TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 6 °C Friday 24 May, 2013

Grow Houses: Do you know what your tenants are doing?

John, an unsuspecting landlord in Co Galway, found that his rented house had been used to grow cannabis. Repairing the damage done cost him thousands of euros.

File photo
File photo
Image: Marijuana garden indoor grow area via Shutterstock

PICTURE THE SCENE. You are the owner of an isolated four bedroom bungalow in rural Co Galway and the recession is starting to bite.

Before you know it, you’ve found a tenant who always pays their rent on time and never bothers you with anything. So far, so perfect.

Or is it?

The above scenario isn’t a fiction, but was the reality for John (not his real name).

Far from living in the house, the women who signed the lease disappeared, never to the seen again.

As tonight’s Ear to the Ground – to be shown on RTÉ One at 8.30pm -  shows, John is one of an increasing number of people who have unknowingly had his rented property turned into a ‘grow house’

Used for the cultivation of cannabis, grow houses in Ireland are part of a multi-million euro industry that is, for the most part, seeking solace in the rural, isolated houses and farms throughout Ireland.

In 2011, Gardaí raided 60 premises which had been used to grow cannabis, and John’s story shows just how easy it can happen.

Having placed an ad to rent out the Co Galway bungalow, he was contacted the very next day by a woman. After a short meeting, she took it, and had already paid the first month’s rent.

While slightly suspicious of her eagerness, John was glad to have found a tenant.

Within a week net curtains had been erected on the windows and no-one ever appeared to enter or leave the house – least of all the women who had signed the lease.

150 cannabis plants

After four months, John was told that Gardaí were outside his rented house. Having arrived on the scene, they entered.

Upon entering the kitchen, they discovered that a large section of the wall was missing, behind which the electricity was now being taken directly from the nearest pylon, bypassing the metered house supply completely.

In the attic, they discovered that two rooms had been constructed which housed approximately 150 cannabis plants. The rooms in the rewired house had their own ventilation and lighting systems.

“This is what bewilders us,” John said. “There’s two neighbours who live beside the house… we go past it twice or three times a day and we never saw as much as a piece of timber go into the house. We saw nothing.”

Shocked to have discovered what his house was being used for, John had no idea how much it would cost him financially.

With the house badly damaged by the changes which had been made, the costs of repair ran into thousands of euros.

House insurance

As tonight’s programme uncovers, when landlords let their property the view is usually taken by insurance companies that they have voluntarily let the tenants into their house. As a result of this, it is the landlord, as John was to find out, that is personally liable for fixing any damage.

The only way to avoid this in most cases is to prove that the damage was caused by a third party and not the tenant themselves.

Knowing what to look out for

Garda Superintendent David Taylor told presenter Darragh McCullough that schemes such as this usually involve a ‘front couple’, who will appear respectable. They are the ones that will make the initial contact and sign the lease, never to be seen again.

Taylor warns that landlords should be suspicious if a potential tenant offers to pay the rent for months in advance (cannabis plants have a 12-week growth cycle).

It is also important to remember that landlords check their property and know their rights. Once tenants have been made aware that landlords plan to perform spot-checks of the property, they only need to give 24 hours notice.

“We made a mistake, if you want to call it a mistake, and we’ve learned from it. Maybe I was naive but you’d wonder how it is actually going on under your nose,” the out-of-pocket landlord said.

The amount of equipment that was brought into that house at night and that no-one saw anything amazes me.

For more on this, check out Ear to the Ground on RTÉ One at 8.30pm tonight.

Read: 5 arrested as Gardaí seize €5 million in cannabis plants from ‘industrial’ operation >

Read next:

Comments (74 Comments)

  • The part mentioning that the Insurance companies won’t take liability for damages intrigued me the most. Insurance companies are very quick to take your money ( an lots of it ), then find every excuse under the sun why they can’t pay out. Where’s they criminal act now

    Reply
    • insurance is a SCAM, we pay it and in the event we are lucky enough to be able to rely on it after a claim is made we are punished for doing so by having to pay more after the fact. if i tried to pull this scam with my neighbours i’d expect a box in the jaw for my devious efforts yet when it happens on a global scale it’s somehow ok. we really are some tools for letting things get so out of hand.

