Legalising RECREATIONAL cannabis

I don't smoke at all and am strongly in favour of legalization.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I was under the impression that Ireland was going to be smoke free by 2025.

Meddling nanny statists and their big ideas, they never learn. Smoking will always be a thing, even if tobacco is banned entirely. There will always be demand for forbidden fruits, and the black market will meet that demand.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'd rather we remained a backward country so.

With people like you in it, it's practically a given.

Legalise away mad. Bring back hippy communes and put the old VW Camper van back into production as well. We'd all have a much better life if people would only chill the f*ck out

DickSwiveller wrote: »

The other creep who responded wasn't interested in discussing anything and resorted to childlike insults.

I trust therefore that you will find my post to be the EXACT opposite and you will respond to it in kind in a mature way and an interest in discussion. Let us see how that plays out shall we? As it would be somewhat disappointing to see you admonish others in this way, and then duck and dodge open discussion behind some mundane cop out or avoidance ploy.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

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

I agree, in isolation, it is not. But it DOES establish a baseline for discussion, a context against which arguments can be measured, and a sanity line along which claims about how reality would change might be gauged.

So as I said to the user above, I would not myself like to land in the simplistic "Well what about alcohol" camp of people who invest the bare minimum of thought into the subject..... but I would not jump to the other extreme of that continuum instead and wholly rubbish such comparisons, or the utility of them.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

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

I do, and the convincing arguments I have been presented as to the long term utility of maintaining a law against this drug number somewhere between zero and none. And since one of my core axioms on ANY issue is "Innocent until proven guilty" this by necessity leads me to a stance of pro-legalization with regulation standards akin to those we see in industries like alcohol, but hopefully better than we see in industries like Tobacco.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

No, because it's wrong to smoke drugs

Alas you have admonished others to think deeper on the issue, but what you have offered right here is little more than a moral assertion. Substance actually backing up that moral call however you have not offered.

And that is certainly not representative of the level of discourse you not a handful of posts before admonished OTHERS to engage in. It would actually be more representative of what you described as "vapid diatribe" and " carnival of inanity".

DickSwiveller wrote: »

and it should be discouraged by a government interested in keeping law and order.

See above, same thing.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'm not sure what evidence you're talking about, but widespread legalization could easily increase the number of people using the drug.

It might be worth noticing a slight drift of the goal posts here however. The post you are specifically replying to here CLEARLY reffered to legalization resulting in an "increase the number of people 'who smoke's himself into dullness and laziness' an might I add inject or snort themselves also".

In your response you diluted this to an "increase the number of people using the drug." which is a much more dilute and general claim than the one you were actually questioning. The is a CHASM of difference between claiming there would be no significant increase in use, and no significant increase in the degree of use as to lead to extreme detriment or addiction issues.

So if we are admonishing each other, as you have done, on increasing the standard of our discourse.... it might be better achieved by not being seen to make subtle little moves of this sort? Leading by example and all that?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

One of the most lucrative illegal markets is illicit cigarettes. Last time I checked cigarettes were legal.

For this comment to be of any use we need quite a bit more substance to it.

Firstly, do we have any figures on what exactly that trade is worth? I certainly do not, but my subjective and anecdotal experience is that 20 years ago there was MANY people selling illegal cigarettes, usually concentrated in the area of Dubiln's Mary and Henry street. But TODAY I can not find a single person selling them. Where are they? What are the figures exactly?

Secondly, to make any use of your comment we would need to compare the illegal sales figures with some established, or usefully extrapolated figures, on what the figures would be WERE cigarettes illegal. In other words merely saying "They are legal, but look at the illegal trade" has no utility in isolation from consideration of those figures relatives to what they would be otherwise.

Third, I think the cigarette industry is broken in their regulation and is a poor comparison. People generally seem happy to buy legal and regulated products...... and even pay MORE for them........ when they are assured that the product is ethically sourced and the industry standards ensure some level of quality. And done right that is exactly what a legal cannabis would offer us. But to my (admittedly VERY limited) knowledge this is not ideal with cigarettes and that industry is allowed cut ingredients into their product that are specifically habit forming and not entirely necessary to even be there.

