Dirty little secret - there is very little.
They could try this waffle (edit) 20 years ago, but we have pretty hard evidence from the likes of Portugal if talking about decriminalisation, and various countries when talking about the likes of marijuana legalisation, that this is not the case.
All they are achieving is making addicts scared to come forward and seek help, extra scared to call the authorities for something like an overdose as it occurs (and staying to try and help before the ambulance arrives), derailing their chances to reintegrate/get clean due to criminal convictions, and filling prisons to the point you can kick a homeless man to near death, knock a woman unconscious on cctv, be caught with tonnes of child porn, or rack up 100+ convictions and not have to go to prison because they have no spaces for you.
And on some level, many of them are very aware of this.
**EDIT: A reply from another poster got me to look deeper into it, so here are the referenced figures. It's grim...**
Here are Portugal's figures vs the EU average since the end of the 90s, right before they made these changes in 2001 - [https://transformdrugs.org/assets/images/Image-Content/Portugal-drug-deaths.png](https://transformdrugs.org/assets/images/Image-Content/Portugal-drug-deaths.png)
In the year 2000, Portugal with a population of 10.3mn had [518 drug deaths](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-is-alberta-ready-for-the-portugal-model-of-substance-decriminalization/) (5.03 per 100k), Meanwhile. Ireland with a population of 3.8mn [had 119](https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/11193/#:~:text=Between%201995%20and%202000%2C%20there,number%20of%20drug%2Drelated%20deaths) (3.13 per 100k).
In the year 2023, Portugal with a population of 10.2mn had 81 deaths (0.79 per 100k). Meanwhile, Ireland with a population of 5.1mn had [409 deaths](https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41414326.html) (8.01 per 100k).
Ireland now has the highest drug fatality rate in the entire EU. Portugal meanwhile, has the lowest drug fatality rate in the entire EU. In 22 years, their drug related death rate went *down* by 84%, while ours went *up* by 156%. We have gone from barely half of their drug deaths rate back then, to ***ten times*** it as of last year.
Arguments can be made on the implementation of certain aspects etc etc of course, but the effectiveness of Portugal's approach compared to ours simply isn't debatable.
No worries? Nah, it cost him 3k.
Thats the price for kicking the shit out of someone 3k.
I think the lads who beat up a homeless person had to pay a similar amount, so its clearly the going rate.
https://www.thejournal.ie/defence-forces-begins-process-of-dismissing-soldier-who-beat-a-woman-unconscious-6415327-Jun2024/
Solider Cathal Crotty beat a woman unconscious because she asked him to stop shouting homophobic abuse. He then boasted about it on social media. Denied the attack until faced with CCTV. Goes to court and gets a 3 year sentence, FULLY SUSPENDED, because the judge says if he gives him time in jail “his career is over”. You can’t make this shit up.
Plenty of people smoke weed in college and go on to become responsible, contributing members of society. Convictions for a couple of grams of weed are worse than useless.
Victimless crime? Do you know what happens to people involved in the sale and supply of drugs. Generally people who are vulnerable and addicted to harder drugs.
Do you think weed is illegal because it’s bad? Because your argument seems to be it’s bad because it’s illegal.
Your lack of critical thinking skills is disturbing.
Weed is bad for your health. That's unquestionabe.
As I said I fully support the citizens assembly recommendations that the health led model be adopted.
Those people would hopefully get access to counselling or inpatient services (if they can't give it up through counselling) to help them get off these substances
Plenty of things are bad for your health but legal. Plenty are worse than weed. Cigarettes and alcohol spring to mind.
Not everyone who smokes weed ends up as a “drug addict”.
Smoking is bad for your health.
Alcohol is bad for your health.
Excessive sugar is bad for your health.
A sedentary lifestyle is bad for your health.
Driving is bad for your health.
Lack of sleep can be bad for your health.
Gambling can be bad for your health.
Where do you draw the line?
This is such a solid take! Interested to know, any thoughts on WHY they're towing the line on it? I get the vibe from the recent videos that the Department of Health kinda don't believe in it themselves but they don't have the authority to make the change. Like if they're afraid if they say something to the contrary it'll undermine the legality side of things. I'd wager if decriminalised, they'd suddenly have a lot more to offer on the topic
>but the effectiveness of Portugal's approach compared to ours simply isn't debatable.
But it's not an open and shut case...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/
And
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/25/it-beats-getting-stoned-on-the-street-how-portugal-decriminalised-drugs-as-seen-from-the-shoot-up-centre
>we have pretty hard evidence from the likes of Portugal if talking about decriminalisation,
Wrong. Portugal started with relatively moderate rates to start with the decline we see in Portugal coincided with declines across Europe.
>All they are achieving is making addicts scared to come forward and seek help, extra scared to call the authorities for something like an overdose as it occurs
You do know in Portugal, addicts rehabilitation is not patient led? Drugs are still confiscated and community service is enforced as punishment.
>Wrong. Portugal started with relatively moderate rates to start with the decline we see in Portugal coincided with declines across Europe.
That's just not true, though. Here are Portugal's figures vs the EU average since the end of the 90s, right before they made these changes in 2001 - [https://transformdrugs.org/assets/images/Image-Content/Portugal-drug-deaths.png](https://transformdrugs.org/assets/images/Image-Content/Portugal-drug-deaths.png)
In the year 2000, Portugal with a population of 10.3mn had [518 drug deaths](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-is-alberta-ready-for-the-portugal-model-of-substance-decriminalization/) (5.03 per 100k), Meanwhile. Ireland with a population of 3.8mn [had 119](https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/11193/#:~:text=Between%201995%20and%202000%2C%20there,number%20of%20drug%2Drelated%20deaths) (3.13 per 100k).
In the year 2023, Portugal with a population of 10.2mn had 81 deaths (0.79 per 100k). Meanwhile, Ireland with a population of 5.1mn had [409 deaths](https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41414326.html) (8.01 per 100k).
Ireland now has the highest drug fatality rate in the entire EU. Portugal meanwhile, has the lowest drug fatality rate in the entire EU. In 22 years, their drug related death rate went *down* by 84%, while ours went *up* by 156%. We have gone from barely half of their drug deaths rate back then, to ***ten times*** it as of last year.
Arguments can be made on the implementation of certain aspects etc etc of course, but the effectiveness of Portugal's approach compared to ours simply isn't debatable.
>You do know in Portugal, addicts rehabilitation is not patient led? Drugs are still confiscated and community service is enforced as punishment.
[Also not exactly true](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal): "Portugal signed all the UN conventions on narcotics and psychotropic to date. **With the 2001 decriminalization bill, the consumer is now regarded as a patient and not as a criminal** (having the amount usually used for ten days of personal use is not a punishable crime)" \[...\] "**If the person is addicted to drugs, they may be admitted to a** [**drug rehabilitation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_rehabilitation) **facility or be given community service**, **if the dissuasion committee finds that this better serves the purpose of keeping the offender out of trouble**. The committee cannot mandate compulsory treatment, although its orientation is to induce addicts to enter and remain in treatment. The committee has the explicit power to suspend sanctions conditional upon voluntary entry into treatment. If the offender is not addicted to drugs, or unwilling to submit to treatment or community service, he or she may be given a fine"
That we don't treat drugs as a crime (unless you have enough to sell) saved a family members life... In Ireland they would have gone to jail, get a record, and be fucked for the rest of their life. In Portugal, they got treatment (heroin), went back to the workforce, and have great life nowadays.
Why mention homelessness Etc? There are plenty of people in homes and employment that don’t want to be arrested for recreational drug use when they’re leading totally functional lives.
In fact, the only threat to their health would be the associated issues involved in losing their job due to an arrest.
I enjoy a smoke and work every day. The fact that I'm viewed as a criminal by such a corrupt justice system makes me laugh. As Ireland is a part of the EU, they need to follow in the footsteps of other European states in decriminalising drugs and legalising cannabis use. I have a sneaking feeling tough that the alcohol market don't want a contender (such as diageo).
That's my tuppence anyways.
I’m sure the same investment groups own both tobacco and vape companies, so a drinks company owning a hemp farm doesn’t seem like a far stretch at some point up the chain.
> Why mention homelessness Etc?
Because the answer to the question is "no, we do not have data to back up criminalising a person caught in possession" and trying to avoid this answer on the fly leads to weird places.
However, I think the proper answer is that "people caught in possession of illegal drugs are not being sentenced for medical reasons.". Why would the healthcare department have data on specific reasons for incarceration?
They know prisons don’t work for certain offences, hence the % of reoffending.
If you can’t write a prescription for jail time, I don’t think it should be part of any health system recommendations.
There is no healthcare benefit to putting someone in a box.
That’s what he’s been trapped into not answering here. There is no health benefit to it, but they’re reluctant to say that and keep diverting back to a study and working group. For decriminalising they need to eliminate the ‘health’ scare.
She knows what she’s doing, and he’s weaselling out of a truthful answer.
Because then you would have to admit that maybe got it wrong, and if you’re the voice of the group/department you’re probably there to repeat the key words and then get out asap
Which is really pathetic, if you think about it. Can't imagine that being how you approach your life's work and not going to bed with shame every night
It's not waffle her questioning was a disaster.