      Reply
  • Should have sold the weed to pay for the damages

    Reply
    • Excuse me officer can I keep the weed and sell it to recover the damage done to my property …….. No you can’t any more of that sir and I will start thinking it was you who grow that weed!
      So good idea? Not :-)

      Reply
    • every year we see millions of euros worth of perfectly good cannabis, not yet adulterated as it is still in the growing stages, destroyed by a country that is on it’s knees regarding finances and even in the face of more and more EU countries and half the states in America legalising it or allowing it’s people to grow their own we refuse to take our heads up out of the sand on this “issue”.

      anybody that says it’s no good has to answer why America has the patent on the medical properties of the female cannabis plant?? this is the same country that forced the world to ban the plant for it’s own corrupted agendas over 50 years ago and now they’re stuck for money they’re allowing it again.

      free the weed for all it’s many thousands of uses!!

      Reply
  • @jason, I’m a regular smoker for more then 20 years iv been through 3rd level education finished 4th highest of me year iv work at the top of my profession for near 10 years now I run my own business, iv a great social circle, no mental health issues, never injured myself while under the influence of cannabis, never been involved in petty crime other then smoking, I have 4 kids and a wonderful home life, I also know lots of people just like me, alcohol however is and has been the scourge of our country for a long time, if the yanks were to outlaw alcohol again we’d probably for suit! it was America who outlawed cannabis to begin with but now they seem to be slowly coming around to the fact that it aint as evil as the propaganda story’s suggested so who knows maybe people will cop on and realize its no where near as dangerous as alcohol

    Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      Hi Damian . I hear you and I for one never claimed that alcohol was harmless. I agree totally that if it was invented today it would rightly be under serious scrutiny. The thing about alcohol is that the long term effects including benefits of sensible use have been well documented and researched. The same is not true of cannabis. I also never claimed that everyone who uses cannabis suffers from the above mentioned effects I spoke about. I didn’t say that cannabis users can’t be successful. We all hear the anecdotes about the old man or woman that smoked 40 cigs a day and lived to be 95. I’ve given broad examples that relate to my ongoing experience with some cannabis users and I am fully aware they are but anecdotes. Your personal story is similar in that it is your experience of cannabis and you don’t seem to have suffered ill effects. That’s great but in the absence of scientifically valid peer reviewed studies pertaining to the long term effects of cannabis I think it would be silly to legalise it. The states in the us that are legalising it are for the most part doing it on medicinal grounds. They have isolated compounds from cannabis that have shown health benefits and that’s great but it has been done scientifically through the FDA . I just don’t think it’s as simple a discussion as to say legalise and tax.

      Reply
    • Please see my reply above – there’s a lot more to the cannabis plant than medicine and smoking.. The avenues for making money from proper legalisation – allowing for wide scale cultivation are enormous. There’s thousands of industries that can use cannabis as their raw material. And in doing so become more environmentally friendly and productive.

      Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      But you’re surely aware that one can obtain a licence to grow hemp in this country. The plants are specifically bred to have a very low thc content. They’re used to make wood pellets. I know where there’s around 2 acres of land used every year to grow the stuff perfectly legally. Again I wouldn’t be dumb enough to go using the stuff unless I was sure it was safe…

      Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      I’m a big fan of Goldacre and would agree with most of what he says. Notwithstanding what you’ve said who else to scrutinise the research but qualified experts in the relevant field. The fact that the studies should be reproducible should help highlight bad science. I have no doubt that manipulation of studies does go on but one would have to hope that safeguards are in place to lower the chances of any false studies impacting on the real world. The MMR hoax was one very bad “study” that to this day still causes problems. At least science has shown it up for what it was.

      Reply
  • The bills passed in Washington and Colorado recently, should be monitored by the Irish government over the next year or so and should seriously be considered as an avenue to generate millions in tax. For anyone interested in all of this, you should watch “The Union”, which shows how British Columbia could make up to $500 million in one year if they made weed legal, which will probably happen in the next 5 years. Makes you think!

    Reply
    • Legalise weed, generate taxes from it and put criminals out of business. A person high on Alcohol, is way more dangerous than a person high from weed!

      Reply
    • @Stephen

      Unfortunately you cannot legalise something natural and then tax it. That would be like taxing cabbage growing in your garden. The only way the government could make money on weed is to sell joints in boxes ready rolled. If they legalised it then you’d see it being grown everywhere and they would make no money on it. I personally want to see it legalised and FAST!

