Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
Phil Stovell
Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
By George Jones, Political Editor
Last Updated: 2:58am GMT 13/02/2007
David Cameron is urging the Government to take a harder line on possession
and supply of cannabis use despite reports of his own youthful
indiscretions with the drug, the Conservative Party said yesterday.
Mr Cameron believes cannabis should be reclassified as a Class B drug –
reversing Labour's decision to downgrade it to Class C three years ago.
He believes the downgrading of cannabis sent out the message that it was a
soft, safe drug and encouraged consumption. Police are now more likely
just to confiscate the drug and give users a warning. advertisement
The Tory leader, who has not denied reports that he used cannabis as a
schoolboy at Eton 25 years ago, is opposed to legalising the drug's
recreational use, saying it would increase availability and make it more
difficult for parents to keep their children away from drugs.
But he is "relaxed" about legalising cannabis for medicinal use if there
is evidence of its health benefits.
Conservative officials believe Mr Cameron, who yesterday began a two-day
official visit to Sweden, has weathered the storm over his alleged
cannabis use as a teenager.
The only criticism appears to have been that he could have been more open
when the issue was raised during the Tory leadership election over a year
ago.
Mr Cameron, 40, admitted there were things in his past which he regretted,
but insisted politicians were entitled to a "private past".
The Conservative Party's information telephone line took about 20 calls
yesterday on the issue. Officials said only one of the callers expressed
criticism of the Tory leader.
The other 19, many of them from younger people, were supportive, saying
the reports of drug use in his youth had no bearing on his abilities as a
politician, and if anything "made him appear more human".
Party officials stressed that Mr Cameron now believed cannabis should be
reclassified as a Class B drug along with amphetamines (speed) and
barbiturates.
Maximum penalties for possession are five years in prison and a fine, and
up to 14 years jail for supply.
As a Class C drug, cannabis is currently classed alongside anabolic
steroids, tranquilisers such as Valium and some mild amphetamines.
Possession could result in a two-year prison sentence, though the maximum
jail term for supply was recently increased to 14 years.
Police in some forces currently turn a blind eye to people who have small
amounts of cannabis for personal use. Most people found in possession of
the drug are unlikely to be arrested, and the police will usually give
them an on-the-spot warning and confiscate the drug.
However, Mr Cameron believes that cannabis is a "harmful and dangerous
drug", and the stronger strains of cannabis now available on the street
mean that it should be re-classified.
Yesterday Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, said Mr Cameron was "right
to say he's entitled to keep private what he did all those years ago" even
if the act concerned was against the law.
Pressure on the Government to rethink its whole drugs policy will increase
next month with a report from a commission on the illegal use of drugs.
The commission will recommend that the whole approach to drugs should be
based on the harm they cause to individuals and society rather than
"demonising" drug users.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
The Todal
"Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkiller13.xml>
>
> Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
>
> By George Jones, Political Editor
> Last Updated: 2:58am GMT 13/02/2007
>
> David Cameron is urging the Government to take a harder line on possession
> and supply of cannabis use despite reports of his own youthful
> indiscretions with the drug, the Conservative Party said yesterday.
>
> reversing Labour's decision to downgrade it to Class C three years ago.
They took a careful, considered decision based on the best available advice,
when they downgraded cannabis. Why do a U turn after three years? Idiocy.
I can see that Cameron needs to prove that he is tough on drugs, to keep the
elderly blue-rinsed dames of the Tory Party happy. But that isn't a good
reason.
clough
wrote:
><http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkiller13.xml>
> Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
Ah well, there goes the only chance the Tories ever had of getting my
vote.
Clough
Phil Stovell
> They took a careful, considered decision based on the best available
> advice, when they downgraded cannabis. Why do a U turn after three years?
> Idiocy.
The Daily Mail and disgusted of Radstock.
> I can see that Cameron needs to prove that he is tough on drugs, to keep
> the elderly blue-rinsed dames of the Tory Party happy. But that isn't a
> good reason.
The blue rinsers should force him to turn himself in and get a criminal
record, like he proposes for his subjects.
clough
wrote:
>They took a careful, considered decision based on the best available advice,
>when they downgraded cannabis. Why do a U turn after three years? Idiocy.
