Printable View
as of about 2 oclock today the mushy's are banned ,this goverment are a bit of a joke banning somthing that grows naturally and has been used for hundreds of years in our country .
i can see it now cops on stake out s in fields in case any mushy's think about growing !!! they can be arrested
Get the facts. The sale of them raw (legal up till now), is what's being banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
Harney quote, "In December I met with the family of a young man who died after having consumed psychoactive mushrooms. At that time it had become clear that the sale of magic mushrooms was increasingly commonplace, and I directed that legislation be prepared to clarify the law to ensure that the trade in these drugs could not continue."
No harm. Stick to the regular mushrooms.:)
its a joke i did nt actually think the cops would be out arresting mushrooms ya plonker .:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
it is also illegal to pick them which is my point , they grow naturally every where all over our country but to pick one makes you a criminal . its not just the sale of them in shops
While we're busy calling people plonkers, here's your first post with the more obvious glaring errors highlighted. You might like to think about learning about such fields as spelling, capitalisation and grammar - particularly the use of the apostrophe - before calling names.Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
Now, with that out of the way, only a plonker would actually think that I'd thought that he'd thought that the cops would be arresting inanimate objects. The very idea would look bizarre in a particularly odd Douglas Adams story.Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
However, it clearly was legal to sell them unprocessed. That loophole is being shut. Frankly, given the enormous catalogue of things you could consider calling the government a joke over, closing a legal loophole that permitted the sale of an hallucinogen is trite.Quote:
it is also illegal to pick them which is my point , they grow naturally every where all over our country but to pick one makes you a criminal . its not just the sale of them in shops
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha i bet your a great laugh down the pub , correcting gramer .an apostrophe FFS :mad:
Another example of the lazy arse youth of today. Can they not just go and pick them like we used to?
Always look for the real story behind these stories that cause outrages and block up the media coverage. Terrible week for the Government, particularly the carnage on the roads alot of which is down to drink. How many months/years has the Government had to legislate on this rather than a rush job not even directly related to a particular case? Legislation out of nowhere is always covering up other things imo.
The shrooms being sold in shops aren't Irish and are better quality. God be with the days of being out in a field with your plastic bag at 7 in the morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
There was a field near Bandon that had a large amount of mushrooms - it used be called The Field Of Dreams
ive just spotted an ad at the bottom of this page for organic mushroom kits :D :D
i was listening to bill hicks recently going on about people taking drugs and jumping of buildings because they thought they could fly , hilarious
fav line "if they thought they could fly why did nt they try taking off from the ground you dont see pigeons getting escalators to the roof of buildings "
A pointless exercise that would make King Canute blush.
They can't ban october ....and when october comes.:cool:
Quote:
Originally Posted by finlma
Yet another example of the pure-blood-Irish, anti 2g sentiments prevalent on these pages.
I think they were spawned from seeds of Irish mushrooms so they may yet qualify to be Irish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marked Man
due to the change in climate they can be found from mid august to october ..... god bless global warming ..:D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
but surely its safer to go to a shop and buy proper ones rather than go around a field picking up god only knows what , taking the wrong dose etc etc .....but as we know the gov dont care
doesn't 'died from taking magic mushrooms' sound a lot like politicky speak? you generally don't die from hallucinogens. so... how did the kid die??
Consumed 4 mushrooms, along with some alcohol. Felt sick and then vomitted in the toilet, then ran out the door of the apartment and went up to the roof and jumped off the edge.Quote:
Originally Posted by ken foree
Funny I don't see the shutters being put up on any pubs or off licences because a kid jumped off a building after conuming "some alcohol".Quote:
Originally Posted by sligoman
Why blame one drug and not the other? Particularly when anyone in the emergency services will tell you they're pulling about body a week -of some poor misfortune who got depressed on ALCOHOL ALONE out of our rivers.
one reason money !! ive had 2 friends 1 drank a bottle of whiskey and jumped of a bridge killed himself and an other drank a load of pints went home and hung himself .. both the fault of alchol but i would nt dream of wanting drink to be banned .
why should every one suffer because of one or 2 people .
lets put it into context
1 person dies on mushrooms and alchol : muchrooms banned
around 50,000 die from alchol abuse : wont be banned
an other 50,000 from fags:wont be banned
nearly 500 a year from cars :wont be banned
its the typical responces from people that just do not know what they are talking about what good is banning drugs , all it does is make millionares out of criminals , it does nt stop people buying or taking drugs for one single second .
The overall majority can drink responbily so you can't put a blanket ban on something because a minority can't.