      Reply
    • @Stephen

      You are however spot on about the alcohol. I see it in town every time I go for a few drinks. Alcohol causes people who are normally of sound mind to become in some cases violent and unpredictable. Can you imagine a night in town where only weed was on offer? Now that would be a fun peaceful experience :-)

      Reply
    • why do we have to wait?? all the positive evidence is there and our government are about to grant a licence to UK based GW Pharmacy to sell it’s THC extract Sativex spray for MS, sidestepping the need to test this “new” drug in Ireland and putting it straight to shelf in the chemists and pharmacies. I recall the main reason the government gave for banning the head shop drugs was due to the lack of testing on people so is it a case of GW Pharmacy throwing brown envelopes around to be allowed sell the very chemical the world wads told would send you mad if ya smoked it and the bud contained 10 -20& THC yet their spray contains 100% THC.

      FREE THE WEED \o/

      Reply
    • Michael- If weed was legalised and sold like a cigarette, would there be Vat on it like a packet of cigs have now?

      Reply
    • @Stephen

      In relation to the VAT question, I honestly don’t know man. In relation to how they’d get money back on it I’m not too sure. There are a couple of states in the US that have legalised it so I’m sure there has to be some clause somewhere that prevents people from growing it in huge amounts. If the government was smart they alone could sell it, then yes tax it, and add vat but still prevent people from growing it or making money from their own produce, but it’s still a fairly grey area and would not really constitute it being ‘legalised’. I mean it’s either legal or it’s not. Anyone else like to shed some enlightenment?

      Reply
    • Guys – you’re thinking too myopic.. Smoking and medicine aren’t the only uses..
      Look around you, anything that’s not made of steel or glass can be made from hemp. It takes less land to produce more product, it grows seriously fast. It’s a source of nutrition and can be used for animal feed too. It can be used for biofuel, biodegradable plastics, timber, paper, cloth, etc.. Think of all the trees we could save? The reduction in CO2 emissions and therefore how much quicker we could meet our targets and stop being fined for being in excess..

      If we legalised it we could have our own coffee shops and a slice of the tourism that would bring (ensure there’s a strict rule where no coffee shops may sell alcohol and no pubs should sell dope – they don’t mix and education will need to accompany legalisation).

      We could literally become a “green” isle by embracing the cannabis plant for its environmental benefits as well as it’s lush green-ness!

      Reply
    • You are 100 % correct, and the medicine they intend to sell to people at a high cost can actually be grown by anyone in their own garden, of course if the plant is illegal then it is not possible to grow it yourself. You will need to let other people grow it for you and pay the high price. I also thought that Ireland was a religious country. If it is then why not listen to what God told us. He said in Genesis 1:19 I give you all green plants bearing seed as food. Anyone with a half a brain that researches Hemp seed as a food will discover that the oil from the seed is the best oil a human being can take. And the fact that Hemp seed oil comes from the cannabis plant should be a real statement. Our bodies also contain a endocannabinoid sytem. And there are many patents that show that Cannabis is a very useful natural and untoxic medicine for very mana ailmenst.. Studies have also shown that Cannabis can kill Cancer cells.

      Reply
  • Don’t use myself but Jaysus, legalise it, tax it, control it. Half the country’s crime and drug problems solved at the stroke of a pen.

    Reply
  • legalise it or allow people say up to 4 plants at any one time 2 flowing an to vegging this would keep smokers happy an keep dealers out of pocket, this would then free up garda to tackle class A drugs and organised crime, simples!!

    Reply
  • Gives me an idea. The landord wont pay for our mould invested house to be fixed so maybe we can grow some and sell it to fix it ourselfs

    Reply
  • Legalize

    Reply
  • a lot of trolls out there again today, basically America had this plant banned cos it suited their agenda, they put out so much propaganda about cannabis and THC as being the devils work, full history that lead to the banning here ; http://www.idmu.co.uk/historical.htm

    now fast forward to today where America “own” the patent on THC and CBD, the active chemicals in female cannabis plant yet they still classify it as having no medical benefits to keep it banned on a Federal level across America. It’s funny how a chemical that can have no medical benefit is the same chemical that is being extracted, not produced in a lab synthetically but actually extracted from the female buds and put into a spray as 100% THC can be sold to the general public now that a huge UK based company wants to sell it.