There are other issues with your comment too, another three that I can think of quickly but probably more, but the two above are relatively so large that they render extension of the list moot for now.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

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

I would be interested to know how a regulated and legal industry could help us there. One of the possible issues is that Cops on the roadside find it harder to detect cannabis use than they can alcohol. I wonder if science can ever afford us the possibility to "cut in" some other chemical into a regulated product that could highlight use better in some detectable, and legally process-able, way. That would be useful.

Of course this instantly gives us the argument of "Well would that not drive people towards illegal version of the product that does not have this 'gotcha' cut into it" and that is a valid point, but I wonder how valid and how prevalent that would be.

Quite often people do not SET OUT to drink drive for example. Some do, and some do not care. But many, maybe even by far MOST people go out with good intentions, and alcohol acts as a moral modifier and they end up doing the unthinkable.

So actively seeking out an illegal version of the product to avoid detection would, I suspect, imply a level of pre-meditation that I do not think is there on average.

Just thinking out loud there really, rather than specifically addressing or rebutting your point. But certainly a legal and regulated industry would be one tool in forcing the hand of those too lazy to be "interested in protecting law-abiding citizens". So if that truly is a concern for you, such a tool would be of use to you.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Just like they do with drink driving. Do you think people should be allowed drink and drive??

That is a not at all subtle bait and switch move there. No one here is saying that people should be allowed drink and drive. They ARE saying that they should be allowed drink alcohol however.

Similarly saying that people should be allowed purchase a legal and regulated cannabis product is NOT analogous to drink driving laws.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

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

From my experience many people dodge dealing with the substance of the arguments of others by dismissing it in some trivial way such as suggesting that their arguments are "just fashionable". I would certainly advise not doing that, should you find yourself tempted. And I would strongly suggest you will find not a WORD of what I wrote to you in this post will fall prey to that accusation at all, should you feel at any time tempted to make it.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

It's not criminals that cause widespread drug use; it's the people who take the drugs.

To a point yes, but the distinction is also clear between illegal drugs and legal ones in that Pubs and Newsagents are not actively bringing product into certain locations (like schools) and pushing them with a mix of hard sell and psychological manipulation in order to promote sales.

So your statement here is not..... false.... by any means but it is certainly an incomplete picture of reality.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

"Addiction" and "alcoholism" are complete myths that deny human will power.

I do not think they are myths OR that they deny will power. What I think is that they are very real and they serve to UNDERMINE human will power. No one is denying human will power is there, but it would be equally foolish to deny the effects of such addictions upon it.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

1. It is not arbitrary. I think it is wrong to take drugs for many reasons, not least the fact that it harms those close to the user.

No drug use does no such thing. EXCESSIVE drug use does. But so does EXCESSIVE anything use. You are taking the extreme actions of statistical outliers here and extrapolating a generalization of the majority. Which is not a good move and even risks accusations of your being shrill.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'm sorry but how are you calculating harm exactly? Who is speaking for the parent who has to put up with stoned children?

What have children got to do with it? I would strongly assume that any legal and regulated product would come with all the same age limitations as similar products. If your children are coming home under some form of intoxication then there are issues OTHER than the product itself that are at play there.

Indicting one with the other is another move belying a level of biased shrillness that is not likely to come across well to a reader. I would actually be tempted to call it a highly dishonest move but let us temper ourselves and merely call it a weak one.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Smoking weed in moderation is not harmless. And from my experience very few people smoke it in moderation.

The latter sentence can be dismissed on the face of it, as anecdote is not evidence, especially unverifiable anecdote. And any such anecdote would not be indicative of smoker in general, but smokers that are in YOUR personal circles. In other words...... it would be more a measure of the people YOU associate(d) with rather than any general measure of the issue itself or people within it.

The first sentence however is floating assertion with no substance yet, so we could perhaps call upon you to flesh it out. Especially given you asked someone else "How are you measuring harm" without showing how you yourself do.

