repressed. There were no public awareness programmes, not even a surgeon-general's warning.

As for the attitude itself- make your bed and lie in it. Hmmm. So if you were to spend a lifetime eating fatty foods and seldom exercising, the paramedics should just pack their defib away and leave. "Sorry hun, he was just a fat unhealthy b@stard, can't help you there- he should have known what he was doing to his poor heart." Shouldn't these people have your standards applied too? What about women who drink several cups of coffee a day and develop fibroids and PCU? They should have known better too, because after all, their doctors do right? But the crowning example is this one- suppose two SCA (sickle cell anemia) patients want to have a child(knowing mind you, that there is a chance their child will have the gene expressed, a 50/50 chance in this case). If the child is born a sickler rather than an SCA carrier, can you legitimately turn around to the parents and say: "Look, you really should have understood the consequences of your actions in having this child sir/ma'am, now there's really no helping you." These examples are not unusual, they are far more commonly stipulated in our health care systems than drug addiction. The reason drug addiction is given greater publicity isn't because the health risks impact a lot of people- it's because the crime associated with them does.

Thats the problem associated with individual freedom to do what you want, you also accept the consequences of your actions. I dont personally mind what drugs people use, Im not unusual in my use of alcohol for example, and if people want to use nicotine or cannibis or whatever fine.

Again, the basic principle of accepting the consequences of your actions is all well and good, but it throws up several moral instances where we just cannot contemplate this expeditious line of reasoning. If Sand, years from now, you or I happened to develop CTS due to years of typing on message boards, would you expect the government to waive our healthcare? Or if we lived in an urban area dominated by powerlines and we were hospitalized for bone and lung cancer- should we have accepted the consquences of living in an urban area near power-lines? Perhaps not, especially if we live in a nation where government aids in the construction of private housing, some of which simply must be built in these areas.

An actual argument for taxes funding rehabilitation might be made if the tax revenue from the sale of drugs was used to treat the addicts when they eventually decide they want out. Other than that.....

This idea has been discussed many times by the FDA and found to be unworkable, I'll explain more tomorrow if you want, it's getting late

Occy

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus This idea has been discussed many times by the FDA and found to be unworkable

Small question on that one, Doc Oc....

When you say "found to be unworkeable" do you mean in general, or specifically when applied to the US structure (healthcare, revenue, etc).

I'm not trying to say that Ireland would be any better, but I think that one nation rejecting something as unworkeable is not a reason for others to blindly do so as well...

jc

simon_partridge

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus

A patient who falls ill because of a communicative disease can't help it very much- one who comes about illness through an unhealthy lifestyle over 40 years could not only help it, but prevent it simply by using common-sense methods for leading a healthy life.

Well that's very easy to say, but altering one's lifestyle is a very difficult thing to achieve, especially if it involves an addictive drug like nicotine/alcohol, but even just moderating one's diet and exercise regime can be very difficult - I always cook too many roast potatoes for instance, but at the time of consumption they seem too nice not to eat so I eat them anyway. The "preventable" health problems mentioned above are bred as much by our society as by the individuals who perpetrate them IMHO...

bonkey

Originally posted by simon_partridge
The "preventable" health problems mentioned above are bred as much by our society as by the individuals who perpetrate them IMHO...

And, of course, the same can be said about many of our substance-abuse problems as well - they are as much symptoms of our society than of the individual.

The point being made is that it is far too easy to claim that anything is simply "avoidable", and that therefore you deserve no support for having fallen to it.

While I agree in principle with Sand's somewhat utopian ideal that "do what you want, but dont expect the state to pay for the problems", I would be the first to admit that such an ideal is unworkable.

Its all very well for us to throw the sorry cases out on the street as "their own fault", but how many accidents and illnesses are genuinely unavoidable? Ultimately, very few.

While it may be easy to do, picking one group and saying "you dont deserve help - you brought this on yourself" is really only fair if you're going to apply it across the board. Of course, if fairness isnt an issue, then the addicts are an easy target.

jc

simon_partridge

Incidentally, does anyone know what the cannabis-use statistics for Holland actually are? Do they have more people using it because it's freely available, or maybe less people use it as it's become commonplace and therefore not "rebellious" to do so there?

One definite advantage of their system was evident during Euro 2000 when England "fans" (hooligans) went on the rampage before and after the alcohol fuelled game in Belgium, but were far too spaced and chilled out to do any damage after taking pot in Holland.

bonkey

Originally posted by simon_partridge
Incidentally, does anyone know what the cannabis-use statistics for Holland actually are? Do they have more people using it because it's freely available, or maybe less people use it as it's become commonplace and therefore not "rebellious" to do so there?

There seems to be some disagreement over the significance of figures coming from the Dutch about their usage statistics.

A google search on "cannabis statistics Netherlands" yields plenty of hits, and the general consensus I'm getting from browsing the figures is best summed up by a paragraph from one article :

However, cannabis use also developed in waves in other European countries. Apparently, general national trends in cannabis use are relatively independent of cannabis policy. To date, cannabis use in the Netherlands takes a middle position within the European Union. Apparently most cannabis use is experimental and recreational. The vast majority quits using cannabis after some time. Only a very small proportion of current cannabis users is in treatment. From international comparison, it is concluded that trends in cannabis use in the Netherlands are rather similar to those in other European countries, and Dutch figures on cannabis use are not out of line with those from countries that did not decriminalise cannabis. Consequently, it appears unlikely that decriminalisation of cannabis will cause an increase in cannabis use.

