Legalisation of Cannabis

sackville

Member
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
85
Coles said:
I've been following your contributions to this topic and to be honest, I really haven't been inclined to enter into a discussion with you. Not because I believe your argument is well-founded and irrefutable, quite the opposite, but because you seem unable to comprehend an opposing opinion to your own. I believe your argument is primarily based on ignorance, but also half-truths, exageration and lies.
you better tell the "British Medial Journal" then since it was they i quoted.

go easy mind, they might be devastated that a bloke with a computer thinks they're wrong/dishonest.

Coles said:
There is no substance that does not cause harm when used in excess. That is what 'excess' is. If someone drinks 15 units of alcohol a day, eats 5 burgers a day, smokes 5 joints a day or takes 10 Viagra a day, for a prolonged period, they will do themselves harm. Any amount of scientific research can be found to back up this statement. However, such scientific research can not be stretched and massaged to cover the use of a substance 'in moderation'. 'In moderation' implies a self-respect for your own body and mind.

It is essential that information and education is available to ensure that an informed choice is made
you coulda fooled me there!


Coles said:
. Certain substances, such as heroin and cocaine, have a very low threshold before their use should be considered to be 'in excess' due to their high physical addiction. I would never advocate the use of such substances as I believe their addiction is highly dangerous.

Coles said:
Marijuana is not physically addictive. When used 'in moderation' it is not harmful. Marijuana does not cause aggression. Marijuana is used medicinally for pain relief, and recreationally to relieve stress.
Going by this rigid criterion it’ must be worse to be “physically” addicted to coffee than to be merely 'dependent' on cocaine- mnn wonder would that that wash with many!.

Coles said:
If you seriously oppose the legalisation of Marijuana on health grounds then you need to look at the facts. Children in our society already have easy access to a more harmful cannibinoid substance, hashish. The production of hashish is completely unregulated and the profits from the distribution of hashish goes into the pockets of organised criminal gangs. Any amount of law enforcment will not change that situation. Opposition to the legalisation of Marijuana will only continue this harm, to users and to society.

If on the other hand, you oppose the legalisation of Marijuana from some authoritarian view point where you believe that everybody should be told what they can do and what's forbidden (which I think you do), then you're just wrong...

a big danger is that stoners and their apologists are too quick to propagate their propaganda that cannabis is some innocuous substance like AMAAD was earlier , and continue to insist this when confronted by contrary evidence which was then was apparently then endorsed by you. . The links I posted related to sound scientific research that was reported in publications of high repute.

you trying to shoot the messenger ain't going change the facts.what seems obvious for all your presumstions of superiority in the true 'liberal' form is that you have the closed mind.
 


ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
Coles said:
There is no substance that does not cause harm when used in excess. That is what 'excess' is. If someone drinks 15 units of alcohol a day, eats 5 burgers a day, smokes 5 joints a day or takes 10 Viagra a day, for a prolonged period, they will do themselves harm. Any amount of scientific research can be found to back up this statement. However, such scientific research can not be stretched and massaged to cover the use of a substance 'in moderation'. 'In moderation' implies a self-respect for your own body and mind.
I had an interesting discussion with a toxicologist, where I tried to think of any substance that is not harmful or lethal if absorbed by the body in sufficient quantities. There isn't anything - not even water. You can, apparently, die of water poisoning. Perhaps water should be banned?
 

A_man_about_a_dog

Active member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
181
Coles said:
sackville said:
Coles said:
A_man_about_a_dog said:
I still stand by my arguements that it is non-toxic and non-addictive. You have not one concrete piece of evidence saying it is toxic or that it is physically addictive. Reason for this??
Because it is neither! I already accepted that someone could develop a psychological dependance on cannabis, but not a physical one, but I also made the point that someone can become psychologically addicted to almost anything! It is non toxic, unlike the rocket fuel, rat poison and fertiliser which are used in small amounts in the production of cigarettes.

I am not calling for anything like prohibition, I am simply looking for a level playing field upon which the issue of recreational drugs can be discussed properly. By recreational drugs I include alcohol and tobacco because that is exactly what they are, and harmful ones at that. I dont include cocaine, ecstacy, heroin, LSD, etc because they are man made and obviously harmful. I am simply putting forward the case for a naturally occuring plant, which in my opinion should be allowed to be smoked by anyone who wishes to do so.
I dont claim that cannabis is a purely positive drug, but, I am convinced that there are more down sides to alcohol and tobacco, yet they are legal and consumed by a majority of the world population. Makes very little, if any, sense to me.
Good post.
you reckon? what about the schizophrenia and depression issues? are you trying to deny reality too?
I've been following your contributions to this topic and to be honest, I really haven't been inclined to enter into a discussion with you. Not because I believe your argument is well-founded and irrefutable, quite the opposite, and because you seem unable to comprehend an opposing opinion to your own. I believe your argument is primarily based on ignorance, but also half-truths, exageration and lies.

