Uruguay to legalise marijuana

studiorat · 01-08-2013 01:12PM

Boombastic wrote: »

That's a good argument to legalise it

One of the better ones IMO. All drugs should be decriminalized anyway.

Seems to be quite a few of those addictive personalities about though!

frank reynolds · 01-08-2013 01:12PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

The "purest" weed in the world has health benefits and health drawbacks.

nobody is really saying that it should be legalised because it's a miracle plant. but there ARE some health benefits to it. there are more health benefits to it than being addicted to coffee. FACT.

Jonny7 · 01-08-2013 01:16PM

frank reynolds wrote: »

same as someone can die from eating a peanut. it's not meant for EVERYONE.

Someone can have an extreme allergic reaction to peanuts, it only affects a very low amount of people. A test can be done to determine this.

There are extreme allergic reactions to weed also.

I am speaking of the longer-term health effects of smoking weed.

studiorat · 01-08-2013 01:17PM

frank reynolds wrote: »

and just to clear up - there is a HUGE difference in Hash and proper weed.
one is cheap and full of sh!te and the other is plant material without anything added to it.

so before you go on with your insane ideas of it, make sure you are aware that if it was regulated and legal, it wouldnt be the cheap stuff that people would be getting. it wouldnt be the sh!t you THINK is "weed" when in fact is hash. do some research on it's medical benefits.

Why do discussions about drugs always end up sounding like a bad rendition of Withnail and I?

Jonny7 · 01-08-2013 01:18PM

frank reynolds wrote: »

nobody is really saying that it should be legalised because it's a miracle plant. but there ARE some health benefits to it. there are more health benefits to it than being addicted to coffee. FACT.

and there are health drawbacks.

I wouldn't recommend it to anyone below 18, and if someone I cared about were to start smoking regularly I'd warn them of the potential mental and physical risks.

Spunge · 01-08-2013 01:19PM

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/499/196/b83.jpg

frank reynolds · 01-08-2013 01:23PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

and there are health drawbacks.

I wouldn't recommend it to anyone below 18, and if someone I cared about were to start smoking regularly I'd warn them of the potential mental and physical risks.

Yes Exactly. It WOULD be 18+ for it most likely if it were legalised.

nobody is going to start forcing kids to smoke it, nor anyone else for that matter.

a lot of legal stuff has NO health benefits: alcohol, cake, coffee, cigarettes, mcdonalds, etc etc...

as well, agree, of course you would - same as you wouldn't allow them to become an alcoholic!?

Grayson · 01-08-2013 01:31PM

frank reynolds wrote: »

Yes Exactly. It WOULD be 18+ for it most likely if it were legalised.

that's the thing. the argument "won't somebody think of the children!" always crops up. No-one is suggesting that it should be legal for children. There's loads of stuff that's illegal for children. Alcohol, tobacco, sex etc... This would just be another thing on the list.

Cienciano · 01-08-2013 01:40PM

I'd love it was made legal. Reading through this thread is funny, haven't heard one valid reason why it should be illegal and about 10-15 good reasons why it should be legalised.

Leftist · 01-08-2013 01:43PM

studiorat wrote: »

Why did you leave out the fact he was drinking Whiskey? It was reported in the "National Media".

why does it matter that he was drinking whiskey

what has that got to do with reporting that he was smoking dope?

Define national media btw.

dublinbhoy88 · 01-08-2013 01:48PM

Cienciano wrote: »

I'd love it was made legal. Reading through this thread is funny, haven't heard one valid reason why it should be illegal and about 10-15 good reasons why it should be legalised.

that's because there is no valid reason for keeping it illegal... !

MonaPizza · 01-08-2013 02:08PM

studiorat wrote: »

I think there is some truth to it. Even if you start drinking in moderation there's still a possibility that you'll end up an alcoholic, I think that's possible. I don't see it as nonsensical.

If you start smoking weed regularly you aren't going to suddenly want class A's but you are putting yourself in a position where they may be available. And I do think you are more likely to try something if you have already become comfortable around weed and it's culture in Ireland.

I don't know any addicts who don't smoke weed.

I know several alcoholics who have never touched weed and don't even smoke tobacco. I also know a valium addict who has never drank.

Spunge · 01-08-2013 02:13PM

alcohol is the biggest gateway drug to class A stimulants

EazyD · 01-08-2013 02:16PM

It's amazing that as a "modern" country, we still have people who firmly believe that the prohibition of cannabis is in the public interest, despite the fact that our current government have not outlined any valid reasons to dismiss the support of legalisation. This is the same government who granted licensing to multi-national pharmaceuticals to produce cannabis tinctures for sale on the Irish market. As it has always been, those with the deepest pockets call the shots, and manipulate transparent facts in their favour.

becost · 01-08-2013 02:33PM

Oranage2 wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Maybe not but 2 negatives equal a positive. :pac:

studiorat · 01-08-2013 02:38PM

Leftist wrote: »

why does it matter that he was drinking whiskey what has that got to do with reporting that he was smoking dope?