What I feel is missing from these figures is what I would term "transient usage" - or non-residents of the nation using cannabis. I think it is pretty much beyond question that Amsterdam would cater for a large number of tourists who want a smoke - far more than comparable cities where tourists would have to find a dealer rather than a shop, if you see what I mean.

Of course, whether or not such transient use is statistically important from a health/addiction/abuse point of view is a much dodgier question.

The other thing that I have noticed is that while usage figures look at percentages of the population, they dont seem to adress consumption per individual - while decriminalisation may not significantly effect the number of users, it may effect the average quantity used per individual, which is probably a significant statistic.

Interestingly, I found a link here which would seem to show that Ireland ranks near the top for "have used cannabis" and "have used cannabis recently" figures, particularly amongst the younger generations. In fact - we are highter ranked than the Dutch in each of these categories, although the figures only deal with 15-16 year olds.

jc

Ajnag

intresting reading, holland is fairly good by the look of things, 13th in use of cannabis, and 27 th in heroin.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1435/a05.html?1064

bonkey

Originally posted by Ajnag
intresting reading, holland is fairly good by the look of things, 13th in use of cannabis, and 27 th in heroin.

Id be curious, though, to see how individual cities rank up against each other, rather than entire nations.

I would imagine that there could be some interesting figures from that....

jc

My name is Mud

According to the lonely planet guides, 'hardline' Paris has a higher level of Heroin addicts per 1000 than 'tolerating' Amsterdam. France also has some of the harshest penalties in Europe relating to drugs.

Also to note that Amsterdam has one of the lowest rates of HIV/AIDS infections due to clean needle exchange programmes.

Alcohol kills alot of people every year, and I think nobody to date has every died from Cannabis (not saying that inhaling hot somke is good for you:))

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by bonkey


When you say "found to be unworkeable" do you mean in general, or specifically when applied to the US structure (healthcare, revenue, etc).

Well of course the study was carried out in the US, but the reasoning outlined in the Davids report seems applicable to most western democracies. The problem with ring-fencing taxes from soft drugs to treat hard drug rehabilitants is basically this- in our current system, tobacco and alcohol cause more damage in the way of health costs than could ever be sustained by even their taxes. Cannabis has no health cost to speak of, yet it cannot by itself even come close to breaking even on the alcohol/tobacco front, never mind hard drugs themselves.

I'm not trying to say that Ireland would be any better, but I think that one nation rejecting something as unworkeable is not a reason for others to blindly do so as well...

jc

I agree, yet one might suppose that given the higher rates of alcohol and tobacco use per person in Ireland, the costs would be similarly high. The plan might be workable in a nation the size of Ireland, but only if alcohol and tobacco were banned, and cannabis legalized. That's never going to happen, so we're back to taxing for general purposes Governments hate ring-fencing tax money because it tends to cruelly show them up at the worst of times (right before an election/re-election campaign).

Well that's very easy to say, but altering one's lifestyle is a very difficult thing to achieve, especially if it involves an addictive drug like nicotine/alcohol, but even just moderating one's diet and exercise regime can be very difficult

That's precisely the point I was trying to make simon- the fact that even simple lifestyle control can be so difficult means that you cannot be unmitigating when it comes to substance abuse which draws similar powerful influences from society. Kill urban poverty and you'll kill the drugs, I believe Keynes said. A tad simplistic perhaps, but his general idea is sound.

Id be curious, though, to see how individual cities rank up against each other, rather than entire nations.

So would I, especially given that cannabis is only available legally in Amsterdam if we discuss drug use in the Netherlands. And that too in a highly selective arrangement with the private sector, and with crops strictly regulated. The regulatory machinery in Holland is easily paid for by the tax, yet its bureaucratic chicanery means that there will inevitably be a small proportion of soft drug use that stays on the black market. Amsterdam is certainly the current model of choice, yet even it is not problem-free.

Occy

Sand

Very odd...the vast majority of alcoholics that I've seen at work anecdotally don't want to admit they have a problem, even when the behavioral patterns and the liver biopsy all but shout it at them.

I dont dispute your own experiences - my own have led me to the opinion that addicts (including alcoholics) are very exploititive of pity and try to externalise the responsibility for their actions - the devil told me to do it. Its easier for them to blame others for their own stupidity.

To use the direct medicolegal analogy, if someone was physically harming themselves without knowing it, society has a duty to help and protect them.

People who take drugs of any kind are extremely aware of the risks in this day and age. The vast majority of people dont use heroin because they know its got more cons than pros, this isnt exactly classified information. The same for nicotine ( Yes, I accept the companies involved did their best to hide it but the government health warnings tend to raise suspicions). So society has no duty to help and protect them - certain people might pity them and want to pay for them, fine - far be it from me to tell you what to do with your money.

Hmmm. So if you were to spend a lifetime eating fatty foods and seldom exercising, the paramedics should just pack their defib away and leave. "Sorry hun, he was just a fat unhealthy b@stard, can't help you there- he should have known what he was doing to his poor heart." Shouldn't these people have your standards applied too?

