Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Cannabis should be legalized in Ireland To pull Our country out of ression
Options
Comments
-
No, I don't think so. Being drunk and disorderly is, or being so drunk in a public place that you are likely to injure yourself or somebody else is, but you can not get arrested simply for being drunk.
a tree falling in the woods...
If someone is not in a state where they can injure or disturb other people then how can you really say they are drunk?That's as far as I know, anyway. You implied that you knew about these laws, so that's why I asked you.
Yes - a barman can't serve a drunk person and someone can be charged with drunkeness but there isn't a code which says what amount of alcohol is drunk and what isn't in all cases. In drunken driving there is but we dont have a number of milligrams to decide if you can buy or have a drink.
Ok fine public drunkeness if you prefer. Of course if you are drunk at home I would wonder whether when yu become a danger to yourself or someone else and the Gardai are called that you cant be charged with being intoxicated.
there are also by laws-
http://www.waterford-news.ie/news/gbauqlau/Fifty-two of the 287 prosecutions were for simple drunkenness, while 11 were for drunk and disorderly conduct. Twenty-three of the prosecution were for breaching Section Three of the Corporation’s Drinking in Public Places By-Laws, while 15 were for breaches of Section 59 of the Public Order Act, which is being drunk to such an extent that you might be a danger to traffic and yourself.
Whatever your having yourself.0 -
-
Didn't see that one . Thanks Ill get back to you on that one.
can't wait!!
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]Well if you define yourself as biased or crackpot who am I to disagree?
I don't tend to indulge in fallacies like ad hominem so I won't labour the point.
Where did I do that?
see post 818
[/QUOTE] Technically they do ask the people. It is called an election. After that it is up to their judgment. But this is a "straw man" fallacy! Unpopular government decisions on finance have nothing to do with legalising cannabis for recreational use.[/QUOTE]
is this not what this intire thread is about??Legalising cannabis for monitary reasons?? how is that not a financial decision?0 -
If someone is not in a state where they can injure or disturb other people then how can you really say they are drunk?
The key word here is "likely". Obviously everyone is always in a state where they can injure or disturb somebody else.Of course if you are drunk at home I would wonder whether when yu become a danger to yourself or someone else and the Gardai are called that you cant be charged with being intoxicated.
Like I said, it doesn't appear that being simply intoxicated is a crime under national laws.
The article doesn't say that "simple drunkeness" came under a bye-law. I can't find a list of Waterford Bye-Laws to verify, but I doubt the reliability of that article.
I think it's fair to conclude that the gist of the many laws and bye-laws is that you will only be arrested while drinking alcohol by a member of An Garda Síochána if s/he judges you likely to disturb or endanger others unduely.0 -
Yes and I responded to them. Though helpful they were not comprehensive or showing any longitudinal final or well developed medical research.
there is quite a bit of research into the medical advantages of cannaboids. Im sure if you looked about you might stumble across some of it. google Marinol and Cesamet for a start0 -
Advertisement
-
Cannabis will not be legalised in Ireland because we, as a people, still feel obliged to instill our personal values in the private lives of others - it's a historic attribute going all the way back to age old Catholic Ireland.
Many people either rubbish a debate like this or fully advocate it - neither of these two groups are getting at the fundamental issue here. In a Democracy, the 51% incorporate their beliefs and systems into the other 49% - a Democracy is therefore, Mob Rule. It does not protect the right of the individual. Ireland is a Republic, and should be treated as such - in a Republic, the right of the individual is protected to the point in which you may do whatever you please with your life, so long as that behaviour has no ill effects, or good effects I may add (very important) on any other individual.
Not only Cannabis, but all drugs must be left to the decision-making process and responsibility of the individual without societies or Government coercion. It is your life and you are the only one who is most likely to receive the disadvantages of bad decision making - unless of course, you are responsible for another human being, in which case, society must step in to see that the decision you took does not affect innocent by-standards of your actions.
