
Ireland to 'decriminalise' small amounts of drugs for personal use - werber
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ireland-to-decriminalise-small-amounts-of-drugs-including-heroin-cocaine-and-cannabis-for-personal-a6719136.html
======
iamcurious
It is a step in the right direction, but it still half-baked. Without
decriminalizing production as well, they are maintaining a monopoly for those
that works outside of the law. Which means a very profitable tax free market
that has to recreate all of the state features like physical safety and
insurance policies from scratch. Every nation that forbids something that is
in demand, is gestating its own competition. The laws of capitalism are brutal
and can not be escaped. I wonder how far we can go by following the principle
that it should be easier for demand to be satisfied legally than illegally.

~~~
anigbrowl
I agree with you but remember that Ireland and the UK are islands, which
immediately puts them in a better position to deal with smuggling compared to
countries that share long land borders. I think this is why island nations are
generally a bit more conservative - it's much more practical to control
imports.

~~~
pjc50
Coastline is no easier to police and allows transit at any point. Cornwall
practically counts pre-20th-c smuggling as a traditional heritage industry.

Although I think in practice most drugs come by air like in the rest of the
world.

~~~
anigbrowl
It's doable, but it's not that easy. If coastline allowed transit at any point
then we wouldn't rely so heavily on harbors...but I don't want to bore you
with maritime stories. Put it this way, if you want to smuggle onto an island
you need to do at least a bit of advance planning and figure out who you're
going to have to pay, or how much risk you will tolerate if you own a boat or
a plane. The same is true of smuggling by car or truck on a continent, but
that's a journey you can generally undertake a lot more casually than a boat
or plane trip.

------
hoodoof
To really solve the social problems, the sale needs to be legalised.

Making the sale a criminal offence puts money into the hands of organized
crime, drives up the prices, forces addicts to steal to buy their drugs and
leads drug users to take "worse" drugs like methamphetamine because "better"
drugs aren't easily available.

Drugs need to be made legally to ensure quality, to remove harmful impurities,
to ensure the dosage is consistent and predictable which reduces risk of
overdose, and especially to ensure that when a person consumes "drug A", they
do not in fact get a dose of the more addictive/harmful "drug B" (i.e.
methamphetamine).

Governments stand to make tax dollars off marijuana too.

There's a trail of logic that must be followed - if it is OK to buy and
consume drugs, why is it not OK to sell them?

The only caveat is that methamphetamine should remain illegal to buy or use.
The idea being that people will use "less harmful" drugs than methamphetamine
because they are available cheap, easy and clean. The strongest possible
justification for legalization of sale and use of drugs is to minimize usage
and supply of the greatest of all evils - methamphetamine.

We need to accept that people want to get high. You can't arrest that human
desire out of existence. We can however remove the harmful effects of
criminalization of the sale of drugs.

Criminalization fills prisons, wastes police and legal resources, destroys
families, prevents people having functional lives and creates both organized
crime and petty crime.

N.B. personally I'm not interested taking in any drugs except alcohol and
caffeine so I'm not angling to be able to get high. I wouldn't take em even if
they were legal and free.

~~~
avree
Why do you think meth is worse than heroin?

~~~
hoodoof
Meth junkies go on violent psychotic rampages killing and injuring other
people and have no other thought in their brains except to get more meth. When
I read in the newspaper about someone murdering their family I expect, and
often find either a statement or suggestion that the perpetrator was using
meth.

Heroin junkies go to sleep and are making a poor health choice but it is
possible with clean heroin to lead a functional life including work and
family.

Drugs that harm the user are "better" (as such) whereas drugs that result in
harm to others are "worse".

~~~
bcook
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_harmfulness](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_harmfulness)

Notice that heroin is the worst, both personally and socially. This is well
established. Also, I would not use popular media as the basis for any sound
argument. :(

Herion junkies lead a functional life including work and family? Seriously,
what the fuck?! Cite just one source that heroin addiction is controllable
because the addict uses "clean" heroin. Heroin addiction is the problem, not
the adulterants, so purity is unimportant.

Wow. :(

Edit: This is the first time I wished I could downvote. lol. "Clean" heroin...

~~~
aianus
> Herion junkies lead a functional life including work and family? Seriously,
> what the fuck?! Cite just one source that heroin addiction is controllable
> because the addict uses "clean" heroin.

There are countless rock stars, for example, that maintained families and
highly successful careers while regularly using heroin.

> Heroin addiction is the problem, not the adulterants, so purity is
> unimportant.

Heroin addiction doesn't kill you. What kills you is when you buy a gram
that's three times as pure as the last one so you accidentally overdose.

Even if you don't believe addicts can lead normal lives, as long as they're
shooting up clean, cheap heroin of predictable purity there at least exists a
chance of rehabilitation and a normal life in their futures.

~~~
bcook
Anecdotes are not a valid citation.