Bit of a stretch to compare alcohol/nicotine/soft and hard drugs to food. The former are of little to no actual benefit whilst everyone is or should be aware of their harmful effects. Whilst with food, well very few people are capable of knowing the exact calorie ( even general given exact type and serving size) intake associated with each food theyre eating and thus cant really make an educated estimate of the tradeoff involved. When theres a campaign as well publicised and as well known as the anti- drug information campaign against fatty foods in every school and written on every burger wrapping, with stories of victims in every days paper then Ill be more sympathetic to the exstension of my views on junkies to patrons of McDonalds.

Look, you really should have understood the consequences of your actions in having this child sir/ma'am, now there's really no helping you."

Perhaps no helping them but certinaly helping the child which made no decision - its not like Im arguing that children born to heroin addicts should be left to rot.

Personally Im of the view that certain things are well known - like protected sex is wiser than unprotected. If you insist on being stupid dont be surprised if you wind up with 7 kids by the age of 25. If you do drugs dont act surprised if you end up addicted and worse off than before. If your hobby is jumping in front of speeding cars dont be surprised if you get run down.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand


I dont dispute your own experiences - my own have led me to the opinion that addicts (including alcoholics) are very exploititive of pity and try to externalise the responsibility for their actions - the devil told me to do it. Its easier for them to blame others for their own stupidity.

Whoever they hold responsible, the fact that they made a single stupid mistake shouldn't damn their existence. Especially when it is in society's best interest (particularly in a nation with a strong drinking culture) to get these people back on their feet and productive again. Many alcoholics have steady jobs, incomes and families. You might be willing to dismiss them out of hand, but the cost to your nation will be greater than the few tax dollars you as an individual might spend to help care for them. Isn't that after all, what the social contract should entail?

People who take drugs of any kind are extremely aware of the risks in this day and age.

Assuming they went to school and heard these anti-drug campaigns- ever been in a rehab center Sand? Many of these people can barely write their own name (and not because they're high). If perhaps society did a better job educating them, this wouldn't happen, but your assumption that everyone should know isn't correct.

Bit of a stretch to compare alcohol/nicotine/soft and hard drugs to food. The former are of little to no actual benefit whilst everyone is or should be aware of their harmful effects. Whilst with food, well very few people are capable of knowing the exact calorie ( even general given exact type and serving size) intake associated with each food theyre eating and thus cant really make an educated estimate of the tradeoff involved. When theres a campaign as well publicised and as well known as the anti- drug information campaign against fatty foods in every school and written on every burger wrapping, with stories of victims in every days paper then Ill be more sympathetic to the exstension of my views on junkies to patrons of McDonalds.

And of course there are warnings on the fixes you get from your friendly local drug dealer? Several soft drugs have notable and well-documented pharmaceutical benefit, as does heroin (methylated for morphine), ketamine(transaminated to polyaxine a pain killer) and so on. As for the public awareness campaign, cardiovascular health has been aggressively promoted by doctors since the 1950s, whereas the war on drugs truly only began in the 1980s. Consider which of these is a greater risk to society- it's obviously heart disease. As for the exact calorie measurement- that's the biggest load of cr@p...you don't need anything even remotely as precise- just avoid saturated fats for your entire life and you're set. Simple- exclude a single type of fat, and attempt to limit fat intake to 30g a day. Does that take extensive dietary and calorie calculation?

Perhaps no helping them but certinaly helping the child which made no decision - its not like Im arguing that children born to heroin addicts should be left to rot.

The parents and the child are an inseperable unit in most cases Sand- how do you propose to help the child of a sickler without helping the parents? It raises important legal issues of discrimination- if the government is willing to help these parents/children who consciously erred in so important a decision as whether or not to bring a sick child into the world- why the hell should addicts be given the boot? Because bringing children into the world is "an inherently noble act"? Please.

Personally Im of the view that certain things are well known - like protected sex is wiser than unprotected. If you insist on being stupid dont be surprised if you wind up with 7 kids by the age of 25. If you do drugs dont act surprised if you end up addicted and worse off than before. If your hobby is jumping in front of speeding cars dont be surprised if you get run down.

Until you read statistical studies on the public knowledge base regarding addicitive substances, it might be wise to stay away from the "well known" assertion. It is a specious argument which ultimately does not hold as soon as the state fails in a basic duty. If of course the government does a perfect job informing every citizen, then there is no blaming anyone but the participant, but as governments have never done this, the argument has no meaning. Jumping in front of a speeding car is a suicidal action, taking a banned substance is a dependent action- they are incomparable. The 7 kids example is also flawed- sex is in no shape or form physically addictive, and contraception is a consciously controlled thought. An addict cannot help but think of his/her next fix, there is no choice involved- which generates the problems of crime to get money in order to buy a fix, or violence in order to steal a fix. Ignore the individuals if you like Sand- dehumanize them for falling prey to human mistakes- but don't ignore a societal ill that can affect you or me through the medium of crime, for that is to paraphrase, "well known".

Occy

GerK

To throw back to the "gateway drug" points its my personal belief that environment/social grouping are the only real gateways to any drug. In very broad terms, based more on personal experience than statistics:

Having a job in a social atmosphere is the gateway to alcohol use.
Being a student is the gateway to Marijuana use.
Enjoying dance music is the gateway to Ecstasy use.
Being rich is the gateway to Cocaine use.
Living in dismal poverty is the gateway to Heroin use.