The old stand stays through, as relevant today as it was 300 years ago when the Founding Fathers shaped the U.S Constitution - it is both immoral and dangerous to put your life in the hands of others, including Government.0 -
there is quite a bit of research into the medical advantages of cannaboids. Im sure if you looked about you might stumble across some of it. google Marinol and Cesamet for a start
funny stat from wiki "no recorded deaths from real cannabis, marijuana yet there was 4 recorded deaths from marinol" at time of writing!! another crazy setup is thc in the us and many other countries remains an illegal drug yet they've approved the sale of extracted thc that's placed in a safer category!!
the insane reasoning these people expect us all to swallow is nuts!! they know well it's nothing like what they've led most of us to believe and instead it's a fine plant (male and female) that mearly got in the way of certain industries and helped prop up a "drug war"!!
the plant will be grown almost everywhere again, it's a denial of rights if we can't grow it and use it how we like, money will be made large-scale from hemp again too imo.0 -
whoopdedoo wrote: »yet they've approved the sale of extracted thc which is found in a safer category!!
it very much looks like its OK for big business to grow plants and extract one of the 400 odd chemicals to make drugs with, yet its illegal for everyday people to grow their own. Then again, the pharmaceutical companies intend to make large profits - and then cant do that by letting Joe Public grow his own. I'd say they're also responsible for a lot of the crap talked about weed as well - just to make sure they can corner the market.0 -
ordinarywoman wrote: »can't wait!!
I assume you satirically mean you can wait'see post 818
That is meant to be evidence I called you a crackpot?
in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69849053&postcount=818
You stated:yes i do believe very strongly in my own 'propaganda'/opinion. Why shouldn't i?if i didn't believe it why would i bother to support it?
To which i replied:Who am I to question whatever crackpot conspiracy theories you believe? What I am interested in is the sweeping objective claims you make based on such beliefs. The claims are not supported.
It is clearly a statement that if you make a claim you have to support it. If it is just your unsupported opinion crackpot or not I can't really do anything about that. It is only when you make claims based on that opinion that an objective argument exists. In which case you have to proivide evidence for you claims.
In addition to this context of that message You also neglected to point out the context
of the series of posts preceding it.
for example four posts earlier
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69842566&postcount=814
where i stated:I am referring to generally accepted rules of debate and not requirements of boards.ie When I state “I don't have to” or “you have to” these are comments about what people accept as standards of debate or logical fallacies and not requirements of boards.ie. I am not telling you what you may or may not post. You may post “Dublin is not the capital of Ireland” for example. It will not be factually true but you may post it and it does not require my permission to do so. Nor can I stop you doing so.
People are advocating illegal criminal behavior and I think it is wise to point out that there is a reason for having laws. I am not against changing them but at least provide good reasons to do so. Saying “cannabis can arrest tumor growth” isn't a valid reason for free medical use let alone free social use.
and in that post continued a long series of showing how the medical references you supplied do not support your claims.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69786176&postcount=799
and
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69586110&postcount=616
where i took on the cannabis reduces crime argument
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69847656&postcount=816
I believe you actually believe your own propaganda. But I also think you are capable of critically looking at your own position. Please do so. If you can't support it then why not abandon it for a more reasonable alternative.
and following from that
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69859891&postcount=823I am attacking the arguments made which are crackpot arguments and not the posters making them. Their personal beliefs are their own business. The arguments presented are conspiracy theories such as:
and especiallyI won't personally attack or insult any poster and if anyone took offence to my point that some of the arguments made were crackpot this is not to claim that the particular posters were crackpots themselves.
Also especially:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70117751&postcount=879If I personally insulted you it was certainly not my intention. I don't resort to ad hominem. Can you supply any examples where you maintain I used personal insult as argument and I will be happy to withdraw or clarify the unintended insult
and you bring it up 300 messages later? anyway if you think I was insulting you I can't change that but for what it is worth I intended no personal insult and regret that you too any offence.
