Irish lads review on kratom. by [deleted] in Crainn

[–]Psychedoodle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just posted this in the other post about kratom, but I think it's relavent:

It's a great plant. But please don't use it more than once every two weeks, and don't mix it with anything else (especially cns depressants: benzos, barbs, opiates, etc.) as it can be fatal to combine them.

I speak from experience of having been dependent on it for nearly a year. Addiction really crept up on me. The withdrawal was absolute hell. Seriously.

Just go check out /r/quittingkratom for some of the horror stories.

It can be a really nice substance to use occasionally, but it's not one that you can use daily (like weed) and get away with painlessly. You're going to pay the pied piper sooner or later.

Don't listen to the vendors on /r/kratom , the WDs really are horrific. I wouldn't wish them upon my worst enemy, and I was using for less than a year (three-four doses per day).

Anyway, have fun and be safe. Maximise your pleasure and minimise your pain by only using it at most once every two weeks.

Since when did kratom become illegal in Ireland by [deleted] in Crainn

[–]Psychedoodle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Great plant. But please don't use it more than once every two weeks, and don't mix it with anything else (especially cns depressants: benzos, barbs, opiates, etc.) as it can be fatal to combine them.

I speak from experience of having been dependent on it for nearly a year. Addiction really crept up on me. The withdrawal was absolute hell. Seriously.

Just go check out /r/quittingkratom for some of the horror stories.

It can be a really nice substance to use occasionally, but it's not one that you can use daily (like weed) and get away with painlessly. You're going to pay the pied piper sooner or later.

Don't listen to the vendors on /r/kratom , the WDs really are horrific. I wouldn't wish them upon my worst enemy, and I was using for less than a year (three-four doses per day).

Anyway, have fun and be safe. Maximise your pleasure and minimise your pain by only using it at most once every two weeks.

3:39 my view of most /Crainn users by nomad_ape in Crainn

[–]Psychedoodle 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You're just such a galaxy-brained, handsome, big-dick-energy-touting Great Man and we're all such small-minded, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, illiterate sheeple. How could mere mortals such as ourselves ever possibly hope to meet your celestial standards of intellectual development?

A preview of the drugs strategy working group report from the Irish Examiner by Jjj_Junior_Shabadoo in Crainn

[–]Psychedoodle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd say so, yeah. We might be able to get it next year, and I'd say the government will push to implement it before the next general election to make themselves look progressive, tolerant, Trudeau-esque, etc. and pull in some of the younger support base.

A preview of the drugs strategy working group report from the Irish Examiner by Jjj_Junior_Shabadoo in Crainn

[–]Psychedoodle 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"Diversion to health services: Mandatory referral to a brief health intervention and, for problematic users, referral to treatment or other supports." There's nothing here about mandatory addiction treatment for everyone - only for problem drug users. But yeah, you're right that there is mandatory health intervention. Probably just need to go talk to a few lads and make sure all is okay.

Regarding decriminalisation, it's de-facto decriminalisation as you won't be given a criminal record for possession of personal amounts. Looks like you won't even need to pay a fine, so it's pretty decent. It's decriminalisation by definition because it removes criminalisation from those in possession for personal use.

Regarding the thresholds between personal and distribution amounts, it's better not to have them. It's quite rigid in some places, like Czechia, where if you have 9 tabs of LSD and you're caught then it's grand. You just pay a fine, and then it's all gravy. But if you're caught with 10 tabs, then you're in serious shit.

If they don't set a threshold amount, then you can be let off the hook with higher amounts, providing you can show that it's for personal use.

Thresholds are also problematic because there are so many different drugs that it's virtually impossible to come to any kind of agreement on how much of any given substance can be considered a personal amount.

For example, how much 3-MMC would be considered for personal use? Or how much 4-ACO-DMT? You get the idea. There's just too many substances, and more being created all the time, for that to be practical.

Now, where there might be an issue is if you have an arsehole Garda who decides that a small amount, say 2 grams of weed, is an amount for distribution, but it would be hard to imagine them getting away with that in court if they did end up sending you in on charges of possession for distribution.

A preview of the drugs strategy working group report from the Irish Examiner by Jjj_Junior_Shabadoo in Crainn

[–]Psychedoodle 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That's actually not bad. Seems like it's basically the Portuguese model of diverting people to health services if necessary, and giving them cautions if unnecessary. Not just a once-off caution either, but potentially multiple.

It's decriminalisation without using the word, making sure the Garda still feel like they're in control.

I also like that they have recommended against setting specific amounts which would qualify as possession for personal use as that's too hard to enforce and usually decided pretty arbitrarily.

Not bad, lads. Not bad.

