Misinformation regarding drugs.

Suryavarman wrote: »

The profit I'm talking about is the profit made from selling drugs.

Fair enough, just being pedantic then.

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's hardly pedantic to highlight that what you said was the opposite of reality.

You seem quite confrontational. Obviously if I talk about regulated drug sales being more profitable, I mean more profitable for the government.

Could you really not comprehend that, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Both sides of the argument are guilty of misinformation.

Pro drugs come out with rubbish arguments, the likes of:
Regulation will mean profit from tax take.. Highly unlikely when this is a country where washing diesel and smoking imitation John Player Blue from China is the norm for many.

Regulation will mean better control of ingredients used.. Again highly unlikely as tax free underground growhouses/labs would flourish and it would be very difficult for Guards to prove if end user is stopped with legit product.

People buy alcohol in shops, of course they would buy their drugs there too.. The alcohol industry has been allowed to groom generations in this country through many means, should we let growhouses sponsor sports?

Anti drugs spout some awful cr@p too:

Drugs are bad.. They clearly have some unpleasant aspects but can be quite enjoyable too, hence their popularity. Like many things in life you need to weigh up the pro's and con's. For me the con's far outweigh the pro's.

You will become addicted.. Not true, moderation in some cases will ensure you don't. You may become obsessed with something but people can become obsessed with anything. With some drugs it's all about self control, others will be more physical.

For me there are now many deterrents. It's highly unlikely that your synthetic drugs were made in a lab by some Walter White-esque chemistry expert. More than likely some unfortunate who didn't want to be there but had no choice.
Next time you see some unfortunate shouting on the Luas or banging up somewhere ask yourself would you lick their finger after they stuck it up their @rse because that's the type of person who is making your next yoke. For me that's more than enough to stay away.

rubadub wrote: »

Buying & selling drugs certainly can be victimless, just like the buying and selling of any product. Sometimes its not, just like any product.

People can grow & sell to their own friends, no gangs need to be involved.

How would you tax this or should it be exempt?

Temptamperu wrote: »

All of this could be fixed by regulation and taxation. Also weed doesn't "come in" its grown here and there are thousands of grow houses police stop one and two more pop up.

Again, not true. http://www.thejournal.ie/cannabis-toilets-1466376-May2014/

Temptamperu wrote: »

How did they think they would get away with that :pac:

Your right some is brought in as well but not as much as is grown here now.

Yes a huge amount is grown here too but an equally huge amount is imported by criminal gangs.
Much of the weed grown here is in growhouses operated by Asian gangs. Very often the poor fecker who is tending to the plants says he was forced into it. Is he telling the truth? I don't know but it seems reasonable

rubadub wrote: »

Same as homebrewing beer I suppose, there is no excise duty on beer making kits. Its illegal to sell homebrew beer to friends, so weed would be too.

If cannabis was legal I expect most would just buy it from an authorised and regulated outlet, just like most buy their beer & vodka in an off licence rather than make their own or buy it off some shady character to save a few euro. Some get poitin around christmas as a bit of a gimmick, most are quite wary of it though.

But you said people could grow and sell to their friends and I imagine most would regardless of the legality so now we are back to operating underground.

As for buying from shops, like my earlier points and your point, to buy it tax free would be much more attractive so underground places would flourish. You have to remember that the alchol industry spends vast sums on marketing to get you into off licences and pubs. While there would probably be a novelty factor at the start it would soon wear off and drugs would move into underground tax free sales again.

I think it needs a radical re think. Clearly current policy doesn't work, pointless arguments are made by all sides and billions are spent fighting a losing battle.

MY CUP OF TEA wrote: »

this is a thread about the misinformation surrounding drugs.,ie, drugs being over exaggerated as dangerous/lethal as a form of scaremongering

I was just wondering about the opinions of people who take drugs and why they think it is illegal?

From what I've read on here SOME people think it would be better if drugs were legalised and my question was, well if you think that way..have you any explanation why they havent been?

Like...my opinion is that they are illegal cause they are dangerous..but my opinion carries no weight cause I have never experienced it..if that makes any sense?