There is no substance that does not cause harm when used in excess. That is what 'excess' is. If someone drinks 15 units of alcohol a day, eats 5 burgers a day, smokes 5 joints a day or takes 10 Viagra a day, for a prolonged period, they will do themselves harm. Any amount of scientific research can be found to back up this statement. However, such scientific research can not be stretched and massaged to cover the use of a substance 'in moderation'. 'In moderation' implies a self-respect for your own body and mind.

It is essential that information and education is available to ensure that an informed choice is made. Certain substances, such as heroin and cocaine, have a very low threshold before their use should be considered to be 'in excess' due to their high physical addiction. I would never advocate the use of such substances as I believe their addiction is highly dangerous. If a person makes a choice to use a highly addictive drug, or any substance in excess, in reality they are doing self-harm, and the weapon used (alcohol, drug, food, poison, or knife) is not of importance.

Marijuana is not physically addictive. When used 'in moderation' it is not harmful. Marijuana does not cause aggression. Marijuana is used medicinally for pain relief, and recreationally to relieve stress.

If you seriously oppose the legalisation of Marijuana on health grounds then you need to look at the facts. Children in our society already have easy access to a more harmful cannibinoid substance, hashish. The production of hashish is completely unregulated and the profits from the distribution of hashish goes into the pockets of organised criminal gangs. Any amount of law enforcment will not change that situation. Opposition to the legalisation of Marijuana will only continue this harm, to users and to society.

If on the other hand, you oppose the legalisation of Marijuana from some authoritarian view point where you believe that everybody should be told what they can do and what's forbidden (which I think you do), then you're just wrong...
Well said, an excellent post!

As for sackville's commentt regarding the British Medical Journal , here is an editorial you might be interested to read. It is from another British medical journal called the Lancet:

http://www.norml.org/pdf_files/Lancet_S ... Reform.pdf

To quote only a few pieces from it:

The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health. Yet this widely-used substance is illegal just about everywhere.
Prominent among those currently calling for legislative reform -- and going further by making constructive proposals -- are police chiefs and city medical officers, people who know only too well that the existing policies in most countries are ineffective and unworkable.
Leaving politics aside, where is the harm in decriminalising cannabis? There is none to the health of the consumers, and the criminal fraternity who depend for their succour on prohibition would hate it.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
Leaving politics aside, where is the harm in decriminalising cannabis? There is none to the health of the consumers, and the criminal fraternity who depend for their succour on prohibition would hate it.
Do you think maybe dealers contribute to political parties?
 

A_man_about_a_dog

Active member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
181
ibis said:
Do you think maybe dealers contribute to political parties?
Perhaps if a pro-legalisation lobbying group is formed the dealers will form their own pressure group?

Could you imagine it, Dutchy Holland trying to get a quick word in Mick McD's ear in the lobby of Leinster housel! :lol:
 

sackville

Member
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
85
A_man_about_a_dog said:
As for sackville's commentt regarding the British Medical Journal , here is an editorial you might be interested to read. It is from another British medical journal called the Lancet:

http://www.norml.org/pdf_files/Lancet_S ... Reform.pdf

To quote only a few pieces from it:

The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health. Yet this widely-used substance is illegal just about everywhere.
[quote:mn3xy9fk]Prominent among those currently calling for legislative reform -- and going further by making constructive proposals -- are police chiefs and city medical officers, people who know only too well that the existing policies in most countries are ineffective and unworkable.
Leaving politics aside, where is the harm in decriminalising cannabis? There is none to the health of the consumers, and the criminal fraternity who depend for their succour on prohibition would hate it.
[/quote:mn3xy9fk]

mnnn congratulations on uncovering it on its eleventh anniversary -almost to the day!

But considering the studies in BMJ/"new scientist" deal with more up-to-date studies (2002) it somewhat cancels it out-( if the fact that it's unlinked and on a stoner site wouldn't in itself call into question its creditability)
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
A_man_about_a_dog said:
ibis said:
Do you think maybe dealers contribute to political parties?
Perhaps if a pro-legalisation lobbying group is formed the dealers will form their own pressure group?

