Dublin GAA star calls for drugs to be decriminalised

[deiseach]

I'm shocked, absolutely shocked. A news headline with the words "GAA star" that involves a bona fide GAA star rather than a junior footballer who was once on the fringes of the county Minor panel. I've seen it all now.

[Main Street]

But by legalising them you make these kinds of drugs an awful lot easier to get and distribute. We had a savage amount of people smoking until the ban and various initiatives to make people quit started to take hold. It seems very risky to me to almost put these drugs deliberately in the way of people.

In terms of decriminalising the users, rather than legalising the drugs, yes, I can see a lot of merit in that. i.e. Possession to sell should be a crime, possession to use should not, and the person should be helped.

Just in terms of the bad effects, are you saying that something like LSD, or a cocktail of different tabs wouldn't put people off their heads if the drugs were controlled like tobacco? Is it just because you don't know what's in the tablet that can cause the effect? Or are some drugs hallucinogenic by their nature, even if they are 'clean'? I must say, I always thought it was the latter.

If proper laws are applied and adhered to then I'd have thought that drugs getting into the wrong hands could be limited. You're not putting them deliberately in the way of people. You're putting them in a few secure locations where people over a certain age can access a small amount at a time.

With regards to the effects, I'm not 100% sure to be honest. I suppose you can never be certain on how different people will react to different substances. Maybe it's possible to make it mandatory for users to be assessed for their propensity to react badly to certain drugs. Of course I could be way off but ultimately I think it's safer for a qualified person to tell us these things than for someone to trust what a dealer gives them.

Decriminalisation of a class A drug like LSD  etc, does not means illegal distribution becomes legal,  but limited  possession for personal use  is no longer  a crime.
It does not mean that it becomes any easier to get a hold of  LSD or that more people will  take the risk  to purchase LSD because it's no longer a crime to possess it.
Just the same as it is illegal for individual/company  to manufacture prescribe and sell controlled medicines  without the appropriate license, the same will continue  apply for illegal substances. 
The much greater beneficial effect to society from a decriminalisation of substance abuse  is if there is a  dynamic extension of drug treatments to cover all areas, from prevention to rehab to  reentry into society. Those benefits relate to death, disease, crime and court system.

[johnneycool]

Legalisation of drugs would be a disaster.Look at alcoholism problems,cancer from cigarette smoking etc,all legal activities.Education to avoid drugs,legal and illegal is the answer,in addition to giving people in deprived areas a stake in society

Tony then why don't we make alcohol illegal if we all have so many problems with it? is there a wider drug or alcohol problem? which scenario seems to be having more success??

While we're at it, time to make gambling illegal.

[Esmarelda]

But by legalising them you make these kinds of drugs an awful lot easier to get and distribute. We had a savage amount of people smoking until the ban and various initiatives to make people quit started to take hold. It seems very risky to me to almost put these drugs deliberately in the way of people.

In terms of decriminalising the users, rather than legalising the drugs, yes, I can see a lot of merit in that. i.e. Possession to sell should be a crime, possession to use should not, and the person should be helped.

Just in terms of the bad effects, are you saying that something like LSD, or a cocktail of different tabs wouldn't put people off their heads if the drugs were controlled like tobacco? Is it just because you don't know what's in the tablet that can cause the effect? Or are some drugs hallucinogenic by their nature, even if they are 'clean'? I must say, I always thought it was the latter.

If proper laws are applied and adhered to then I'd have thought that drugs getting into the wrong hands could be limited. You're not putting them deliberately in the way of people. You're putting them in a few secure locations where people over a certain age can access a small amount at a time.

With regards to the effects, I'm not 100% sure to be honest. I suppose you can never be certain on how different people will react to different substances. Maybe it's possible to make it mandatory for users to be assessed for their propensity to react badly to certain drugs. Of course I could be way off but ultimately I think it's safer for a qualified person to tell us these things than for someone to trust what a dealer gives them.

Decriminalisation of a class A drug like LSD  etc, does not means illegal distribution becomes legal,  but limited  possession for personal use  is no longer  a crime.
It does not mean that it becomes any easier to get a hold of  LSD or that more people will  take the risk  to purchase LSD because it's no longer a crime to possess it.
Just the same as it is illegal for individual/company  to manufacture prescribe and sell controlled medicines  without the appropriate license, the same will continue  apply for illegal substances. 
The much greater beneficial effect to society from a decriminalisation of substance abuse  is if there is a  dynamic extension of drug treatments to cover all areas, from prevention to rehab to  reentry into society. Those benefits relate to death, disease, crime and court system.

I know, I was talking about legalising it rather than decriminalising it.

