Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Legalisation\decriminalisation of Drugs besides cannabis

135

Comments

  • #62
    grindle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,025 ✭✭✭grindle


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Both *can* be used safely for relatively innocent purposes and both *can* be used for malicious purposes. Why then should you be extended the liberty of being allowed to buy any drug at any time in any quantity but not have the same liberty for other toxic substances?

    Drugs will probably be used for relatively innocent purposes. Radioactive substances probably won't.

    Easy.


  • #63
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    I'm going to ignore your 'radioactive materials' rubbish because it's just rolling in shit and I don't want to get my clothes dirty.
    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Not everyone is an expert on drugs - When it comes to entire populations and the subsets of the populations that are experts on the particular substances it ends up manifesting itself as something similar to the situation we're currently in today.
    [Merge issue]

    There's a difference between expertise and being patronising. You're talking about patronising ideologues who think they know better. An expert is someone who can show another what is the best approach is and pro-prohibition 'experts' on this subject have failed so they should not be taken seriously.

    People have been taking drugs for thousands of years without 'expertise' have we suddenly become more stupid? No.
    Those who are experts on the particular substances feel an obligation to protect the general public from the dangers associated with the substances in question.

    Again this is patronising bullshit. Prohibition is not about protecting the public. Drug prohibition is nothing more than puritanical meddling in the lives of autonomous individuals.
    I don't know about you but if I knew something was dangerous...

    Do you talk to your friends before they drive? Before they go to the pub? Skiing? Hill walking? Eating fatty foods? Smoking? Because they are all dangerous.

    Being alive involves risk.


  • #64
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    grindle wrote: »
    Drugs are illegal due to politics and societal mores, not expert peer-reviewed papers.
    Is that the case for all drugs? Take a well known example like heroin. Why was that banned from open sale?


  • #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mr.S wrote: »


    Do you remember the days of the headshops? there where queues around the corner every night of the week, especially at 3am when the clubs closed, so people could keep the party going.

    I remember being in the toilets of a club and literary every person where doing lines of 'drone.

    I look at my friends now, people that didn't do illegal drugs before, but then got into head shops stuff - now their on E, acid & coke every week.

    And i'm not saying im a saint, fair from it. But I strongly disagree with legalizing drugs like E, Coke, heroin etc.


    I do remember the headshop days and I you're right, I do remember a lot of people who would never really take any types of illegal drugs used to be on meph basically because they thought that if it was legal there couldn't possibly be any real danger (people look at alcohol the same way, unfortunately).

    I mentioned in my OP that I was a bit worried that there could be a lot of adverse effects for society if drug use skyrocketed if they became legal, because while people say drugs are easy to get now, which they are, there can be no doubt that Drug illegality leads to far less people taking such drugs (compare MDMA use to alcohol use).

    However I still think this is a risk definitely worth taking mainly because lots of illegal drugs are not really that harmful when it comes down to it.
    Seachmall wrote: »


    The assumptions people make because they hear "illegal" and/or "drug" are completely out of touch with reality. And people are being convicted for making reasonable decisions to use one over the other.
    argonaut wrote: »
    War on Drugs is over, and Drugs won.

    Definitely agree with both of the above.

    Also @partyatmygaff, give up that ridiculous polonium\uranium argument, it has been debunked in posts #56 and #59 by Chuck Stone and by Grindle in post #64. Also your question about warfarin being openly available-there is no real demand for it so it is not a big issue.

    Also it IS important to carefully ration and control medications like antibiotics
    so as to prevent things like antibiotic resistant pathogens, which would have adverse consequences for everyone in society. This is less of a big deal with MDMA and LSD etc.


