Scaremongering about cannabis on Crimecall right now

Son Of A Vidic · 27-05-2014 03:18PM

I really wanted to join in the debate, but I'm strangely apathetic and absolutely starving.

TimeToShine · 27-05-2014 03:18PM

richy wrote: »

I love the way I heart internet calls people who died because of taking possibly tainted drugs are retards and Black white likes the comment but black White got his feelings hurt by a bad word and alerted the mods. Someone needs to call wambulance for this pair.

If you refer to the other thread on ecstacy you'll find that particular poster is quite uninformed on the topic at hand and will fight drugs until the bitter end. There's no point having an argument - it's one of those topics where if you have it drilled into you at a young age that "anything illegal is bad" it will manifest itself in many aspects of your life - and that translates accordingly online.

WRT cannabis, pro-cannabis groups are right in that it isn't "technically" harmful to people. However, its subjective effects are quite profound - it causes serious motivation issues and costs a lot of money. I know a few very intelligent people I went to college with who completely lost motivation as a DIRECT result of how much cannabis they smoked. It didn't affect their health per se, but it compromised many facets of their lives and would not have happened had they not smoked to begin with.

Everything in moderation, people. Cannabis (and arguably other drugs) in moderation are definitely less damaging to you than alcohol binging weekly, and that is a fact. Not everyone should do drugs, some people are perfectly content without them and/or vehemently disagree with them and that is understandable. However, if you are one of those people who believes that variety is the spice of life then you should probably go for it.

I Heart Internet · 27-05-2014 03:20PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Being in favour of legalisation and regulation isn't 'cheer-leading irresponsible drug use'. If anything it's doing the opposite.

I agree, to a point. But the problem is, those who suggest de-criminalisation, legislation and regulation will never (in my experience) call on people to avoid drug-use in the absence of such legislation.

They call for legislation and criminalisation to "clean-up" and "make-safer" drug use, but can't bring themselves to advise people that, in the absence of a safer, legal market for drugs, they should not use them.

blackwhite · 27-05-2014 03:21PM

richy wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what your buddy I heart internet done when he said people who took pills ams died are retards and you likes his comment. Is that not worse victim blaming than pundy saying that other fella deserved being called simple for having simple ideas and not being able to change his opinion when provided the facts to prove he is wrong on a ****ing Internet forum. And we have beens debating the point the whole time. How many times have we made comments like Oh he must be irritable because he can't smoke a joint. We gave valid points and evidence ye gave empty rhetoric and pointless comments.

Empty rhetoric and pointless comments?

If you'd bothered to read the thread I've stated that I'm in favour of legislation, regulation and taxation - but I just don't see that it's that much of a pressing issue right now

What I do have an issue with is the rabid attempts at shouting down any debate that always seems to occur on these threads.

Temptamperu · 27-05-2014 03:24PM

The only people who should be against legalisation are drug dealers.

Xeyn · 27-05-2014 03:25PM

desultory wrote: »

The anti cannabis crew would have more luck with their agenda if they didn't insist on spreading blatant lies and stuck to the facts.
They also tend to be the most uninformed of the subject matter.

I have seen very few sensible posters from either side including the pro cannabis, just using rhetoric to discredit te other side.
Cannabis users in my experience as mentioned earlier cherry pick their facts too.
There are no equivical studies which show there is definitely no long term irreversible damage and similarly no definite evidence on no long term damage on cognition and memory. There is no scientific consensus at present. We will only know when more robust studies are performed and meta analysis follows.
So those pro cannabis users spouting 'facts' are often just as uninformed (rather misinformed) than those who claim thc is extremely detrimental to you.

richy · 27-05-2014 03:25PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I imagine pill testing of some sort would save lives. Some would use it and some would act appropriately on the results. Others won't. This consultatnt medic seemed to think it was a fanciful notion.

In the absence of pill testing being widespread, would you agree with the advice not to ingest any pill that you purchase off someone on a night out? Would you agree with that?

