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.
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...
richy wrote: » 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.
I Heart Internet wrote: » 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.
kylith wrote: » Your friend isn't addicted. Dependent maybe, but not addictive.
batistuta9 wrote: » going back to what was said on the show basically, have there been any links found between cannabis and mental health
richy wrote: » Where has anyone encouraged dangerous drug use? We want to make it safer for people who do use and will use whether I or you tell them not to.
richy wrote: » I don't have children but if I was in your position id want as many safe guards for my children as possible. Do you think telling your children not to take drugs will actually stop them? Do you think all the people who take drugs do so because their parents forgot to tell them not to take drugs? Let's be realistic about this please.
kylith wrote: » 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.
kylith wrote: » True, cognitive and motor inhibition are immediate effects but unless one drives then driving while impaired is not an issue. For an immediate effect to be dangerous there would need to be some level of toxicity to the drug, or for the user to have an adverse reaction such as an allergy or blood pressure spike.
Xeyn wrote: » Incorrect. I know the difference between physiological addiction vs psychological addiction.
richy wrote: » Cognitive and motor inhibition isn't a dangerous affect unless you are driving. If you have a joint you don't lose the use or your limbs, matter fact you probably won't wanna walk anywhere and will just plonk your ass om the nearest couch. When you drink your cognitive and motor functions become far more Inhibited than on cannabis.
kylith wrote: » So are you claiming that he is physically addicted or psychologically dependant?
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
catallus wrote: » For all of the points made by both sides, I don't think any great policy changes are going to come about because of this or any other of the threads on the internet. It's just a bunch of opinions, and we all know opinions are like arseholes; so gaze in awe on the shocking glory of my chocolate starfish! Smoking cannabis will mess your brain up; it is not scaremongering to suggest that legalisation will end up with more people being harmed by it. For those who think that greater availability will decrease the amount of users or the harm done: ye are living in la-la-land. That said, there is obviously a large swathe of people who are willing to dope themselves up and consequences be damned; the law is there to protect people from themselves. Prohibition isn't perfect, but to blame the damage caused by illegal drugs on prohibition itself is a woefully blinkered point of view.
blackwhite wrote: » It will save bog all on enforcement costs. There's still be thousands of illegal drugs, and the same gangs will still be using the same channels of distribution to bring them into the country. The drug squad isn't going to be disbanded because cannabis is off the list. In the short term at least, I don't think that the net gain to the exchequer would be that much at all. Whatever body is responsible for the regulation will undoubtedly be unwieldy and inefficient (it'll be run by the Irish civil service after all!), and will eat up a nice chunk of any tax revenues. In terms of more important issues - just as a sample I'd prefer to see our elected representatives continue to focus on restoring our economy back to a stable footing, on ensuring that we 1) continue to attract high quality employers into the country and 2) retain the ones that we already have; and also on trying to ensure that another property bubble doesn't take over.
richy wrote: » 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
richy wrote: » Jesus Christ. Using but people could die if they drive while on it as an argument to keep it illegal is laughably ridiculous.
MadYaker wrote: » Do people not get bored of talking about the same things over and over again?
bumper234 wrote: » Meh If stoners, smokers, junkies or alcos want to poison themselves then let them carry on.
Xeyn wrote: » I agree with you, however it cannot be discounted. I would far prefer to see cannabis legalised and alcohol made illegal. I remember reading the above study in France which showed cannabis as a significant relation to fatalities caused on the road whilst intoxicated. As far as impaired function compared to alcohol - it's entirely dose related so I don't think you can say that in fairness only that alcohol causes far more deaths than cannabis.
Xeyn wrote: » Please pray tell where I used that as an argument to keep marijuana illegal? Instead of acknowledging a point or creating a reasoned counterpoint you seem to be using a straw man.
Xeyn wrote: » Many. It usually worsens pre existing diagnoses such as depression or schizophrenia amongst many others. However research seems to suggest that it rarely actually caused mental health issues.
Temptamperu wrote: » So does alcohol and to an extent coffee shall we ban those too? just to make it fair.
richy wrote: » Tobacco too is supposed to have a link with depression.
kneemos wrote: » A psychiatric nurse once told me that half the people that came into the hospital was because of cannabis,quite surprised by it but there you go.
Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: » The pro-weed lobby do themselves an awful disservice by trying to pretend that Marijuana is harmless, or better still, some wonder drug that cures all ails.
I Heart Internet wrote: » 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.