Jesus dude, are you stoned already? You posted a story saying that the "National Media" blaming cannabis for a vicious attack.

You selectively quote the bits from an Irish Times article. The article mentions he was drinking Whiskey before the attack, and you ask what has that got to do with the attack.

I suggest you define "National Media" You're the one who is using the term in the first place.

Leftist wrote: »

You still get the national media reporting in crime cases that the accussed had 'used marajuana' before attacking the victim ffs

Wacker The Attacker · 01-08-2013 02:39PM

Give some to Luis Suarez

studiorat · 01-08-2013 02:41PM

MonaPizza wrote: »

I know several alcoholics who have never touched weed and don't even smoke tobacco. I also know a valium addict who has never drank.

WTF???

shane9689 · 01-08-2013 02:59PM

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I dont know if it happened in all of them but I recall a lot of them being mentioned as selling everything with a nudge and a wink. There was also a few I recall who were drove out of business and one iirc burned out. The criminal gangs that controlled the drugs didnt take kindly to the sale of bath salts eating into their business.

These gangs wont bow out gracefully and will try get in on what they believe to be a move on their territory. If they get influence on the business you know it wont stop at a bit of weed, if they dont get influence you can bet they will do their best to disrupt business, steal the products and bully those who try to set up these shops. The amount of crime might not disappear it might just shift.

I'm not saying its impossible and I'm not against legalisation but it is going to be a battle for territory with existing drug gangs. I'd imagine down in South America there would be a lot of people involved in drugs too so it wont be as simple as legalising it and watching all the pieces fall into place.

true...but give it time....where will the drug lords get their money? if quarter of their profits has instantly been taken and been put into the hands of the government? (if the government isnt one of them). Uruguay is a complicated case anyways, because it has soo many underlying problems regardless of weed. they will disrupt business regardless of this legalisation, and those business will only exist if its legal, so if they disrupt them what does it matter? they wouldnt have existed otherwise anyways?

anyways, i dont believe people should approach this with the idea of removing organised crime (always will exist). but rather look at it from a national health point of view...atleast this way, they can use more money to focus on treatment and prevention of use which is far more important

MonaPizza · 01-08-2013 03:03PM

People harp on about the harmful effects of cannabis which pale in comparison to the effects of other addictive substances which are perfectly legal. Alcohol is the de facto that people fall back on when making their arguments and they should look further. Take refined sugar. if this sh!t was discovered today it would come with a government warning (that is of course if the government really cared about health).
Refined sugar is in everything. Processed foods (which are laced with sugar) cost the American public $54 Billion in dental bills each year...and that's just dental bills. In 1915 the average annual intake per person was about 5 kilos of sugar. Today the average person consumes their bodyweight in sugar plus about 10 kilos of corn syrup.
This crap contains NO minerals, NO proteins, NO enzymes, NO fiber, NO fats, only empty calories. The body has to then borrow vital nutrients from other sources to metabolize this incomplete food. Calcium, Potassium, Magnesium, Sodium are taken to make use of the sugar.
Calcium is called upon so much that the bones become osteoporotic. The blood become gloopy, retarding or preventing its flow through capilliaries that supply gums and teeth.
Sugar is a direct cause of diabetes and hypoglycemia. It also has a profound effect on the mental state. The brain is sensitive to changes in chemical balance and when insulin levels and blood-sugar ratios change the effects on the brain are dramatic. Consumption of sugar robs the cells of vitamin B effectively destroying them and dropping insulin levels. When insulin levels drop it results in a higher glucose level in the bloodstream that can lead to a confused mental state or unsound mind. It's also been linked to juvenile criminal behaviour.

And that's just the tip of the ice-lolly (sorry couldn't resist).

The cost to the health services from diabetes, heart-failure, renal failure, mental problems are staggering.

This drug is addictive, legal and literally lethal.
And it has ZERO benefits.

Cannabis has multiple health benefits and medicinal properties and few harmful effects.

Focusing on the one or two guys who smoked so much that they lost their short term memory or got depressed, and using this over-indulgence as the benchmark for painting cannabis as dangerous is quite frankly laughable.

Leftist · 01-08-2013 03:03PM

studiorat wrote: »

Jesus dude, are you stoned already? You posted a story saying that the "National Media" blaming cannabis for a vicious attack.

You selectively quote the bits from an Irish Times article. The article mentions he was drinking Whiskey before the attack, and you ask what has that got to do with the attack.

I suggest you define "National Media" You're the one who is using the term in the first place.

Leftist wrote: »

You still get the national media reporting in crime cases that the accussed had 'used marajuana' before attacking the victim

Where does it suggest blaming marijuana?

It doesn't suggest that marijuana was exclusive either.

The point was, and was made separately by others on the thread: What has marijuana got to do with it? regardless of the combination with alcohol.