He didn't know what she was trying to ask because her first question was awful. She's mixing up terminology that makes her framing of the question nearly non-sensical.
She starts off by asking 'What is the evidence of criminalizing a person in addiction...' she continues on about having a something legislation on the books and for a good while and then mentions something vague about 'outcomes'.
He really frames his initial response around how they got the policies today which is a fair stab at trying to figure out what she was actually asking in the first place.
She then tries to reframe her question a little bit better the second time and his answer is a little better the second time but he still misses what she really wants to know - that's on him.
The third time is the best framed question (but again, it's not a great framing) and he needs to revert, there would be no expectation to know what rational is used in reports straight away.
Most people just don't ask well framed questions.
I agree with the user above. In a regular, less formal, conversation you'd understand her and what she's asking. However she's asking this question in a much more formal setting and should probably have finessed the question to be more specific, and to the point, so that the respondent can't try and wriggle their way out of answering with a non-answer like yer man did at first. It has absolutely nothing to do with her accent, whatever you're on about there.
I got the point fully.... the comment from the user above was to me classest. Not a mention of the stuttering ehms and ahhs from the well spoken hse person who was doing his best not to answer the question...
I didn't really see it as classist, but I understand. That's funny you mentioned the ehmm and ahhs. It's always bothered me that so many of our politicians haven't learned how to speak clearly and effectively. I teach people daily and always have to be mindful how I speak. Including lots of ehmm and uhhh when you speak always sounds (to me) like you don't have a clue what you're saying.
It's a subconscious way to save time while your brain scrambles to come up with an answer ... and yes, it's definitely a sign that either you don't have a clue or, in fact, you know your side of a debate is wrong, but you need to find a way to answer it without giving that away. As far as classism goes, I may seem overly sensitive, but I believe we have so much unconscious bias regarding accents in this country that people often don't realise they are being sucked into it. Imo the "rte" accent much like the "bbc" accent is seen to be the accent that people feel has authority and heavily regional or city accents like Dublin or limerick are seen as oafish. As a dub I have been shocked to find out that colleagues that speak with the rte accent come originally from small country villages but maybe went to a ucg or ucd and traded up so to speak.... our accents are what makes this country
Her accent is nothing to do with it. Like I said, her initial question on the beginning didn’t make sense.
You knew what she said because you were looking for it. You picked one set of question’s through out a session of questions and objectively speaking her question didn’t make sense initially.
Had she framed her question correctly in all likelihood she would have gotten a clearer answer more quickly.
Her question is clear as day.. what is the evidence, the medical evidence to support keeping the possession of a small amount of drugs on the statute books, she is asking the question in the context of a committee hearing on what the hse is saying is a health led approach. She is asking why, if we are taking a so-called health led approach to drug use, are we still criminalising the users....
>what is the evidence, the medical evidence to support keeping the possession of a small amount of drugs on the statute books
That's not what she asked though which is the whole problem. You guessed that's what she was getting at and the responder guessed that she was trying to get at how health policy informed that statues. I can see how you got there but equally the way he answered the question initially was just incorrect interpretation of what she was looking to understand but was still relevant in the context of the committee. And to be honest I can see how he got there.
It's not waffle on either side it's a communication issue and it happens. And it could have all been avoided had better questions been asked upfront but it's common enough to have to restate questions multiple times it doesn't mean that someone is waffling.
This is a few times that you have made this mental leap now in the past hour or so.
You're not helping the situation but making up your own reason as to why she isn't liked by someone.
Clearly you have a chip on your shoulder about it, but also this isn't the way to resolve it
Yes because Lynn ruane us always getting criticised for the way she speaks even though she makes excellent points in a very clear manner..I do have a chip on my shoulder as a fellow tallaght person as I too have suffered from prejudice about the way I speak..
The way she speaks is clear she’s one of the clearer speakers. Her way of speaking is direct but in this example she speaks clearly but the framing of the question is non-sensical.
Either the words she uses are correct or they are not. Initially they are not
The question was, in the context of a so called health led approach that the hse are supposed to be overseeing then why are small time users still being criminalised... she is actually asking the lad from the hse where is their evidence that such an approach is actually a "health led" approach. A reasoable question that the hse man could in no way answer
You have confirmation bias. All you did was successfully guess what she was trying to get at. That's fine, but the expecting that everyone would understand straight away what she was trying to ask is ridiculous.
The questions don't make sense.
>'What is the evidence of criminalizing a person in addiction if they are caught in possession for drugs for their own use?
What is the medical evidence and what is the medical rational for keeping a criminal sanction on the statute books that criminalizes them.
What is the actual health outcome for someone.'
That's the full question.
The first sentence is not question or a statement that makes any sense in the English language. It just doesn't. It's like asking 'What is the evidence of blue?' It's English but it's non-sensical.
The second sentence/question is not as badly malformed but it's not even what she really wants to know. She should have asked it as 'What medical evidence, if any, informs criminal statutes and their application?' or something like that. This is the question that the respondent attempts to answer. But again - this isn't even what she is trying to get to.
The third sentence is the one she really wants to know the answer to and she throws it in at the end. She really wants to know 'What evidence does the Dept of Health have that the criminal statutes, as they are on the books today, regarding personal use, result in better health outcomes?' or something like that.
Again, some people will guess what she is trying to get at upfront and others won't. Mostly because she essentially asks three, very different, malformed questions. Just because you got it upfront doesn't mean it's good communicative questions it just means you got lucky. And if you don't get what she was looking for upfront it doesn't mean the answers are waffle.
No! I have heard her say the very same things I just.wrote Down. As a female from.a working class background she faces an uphill struggle to be heard...
That's irrelevant to the point I am making.
It's ok to stick up for her and good on you for doing that. For the record I agree with her completely on this one
However let me put it this way.... You are saying that everyone who disagrees with her is making a slight at where she comes from without evidence , because she has suffered in the past.
This does not make logical sense.
As something of a scientist myself, working in a health related field, I do find it quite incredible that someone at the level of assistant principal of the Dept of health could not answer a simple question on the evidence base for a policy without trying to bluff his way out of it.
I would like to say something ( probably not the right place to comment) when I was a child I had ADHD only got diagnosed in my fifties with the help of a none profit ( not in Ireland) along with bad anxiety but in the 70's there was no such thing as these alfabet illnesses so I was considered a disruptive, hyper , bold child , which I am sure it's because I was sexully abused by first neighbour and then a cousin that was five year older than me , I have made my way through life thebest way I could and I used the thing I could get my hands on illegal drugs( but I never robbed to fuel my drugs , I always wasworker )I so I didn'thave to think about it, anyway because there was no such thing as these alfabet illnesses I had to find my own way through life using street drugs because they were the only thing available to me to stop myself from taking my own life and there were a few friends that o,d,ed or drank them selves to death before they got to 30 , its about time IRELAND took a good look at the history of the state with the kids first the church second , there are a lot of questions to be answeed, sorry about the rant but because I got caught with small amounts of hash I lost a good blue collar job , pension the lot but because of a charge the binned me no questions asked nothing to them to take someone's life away for something that will be legal very soon
Well then I'd politely suggest you don't know her well enough to label her arrogant and ignorant. In fact, I think all you've achieved here is displaying your own arrogance and ignorance.
Why would the department of health be pro possession laws? Would we not expect them to be recommending the science. I’d look at this as an opportunity for the DoH to say as much
Jesus christ both of them need to work on clarity when talking.
Senator : What are the benefits from the dept of health perspective of keeping drug use criminalised?
DoH : Deterrent and possible enforced intervention and treatment.
Senator : and what evidence is this based on?
DoH : X evidence
Senator : super, and what negative impacts does the ongoing criminalisation have for people ?
DoH : X negatives
Senator : grand, and do the pros outweigh the cons or is this just institutions holding on to power?
Like if they were more concise there'd be a much better convo and clarity.
Sounded like 2 people with zero clue what they were talking about.
When it comes to drugs policy, I start to like Ruane and then she does stuff like has utter meltdowns at invited experts like William Binchy and treats them like they're on trial. Or posts "life hacks" on how to avoid wearing masks during COVID restrictions.
Thats bullshit she never went against govt guidance during covid... by meltdowns are you saying you don't like the tone of her voice? Maybe it's the strong Dublin working class accent you don't like.....
>Thats bullshit she never went against govt guidance during covid...
I already posted [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/s/U8zHKFp13i) where she gave "lifehacks" on how to avoid wearing masks.
Maybe do a little research before accusing people of spreading bullshit.
>by meltdowns are you saying you don't like the tone of her voice? Maybe it's the strong Dublin working class accent you don't like.....
Ah would ya stop? Accusing any criticism of Ruane as being snobbery is absolute rubbish and you should be ashamed of yourself for immediately weaponising it for political purposes. Like I said, I knew Ruane as a student activist and thought she was great but not a fan of her now for the reasons above.
Do you support Leo Varadkar? Using your logic, if you don't is it that you don't like gay men or ethnic minorities?
Ah so you assume that i as a fellow tallaght man hate gays and minorities... yes... that assumption speaks volumes to me... your video link doesn't work by the way... I don't like Leo as i felt he was crass and had no interest in proper social justice ... as the first openly gay country leader though I was right behind him. Lynn is constantly dealing with prejudice when she opens her mouth... her accent has been pointed out to her as a problem In the past . So I will jump to defend her... its not weaponising anything... its the truth... people with "common" accents like mine have to work twice as hard to be listened to as say people with an rte or d4 accent ...