They want a U turn because Cannabis is 2397.2 times stronger than it
was three years ago and has been proven to cause schizophrenia,
ingrown toenails and warts on the end of your nose.
>I can see that Cameron needs to prove that he is tough on drugs, to keep the
>elderly blue-rinsed dames of the Tory Party happy. But that isn't a good
>reason.
Politics and good reasons seldom go together.
Clough
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
>
> Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
Apart from the fact it's Daffy Dave raising the issue, I agree with him.
The stuff is stronger than it was and it's sad to see so many young folk
completely off their faces on it because it's almost compulsory in some
circles.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Phil Stovell
There is no evidence that it's significantly stronger, as those hereabouts
who have used it since the 60s can testify. The ACMD and ECMDDA also
disagree that it's stronger. Even if it was, it'd be more dangerous in the
same way that Glenfiddich is more dangerous than Theakston's bitter.
The Todal
"Baroness Edwina Frogbucket" <edwinafr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
message news:53deieF...@mid.individual.net...
To which I suppose the counter-argument is:
a) If it is stronger, you simply reduce your intake. Same with low tar/high
tar cigarettes - if you need more of a buzz, you smoke more and longer. I
don't think there is evidence that young people are *more* stoned.
b) If you make it more illegal, that won't stop people using it. It merely
drives up the price and perhaps increases the availability of it. I have
heard it said that after it was downgraded it became harder to find than
cocaine or heroin.
Mel Rowing
> "Phil Stovell" <p...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>
> > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkill...>
>
> > Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
>
> > By George Jones, Political Editor
> > Last Updated: 2:58am GMT 13/02/2007
> > Mr Cameron believes cannabis should be reclassified as a Class B drug -
> > reversing Labour's decision to downgrade it to Class C three years ago.
>
> They took a careful, considered decision based on the best available advice,
> when they downgraded cannabis. Why do a U turn after three years? Idiocy.
First of all "they" (the Tories) did not. In any case, advice when put
into practice can all too often turn out to be wrong.
> I can see that Cameron needs to prove that he is tough on drugs, to keep the
> elderly blue-rinsed dames of the Tory Party happy. But that isn't a good
> reason.
You mean he must address the concerns of those who might be returning
him to power in due course? Yes we do live in a democracy and that is
what democracy is supposed to be about.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
>"Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkiller13.xml>
>>
>> Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
>>
>> By George Jones, Political Editor
>> Last Updated: 2:58am GMT 13/02/2007
>>
>> David Cameron is urging the Government to take a harder line on possession
>> and supply of cannabis use despite reports of his own youthful
>> indiscretions with the drug, the Conservative Party said yesterday.
>>
>> Mr Cameron believes cannabis should be reclassified as a Class B drug -
>> reversing Labour's decision to downgrade it to Class C three years ago.
>
>They took a careful, considered decision based on the best available advice,
>when they downgraded cannabis. Why do a U turn after three years? Idiocy.
>
They didn't downgrade it.
Labour did.
There is so much conflicting information and "advice" that it is very
easy to find apparently authoritative information supporting whatever
it is you want to do in relation to rugs, particularly cannabis.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Programmers don't get sniffles, they get a CODE.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
The Todal
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1a33t2pejguoe9b2a...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:56:48 -0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>>news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkiller13.xml>
>>>
>>> Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
>>>
>>> By George Jones, Political Editor
>>> Last Updated: 2:58am GMT 13/02/2007
>>>
>>> David Cameron is urging the Government to take a harder line on
>>> possession
>>> and supply of cannabis use despite reports of his own youthful
>>> indiscretions with the drug, the Conservative Party said yesterday.
>>>
>>> Mr Cameron believes cannabis should be reclassified as a Class B drug -
>>> reversing Labour's decision to downgrade it to Class C three years ago.
>>
>>They took a careful, considered decision based on the best available
>>advice,
>>when they downgraded cannabis. Why do a U turn after three years? Idiocy.
>>
>
> They didn't downgrade it.
>
> Labour did.
It was a government decision which Cameron wants the government to reverse.