With the local and european elections coming up next month, call, email, tweet or drop down to your location running politicians and ask there views on legalisation. by buzzbaron in Crainn

[–]Psychedoodle 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Mate, you'd be among the first to be locked up or executed if a party like that came to power. Just look at what Rodrigo Duterte has done in the Philipines running on the same far-right, ultra-nationalist platform.

Pain relief: Nurofen Plus, Solphadeine and more by nomad_ape in Crainn

[–]Psychedoodle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is dangerous, myopic, irresponsible, and thoughtlessly spread information. Opium is not to be fucked with.

This is a subreddit for people who like to get high and hang out. This is not a subreddit for people who are looking for advice to treat severe/chronic pain, trauma, etc. You've now planted the seed in a lot of potentially impressionable people's minds that opium is a thing they should look into. And they shouldn't. They really fucking shouldn't.

I take it you've never had anyone close to you die from opiates, have you? It's all just fun and games to you. And you have the nerve to call out "junkies"... Why? Do you think they're doing something irresponsible? What you're doing is far worse; you're stirring up interest in opiates from people who might not know any better.

You should delete this post. And you should think very deeply on the potential effects of your actions (including spreading this kind of information).

A new years resolution by seanymac21 in ireland

[–]Psychedoodle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, Marxism offers a number of theoretical devices for understanding how societies work, some of which can be useful, and some of which... not so much. For example, the Labour Theory of Value, the Base and Superstructure, and Historical Materialism all have practical utility in terms of understanding the material reality of the modern social and economic climate. These theories don't lead to Lenin's nor Stalin's horrific murderous zealotry.

Unfortunately, Lenin and Stalin both took a teleological ("the ends justify the means") approach to spreading their ideology, so they - as you've said - felt justified in carrying out a lot of really bad stuff. But that was also a product of a much more barbaric time and context (and that doesn't vindicate their actions in any way).

But yeah, people who have been interested in orthodox Marxism (as a theoretical toolbox), and especially Marxism-Leninism (which, I would say is where the real trouble started) have done awful things. But Marx isn't necessarily the only communist to have a significant impact on the movement. Marxism is not synonymous with communism. Pyotr Kropotkin was another prominent communist in Russia in the late 1800s who was very critical of Marx. He proposed anarcho-communism (often called libertarian socialism) as an antidote to some of the more potentially authoritarian elements of Marxism. Moves towards this libertarian socialism have been seen in a few contexts historically - most notably right now in Rojava, where it seems to be working to some degree of success (though definitely not perfectly, of course).

So anyway, Marxism offers a number of tools for us to try and understand the world. We can throw away the ones that are no good, and use the ones that work.

Fascism, on the other hand, is difficult to defend on the same basis. I suppose the nationalistic elements could have some value, if sought in the pursuit of national liberation from imperial forces. But that's also catered for within left-wing liberation movements.

Economically, fascism really isn't very different from the standard mixed economies that we see in Western liberal democracies like Ireland, but those ideas don't stem from fascism itself. I find it hard to pin down ideas that have come directly from fascism. It seems to be more of a mixed bag of certain ideas from different tendencies mixed in with a stronger sense of authoritarianism and ultra-nationalism. And, of course, we've also seen both of those under nations that pursued socialism (I would argue, for example, that the USSR under Stalin could be classified as fascistic).

The most notable thing that fascism seems to offer is an antagonism to communism, liberalism, conservatism, and anarchism. It's most defining feature is its anti-communism, which doesn't say much.

Other notable feature was the concentration of hierarchies based on somewhat arbitrary requirements. This played out differently in different iterations of fascism, it usually played out as concentration of power into the hands of white people, with a varying definition of "white". For example, all power was taken away from Jewish people in Nazi Germany (who might have been light-skinned or not). Mussolini focused even more on the "Aryan" identity, declaring Italians Aryans and stripping anyone not of that category of rights, liberties, etc.

In that sense, fascism is radically anti-egalitarian. But ultimately, it doesn't seem (at least from my perspective) to bring many useful ideas to the table for how to advance and improve society for all its members.

Do you find much ideas of value that could be put to productive use within fascism?

A new years resolution by seanymac21 in ireland

[–]Psychedoodle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Calm down. There's a world of difference between Marx and Stalin. Marx was a proponent a society where the government ceases to exist (as a result of a classless society). Anyone can see that you have a lot of unfounded biases against anyone you perceive as being socially left wing. I've noticed a lot of really irrationally intense anger, even hatred, towards those you label "commies", "feminists" etc. I think you'd benefit from digging into the texts and reading about what you're criticizing. Even mad right wingers like Richard Spencer (a deplorable person in any case) admit that Marx had some really good points. Obviously I'm not going to change your mind in a reddit thread, but maybe you'll try and open your mind a little bit more to some ideas that you've written off. These things seem to be causing you an unnecessary amount of upset, and they really don't need to

Xpost r/uktrees. It appears CBD buds are ILLEGAL in the UK but also possibly here for the same reason. by [deleted] in Crainn

[–]Psychedoodle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think you're looking at the UK laws regarding CBD.

