Op Ed in Wall St Journal: decriminalise cannabis. Where's the liberal Irish Media?

[jpc]

good post.
another rubbish argument often forwarded by the prohibitionists is that everyone who smokes a joint is responsible for the murder of innocents, yet they oppose allowing users to grow their own thereby cutting the profis of the scummy dealers who are also the ones who contaminate the supply in order to maximise profit. if folks were allowed to grow their own these a-holes would be out of the business in a flash.
if chocolate was banned in the morning I guarantee the likes of john gilligan would be flogging it by midday - cut with whatever they could poison it with. but I suppose commonsense in politicians is a rare commodity. I live in hope.

Load it up with MSG and sugar.
Jeez it would be irresistable.

[H.R. Haldeman]

It's anything but muddled. I base that on The Lancet's paper on the topic relating to 20 common drugs of abuse in Britain. Their methodology examined addictivity, risk of death, general physiological, psychological and behavioural harm levels and impact upon society in general.
While I sort of agree with you that pat ranking of substances isn't tremendously helpful a lot of the time, I believe that particular study went a long way to demythologising certain commonly held beliefs about certain drugs, in particular that alcohol and tobacco cause much more damage than cannabis, LSD or ecstasy.

I agree with most of that, obviously.
But the arguments in relation to legalising or decriminalising cannabis are less to do with harm reduction (though legal cannabis would not be so polluted as illegal cannabis is) as they are to do with personal human liberties, the idiocy of seeking to ban a plant and the hypocrisy of banning it while alcohol and tobacco remain freely available.

JC (and Fish), I think you are kinda missing the point.

Firstly, everyone agrees (or should agree) that tobacco and alcohol cause more death, harm, misery and destruction than any contraband drug. But since that genie isn't being put back in the bottle, it is moot. Not even worth discussing. Health and awereness campaigns of course blah blah. But it's not important.

Secondly, the findings of the Lancet are largely irrelevant in one important respect: society doesn't need to know the specific toxicity of heroin to know that it is by a million miles the most harmful drug to that society. Even if we were to find out that LSD were 1000 times more psychologically or physically harmful that would not change the need to focus on the real problem - heroin.

Third, your prescription - more tolerance for less harmful drugs and stringent prohibition of the big one (heroin) - gets it 100% the wrong way around. In effect, you are suggesting the regime we have now, and that is a bloody disaster.

Heroin costs the state/society in 3 broad ways: public health, crime and money. Public health: Heroin spreads Hep and HIV, it has a million horrible related diseases, it puts the children of addicts at risk, it requires a lot of man-hours to treat, it kills people. Crime: Heroin related crime accounts for something like 75% of all crime. Money: Jesus, our current system costs a fortune: cops, entrire police departments, customs officers, doctors, nurses, social workers, clincs, rehab programmes, psychological support services - it is a never-ending black hole of expenditure.

Instead of this shambles, if we gave the addicts their heroin on the state a significant number of those problems would be greatly reduced. Just think of crime alone - the drug gangs have their business undercut overnight, addicts don't need to steal to pay for heroin, gardai and the courts can be freed up for other duties, neighbourhoods feel less threatening boosting quality of life, addicts get back to being productive to society, prison places are freed up, customs officers can go after people-traffickers instead...I could go on and on. Similar benefts are easily imaginable with regard to health and money areas too. I think it could save millions per year.

I'd be interested to hear a downside to all this.

[cyberianpan]

Someone 'newsworthy', for want of a better term, would have to kick off the debate by calling for an end to prohibition.
Or Irish doctors would need to present some evidence to support an end to prohibition.
There needs to be something to ignite the debate. The evidence of the necessity for an end to prohibition has been presented in the past and ignored.
We have a Crack Cocaine conference on at Croke Park today, with the government present. That's an in-house talking shop for prohibitionists, basically. There won't be any new ideas coming out of that.
But if someone was to denounce it as such, whether they be a senior medic, someone prominent in addiction services here or even just some 'celeb' non-entity like Ryan Tubridy, Podge and Rodge or Bob Geldof (I'm picking names at random here, not ascribing opinions to anyone), then you might see a debate begin in the media.
But it needs a catalyst. And then it needs coherent arguing from the anti-prohibition lobby on a continual basis.