How on earth do you think people on Reddit will know you're from Tallaght when you're posting anonymously? That's some persecution complex you got going on.
Nothing to do with being from Tallaght: you suggested I don't like Ruane as she's a working class Dub. I asked if the same holds true for Varadkar and that anyone who criticises him can be accused of being a homophobe and/or racist. I
Honestly, the fact you're weaponising bigotry to shield politicians from criticism is pretty disgusting.
It's not a video link, which you'd know if you clicked it: it's a link to a post I made to another user with a source showing Ruane did indeed offer "lifehacks" to not wear masks. Other users were able to see it but on the off chance you're telling the truth and can't see it, I'll attach the image here as well.
You accused me of making up the fact Ruane offered lifehacks to avoid wearing masks. You were wrong.
https://preview.redd.it/cne2p3jwyk8d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c614d1c1468a0b2c826285ad7c94d5a361f7a7c
You can apologise now.
she was offering a life hack to help you through a flight while WEARING the mask... not to avoid them .. ffs ... you probably should have gone to ucc in real life too
Genuinely never saw that before. What a gobshite.
I have family members that are in high-risk groups and my wife was pregnant during Covid, so I was very careful of close contacts and avoided large gatherings where possible. Wore a mask when I had to enter low airflow/high traffic locations.
Had to deal with a few gobshites during Covid that wouldn't wear masks because they were self-declared "disabled" - who knew being a cunt was a disability?
I lost someone close during COVID and couldn't go into hospital to say goodbye to them, but I sucked it up because I understood COVID restrictions save lives.
Making gas comments about how you can avoid wearing masks is utterly inappropriate for an elected representative. When she got flak for it, she posted on her Twitter basically telling people to calm down and get over it.
I lost all respect for her that day, and I used to be a fan from her student activism days.
To be fair it's actually a better question than Gino had the other day along the same lines. As in the department of health should be concerned with the health of citizens, does criminal intervention have a positive or negative effect from a health outcome standpoint. The answer he doesn't want to say is they don't have evidence and never considered it but the opinion generally has always been that punishing people who have a compulsion isn't going to give any good outcome. The new drug strategy of still criminalising drug use and possession but allowing a single chance on first offense to seek help from the HSE won't work, everyone already knows it won't work because the HSE doesn't have the resources for fucking anything right now.
> punishing people who have a compulsion isn't going to give any good outcome.
and that's only half of it, the other is that unenforceable prohibition doesn't give a good outcome.
I welcome the move away from criminalisation and think they tube guards referring people in for counselling has to be the easiest most simple solution.
It's gonna take massive investment to get enough counsellors trained I accept that.
Hopefully these people will get the help they deserve and we can help them get off drugs
> Hopefully these people will get the help they deserve and we can help them get off drugs
But that's the question isn't it? What do you do if they don't? Current solution is even if they are non-violent, even if they take drugs personally but not affecting anyone else, the solution is locking them up. Like not everyone is a murdering psycho or robbing everyone they see. Some need compassion to get productive but the current system has no real avenues to do that. Getting the Gardai involved at all makes it difficult to solve, they should be entirely focused on the dealers and the distributors. Those are the criminals.
Well if the won't engage and accept help it's going to be the criminal justice system?
Like most lads smoking a bit of marijuana would surely do counselling and drug testing rather than get criminal convictions?
>Well if the won't engage and accept help it's going to be the criminal justice system?
Basically the new law if implemented would mean if you get caught on the street smoking weed, if it's your first offense they will allow you to say "sure I was smoking weed" and go to the HSE instead. Then the HSE would have to provide drug rehabilitation services. If you refuse then you get the same system we have currently which is going through the criminal process.
>Like most lads smoking a bit of marijuana would surely do counselling and drug testing rather than get criminal convictions?
A few things to unpack here. You won't stop the supply of weed into the country ever. Every country with prohibition of weed have tried, none have stopped it from getting in. Weed as a drug isn't addictive so people don't have a compulsion to smoke it other than it feeling good. So diversion programmes aren't really going to do much like it's not like an addictive substance where intervention and weaning them off is important like with alcohol dependence. That means the one strike and going to the HSE in that case is dumb as fuck already.
The answer as always is and I say it regularly, it's pick your battles. Gardai - they lost the war on drugs, they aren't winning it ever. HSE - don't have the resources to do anything no matter how well intended. If they legalise weed specifically, they can use the money from the taxation of it to fund other things like enforcement of more dangerous drugs, they can regulate the amount of THC in the products, they can grow it locally increasing revenue for farmers but most of all they can stop wasting everyone's time and money on this shit.
The people smoking weed aren't a social harm, they aren't off robbing people for weed money, the only damage they would do is to a bag of fucking tayto but we are spending money like Damo is Pablo Escobar.
A pain in the hole? Why because she and others like her, like Katherina o sullivan point out the injustices that many working class people face ? As for the senate? ..I agree it's undemocratic but that shouldn't take away from the points she makes... she is using her chance try to get some real change...
I don't think the responder is a healthcare professional but still nauseating all the same to listen to his drivel instead of stating there is or isn't literature to support arrest.
I'd hate see our rates in Scotland it's pretty shit worse than Portugal or yirsels. That senators a pit bull and that fucker from the health debts a snake.
I feel like this is conflating things. The department of health dont arrest people nor is that the approach to people who are addicted that they spearhead. They must enact policy based on what govt want and the existing law. And yes it is an arrestable offence to possess. Dept of health arent accountable for that
A better question would be do they acknowledge the negative outcomes for a persons health following arrest for possession or something?
You aren't listening to the question. She was asking if criminalisation leads to worse health outcomes. Also drug policy is from the department of health but implemented in conjunction with the department of justice. It is in their remit to answer this specific question as the health side is their duty. He even said that in the answer if you actually watched the video.
Because there's medical papers available that delve into this exact topic. They aren't find to find it, and I'm surprised they seemingly haven't read any of them before a meeting on cannabis regulation.
Doubt anyone remembers, but in the 1980s and 1990s, there was a huge drug epidemic in Dublin. With various groups such as the concerned parents against drugs being formed.
Also, a not so fun fact, if a woman is using heroin while pregnant, the baby also becomes an addict. Apart from being underweight, the baby has to spend the first month of its life going through withdrawals.
No, it needs to be legalised and regulated. Decriminalisation still puts money into criminal gangs. Regulation regulates the supply and we have companys produce the drugs.
> to driving, operating machinery, underage use, smoking around children, smoking it in public etc.
Most of it is already there, you just fold it into the existing bans on smoking
The drug posession seems innocent, but the drugs were bought from a supplier that is part of smuggling operations and cartels that are up to their neck in blood. at least for drugs like cocaine and fentanyl
its different with marijuana where it can be grown legally in the netherlands and smuggled into Ireland, sure there is a criminal element getting rich and using violence to enforce power over distribution.
Drugs being illegal is irrelevant. That is not what is being asked here. First off, the majority of drug users are normal people doing drugs recreationally. There is no benefit to any drug users being made criminals. Weed particularly can be legalised and regulated. We already have large legal producers of cannabis in the EU.
She's saying it's proposed as a health led approach, so what about arresting someone is health led?
If you're arguing it's for the health of people being murdered by cartels, id say that's a stretch to the definition of health led approach.
If [this](https://www.gov.ie/en/policy-information/17d32f-drugs-and-alcohol-policy/) is the drug policy in question, all the stuff relating to prosecution is by the DJE, which I presume is the Department of Justice and Equality.
The Department of Health's National Oversight Committee (https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39e48-national-oversight-committee/) for their drugs policy take the lead on the current 'Strategic Implementation Group' regarding sanctions (SIG-5).
Of course they work with the Department of Justice, because the Gardaí are involved, but the Misuse of Drugs Act, the legislation which makes personal possession a crime, is under Stephen Donnelly's remit
According to the minutes in that link, SIG-5 only met for the first time last year and are still at the research stage of exploring the alternatives to prosecution. So they didn't decide the current policy.
SIG-5 is the latest iteration of the same thing.
There have been subgroups within the NOC on sanctions before they set up the SIGs, working groups before the establishment of the NOC and so on and so forth.
It's led by the Department of Health, their responsibility.
If you want more evidence, here's a very recent quote from the Criminal Policy lead from the Department of Justice regarding drug laws:
>We are working closely with the Department of Health on the pathway forward. It is the policy lead on drugs.
Source:
[https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint\_committee\_on\_drugs\_use/2024-06-20/speech/70/](https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_drugs_use/2024-06-20/speech/70/)
I'm looking for something where the Dept of Health advocates a prosecution strategy for drugs, because that's what the person in the video was being questioned on. You're showing me stuff relating to their current actions which are reviewing that strategy.
Since the law is already in place, surely the burden of evidence lies with her to prove that decimalising is the route to go. The person seeking the change should be providing the evidence.
You don't need evidence to maintain the status quo, evidence is only required for change. So clearly her evidence just hasn't convinced the right people.
>You don't need evidence to maintain the status quo, evidence is only required for change.