Could you imagine it, Dutchy Holland trying to get a quick word in Mick McD's ear in the lobby of Leinster housel! :lol:
Would he have an envelope in his hand, do you think? It might just work...

Seriously, though, I don't understand this idea that things that are bad for you should be criminalised. Actually, that isn't the way it works, is it?

In fact, when there are things that people want criminalised, they seek to fnd that they're bad for you. Sackville is a good case in point - has he said at any point why cannabis should be criminalised, when the "it's bad for you" argument isn't applied to drink, or paracetamol?
 

A_man_about_a_dog

Active member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
181
you can choose to ignore reality, but it is impossible to ignore the consequences of choosing to ignore reality.
You'd be doing well to take heed of your signature!

As for norml.org, I wouldn't say that it is a stoner site. The title stands for National Organisation for Reform of Marijuana Laws. I cant find a picture of a cannabis leaf or ads for any marijuana paraphernalia on the site. I would have expected such things on a "stoner" site. They seeem to be educated people who have a political agenda and are trying to pursue it. Are you going to tell us that they aren't allowed do that now?
 

A_man_about_a_dog

Active member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
181
ibis said:
In fact, when there are things that people want criminalised, they seek to fnd that they're bad for you. Sackville is a good case in point - has he said at any point why cannabis should be criminalised, when the "it's bad for you" argument isn't applied to drink, or paracetamol?
I know, I've been making that point all along. Some people choose to pretend its not true, dont know why. Ignorance maybe, or perhaps they dont like the truth.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
A_man_about_a_dog said:
ibis said:
In fact, when there are things that people want criminalised, they seek to fnd that they're bad for you. Sackville is a good case in point - has he said at any point why cannabis should be criminalised, when the "it's bad for you" argument isn't applied to drink, or paracetamol?
I know, I've been making that point all along. Some people choose to pretend its not true, dont know why. Ignorance maybe, or perhaps they dont like the truth.
I can only presume that at some point some person or event persuaded them that X (drugs in this case) was bad, and they've simply never changed their mind. Or they just dislike it without being able to say why, and the reasons are just something they use to justify their dislike. It's a standard human trait - lead with the gut, follow with the argument.

Again, sackville is an interesting example. Tha language he uses to refer to cannabis users ('stoners' etc) indicates a visceral dislike, but the arguments he adduces in support are very weak. Not only that, but he seems willing simply to overlook one side of the argument entirely, which suggests a deep-seated irrational antipathy. Would a rational argument about the potential evils of drugs lead to the observed degree of loathing?

Of course, some people also see such things as indicative of societal disorder, and the intensity of their dislike reflects their fears of societal collapse. One could intensely hate someone who (literally) rocks a small boat if one fears the sea.

Yet others would perhaps see such things as temptations. Sometimes the language used ("well, hey, I could grow my hair long and just sit around smoking my brains out too, but I don't") indicates that the person fears they would 'lose the run of themselves' if they took up drugs (or whatever) - or feels that they make many sacrifices to live the life they lead, through duty or a sense of self-esteem, and that drugs present a temptation to give up the struggle. In fact, drugs merely represent that temptation.
 

Coles

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
2,040
ibis said:
A_man_about_a_dog said:
ibis said:
In fact, when there are things that people want criminalised, they seek to fnd that they're bad for you. Sackville is a good case in point - has he said at any point why cannabis should be criminalised, when the "it's bad for you" argument isn't applied to drink, or paracetamol?
I know, I've been making that point all along. Some people choose to pretend its not true, dont know why. Ignorance maybe, or perhaps they dont like the truth.
I can only presume that at some point some person or event persuaded them that X (drugs in this case) was bad, and they've simply never changed their mind. Or they just dislike it without being able to say why, and the reasons are just something they use to justify their dislike. It's a standard human trait - lead with the gut, follow with the argument.

Again, sackville is an interesting example. Tha language he uses to refer to cannabis users ('stoners' etc) indicates a visceral dislike, but the arguments he adduces in support are very weak. Not only that, but he seems willing simply to overlook one side of the argument entirely, which suggests a deep-seated irrational antipathy. Would a rational argument about the potential evils of drugs lead to the observed degree of loathing?

Of course, some people also see such things as indicative of societal disorder, and the intensity of their dislike reflects their fears of societal collapse. One could intensely hate someone who (literally) rocks a small boat if one fears the sea.