Heroin is the most harmful drug, statistically, according to numerous studies.

~~~
ryanlol
Not heroin, but a completely unknown substance presented as heroin that
probably consists of around 30% heroin.

~~~
bcook
Heroin addiction is one of the most harmful documented drug-addictions. The
need for heroin, physically and psychologically, is the driving force behind
the social and personal damage attributed to heroin.

People do not get addicted to non-narcotic adulterants and become prostitutes.
A cutting agent like caffeine or sugar is probably the safest ingredient...

~~~
throwaway7767
> People do not get addicted to non-narcotic adulterants and become
> prostitutes. A cutting agent like caffeine or sugar is probably the safest
> ingredient...

The biggest physical danger of heroin use is the risk of overdose. The main
reason people overdose is because of the adulterants - they don't know how
potent the stuff is. x mg of batch A might be a good high, whereash x mg of
batch B will kill you from an overdose.

Even if the adulterants are themselves safe, the presence of them is a risk to
the users, because they make it impossible to determine dosage.

------
bovermyer
Ignoring the quality of the article, I am struck by one thing.

Why has Ireland all of a sudden taken such a progressive shift? First national
recognition of gay marriage, now this?

I'm loving it, wherever it came from.

~~~
roymurdock
A very random and uninformed guess -

A lot of tech companies have opened up offices in Ireland (ostensibly due to
tax laws) and have started to attract young, progressive talent into the
country. This investment has helped the economy and raised the standard of
living in Ireland, so less people are concerned with enforcing
conservative/religion-based regulation.

This article has some better stats/anecdotes:

[http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/12/08/368770530/u...](http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/12/08/368770530/u-s-
tech-firms-see-green-as-they-set-up-shop-in-low-tax-ireland)

~~~
lucideer
I'd really love if this were the case, but sadly it really isn't.

The affect of US tech companies coming here has largely been a small-scale
version of Palo Alto-esque gentrification of a small area of Dublin
(docklands) and any improvements in standard of living being limited to a
small white male tech elite. Overall poverty is up (we're dealing with a very
serious recent homelessness crisis) and average standards of living have
dropped significantly in the country otherwise and reported economic
improvements in world news are typical of our conservative government's focus
on primarily export-based GDP figures, etc. over actual progressive
population-based data.

I think on the other hand, politics aside, there is a definite strong movement
away from the church at least, which I think is largely a lingering result of
the various very public abuse scandals over the past few decades.

 _Edit:_ That NPR article is interesting in its focus on Cork. I live in
Dublin, so I can't really comment much anecdotally on Cork, but with the
exception of Apple, almost all major US tech firms that have HQ-ed here
(Google, Facebook, MS, Twitter, etc.) are Dublin-based, so it seems an unusual
focus in that regard.

~~~
roymurdock
Thanks for the inside perspective - hard to get a real sense of how a country
is doing from GDP/economic indicators. Wishful thinking on my part that tech
wealth would trickle down more effectively in Ireland than in the US.

On the homelessness crisis:

Amazing that housing prices in Dublin have jumped up 22.3% YoY. [1] What else
do you see contributing to the rise in poverty/homelessness and the decline in
living standards in Ireland?

[1] [http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Ireland/Price-
Hist...](http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Ireland/Price-History)

~~~
gearoidoc
Dublin is a different animal than the rest of Ireland because the country is
very centralised there (despite some efforts to combat this).

It would like measuring the average house price in the US by just measuring
the BA.

I can buy a house in my hometown which is well serviced by schools and more
than the essentials for about €150k.

The one thing that Ireland gets right is access to 3rd level education. I'm
constantly floored by the amount of debt that students in North American and
UK (or wherever else) pile up getting educated. I will concede that their
standard of education is probably higher but, personal experience, I see very
little difference in the average standard of graduate produced.

Coming from a working class background, I was lucky enough to be on the grant
system so would have received about €3.5k a year to attend college - it wasn't
huge and I obviously had to work part time but it certainly helped.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to arrive at is that the best way for a society
to progress is via education and I think we're doing good (though it could be
much better) at this right now.

~~~
maccard
Despite there not being any fees in IrelNd, you have to pay a student
contribution fee (which as a grant receiver you were exempt from) which is
currently 3.5k/year and set to continue rising. Really the grant gives you
more like 7k/yr as you don't have to pay that fee (which had to be paid up
front in one lump sun)

------
lucideer
> However, while Mr O Ríordáin told The Irish Times that there was a “strong
> consensus that drugs across the board should be decriminalised,” he said it
> would be for Ireland’s next government to discuss.

Is probably the most important paragraph there. Election is in the new year -
this is probably pre-canvass fluff. That does still indicate a belief that
this is what voters want however, which is positive.

------
humbleMouse
Wow, this is great. Thank gosh there are still sane people running somebody's
government out there.