Useful links would seem to be
http://www.drugs.gov.uk/publication-search/acmd/cannabis-class-misuse-drugs-act?view=Binary
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_10031340
Phil Stovell
Use fell after reclassification, probably because of a reduction in the
"forbidden fruit" effect. I know it's hard to find now, but Sarff
'ampshire is flooded with coke and smack.
gentlegreen
"Baroness Edwina Frogbucket" <edwinafr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
message news:53deieF...@mid.individual.net...
>
There is absolutely no evidence that, assuming kids could get their hands on
good quality "strong" cannabis, (given that most cannabis on the street is
shite), that the "strength" of it makes any difference at all. (why are the
possibly ANTI-psychotic cannabinoids never mentioned ? )
The greatest mystery to me is how scientists could consider the evidence of
consumption from unbalanced people regarding exactly what and how much they
had consumed ?
What became of all that Afro-Carribean "cannabis psychosis" the police used
to use back in the 80s as an excuse to mistreat Afro-Carribean men ?
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
>"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:1a33t2pejguoe9b2a...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:56:48 -0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>>>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkiller13.xml>
>>>>
>>>> Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
>>>>
>>>> By George Jones, Political Editor
>>>> Last Updated: 2:58am GMT 13/02/2007
>>>>
>>>> David Cameron is urging the Government to take a harder line on
>>>> possession
>>>> and supply of cannabis use despite reports of his own youthful
>>>> indiscretions with the drug, the Conservative Party said yesterday.
>>>>
>>>> Mr Cameron believes cannabis should be reclassified as a Class B drug -
>>>> reversing Labour's decision to downgrade it to Class C three years ago.
>>>
>>>They took a careful, considered decision based on the best available
>>>advice,
>>>when they downgraded cannabis. Why do a U turn after three years? Idiocy.
>>>
>>
>> They didn't downgrade it.
>>
>> Labour did.
>
>It was a government decision which Cameron wants the government to reverse.
This is true of many government decisions.
That does tend to be commonplace with the *opposition* :-)
>Useful links would seem to be
>
I'm not bothering to read them.
As I said before, there is so much conflicting advice out there on the
subject that it is quite easy to find good sources to support whatever
your personal view happens to be.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Useless Invention: Brake oil.
The Todal
Unfortunately, not on issues that really matter. Senior Tories have been
very supportive to Blair on the Iraq issue.
>
>
>>Useful links would seem to be
>>
>
> I'm not bothering to read them.
>
> As I said before, there is so much conflicting advice out there on the
> subject that it is quite easy to find good sources to support whatever
> your personal view happens to be.
However, one important principle ought to be that when you make a carefully
considered decision, you stick to it. Would we want the speed limits on our
roads to be changed every couple of years, or to increase the gaol sentences
for drug possession one year, then reduce them the following year, then put
them up again, in a rather desperate attempt to discover what works?
Aaron B
"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:53dkvsF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> However, one important principle ought to be that when you make a
> carefully considered decision, you stick to it. Would we want the speed
> limits on our roads to be changed every couple of years, or to increase
> the gaol sentences for drug possession one year, then reduce them the
> following year, then put them up again, in a rather desperate attempt to
> discover what works?
out what works.
If the carefully considered decision turns out to be wrong (perhaps their
assumptions etc were incorrect) then it would seem sensible to review it.
It's quite common with training, for example.
name
<edwinafrogbuc...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> "Phil Stovell" <p...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>
> > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkill...>
>
> > Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
>
> Apart from the fact it's Daffy Dave raising the issue, I agree with him.
> The stuff is stronger than it was and it's sad to see so many young folk
> completely off their faces on it because it's almost compulsory in some
> circles.
> --
> Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Who gives a fuck that more potent cannabis is available? Alcohol is
available in lethal quantities for recreational purposes to adults.
Any politician that (tacitly) condones the availability of alcohol
while condemning cannabis is a hypocrite nazi scumbag.
Phil Stovell
It's odd that I've legally got enough drugs in my home to kill several
people and to half fill a mental health ward but if I was to have a small
amount of not very toxic cannabis I'd be a criminal.
http://www.ic.nhs.uk/news/press/pr300606
FriarTuck
stooopid caaaah
there are numerous testimonies that its no stronger than it was and the
youth are more likely off their heads on alchohol.
Phil Stovell
Naah alchohol ain't no droog, it's a useful relaxant.
gentlegreen
"Aaron B" <A...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eqs6vg$24p$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
Age of consent for everything raised to 25 - including becoming
cannon-fodder.