  • #66
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    I'm going to ignore your 'radioactive materials' rubbish because it's just rolling in shit and I don't want to get my clothes dirty.
    You're ignoring it because you have no valid reason for suggesting that people are allowed uncontrolled access to one class of toxic substances but not another.
    There's a difference between expertise and being patronising. You're talking about patronising ideologues who think they know better. An expert is someone who can show another what is the best approach is and pro-prohibition 'experts' on this subject have failed so they should not be taken seriously.
    I never realised advising people based on knowledge was patronising. If someone studies something and their working life more or less revolves around studying and working with a particular class of substances then I wouldn't contend that they just "think they know better than most". I'd just say "they know better than most" and leave it at that.
    People have been taking drugs for thousands of years without 'expertise' have we suddenly become more stupid? No.
    During these "thousands of years" that you speak of, i'd imagine countless people died from poisoning and misuse. Very few (If any) actually knew anything to be able to advise others. Nowadays, things have changed and we know an awful lot more than we did in the past.
    Again this is patronising bullshit. Prohibition is not about protecting the public. Drug prohibition is nothing more than puritanical meddling in the lives of autonomous individuals.
    Is banning cisplatin self-medication nothing more than "puritanical meddling in the lives of autonomous individuals"? Or is it only meddling when we're talking about self-medicating psychoactive drugs?
    Do you talk to your friends before they drive? Before they go to the pub? Skiing? Hill walking? Eating fatty foods? Smoking? Because they are all dangerous.

    Being alive involves risk.
    Walking, driving, going to the pub, skiing, hiking, eating fatty foods, smoking have miniscule acute risk in comparison to something like snorting cocaine.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    What does it mean then? In the context of drugs that is.

    I'm not advocating a free for all. I'm advocating a change in a policy that has caused untold misery i.e. drug prohibition.
    If I can buy heroin, why shouldn't I be allowed to buy Cisplatin or whatever drug I fancy?

    I can't see why someone would choose to buy (Cislatin WTF it is) so I can't see there being any market for it other than that which it was intended for.
    They can very easily be adapted to be used as weapons. If someone spiked a water supply with a huge quantity of some highly toxic drug, it'd do the same job as polonium.

    Lol, that would be such a horrible thing to happen.

    Shit's weak.


  • #68
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    gaffer91 wrote: »
    Also @partyatmygaff, give up that ridiculous polonium\uranium argument, it has been debunked in posts #56 and #59 by Chuck Stone and by Grindle in post #64. Also your question about warfarin being openly available-there is no real demand for it so it is not a big issue.
    No I don't think I will actually. Drugs are substances that are potentially highly toxic. Radioactive materials are also substances that are potentially highly toxic. I see no valid reason for Chuck to say "Yeah, go ahead and buy 10kg of pure cisplatin powder, it's none of my business" and then follow it up with "No, you can't have a gram of polonium. You might try and use it to make a weapon, i'll physically stop you from buying polonium". It's a ridiculous double standard.


  • #69
    grindle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,025 ✭✭✭grindle


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    I'd just say "they know better than most" and leave it at that.

    Leave it at that then.

    As for why heroin was banned... Yup, politics, societal mores. Not that it isn't a ridiculously dangerous drug, but it hadn't had much of an effect to have had it banned.
    You keep implying that 'they' do this to keep us safe, but when alcohol comes to question, you shrivel back into your shell and say "Naw, can't ban that: too many people on it."

    So if we all got fücked on heroin tomorrow, all of us, it should be legalised?


  • #70
    af_thefragile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,161 ✭✭✭af_thefragile


    Most people know how bad Herion is and how it can very negatively affect your life trapping you in a vicious circle of addiction and crime.

    Yet many people still do it...

    So I dunno if legalising drugs is going to make things any better. Just will make drugs more accessible to more people.