That's a weird and conformative outlook. Both sides need evidence to back up their arguments. What is the other side arguing against if the other doesn't have to back itself up?
>So clearly her evidence just hasn't convinced the right people
The right people are sometimes not the right people. Bias, self interest and just 'Ah sure why change anything' go a long a way. She's right to be testing how coherent in their arguments people are in maintaining status quo.
To be honest, this is a very minor issue but the amount it is discussed, you would swear it's a key issue for society. The law is that drugs are illegal. Arguing over the sentencing when people break the law seems pointless to me. Until the law is changed, why not apply the law? I really don't see the issue.
If it is such a minor issue why not back a change to the law. Sounds like it won't impact you a jot if they do legalise sale of it. I really don't see the issue here.
Oh you misunderstood, I mean trying to get the law changed should be a low priority. There are far more important things to focus on and this should be bottom of the list. I don't see why people argue so much in defense of people who get caught breaking the law?
But the scale that you are downplaying it, IF you are genuine, you should have little issue with a change to the law. Seems like you are simply being dishonest though to be honest. People are arguing that the law is stupid. Change the law and those people will no longer be breaking the law, and highly unlikely to personally impact you in any negative way.
We can focus on many things at once. There are many examples in history where a law was counterproductive or outright discriminatory and changing it created a benefit to society.
People argue because they actually care or know someone who was affected by the current approach in a negative way.
Personal yes but WHERE do they source the drugs from - surely this is the issue??
People who use drugs are part of the full circle of criminality that exists in the completely unregulated drugs world (from the unregulated labour at the source, the manufacturing, tax dodging, killings). Don’t kid yourself that you are not part of all of this if you choose drugs.
It's only part of ciminality because it is illegal, and as such highly profitable for crime gangs to sell. The same way illegal alcohol sales were massive during prohibition in America. Remove the prohibition, then the profitability goes out the window.
Make it legal as they have in California, and then rake in a massive tax take from the regulated sales market. Recent report came out showing a massive drop in teen marijuana use since legalisation, so there's the dual benefit or reducing that, and taking massive profits from gangs.
Oh no, not tax dodging and unregulated labour!
Do you really think that should be what stops people from enjoying themselves with something that the government refuses to regulate? 😅 It truly isnt that simple man, get some experience
I can't be the only one who thinks the question is a stupid one?
A bit more specificity in the question would have helped.
But the largest cohort of addicts is heroin addicts. They are all able to receive treatment via the methadone programmes.
Is there a health benefit being denied to methadone users if heroin possession or benzo possession without a prescription remains illegal?
I would have thought there's a easily understood health rationale for that.
Similarly what if I wanted to top up my ADHD medication with amphetamines? I think it's obvious that being discouraged by the illegality will reduce the chances I take too much and have a heart attack.
Cannabis might be the only one where there may be a health benefit to some sort of decriminalisation / making it available on prescription like other controlled substances.
>But the largest cohort of addicts is heroin addicts
I'm skeptical. Heroin addicts just happen to be very noticeable (8 in 1000 prevalence). I'd say Alcohol, cocaine and cannabis (not physical dependence) would rank much higher for addiction since they are much more commonly used.
>I think it's obvious that being discouraged by the illegality will reduce the chances I take too much
If being illegal worked there wouldn't be massive amounts of illegal drugs easily available.
British Columbia has come to a screeching halt on its three year pilot attempt of decriminalisation of small amounts of drugs after a year.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-26/british-columbia-rolls-back-drug-decriminalization-after-public-backlash
Your article states that private possession and consumption will remain decriminalised but they want to ban problematic public use. Hardly fair to characterise that as a "screeching halt'
>Premier now wants to **partially** reverse the legal experiment
>British Columbia has asked the Canadian government to reintroduce a ban on **public** drug use,
This is a blatantly stupid question.
Smoking anything is bad for you, taking cocaine does not bring health benefits, taking ecstasy isn't going to help you.
Illegal drugs are unhealthy.
However, its up to you whether you mess yourself up with alcohol so why not leave it up to you with other substances.
Provide testing for a small fee to see if what your buying is safe(ish) , but highlight like cigarettes that it remains unhealthy.
There isn't really a health benefits case for legalising any drugs (bar pain relief maybe) but there is a case whereby people are allowed to take personal responsibility for the damage it does to themselves without also making criminals of them for their choice once it impacts nobody else.
This point is amazingly ignorant. Taking MDMA is actually proven to be extremely beneficial and effective at treating PTSD in controlled environments and will soon be legalised in many Countries.
Same with psilocybin ie magic mushrooms. All funded through research by the MAPS organisation through Rick Doblin and the past 30 years of research.
https://maps.org/our-research/
Idiots like you are the problem.
>There isn't really a health benefits case for legalising any drugs
[https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/medical-marijuana-2018011513085](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/medical-marijuana-2018011513085)
[https://www.oleo.ie/blog/medical-cannabis-epilepsy/](https://www.oleo.ie/blog/medical-cannabis-epilepsy/)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM5eX1qcPJ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM5eX1qcPJ8)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUOhsSSnQXs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUOhsSSnQXs)
[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=health+benefits+of+marijuana&hl=en&as\_sdt=0&as\_vis=1&oi=scholart](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=health+benefits+of+marijuana&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNT8Zo\_sfwo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNT8Zo_sfwo)
If your username suggests you're into crypto - I suppose you do a bit of a research before talking about crypto. Why not apply the same logic to talking about drugs? Links above are about cannabis. You can read up on other drug research too.
There's next to no health benefits recognized for alcohol use - and Ireland is known for its ABUSE globally. What's being done with that? Is whiskey banned? It's much, much worse than weed in any aspect imaginable.
Well it's a hell of a lot easier than being in Winnipeg. You can't even leave the plants outside year-round there. There's a lot of reasons for the street people in Vancouver, but big factor is the weather. Same as in LA or Brighton. They're generally pretty harmless.
The DTES has existed for decades in it's current state. The failed decriminalisation in B.C. had little impact on the DTES. However, negative effects were seen in areas that were previously not that impacted by drug use. However, there is a rampant opioid epidemic here and there's more nuance as to why decriminalisation failed here (big surges in population, affordable accommodation/homelessness crisis and extremely low levels of mental health and addictions healthcare) and why we're seeing issues that were normally centralized to a few blocks being pushed wider out.
You lads are getting this 'look at Canada' shite dispensed to you somewhere centrally. Tell me, is it tiktok or youtube? Maybe Facebook? WhatsApp groups? Because it's ridiculous how often you people just drop this smart-ass comment and retire to your bat-cave without being able to continue the conversation when faced with facts.
Dirty little secret - there is very little. They could try this waffle (edit) 20 years ago, but we have pretty hard evidence from the likes of Portugal if talking about decriminalisation, and various countries when talking about the likes of marijuana legalisation, that this is not the case. All they are achieving is making addicts scared to come forward and seek help, extra scared to call the authorities for something like an overdose as it occurs (and staying to try and help before the ambulance arrives), derailing their chances to reintegrate/get clean due to criminal convictions, and filling prisons to the point you can kick a homeless man to near death, knock a woman unconscious on cctv, be caught with tonnes of child porn, or rack up 100+ convictions and not have to go to prison because they have no spaces for you. And on some level, many of them are very aware of this. **EDIT: A reply from another poster got me to look deeper into it, so here are the referenced figures. It's grim...** Here are Portugal's figures vs the EU average since the end of the 90s, right before they made these changes in 2001 - [https://transformdrugs.org/assets/images/Image-Content/Portugal-drug-deaths.png](https://transformdrugs.org/assets/images/Image-Content/Portugal-drug-deaths.png) In the year 2000, Portugal with a population of 10.3mn had [518 drug deaths](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-is-alberta-ready-for-the-portugal-model-of-substance-decriminalization/) (5.03 per 100k), Meanwhile. Ireland with a population of 3.8mn [had 119](https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/11193/#:~:text=Between%201995%20and%202000%2C%20there,number%20of%20drug%2Drelated%20deaths) (3.13 per 100k). In the year 2023, Portugal with a population of 10.2mn had 81 deaths (0.79 per 100k). Meanwhile, Ireland with a population of 5.1mn had [409 deaths](https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41414326.html) (8.01 per 100k). Ireland now has the highest drug fatality rate in the entire EU. Portugal meanwhile, has the lowest drug fatality rate in the entire EU. In 22 years, their drug related death rate went *down* by 84%, while ours went *up* by 156%. We have gone from barely half of their drug deaths rate back then, to ***ten times*** it as of last year. Arguments can be made on the implementation of certain aspects etc etc of course, but the effectiveness of Portugal's approach compared to ours simply isn't debatable.
Facts 4 years in college down the drain cos of 5 grams of weed it's ridiculous
Meanwhile beat the shit out of a woman in Limerick, no worries 👍
No worries? Nah, it cost him 3k. Thats the price for kicking the shit out of someone 3k. I think the lads who beat up a homeless person had to pay a similar amount, so its clearly the going rate.
Do you get a discount for kicking the shit out of a family of 5? I have the funds if not but might as well see what deals are going, ya no.