After that you can do what you like to your own body.
(as most people do anyway - regardless of whether it's class A, B or C.)
--------------------
It won't be Cameron's decision in any case. When he inevitably loses the
next election, the old guard will retake the party - either that or they
will consolidate with UKIP and maybe David, Boris and co. will join the
Liberals along with Boris's dad ?
abelard
typed:
>However, one important principle ought to be that when you make a carefully
>considered decision, you stick to it. Would we want the speed limits on our
>roads to be changed every couple of years, or to increase the gaol sentences
>for drug possession one year, then reduce them the following year, then put
>them up again, in a rather desperate attempt to discover what works?
that is the way the real world works....if you are in error the only sane
thing to do is change your mind...and actions
as for jail sentences, this socialist government 'policy' is to change
sentencing according to available prison places...ie, once more
pander to the unions and cover their own irresponsibility
for oldnewold there is no such thing as 'a carefully considered decision'
only populist expediency....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlanG
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:15:42 -0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
>
> typed:
>
>>However, one important principle ought to be that when you make a carefully
>>considered decision, you stick to it. Would we want the speed limits on our
>>roads to be changed every couple of years, or to increase the gaol sentences
>>for drug possession one year, then reduce them the following year, then put
>>them up again, in a rather desperate attempt to discover what works?
>
>that is the way the real world works....if you are in error the only sane
> thing to do is change your mind...and actions
So we can assume that for the last 50 or so years the majority of the
adult population of this country has been stark staring mad?
>
>as for jail sentences, this socialist government 'policy' is to change
> sentencing according to available prison places...ie, once more
> pander to the unions and cover their own irresponsibility
Of course they don't pander to the unions**. They pander to the owners
of the tabloids.
>
>for oldnewold there is no such thing as 'a carefully considered decision'
>only populist expediency....
**
except the police fed and the POA
Aaron B
"AlanG" <pl...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:69m3t2t41414q04ab...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:30:21 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:15:42 -0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>However, one important principle ought to be that when you make a
>>>carefully
>>>considered decision, you stick to it. Would we want the speed limits on
>>>our
>>>roads to be changed every couple of years, or to increase the gaol
>>>sentences
>>>for drug possession one year, then reduce them the following year, then
>>>put
>>>them up again, in a rather desperate attempt to discover what works?
>>
>>that is the way the real world works....if you are in error the only sane
>> thing to do is change your mind...and actions
>
> So we can assume that for the last 50 or so years the majority of the
> adult population of this country has been stark staring mad?
>>
>>as for jail sentences, this socialist government 'policy' is to change
>> sentencing according to available prison places...ie, once more
>> pander to the unions and cover their own irresponsibility
>
> Of course they don't pander to the unions**. They pander to the owners
> of the tabloids.
>
They do pander to them sometimes anyway.
Sla#s
<SNIP>>
> The greatest mystery to me is how scientists could consider the
> evidence of consumption from unbalanced people regarding exactly what
> and how much they had consumed ?
Hear, hear.
It's just like asking an anorexic or an obese person how much they eat -
each will exaggerate the amount, (in opposite directions,) to fool
themselves and make the data worthless.
Slatts
Alex Heney
wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>>Useful links would seem to be
>>>
>>
>> I'm not bothering to read them.
>>
>> As I said before, there is so much conflicting advice out there on the
>> subject that it is quite easy to find good sources to support whatever
>> your personal view happens to be.
>
>However, one important principle ought to be that when you make a carefully
>considered decision, you stick to it. Would we want the speed limits on our
>roads to be changed every couple of years, or to increase the gaol sentences
>for drug possession one year, then reduce them the following year, then put
>them up again, in a rather desperate attempt to discover what works?
>
Agreed, in general. Although there are times when new evidence
(possibly as a result of the change) shows that it was wrong, and
should be reversed.
But a new government is under no obligation to stick to the policies
introduced while they were in opposition, unless those were policies
that they supported when the previous government introduced them..
