Marijuana: a human right ?



skev

Active member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
147
Website
www.facebook.com
So does that make us the bad guys then?
Foghorn I doubt you have a bad bone in your body....

The facts of the matter are that drug dealers biggest income is from marijuana. Drug dealers kill people and cause all types of badness and misery. They do this for money. Not drugs. Drugs are the means to get the money. The drug doesn't do any bad at all. Like you Foghorn there isn't a bad bone in its body. We would be better off banning money if we wanted to combat these ba5tards but thats never going to happen....

If we legalised the drug we would take drug dealers income away from them. That can't be a bad thing can it?

As it stands the drug dealers send BILLIONS of euro out of the country every year. By legalising it we keep that money in the country.
Keeping money IN the country can't be a bad thing can it?

By legalising it we can keep it away from kids. by regulating it.
Surely keeping kids away from drugs is a good thing?
 

paulp

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
7,198
not sure where I stand on legalising marijuana,

I don't believe all drugs should be legalised which I guess I believe in what some would call the nanny state, where certain substances are controlled

I don't think comparing to alcohol is a great argument - anyone not know a life ruined by alcohol? (fond of a pint myself - but have lived abroad and see countries with social lives not centred around alcohol)
ditto with tobacco
 

Foghorn

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
378
for some strange reason yes
my neighbor was in court for having resin to the value of e5 on his person
what a wast of the gardai, the courts, and that young lads time
( hes in his early 20s, never in bother , laid back lad)
Yeah, I was in school with a guy who got into trouble the same way. Some minor marijuana offenses......nothing major.............until he was suspected of getting involved in importation of "product" from Colombia.
 

sauntersplash

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
3,444
Give me EUR475,000 a year and I'll scare up the masses of aul biddies into hysteria about the evil of playgrounds if you want
:lol:

"I'm a mudder Joe! I've twelve sons and ev-ery one a dem died on de playgrounds. Every one a dem Joe! It's terrible Joe. I'm a mudder..."
 

Foghorn

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
378
Foghorn I doubt you have a bad bone in your body....

The facts of the matter are that drug dealers biggest income is from marijuana. Drug dealers kill people and cause all types of badness and misery. They do this for money. Not drugs. Drugs are the means to get the money. The drug doesn't do any bad at all. Like you Foghorn there isn't a bad bone in its body. We would be better off banning money if we wanted to combat these ba5tards but thats never going to happen....

If we legalised the drug we would take drug dealers income away from them. That can't be a bad thing can it?

As it stands the drug dealers send BILLIONS of euro out of the country every year. By legalising it we keep that money in the country.
Keeping money IN the country can't be a bad thing can it?

By legalising it we can keep it away from kids. by regulating it.
Surely keeping kids away from drugs is a good thing?
Thanks Skev. Do appreciate your motivation and I believe that many (possibly most) people who are pro-legalisation have their hearts in the right place. I share your concern with the flow of money to drugs baron and the unregulated market.

I suppose for me the difference is that by allowing it society makes s statement of not perhaps endorsement, but close to it. It certainly would end the disproval of society on the matter of drugs. And some people, like me, won't do something if it is considered anti-social or meets with the disproval of society.

I did consult with a Dublin-based GP on the matter following an earlier debate on a similar issue on P.ie. The virtues of the legalisation of soft drugs had been well-conveyed. When I discussed the situation, obviously appreciating that she'll only see the problem cases, I was struck by her strong reaction to the proposal. I really took it to heart that she had seen so much destruction by drugs, even cannabis, that she was vehemently opposed to it. It left an impression. I figured that this is probably the same reaction that Govt ministers get when dealing with this issue.

The issue of regulation is an interesting one as it goes to the economics of business. The regulated drugs will have a cost, ie. the cost of regulation & control, that criminals will not. Based on the cost factor alone it is hard to see how legal providers can compete. This is a real consideration. If I started a business and had to pay substantial costs that my competitors did not then it would be very hard for me to compete. Regulation doesn't provide an efficient market - in fact the regulated suppliers will have a higher price.

And the regulation doesn't fix the matter on another front. It doesn't say how the consumers will raise the funds to pay for them. We all know that a considerable contributor to crime (petty and more serious) may be attributed to drug addicts seeking to raise money to pay for drugs.

Thanks again Skev. I do appreciate your comments.
 

nozzferrahhtoo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,336
Website
www.catholic.ie
The facts of the matter are that drug dealers biggest income is from marijuana.

If we legalised the drug we would take drug dealers income away from them. That can't be a bad thing can it?

As it stands the drug dealers send BILLIONS of euro out of the country every year.
I hear a lot the argument that drugs 1) Send money out of the country and 2) lose money because we are not taxing them like cigarettes.

I think it also important to elaborate that a little further. We are also losing a lot of money in pointless policing of the laws.