    Watch a 6 minute video where GW produce medical grade, highly (pun not intended) concentrated cannabis oil (or hemp oil as it’s also called) here ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPjrvjvrIdM

    and now watch as Canadian Rick Simpson shows the world how to make this same highly concentrated cancer curing and many other disease eradicator, cannabis oil for yourself, without having to buy it from the same people and companies who helped it be banned in the first place so they could patent it and sell it to us ;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI

    deny the truth all ye want after watching these videos but the times they are a changing with or without your support cos the establishment is now ready for you and I to have cannabis based medicines, so long as we’re prepared to pay through the nose for it psml

    Reply
  • Just legalise it, and this problem disappears. Scientists have discovered that cannabis does not kill. Weed advocates claim it is a life-saving drug and praise the herb’s medicinal abilities in preventing many ailments from Alzheimer’s disease to cancers. Politicians allege grass leads to schizophrenia as some predisposed smokers suffer psychotic-like encounters, however, most informed people recognise that cannabis is benign enough, and that marijuana tokers are not desperate uncontrollable persons but are more intelligent and better educated than the average Joe citizen. Legalise it and grant these poor landlords peace, man.

    Reply
  • legalise. smoke and tax it. it will fund hse.

    Reply
  • Always makes me laugh when the naive (eg Jason, 2 hours ago) who are unable to separate propaganda from reality, accuse others of being naive. I don’t know that much about cannabis but I do know about the lies and spin that is put on tobacco use, the misinformation about health implications and costs etc. I suspect that cannabis is no more dangerous than smoking or any other lifestyle choice that a few nutters disagree with and make it their business to prohibit, egged on and financed by those with vested interests, and backed up by vacant politicians.

    Here’s a fact that you won’t hear from any tobacco CONTROL industry source; Smoking tobacco has been reducing for 60 years or so – about a 50 % reduction – but over the same period, lung cancers have increased around four-fold. Many lung cancer specialists now accept that 80% of new lung cancers are now diagnosed in NON SMOKERS. Work it out!

    Those who want to control tobacco use also want to control cannabis and alcohol, stigmatise the overweight, etc etc. They have the same mindset of those who, many years ago banned christmas, music and frivolity, who, not so many years ago were behind alcohol prohibition, considered fornication a sin and who would have you believe that masturbation would make you go blind and cause all sorts of ailments after 20 or 30 years of banging the bishop. (there is always a delay between partaking in the proscribed behaviour and the alleged consequences)

    What they are good at is the old ‘divide and conquer’ tactic, where they are able to polarise and fragment their opposition. Cannabis users argue that alcohol is more dangerous -“pick on them”; Alcohol users argue that they cost less in health care than the obese – “pick on them” etc.etc (mix and match any behaviour you choose). Excess is a problem in almost any area but that is not an excuse for prohibition or control of one section of society by another – glass houses come to mind.

    What we all must realise is that we, as normal decent people, have a common enemy who want to normalise intolerance and that we are all to some extent naive – Don’t stick your head in the sand and hope it will all go away of its own accord. Do NOT allow them to dictate the debate – realise who your allies are – they are NOT prohibitionists of whatever breed, nor is the controlling interests of the state!

    Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      Kin- i think the fact that you disbelieve the scientific evidence that smoking is bad for you says it all really. The tobacco companies themselves have admitted it and paid compensation in the US. Not everything is a conspiracy theory to stop the like of you having fun smoking drinking or masturbating in whichever order you like . The fact remains that a state has a duty of care to its citizens and indeed the state coffers so has to legislate to discourage certain behaviours in order to ensure equity fairness and safety of its citizens. You say that the tobacco control scientists say its bad for you . Why if its not dangerous and brings in such massive revenue.. Is it the pro tobacco lobby that have “discovered” that tobacco is not dangerous?? Mmmmm I can see problems with the impartiality of that research. Perhaps you could show me where to find this “research” this diamond in the rough.

      Reply
    • Kin_Free 31/01/13 #

      Are you denying that the campaign against masturbation and prohibition etc. did not happen, that it was all a conspiracy theory? Did the holocaust not happen – was that all a conspiracy theory? Fact is, claiming something is a ‘conspiracy theory’ has long been used to try and close down a debate, when the ‘conspiracy theory claimer’ is unable to forward a rational argument against the subject.

      Tobacco CONTROL have used the ‘everyone knows…’ ; ‘experts say…’ slogans for years. When these (and similar) are used then beware – warning sign – a good indicator of propaganda. Galileo found this same argument from the established church – the eminent ‘scientists’ of their day, when he tried to point out that the earth went around the sun and not the other way around. ‘Everyone knew’ as well as all the experts, that the earth WAS the centre of the universe – Galileo was labelled a blasphemer.