  • #71
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    I'm not advocating a free for all. I'm advocating a change in a policy that has caused untold misery i.e. drug prohibition.
    "A change in policy". What does that entail exactly? Legislation of the open sale of drugs currently being used on the street but not the comparatively more innocent drugs which are currrently only prescription only or pharmacist-sale only? Seems a bit ridiculous if you ask me.
    I can't see why someone would choose to buy (Cislatin WTF it is) so I can't see there being any market for it other than that which it was intended for.
    Here's a feasible scenario. Someone self-diagnoses testicular cancer and they don't want to go to their doctor out of embarrassment. Should be they be allowed to buy a few grams of cisplatin powder off the internet to self-medicate? Would you sell them the powder?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    I never realised advising people based on knowledge was patronising. If someone studies something and their working life more or less revolves around studying and working with a particular class of substances then I wouldn't contend that they just "think they know better than most". I'd just say "they know better than most" and leave it at that.

    Giving people advice on the dangers of drug abuse = good.

    Making criminals out of people and throwing them in prison for a lifestyle choice = bad.
    Is banning cisplatin self-medication nothing more than "puritanical meddling in the lives of autonomous individuals"?

    It's a non issue. There is no demand for Cispitan. If people want to poison themselves they can use weed killer and get it a lot easier.
    Or is it only meddling when we're talking about self-medicating psychoactive drugs?

    You are confusing medicating with recreational use of drugs.

    Tut tut.


  • #73
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Should a drug like warfarin be relegated to open sale too?



    Originally Posted by grindle viewpost.gif
    Keeping it simple: why would anybody take warfarin besides medical grounds?

    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    They wouldn't. What i'm saying is should they be allowed to self-diagnose and self-medicate?

    *Walks into local farmers Co-op*
    *Places money on counter*
    *walks out with two drums of warfarin rat poison blocks*

    Some amount of nonsensical shite being spouted on this thread


  • #74
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,797 ✭✭✭karma_


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    No I don't think I will actually. Drugs are substances that are potentially highly toxic. Radioactive materials are also substances that are potentially highly toxic. I see no valid reason for Chuck to say "Yeah, go ahead and buy 10kg of pure cisplatin powder, it's none of my business" and then follow it up with "No, you can't have a gram of polonium. You might try and use it to make a weapon, i'll physically stop you from buying polonium". It's a ridiculous double standard.

    Parties at your gaff must be the most boring in Christendom.


  • #75
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    grindle wrote: »
    Leave it at that then.

    As for why heroin was banned... Yup, politics, societal mores.
    I suppose the fact it was even more addictive than morphine didn't play a role?
    Not that it isn't a ridiculously dangerous drug, but it hadn't had much of an effect to have had it banned.
    You keep implying that 'they' do this to keep us safe, but when alcohol comes to question, you shrivel back into your shell and say "Naw, can't ban that: too many people on it."
    With the amount of regular alcohol users in the world, banning alcohol would be completely infeasible. A huge black market even larger than that currently present for illicit drugs would crop up. The same goes for nicotine. Considering there are probably exponentially more alcohol/nicotine users than say heroin users, it is still feasible to ban heroin and attempt to encourage people to stop its use. The ship has sailed when it comes to nicotine and alcohol though. They're far too accepted at this stage.


  • #76
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    I think a better example to use in the argument against legalising all drugs would be benzodiazepines like valium. I can honestly see people who have a bit of trouble sleeping, or tend to get pretty stressed out - things that could probably be fixed sans meds - self-prescribing benzos and developing a dependance them pretty fast. And kicking a benzo habit makes giving up heroin look like a pleasant stroll in the park. The latter is extremely unpleasant, the former can result in seizures and even death in the worst cases. I'm sure there are plenty of other drugs with myriad medicinal uses that have a dangerously high potential for abuse. Potent opiates spring to mind. I really don't think world where people can pluck a pack of oxycodone off the shelves to use as they will would be a healthier place.


    "Legalise everything" is as ill-thought-out idea as full-on prohibition, and even more injurious to society, in my opinion. Decriminalise everything and legalise the ones that will not have a serious impact on society.


  • #77
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Giving people advice on the dangers of drug abuse = good.