For every cop working on a marijuana case that is one less cop on the beat protecting us from violent crime, theft, robberies and responding to emergency calls.

So not only would legalising it keep money in the country, generate even more money on tax, but it would ALSO redirect the money we are already spending on our police force to more efficient and required areas therein by allowing them to police areas of society where it actually matters.
 

nozzferrahhtoo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,336
Website
www.catholic.ie
It certainly would end the disproval of society on the matter of drugs.
I disagree. Society already approves of drugs. From Alchohol to Medications. Drugs is not one thing and the stuff we now legally consume is another.

No, what we have is a spectrum of compounds that we are able to take into our body. At one end of the spectrum are drugs we allow and at the other end drugs we do not.

Legalising this one drug is not ending “the disproval of society on the matter of drugs”. It is merely shifting the location of the current yes/no border on the spectrum.

This idea that conceding some ground on a subject is akin to throwing up your hands and conceding everything is a very human reaction, but an incorrect one. We can intelligently take each drug on its own merits and discuss their harm/good individually. There is no reason to develop a blanket "Oh we must ban all drugs or just give up" kind of attitude.

We all know that a considerable contributor to crime (petty and more serious) may be attributed to drug addicts seeking to raise money to pay for drugs.
How considerable is it? What are the figures and studies to support this? I would love to read them.

I would have been under the impression that only a % of users become addicts and only a % of them turn to crime. These % of course vary from drug to drug and I hope you would not want to tarnish users of this drug with the crimes of others.

However if the % are low and not as considerable as you make you, then I have to say that I would prefer less cops working on policing the more useless of our drug laws, and have the same cops out actually on the beat protecting us from the small % of those who turn to crime. Not to mention the tax income of taxing this drug will generate MORE money for things like policing.

Every cop prosecuting some teenager for having a few grammes of this drug on them is one less cop available to come to my aid when I make an emergency call.
 

Fed Up

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
499
:lol:

"I'm a mudder Joe! I've twelve sons and ev-ery one a dem died on de playgrounds. Every one a dem Joe! It's terrible Joe. I'm a mudder..."
"And what abou' poor Anto Joe? Dese bleedin headshops are puttin my little Anto and Wayne oudda business Joe!"

"Ya, ya, sure, sure, gone on Mary..."

"My Anto hasn't sold a gram in two days now Joe, tis teddible Joe, a shockin disgrace Joe"
 

Fed Up

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
499
Hi Foghorn, with the greatest respect due (I've never screamed at the computer while reading your posts!) I have some issues with your argument:

"some people, like me, won't do something if it is considered anti-social or meets with the disproval of society."

Forgive me if I sound condescending but friend, you need to think for yourself. Mass thought along those lines is very Orwellian.

"I really took it to heart that she had seen so much destruction by drugs, even cannabis, that she was vehemently opposed to it."

Cannabis can have a detrimental effect on a developing brain, as does alcohol abuse and other drugs. Ironically, prohibition means its easier for kids to get weed than it is alcohol - dealers don't ask for ID!

"The regulated drugs will have a cost, ie. the cost of regulation & control, that criminals will not. Based on the cost factor alone it is hard to see how legal providers can compete."

The unregulated drugs have so many more costs yet still make a huge profit:
10% of your product lost to customs/gardai
The costs of smuggling (bribery, risk premium to shippers, etc)
Legal costs in court
Jail time
The cost of a turf war, in monetary costs and the loss of life.

And besides all that, I'd still pay a few quid more to buy legally than illegally. (It's a balancing act of setting the tax as high as possible before driving people to the black market).

"It doesn't say how the consumers will raise the funds to pay for them. We all know that a considerable contributor to crime (petty and more serious) may be attributed to drug addicts seeking to raise money to pay for drugs"

Good argument, not applicable to marijuana though as it is not addictive and not expensive. With regards coke and smack, the gardai would have a lot more resources freed up to deal with robberies and the like.

Once again, I'm not attacking you, just asking you to consider the above.
 
Last edited:

drkpower

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
1,018
The issue of regulation is an interesting one as it goes to the economics of business. The regulated drugs will have a cost, ie. the cost of regulation & control, that criminals will not. Based on the cost factor alone it is hard to see how legal providers can compete. This is a real consideration. If I started a business and had to pay substantial costs that my competitors did not then it would be very hard for me to compete. Regulation doesn't provide an efficient market - in fact the regulated suppliers will have a higher price.
The illegal provider also has costs, significant ones. Conviction and imprisonment, threat of death from rival businesses.

The costs of regulation are important but not significant. We do not have an illegal pharmaceutical market of any significance despite the significant regulation in that market (and any illegal market that is there is primarily because of the need for a prescription, an ostacle not usually envisaged if (soft) drugs are legalised).
Further, there is a very small illegal/unregulated alcohol market (other than to those under 18) despite the significant regulation and enormous taxation.