Yet others would perhaps see such things as temptations. Sometimes the language used ("well, hey, I could grow my hair long and just sit around smoking my brains out too, but I don't") indicates that the person fears they would 'lose the run of themselves' if they took up drugs (or whatever) - or feels that they make many sacrifices to live the life they lead, through duty or a sense of self-esteem, and that drugs present a temptation to give up the struggle. In fact, drugs merely represent that temptation.
Good post, Ibis.

By the way, do any of you think people (over 21) should be allowed to cultivate their own Marijuana for personal use? 3 or 4 plants? Under licence maybe?
 

jady88

Active member
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
130
Coles said:
ibis said:
A_man_about_a_dog said:
ibis said:
In fact, when there are things that people want criminalised, they seek to fnd that they're bad for you. Sackville is a good case in point - has he said at any point why cannabis should be criminalised, when the "it's bad for you" argument isn't applied to drink, or paracetamol?
I know, I've been making that point all along. Some people choose to pretend its not true, dont know why. Ignorance maybe, or perhaps they dont like the truth.
I can only presume that at some point some person or event persuaded them that X (drugs in this case) was bad, and they've simply never changed their mind. Or they just dislike it without being able to say why, and the reasons are just something they use to justify their dislike. It's a standard human trait - lead with the gut, follow with the argument.

Again, sackville is an interesting example. Tha language he uses to refer to cannabis users ('stoners' etc) indicates a visceral dislike, but the arguments he adduces in support are very weak. Not only that, but he seems willing simply to overlook one side of the argument entirely, which suggests a deep-seated irrational antipathy. Would a rational argument about the potential evils of drugs lead to the observed degree of loathing?

Of course, some people also see such things as indicative of societal disorder, and the intensity of their dislike reflects their fears of societal collapse. One could intensely hate someone who (literally) rocks a small boat if one fears the sea.

Yet others would perhaps see such things as temptations. Sometimes the language used ("well, hey, I could grow my hair long and just sit around smoking my brains out too, but I don't") indicates that the person fears they would 'lose the run of themselves' if they took up drugs (or whatever) - or feels that they make many sacrifices to live the life they lead, through duty or a sense of self-esteem, and that drugs present a temptation to give up the struggle. In fact, drugs merely represent that temptation.
Good post, Ibis.

By the way, do any of you think people (over 21) should be allowed to cultivate their own Marijuana for personal use? 3 or 4 plants? Under licence maybe?
I would in prinicple agree with this but there could be many problems too like inspection the seeds etc.
 

sackville

Member
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
85
suppose w're just going to have to that cannabis is a non-toxic, non-adictive substance to the list of other post-modernist truths- along with e.g. " immigration is good for everyone"or" there's no such thing as false asylum claims"..... :roll:
 

Coles

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
2,040
jady88 said:
Coles said:
By the way, do any of you think people (over 21) should be allowed to cultivate their own Marijuana for personal use? 3 or 4 plants? Under licence maybe?
I would in prinicple agree with this but there could be many problems too like inspection the seeds etc.
I'm not sure if I understand the problem with 'inspection of seeds'. Any chance of a bit more info? Thanks.
 

A_man_about_a_dog

Active member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
181
Coles said:
By the way, do any of you think people (over 21) should be allowed to cultivate their own Marijuana for personal use? 3 or 4 plants? Under licence maybe?
I think is an excellent proposal. Would probably recieve alot more support than the introduction of Dutch style coffee shops. I couldnt really see too much difficuly with introducing such a system. The matter of a 'marijuana' licence could be treated the same as a gun licence, meaning that the gardaí could call to inspect the plants and ensure no more than the licence allowed were being grown.

It would be very funny though when the gardaí call, "Sorry for disturbing you sir. We're just here to inspect your marijuana plants." :lol:

As for sackville's comments regarding "post-modernist truths", I am actually in favour of tighter immigration control and most definately believe that there is such things as false asylum claims, so your "post-modernist thruths" are actually not my views at all.

Why you are still blind to the opposing arguments on this matter are beyond me. Just to reiterate what has already been said, incase you think myself and Coles are lying:

Cannabis is non-toxic and it is not psysically addictive!

Continue to ignore what is being said if u wish but as your signature said:
"you can choose to ignore reality, but it is impossible to ignore the consequences of choosing to ignore reality"
 

sackville

Member
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
85
A_man_about_a_dog said:
[As for sackville's comments regarding "post-modernist truths", I am actually in favour of tighter immigration control and most definately believe that there is such things as false asylum claims, so your "post-modernist thruths" are actually not my views at all.