    Making criminals out of people and throwing them in prison for a lifestyle choice = bad.
    I don't advocate criminalising or imprisoning drug users. Drug dealers on the other hand...
    It's a non issue. There is no demand for Cispitan. If people want to poison themselves they can use weed killer and get it a lot easier.
    Who said anything about intentionally poisoning themselves? If you read my later post, you'll see a perfectly feasible scenario where someone may want to obtain cisplatin. Do you think it's appropriate to allow the sale of potentially extremely dangerous substances to people who may not know an awful lot about the substance and may not be in a fit state of mind to make a safe decision about how to use the substance?
    You are confusing medicating with recreational use of drugs.

    Tut tut.
    Why do people take recreational drugs? Boredom? Difficulties in life? For a bit of excitement? Looking at from a certain perspective, you could argue they're self-medicating a psychological condition.
    mikom wrote: »
    *Walks into local farmers Co-op*
    *Places money on counter*
    *walks out with two drums of warfarin rat poison blocks*

    Some amount of nonsensical shite being spouted on this thread
    You could also buy one of its precursors and synthesise it yourself. There's no controlling that and that's not the point. The point is that the final product (Which is designed for human use) should not be available for open sale.
    karma_ wrote: »
    Parties at your gaff must be the most boring in Christendom.
    I never realised you needed drugs to enjoy yourself. I must have missed the memo.


  • #78
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    "A change in policy". Legislation of the open sale of drugs currently being used on the street but not the comparatively more innocent drugs which are currrently only prescription only or pharmacist-sale only?

    Drug prohibition has been an abject failure and is immoral because people should be allowed to purchase and consume drugs without being criminalised.
    Seems a bit ridiculous if you ask me.

    Ridiculous? You're the one who has been coming up with the most ridiculous 'arguments' - people poisoning reservoirs and building nuclear bombs etc.
    Here's a feasible scenario. Someone self-diagnoses testicular cancer and they don't want to go to their doctor out of embarrassment.

    So because some guy somewhere might self-medicate we need to keep the prohibition of drugs? Such a non-argument.

    Reminds me of the argument against gay marriage. Some guy somewhere wants to marry a horse so we need to stop marriage where it is now or civilisation will collapse.

    You're fabricating horrible scenarios to justify current failed policies. Millions of people in jail all over the world for drug offences. Millions of criminal records and ruined opportunities. Billions spent on trying to stop normal behaviour but nope... some dude somewhere might buy a cancer drug and take it so we're good.

    Shit's weak.


  • #79
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    No I don't think I will actually. Drugs are substances that are potentially highly toxic. Radioactive materials are also substances that are potentially highly toxic. I see no valid reason for Chuck to say "Yeah, go ahead and buy 10kg of pure cisplatin powder, it's none of my business" and then follow it up with "No, you can't have a gram of polonium. You might try and use it to make a weapon, i'll physically stop you from buying polonium". It's a ridiculous double standard.

    No offence, but you're talking a load of rubbish. There is no demand for polonium or uranium first of all. For the tiny minority who want them it is almost certainly not for activities that are not harmful to the general population so therefore it is easy to see why they are prohibited.

    Lots of illegal drugs such are not that harmful to society as a whole or even individual users so why should they be prohibited? (Also I note people keep talking about heroin in this thread as an argument against legalisation- what about drugs that are proven to be less harmful such as MDMA?)

    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    "A change in policy". What does that entail exactly? Legislation of the open sale of drugs currently being used on the street but not the comparatively more innocent drugs which are currrently only prescription only or pharmacist-sale only? Seems a bit ridiculous if you ask me.


    Here's a feasible scenario. Someone self-diagnoses testicular cancer and they don't want to go to their doctor out of embarrassment. Should be they be allowed to buy a few grams of cisplatin powder off the internet to self-medicate? Would you sell them the powder?