[Main Street]

But by legalising them you make these kinds of drugs an awful lot easier to get and distribute. We had a savage amount of people smoking until the ban and various initiatives to make people quit started to take hold. It seems very risky to me to almost put these drugs deliberately in the way of people.

In terms of decriminalising the users, rather than legalising the drugs, yes, I can see a lot of merit in that. i.e. Possession to sell should be a crime, possession to use should not, and the person should be helped.

Just in terms of the bad effects, are you saying that something like LSD, or a cocktail of different tabs wouldn't put people off their heads if the drugs were controlled like tobacco? Is it just because you don't know what's in the tablet that can cause the effect? Or are some drugs hallucinogenic by their nature, even if they are 'clean'? I must say, I always thought it was the latter.

If proper laws are applied and adhered to then I'd have thought that drugs getting into the wrong hands could be limited. You're not putting them deliberately in the way of people. You're putting them in a few secure locations where people over a certain age can access a small amount at a time.

With regards to the effects, I'm not 100% sure to be honest. I suppose you can never be certain on how different people will react to different substances. Maybe it's possible to make it mandatory for users to be assessed for their propensity to react badly to certain drugs. Of course I could be way off but ultimately I think it's safer for a qualified person to tell us these things than for someone to trust what a dealer gives them.

Decriminalisation of a class A drug like LSD  etc, does not means illegal distribution becomes legal,  but limited  possession for personal use  is no longer  a crime.
It does not mean that it becomes any easier to get a hold of  LSD or that more people will  take the risk  to purchase LSD because it's no longer a crime to possess it.
Just the same as it is illegal for individual/company  to manufacture prescribe and sell controlled medicines  without the appropriate license, the same will continue  apply for illegal substances. 
The much greater beneficial effect to society from a decriminalisation of substance abuse  is if there is a  dynamic extension of drug treatments to cover all areas, from prevention to rehab to  reentry into society. Those benefits relate to death, disease, crime and court system.

I know, I was talking about legalising it rather than decriminalising it.

Legalising a drug like LSD would mean there would have to  be a license granted to prescribe it, after clinical trials, safety concerns addressed, medically proven indications for use  and all that. That is not going to happen with LSD.
Even if it did happen with a mild dose form of LSD, the indications  for use would be so controlled  as to make it unavailable for most users who would continue to use the illegally produced stuff.

[Esmarelda]

But by legalising them you make these kinds of drugs an awful lot easier to get and distribute. We had a savage amount of people smoking until the ban and various initiatives to make people quit started to take hold. It seems very risky to me to almost put these drugs deliberately in the way of people.

In terms of decriminalising the users, rather than legalising the drugs, yes, I can see a lot of merit in that. i.e. Possession to sell should be a crime, possession to use should not, and the person should be helped.

Just in terms of the bad effects, are you saying that something like LSD, or a cocktail of different tabs wouldn't put people off their heads if the drugs were controlled like tobacco? Is it just because you don't know what's in the tablet that can cause the effect? Or are some drugs hallucinogenic by their nature, even if they are 'clean'? I must say, I always thought it was the latter.

If proper laws are applied and adhered to then I'd have thought that drugs getting into the wrong hands could be limited. You're not putting them deliberately in the way of people. You're putting them in a few secure locations where people over a certain age can access a small amount at a time.

With regards to the effects, I'm not 100% sure to be honest. I suppose you can never be certain on how different people will react to different substances. Maybe it's possible to make it mandatory for users to be assessed for their propensity to react badly to certain drugs. Of course I could be way off but ultimately I think it's safer for a qualified person to tell us these things than for someone to trust what a dealer gives them.

Decriminalisation of a class A drug like LSD  etc, does not means illegal distribution becomes legal,  but limited  possession for personal use  is no longer  a crime.
It does not mean that it becomes any easier to get a hold of  LSD or that more people will  take the risk  to purchase LSD because it's no longer a crime to possess it.
Just the same as it is illegal for individual/company  to manufacture prescribe and sell controlled medicines  without the appropriate license, the same will continue  apply for illegal substances. 
The much greater beneficial effect to society from a decriminalisation of substance abuse  is if there is a  dynamic extension of drug treatments to cover all areas, from prevention to rehab to  reentry into society. Those benefits relate to death, disease, crime and court system.

I know, I was talking about legalising it rather than decriminalising it.

Legalising a drug like LSD would mean there would have to  be a license granted to prescribe it, after clinical trials, safety concerns addressed, medically proven indications for use  and all that. That is not going to happen with LSD.
Even if it did happen with a mild dose form of LSD, the indications  for use would be so controlled  as to make it unavailable for most users who would continue to use the illegally produced stuff.