I'm challenging you to define 'national media' because you have some problem with the term and have also suggested it doesn't exist.
If you were being pedantic and meant 'state media' then you would also be wrong.

studiorat · 01-08-2013 03:11PM

Leftist wrote: »

Where does it suggest blaming marijuana?

It doesn't suggest that marijuana was exclusive either.

The point was, and was made separately by others on the thread: What has marijuana got to do with it? regardless of the combination with alcohol.

I'm challenging you to define 'national media' because you have some problem with the term and have also suggested it doesn't exist.
If you were being pedantic and meant 'state media' then you would also be wrong.

You accuse the paper of "reefer madness" and can't prove it. When asked to, you can't even quote the newspaper properly. They said the accused had been drinking and smoking. For effect you purposefully lied about what the newspaper said.

"National Media" is idiot-speak for people who believe that all media somehow magically comes from one source.

So Leftist, what is the "National Media" if it isn't a hipster catchphrase?

dublinbhoy88 · 01-08-2013 03:20PM

MonaPizza wrote: »

People harp on about the harmful effects of cannabis which pale in comparison to the effects of other addictive substances which are perfectly legal. Alcohol is the de facto that people fall back on when making their arguments and they should look further. Take refined sugar. if this sh!t was discovered today it would come with a government warning (that is of course if the government really cared about health).
Refined sugar is in everything. Processed foods (which are laced with sugar) cost the American public $54 Billion in dental bills each year...and that's just dental bills. In 1915 the average annual intake per person was about 5 kilos of sugar. Today the average person consumes their bodyweight in sugar plus about 10 kilos of corn syrup.
This crap contains NO minerals, NO proteins, NO enzymes, NO fiber, NO fats, only empty calories. The body has to then borrow vital nutrients from other sources to metabolize this incomplete food. Calcium, Potassium, Magnesium, Sodium are taken to make use of the sugar.
Calcium is called upon so much that the bones become osteoporotic. The blood become gloopy, retarding or preventing its flow through capilliaries that supply gums and teeth.
Sugar is a direct cause of diabetes and hypoglycemia. It also has a profound effect on the mental state. The brain is sensitive to changes in chemical balance and when insulin levels and blood-sugar ratios change the effects on the brain are dramatic. Consumption of sugar robs the cells of vitamin B effectively destroying them and dropping insulin levels. When insulin levels drop it results in a higher glucose level in the bloodstream that can lead to a confused mental state or unsound mind. It's also been linked to juvenile criminal behaviour.

And that's just the tip of the ice-lolly (sorry couldn't resist).

The cost to the health services from diabetes, heart-failure, renal failure, mental problems are staggering.

This drug is addictive, legal and literally lethal.
And it has ZERO benefits.

Cannabis has multiple health benefits and medicinal properties and few harmful effects.

Focusing on the one or two guys who smoked so much that they lost their short term memory or got depressed, and using this over-indulgence as the benchmark for painting cannabis as dangerous is quite frankly laughable.

well said... But weed isn't illegal for health reasons.

Jonny7 · 01-08-2013 03:20PM

MonaPizza wrote: »

Cannabis has multiple health benefits and medicinal properties and few harmful effects.

It is debateable which is more harmful, smoking tobacco or smoking cannabis.

Leftist · 01-08-2013 03:29PM

studiorat wrote: »

You accuse the paper of "reefer madness" and can't prove it. When asked to, you can't even quote the newspaper properly. They said the accused had been drinking and smoking. For effect you purposefully lied about what the newspaper said.

"National Media" is idiot-speak for people who believe that all media somehow magically comes from one source.

So Leftist, what is the "National Media" if it isn't a hipster catchphrase?

talking utter rubbish now. None of those things are true, have some self respect.

studiorat · 01-08-2013 03:29PM

MonaPizza wrote: »

using this over-indulgence as the benchmark for painting cannabis as dangerous is quite frankly laughable.

It's OK with sugar though! :pac:

frank reynolds · 01-08-2013 03:30PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

It is debateable which is more harmful, smoking tobacco or smoking cannabis.

no it is not!! tobacco is lethal and has MANY dangers to health.

studiorat · 01-08-2013 03:33PM

Leftist wrote: »

talking utter rubbish now. None of those things are true, have some self respect.

Show us the original quote in context and stop making stuff up. :rolleyes:

Hoop66 · 01-08-2013 03:34PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

It is debateable which is more harmful, smoking tobacco or smoking cannabis.

I would disagree. Both can lead to the deposition of tar in the respioratory passages , as would any burning plant material. However the effects of nicotine on the body, aside from the addiction issue, would be far greater than the effects of THC. I'm thinking specifically of deleterious effects on the cardio-vascular system.

A slight oversimplification, I will admit, obviously there are many more constituent chemicals in both.

kylith · 01-08-2013 03:40PM

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

well said... But weed isn't illegal for health reasons.

Nope, it was made illegal for economic ones.

Uruguay to legalise marijuana

Comments