      The stats regarding smoking reduction and increases in cancer are well known. eg Lung and bronchus cancers US: ACS – In 2000 there were 164,100 new cases; 2008, there were 215,020 new cases – 31 % increase in only 8 years. “80% of new lung cancers in 2012 are now in NON smokers”? (Dr Lynn Eldridge, US cancer specialist). Of course, you will need to use a modicum of common sense to work out the logical conclusions and implications of this information rather than deferring to the modern day established healthist church?

      Look around you at the masses of propaganda referring to alcohol and obesity etc in the media and via ‘health experts’ using pseudo science, propaganda slogans and hyperbole. The anti-smoker blueprint is clear for anyone to see – if only you are prepared to look and are able to break free from your indoctrination! If you really want to find out how the tobacco CONTROL industry works, (in this case mainly relating to the second hand smoke deception,)
      look here;
      http://fightingback.homestead.com/

      Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      I looked kin and fail to see a shred of scientific evidence. All that’s there are the translated interpretations of a controversial professors retirement project. Check out the cancer research UK website for peer reviewed research that is conducted in accordance with scientific principles such as blind testing and double blind testing as well as reproducibility. You’re talking about Galileo too?? What’s that got to do with anything? They were different times. The difference as I’ve explained is properly conducted SCIENCE. Not half arsed opinions of someone who claims to be qualified. Unfortunately there are a vocal minority who just plain outright refuse to believe scientific research no matter how well conducted and proven. Now Kin I think I’ll leave it at that as I don’t see the point in arguing about something that is massively accepted by scientists and doctors worldwide. Take a look at that cancer research site.

      Reply
    • Kin_Free 31/01/13 #

      If you didn’t find a shred of scientific or other evidence, you didn’t look or you only saw what you wanted to see jason – abnegation is a strong emotional response. If you want more, try this if you dare; http://tctactics.org/index.php/Main_Page

      Anti-smoker peer review :- “you sign my paper off as correct and I’ll sign yours”. Peer review is no guarantee that the ‘science’ is credible, despite what you have been told.‘ Most peer reviewers are doing their own studies. That’s what makes them peers and they want to be able to publish too.

      Properly conducted SCIENCE’ is no longer the norm particularly when it is healthist ‘science’ it is untrustworthy, particularly after the 2003 WHO FCTC article 5.3. The ‘science’ that suggested almost all lung cancer was caused by smoking ( by a scientist who was employed as a consultant for the asbestos, chemical and nuclear industries) is just as old as when the majority of the population were smokers. Times change, information changes, new evidence appears, but CRUK don’t seem to want to know – too many reputations at stake, too much money already wasted and even more yet to lose?

      “accepted by scientists worldwide” ? :-
      “Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” (Michael Crichton)

      With the demise of unbiased, ethical TC science that has spread to other healthist ‘science’, we need to revert to common sense, something that we all possess – even some anti-smokers.

      Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      Em kin. Peer reviewed doesn’t mean you get a few like minded buddy scientists to just write off on your bit of research. Peer reviewed research is open to scrutiny by all as it is published. If the pro smoking scientists disagree then They can argue their case and if they are considered correct by other experts then the studies are shot down. That’s the way any good science becomes accepted and useful. And yes I think debate is extremely important as it challenges the validity of the research leading to more secure findings thus leading to better and more reliable medicine, psychology, psychiatry etc. Steven hawking was proven incorrect in a theory a couple of years ago and having checked the contradictory research embraced the correction as a mark of good science. The same goes for the likes of “nutritionists” did you notice that a well known t.v “nutritionist” went from calling herself dr “nutritionist” to plain old ms “nutritionist”. A legal action was taken because none if the accredited main stream scientists could gain access to her phd “research”. The “college that awarded the phd was dubious and the subject itself is not scientifically sound. She agreed not to use the title as it fell short of the standards required and would make people accept advice as the word of an expert. Smoke your brains out if you like but the good thing about good science is that it is transparent and reproducible so I think I’ll listen to the reliable experts and common sense.