Indeed we need a blunt gullible instrument - Enda Kenny fits the bill

Anyone got his private mobile number ? I'll pretend to be a "deep throat", senior Anglo Exec who will reveal all about the cannabis fueled wild weekends of senior FF-ers and Anglo bankers...
[SIZE=5][COLOR=Red]
Spliffo & Seanie: squalid story of subterfuge , squander & skunk[/COLOR][/SIZE]!

cYp

[cyberianpan]

Mmmmm this thread is not so much about the substantive issue - but more so about the lack of media coverage

If 3 prominent ex heads of state can write an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal of all places... why not our media ?

We can see that in the UK crime is rising during the recession
Times: Ministers’ worst fears confirmed as the recession fuels crime surge

In Mexico they nearly have a drugs civil war
CNN: Drug violence spins Mexico toward 'civil war'

In Ireland we're well aware that Garda overtime is cut yet we've serious gang violence problems in Dublin & Limerick

I've previously asked about our politicians meekness:
Which of our politicians would decriminalise cannabis ?

The time is ripe now for a national debate - where is our media ?

cYp

CNN now joining the US debate - where's our media ?


Tax marijuana to save the economy?




cYp

[JCSkinner]

JC (and Fish), I think you are kinda missing the point.

Firstly, everyone agrees (or should agree) that tobacco and alcohol cause more death, harm, misery and destruction than any contraband drug. But since that genie isn't being put back in the bottle, it is moot. Not even worth discussing. Health and awereness campaigns of course blah blah. But it's not important.

It's very important. This country is awash in cheap alcohol which is used excessively, causing major problems. Go see A+E if you doubt me. And tobacco is being increasingly addressed by Government because of its health concerns.
In short, the genie mightn't go back into the bottle, but harm reduction while respecting freedom of choice is becoming more relevant, and should be at the centre of all drug policies not just these two.

Secondly, the findings of the Lancet are largely irrelevant in one important respect: society doesn't need to know the specific toxicity of heroin to know that it is by a million miles the most harmful drug to that society. Even if we were to find out that LSD were 1000 times more psychologically or physically harmful that would not change the need to focus on the real problem - heroin.

I don't see a single 'real problem'. Ask Coolmine, which has just opened a facility for mothers of small children (how tragic it is to be writing that) or Merchants Quay and you'll hear all about the problems of cocaine, meth and poly drug use too.

Third, your prescription - more tolerance for less harmful drugs and stringent prohibition of the big one (heroin) - gets it 100% the wrong way around. In effect, you are suggesting the regime we have now, and that is a bloody disaster.

Did you actually read my 'prescription'? That's not what I said at all. I suggested heroin be provided by the state in a system akin to current methadone maintenance, and I proposed decriminalisation, taxation and licensing for cannabis akin to alcohol.

Heroin costs the state/society in 3 broad ways: public health, crime and money. Public health: Heroin spreads Hep and HIV, it has a million horrible related diseases, it puts the children of addicts at risk, it requires a lot of man-hours to treat, it kills people. Crime: Heroin related crime accounts for something like 75% of all crime. Money: Jesus, our current system costs a fortune: cops, entrire police departments, customs officers, doctors, nurses, social workers, clincs, rehab programmes, psychological support services - it is a never-ending black hole of expenditure.

Indeed. No one queries any of that, or at least no one sensible.
However, that is not a reason to disregard the unnecessary costs of criminalising users of cannabis, ecstasy or LSD. The cost of imprisoning cannabis users is the same as the cost of imprisoning heroin users - around 80 grand a year.

Instead of this shambles, if we gave the addicts their heroin on the state a significant number of those problems would be greatly reduced. Just think of crime alone - the drug gangs have their business undercut overnight, addicts don't need to steal to pay for heroin, gardai and the courts can be freed up for other duties, neighbourhoods feel less threatening boosting quality of life, addicts get back to being productive to society, prison places are freed up, customs officers can go after people-traffickers instead...I could go on and on. Similar benefts are easily imaginable with regard to health and money areas too. I think it could save millions per year.