    First of all this is not really going to happen that often I'm guessing. Secondly in this instance the man is going to buy the drugs not for recreational but for medical use. Therefore it would be unquestionably in his best interests to get a doctor's opinion on his condition, given people's propensity to misdiagnose from info they received on the web. So in this particular instance, yes, he should need a prescription. What I am trying to say is, recreational drugs would be more freely available, whereas medical drugs would be still be only available on prescription. Drugs can be legalised on a case by case basis.

    Anyway these are all strawmen arguments. We are not talking about uraniym or cisplantin. We are talking about traditional recreational drugs. So without any more strawmen, are you in favour of legalising the likes of MDMA, LSD, Ket etc.?


  • #80
    Pandora2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 937 ✭✭✭Pandora2


    Delighted to see that the producers/distributors & retailers of alcohol can relax, their lobby has successfully presented their case and their control of the relaxation markets is assured!!

    Ditto the tobacco/pharmacetical giants, wouldn't do to have anything interfere with their profit margins.:rolleyes:


  • #81
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,506 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    is he ****.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    partyatmygaff wrote: »

    I never realised you needed drugs to enjoy yourself. I must have missed the memo.
    The best gaff parties invariably involve copious amounts of good drugs, let's not delude ourselves here.


  • #83
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Drug dealers on the other hand...

    So your problem is not with consumption - your problem is with those who supply it. In other words your problem is with prohibition.


  • #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    I think a better example to use in the argument against legalising all drugs would be benzodiazepines like valium. I can honestly see people who have a bit of trouble sleeping, or tend to get pretty stressed out - things that could probably be fixed sans meds - self-prescribing benzos and developing a dependance them pretty fast. And kicking a benzo habit makes giving up heroin look like a pleasant stroll in the park. The latter is extremely unpleasant, the former can result in seizures and even death in the worst cases. I'm sure there are plenty of other drugs with myriad medicinal uses that have a dangerously high potential for abuse. Potent opiates spring to mind. I really don't think world where people can pluck a pack of oxycodone off the shelves to use as they will would be a healthier place.


    "Legalise everything" is as ill-thought-out idea as full-on prohibition, and even more injurious to society, in my opinion. Decriminalise everything and legalise the ones that will not have a serious impact on society.

    I agree with the bit in bold in particular.

    But anyway, no-one is really calling for a legalisation of all medicinal drugs, just for some traditional recreational drugs. People appreciate the difference there. There is a big difference there which seemingly only partyatmygaff seems to fail to comprehend.


  • #85
    grindle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,025 ✭✭✭grindle


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    ...attempt to encourage people to stop its use. The ship has sailed when it comes to nicotine and alcohol though. They're far too accepted at this stage.
    Very important. Attempt. Never going to win. I hear it's REEEEEEEEEALLY good.

    Besides that, why do you WANT people to stop using all recreational drugs? Why is this the ideal? If someone's using chemicals as a crutch... Oh no. Terrible. Their choice.

    Nicotine without the smoke is akin to caffeine, alcohol can elucidate, ecstasy can make you feel more love and kinship than you thought imaginable, weed can be either deliciously soothing or hilarious. This is what these things are to most who try them.
    Why not let people have those feelings, which are experiences unlikely to naturally occur in an untouched human brain?
    Life is for experiencing. These are beautiful experiences.
    Bad things happen too, but in my life, they've been far outweighed by good things happening.

    Heroin isn't more addictive than morphine, it's more potent, metabolises faster in the body, turns back into morphine.
    Same effect, but less to take, and faster.


  • #86
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mikom viewpost.gif
    *Walks into local farmers Co-op*
    *Places money on counter*
    *walks out with two drums of warfarin rat poison blocks*

    Some amount of nonsensical shite being spouted on this thread

    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    You could also buy one of its precursors and synthesise it yourself. There's no controlling that and that's not the point. The point is that the final product (Which is designed for human use) should not be available for open sale.

    First off, I do believe you thought that a joe soap like me would not have access to warfarin without going through a doctor.
    I showed you how.
    I am beginning to see large chinks in your knowledge.
    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    You could also buy one of its precursors and synthesise it yourself. There's no controlling that and that's not the point. The point is that the final product (Which is designed for human use) should not be available for open sale.