      Reply
    • Kin_Free 31/01/13 #

      “If the pro smoking scientists disagree then They can argue their case” – Yer avin a larrf here aren’t you jason? What pro-smoking scientists? Have you seen the WHO ’s FCTC? Only science that supports tobacco CONTROL is allowed in relation to tobacco/health, so they can produce whatever results they choose in the knowledge that there are no checks/balances to challenge them. Have you seen how many good scientists have been smeared by anti smoker mafia tactics in the past because they did not agree fully with the anti-smoker ‘consensus’ – to ensure that everyone is on the same ‘message’?

      Scientists don’t live in a vacuum, they have mortgages to pay and food to put on the table just like anyone else. If they want to do science then they have to work for someone and too often they have to do the science their employer wants them to do and all too often produce the results the employer wants to see. The Tobacco CONTROL industry effectively controls all tobacco medical science. The result is to make all their science untrustworthy – worthless! Years and years of funded research that is not worth the paper it is written on. This is how tobacco science is produced today;

      http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/06/junk-scientists-wanted.html
      Then;
      http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/2011/04/junk-scientists-found.html?

      Your rose coloured spectacles appear to be steamed up jason – give em a clean!

      Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      My rose coloured glasses allow me to see reality.. You go on and smoke your lungs out for yourself and enjoy it.

      Reply
    • Jason.
      May I suggest you read “Classical Peer Review: An Empty Gun” by Richard Smith.
      Or perhaps watch Ben Goldacres TED talk “Battling Bad Science”..

      Peer review is losing its credibility as (as Ben Goldacre points out) there are over 600,000 ways to manipulate a clinical trial. Between ghostwriters, the famed Harlot Plc methods, suppression, removing patients from the trial that aren’t responding as desired, the actual question asked, the comparison, the non disclosure of the placebo ingredients.. This is why meta analysis and evidence based medicine came into being in the first place..
      As long as there is a profit to be made there will be people peddling marketing spiels as science, because we are supposed to trust science – why else do they put actors in white coats in ads with stuff that sounds like scientific research to sell us stuff?

      Most people are willing to accept authority as truth, this is the way we were educated. Truth stands up to scrutiny – the problem is that not enough scrutinising is actually going on.

      Reply
    • Kin_Free 01/02/13 #

      Sorry you can’t understand the lesson that Galileo teaches us jason, this is not too surprising. You think we have ‘moved on’ since then and we have done so in many ways but we have not in many others. Far from being an irrelevant tail from a bygone era, it teaches us that a consensus of experts does not guarantee that the consensus is correct, that consensus and dogma can be closely linked and challenging that dogma will be strongly, even pathologically resisted, regardless as to the evidence put forward that challenges it. Human nature never changes and is the same now as it always has been. We never seem to learn from history and we keep repeating the same mistakes, keep allowing the same type of psychopathic personalities to work their way into positions of power and fail to act quickly enough to kick them out when the adverse consequences they contribute to become evident as a result. It can take years to put right the damage these people and the organisations, that give them sustenance, cause.

      You may still think that smoking is the cause of all ill health jason but give a thought to what I pointed out earlier – that 80 % of new lung cancers are now diagnosed in non-smokers. Ignore this, and it is YOUR health that is on the line. You don’t even get the advantages of the many medicinal / beneficial qualities of smoking tobacco and you also give a green light to any number of nutters who may one day want to control some aspect of your life.

      Reply
  • Can you imagine a debate in the dail, after returning from a break? If it were legalised, they would start making sense and would have to order munchies!

    Reply
  • Jason 31/01/13 #

    Always makes me laugh when I see the naivety of people that launch into the “legalise weed” argument everytime a story relating to cannabis is posted on the journal. The economic theory = Tax it and we’ll make a fortune. Ya maybe so but it’s a false economy. Much like the revenue earned from tobacco. It’s simply recycled back to the health system to eventually deal with the implications of people’s tobacco use. Cannabis use (smoked) can in fact be more damaging than tobacco use due to the way that it is consumed. It is more often than not mixed with tobacco and inhaled deeper and for longer thus causing more harm to lungs. Then come the probable knock on effects in terms of road safety. As bad as alcohol is it is immediately testable at the roadside through an alcolyser and indeed is generally obvious if enough is consumed. Furthermore the alcohol level is then confirmed through a more elaborate breathalyser machine at the station. Cannabis is not detectable in such an efficient manner. It is possible to be impaired without showing signs. It also stays in the body far longer than alcohol.
    Legalising the drug won’t stop the criminals. They will simply diversify into protection rackets and cash in transit robberies (which is already happening) to keep their income up. The net result? That instead of being funded by people illegally choosing to be involved in the economics of cannabis use they will inflict their methods of “income gathering” on innocent citizens .