In fact you have contributed a fair deal of published source material to the discussion. I believe it was poorly researched but that isn't a personal attack on you. some of it was from dubious sources and conspiracy theory sitres and some from valid medical sources (but not showing what was claimed). I was just pointing out that. Is that good enough for you or what more do you expect?
ISAW:
[/QUOTE] Technically they do ask the people. It is called an election. After that it is up to their judgment. But this is a "straw man" fallacy! Unpopular government decisions on finance have nothing to do with legalising cannabis for recreational use.[/QUOTE]is this not what this entire thread is about??Legalising cannabis for monitary reasons?? how is that not a financial decision?
It is but it is not related to mistakes made in other financial decisions.0 -
it very much looks like its OK for big business to grow plants and extract one of the 400 odd chemicals to make drugs with, yet its illegal for everyday people to grow their own. Then again, the pharmaceutical companies intend to make large profits - and then cant do that by letting Joe Public grow his own. I'd say they're also responsible for a lot of the crap talked about weed as well - just to make sure they can corner the market.
More conspiracy theory! Any evidence? In fact the large scale production was not for drug purposes. It was for paper, cloth, fuel etc.0 -
Advertisement
-
Just because you people need drugs to live your lives it doesn't mean you have to force it on everyone else.
can you imagine everyone going around strung out on cannabis . what a warped place we would live in.
why dont you people go over to amsterdam and live there . SCUM.0 -
there is quite a bit of research into the medical advantages of cannaboids. Im sure if you looked about you might stumble across some of it. google Marinol and Cesamet for a start
Why don't you provide the evidence to support your claims and not have me do the work for you? I am sure you won't find it so easy to support your claim. And even accepting medical use how ids this any reason to make unrestricted recreational use allowable?0 -
Just because you people need drugs to live your lives it doesn't mean you have to force it on everyone else.
can you imagine everyone going around strung out on cannabis . what a warped place we would live in.
why dont you people go over to amsterdam and live there . SCUM.
If it was legal I don't think it would be compulsory to take it :rolleyes:.Alcohol is legal do you see people going around drunk 24/7,of course not,the majority of the people drink in moderation.You seem to think if cannabis was legal people wont smoke joint after joint,which would not be the case people would probably still smoke the same but would not have to worry about going to jail.0 -
UsernameInUse wrote: »Cannabis will not be legalised in Ireland because we, as a people, still feel obliged to instill our personal values in the private lives of others - it's a historic attribute going all the way back to age old Catholic Ireland.
Not something caused by Christianity. the legalistic and rational of Western society science and philosophy can be traced to Ancient Greek culture. although Mesopotamian culture also had laws.
I am in neither of these two groups.Many people either rubbish a debate like this or fully advocate it - neither of these two groups are getting at the fundamental issue here.In a Democracy, the 51% incorporate their beliefs and systems into the other 49% - a Democracy is therefore, Mob Rule. It does not protect the right of the individual. Ireland is a Republic, and should be treated as such -
A Republic is a democracy regulated by law yes - so what?in a Republic, the right of the individual is protected to the point in which you may do whatever you please with your life, so long as that behaviour has no ill effects, or good effects I may add (very important) on any other individual.
But people decide what they think is not for the public good!
Criminal law regulates what is not for the public good. Cannabis comes under such a law. I am not however against decriminalization at least in a restricted sense but still that does not mean controls don't exist.
ther is also moral law and social norms outside of law. For example take a cumpolsive gambler who has legal access to a families assets and looses it all. What they are doing is wrong but not against the law. Also a person lending money to but a house which should cost half the price. the bank lending the money knows they can't pay but sends them round the corner to another institution owned by that bank which lends the money at an even higher rate than the rate the bank know the lender cant afford. That is wrong, has an ill effect, but might not be against the law.Not only Cannabis, but all drugs must be left to the decision-making process and responsibility of the individual without societies or Government coercion.