Obviously if you are the type of person who craves new experience and is open to experimentation you are more likely to defy the boundaries applied by your social group.

Sand

Isn't that after all, what the social contract should entail?

Its like teamwork I guess, some people doss around and others work twice as hard to try and keep the whole thing flying.

If perhaps society did a better job educating them, this wouldn't happen, but your assumption that everyone should know isn't correct.

Im unaware of what society can do to improve on its rather pervasive message short of grabbing youngsters and literally beating it into them - though civil rights might have a field day. Alcoholics and addicts are consistently portrayed in a poor light from documentaries to sitcoms - children cant even watch South Park without being told drugs are bad mkay, along with being warned about ending up doing handjobs for crack. This merely takes a humourous aproach to the same message thats echoed throughout schooling and popular culture.

The one point I would agree regarding society etc is the advertisment of alcohol, which shows itself as being essential for a good night out and people who drink it date supermodels, drive sports cars, yadda yadda and similar crap. Id support restricting advertisments for alcohol.

As for the exact calorie measurement- that's the biggest load of cr@p...you don't need anything even remotely as precise- just avoid saturated fats for your entire life and you're set. Simple- exclude a single type of fat, and attempt to limit fat intake to 30g a day. Does that take extensive dietary and calorie calculation?

Im sorry Ive no actual concept of what 30g is beyond a figure, so its tricky for me to say "Have i had 30g yet or not? ****ed if I know". I do know If Ive done hard drugs or gone through one or two bottles of vodka in a day. Perhaps its simply a case of availability of information - Id go looking for information on fatty foods etc, for drugs and stuff its shoved into my face. Ive got more of an exscuse on the foods then imo.

if the government is willing to help these parents/children who consciously erred in so important a decision as whether or not to bring a sick child into the world- why the hell should addicts be given the boot? Because bringing children into the world is "an inherently noble act"? Please.

If a child (or anyone ) is harmed by anothers actions you cant hold them responsible for their condition.

Jumping in front of a speeding car is a suicidal action, taking a banned substance is a dependent action- they are incomparable.

Theyre both equally stupid, and known to be stupid, and youll wind up in a bad way from both.

The 7 kids example is also flawed- sex is in no shape or form physically addictive, and contraception is a consciously controlled thought. An addict cannot help but think of his/her next fix, there is no choice involved- which generates the problems of crime to get money in order to buy a fix, or violence in order to steal a fix.

Actually the example was made more in the light of do something stupid, dont be surprised when you end up in a bad way. People make the choice to become addicts, Im not an addcit (denial:x) because ive never chosen to do hard drugs or similar. Sure once you are an addict you have no choice, but you *always* have a choice in the beginning- Much like when you jump of a building, you might change your mind half way down but its a bit late then - should never have jumped in the first place.

Ignore the individuals if you like Sand- dehumanize them for falling prey to human mistakes- but don't ignore a societal ill that can affect you or me through the medium of crime, for that is to paraphrase, "well known".

Hmm, i dont dehumanise them, I simply consider them the equivalent of the guy who injected himself with equine viagra and ended up losing his penis - absolute freaking morons who dont deserve my attention.

In any case this discussin has entered (imo) the swings and roundabouts phase, and it hasnt got a lot to do with the initial discussion - If want to pm me, grand - but i dont know what you can say thatll make me believe that addicts are truly uninformed, victims of society deserving of every aid society/taxpayers can offer them etc etc.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Im sorry Ive no actual concept of what 30g is beyond a figure, so its tricky for me to say "Have i had 30g yet or not? ****ed if I know".

And yet if you were told "exceed this figure regularly and be denied healthcare", I'm pretty sure you could find out in a short time by doing some research and some reading, or just asking somone like the person who suggested it in the first place.

I believe it is mandatory in Ireland (and most other countries I've been in) to mark fat content on all packaged products. That leaves meat and veg. Cant be that hard - no harder than weightwatchers.

The point is that once you start going down the road of "your fault, your cost", it is very hard to ever justify stopping.

jc

GerK

Originally posted by Sand

Im sorry Ive no actual concept of what 30g is beyond a figure, so its tricky for me to say "Have i had 30g yet or not? ****ed if I know".

You are obviously a fairly well educated individual and yet you admit that you find it difficult to ascertain healthy food based on its nutritional information.
Now try and put yourself in the position of someone who is not at all well educated. Someone who has barely even received a rudementary education. Someone who perhaps can't afford a TV. Surely you can conceive the posibility that this person might have the same difficulty making an informed choice about narcotics being thrust upon them, by someone who assures them that its not so bad for you and after all it will make the pain and misery of living in total poverty with no end in sight evaporate for a time.

I might also point out that it is usually the impurities in narcotics which cause most of the health problems. There are many examples of more affluent Heroin addicts who could afford to use pharmacutical grade stuff, suffering remarkably little ill effect.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand


Its like teamwork I guess, some people doss around and others work twice as hard to try and keep the whole thing flying.