    Reply
    • cannabis is not carcinogenic. its the muck drug dealers are selling that is contaminated that causes health problems. maybe you are the naive person believing government spin. have a smoke sometime it might open your mind….

      Reply
    • The reason it is mixed with tobacco in Ireland is the inflated costs set by suppliers. If it were legalised and priced the same as say Amsterdam then there would be no need to mix with tobacco. Also the safest and healthiest way to consume is through a vaporiser, which has no ill effects.

      Reply
    • It always makes me laugh when people argue against legalising it and base their theory on the assumption that every second person isn’t already smoking weed. Whatever the ill effects or costs to the health care service we are already paying that bill, taxation of weed would just be extra income. Also, yes a few people would grow their own weed and avoid the taxation, but most people would buy from a retailer, much like the situation is with cabbage now.

      Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      I didn’t say it was carcinogenic because I don’t have that info to hand. I did say it is more often than not mixed with tobacco which is carcinogenic

      Reply
    • Good lord how misinformed are you! It will go back into the health system? Cannabis smoke is NOT dangerous. Here is a link to back that up and to tell you smokers who have 1 or 2 joints a day actually see an increase in lung airflow and lung volume!

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=casual-marijuana-smoking

      Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      @david, it is possible to have an open and clear mind without having to rely on hallucinogenic substances. I’m a realist and I see the actual effects of the “harmless” drug cannabis every day. Just because something grows doesn’t mean it is safe to consume. Personally I don’t care if people want to smoke cannabis all day. What I do have a problem with is paying for the consequences of users habit. I also would prefer not to get on a bus or into a taxi or even a plane for example where the driver has been legally using a long lasting hallucinogenic substance. They don’t call it dope for nothing

      Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      Misinformed?? You’re the one who went to the trouble of finding a valid article and as always with the pro legalise cannabis brigade you cherry pick what you like from it.. Did you miss the part where it says most health professionals don’t believe thc to be benign. Did you see that the research only shows this magnificent benefit of greater lung capacity to be due to the use of UP TO ONE JOINT PER DAY? Which user only smokes one joint a day? Like I said most users mix the cannabis with tobacco especially in joints so if the hypotheses expounded by the article as to how the lung capacity is increased then it holds true that the tobacco itself will do more harm than usual. You are also ill informed if you do not factor in the social and personal problems experienced by cannabis users when logically arguing your case.

      Reply
    • Jason, what exactly are the harmless effects of cannabis smoking? If any of these effects are related to crime then it will reinforce the argument for legalisation

      Reply
    • *harmful

      Reply
    • Jason you have completely ignored the point I kade about why cannabis is mixed with tobacco. Legalisation and competitive pricing would remove the need for this and thus eliminate the carcinogenic effects of tobacco inhalation. Please get your facts straight and stop cherry picking to promote your argument

      Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      I’m not quite sure I understand your question exactly. If you look at my original post you will see my thinking on the way crime types will shift if it is legalised. This is mainly because it is doubtful that high level importers/dealers/suppliers will just go and get real jobs. They will diversify into armed robberies (especially cash in transit) extortion, protection rackets (which is also on the increase) or they just might concentrate on selling other types of drug. I am not saying that the typical cannabis user is likely to go out and commit violent crime to feed a habit but what’s a typical user? Like I said I see the effects of cannabis habits on users and their families pretty much every day and it is not the universally benign substance it is purported to be.

      Reply
    • Can you please clarify what these effects are?

      Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      I have not ignored your point about why cannabis is mixed with tobacco. I am fully aware of the principals of economics in terms of pricing. I’m not cherry picking anything. I simply pointed out that there was other parts of your article that you neglected to mention because it didn’t suit your purpose. To be fair you did post a link to the article which showed it in full instead of just quoting but I can’t see how I’m cherry picking.

      Reply
    • Jason you made the point that you see the ill efrects on cannabis on a daily basis. Again, can you clarify what these are so we can have an open debate? If you make a point of argument you must be prepared to back it up.

      Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      Dependency issues, educational issues, petty crime (shoplifting, small scale dealing) mental health issues, physical injuries (following cannabis use). These are some of the effects I have professionally seen.

      Reply
    • Dependency issues – cannabis is not chemically addictive and cannot lead to overdose, however it can be psychologically and habitually addictive.