I agree in the first instance and the likelihood of it being legalised isn't the point in the second.

What do you mean by "the indications for use"? Do you mean the potency? Again, I'm not a scientist so I couldn't comment.

[Main Street]

But by legalising them you make these kinds of drugs an awful lot easier to get and distribute. We had a savage amount of people smoking until the ban and various initiatives to make people quit started to take hold. It seems very risky to me to almost put these drugs deliberately in the way of people.

In terms of decriminalising the users, rather than legalising the drugs, yes, I can see a lot of merit in that. i.e. Possession to sell should be a crime, possession to use should not, and the person should be helped.

Just in terms of the bad effects, are you saying that something like LSD, or a cocktail of different tabs wouldn't put people off their heads if the drugs were controlled like tobacco? Is it just because you don't know what's in the tablet that can cause the effect? Or are some drugs hallucinogenic by their nature, even if they are 'clean'? I must say, I always thought it was the latter.

If proper laws are applied and adhered to then I'd have thought that drugs getting into the wrong hands could be limited. You're not putting them deliberately in the way of people. You're putting them in a few secure locations where people over a certain age can access a small amount at a time.

With regards to the effects, I'm not 100% sure to be honest. I suppose you can never be certain on how different people will react to different substances. Maybe it's possible to make it mandatory for users to be assessed for their propensity to react badly to certain drugs. Of course I could be way off but ultimately I think it's safer for a qualified person to tell us these things than for someone to trust what a dealer gives them.

Decriminalisation of a class A drug like LSD  etc, does not means illegal distribution becomes legal,  but limited  possession for personal use  is no longer  a crime.
It does not mean that it becomes any easier to get a hold of  LSD or that more people will  take the risk  to purchase LSD because it's no longer a crime to possess it.
Just the same as it is illegal for individual/company  to manufacture prescribe and sell controlled medicines  without the appropriate license, the same will continue  apply for illegal substances. 
The much greater beneficial effect to society from a decriminalisation of substance abuse  is if there is a  dynamic extension of drug treatments to cover all areas, from prevention to rehab to  reentry into society. Those benefits relate to death, disease, crime and court system.

I know, I was talking about legalising it rather than decriminalising it.

Legalising a drug like LSD would mean there would have to  be a license granted to prescribe it, after clinical trials, safety concerns addressed, medically proven indications for use  and all that. That is not going to happen with LSD.
Even if it did happen with a mild dose form of LSD, the indications  for use would be so controlled  as to make it unavailable for most users who would continue to use the illegally produced stuff.

I agree in the first instance and the likelihood of it being legalised isn't the point in the second.

What do you mean by "the indications for use"? Do you mean the potency? Again, I'm not a scientist so I couldn't comment.

According to current medical practices and controls  the likliehood of LSD  never being legalised is my considered opinion and therefore germane to the questions AZ was posing. And it is also germane to refer to the hypothetical that if  ever it was legalised,  such would be  the controls that AZ's expressed reservations about legalisation would not be realised.

A drug has an indications for usage, e.g.  rozrem is indicated for sleep issues ,insomnia.  A MD can prescribe rozerem to a patient diagnosed with insomnia. The MD cannot prescribe it medically and legally for depression. He would leave him/herself open to a charge of malpractice.
In the hypothetical scenario of LSD going through a series of clinical trials,  indications for usage would have to be medically defined and medically proven, at least to better the results of the trialists who were prescribed placebo.

[macdanger2]

I presume Esmarelda is talking about drugs being legalised as recreational drugs rather than medical.

If alcohol was illegal and was being assessed for legalisation, I don't think it would fare too well!

[Eamonnca1]

He is biased in his opinion obviously ...

Yes. Obviously.

I'm curious. What do you think an opinion is?

Can you give me an example of an "unbiased" opinion?

[Eamonnca1]

The mechanics and and the economics of legalising  such class A drugs, I leave to others more qualified. The reality of legalising class A drugs is complex and as regards nice slogans like Philly exclaimed "tax proceeds to be put into recovery programs" i really have no idea of the practicalities involved but I do have issue with the principle.
In some scandinavian countries, the gambling operations are controlled by GA (Gamblers anonymous). GA supply all the gambling  machines to  retail outlets, manage the whole operation and take their % of the profits to run rehab programs for gamblers.
I just think that's fcking weird and immoral.

You were doing fine until the last line. You described a system that sounds perfectly logical and then said it's "weird and immoral." Why do you say that?

[Eamonnca1]

I'm all for the legalisation of drugs, people will get it if they want to get it but if its off dealers you dont know what its cut with or what you are going to get?