And some grossly oversimplify social issues and then pontificate about them. If you truely took that attitude you'd refuse to pay taxes or duties of any kind, after all, you're just paying for the maintenance of lazyass no-good layabouts. Outside of public services (which are pitifully small compared to the size of an economy), your tax dollars (or euros :P) are going towards helping people who can't help themselves. That's what the social contract is about, and that is what is enshrined in law. Only a slight extension of this attitude is to do away with a police force and let people pay for their own protection, close the public schools, let people educate their own too! Heck, who needs public utilities for that matter, or public roads? Just stick tollbooths up everywhere, if you can't afford to pay the toll, don't drive on that road. Forget the penal code too- rich people never break the law after all! :P Reasoning against a social contract is a damned risky business.

And remember, no one's forcing you to live in a welfare state- if your vote isn't doing anything and you're not willing to protest peacefully, then just go to a nation with no welfare plan, there are loads out there. European governments reason ahead of the issues with a moral context to their actions for the most part- that's a good thing surely?

Alcoholics and addicts are consistently portrayed in a poor light from documentaries to sitcoms

Documentaries and sitcoms? I know a lot of people who don't watch TV, not even for the news. Or who own a TV but just use it for a playstation + video player. Putting a message on TV doesn't reach the homeless dude who's shooting up, nor the kid in a bad neighborhood.

children cant even watch South Park without being told drugs are bad mkay, along with being warned about ending up doing handjobs for crack.

So SouthPark is a public awareness programme? Haha, that's brilliant, I think Paramount's PR machine's found another recruit :P

This merely takes a humourous aproach to the same message thats echoed throughout schooling and popular culture.

The healthy eating message is similarly echoed, as are public messages for dental care. Yet people still refuse to eat enough greens and fibre, consume too much fat and soluble sugars for their own good. Hospital beds are full of people who end up there for no better reason than lifestyle. If someone eats so much fat it gives them coronary problems, or eats so much sugar that their teeth fall out and they contract Type I diabetes they shouldn't get any help by your reasoning of the issue.

The one point I would agree regarding society etc is the advertisment of alcohol, which shows itself as being essential for a good night out and people who drink it date supermodels, drive sports cars, yadda yadda and similar crap. Id support restricting advertisments for alcohol.

People don't buy alcohol for advertising reasons any more than they take drugs for advertising reasons. Young people don't take up smoking because of the Malboro man, they do it because it's a societal trend- drug abuse is merely the same problem on a smaller scale.

Im sorry Ive no actual concept of what 30g is beyond a figure, so its tricky for me to say "Have i had 30g yet or not? ****ed if I know". I do know If Ive done hard drugs or gone through one or two bottles of vodka in a day. Perhaps its simply a case of availability of information - Id go looking for information on fatty foods etc, for drugs and stuff its shoved into my face. Ive got more of an exscuse on the foods then imo.

And an alcoholic could say he/she has no concept of what a pint is beyond a figure. Which is just as big a load of cr@p. If you can get your head around so abstract a concept as a "unit" of alcohol, surely knowing how much fat is healthy can be done as well? I'd put it down to sheer bone-laziness/unwillingness, public health programmes are on TV every day too, schools put healthy eating high on their agenda for the most part too. There's no excuse for not knowing, but society should allow for people making mistakes. You would punish people for a single abusive mistake like taking up drug use (which they may not have known about)- and spare those who make a whole slew of mistakes about healthy eating(which they may also not know about). Whatever your system is, it needs to be consistent- that manner of discrimination is not just immoral, but impracticable.

If a child (or anyone ) is harmed by anothers actions you cant hold them responsible for their condition.

So how do you hold an addict responsible? If it's the parent's fault in my example, surely it's the dealer's fault in the case of the addict- both the child and the addict are morally in the same boat.

Theyre both equally stupid, and known to be stupid, and youll wind up in a bad way from both.

Not eating 5 helpings of fruit and veg a day is stupid, so is eating tonnes of candy and processed sugars. If you're going to punish the addict, you need to punish those who don't eat healthily.

Sure once you are an addict you have no choice, but you *always* have a choice in the beginning- Much like when you jump of a building, you might change your mind half way down but its a bit late then - should never have jumped in the first place.

Lifestyle decisions to do with eating/exercise can be altered on a daily basis- it's not as easy to give up drugs. There is a choice in the beginning, but people with mental illness/depression and those who don't know better often can't make the right choice. If they make a single mistake like that we deny them care...but if you make a huge series of bad lifestyle decisions we give you care? Doesn't make sense to me.

Hmm, i dont dehumanise them, I simply consider them the equivalent of the guy who injected himself with equine viagra and ended up losing his penis - absolute freaking morons who dont deserve my attention.

The heart patient, the diabetic and the lung cancer patient who lives in a city would all take exception to being called freaking morons- especially since it is their decisions on a day to day basis that got them into their situation. You can't selectively deny care to people, even those who create their own illness- that is the correct policy, and long may it continue.

Occy

DeVore

The Hypocratic Oath.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.*

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.



* Who are we to judge that these people "deserve" treatment or not.


DeV.

SheroN

we're the people who have to fork out for it. that's who!