The same cannot be argued for hallucinogens - you cannot take these "responsibly" simply because of their makeup - they dangerously alter the state of mind in any dose. A few drinks and your coordination might be a bit slower but a few mm's you could be throwing yourself off a bridge, as that young lad's family found recently.
but surely banning their sale and sending people back to picking them in fields makes it all the more difficult to take them responsibly?
can you with 100% certainty say that poor youngfella flipped out as a result of the mushrooms and not the booze?
4 feckin mushooms !!!???!? Are you serious Sligoman ?Quote:
Originally Posted by sligoman
They're tiny little things - 4 mushrooms would do nothing other than leave a bad taste in your mouth. You need to take about 10 times that number for anything to happen.
Sounds a bit suss to me.
It was probably Mexican or Thai - they're much bigger than the Irish variety.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
Tired and emotional I'm gonna lay my cards on the table and ask you to do likewise just to see if you know what you're saying or are you just opining based on media hyperbole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional
As a younger man I took some halucinogens from time to time -tried magic mushrooms just the once and they had very little effect on me at all.
But I'd have taken LSD more than once -Green Dragons and Red Dragons ...both I would guess considerably stronger than magic mushrooms. I'm certain I can say that while "high as a kite" -to use a media term (I prefer analogies involving "going in" and "coming out" to up/down ones;) ) -the idea of jumping off anything would've struck me as no less utterly stupid than if I were "sober" as a judge.
The only "sense" that I felt went out the window was that of the passage of time. Afew seconds could feel like hours ...not in a bad way either.
But things like jumping off bridges?? Christ -sure cigarettes were "entirely pointless" and chewing gum "profoundly ridiculous" ...all in a good way.
Entirely unlikely to get in a punch up with anyone either. That's alcohols job.
According to his brother anyway!Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
alcohol dangerously alters your sate of mind as well ,its an actuall intoxicant i bet 90 % of people here have had nights where they cant remember how they got home or woken up with strange bumps and bruses . its only the beer compas that gets you home .Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional
Course you can. Don't take them on your own until you know how/whether you can handle them. Take them with a bunch of mates, stick on pink floyd (or something that interacts well with hallucinogens) and lash on a DVD with some nice special effects (with the sound turned down, of course). Pretty much what the overall majority do, with no worse consequences than the loss of a few hours sleep, and an unusual amount of time spent staring at the back of your own hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
LR, I'm not opinioning (presume that's what u meant?) based on meadia hyperbole but me thinks I am coming from the same point of view....
I too as a younger man have done LSD (& other more popular rec. drugs etc.) and my last one was a bad one, though not in the extreme; it wasn't pleasant! Maybe this is why I am taking this angle on it..
I can empathise with outlawing mm's which, although I haven't taken, are in the same family of physco-active chemicals as LSD. There is a greater reason why alcohol and cigarettes are not banned and these substances are. I could argue too why they should be.
Physco-active substances are more likely to cause an individual to do harm to him/herself in the short-term compared with the of people who drink/smoke on a day to day basis, the effects of which are latent over a period of decades.
The tragic death of an otherwise healthy person from psycho-active substances should be evidence enough of their danger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marked Man
Perhaps. Maybe you could email your suggestions to the Dept. of Health and ask them to publish them as National Guidelines for taking MM's - problem solved.:rolleyes:
I don't think the family of the fella who killed himself after taking them would share your blasé attitude....
In the world of Pharmacology alcohol is actually a depressant.Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
Memory loss the day after does not mean you went around like a mad man the night before or tried to kill yourself!!
..which is why the neurological/psychological state of the person is at issue (or should be), not the substances ingested. blanket ban is the wrong way to go about educating people of the seriousness of psychoactive chemicals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ken foree
It has nothing to do with the preingestion of them. It's the effect AFTER taking them and their interaction with the brain/mind. That's how they get their name: "physcoactive"....
And I'm sure lots of people who have family who died of cancer or liver failure wouldn't appreciate a relaxed attitude about drink or smokes. So what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marked Man
How many drinks and over what length of time does it take to get liver failure?
How many cigarettes and over what length of time does it take to get lung cancer?
Now compare you answer (ballpark number of years) to how long it took that guy to take the mm's and jump off the roof?
You misunderstand my comparison. My comparison with death from drink/smokes here was only a response to your irrelevant remark that my attitude to drugs would not be appreciated by the family of the deceased. All I'm doing is pointing out that if the attitudes of families of people who die having taken drugs is to be a factor here, then it's equally a factor in the case of deaths from alcohol/cigarettes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional
But in response to the points you make, first off, why is the length of time that a drug takes to kill you supposed to be significant here?