Why you are still blind to the opposing arguments on this matter are beyond me. Just to reiterate what has already been said, incase you think myself and Coles are lying:

Cannabis is non-toxic and it is not psysically addictive!
"
ah but it is you who's ignoring the counter argument:

Going by this rigid criterion it’ must be worse to be “physically” addicted to coffee than to be merely 'dependent' on cocaine- mnn wonder would that that wash with many!.
that notion of "physical " addiction vs mere dependency is an old(30 year old +) and discredited distinction. Many painful decades of experience has taught so.

Cocaine was spun in the 70s drug culture, particularly in the States, as being non-additive using the same spurious criterion- based on a still very incomplete understanding of neuro-science.

The fact is it is - as many wrecked lives can testify for - a highly habit-forming substance with some extremely detrimental health effects.

Likewise cannabis both based on anecdotal and recent scientific research is being increasing understood to be also a highly habit-forming substance with increasingly understood physical and mental detrimental effects.
You might want to propagate myths otherwise, in spite of such recent research, in which case it not surprising that you find yourself in a de facto alliance with the 'immigrationist club' on this -with their constant reality denying!
 

jady88

Active member
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
130
Coles said:
jady88 said:
Coles said:
By the way, do any of you think people (over 21) should be allowed to cultivate their own Marijuana for personal use? 3 or 4 plants? Under licence maybe?
I would in prinicple agree with this but there could be many problems too like inspection the seeds etc.
I'm not sure if I understand the problem with 'inspection of seeds'. Any chance of a bit more info? Thanks.
No, no I am not speaking from any informed perspective but rather i am just wondering about the vaibilty of allowing people to only grow one or two etc. plants. It seems to me that it might cause huge problems in terms of enforcement.
 

A_man_about_a_dog

Active member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
181
sackville said:
highly habit-forming substance
I have a habit of having a biscuit with coffee. I also have a habit of spending hours at a time on the internet.

Habits can be formed from nearly anything. Perhaps anything that may lead to a habit forming (computers, coffee, tea, television... the list is endless) should be banned or strictly regulated.

Just because something can be habitual is not reason enough to say it should be illegal. Nor is unspecified, patchy research.

jady, with regards to the seeds or number of plants being grown, I suggested a 'marijuana licence' could be operated like the gun licence system, where by the Gardaí can call to the address given and inspect the said plants.
 

Coles

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
2,040
jady88 said:
Coles said:
jady88 said:
Coles said:
By the way, do any of you think people (over 21) should be allowed to cultivate their own Marijuana for personal use? 3 or 4 plants? Under licence maybe?
I would in prinicple agree with this but there could be many problems too like inspection the seeds etc.
I'm not sure if I understand the problem with 'inspection of seeds'. Any chance of a bit more info? Thanks.
No, no I am not speaking from any informed perspective but rather i am just wondering about the vaibilty of allowing people to only grow one or two etc. plants. It seems to me that it might cause huge problems in terms of enforcement.
I believe that the level of enforcement would be less than our current failed system requires. Marijuana will grow outdoors in the Irish climate but you end up with quite a poor quality plant, certainly not worth growing to smoke. To grow something worth smoking requires a lot of effort, a controlled environment, controlled lighting, nuitrients, minerals, CO2, seperation of male plants from female... etc. 3-4 plants would require about 3m2 of indoor space.* I would imagine that there are thousands and thousands of people growing it for their personal consumption in Ireland, and there has been people growing it for the last 40 years. I've noticed in the last few months that a number of larger cultivation units (being run by criminal gangs in warehouses) have been found.

I think the key is to licence it's production for medical use, and for personal consumption. I think smoking marijuana in public should remain illegal. Hashish should remain illegal. Processing marijuana to make hashish should remain illegal.

*Note to Gardai. I am not and never have been involved in the production of Marijuana. I read about it in a book. Someone else's book.
 

sackville

Member
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
85
A_man_about_a_dog said:
sackville said:
highly habit-forming substance
I have a habit of having a biscuit with coffee. I also have a habit of spending hours at a time on the internet.

Habits can be formed from nearly anything. Perhaps anything that may lead to a habit forming (computers, coffee, tea, television... the list is endless) should be banned or strictly regulated.
.
To equate that to be being hooked on coke or to suffering with schizophrenia says everything about your denial of the reality and of the power of these "non-addictive" substances to do real harm and for their capcity to get people hooked. as for your coffee -isn't caffine one of your "physically addictive" substances? so doesn't really apply to the "safe" list!
 


Top Bottom