      Educational issues – I need more detail here on what you mean.

      Petty Crime – again if legalised and competitively priced the majority of petty crime is eliminated thereby freeing garda time and resources.

      Mental Health Issues – cannabis has never been confirmed as a cause of mental illness of any kind. It can exasperate the effects of underlying mental illnesses (paranoia, depression etc.) particularly in children and teenagers however this is no more potent than coffee, energy drinks or tobacco.

      Physical Injuries following cannabis use – not sure what you mean here, can you provide more detail?

      Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      I intentionally didn’t use the word addiction because I am aware that it is not physically addictive. Psychological dependence is as bad as physical addiction and you would be amazed at the amount of people especially young people that have dependency problems.
      Educational problems involve lack of motivation, interest and the ability to concentrate.
      Cannabis has never been ruled out as a factor in mental health issues either but has been linked to psychosis and the presentation of schizophrenia as you also said. I don’t know how you’re figuring that caffeine etc is linked as I have never heard that before.
      I have dealt with people that have physically been injured due to impairment following cannabis consumption ( similar to alcohol consumption)
      I’ve already outlined my thinking (twice I think) on what I think would happen if it was legalised so if I was correct then Garda resources would just be tied up dealing with the victims of crime that weren’t involved by choice.

      Reply
    • I am currently psychologically, habitually and possibly chemically addicted to tobacco and yet it is legal despite the fact that tobacco directly kills people. The main reason for it’s legality is the tax revenue generated despite the overwhelming cost of healthcare associated (see yesterdays independent for a good article on same).

      Excessive caffeine and/or taurine consumption in young adults is proven to have negative effects physically and psychologically and even be a direct cause of death yet a 3 year old can still legally buy a can of monster.

      I guess the point im making is that cannabis consumption has no serious effects on health (mental or physical), no more so than other goods currently legally available. I don’t know of any current argument for the restriction or banning of energy drinks or coffee to young people.

      Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      You hit the nail on the head. You mentioned tobacco. Tobacco was legalised, popularised and backed up by powerful and wealthy lobby groups over the past 100 years plus in particular. Ignorance of its long term effects allowed the substance to gain a permanent foothold worldwide leading directly to the deaths of millions of people. The study posted earlier in the thread which is a valid and respected popular science publication specifically states that the long term effects of thc are not thought to be benign so is it not wise to try not to repeat the mistakes of the past? The long term effects of tobacco have only been acknowledged very recently.
      I am vaguely aware of the dangers associated with taurine. I am aware that caffeine carries risks also but not in amounts that any normal person can ingest. With respect though we’re not talking about tobacco, caffeine or taurine we were talking about cannabis. I didn’t offer an opinion on the others. We’ll have to agree to disagree :) been interesting

      Reply
    • That must be unique to certain countries in their smoking styles… Very rarely find it mixed with tobacco in the states ;)

      Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      Hi jillian, maybe so. I’ve only seen it mixed with tobacco in joints here. The guys that use pipes etc don’t as far as I can see.

      Reply
    • I do know of a few who mix… But that’s just to make their stash last longer ;)

      Reply
    • Jason- Smoke some cabbage, open your mind and laugh a little!

      Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      Ya good one Stephen. I just have a small bit more cop on than to believe what him down the street thinks the effects of cannabis are. I’d rather be properly informed before I put crap in my body..

      Reply
    • Do you eat processed meat, Jason?

      Reply
    • Jason 31/01/13 #

      Define processed as you mean it.

      Reply
    • And too many people get stuck on ONE use for the cannabis plant..
      There’s medicinal uses, recreational uses, nutritional value, and about a thousand other uses.

      We could make biofuels, fabrics, timber, biodegradable plastics, paper – basically anything that’s not made of metal or glass. We could cut down on our emissions, use up less land, speed up production, and become a truly “green” economy.. Think of the marketing for tourism – “Ireland the really green isle”.
      There’s a lot more ways to make money from this plant than just recreational / medicinal uses.. Perhaps if you were a toker you might be more likely to think outside the box?

      Reply
    • I am sorry Jason but you need to educate yourself on the following topics. 1. Endocannabinoid system 2 Cannabis and cancer Pub med .

      Reply
    • Ireland wil wait until the rest of the world has fully realised the uses for Cannabis, then they will also join up but it will be much too late. And as usual we will have missed the bus.

      Reply

Add New Comment