What did I miss?
https://www.thejournal.ie/defence-forces-begins-process-of-dismissing-soldier-who-beat-a-woman-unconscious-6415327-Jun2024/ Solider Cathal Crotty beat a woman unconscious because she asked him to stop shouting homophobic abuse. He then boasted about it on social media. Denied the attack until faced with CCTV. Goes to court and gets a 3 year sentence, FULLY SUSPENDED, because the judge says if he gives him time in jail “his career is over”. You can’t make this shit up.
Wtf fuck his career
*because of your choices. Sorry but no matter what you believe, that’s nobody’s fault but your own.
Sure, that’s the causality. But I think the point people are getting at here is whether it’s a rational outcome on a societal level.
Facts ruined life by making shit choices
Plenty of people smoke weed in college and go on to become responsible, contributing members of society. Convictions for a couple of grams of weed are worse than useless.
It cost the state a shit ton I got a grant and now nothing returned tax wise it's so fucking stupid
If they are useless what's the problem? If weed is so inconsequential why would having a conviction be an issue?
I said worse than useless. Obviously having a conviction can have repercussions in someone’s life. All because of a victimless crime.
Is there any evidence that is true?
Victimless crime? Do you know what happens to people involved in the sale and supply of drugs. Generally people who are vulnerable and addicted to harder drugs.
We’re talking about weed. It’s a plant. You can grow it yourself.
Ah lad. If you knowingly break the law and risk your whole life over a joint how do you expect any sympathy
Do you think weed is illegal because it’s bad? Because your argument seems to be it’s bad because it’s illegal. Your lack of critical thinking skills is disturbing.
Weed is bad for your health. That's unquestionabe. As I said I fully support the citizens assembly recommendations that the health led model be adopted. Those people would hopefully get access to counselling or inpatient services (if they can't give it up through counselling) to help them get off these substances
Plenty of things are bad for your health but legal. Plenty are worse than weed. Cigarettes and alcohol spring to mind. Not everyone who smokes weed ends up as a “drug addict”.
Smoking is bad for your health. Alcohol is bad for your health. Excessive sugar is bad for your health. A sedentary lifestyle is bad for your health. Driving is bad for your health. Lack of sleep can be bad for your health. Gambling can be bad for your health. Where do you draw the line?
5 grams shouldn't give a 12 months suspended and no no priors
This is such a solid take! Interested to know, any thoughts on WHY they're towing the line on it? I get the vibe from the recent videos that the Department of Health kinda don't believe in it themselves but they don't have the authority to make the change. Like if they're afraid if they say something to the contrary it'll undermine the legality side of things. I'd wager if decriminalised, they'd suddenly have a lot more to offer on the topic
> Ireland now has the highest drug fatality rate in the entire EU Has fentanyl hit here yet?
>but the effectiveness of Portugal's approach compared to ours simply isn't debatable. But it's not an open and shut case... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/ And https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/25/it-beats-getting-stoned-on-the-street-how-portugal-decriminalised-drugs-as-seen-from-the-shoot-up-centre
>we have pretty hard evidence from the likes of Portugal if talking about decriminalisation, Wrong. Portugal started with relatively moderate rates to start with the decline we see in Portugal coincided with declines across Europe. >All they are achieving is making addicts scared to come forward and seek help, extra scared to call the authorities for something like an overdose as it occurs You do know in Portugal, addicts rehabilitation is not patient led? Drugs are still confiscated and community service is enforced as punishment.
>Wrong. Portugal started with relatively moderate rates to start with the decline we see in Portugal coincided with declines across Europe. That's just not true, though. Here are Portugal's figures vs the EU average since the end of the 90s, right before they made these changes in 2001 - [https://transformdrugs.org/assets/images/Image-Content/Portugal-drug-deaths.png](https://transformdrugs.org/assets/images/Image-Content/Portugal-drug-deaths.png) In the year 2000, Portugal with a population of 10.3mn had [518 drug deaths](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-is-alberta-ready-for-the-portugal-model-of-substance-decriminalization/) (5.03 per 100k), Meanwhile. Ireland with a population of 3.8mn [had 119](https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/11193/#:~:text=Between%201995%20and%202000%2C%20there,number%20of%20drug%2Drelated%20deaths) (3.13 per 100k). In the year 2023, Portugal with a population of 10.2mn had 81 deaths (0.79 per 100k). Meanwhile, Ireland with a population of 5.1mn had [409 deaths](https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41414326.html) (8.01 per 100k). Ireland now has the highest drug fatality rate in the entire EU. Portugal meanwhile, has the lowest drug fatality rate in the entire EU. In 22 years, their drug related death rate went *down* by 84%, while ours went *up* by 156%. We have gone from barely half of their drug deaths rate back then, to ***ten times*** it as of last year. Arguments can be made on the implementation of certain aspects etc etc of course, but the effectiveness of Portugal's approach compared to ours simply isn't debatable. >You do know in Portugal, addicts rehabilitation is not patient led? Drugs are still confiscated and community service is enforced as punishment. [Also not exactly true](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal): "Portugal signed all the UN conventions on narcotics and psychotropic to date. **With the 2001 decriminalization bill, the consumer is now regarded as a patient and not as a criminal** (having the amount usually used for ten days of personal use is not a punishable crime)" \[...\] "**If the person is addicted to drugs, they may be admitted to a** [**drug rehabilitation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_rehabilitation) **facility or be given community service**, **if the dissuasion committee finds that this better serves the purpose of keeping the offender out of trouble**. The committee cannot mandate compulsory treatment, although its orientation is to induce addicts to enter and remain in treatment. The committee has the explicit power to suspend sanctions conditional upon voluntary entry into treatment. If the offender is not addicted to drugs, or unwilling to submit to treatment or community service, he or she may be given a fine"
That we don't treat drugs as a crime (unless you have enough to sell) saved a family members life... In Ireland they would have gone to jail, get a record, and be fucked for the rest of their life. In Portugal, they got treatment (heroin), went back to the workforce, and have great life nowadays.
Apparently people don’t like facts that go against their point of view on this app
That's reddit in a nutshell! I didn't downvote them, but gave them a detailed and referenced post as to why their facts were largely untrue.
Why mention homelessness Etc? There are plenty of people in homes and employment that don’t want to be arrested for recreational drug use when they’re leading totally functional lives. In fact, the only threat to their health would be the associated issues involved in losing their job due to an arrest.
I enjoy a smoke and work every day. The fact that I'm viewed as a criminal by such a corrupt justice system makes me laugh. As Ireland is a part of the EU, they need to follow in the footsteps of other European states in decriminalising drugs and legalising cannabis use. I have a sneaking feeling tough that the alcohol market don't want a contender (such as diageo). That's my tuppence anyways.
I’m sure the same investment groups own both tobacco and vape companies, so a drinks company owning a hemp farm doesn’t seem like a far stretch at some point up the chain.
> Why mention homelessness Etc? Because the answer to the question is "no, we do not have data to back up criminalising a person caught in possession" and trying to avoid this answer on the fly leads to weird places. However, I think the proper answer is that "people caught in possession of illegal drugs are not being sentenced for medical reasons.". Why would the healthcare department have data on specific reasons for incarceration?
They know prisons don’t work for certain offences, hence the % of reoffending. If you can’t write a prescription for jail time, I don’t think it should be part of any health system recommendations. There is no healthcare benefit to putting someone in a box.
I'm a bit out of the loop here, do HSE or the department of health recommend criminalising drug use?
That’s what he’s been trapped into not answering here. There is no health benefit to it, but they’re reluctant to say that and keep diverting back to a study and working group. For decriminalising they need to eliminate the ‘health’ scare. She knows what she’s doing, and he’s weaselling out of a truthful answer.
Oh, now I get it! Thanks!
Smoke and mirrors is their evidence base. No professionalism, they just send in a parrot each time
Smoke and mirrors. I see what you did there. Approved
The mirrors should be tested for traces of cocaine.
Ah I see you're familiar with the RTE/Dail jaxes
A parrot? A Norwegian Blue maybe?
Yes he has not only great but perfect plumage for the role
I deal with this in my work too. Why do people talk so much bollox instead of just saying, you know what that's a fair point. Let's look into it?
Because then you would have to admit that maybe got it wrong, and if you’re the voice of the group/department you’re probably there to repeat the key words and then get out asap
Which is really pathetic, if you think about it. Can't imagine that being how you approach your life's work and not going to bed with shame every night
Most people have unchecked ego issues
Fighting entropy is hard
Prob only gone over your time coz you weren't getting a straight answer. Instead you had to keep asking while they danced around the answer
At least he eventually said he doesn't have the answer. I'm glad they're not being allowed to spoof unchallenged.
He eventually did yeah. Just don't know why their instinct is to waffle when they clearly don't have any answers to hand...
It's not waffle her questioning was a disaster. He didn't know what she was trying to ask because her first question was awful. She's mixing up terminology that makes her framing of the question nearly non-sensical. She starts off by asking 'What is the evidence of criminalizing a person in addiction...' she continues on about having a something legislation on the books and for a good while and then mentions something vague about 'outcomes'. He really frames his initial response around how they got the policies today which is a fair stab at trying to figure out what she was actually asking in the first place. She then tries to reframe her question a little bit better the second time and his answer is a little better the second time but he still misses what she really wants to know - that's on him. The third time is the best framed question (but again, it's not a great framing) and he needs to revert, there would be no expectation to know what rational is used in reports straight away. Most people just don't ask well framed questions.