AFAIAW, the Tories did not support the reduction to class C.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A bad random number generator: 1, 1, 1, 4.33e+67, 1, 1, 1
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
"Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:26:32 +0000, Baroness Edwina Frogbucket wrote:
>
>>
>> "Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkiller13.xml>
>>>
>>> Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
>>
>> Apart from the fact it's Daffy Dave raising the issue, I agree with him.
>> The stuff is stronger than it was and it's sad to see so many young folk
>> completely off their faces on it because it's almost compulsory in some
>> circles.
>
> There is no evidence that it's significantly stronger, as those hereabouts
> who have used it since the 60s can testify. The ACMD and ECMDDA also
> disagree that it's stronger. Even if it was, it'd be more dangerous in the
> same way that Glenfiddich is more dangerous than Theakston's bitter.
Exactly. And you wouldn't want your teenager downing a bottle of
Glenfiddich every night.
Anyway, I think it's stronger these days.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
>
> To which I suppose the counter-argument is:
> a) If it is stronger, you simply reduce your intake. Same with low
> tar/high tar cigarettes - if you need more of a buzz, you smoke more and
> longer.
Yes, but you're talking 'sensible' here and most teenagers aren't sensible.
> I don't think there is evidence that young people are *more* stoned.
You don't? I think they are, and are also much more open about being so -
mainly cos it's seen as more socially acceptable now.
> b) If you make it more illegal, that won't stop people using it. It merely
> drives up the price and perhaps increases the availability of it. I have
> heard it said that after it was downgraded it became harder to find than
> cocaine or heroin.
I dunno about that cos I live in the sticks now and depending what town
you're in decides what's more available/trendy/.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Sla#s
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:15:42 -0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
>
> typed:
>
>> However, one important principle ought to be that when you make a
>> carefully considered decision, you stick to it. Would we want the
>> speed limits on our roads to be changed every couple of years, or to
>> increase the gaol sentences for drug possession one year, then
>> reduce them the following year, then put them up again, in a rather
>> desperate attempt to discover what works?
>
> that is the way the real world works....if you are in error the only
> sane thing to do is change your mind...and actions
Oh, if only that were true!
The "War on Drugs" has been the greatest failure of goverment policy in the
last 50 years and what do they do? More of the same!
Slatts
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
"name" <dohd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171365712.7...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 10:26 am, "Baroness Edwina Frogbucket"
> <edwinafrogbuc...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Phil Stovell" <p...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>>
>> > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkill...>
>>
>> > Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
>>
>> Apart from the fact it's Daffy Dave raising the issue, I agree with him.
>> The stuff is stronger than it was and it's sad to see so many young folk
>> completely off their faces on it because it's almost compulsory in some
>> circles.
>> --
>> Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
>
> Who gives a fuck that more potent cannabis is available?
Parents of young teenagers who use it alot?
>Alcohol is
> available in lethal quantities for recreational purposes to adults.
> Any politician that (tacitly) condones the availability of alcohol
> while condemning cannabis is a hypocrite nazi scumbag.
Yes, alcohol is another drug being widely abused by our young despite the
supposed legal age. What's that s'posed to prove?
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Aaron B
"Sla#s" <ph...@KNOTslatts.net> wrote in message news:45d1f169.0@entanet...
reasoning murders have been increasing so they must be failing. Should be
allow murder?
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
"FriarTuck" <a...@spammerstheygothehouse.con> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.02.13....@spammerstheygothehouse.con...
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:26:32 +0000, Baroness Edwina Frogbucket wrote:
>
>>
>> "Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkiller13.xml>
>>>
>>> Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
>>
>> Apart from the fact it's Daffy Dave raising the issue, I agree with him.
>> The stuff is stronger than it was and it's sad to see so many young folk
>> completely off their faces on it because it's almost compulsory in some
>> circles.
>
>
> stooopid caaaah
Hey, do you know people like you make me laugh?
Get abusive straight away and make yourself look a complete tit-head...
> there are numerous testimonies that its no stronger than it was and the
> youth are more likely off their heads on alchohol.
'Youths' happily do both and they're almost seen as weird if they don't
smoke themselves into a whitey with their mates. You have to be pretty
strong-minded these days not to follow the trendy sheep.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
abelard
typed:
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:30:21 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:15:42 -0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>However, one important principle ought to be that when you make a carefully
>>>considered decision, you stick to it. Would we want the speed limits on our
>>>roads to be changed every couple of years, or to increase the gaol sentences
>>>for drug possession one year, then reduce them the following year, then put
>>>them up again, in a rather desperate attempt to discover what works?