So at best the only thing achieved by your entire post that time was to invite more discussion, which I hope you can not present.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Please define addiction. This word is thrown around and taken as a given by almost everyone. What does it mean exactly?

That depends on context. There are a few official definitions that differ depending on what the source, and causes of the addiction are, and what it is that specifically the person is addicted to.

If I had to offer my own definition of addiction that somehow unites some other definitions I have seen, but without getting too contextually specific.... I would say addiction is the result from a relatively excessive or prolonged use of a thing (relative to some agreed moderate use of that particular thing) that leads to some physiological or psychological modification of the person that results in undermining that persons ability to mediate their use of the thing by will power alone.

Why, what would YOUR definition of it be?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Please define addiction.

http://www.asam.org/quality-practice/definition-of-addiction

DickSwiveller wrote: »

"There is growing evidence that people with serious mental illness, including depression and psychosis, are more likely to use cannabis or have used it for long periods of time in the past. Regular use of the drug has appeared to double the risk of developing a psychotic episode or long-term schizophrenia. However, does cannabis cause depression and schizophrenia or do people with these disorders use it as a medication?

Over the past few years, research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents." - Royal College of Psychiatrists

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/314222.php

Yeah, that's all true. But people with preexisting or familial mental health conditions there's only so much the state can do to protect them, for the most part their health is their own responsibility. It's not like we ban milk because some people have lactose or nut intolerances.

For a healthy adult they'll only suffer harmful side effects with prolonged chronic abuse and even then I've met plenty of 60+ stoners that are just fine.


When it comes to legalising it for sale to the public we can put effort into making a market that protects users. We won't just lift the ban and let people at it. Smoking in public and in coffeeshops will be out because we already have the smoking ban, the anti smoker lobby could even use legalised cannabis as a reason to push more extensive smoking bans in public places, if not a complete ban on smoking in public..

I would say that we do need some social outlet for using cannabis, it needs it's version of the pub. Restaurants should be able to apply for a license to serve cannabis edibles.

Yakult wrote: »

The polls don't lie, here and elsewhere, its ****ing time we start pushing for some legalization.. Am sick to death of it now, circles and circles I feel. Most people are for the legalization, so maybe they should give the people what we want. It's working fine for other countries, in fact, bringing huge amounts of revenues to the government, creating jobs, preventing good persons from receiving a criminal conviction for something safer than cigarettes.

That's without even mentioning the great resource of hemp. Don't know about it? Then google it.

Its 2017, plenty of research has been done and continues to be done, like ANYTHING we consume, caffeine, alcohol, trans-fats, carbs etc. etc. etc. if you abuse it, expect consequences.

I just can't see any reason why this would still be illegal in this day and age, its ridiculous.

But but but, the mammies of Ireland disagree.. Seamus and Mary introduced to heroin and crack cocaine by this gateway drug, now they have no teeth and live under a bridge in Athlone. Little Tommy took two puffs of a joint now he has schizophrenia. etc etc.

Legalise and tax it, same goes for all other narcotics.

learn_more wrote: »

I wouldn't vote for anything which would create a situation where one could just go down the shops and buy it, like alcohol.

Why not? Alcohol causes many more deaths and much greater social problems than cannabis.

Cigarettes available in almost every shop, kill many times more (1 in every 2 users), with the government having the greatest vested interest.

Legalising all would almost completely eliminate the criminal element and do away with much of the crime in the country, particularly Dublin, freeing up massive Garda resources.

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Meddling nanny statists and their big ideas, they never learn. Smoking will always be a thing, even if tobacco is banned entirely. There will always be demand for forbidden fruits, and the black market will meet that demand.

I suppose you're right really. That 2025 target I believe was driven by Dr James O'Reilly, an ex 40 a day man who lost both his father and brother to cancer. You shouldn't make policy based off raw emotion or personal tragedy.

I don't want smoking to be banned, it's a personal choice, but obviously it should be discouraged in all forms, especially amongst the younger generations.