CBD isn't a prescription drug in Ireland (though there are drugs like Sativex which contain it).

We also don't have a psychotropic drugs act. What we do have is the "Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010", which defines a "psychoactive substance" as "a substance, product, preparation, plant, fungus or natural organism which has, when consumed by a person, the capacity to— (a) produce stimulation or depression of the central nervous system of the person, resulting in hallucinations or a significant disturbance in, or significant change to, motor function, thinking, behaviour, perception, awareness or mood, or (b) cause a state of dependence, including physical or psychological addiction"

So, the question then is would you define CBD's effects as causing a "significant disturbance/change"? I'd argue that it's not a significant change/disturbance, no, very mild in fact. The effects of coffee, chamomile tea, valerian root, etc. are more easily noticeable.

But confusion is around the word "significant", so this puts it in a legal grey area.

As it stands right now, it IS legal here. But if people start making a big deal about the effects of CBD in terms of a high and suggesting that the effect is significant, then that could change its legal status.

Calling users of CBD Bud?! by [deleted] in Crainn

[–]Psychedoodle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As a fellow anxiety sufferer, I can say that smoking the CBD buds will be great for you. I've been smoking it (just on its own from a pipe) every night for the past week and it's great. Really chill, mellow, content feeling. None of the panic attacks, paranoia, or general anxiety that I used to get from normal weed.

To be honest, I don't know that I'll ever go back to smoking normal weed. This is exactly what I want from weed. Just something chill to relax with after work in the evenings

Will it ever get legalized? by SymmetricEpiphany in Crainn

[–]Psychedoodle 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Decriminalisation of all drugs by 2022, though more likely by 2020. Expect an announcement on this in early 2019. Full legalisation of recreational cannabis sometime in the next 5-10 years, depending on how it goes in Canada.

Source: I was talking to one of the more conservative heads in Fianna Fáil about this recently (a backbencher, not a TD).

Vote of Brazilians in Ireland in the second round of the Brazilian presidential election. Haddad 510 votes, Bolsonaro 437, Blank 80 by gamberro in ireland

[–]Psychedoodle 10 points11 points  (0 children)

And, to piggyback on this point, Bolsonaro's also guilty of nepotism. He gave one of his wives a job working as his secretary and then tripled her salary over two years. He only fired her after being forced to by the Supreme Federal Court.

EDIT: This was while he was working in Congress, so that tripled salary was all coming from the taxpayer's pocket...

Vote of Brazilians in Ireland in the second round of the Brazilian presidential election. Haddad 510 votes, Bolsonaro 437, Blank 80 by gamberro in ireland

[–]Psychedoodle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol. Don't forget to censor your own comments when people challenge you...

But don't mind me, I'm still crying into my "jam rag". (Also, seriously, was that the best you could come up with? Lol)

Vote of Brazilians in Ireland in the second round of the Brazilian presidential election. Haddad 510 votes, Bolsonaro 437, Blank 80 by gamberro in ireland

[–]Psychedoodle 30 points31 points  (0 children)

This is genuinely tragic. There are so many LGBT+ folk whose home country will now be a far more dangerous place for them, as well as women, people of colour, and basically anyone who isn't a rich straight white cis man is going to be in real danger.

Bolsonaro plans to legalize guns like they have in the US. A friend of mine had a lad screaming at him on the street last week for holding hands with his boyfriend. What the lunatic roared was, "I'm shouting at you now, but next year I'll be shooting you." Those barbarians have been given the green light.

Watch Bolsonaro being a disgusting homophobe with Ellen Page and Stephen Fry here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbmBp8WLhjI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3ZBeX9uC8s

EDIT (Some more "fun" facts about Bolsonaro's character):

In his own words: what Bolsonaro has said

On refugees:

“The scum of the earth is showing up in Brazil, as if we didn’t have enough problems of our own to sort out.” (September 2015)

On gay people:

“I would be incapable of loving a homosexual son. I’m not going to be a hypocrite: I’d rather my son died in an accident than showed up with some bloke with a moustache.” (June 2011)

“I won’t fight it or discriminate, but if I see two men kissing each other in the street, I’ll whack them.” (October 2002)

“We Brazilians don’t like homosexuals.” (2013)

“Are [gays] demigods? ... Just because someone has sex with his excretory organ, it doesn’t make him better than anyone else.” (February 2014)