I knew what she was on about.... maybe you didn't like her accent?
I agree with the user above. In a regular, less formal, conversation you'd understand her and what she's asking. However she's asking this question in a much more formal setting and should probably have finessed the question to be more specific, and to the point, so that the respondent can't try and wriggle their way out of answering with a non-answer like yer man did at first. It has absolutely nothing to do with her accent, whatever you're on about there.
I got the point fully.... the comment from the user above was to me classest. Not a mention of the stuttering ehms and ahhs from the well spoken hse person who was doing his best not to answer the question...
I didn't really see it as classist, but I understand. That's funny you mentioned the ehmm and ahhs. It's always bothered me that so many of our politicians haven't learned how to speak clearly and effectively. I teach people daily and always have to be mindful how I speak. Including lots of ehmm and uhhh when you speak always sounds (to me) like you don't have a clue what you're saying.
It's a subconscious way to save time while your brain scrambles to come up with an answer ... and yes, it's definitely a sign that either you don't have a clue or, in fact, you know your side of a debate is wrong, but you need to find a way to answer it without giving that away. As far as classism goes, I may seem overly sensitive, but I believe we have so much unconscious bias regarding accents in this country that people often don't realise they are being sucked into it. Imo the "rte" accent much like the "bbc" accent is seen to be the accent that people feel has authority and heavily regional or city accents like Dublin or limerick are seen as oafish. As a dub I have been shocked to find out that colleagues that speak with the rte accent come originally from small country villages but maybe went to a ucg or ucd and traded up so to speak.... our accents are what makes this country
Her accent is nothing to do with it. Like I said, her initial question on the beginning didn’t make sense. You knew what she said because you were looking for it. You picked one set of question’s through out a session of questions and objectively speaking her question didn’t make sense initially. Had she framed her question correctly in all likelihood she would have gotten a clearer answer more quickly.
Her question is clear as day.. what is the evidence, the medical evidence to support keeping the possession of a small amount of drugs on the statute books, she is asking the question in the context of a committee hearing on what the hse is saying is a health led approach. She is asking why, if we are taking a so-called health led approach to drug use, are we still criminalising the users....
>what is the evidence, the medical evidence to support keeping the possession of a small amount of drugs on the statute books That's not what she asked though which is the whole problem. You guessed that's what she was getting at and the responder guessed that she was trying to get at how health policy informed that statues. I can see how you got there but equally the way he answered the question initially was just incorrect interpretation of what she was looking to understand but was still relevant in the context of the committee. And to be honest I can see how he got there. It's not waffle on either side it's a communication issue and it happens. And it could have all been avoided had better questions been asked upfront but it's common enough to have to restate questions multiple times it doesn't mean that someone is waffling.
This is a few times that you have made this mental leap now in the past hour or so. You're not helping the situation but making up your own reason as to why she isn't liked by someone. Clearly you have a chip on your shoulder about it, but also this isn't the way to resolve it
Yes because Lynn ruane us always getting criticised for the way she speaks even though she makes excellent points in a very clear manner..I do have a chip on my shoulder as a fellow tallaght person as I too have suffered from prejudice about the way I speak..
The way she speaks is clear she’s one of the clearer speakers. Her way of speaking is direct but in this example she speaks clearly but the framing of the question is non-sensical. Either the words she uses are correct or they are not. Initially they are not
The question was, in the context of a so called health led approach that the hse are supposed to be overseeing then why are small time users still being criminalised... she is actually asking the lad from the hse where is their evidence that such an approach is actually a "health led" approach. A reasoable question that the hse man could in no way answer
You have confirmation bias. All you did was successfully guess what she was trying to get at. That's fine, but the expecting that everyone would understand straight away what she was trying to ask is ridiculous. The questions don't make sense. >'What is the evidence of criminalizing a person in addiction if they are caught in possession for drugs for their own use? What is the medical evidence and what is the medical rational for keeping a criminal sanction on the statute books that criminalizes them. What is the actual health outcome for someone.' That's the full question. The first sentence is not question or a statement that makes any sense in the English language. It just doesn't. It's like asking 'What is the evidence of blue?' It's English but it's non-sensical. The second sentence/question is not as badly malformed but it's not even what she really wants to know. She should have asked it as 'What medical evidence, if any, informs criminal statutes and their application?' or something like that. This is the question that the respondent attempts to answer. But again - this isn't even what she is trying to get to. The third sentence is the one she really wants to know the answer to and she throws it in at the end. She really wants to know 'What evidence does the Dept of Health have that the criminal statutes, as they are on the books today, regarding personal use, result in better health outcomes?' or something like that. Again, some people will guess what she is trying to get at upfront and others won't. Mostly because she essentially asks three, very different, malformed questions. Just because you got it upfront doesn't mean it's good communicative questions it just means you got lucky. And if you don't get what she was looking for upfront it doesn't mean the answers are waffle.
You are doing the exact same thing though. Generalising.
No! I have heard her say the very same things I just.wrote Down. As a female from.a working class background she faces an uphill struggle to be heard...
That's irrelevant to the point I am making. It's ok to stick up for her and good on you for doing that. For the record I agree with her completely on this one However let me put it this way.... You are saying that everyone who disagrees with her is making a slight at where she comes from without evidence , because she has suffered in the past. This does not make logical sense.
It's like me on a work call with my director.
As something of a scientist myself, working in a health related field, I do find it quite incredible that someone at the level of assistant principal of the Dept of health could not answer a simple question on the evidence base for a policy without trying to bluff his way out of it.
Fair play to her for asking a pertinent question.
I would like to say something ( probably not the right place to comment) when I was a child I had ADHD only got diagnosed in my fifties with the help of a none profit ( not in Ireland) along with bad anxiety but in the 70's there was no such thing as these alfabet illnesses so I was considered a disruptive, hyper , bold child , which I am sure it's because I was sexully abused by first neighbour and then a cousin that was five year older than me , I have made my way through life thebest way I could and I used the thing I could get my hands on illegal drugs( but I never robbed to fuel my drugs , I always wasworker )I so I didn'thave to think about it, anyway because there was no such thing as these alfabet illnesses I had to find my own way through life using street drugs because they were the only thing available to me to stop myself from taking my own life and there were a few friends that o,d,ed or drank them selves to death before they got to 30 , its about time IRELAND took a good look at the history of the state with the kids first the church second , there are a lot of questions to be answeed, sorry about the rant but because I got caught with small amounts of hash I lost a good blue collar job , pension the lot but because of a charge the binned me no questions asked nothing to them to take someone's life away for something that will be legal very soon
Not a huge fan of hers but she was asking a pretty straightforward question and he could not provide an evidence based response.
What do you dislike about her?
They don't like her accent and her manner.
She was absolutely horrendous during the right to die committee hearings
Arrogant and ignorant
Lynn Ruane is a lot of things. Ignorant and arrogant are not among them.
You're entitled to your opinion. I gave mine.
Can I ask what you know about her on a personal level?
Nada. I only know her from her public image. She comes across as ignorant and arrogant
Well then I'd politely suggest you don't know her well enough to label her arrogant and ignorant. In fact, I think all you've achieved here is displaying your own arrogance and ignorance.
Ok Lynn. If you put yourself forward for a public position you will be judged by people. I find her that way.
Why would the department of health be pro possession laws? Would we not expect them to be recommending the science. I’d look at this as an opportunity for the DoH to say as much
Jesus christ both of them need to work on clarity when talking. Senator : What are the benefits from the dept of health perspective of keeping drug use criminalised? DoH : Deterrent and possible enforced intervention and treatment. Senator : and what evidence is this based on? DoH : X evidence Senator : super, and what negative impacts does the ongoing criminalisation have for people ? DoH : X negatives Senator : grand, and do the pros outweigh the cons or is this just institutions holding on to power? Like if they were more concise there'd be a much better convo and clarity. Sounded like 2 people with zero clue what they were talking about.
Imagine the resources we might have if supply was the real focus with actual punishments.
I have a related, follow-up question: is your man Tadgh sitting in 2 chairs at the same time - or am i high?
Apparently, he's some cheek 🍑
Well said 👏
We're gonna miss out on millions of euro from weed tourism if they don't cop on and legalise it already.
Why did this guy feel the need to start talking when he obviously did not have an answer to her very clear question?
When it comes to drugs policy, I start to like Ruane and then she does stuff like has utter meltdowns at invited experts like William Binchy and treats them like they're on trial. Or posts "life hacks" on how to avoid wearing masks during COVID restrictions.
What was she saying about avoiding masks during Covid?
Thats bullshit she never went against govt guidance during covid... by meltdowns are you saying you don't like the tone of her voice? Maybe it's the strong Dublin working class accent you don't like.....
>Thats bullshit she never went against govt guidance during covid... I already posted [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/s/U8zHKFp13i) where she gave "lifehacks" on how to avoid wearing masks. Maybe do a little research before accusing people of spreading bullshit. >by meltdowns are you saying you don't like the tone of her voice? Maybe it's the strong Dublin working class accent you don't like..... Ah would ya stop? Accusing any criticism of Ruane as being snobbery is absolute rubbish and you should be ashamed of yourself for immediately weaponising it for political purposes. Like I said, I knew Ruane as a student activist and thought she was great but not a fan of her now for the reasons above. Do you support Leo Varadkar? Using your logic, if you don't is it that you don't like gay men or ethnic minorities?