    Cannabis sativa has no precursor.
    Are you saying there's no controlling that.
    It seems from your arguments that you are.
    If there is no controlling it then you better let those in power know.


  • #87
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Drug prohibition has been an abject failure and is immoral because people should be allowed to purchase and consume drugs without being criminalised.
    Similarly, I see legalisation of all drugs as being even more immoral. As for criminalisation of drug users, i'm not hugely bothered. That said, i'd definitely advocate the criminilisation of drug dealers regardless of scale.
    Ridiculous? You're the one who has been coming up with the most ridiculous 'arguments' - people poisoning reservoirs and building nuclear bombs etc.
    On that note, you still haven't answered my earlier question.
    So because some guy somewhere might self-medicate we need to keep the prohibition of drugs? Such a non-argument.
    That's precisely what i'm saying. You dismissing it as a non-argument does not make it so. I find it completely immoral to allow people the facility to make uninformed decisions under stress that may end up costing them their lives.
    You're fabricating horrible scenarios to justify current failed policies. Millions of people in jail all over the world for drug offences.
    There is nothing unbelievable about the scenario I suggested earlier. It's well within the realms of possibility given people's views on cancer.
    Millions of criminal records and ruined opportunities. Billions spent on trying to stop normal behaviour but nope... some dude somewhere might buy a cancer drug and take it so we're good.
    "Normal behavior"? I never knew my not taking a cocktail of LSD, MDMA and every psychoactive I can get my hands on every single weekend made me and most of the population abnormal.
    Shit's weak.
    Indeed. What a fitting footer to all your posts.


  • #88
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    gaffer91 wrote: »
    Anyway these are all strawmen arguments. We are not talking about uraniym or cisplantin. We are talking about traditional recreational drugs. So without any more strawmen, are you in favour of legalising the likes of MDMA, LSD, Ket etc.?
    Ketamine is actually on the WHO's list of essential medicines. It also doesn't fall in with the likes of MDMA in terms of safety profile. That chart that's always posted based on the ACMD study, the one that places alcohol way way ahead of weed and ecstasy in terms of relative harm? Ket ranks highly on it; ahead of booze.

    Even more tellingly: I frequent sites dedicated to discussion of psychoactive drugs, where many of the users take drugs combinations that would have me drooling on the floor for days. I've heard from quite a lot of people there who have developed psychological dependance to the substance, and serious bladder problems that come with it. I think "listen to the manglers" tends to be a pretty good heuristic: if cainers say something's dangerous, it's probably dangerous.


  • #89
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Similarly, I see legalisation of all drugs as being even more immoral. As for criminalisation of drug users, i'm not hugely bothered. That said, i'd definitely advocate the criminilisation of drug dealers regardless of scale.

    Why should people give a ****e what you think is immoral? You probably consider sex before marriage immoral.


  • #90
    CrabRevolution
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,158 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    If Ireland were to legalise the likes of cocaine/heroin tomorrow, they would still be illegal in countries such as Columbia and Mexico where they are grown and produced, funding criminals and terrorists. Ireland doesn't have the climate to grow the plants necessary for cocaine and heroin, so would need to buy it off these countries.

    I can't imagine it would do Ireland's reputation any good to pass a law that allows a practice which requires the breaking of countless other countries laws, funding criminals and gang. Look at the gang wars in Mexico, the Taliban in Afghanistan, legalising heroin and cocaine would only give them a bigger market.

    I'd imagine Marijuana and the chemical drugs could be a homegrown industry so there wouldn't be as much a problem there.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Signature

    Michael Jackson R.I.P. The Man The Myth The Legend

    King of Pop 1958 - The end of time

    The irony of your sig is lost on you it seems.
    Michael Jackson who died of benzodiazepine and propofol intoxication as supplied by his doctor.


Advertisement
Advertisement