Magic mushrooms banned

[finlma]

4 feckin mushooms !!!???!? Are you serious Sligoman ?

They're tiny little things - 4 mushrooms would do nothing other than leave a bad taste in your mouth.

It was probably Mexican or Thai - they're much bigger than the Irish variety.

[Lionel Ritchie]

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.

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.

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.

[sligoman]

4 feckin mushooms !!!???!? Are you serious Sligoman ?

According to his brother anyway!

[anto1208]

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.

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 .

[Marked Man]

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 - .

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.

[Tired&Emotional]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

I don't think the family of the fella who killed himself after taking them would share your blasé attitude....

[Tired&Emotional]

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 .

In the world of Pharmacology alcohol is actually a depressant.

Memory loss the day after does not mean you went around like a mad man the night before or tried to kill yourself!!

[ken foree]

..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.

[Tired&Emotional]

..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.

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"....

[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.

I don't think the family of the fella who killed himself after taking them would share your blasé attitude....

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?

[Tired&Emotional]

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?

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?

[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.

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.

[Tired&Emotional]

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.

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.

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.

[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"....

believe me, you don't have to educate me on them. '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 alone

[Marked Man]

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.

[Roverstillidie]

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?