I agree. But that just addresses the heroin issue, and there are a series of other issues to address in relation to the overall interaction between the state and personal drug use.
Perhaps you could read back over my posts throughout this entire thread. Then you might get a much better sense of what I think needs to be done in terms of a comprehensive strategy.

[20000miles]

CNN now joining the US debate - where's our media ?


Tax marijuana to save the economy?




cYp

Fun fact: Prohibition of alcohol in the US ended becuase the Federal Government could not collect enough cash from income taxes during the Great Depression.

History repeats itself.

[H.R. Haldeman]

Ok Skinner, I don't actually think we are disagreeing that much.

[JCSkinner]

Ok Skinner, I don't actually think we are disagreeing that much.

I don't think we're disagreeing about anything.

[Defeated Romanticist]

God, it seems like I'm the only unapologetic proponant of prohibition here.
The fact of the matter is that yes we would criminalise alcohol and tabacco today if we had the chance but we don't so we won't because we know the effort in enforcement is greater than the reduction in use because it is making something illegal which was once legal. Cannabis was never decriminalised fully so there never was that anarchic period. That's why comparisons with Alcohol prohibition in America are not valid. Is it hypocritical? ofcourse, Is it wrong? No.
The legalisation crowd again shoot themselves in the foot when they suggest than legalisation would reduce demand for "hard" drugs. This argument infers a link between the two. And if the using of cannabis if linked then surely an increase in the use of cannabis will increase the use of hard drugs. There is already some anecdotal evidence of this. Those of us who have ever met a coke snorter will likely find them heavy users of alcohol and tobacco too, with the use of alcohol and tobacco being the gateway drug to cocaine.

Fortunately, an intellegent cannabis advocate is rarer than a four leafed clover so I do not imagine the situation changing anytime soon.

Slow news day at the WSJ, that's why this came up.

[JCSkinner]

God, it seems like I'm the only unapologetic proponant of prohibition here.

Well, there's always one...

The fact of the matter is that yes we would criminalise alcohol and tabacco today if we had the chance but we don't so we won't because we know the effort in enforcement is greater than the reduction in use because it is making something illegal which was once legal. Cannabis was never decriminalised fully so there never was that anarchic period. That's why comparisons with Alcohol prohibition in America are not valid. Is it hypocritical? ofcourse, Is it wrong? No.

Is it wrong? Yes. There are MILLIONS of cannabis speakers in the UK alone, a country with some of the strictest laws on cannabis use in Europe. Prohibition couldn't fail more if it tried.

The legalisation crowd again shoot themselves in the foot when they suggest than legalisation would reduce demand for "hard" drugs.

Nice straw man. That's not what the anti-prohibition lobby argue in relation to heroin or cocaine. They argue that regulated provision would reduce harm to individuals and society, not use. And the Portuguese model shows that they're right.

This argument infers a link between the two. And if the using of cannabis if linked then surely an increase in the use of cannabis will increase the use of hard drugs. There is already some anecdotal evidence of this.

Straw man AND makey-uppy facts. You excel yourself.
In any case, even if your 'anecdotal evidence' that increased cannabis use leads to increased hard drug use was found to be true, that would only be another argument for the decriminalisation, taxation and licensing of cannabis, in order to take the cannabis market out of the hands of criminals who seek to peddle harder substances.

Those of us who have ever met a coke snorter will likely find them heavy users of alcohol and tobacco too, with the use of alcohol and tobacco being the gateway drug to cocaine.

Well done on identifying the fact that the real gateway drugs are actually already legal.

Fortunately, an intellegent cannabis advocate is rarer than a four leafed clover so I do not imagine the situation changing anytime soon.

Transform : TDPF
Drug Policy Action Group

Slow news day at the WSJ, that's why this came up.

And CNN? Different media, different slow news day?