>>
>>that is the way the real world works....if you are in error the only sane
>> thing to do is change your mind...and actions
>
>So we can assume that for the last 50 or so years the majority of the
>adult population of this country has been stark staring mad?
only 50 years?
>>as for jail sentences, this socialist government 'policy' is to change
>> sentencing according to available prison places...ie, once more
>> pander to the unions and cover their own irresponsibility
>
>Of course they don't pander to the unions**. They pander to the owners
>of the tabloids.
until recently the unions owned the 'news'papers'....
as the new owners now pander to the union (and other) idiots....therefore
those of the 'stark staring mad' majority own the content of the
fossil media
>>for oldnewold there is no such thing as 'a carefully considered decision'
>>only populist expediency....
>**
>except the police fed and the POA
very likely....it is normal for corrupt pols to pander to police and their
unions
regards...
abelard
typed:
maybe i was unclear...it is the way the real world works...
it is not the way the @stark staring mad' majority works...
thus the real world regularly punishes the 'stark staring mad'
majority...
as for 'the war on drugs'....where would all the bribes come from
if you stopped it? where would employment for the underclass
originate? where would the insurance companies be?
etc etc etc....
http://www.abelard.org/drugs.htm
regards...
Phil Stovell
Man in jail might have died from alcohol withdrawal
Officials suspect delirium tremens - a form of acute alcohol withdrawal -
as the cause of death for a Haven man found unresponsive in the Reno
County Jail Sunday afternoon.
He was hospitalized about 24 hours before he died.
An autopsy of Gene Allen Klaassen, 46, is expected to be done today at the
Sedgwick County Regional Forensics Science Center, Reno County Sheriff
Randy Henderson said.
Klaassen was jailed Feb. 7 on a probation violation stemming from a
driving under the influence conviction, Henderson said. When he developed
the symptoms of delirium tremens, he was put under medical watch.
"He was checked every 15 minutes, and a nurse had been involved the first
couple of days," Henderson said. "He was in a single cell by himself."
Klaassen was found unresponsive about 4:15 p.m. Sunday, and deputies
started life-saving measures until Reno County EMS and the Hutchinson Fire
Department arrived. He was transported to the hospital, where he died.
"Due to the nature of the emergency, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation
was notified, and with the assistance of our investigation division, the
investigation is ongoing," Henderson said.
Klaassen was originally brought into the jail by his probation officer,
and there was no resistance or incident at that time, Henderson said.
gentlegreen
Smoking cannabis is NOT murder FFS.
There was a comment in the Daily Wail yesterday regarding cannabis viz.
"imprison all drug users."
I say "right on". I'll pack in the job I've held for 25 years, put my house
up for rent and do an OU degree / body building at the taxpayer's expense,
and maybe they should release a paedophile to make room for me.
Luckily in the UK the law is not enforced to any great extent. Unlike in the
States where the DEA funds itself from asset seizure.
I would lose my job in any case if they tested my wee wee.
Unjust, stupid laws bring the whole of the law into contempt.
What you do about cocaine, heroin and crystal meth, I grant you, is more
of a challenge.
Phil Stovell
Oh dear. Consensual "crime" alert.
Phil Stovell
> There was a comment in the Daily Wail yesterday regarding cannabis viz.
> "imprison all drug users."
I've tried posting comments on the DM website (noted in u.p.d, iirc) and
they were all ignored, except when I posted that all drug users should be
forced to build prisons to house themselves, which got published.
Phil Stovell
>
> "Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:26:32 +0000, Baroness Edwina Frogbucket wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>>>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkiller13.xml>
>>>>
>>>> Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
>>>
>>> Apart from the fact it's Daffy Dave raising the issue, I agree with
>>> him. The stuff is stronger than it was and it's sad to see so many
>>> young folk completely off their faces on it because it's almost
>>> compulsory in some circles.
>>
>> There is no evidence that it's significantly stronger, as those
>> hereabouts who have used it since the 60s can testify. The ACMD and
>> ECMDDA also disagree that it's stronger. Even if it was, it'd be more
>> dangerous in the same way that Glenfiddich is more dangerous than
>> Theakston's bitter.