So, the extra costs of regulation is unlikely to see the significant continuation of the drug trade.
 

skev

Active member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
147
Website
www.facebook.com
Thanks Skev. Do appreciate your motivation and I believe that many (possibly most) people who are pro-legalisation have their hearts in the right place. I share your concern with the flow of money to drugs baron and the unregulated market.
As are most of the people who are pro-prohibition but unfortunately I don't believe they quite understand how the drugs "market" works.
I suppose for me the difference is that by allowing it society makes s statement of not perhaps endorsement, but close to it. It certainly would end the disproval of society on the matter of drugs. And some people, like me, won't do something if it is considered anti-social or meets with the disproval of society.
I understand this point but it comes down to marketing. When it is legalised we as a society need to be responsible in our reactions. It needs to be made clear that it is being legalised to combat the revenue sources of criminal gangs and NOT because as a society we endorse the taking of any drugs.

I did consult with a Dublin-based GP on the matter following an earlier debate on a similar issue on P.ie. The virtues of the legalisation of soft drugs had been well-conveyed. When I discussed the situation, obviously appreciating that she'll only see the problem cases, I was struck by her strong reaction to the proposal. I really took it to heart that she had seen so much destruction by drugs, even cannabis, that she was vehemently opposed to it. It left an impression. I figured that this is probably the same reaction that Govt ministers get when dealing with this issue.
I have also discussed it with doctors and the problem is that a doctor will not tell you that it is harmless. But change the question and see how the doctor reacts. Ask a doctor about the relative harms of cannabis, relative to fatty foods, alcohol or cigarettes. The fact of the matter is that that it is a relatively harmless drug.

A few years ago I spoke to a doctor about playing rugby and his reaction was scary. He explained all the damage I was doing to my shoulders, my knees and my brain. He was totally against rugby and said that he would never ever let his children play the game. He was astonished, when I listed off the injuries I had suffered over the years, that I would even consider playing again.

My point is that harm is relative. I am more likely to develop depression from the concussions I have received on the rugby pitch than develop any sort of illness from smoking weed yet I am celebrated for playing rugby and vilified for smoking weed.

Rugby is much more harmful than weed.

The other point I would like to make here is that the doctor's opinion has probably been developed over the years of seeing these "problem cases". These problem cases are a direct result of the prohibition. They are the reason that prohibition needs to be ended. I

The issue of regulation is an interesting one as it goes to the economics of business. The regulated drugs will have a cost, ie. the cost of regulation & control, that criminals will not. Based on the cost factor alone it is hard to see how legal providers can compete. This is a real consideration. If I started a business and had to pay substantial costs that my competitors did not then it would be very hard for me to compete. Regulation doesn't provide an efficient market - in fact the regulated suppliers will have a higher price.
Actually Foghorn it costs next to nothing to grow cannabis so we could realistically charge 50% on the sale price as tax and still be cheaper than the local dealers.

Most people would pay the extra money to avoid dealers anyway so it wouldn't matter if we charges even more tax.

And the regulation doesn't fix the matter on another front. It doesn't say how the consumers will raise the funds to pay for them. We all know that a considerable contributor to crime (petty and more serious) may be attributed to drug addicts seeking to raise money to pay for drugs.

Thanks again Skev. I do appreciate your comments.
Lets not confuse addictive drugs like Heroin with Cannabis. Cannabis is no more addictive than chocolate. It is not a "gateway" drug.
 

buachailrua

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
60
I find it very hypocritical of doctors to say anything bad against the Cannabis Plant but they'll happily dish out syntethic versions of drugs.
I suppose once they're in control its ok.
 

drkpower

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
1,018
I find it very hypocritical of doctors to say anything bad against the Cannabis Plant but they'll happily dish out syntethic versions of drugs.
I suppose once they're in control its ok.
Dont you see the distinction?

They would see it that the synthetic drugs they prescribe, while they have side effects, are being given to cure an ill. Taking cannabis doesnt cure an ill, in the medical sense. Very few doctors would be against the use of cannabis in a therapeutic setting.
 

sauntersplash

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
3,444
I find it very hypocritical of doctors to say anything bad against the Cannabis Plant but they'll happily dish out syntethic versions of drugs.
I suppose once they're in control its ok.
Well that's the thing isn't it. Why is Methadone good and Heroine bad for example? They're pretty much the same thing.
 

drkpower

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
1,018
Well that's the thing isn't it. Why is Methadone good and Heroine bad for example? They're pretty much the same thing.
Lol!
That is not exactly the thinking behind the use of methadone. While not exactly a precise analogy, to save time, nicorette is to methadone, what cigarettes are to heroin.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top