You are contradicting yourself! above you deride extremes like:
Now you go even more extreme and say not just cannabis but all drugs should be freely available.people either rubbish a debate like this or fully advocate itIt is your life and you are the only one who is most likely to receive the disadvantages of bad decision making - unless of course, you are responsible for another human being, in which case, society must step in to see that the decision you took does not affect innocent by-standards of your actions.
so you think people should do what they want and not be controlled as long as it does no physical harm to others?
So you agree to a right to commit suicide? And you agree to unrestricted abortion? And preaching race hatred ( as long as the person does noting about it themselves)? And that burning a flag, a koran, Bible, or holy communion host should be allowed since no physical harm can be shown? That is your sacred principle of "Do anything as long as you cause no direct harm" is it?The old stand stays through, as relevant today as it was 300 years ago when the Founding Fathers shaped the U.S Constitution - it is both immoral and dangerous to put your life in the hands of others, including Government.
Many of the founding fathers disagreed with each other. Though I am a social libertarian and don't like Big government I don't subscribe to economic libertarianism and nor did the founding fathers. Many economic libertarians are also really authoritarian and not libertarian.0 -
-
If it was legal I don't think it would be compulsory to take it :rolleyes:.Alcohol is legal do you see people going around drunk 24/7,of course not,the majority of the people drink in moderation.You seem to think if cannabis was legal people wont smoke joint after joint,which would not be the case people would probably still smoke the same but would not have to worry about going to jail.
Alcohol abuse is a major problem in Ireland. Their are people all over the country living with the consequences of domestic violence and all sorts of things as a result of alcohol. Just because you might not see it their are probably 5 out of every 10 families privately suffering domestic problems as a result of alcohol abuse.0 -
Alcohol abuse is a major problem in Ireland. Their are people all over the country living with the consequences of domestic violence and all sorts of things as a result of alcohol. Just because you might not see it their are probably 5 out of every 10 families privately suffering domestic problems as a result of alcohol abuse.
and all the smokers are happily high felling no pain and minding their own business, stuffing their faces and watching the big lebowsky,
then along comes the bogeyman that don't like "drugs" much and calls us all scum for doing something only made wrong since America said so, a plant from for 80,000,000,000 years yet made illegal the past 80!!!
wake up and open your eyes ro090 -
whoopdedoo wrote: »and all the smokers are happily high felling no pain and minding their own business, stuffing their faces and watching the big lebowsky,
then along comes the bogeyman that don't like "drugs" much and calls us all scum for doing something only made wrong since America said so, a plant from for 80,000,000,000 years yet made illegal the past 80!!!
wake up and open your eyes ro09
Smoking related illnesses are costing the Health Service in Ireland Billions . It should also be banned. its disgusting habit really.
Your all Addicts . You need Help .0 -
Im not a cannabis user but I would be for leagalizing it.
I tried it a few times in past, some time ago may I add, and from my experience and from what I can see today its not a dangerous drug. Before the first time I tried it I would have been totally against it and all drugs. I was encouraged to try it as a bet and if I didn't like I would have won 50 euro. Its a drug that makes people extremely happy. I come from a very good area, not anti social in any way and from what I can see today, people that I know who use it find it extremely expensive and valuable and only used occasionally and recreationally. Cannabis is stuff that is simply not wasted by smoking it everyday. Those users are not interested in sharing it under any circumstances or money offered (hence I dont use it and I dont know any dealers).
Cannabis use doesnt lead to any violence. It makes people extremely happy.
Its not addictive either. As far as I know cannabis is mixed with tobacco which is the addictive substance.0 -
And for tobacco cravings, tobacco is available over the counter in every shop.0
-
Advertisement
-
If child abuse or prostitution was legal it would not be compulsory either. That isn't sufficient reason to allow it is it?