It's an incredibly hard question to answer because they're not illegal everywhere and time makes a big difference as well. The general answer is that illegality is dependent on someone with power making money on a different drug, that could be affected by the illegal drug. It's similar to the fact that importing cheap, generics from Canada is illegal in the states.

As for the idea that legal weed would be ignored and no money would be made, Colorado seems to be doing well. And they have a very similar population size to Ireland, along with similar urban/rural demographics.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/03/11/its-no-toke-colorado-pulls-in-millions-in-marijuana-tax-revenue/

Moomat wrote: »

But you said people could grow and sell to their friends and I imagine most would regardless of the legality so now we are back to operating underground.

I said people can grow, not could. I am talking of the current situation, a person can grow and sell to friends. I was saying this as an example of how it could be victimless.

If it was legalised and taxed then this practise is no longer victimless, the tax man looses out, just like I do not regard the unlicenced sale of beer or poitin as victimless.

People grow their own mainly out of necessity, its not like they particularly enjoy the expense and hassle. If legalised I expect a minority would take it up as a hobby, or try it once or twice just like people brewing beer. I only know of 1 friend who brews his own beer, I know nobody who grows their own tobacco, I have seen plants on sale here though.

"underground" sales would certainly still go on, just like with alcohol or tobacco.

Moomat wrote: »

You have to remember that the alchol industry spends vast sums on marketing to get you into off licences and pubs.

And the new cannabis industry would do the same, I am not sure why you think this particular drug would be so different from all the current recreational and medicinal drugs out there.

MY CUP OF TEA wrote: »

From what I've read on here SOME people think it would be better if drugs were legalised and my question was, well if you think that way..have you any explanation why they havent been?

Like...my opinion is that they are illegal cause they are dangerous..but my opinion carries no weight cause I have never experienced it..if that makes any sense?

If alcohol or tobacco were discovered today they would be illegal. Automatically making recreational drugs illegal is the norm, regardless of potential harm -in fact often the more harmless it is the more likely it is to be made illegal. This is since they will say it has a higher potential for abuse if there are no downsides.

If they discovered a new alcohol which gave no hangover it would be open to even more abuse. The "party pill" drug BZP was legal at one stage and seen as an alternative to Ecstasy/MDMA, one reason given for the accepted legality was the fact it gave a terrible comedown (hangover) effect so was not likely to be used frequently. The drug GHB was seen as a possibly alternative recreational drug to alcohol, its even used to treat alcoholics, it was made illegal, fueled by the myth of its widespread use as a date rape drug. Many doctors were opposed to this and viewed it as a safer substance than alcohol. There would be very strong alcohol lobby who would not want any new recreational drugs out there which would take from their trade, especially a safer drug with minimal hangover/comedown effects.

Lots of these new drugs are made illegal to nip them in the bud before they get a strong user base. Once mammy and the local garda are using/abusing the new drug alongside using/abusing alcohol it will be harder to ban it without public outcry.

Due to religious reasons many societies have a deep rooted fear of having citizens freely enjoying altered states of consciousness. Some see it as challenging god or having false gods, the repression of mind altering substances goes back centuries.

rubadub wrote: »

If alcohol or tobacco were discovered today they would be illegal. Automatically making recreational drugs illegal is the norm, regardless of potential harm -in fact often the more harmless it is the more likely it is to be made illegal. This is since they will say it has a higher potential for abuse if there are no downsides.

If they discovered a new alcohol which gave no hangover it would be open to even more abuse. The "party pill" drug BZP was legal at one stage and seen as an alternative to Ecstasy/MDMA, one reason given for the accepted legality was the fact it gave a terrible comedown (hangover) effect so was not likely to be used frequently. The drug GHB was seen as a possibly alternative recreational drug to alcohol, its even used to treat alcoholics, it was made illegal, fueled by the myth of its widespread use as a date rape drug. Many doctors were opposed to this and viewed it as a safer substance than alcohol. There would be very strong alcohol lobby who would not want any new recreational drugs out there which would take from their trade, especially a safer drug with minimal hangover/comedown effects.