Yes but is not realistic because people wanna have a good time and are quite often already impaired from alcohol when they buy these pills and everyone knows alcohol doesn't make people the smartest. And it is not a fanciful notion. It works and it has saved countless lives. I believe Netherlands had a year with 0 drug deaths due to ecstasy and we have had a couple in a few weeks. Netherlands is a much bigger country than us and I would imagine consume far more pills than us. Read that article. Educate yourself on the subject.

blackwhite wrote: »

You're the one who's gone off on a bender because you can't understand basic English. :rolleyes:

I can understand English perfectly well. What are you referring to? Can you make a valid point rather than questioning my ability to understand English. I still haven't heard one valid point from anyone here on the opposite side of my viewpoint.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

People who ingest unknown substances are stupid. They are slower than the rest of us (who have survived thus far), yes. I'm sad when I hear that anyone has died due to ingesting or consuming illegal drugs and I dislike people who cheerlead for drug use knowing it can lead to such disasters.

Where has anyone cheerleader taking ecstasy? I have called for the safe use of it, if it's gonna be used. You seem to be advocating a just say no policy. It's such am outdated view point it'd be funny if so many people hadn't died from it. It's unrealistic for people to stop taking them so why not live in the real world and try get pill testing implemented.

I Heart Internet · 27-05-2014 03:30PM

richy wrote: »

Where has anyone cheerleader taking ecstasy? I have called for the safe use of it, if it's gonna be used. You seem to be advocating a just say no policy. It's such am outdated view point it'd be funny if so many people hadn't died from it. It's unrealistic for people to stop taking them so why not live in the real world and try get pill testing implemented.

A just say no policy would have saved the lives of those young people who have died in the recent 7-10 days.

A cop-out view that it's just "unreasonable" to tell people to not eat potentially harmful substances only legitimises drug use.

I've advised my children not to drink bleach. It's harmful. They seem to have gotten the message, thankfully.

Xeyn · 27-05-2014 03:31PM

TimeToShine wrote: »

I

WRT cannabis, pro-cannabis groups are right in that it isn't "technically" harmful to people.

That 'technically' is not true at all. The immediate effects of cannabis can potentially be very harmful and there is still much debate on the long term effects.
Thc toxicity is something that cannabis proponents spout a lot and that has validity but should certainly not be the be all and end all of the debate.

desultory · 27-05-2014 03:33PM

Xeyn wrote: »

That 'technically' is not true at all. The immediate effects of cannabis can potentially be very harmful and there is still much debate on the long term effects.
Thc toxicity is something that cannabis proponents spout a lot and that has validity but should certainly not be the be all and end all of the debate.

Hold on, immediate affect can be very harmful? Like what? Worst affect I've ever seen from cannabis affect immediately was someone pulling a whitey.

dundalkfc10 · 27-05-2014 03:34PM

My younger brother smokes Cannabis regularly, Joint in the morning before he heads off to work and about 3 or 4 when he returns home in the evening.

He is a Solicitor and it does not effect his job/lifestyle/family etc...... compared to an Uncle of mine who has a drink problem which has ruined his job/lifestyle and family!

My name is URL · 27-05-2014 03:35PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I agree, to a point. But the problem is, those who suggest de-criminalisation, legislation and regulation will never (in my experience) call on people to avoid drug-use in the absence of such legislation.

They call for legislation and criminalisation to "clean-up" and "make-safer" drug use, but can't bring themselves to advise people that, in the absence of a safer, legal market for drugs, they should not use them.

Well the only illegal drug I've ever used is weed, and I've never in my life recommended that anyone take it or anything else. You're making generalisations... which seems to be a common theme in this thread.

The fact is that people make their own choices on these matters, regardless of law. If the claim made on the show last night is true*, (that 80% of addiction cases in young people are caused by cannabis) then it just goes to show how ineffective and damaging current legislation is.

* I still reckon that's a bullshit claim

Xeyn · 27-05-2014 03:35PM

desultory wrote: »

Hold on, immediate affect can be very harmful? Like what? Worst affect I've ever seen from cannabis affect immediately was someone pulling a whitey.

Driving while intoxicated.

My name is URL · 27-05-2014 03:38PM

Xeyn wrote: »

Driving while intoxicated.

That's not an "immediate affect" of cannabis. It's an immediate effect of stupidity.