Second, since you clearly do think that the length of time makes a difference, how about cases where someone has jumped in the Liffey after a night of drinking and drowned (2 that I can think of in my lifetime)? How many people have died after being assaulted by drunks after closing time?
Do those kinds of cases show that drink can't be taken responsibly? No.
Wouldn't banning drink in the face of those numbers be an overreaction? Yes.
The same holds for hallucinogens. That one person in a million unfortunately dies while on hallucinogens does not show that they can't be taken responsibly, and banning them in the face of one high profile case is an overreaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marked Man
Firstly, I am not going to answer all your questions with statistics. You tell me how many people died in this country after assaults after closing time? I only asked for a ballpark figure, George Best could be an example.
Secondly, do you know the circumstances and blood test results for the "2 in your lifetime"?
Thirdly, the point I am making, re length of time, is made in conjunction with how many units of alcohol it takes to get liver failure and similarly for cigarettes. If I drink 40/50 or more units of alcohol every week, over say 25 years i will probably get serious liver damage. If I take a good few mm's one night I might end up throwing myself of a bridge.
I am making my argument on a longterm, population viewpoint (the Big Picture, if you will), based on use & abuse of all 3 over time. A similar method, using statistics as backup, is how laws are made. It has to be a macro view rather than a micro one.
Anyway I would guesstimate that the % of the population that use mm's compared to the % of the population that drink & smoke is tiny. Therefore the risk is easier to eliminate.
Banning mm's won't bother the overwhelming majority here bar a few regulars ie hippies probably.
believe me, you don't have to educate me on them. :eek: :D 'preingestion' - not sure what you mean by this?? my point was about the ingester's mental stability in the first place.. everyone will react differently to them. lad was either ill-prepared or troubled. and generally they shouldn't be ingested aloneQuote:
Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional
T&E: Firstly, I am not going to answer all your questions with statistics. You tell me how many people died in this country after assaults after closing time? I only asked for a ballpark figure, George Best could be an example.
Like you, I don't have the statistics. I can remember a couple of high-profile cases: that lad from Donegal beaten to death on O' Connell st. after an all-Ireland win over Dublin, and that kid who was beaten to death by a bunch of well-to-do schoolkids in Dublin a few years back (trial was quite recently). I'm sure there are others. Whereas this is the first case I've heard of of someone dying as a result of mushrooms.
T&E Secondly, do you know the circumstances and blood test results for the "2 in your lifetime"?
Nope. I just remember reading about them in the papers at the time. And there are other similar cases where people have drowned as a result of drinking too much at beach parties and thinking that a swim was a great idea.
In asking about circumstances, you make my point: it isn't the drug (whether alcohol or mushrooms or whatever) that kills the person in such cases. It's the drug in conjunction with the circumstances (including, but not limited to, the person's mental well being prior to consumption). Clearly, this unfortunate bloke's circumstances did not go well with mushrooms. But to ban them as a result of this one case is as disproportionate as it would be to ban booze because a depressed person took his own life when drunk.
T&E Thirdly, the point I am making, re length of time, is made in conjunction with how many units of alcohol it takes to get liver failure and similarly for cigarettes. If I drink 40/50 or more units of alcohol every week, over say 25 years i will probably get serious liver damage. If I take a good few mm's one night I might end up throwing myself of a bridge.
And, if you have a few too many drinks one night, you might get a smack of a car. Ban the booze!!
T&E Anyway I would guesstimate that the % of the population that use mm's compared to the % of the population that drink & smoke is tiny. Therefore the risk is easier to eliminate.
The risk won't be eliminated one way or another. Take a look at the war on drugs over here in the U.S. to see that. All this law will do is to criminalize a group of people who enjoy getting off their heads, and who as a group, would probably cause far fewer problems for society than people who've had too much to drink.
T&E Banning mm's won't bother the overwhelming majority here bar a few regulars ie hippies probably.
Oh, so it's OK then.
T&E, i think the point thats being made is a broader drugs policy one. Mary Harney was brought to tears by the story of the poor unfortunate who mixed some with booze, had a reaction and died.
yet the countless thousands who lie on hospital trollies every day, people waiting years for basic operations and often dying before getting them, people in certain counties denyed access to chemo etc etc etc dont have an affect on her?
its a simplistic politicians response that directed the press away from her real responsibilities.
even my profoundly anti-drugs mother was ****ed off at her priorities here.
and she will probably cause more health problems by sending those who still want the mild hallucenogen MM's cause by sending people with a plastic bag into a field to pick them instead of buying them safely and legally.
seriously, is ireland a safer, better place to live after this legislation?