I was referring to the poster who said that that if cannabis was legal it would be forced on people.I think comparing something which doesn't effect anybody only the user to something like child abuse is just stupid a comparison to make.I have my views on cannabis and you have yours and no amount of multi quoting replies are going to change my mind.0 -
Not something caused by Christianity. the legalistic and rational of Western society science and philosophy can be traced to Ancient Greek culture. although Mesopotamian culture also had laws.
This is not in relation to drugs, I'm speaking in general.
I am in neither of these two groups.
Nice.
But people decide what they think is not for the public good!
Public good has nothing to do with the principle of personal liberty. Wouldn't you accept that it is only right you don't interfere with what I do in the privacy of my own home? I am in no way infringing my values onto you or your family so why must you feel compelled to take a look and see if I'm living according to yours?
Criminal law regulates what is not for the public good. Cannabis comes under such a law. I am not however against decriminalization at least in a restricted sense but still that does not mean controls don't exist.
I am against the decriminalisation of cannabis. It is no more Governments role to tell you what to do with your life no more than the man in the moon - that is the difficult part you can't wrap your head around. No drug should be decriminalised, they should all be legal.
ther is also moral law and social norms outside of law. For example take a cumpolsive gambler who has legal access to a families assets and looses it all. What they are doing is wrong but not against the law. Also a person lending money to but a house which should cost half the price. the bank lending the money knows they can't pay but sends them round the corner to another institution owned by that bank which lends the money at an even higher rate than the rate the bank know the lender cant afford. That is wrong, has an ill effect, but might not be against the law.
How would a compulsive gambler lose family assets if their name is not the only one on the deeds? If they live alone, then so be it - they can lose it all and face a life of charity. No need for us to interfere with the decisions of others. Do you feel compelled to in this situation also?
You are contradicting yourself! above you deride extremes like:
You misunderstood the post. It wasn't an extreme at all. I was saying that people either come on here, say that drugs should be legal and then others come on and say they should not be legal. What I was saying is that both of these groups miss the point. That it is not anyone else's business what you do with your life and if you sit back and think about that for a moment, you'll realise what a big brother life we're leading when we let others make decisions for us. I'm speaking about the principle of liberty, not getting lost in a mundane argument.
Now you go even more extreme and say not just cannabis but all drugs should be freely available.
Nothing extreme about that statement at all - you certainly are one conservative. I don't care (and I couldn't stress that enough even if I did a song and dance in front of you) about what people do outside my hall door so long as their actions don't come into my living room. Can you find any...ANY reason why you see legitimacy in getting involved in the lives of others?
so you think people should do what they want and not be controlled as long as it does no physical harm to others?
So you agree to a right to commit suicide? And you agree to unrestricted abortion? And preaching race hatred ( as long as the person does noting about it themselves)? And that burning a flag, a koran, Bible, or holy communion host should be allowed since no physical harm can be shown? That is your sacred principle of "Do anything as long as you cause no direct harm" is it?
Euthanasia - Yes.
Abortion - Yes.
Preaching race card - not sure what you mean.
Speaking or doing ill of bibles and holy communion is Freedom of Expression and Free Speech. Are you against these too?
Come on, stop pulling our legs - are you living in 1950?
Many of the founding fathers disagreed with each other. Though I am a social libertarian and don't like Big government I don't subscribe to economic libertarianism and nor did the founding fathers. Many economic libertarians are also really authoritarian and not libertarian.
Of course the Founding Fathers disagreed with each other but they understood that a Republic was the only viability to protect their rights. I'm a libertarian also and you'd want to have your wits about you if you were going to justify Government playing a huge role in the running of the economy in a debate with a real libertarian, Friedman.