Talk about clutching at straws!

kylith · 27-05-2014 03:39PM

Xeyn wrote: »

One of my best friends is addicted to cannabis and it's poor position to argue from - addiction. He is an extremely intelligent person but is also very ready to admit the harmful effects of weed. For this he makes a strict timetable where e can only indulge after 8 at night as mental faculties take a huge hit free ingestion or inhalation. I've found very few militant defenders of cannabis who weren't addicted whether they admitted it or not.

Your friend isn't addicted. Dependent maybe, but not addictive. Cannabis is not addictive.

TimeToShine wrote: »

WRT cannabis, pro-cannabis groups are right in that it isn't "technically" harmful to people. However, its subjective effects are quite profound - it causes serious motivation issues and costs a lot of money.

Actually it's very cheap, relatively speaking. You can get enough cannabis to get you high for a couple of weeks for the price of a night out in Dublin.

TimeToShine wrote: »

I know a few very intelligent people I went to college with who completely lost motivation as a DIRECT result of how much cannabis they smoked.

That's the worst of it, it makes you ok with doing nothing. It facilitates boredom.

what it takes · 27-05-2014 03:39PM

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

My younger brother smokes Cannabis regularly, Joint in the morning before he heads off to work and about 3 or 4 when he returns home in the evening.

He is a Solicitor and it does not effect his job/lifestyle/family etc...... compared to an Uncle of mine who has a drink problem which has ruined his job/lifestyle and family!

That's a good point, it affects each individual person differently some people wouldn't be able to function on that, but your brother is an example of somebody who can.
Also you rarely see big cannabis users congregate in towns and cities and cause hassle or social problems.

Ray Palmer · 27-05-2014 03:41PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I dislike people who cheerlead for drug use knowing it can lead to such disasters.

But if you want to take that approach the current criminalisation of drugs is responsible for lots of disasters too. Peoples' future destroyed over minor drug offense records, violence of gangs involved in the trade, the importation of arms as part of the package of delivery, people held in servitude etc...

Why support laws that are failing to stop the trade and protect the public? The war on drugs has failed as it has become cheaper, stronger and more available while costing more to police.

desultory · 27-05-2014 03:41PM

Xeyn wrote: »

Driving while intoxicated.

That's not an affect of cannabis hahaha

richy · 27-05-2014 03:42PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I agree, to a point. But the problem is, those who suggest de-criminalisation, legislation and regulation will never (in my experience) call on people to avoid drug-use in the absence of such legislation.

They call for legislation and criminalisation to "clean-up" and "make-safer" drug use, but can't bring themselves to advise people that, in the absence of a safer, legal market for drugs, they should not use them.

It's a waste of time. Calling for abstinence doesn't work. It was proven with Nancy Reagan's just say no campaign. Drug use has exploded since then. Nixon started the war on drugs but he put a large % of the budget for it into rehabilitation. Since then the funding for rehab has dropped dramatically and enforcement budgets have skyrocketed.

blackwhite wrote: »

Empty rhetoric and pointless comments?

If you'd bothered to read the thread I've stated that I'm in favour of legislation, regulation and taxation - but I just don't see that it's that much of a pressing issue right now

What I do have an issue with is the rabid attempts at shouting down any debate that always seems to occur on these threads.

I saw that you said you were in favour of legalisation but you didn't think it was an important issue, i said it will save hundreds of millions between enforcement costs, generate tax income and create jobs. I said name something that will free up that much money, Garda and courts time and you didn't respond with anything. What are these more pressing issues and what do they have to do with these thread on cannabis.

Xeyn wrote: »

I have seen very few sensible posters from either side including the pro cannabis, just using rhetoric to discredit te other side.
Cannabis users in my experience as mentioned earlier cherry pick their facts too.
There are no equivical studies which show there is definitely no long term irreversible damage and similarly no definite evidence on no long term damage on cognition and memory. There is no scientific consensus at present. We will only know when more robust studies are performed and meta analysis follows.
So those pro cannabis users spouting 'facts' are often just as uninformed (rather misinformed) than those who claim thc is extremely detrimental to you.