Everyone thinks it will get out of hand, look cigarettes and alocohol are legal, both types of drug and some people will drink or smoke and some people won't. At least if it was taxed to a degree money wouldn't be going to dealers (perhaps reduce crime) and centres setup to help people.

Obviously nothing is perfect but it must be alot better than the way some situations turn out, philly Mc Mahons brother perhaps one.

I think this is a non argument and one always put up for legalisation.

The thing is its the same type of characters that will end up being addicted. This therefore does not solve the problem of where do they get the money from to feed their habit, only problem now is that with the tax it is more expensive. So does this mean they do more home invasions, more prostitution or just move to the next under ground drug?

Also seems to be a bit of misnomer to set up clinics to treat addicts using the money that comes form making them addicts in the first place, something counter intuitive about the whole argument.

If it's driven underground then it's harder to get, hence more expensive. If it's legal and regulated then it's going to be more affordable, hence no need to resort to desperate measures to pay for the stuff. Tobacco might be expensive by the standards of what it used to be, but it's not so dear that smokers are driven to robbing banks to feed their habit.

[Esmarelda]

But by legalising them you make these kinds of drugs an awful lot easier to get and distribute. We had a savage amount of people smoking until the ban and various initiatives to make people quit started to take hold. It seems very risky to me to almost put these drugs deliberately in the way of people.

In terms of decriminalising the users, rather than legalising the drugs, yes, I can see a lot of merit in that. i.e. Possession to sell should be a crime, possession to use should not, and the person should be helped.

Just in terms of the bad effects, are you saying that something like LSD, or a cocktail of different tabs wouldn't put people off their heads if the drugs were controlled like tobacco? Is it just because you don't know what's in the tablet that can cause the effect? Or are some drugs hallucinogenic by their nature, even if they are 'clean'? I must say, I always thought it was the latter.

If proper laws are applied and adhered to then I'd have thought that drugs getting into the wrong hands could be limited. You're not putting them deliberately in the way of people. You're putting them in a few secure locations where people over a certain age can access a small amount at a time.

With regards to the effects, I'm not 100% sure to be honest. I suppose you can never be certain on how different people will react to different substances. Maybe it's possible to make it mandatory for users to be assessed for their propensity to react badly to certain drugs. Of course I could be way off but ultimately I think it's safer for a qualified person to tell us these things than for someone to trust what a dealer gives them.

Decriminalisation of a class A drug like LSD  etc, does not means illegal distribution becomes legal,  but limited  possession for personal use  is no longer  a crime.
It does not mean that it becomes any easier to get a hold of  LSD or that more people will  take the risk  to purchase LSD because it's no longer a crime to possess it.
Just the same as it is illegal for individual/company  to manufacture prescribe and sell controlled medicines  without the appropriate license, the same will continue  apply for illegal substances. 
The much greater beneficial effect to society from a decriminalisation of substance abuse  is if there is a  dynamic extension of drug treatments to cover all areas, from prevention to rehab to  reentry into society. Those benefits relate to death, disease, crime and court system.

I know, I was talking about legalising it rather than decriminalising it.

Legalising a drug like LSD would mean there would have to  be a license granted to prescribe it, after clinical trials, safety concerns addressed, medically proven indications for use  and all that. That is not going to happen with LSD.
Even if it did happen with a mild dose form of LSD, the indications  for use would be so controlled  as to make it unavailable for most users who would continue to use the illegally produced stuff.

I agree in the first instance and the likelihood of it being legalised isn't the point in the second.

What do you mean by "the indications for use"? Do you mean the potency? Again, I'm not a scientist so I couldn't comment.

According to current medical practices and controls  the likliehood of LSD  never being legalised is my considered opinion and therefore germane to the questions AZ was posing. And it is also germane to refer to the hypothetical that if  ever it was legalised,  such would be  the controls that AZ's expressed reservations about legalisation would not be realised.

A drug has an indications for usage, e.g.  rozrem is indicated for sleep issues ,insomnia.  A MD can prescribe rozerem to a patient diagnosed with insomnia. The MD cannot prescribe it medically and legally for depression. He would leave him/herself open to a charge of malpractice.
In the hypothetical scenario of LSD going through a series of clinical trials,  indications for usage would have to be medically defined and medically proven, at least to better the results of the trialists who were prescribed placebo.

I'm not sure it is relevant to what AZ was saying but that's not important. I was giving my opinion on whether drugs should or should not be legalised, not the likelihood.

As macganger2 said, I'm not talking about medically using any drug. I'm talking about them being used recreationally.