------
Geekette
Very interesting news! I wouldn't have expected Ireland to be on this
forefront. When I got to the paragraph below, I also couldn't help wondering
_which_ nation that was:

"His comments follow a leaked report from the United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime, appearing to call for a worldwide decriminalisation on 19 October.
The report was reportedly withdrawn after at least one nation put pressure on
the international body to bury the findings of Dr Monica Beg, chief of the
HIV/AIDs section of the UNODC in Vienna."

~~~
gearoidoc
Curious as to why you "wouldn't have expected Ireland to be on this
forefront".

Not trying to sound accusatory - just genuinely curious on the perception.

~~~
DanBC
Stuff like this (2014) [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/17/ireland-
woman-f...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/17/ireland-woman-forced-
birth-denied-abortion)

~~~
gearoidoc
Without doubt an issue that needs reform (which I believe is coming - there's
a lot of campaigning around it).

Would be surprised if many people outside the country knew about this problem
though. Of course, its possible I'm wrong which is the reason I asked in the
first place.

------
civilian
Why is 'decrminalise' in quotes? Is it b/c it's only partially decriminalized,
or is it crappy journalism?

~~~
anigbrowl
Because they are quoting the minister, whose remarks form the only basis for
the story. No legislation or formal rules have been published yet, so there's
no objective basis for describing the proposal. The use of quotation marks is
entirely appropriate and not crappy at all.

~~~
degenerate
The crappy part is how the journal author tacked " _for personal use_ " onto
the title to make it sound like a move to condone hard drug use, when in fact
the movement is just the opposite - to help addicts get clean instead of
giving them criminal records. So it's crappy journalism, but for a different
reason.

~~~
bmelton
More likely, "for personal use" means that they've intimated that only a small
amount of marijuana will be forgiven in the decriminalization process.

We have the same caveat in Maryland, which decriminalizes "personal use
amounts". "Personal use" in our case is "up to 10 grams" of marijuana, and
anything above that would be considered "for distribution", which is still
criminal, and of course still retains the full weight of law previously
associated.

On top of that, it's worth pointing out the obvious -- decriminalization is
not legalization -- it's still "against the law", and is punishable (in
Maryland) by fines that raise progressively each time you're caught. Moreover,
while the material good itself might be decriminalized, no such
decriminalization applies to paraphernalia. To that end, 9 grams of marijuana
are mere citations, but a trace amount of marijuana in a pipe is still a
criminal offense.

------
frenchie091
This headline is plain wrong. Ireland isn't about to do this. The news is that
our drugs minister is talking about it in the media, and talking about the
need for the next government to talk about it. A conversation has started,
that's all.

------
aburan28
The biggest misconception about drugs is that they were outlawed because of
their dangers to society/health. You would be better off habitually using
heroin rather then drinking or smoking tobacco

------
zamalek
How are they skirting around the narcotics treaty[1]? So far as I understand,
that treaty is a significant hurdle for most countries considering or
implementing legalization. Are they just ignoring it?

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs)

------
lucaspiller
Although I'm generally for legalising drugs, in the short term my concern is
this is going just increase petty crime. As gearoidoc said in another comment:

> In Ireland, especially Dublin, it's not unusual to see a heroin addict
> shooting up on public transport.

I lived in Dublin city (2 and 1) a few years ago and it's not exactly the
safest place. Even in the middle of the day, in the highstreet, I've seen
fights between people. This is going to come across as "drugs are ok" and more
people will get into them, which will lead to higher petty crime rates.

------
seanmheff
There is an election coming up. Maybe its smoke and mirrors

~~~
mahouse
Especially smoke.

------
andyl
A small step to remove the fetters of intolerance. But if legalizing small
amounts is good, then legalizing large amounts is better. Nobody has the right
to limit my ability to take large amounts of drugs - that's my personal
business.

~~~
vixen99
Yes they do and no it isn't unless of course you're a hermit living in
isolation. For anyone else it's virtually impossible to ensure you (let's go
with your example) take all the consequences of your actions as you must if
you go along with the dictum 'do as you like if it doesn't affect others'. As
a society we curtail many freedoms. Necrophilia hurts no one so should it be
legal? Suppose millions decide it's a desirable activity. Do we then
decriminalize it?

BTW I wonder if Ireland is going to permit industrial production of the
desired drugs? As I understand it, the 'small step' as you call it is akin to
legalizing the possession of stolen goods.

------
onetimePete
Anyone remember the absurd projects to freeze parts of humanity in the 70s -
to solve problems.

Are drugs not basically a freezing process? You age, yes, but you are out of
society, out of the high consume, reproduce circle, into something that gets
you nowhere and costs you nothing but lifetime while doing them.Actually a
good problem solution, if controlled by the state.

Lucky for us, every parent on this planet will scream in protest on this
statement and enforce a counter policy to extend behaviour control into adult-
hood and guarantee offsprings offspring. Thus a Thrug-of-War ensues, called
the war on drugs.