First of all the reason there have been so little studies is because cannabis is a schedule 1 drug In the us where most research takes place. Schedule 1 means it has no medicinal value. It costs a lot do money to get the Dea to approve a study and they used only allow studies into the negative effects of cannabis. Cannabis use does not kill brain cells and does not affect long term memory only short term memory as far as we know. Yes there hasn't been much long term studies because of what I said above but there have been one or two 20+ year studies. For example in the 70s or 80s the federal gov approved a medicinal marijuania program and since then a couple of patients have been getting government grown cannabis. I have literally never gotten any information from one of these pro weed sites. I do follow some pages on facebook like drugs reform and awareness, transform and students for sensible drug policy. However these pages always link to reputable science journals and newspapers and never to any of those bull**** sites you see like openyourthirdeyedotcom and other similar conspiracy type sites. If you saw the study I posted about dr tashkins of UCLA study that was over a 20 year period and he himself said he was surprised by the results

I Heart Internet · 27-05-2014 03:47PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

But if you want to take that approach the current criminalisation of drugs is responsible for lots of disasters too. Peoples' future destroyed over minor drug offense records, violence of gangs involved in the trade, the importation of arms as part of the package of delivery, people held in servitude etc...

Why support laws that are failing to stop the trade and protect the public? The war on drugs has failed as it has become cheaper, stronger and more available while costing more to police.

Yeah, I've always said that I'm open to a discussion concerning legisaltion on illegal drugs to (try) and take the criminals out of it and make it safer.

But I think it's reckless and irresponsible not to advise people not to take any illegal drugs while they remain illegal (not to mention abusing the legal ones) due to the potential health impacts (short and long term) and the support of violent crime.

Campaign for legalisation of illegal drugs - knock yourself out, but don't encourage dangerous behaviour in the meantime.

Xeyn · 27-05-2014 03:48PM

My name is URL wrote: »

That's not an "immediate affect" of cannabis. It's an immediate effect of stupidity.

Talk about clutching at straws!

I think you'll find cognitive and motor inhibition is an immediate effect. I don't think it is me who is clutching at straws especially since I have displayed no bias or leanings to either side.
But if it makes you feel better...

richy · 27-05-2014 03:48PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

A just say no policy would have saved the lives of those young people who have died in the recent 7-10 days.

A cop-out view that it's just "unreasonable" to tell people to not eat potentially harmful substances only legitimises drug use.

I've advised my children not to drink bleach. It's harmful. They seem to have gotten the message, thankfully.

Are you serious. A just say no policy does not work. It didn't work with abstinence from pre marital sex, it didn't work with alcohol prohibition and it doesn't work now. If it was easy to get the x tested none of them would have died. I'm begging you please go read that article I posted about the Netherlands testing policy. It will enlighten you to the reality. We should look at every country around the world and see what they are doing right and attempt to copy it. I'm every aspect not just drug policy, in healthcare, education etc.

Xeyn wrote: »

That 'technically' is not true at all. The immediate effects of cannabis can potentially be very harmful and there is still much debate on the long term effects.
Thc toxicity is something that cannabis proponents spout a lot and that has validity but should certainly not be the be all and end all of the debate.

What immediate effects? The munchies? Eat themselves to obesity. I feel like I'm in a thread full of trolls

Xeyn · 27-05-2014 03:49PM

desultory wrote: »

That's not an affect of cannabis hahaha

The short sightedness of people never seems to surprise me any more.

blackwhite · 27-05-2014 03:50PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

But if you want to take that approach the current criminalisation of drugs is responsible for lots of disasters too. Peoples' future destroyed over minor drug offense records, violence of gangs involved in the trade, the importation of arms as part of the package of delivery, people held in servitude etc...

Why support laws that are failing to stop the trade and protect the public? The war on drugs has failed as it has become cheaper, stronger and more available while costing more to police.

Whilst I've no problem with cannabis being legalised, this argument really gets to me.
If people are so concerned over their futures then there's a very simple way of avoiding getting a drug conviction.

Putting the drug gangs out of commission is one of the better arguments, and really the main one that I can see as potentially meaning that maybe more urgency should be given to legalisation.