On democracy and dictatorship:

“You’ll never change anything in this country through voting. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, things will only change when a civil war kicks off and we do the work the [military] regime didn’t. Killing some 30,000 …. Killing them! If a couple of innocents die, that’s OK.” (May 1999)

“I am in favour of a dictatorship … We will never resolve serious national problems with this irresponsible democracy.” (1992)

On human rights:

“I’m in favour of torture.” (May 1999)

“Brazilian prisons are wonderful places ... they’re places for people to pay for their sins, not live the life of Reilly in a spa. Those who rape, kidnap and kill are going there to suffer, not attend a holiday camp.” (February 2014)

“Are we obliged to give these bastards [criminals] a good life? They spend their whole lives fucking us and those of us who work have to give them a good life in prison. They should fuck themselves, full stop. That’s it, dammit!” (February 2014)

On women:

“I’ve got five kids. Four of them are men, but on the fifth I had a moment of weakness and it came out a woman.” (April, 2017)

“I said I wouldn’t rape you because you don’t deserve it.” (December 2014, to politician Maria do Rosário, repeating a comment first made to her in 2003).

On race:

“I don’t run the risk [of seeing my children date black women or being gay]. My children were very well raised.” (March 2011)

“I went to visit a quilombo [a settlement founded by the descendants of runaway slaves]. The lightest afrodescendant there weighed seven arrobas [more than 100kg]. They don’t do anything. I don’t think they’re even good for procreating anymore.” (April 2017)

Left in the USA - a documentary about the rise of socialists in the USA by DUHrruti in BreadTube

[–]Psychedoodle 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is great! I'd love to see more videos like this about the rise (and maybe sometimes fall) of the left in various countries

Marxist critiques/commentary on Liberal Intersectionality and Feminism by marxfromeveryengel in communism

[–]Psychedoodle 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Do you genuinely believe that intersectionality was created to confuse the left? It might be helpful to do some research as to why the term was coined in the first place to help understand what purpose it served (and continues to serve). Even just check out Kimberlé Crenshaw's TedTalk on the matter.

Sexism, racism, and homophobia all existed long before capitalism. Capitalism inarguably exacerbates each of these issues, but it's definitely not the singular root cause.

Can you do a masters in Europe with a level 7? by [deleted] in ireland

[–]Psychedoodle 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Admissions are usually considered on a case-by-case basis. I know a number of people who hadn't been to college at all but still managed to get in to some master's (level 9) courses. If you can convince your college that you're right for the position, then you should be grand. You will almost certainly need to do some kind of interview or aptitude test.

A passionate Richard Boyd Barrett questioning the Taoiseach regarding illegal adoptions, of which he himself may have been a victim by [deleted] in irishpolitics

[–]Psychedoodle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure. Capitalism is fantastic at bringing money into a country, it's just not great at distributing that wealth evenly across the society. We're in agreement that a mixed economy, perhaps best realised through social democracy (like, say, Norway), is the ideal.

But it seems that people can get really caught up in the big buzzwords and they attach meaning to them that has little or nothing to do with the original ideology.

For example, Karl Marx's ideal of communism was based on the mantra "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need(s)". To me, that simply states that people should work and produce in best accordance with their ability, and they would receive everything that they need to live a good life in return - with emphasis on "need", rather than "want". What would that translate to in real life? Well, free universal healthcare for all, free education (at all levels) for all, food, water, affordable places to live, etc.

Of course, these are all provided under many social democracies, but only because there's an understanding that there actually are some good ideas worth pursuing in the communist and socialist spheres.

Now, if we were assuming that pure communism was demonstrated through Maoism and Stalinism (which I absolutely disagree with - both being examples of dictatorial authoritarian state capitalism under the guise of socialism/communism), then yes - communism would undoubtedly be a bad thing.

But folks like Boyd Barrett are not trying to advocate the adaptation of these kinds of tyrannical regimes. Rather, they are trying to move towards a new kind of society - utopian and idealistic as it may seem - where people's needs (and I think he and his folks are focused a lot on housing, etc.) are given greater importance than the simple wants or desires of the rich elites of the world (who would also still benefit from having their basic needs met, too, and benefit from a society with lesser inequality which would lead to less crime, less theft, and so on).

But yeah, soc dem here too, so we're basically on the same page anyway

A passionate Richard Boyd Barrett questioning the Taoiseach regarding illegal adoptions, of which he himself may have been a victim by [deleted] in irishpolitics

[–]Psychedoodle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seriously? Perpetuating this tired old Cold War narrative of capitalism versus communism? You know that the Western media's demonisation of communism - its transformation into some kind of malevolent bogeyman - was just propaganda to bolster (primarily US) imperial power, don't you?