Ajnag

while i agree responsibility for treatment is an issue with other drugs(you know the drunk drivers and mutilated bodys etc, bums who never seem to recieve any treatment, and so on), cannabis is different, why, cos unlike the drunkards we wont be pummeling the shíte out of each other on a saterday night, we probably wont be driving due to an inability to move and theres probably something better on t.v, our lung cancer rates will be lower then nicotine if we get a trendy healthy eating dope thing going(ahh master chef with REAL herb )

sorry im just being a smart ass, but if there are as many people who agree with legalising as is shown, may i suggest www.cannabisireland.com a fledgling movement and unless their is a ming fan society, probably the only group out there.


one thing cannabis users can promise is to be the lowest maintence socialy responsible group out there, ahead of other drugs(especially the legal ones) and most activitys.

Sand

Some people sort drug legalistion because they take themselves or just want to be liberal. I support it cos i honestly couldnt give a rats arse what you do so long as you dont bother me, and what youre doing anyway while its illegal, and would prefer you got taxed for doing it.

This isnt good enough though - I must be terribly concerned about the poor people who take drugs, I should sit up all night worrying about it, I should be campaigning for my taxes to be increased so they can get more substitutes drugs for junkies etc etc, blah, blah. Im sorry I dont. Its not a matter of pure luck that I dont do heroin - I kinda gathered along the way the general perception that drugs were bad, that use of them was suicidal.

* Who are we to judge that these people "deserve" treatment or not.

I never took that oath, and if you want to pay for them be my guest...

Only a slight extension of this attitude is to do away with a police force and let people pay for their own protection, close the public schools, let people educate their own too!

And yet people get upset when gates are errected to stop joyriders, or entire walled neighberhoods hire their own private security, or that private school are usually far better equipped than public schools, or that youre better off on private healthcare than public assuming you can afford it. Some people dont seem to be doing all that well from the social contract - probably the people working twice as hard. Anyway Im not much on the old socialism to begin with - so appealing to my loyalty to the social contract is a bit of a dead end:x

So SouthPark is a public awareness programme? Haha, that's brilliant, I think Paramount's PR machine's found another recruit :P

Cant believe you didnt read the next sentence when you quoted it.

The healthy eating message is similarly echoed, as are public messages for dental care.

Hardly as loudly - theyve yet to make Trainspotting: Sickboy visits the Dentist - thats public culture, not some hidden away poster in your dentists office.

So how do you hold an addict responsible? If it's the parent's fault in my example, surely it's the dealer's fault in the case of the addict- both the child and the addict are morally in the same boat.

Hardly. The Child after all didnt visit a dealer and pay them to give them poison did they?

You would punish people for a single abusive mistake like taking up drug use (which they may not have known about)- and spare those who make a whole slew of mistakes about healthy eating(which they may also not know about). Whatever your system is, it needs to be consistent- that manner of discrimination is not just immoral, but impracticable.

Your friend buys a burger- you say, careful there - youll pile on the pounds with those things. Your friend buys heroin - you say, careful there - they can be a bit rough on the old health?!?!? More like you ask him what exactly the feck they were thinking...

Young people don't take up smoking because of the Malboro man, they do it because it's a societal trend- drug abuse is merely the same problem on a smaller scale.

This is a problem i have with your arguments. I say people are well informed and should live with their own mistakes. You use examples of poor, uneducated losers who never had a chance to say theyre uninformed and thus cant be expected to live with their mistakes. You say in the above, in response to me allowing that some weak willed eejits could be swayed by advertising, that information ( advertising is a form of slanted information) doesnt actually play a role in it, that people do it for social reasons. This syncs with your belief that if you kill poverty youll kill drugs - this would imply that rich people dont do drugs, a ridiculous idea that you yourself rubbish early on in your last post. Rich people have access to information, they do have a real choice- and yet plenty of them do drugs .... what makes them do drugs under your reasoning - Why is Danilella Westbrook looking to find a doctor to replace her septum? Why are their reasons so different from poor peoples? Under your reasoning poor people have the exscuse of being poor and having no TVs, what exscuse do rich people have?

Doing drugs is a personal decision that flies in the face of every bit of decent advice youll receive in your life. Im sorry, Ive little to no sympathy with people who are stupid enough to use them. However Ive no interest in stopping them if theyre so intent on killing themselves, I dont know them and theyre not my problem.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Its not a matter of pure luck that I dont do heroin - I kinda gathered along the way the general perception that drugs were bad, that use of them was suicidal.

I notice that the topic in question is actually about canabis, but you keep referring to drugs which have a proven physical addiction, which are proven to be detrimental, etc. etc. etc.

No-one has suggested that heroin be legalised except perhaps you. You seem to be saying "legalise what you want, as long as I dont have to pay for it". All that has been pointed out is that you already pay for many many similar costs from things which are legal.

Your argument as to why its ok to pay for these costs, but not for the potential equivalent costs on the legalisation of drugs is highly suspect.

Food-abuse (obesity etc) is ok in your book because, hey - you need food to live. Drug abuse isnt ok because you had to be an idiot to get hooked on drugs.

I would argue that the people suffering health conditions from non-physically-addictive substances (like food) have even less of an excuse - they cant even blame an initial moment of stupidity for their addiction, they can only blame a continuous choice to be stupid.

This is a problem i have with your arguments. I say people are well informed and should live with their own mistakes.

No - you say that about drugs. You deny it about basic nutrition. You are selectively choosing when you want people to be well informed, and when you dont, so that they only have to live with the mistakes that you arent willing to overlook.