Other arguments such as additional tax revenue (which in the short term at least would be offset by the bureaucracy that would likely go with any regulatory authority (lets face it - it's the Dept of Health that would likely be involved so it won't be done simply or efficiently), regulating the product quality to ensure no dodgy batches (again - there's a simple way of avoiding dodgy batches at present), etc. are all good arguments for legalisation, but IMO don't really demonstrate that this is a pressing issue that NEEDS to be addressed immediately.

Temptamperu · 27-05-2014 03:51PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yeah, I've always said that I'm open to a discussion concerning legisaltion on illegal drugs to (try) and take the criminals out of it and make it safer.

But I think it's reckless and irresponsible not to advise people not to take any illegal drugs while they remain illegal (not to mention abusing the legal ones) due to the potential health impacts (short and long term) and the support of violent crime.

Campaign for legalisation of illegal drugs - knock yourself out, but don't encourage dangerous behaviour in the meantime.

sponserd by Diagio. :pac:

Xeyn · 27-05-2014 03:54PM

richy wrote: »

What immediate effects? The munchies? Eat themselves to obesity. I feel like I'm in a thread full of trolls

Again it shortsighted to suggest that cognitive inhibition has no effect on health. Immediate effects are not the same as toxicity. Cannabis has caused deaths due to cognitive inhibition mainly due to driving. To suggest otherwise is extremely disingenuous

Georgie13 · 27-05-2014 03:54PM

Most important thing really to remember in the debate about legalisation is what the worst-affected countries actually think. Many South and Central American countries do not actually agree with the UN stance on prohibition, and since they're the ones whose countries are being torn apart by the illegal drug trade, shouldn't the rest of us at least try to listen to what they have to say?

The Guardian published an article on this last year, but I'm too new a user to post the link here. Basically, a draft of a UN document was leaked that showed "serious and entrenched divisions over the longstanding US-led policy promoting prohibition as an exclusive solution to the problem."

Also from the article:

"Countries such as Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico have become increasingly critical of the UN's prohibition stance, claiming that maintaining the status quo plays into the hands of the cartels and paramilitary groups.The draft reveals that Ecuador is pushing the UN to include a statement that recognises that the world needs to look beyond prohibition. Its submission claims there is "a need for more effective results in addressing the world drug problem" that will encourage "deliberations on different approaches that could be more efficient and effective".

Venezuela is pushing for the draft to include a new understanding of "the economic implications of the current dominating health and law enforcement approach in tackling the world drug problem", arguing that the current policy fails to recognise the "dynamics of the drug criminal market".

In the same document, it was also revealed that Norway and Switzerland have concerns about the current policy, and the EU wants to emphasise the need for treatment and care options for offenders instead of incarceration.

kylith · 27-05-2014 03:55PM

Xeyn wrote: »

I think you'll find cognitive and motor inhibition is an immediate effect. I don't think it is me who is clutching at straws especially since I have displayed no bias or leanings to either side.
But if it makes you feel better...

But 'driving' is not an effect of cannabis, so driving while under the influence cannot be a 'dangerous immediate effect'. You may as well say that 'flying a Boeing 747 while under the influence' is a dangerous immediate effect for all the relevance it has.

For something to be a 'dangerous immediate effect' it would have to actually be caused by ingesting cannabis.

Temptamperu · 27-05-2014 03:56PM

Xeyn wrote: »

Again it shortsighted to suggest that cognitive inhibition has no effect on health. Immediate effects are not the same as toxicity. Cannabis has caused deaths due to cognitive inhibition mainly due to driving. To suggest otherwise is extremely disingenuous

What source did you get that from?

I Heart Internet · 27-05-2014 03:56PM

richy wrote: »

Are you serious. A just say no policy does not work.

It works for anyone who just says no.

It's reckless and irresponsible to deride abstaining from ingesting unknown and potentially lethal chemicals and suggesting that it's "unreasonable" to do so.

I'd advise anyone contemplating taking illegal drugs to not do so because of the potential health impacts and the very real support it lends to criminals (while they remain illegal). Telling people that they're fine and "just stay safe out there" is the type of "cheerleading for drug use" I was referrring to earlier.

Scaremongering about cannabis on Crimecall right now

Comments