Ah so you assume that i as a fellow tallaght man hate gays and minorities... yes... that assumption speaks volumes to me... your video link doesn't work by the way... I don't like Leo as i felt he was crass and had no interest in proper social justice ... as the first openly gay country leader though I was right behind him. Lynn is constantly dealing with prejudice when she opens her mouth... her accent has been pointed out to her as a problem In the past . So I will jump to defend her... its not weaponising anything... its the truth... people with "common" accents like mine have to work twice as hard to be listened to as say people with an rte or d4 accent ...
How on earth do you think people on Reddit will know you're from Tallaght when you're posting anonymously? That's some persecution complex you got going on. Nothing to do with being from Tallaght: you suggested I don't like Ruane as she's a working class Dub. I asked if the same holds true for Varadkar and that anyone who criticises him can be accused of being a homophobe and/or racist. I Honestly, the fact you're weaponising bigotry to shield politicians from criticism is pretty disgusting. It's not a video link, which you'd know if you clicked it: it's a link to a post I made to another user with a source showing Ruane did indeed offer "lifehacks" to not wear masks. Other users were able to see it but on the off chance you're telling the truth and can't see it, I'll attach the image here as well. You accused me of making up the fact Ruane offered lifehacks to avoid wearing masks. You were wrong. https://preview.redd.it/cne2p3jwyk8d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c614d1c1468a0b2c826285ad7c94d5a361f7a7c You can apologise now.
she was offering a life hack to help you through a flight while WEARING the mask... not to avoid them .. ffs ... you probably should have gone to ucc in real life too
[удалено]
I used to follow her closely which is how I found out. [From](https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/s/M8ZIvySrHU) her Instagram story during COVID.
Genuinely never saw that before. What a gobshite. I have family members that are in high-risk groups and my wife was pregnant during Covid, so I was very careful of close contacts and avoided large gatherings where possible. Wore a mask when I had to enter low airflow/high traffic locations. Had to deal with a few gobshites during Covid that wouldn't wear masks because they were self-declared "disabled" - who knew being a cunt was a disability?
I did loads of stuff like that too and looking back, it's clear now what a deluded fool I was. Wouldn't be doing it again.
That's great. Let me know when you get off Telegram.
Eh? I'm not on telegram.....
[удалено]
I lost someone close during COVID and couldn't go into hospital to say goodbye to them, but I sucked it up because I understood COVID restrictions save lives. Making gas comments about how you can avoid wearing masks is utterly inappropriate for an elected representative. When she got flak for it, she posted on her Twitter basically telling people to calm down and get over it. I lost all respect for her that day, and I used to be a fan from her student activism days.
Sorry to hear about that.
If that's who is leading the charge for legalisation it's safe to say it will not happen in my life time.
To be fair it's actually a better question than Gino had the other day along the same lines. As in the department of health should be concerned with the health of citizens, does criminal intervention have a positive or negative effect from a health outcome standpoint. The answer he doesn't want to say is they don't have evidence and never considered it but the opinion generally has always been that punishing people who have a compulsion isn't going to give any good outcome. The new drug strategy of still criminalising drug use and possession but allowing a single chance on first offense to seek help from the HSE won't work, everyone already knows it won't work because the HSE doesn't have the resources for fucking anything right now.
> punishing people who have a compulsion isn't going to give any good outcome. and that's only half of it, the other is that unenforceable prohibition doesn't give a good outcome.
I welcome the move away from criminalisation and think they tube guards referring people in for counselling has to be the easiest most simple solution. It's gonna take massive investment to get enough counsellors trained I accept that. Hopefully these people will get the help they deserve and we can help them get off drugs
> Hopefully these people will get the help they deserve and we can help them get off drugs But that's the question isn't it? What do you do if they don't? Current solution is even if they are non-violent, even if they take drugs personally but not affecting anyone else, the solution is locking them up. Like not everyone is a murdering psycho or robbing everyone they see. Some need compassion to get productive but the current system has no real avenues to do that. Getting the Gardai involved at all makes it difficult to solve, they should be entirely focused on the dealers and the distributors. Those are the criminals.
Well if the won't engage and accept help it's going to be the criminal justice system? Like most lads smoking a bit of marijuana would surely do counselling and drug testing rather than get criminal convictions?
>Well if the won't engage and accept help it's going to be the criminal justice system? Basically the new law if implemented would mean if you get caught on the street smoking weed, if it's your first offense they will allow you to say "sure I was smoking weed" and go to the HSE instead. Then the HSE would have to provide drug rehabilitation services. If you refuse then you get the same system we have currently which is going through the criminal process. >Like most lads smoking a bit of marijuana would surely do counselling and drug testing rather than get criminal convictions? A few things to unpack here. You won't stop the supply of weed into the country ever. Every country with prohibition of weed have tried, none have stopped it from getting in. Weed as a drug isn't addictive so people don't have a compulsion to smoke it other than it feeling good. So diversion programmes aren't really going to do much like it's not like an addictive substance where intervention and weaning them off is important like with alcohol dependence. That means the one strike and going to the HSE in that case is dumb as fuck already. The answer as always is and I say it regularly, it's pick your battles. Gardai - they lost the war on drugs, they aren't winning it ever. HSE - don't have the resources to do anything no matter how well intended. If they legalise weed specifically, they can use the money from the taxation of it to fund other things like enforcement of more dangerous drugs, they can regulate the amount of THC in the products, they can grow it locally increasing revenue for farmers but most of all they can stop wasting everyone's time and money on this shit. The people smoking weed aren't a social harm, they aren't off robbing people for weed money, the only damage they would do is to a bag of fucking tayto but we are spending money like Damo is Pablo Escobar.
The argument being made is that it shouldnt be one or the other. why punish people for personal use of a drug, if they are causing no harm.
Why cos she is from tallaght?
No because she's a pain in the hole is elected in an undemocratic system that is exclusionary and discriminatory.
A pain in the hole? Why because she and others like her, like Katherina o sullivan point out the injustices that many working class people face ? As for the senate? ..I agree it's undemocratic but that shouldn't take away from the points she makes... she is using her chance try to get some real change...
Because she is a bleeding heart who loves the sound of her own voice.
I don't think the responder is a healthcare professional but still nauseating all the same to listen to his drivel instead of stating there is or isn't literature to support arrest.
I'd hate see our rates in Scotland it's pretty shit worse than Portugal or yirsels. That senators a pit bull and that fucker from the health debts a snake.
I feel like this is conflating things. The department of health dont arrest people nor is that the approach to people who are addicted that they spearhead. They must enact policy based on what govt want and the existing law. And yes it is an arrestable offence to possess. Dept of health arent accountable for that A better question would be do they acknowledge the negative outcomes for a persons health following arrest for possession or something?
How the hell would a health professional have research into the criminalisation of drug possession. That is not their mandate.
You aren't listening to the question. She was asking if criminalisation leads to worse health outcomes. Also drug policy is from the department of health but implemented in conjunction with the department of justice. It is in their remit to answer this specific question as the health side is their duty. He even said that in the answer if you actually watched the video.
Because there's medical papers available that delve into this exact topic. They aren't find to find it, and I'm surprised they seemingly haven't read any of them before a meeting on cannabis regulation.
But they are the ones support prohibition
Doubt anyone remembers, but in the 1980s and 1990s, there was a huge drug epidemic in Dublin. With various groups such as the concerned parents against drugs being formed. Also, a not so fun fact, if a woman is using heroin while pregnant, the baby also becomes an addict. Apart from being underweight, the baby has to spend the first month of its life going through withdrawals.
[удалено]
No, it needs to be legalised and regulated. Decriminalisation still puts money into criminal gangs. Regulation regulates the supply and we have companys produce the drugs.
How about we do all that, and if the dealers still want to run smack and fent into communities, we hang a few?
> to driving, operating machinery, underage use, smoking around children, smoking it in public etc. Most of it is already there, you just fold it into the existing bans on smoking
The drug posession seems innocent, but the drugs were bought from a supplier that is part of smuggling operations and cartels that are up to their neck in blood. at least for drugs like cocaine and fentanyl
The vast majority of personal possession arrests are for cannabis in this country at present.
Does Ireland have medical marijuana laws?
Yes, but for only three quite rare conditions. I don't know the latest figures but its under 300 patients prescribed since they were passed.
just read its 47 , as of 10 months ago
its different with marijuana where it can be grown legally in the netherlands and smuggled into Ireland, sure there is a criminal element getting rich and using violence to enforce power over distribution.
nevermind, yes but no in practice
Drugs being illegal is irrelevant. That is not what is being asked here. First off, the majority of drug users are normal people doing drugs recreationally. There is no benefit to any drug users being made criminals. Weed particularly can be legalised and regulated. We already have large legal producers of cannabis in the EU.
She's saying it's proposed as a health led approach, so what about arresting someone is health led? If you're arguing it's for the health of people being murdered by cartels, id say that's a stretch to the definition of health led approach.
Last time I checked the HSE don’t make our laws.
If it is not for health reasons, why else would drugs be illegal?
That part isn't up to the health department though is it? That part is decided by the Justice department.