Doing drugs is a personal decision that flies in the face of every bit of decent advice youll receive in your life.

You should really qualify what you mean by "drugs". For a start, aspirin is a drug, and I'm pretty sure you dont mean that.

So, cutting it short, its "obviously" harmful addictive drugs that your talking about. l.

So, you're probably talking about harmful, addictive drugs. Rght?

Stuff like heroin. And alcohol.

However, there is very little solid evidence to show that marijuana is either harmful or physically addictive to any significant extent.

And marijuana is what we're talking about here. Not heroin, which seems to have been the focus of every post you've made on this topic. Marijuana.

Which kinda leads me to ask what your point is. You're not even addressing the issue at hand - you're addressing a seperate question as though you want us to believe that it is the issue.

jc

DeVore

I hate to say it Sand but I think you are bonkers.

You want the doctors not to treat these people, infact anyone who doesnt live by your moral code it would seem.

They took that oath and I'm VERY glad they did. I for one dont want to be judged before getting treatment and if that means I have to pay taxes for others to get treated too, then I'm happy to do that.

Do you smoke? drink? eat red meat? live in a city? Have you ever been in hospital for treatment?

Would you like to answer these questions and others that might be more intrusive before you get treatment?

What if you had aids and were gay. should you be treated?


Please give me a definitive list of the people you would like treated and those you think deserve what they get.


I'm serious, please list the two groups, it doesnt have to be exhaustive, just representative.

Thank you.
DeV.

Typedef

No it shouldn't.

In fact I would support prohibition of cigarettes, alochol and of course hash.

Why? Because it is a well know fact, there is imperical evidence that supports the claim that for example cigarettes cause Cancer. Now in my book the governance of people means the protection of those people,citizens, whatever you want to call them. The government is charged with providing military protection via the army, civil protection via the police force, fire protection and so on. The government must also enact legislation to protect it's citizens.

Thus why is it the case that Cigarettes are still legal? By the criteria laid out above the government is being neglagent by not prohibiting the sale of tobacco, as the government must protect the citizens of state(x).

Thus based on the criteria of safety and not just the physical health aspect of hash which is know to contain carcenogenic agents (I'm not contrasting it with tobacco simply stating that hash has carcenogenic agents), but the emotional and mental health aspects of hash, I would oppose it's decriminalisation.

Regular smokers of hash usually suffer from short term memory deficites up to seven days after their final intake of THC, the active agent of cannabis. Hashish users are for the most part paranoid and lazy, because cannabis is a psycoactive agent with similar (though milder) properties to the much more hallucenogenic LSD and psylopsybin. The reason for the laziness of the cannabis user is that cannabis inhibits the production of seratonin, which is why cannabis users need so much more sleep than most normal people.

If a way could be found such that the side affects of cannabis could be limited to roughly the same time limit as alochol then the substance would not be quite as repellant to me as it is.

In reality though a drug that will still affect your short term memory adversely up to seven days after consumption of say (€7.50) worth of cannabis resin is too potent for people to be using in their day to day lives and be expected to function as a useful part of society.

Cannabis is nicknamed dope specifically because of the fact that if we take the consumption of €7.50 worth of resin (as opposed to unprocessed grass or hash oil), the user will seem slower, and not as quick to understand or interact with people as before it's consumption even long after the high has worn off from the drug, sometimes for two or three days after consumption a user can seem, stupid, though not actually stoned anymore. This is why the drug is called dope.

Like I say, right now, cannabis is too potent and it's side effects last too long, aside from being a cause of cancer.

Thus as I believe that society actually should try to discourage people from doing stupidly dangerous things to themselves as a rule of thumb, I don't believe that cannabis should be legalised.

Regards
Typedef.

Zaphod B

Thanks to cigarette smoking I've never met much of the family on my mother's side apart from maintaining their graves. Cannabis on the other hand has not taken the life of anyone I know, nor has it made them want to try harder drugs. Ask most cannabis users if they do anything harder and you get either the reply "Don't be fvcking stupid" or a look that says the same thing. I have no problem legalising a substance which a few people believe may just possibly lead you to harder drugs, when we know for a fact that some completely legal substances will turn the inside of your lungs into a Pirelli tyre. And someone please compare the medicinal properties of ciggies with those of cannabis... thankyou.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
In fact I would support prohibition of cigarettes, alochol and of course hash.

I would as well, if it were actually practical.

Marijuana, in any form, is illegal in Ireland. It is already prohibited. Yet statistics seem to show that in excess of 30% of the teenage youth have tried it. Statistics from Europe also seem to show that usage is independant from legality/illegality.

Alcohol prohibition - well, when has that ever been successful anywhere. Yes, I know there are still some "dry spots" in the US, and some in the Middle Eastern nations, and anyone I've ever met who has been in those places has always had access to the prohibited substance.

Personally, I'd prefer to see it legal and at least somewhat under control. Besides - isnt it better for the government to receive taxes for usage, rather than fund futile policing to try and prevent usage?

Thus why is it the case that Cigarettes are still legal?

A couple of reasons.

First of all, making them illegal would probably be political suicide, and I know very few influencial politicians (let alone parties) who are willing to sacrifice their career for something they believe in. Sad, but true.

Secondly, it is questionable as to whether or not prohibition would actually work - again, look at figures on marijuana usage and at the lack of success in prohibiting alcohol.