Lots of these new drugs are made illegal to nip them in the bud before they get a strong user base. Once mammy and the local garda are using/abusing the new drug alongside using/abusing alcohol it will be harder to ban it without public outcry.

Due to religious reasons many societies have a deep rooted fear of having citizens freely enjoying altered states of consciousness. Some see it as challenging god or having false gods, the repression of mind altering substances goes back centuries.

Yeah this makes loads of sense!... My two main arguements when debating drugs v alcohol with my pharma assisted friends. Is one, I dont have to hide in the toilets and drink jager shots off the back of the cistern and two, i can look at my bottle of beer and read the ingredients.

Legalisation would nullify both these points

Caliden wrote: »

Dangerous how? Which drugs?
Saying drugs are dangerous so all drugs should be illegal doesn't make sense.

I would agree that any drug with scientific proof of it being dangerous should be made illegal but lumping every drug in there just because its a drug and saying it's illegal is ignorant and narrow minded.

At the same time I do think that even illegal drugs should have a place in medical research. One of the most potent pain relievers (morphine) comes from the same plant as one of the most destructive illegal drugs (heroin).


Now I ask you, do you not think that we should revisit/revise the legality of certain topics to ensure the evidence/proof for it's status is not outdated / is still true?

no definitely!..like ive already said im completely uneducated when it comes to drugs!..the same way im uneducated about say rally driving... If someone was to ask me if rally driving should be illegal because its dangerous, I would be in no way able to comment..id ask someone who had done it before for their opion!

I dont see anything wrong being ignorant about something and looking to get a perpective on it?..i think thats the opposite of narrow minded!!!

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Life is great just as it is, without altering one's perception of reality.

Change your reality if it bothers you so much.

Eating only chicken sandwiches is great, no need to try different foods. Try them if it really bothers you, but I get by fine with my chicken sandwiches and have never been tempted to try anything else, sure why would I?

People have different appetites for things, be it food, exercise, adrenaline, music, sex etc. Some have very little appetite so cannot understand why others bother with it, that's fine, but at least others might enjoy sex or altered states of consciousness more than you. Dunno why people feel the need to persecute others over something they do not care for.

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Idiots use substances to alter their perception temporarily, rather than actually doing something constructive to change it.

Are you saying if you use mind altering substances then you are an idiot? this would be most of the population, you do realise alcohol alters your perception. To me the idiots are the ones who go through their life exclaiming their love for their single mind altering drug and refusing to try any others. Just like someone who only ate chicken sandwiches.

Or are they only idiots if the substance is illegal? then theres a hell of a lot of idiot musicians out there. I know successful businessmen who only drink but you might deem them idiots since I have seen them drinking illegally in pub lock-ins.

Steve Jobs was a total idiot, as he said “Taking LSD was a profound experience, one of the most important things in my life. LSD shows you that there’s another side to the coin, and you can’t remember it when it wears off, but you know it. It reinforced my sense of what was important—creating great things instead of making money, putting things back into the stream of history and of human consciousness as much as I could.”

DamagedTrax wrote: »

while im hugely in favour of legalisation, i cant agree with this part of your post.

i think people should be allowed grow their own, or go in on a grow between a few people but if the industry has any chance of making it the government will have to have their cut. and it also means the age it can be sold to can be enforcedl.

I already addressed this, and agree with everything you said there.

rubadub wrote: »

I said people can grow, not could. I am talking of the current situation, a person can grow and sell to friends. I was saying this as an example of how it could be victimless.

If it was legalised and taxed then this practise is no longer victimless, the tax man looses out, just like I do not regard the unlicenced sale of beer or poitin as victimless.

People grow their own mainly out of necessity, its not like they particularly enjoy the expense and hassle. If legalised I expect a minority would take it up as a hobby, or try it once or twice just like people brewing beer. I only know of 1 friend who brews his own beer, I know nobody who grows their own tobacco, I have seen plants on sale here though.

"underground" sales would certainly still go on, just like with alcohol or tobacco.