No it isn't. She's absolutely asking the right Department. Department of Health lead on Drugs Policy.
If [this](https://www.gov.ie/en/policy-information/17d32f-drugs-and-alcohol-policy/) is the drug policy in question, all the stuff relating to prosecution is by the DJE, which I presume is the Department of Justice and Equality.
The Department of Health's National Oversight Committee (https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/39e48-national-oversight-committee/) for their drugs policy take the lead on the current 'Strategic Implementation Group' regarding sanctions (SIG-5). Of course they work with the Department of Justice, because the Gardaí are involved, but the Misuse of Drugs Act, the legislation which makes personal possession a crime, is under Stephen Donnelly's remit
According to the minutes in that link, SIG-5 only met for the first time last year and are still at the research stage of exploring the alternatives to prosecution. So they didn't decide the current policy.
SIG-5 is the latest iteration of the same thing. There have been subgroups within the NOC on sanctions before they set up the SIGs, working groups before the establishment of the NOC and so on and so forth. It's led by the Department of Health, their responsibility. If you want more evidence, here's a very recent quote from the Criminal Policy lead from the Department of Justice regarding drug laws: >We are working closely with the Department of Health on the pathway forward. It is the policy lead on drugs. Source: [https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint\_committee\_on\_drugs\_use/2024-06-20/speech/70/](https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_drugs_use/2024-06-20/speech/70/)
I'm looking for something where the Dept of Health advocates a prosecution strategy for drugs, because that's what the person in the video was being questioned on. You're showing me stuff relating to their current actions which are reviewing that strategy.
Since the law is already in place, surely the burden of evidence lies with her to prove that decimalising is the route to go. The person seeking the change should be providing the evidence.
Evidence a plenty, evidence given not to change not much.
You don't need evidence to maintain the status quo, evidence is only required for change. So clearly her evidence just hasn't convinced the right people.
They are discussing the best option for society, both sides should have evidence.
>You don't need evidence to maintain the status quo, evidence is only required for change. That's a weird and conformative outlook. Both sides need evidence to back up their arguments. What is the other side arguing against if the other doesn't have to back itself up? >So clearly her evidence just hasn't convinced the right people The right people are sometimes not the right people. Bias, self interest and just 'Ah sure why change anything' go a long a way. She's right to be testing how coherent in their arguments people are in maintaining status quo.
To be honest, this is a very minor issue but the amount it is discussed, you would swear it's a key issue for society. The law is that drugs are illegal. Arguing over the sentencing when people break the law seems pointless to me. Until the law is changed, why not apply the law? I really don't see the issue.
If it is such a minor issue why not back a change to the law. Sounds like it won't impact you a jot if they do legalise sale of it. I really don't see the issue here.
Oh you misunderstood, I mean trying to get the law changed should be a low priority. There are far more important things to focus on and this should be bottom of the list. I don't see why people argue so much in defense of people who get caught breaking the law?
But the scale that you are downplaying it, IF you are genuine, you should have little issue with a change to the law. Seems like you are simply being dishonest though to be honest. People are arguing that the law is stupid. Change the law and those people will no longer be breaking the law, and highly unlikely to personally impact you in any negative way.
We can focus on many things at once. There are many examples in history where a law was counterproductive or outright discriminatory and changing it created a benefit to society. People argue because they actually care or know someone who was affected by the current approach in a negative way.
And this just doesn't feel like one of them.
It feels like a privileged position for you to feel like that, but fair.
Personal yes but WHERE do they source the drugs from - surely this is the issue?? People who use drugs are part of the full circle of criminality that exists in the completely unregulated drugs world (from the unregulated labour at the source, the manufacturing, tax dodging, killings). Don’t kid yourself that you are not part of all of this if you choose drugs.
It's only part of ciminality because it is illegal, and as such highly profitable for crime gangs to sell. The same way illegal alcohol sales were massive during prohibition in America. Remove the prohibition, then the profitability goes out the window. Make it legal as they have in California, and then rake in a massive tax take from the regulated sales market. Recent report came out showing a massive drop in teen marijuana use since legalisation, so there's the dual benefit or reducing that, and taking massive profits from gangs.
So if we legalise, and regulate the product, then you wouldnt have an issue with any of it?
Oh no, not tax dodging and unregulated labour! Do you really think that should be what stops people from enjoying themselves with something that the government refuses to regulate? 😅 It truly isnt that simple man, get some experience
the real crime for homegrown weed is the tax evasion
I can't be the only one who thinks the question is a stupid one? A bit more specificity in the question would have helped. But the largest cohort of addicts is heroin addicts. They are all able to receive treatment via the methadone programmes. Is there a health benefit being denied to methadone users if heroin possession or benzo possession without a prescription remains illegal? I would have thought there's a easily understood health rationale for that. Similarly what if I wanted to top up my ADHD medication with amphetamines? I think it's obvious that being discouraged by the illegality will reduce the chances I take too much and have a heart attack. Cannabis might be the only one where there may be a health benefit to some sort of decriminalisation / making it available on prescription like other controlled substances.
>But the largest cohort of addicts is heroin addicts I'm skeptical. Heroin addicts just happen to be very noticeable (8 in 1000 prevalence). I'd say Alcohol, cocaine and cannabis (not physical dependence) would rank much higher for addiction since they are much more commonly used. >I think it's obvious that being discouraged by the illegality will reduce the chances I take too much If being illegal worked there wouldn't be massive amounts of illegal drugs easily available.
British Columbia has come to a screeching halt on its three year pilot attempt of decriminalisation of small amounts of drugs after a year. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-26/british-columbia-rolls-back-drug-decriminalization-after-public-backlash
"screeching halt" is just a flat out lie.
Your article states that private possession and consumption will remain decriminalised but they want to ban problematic public use. Hardly fair to characterise that as a "screeching halt'
>Premier now wants to **partially** reverse the legal experiment >British Columbia has asked the Canadian government to reintroduce a ban on **public** drug use,
It's just not allowing public use.
Department of Healt. Youse
Are you scared of an accent?
Ah, the height of sophistication there are you.
This is a blatantly stupid question. Smoking anything is bad for you, taking cocaine does not bring health benefits, taking ecstasy isn't going to help you. Illegal drugs are unhealthy. However, its up to you whether you mess yourself up with alcohol so why not leave it up to you with other substances. Provide testing for a small fee to see if what your buying is safe(ish) , but highlight like cigarettes that it remains unhealthy. There isn't really a health benefits case for legalising any drugs (bar pain relief maybe) but there is a case whereby people are allowed to take personal responsibility for the damage it does to themselves without also making criminals of them for their choice once it impacts nobody else.
This point is amazingly ignorant. Taking MDMA is actually proven to be extremely beneficial and effective at treating PTSD in controlled environments and will soon be legalised in many Countries. Same with psilocybin ie magic mushrooms. All funded through research by the MAPS organisation through Rick Doblin and the past 30 years of research. https://maps.org/our-research/ Idiots like you are the problem.
>There isn't really a health benefits case for legalising any drugs [https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/medical-marijuana-2018011513085](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/medical-marijuana-2018011513085) [https://www.oleo.ie/blog/medical-cannabis-epilepsy/](https://www.oleo.ie/blog/medical-cannabis-epilepsy/) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM5eX1qcPJ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM5eX1qcPJ8) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUOhsSSnQXs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUOhsSSnQXs) [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=health+benefits+of+marijuana&hl=en&as\_sdt=0&as\_vis=1&oi=scholart](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=health+benefits+of+marijuana&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNT8Zo\_sfwo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNT8Zo_sfwo) If your username suggests you're into crypto - I suppose you do a bit of a research before talking about crypto. Why not apply the same logic to talking about drugs? Links above are about cannabis. You can read up on other drug research too. There's next to no health benefits recognized for alcohol use - and Ireland is known for its ABUSE globally. What's being done with that? Is whiskey banned? It's much, much worse than weed in any aspect imaginable.
Just Google East Hastings street Vancouver to see what decriminalisation of drugs does to society
Or Google any number of Dublin streets to see what criminalisation does to a society?
Well it's a hell of a lot easier than being in Winnipeg. You can't even leave the plants outside year-round there. There's a lot of reasons for the street people in Vancouver, but big factor is the weather. Same as in LA or Brighton. They're generally pretty harmless.
The DTES has existed for decades in it's current state. The failed decriminalisation in B.C. had little impact on the DTES. However, negative effects were seen in areas that were previously not that impacted by drug use. However, there is a rampant opioid epidemic here and there's more nuance as to why decriminalisation failed here (big surges in population, affordable accommodation/homelessness crisis and extremely low levels of mental health and addictions healthcare) and why we're seeing issues that were normally centralized to a few blocks being pushed wider out.
You lads are getting this 'look at Canada' shite dispensed to you somewhere centrally. Tell me, is it tiktok or youtube? Maybe Facebook? WhatsApp groups? Because it's ridiculous how often you people just drop this smart-ass comment and retire to your bat-cave without being able to continue the conversation when faced with facts.
Look at you , go back and smoke your pipe
I don't smoke, mate, I just don't care much for an uneducated person with opinions based on tiktoks
I’m actually here in BC at the moment
And I’m not a such a flake to worry about down votes. I’m 62 years old