Thus based on the criteria of safety and not just the physical health aspect of hash which is know to contain carcenogenic agents ... I would oppose it's decriminalisation.

I would oppose decriminalisation. I believe it should be legal or illegal. Middle-ground solutions like decriminalisation generally seem to offer you the worst of both worlds.

If a way could be found such that the side affects of cannabis could be limited to roughly the same time limit as alochol then the substance would not be quite as repellant to me as it is.

I need to check up on this, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that THC is counteracted by VitC. Regular, heavy smokers generally suffer from a lack of vit C, and taking excess is a good way of clearing both the substance and its effects.

Like I said - I seem to recall reading this. It may be complete toss. I will see if I can find the reference again.

Speaking of references....this is the second time you have "explained" the etymology of the term dope.

I'm wondering if you could point me at somewhere credible which actually explains this, or is it just something which you've decided makes sense?

I mean - the general belief of hasish and assassin sharing an etymological history is considered little more than "mythical", and the more probable root is :

1598, from Ar. hashish "powdered hemp," lit. "dry herb," from hashsha "it became dry, it dried up."

All I've been able to find on dope is :

dope - 1807, Amer.Eng., "sauce, gravy," from Du. doop "thick dipping sauce." Extension to "drug" is 1889, from practice of smoking semi-liquid opium preparation. Meaning "foolish, stupid person" is older (1851) and may have a sense of "thick-headed." Sense of "inside information" may come from knowing before the race which horse had been drugged to influence performance.

Which means that you might be right. On the other hand, it could be completely unrelated and wrong - much like the widely held hashish/assassin.

In general, marijuana has had a mixed history. Mohammed allowed its use at the same time as forbidding alcohol. Some pope in the 1400s condemned it as being linked the satanic mass (I think), but in general, the modern-day villification of marijuana has come mostly from the 1930's when hemp tried to stage a comeback as an industrial product, only to be stomed on by the paper/petroleum/cotton industries, who cast marijuana in a terrible light in order to condemn hemp by association. Much of what we are taught today about the evils of marijuana is nothing but propaganda from that era which became so widespread it is often accepted as "fact".

jc

DeVore

Jesus Typedef, thank jaysis you arent in power.

I dont need you or my government telling me whats too dangerous for little old me to try.

Would you stop me snowboarding? (an activity with far greater inherent risk then smoking a joint).

How will you enforce your ban? Prison? Executions ala the middle east?

How far will this nanny-state go and what defines when it will allow me to exercise my own judgement and when it will decide for me?

Mindblowingly dangerous and stupid posts in this thread. Scary.

DeV

Dr. Loon

Originally posted by DeVore
Jesus Typedef, thank jaysis you arent in power.


Mindblowingly dangerous and stupid posts in this thread. Scary.

Spot on Dev
Typedef.... you'd wanna educate yourself, before making uninformed posts.

On a slightly related note, there was an article up at online.ie (can't find it now) yesterday about a certain percentage - sorry can't remember - of IT workers used marijuana on a regular basis. Don't know what that says really, although according to Typedef, it'd mean a good lot of IT workers are dopey, and lazy!?

Nobody I know who smokes the shít is lazy or dopey up to 7 days afterwards. If they are, they were before they ever smoked it also. This discussion has been on here so many times. It gets boring.
The usual idiots reply with OTT views on Marijuana and "The gateway effect" and start talking about heroin and crap.

The discussion is "Should cannabis be legalised?"

Ajnag

Originally posted by Typedef
The reason for the laziness of the cannabis user is that cannabis inhibits the production of seratonin, which is why cannabis users need so much more sleep than most normal people.

No that was the original charge against ecstasy, which was shown to unscientific and was lambasted by new scientist.

Originally posted by Typedef
If a way could be found such that the side affects of cannabis could be limited to roughly the same time limit as alochol then the substance would not be quite as repellant to me as it is..

yeah I really like the way alcohol causes pernament liver damage, and how it kills brain cells. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Typedef
In reality though a drug that will still affect your short term memory adversely up to seven days after consumption of say (€7.50) worth of cannabis resin is too potent for people to be using in their day to day lives and be expected to function as a useful part of society..

Your sources please? and as for that stupid fukin potentcy argument, christ gimme a break, do you see people drinking pints of spirits on a regular basis :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Typedef
Cannabis is nicknamed dope specifically because of the fact that if we take the consumption of €7.50 worth of resin (as opposed to unprocessed grass or hash oil), the user will seem slower, and not as quick to understand or interact with people as before it's consumption even long after the high has worn off from the drug, sometimes for two or three days after consumption a user can seem, stupid, though not actually stoned anymore. This is why the drug is called dope..

complete and utter bollox, recent tests concerning cannabis and iq have shown no real impact on i.q, and even older tests carryed by some obscure university called harvard, clearly showed that there was no impairment of memory on long term memory.

Originally posted by Typedef
Like I say, right now, cannabis is too potent and it's side effects last too long, aside from being a cause of cancer..

Well if you dont want cancer eat it, drink it, use a vaporiser, and supposedly youd hold it up that im the one impaired :rolleyes:

and if it really bothers you that much,saudi arabia sounds like your utopia where religion is the only reason why prohibition works.