See bold.0 -
im reading some of the comments here and i canot believe them,lots of people that have no idea what they are talking about trying 2 argue a point anyone who thinks weed should not be legal should take a look at some non bias reserch on the matter and then come back here,you will find some very intresting information about how and why it became illigal and the fact that thare hasent been one recorded death in medical history should become apparent fairly quickly it is infact 100% imposable to overdose!
if i have a smoke i will gladly sit down with my friends chat and watch a dvd ive never herd of anyone having too much to smoke puking on the street fighting or dancing like a bellend
if any of you have kids over the age of 16 it is highly likley they have atleast tried weed wudnt you prefer they buy it in a shop rather than a"drug dealer"
i think it should be legal it makes no sence atall that it is illigal
hemp is also an extremly useful material0 -
-
Nope Cannabis Is Not good0
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADUUDjbqu3M
ming flanagan elected td, and pro canabis activits will be on Vincent Brown tonight...
this is an excerpt from him film the 'life and crimes of Citizen Ming'0 -
More conspiracy theory! Any evidence? In fact the large scale production was not for drug purposes. It was for paper, cloth, fuel etc.
Conspiracy theory? paper cloth and fuel etc when hemp was around, and then banned except during war time funny enough when they needed cheap paper, cloth and fuel. Im talking about today.
Im only after watching a documentary (What if Cannabis Cured Cancer) where they were interviewing scientists at, and filming one such pharmaceutical factory which specialised in growing and extracting various compounds from cannabis for cancer research. are you telling me they made that all up? what about the harvard papers from 2007 that showed cannibis can stop tumour growth? that made up as well?0 -
Why don't you provide the evidence to support your claims and not have me do the work for you? I am sure you won't find it so easy to support your claim. And even accepting medical use how ids this any reason to make unrestricted recreational use allowable?
why in gods name would I have any interest in educating you? If you cant be bothered to learn things, dont bother. No skin off my nose.0 -
why in gods name would I have any interest in educating you? If you cant be bothered to learn things, dont bother. No skin off my nose.
I'll tell you why
In message 1093 you made the following claimthere is quite a bit of research into the medical advantages of cannaboids
The fact that you can't be bothered to support your own unsupported claim only compounds your fallacies.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.htmlin American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
so we are all meant to assume your are right just because you say there is evidence which of course you fail to produce?
Whatever next?- assume people are guilty in a court of law?
http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-distract-shiftburden.htm
A standard rule in argumentation is “he who asserts must prove,” meaning that the writer bears full responsibility to prove that his or her claims are true. Writers and speakers, especially when cornered with tough questions, often speak authoritatively, but they sometimes assume that their assertions are valid and place the onus of proof onto the audience.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
If someone claims to know a fact, always look at its source. If the arguer cannot validate or justify his own remarks, then they probably are not valid (and cannot be considered valid anyway until proven otherwise). The audience does not bear any responsibility to prove the speaker’s arguments.
This fallacy is also called an “appeal to ignorance” because the action of passing this responsibility onto the audience suggests that a group of unprepared non-experts is appearing qualified to speak, when they clearly are not.0 -
Advertisement
-
Conspiracy theory? paper cloth and fuel etc when hemp was around, and then banned except during war time funny enough when they needed cheap paper, cloth and fuel. Im talking about today.
So am I.
http://www.teagasc.ie/research/reports/crops/4487/eopr-4487.aspWhole chopped hemp stems can be used up to a maximum of 20% inclusion rate in the manufacture of medium density fibre board (MDF)
Published in this century and not 50 years ago post war!Im only after watching a documentary (What if Cannabis Cured Cancer)
Note the "what if" in the title? Where is the link to this documentary?where they were interviewing scientists at, and filming one such pharmaceutical factory which specialised in growing and extracting various compounds from cannabis for cancer research.
Which factory? what is the name of the scientists? where did they publish their research?are you telling me they made that all up?
I'm telling you noone here knows since you have not shown
1, whothey are
2. what you are claiming they published?what about the harvard papers from 2007 that showed cannibis can stop tumour growth? that made up as well?
What Harvard papers? Have you a source?0
Advertisement