>
> Exactly. And you wouldn't want your teenager downing a bottle of
> Glenfiddich every night.
That's why its' sale is regulated.
> Anyway, I think it's stronger these days.
Howard Marks was importing fine weed in the 70s, as I recall.
gentlegreen
>
> > There was a comment in the Daily Wail yesterday regarding cannabis viz.
> > "imprison all drug users."
>
> I've tried posting comments on the DM website (noted in u.p.d, iirc) and
> they were all ignored, except when I posted that all drug users should be
> forced to build prisons to house themselves, which got published.
>
Melanie Philips's current tirade isn't getting any comments. My quite
reasonable one was refused outright.
gentlegreen
badly grown in rented houses compared to premium quality Thai or temple
balls ...
Why is there nothing anywhere about organophosphate pesticides.?
By all accounts, pesticides and fungicides are used as a matter of course by
big growers.
Nasty stuff to smoke I would have thought.
.
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
"gentlegreen" <gentlegreengiant...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:HGmAh.11287$9S5....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>>
>>
> yep - he'd be mightily peed off if someone suggested any of the stuff
> being
> badly grown in rented houses compared to premium quality Thai or temple
> balls ...
God, you two sound so cliquey - it's embarrassing. You're like a couple of
wine buffs telling kids who drink voddy on Friday nights why they should
take a fine claret instead.
Do you think broke kids on council estates give a stuff about temple balls,
Howard Marks or whether their gear is grown in rented properties? They just
want to get off their nuts. You, Mr Stovell are so involved you can't see
the picture clearly anymore. Sort of like top union blokes and MP's who've
been in their jobs too long.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Phil Stovell
Do you disagree then?
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
"Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:52:27 +0000, Baroness Edwina Frogbucket wrote:
>
>>
>> "gentlegreen" <gentlegreengiant...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:HGmAh.11287$9S5....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>>>>
>>>> Howard Marks was importing fine weed in the 70s, as I recall.
>>>>
>>> yep - he'd be mightily peed off if someone suggested any of the stuff
>>> being
>>> badly grown in rented houses compared to premium quality Thai or temple
>>> balls ...
>>
>> God, you two sound so cliquey - it's embarrassing. You're like a couple
>> of wine buffs telling kids who drink voddy on Friday nights why they
>> should take a fine claret instead.
>> Do you think broke kids on council estates give a stuff about temple
>> balls, Howard Marks or whether their gear is grown in rented properties?
>> They just want to get off their nuts. You, Mr Stovell are so involved
>> you
>> can't see the picture clearly anymore. Sort of like top union blokes and
>> MP's who've been in their jobs too long.
>
> Do you disagree then?
What I'm saying, I guess, is that I agree that responsible, discerning
adults should be able to smoke if they wish - but not kids. The problem,
like we've got with alcohol, is how are we going to control it? The state
I've seen some of them in with puff, alcohol - whatever, is not good. They
now think getting mashed is not only normal but a requirement.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
name
<edwinafrogbuc...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> "name" <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171365712.7...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 10:26 am, "Baroness Edwina Frogbucket"
> > <edwinafrogbuc...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "Phil Stovell" <p...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>
> >> > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkill...>
>
> >> > Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
>
> >> Apart from the fact it's Daffy Dave raising the issue, I agree with him.
> >> The stuff is stronger than it was and it's sad to see so many young folk
> >> completely off their faces on it because it's almost compulsory in some
> >> circles.
> >> --
> >> Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
>
> > Who gives a fuck that more potent cannabis is available?
>
> Parents of young teenagers who use it alot?
Young teenagers are not supposed to use drugs (alcohol, cannabis or
whatever) and the best way to ensure they don't use drugs is to
legalize and regulate it.When a liquor store sells booze to teenagers,
it will lose its license. The criminals that sell cannabis don't have
to worry about that and are generally only interested in money and
don't give a fuck about the age of their 'customers'.
>
> >Alcohol is
> > available in lethal quantities for recreational purposes to adults.
> > Any politician that (tacitly) condones the availability of alcohol
> > while condemning cannabis is a hypocrite nazi scumbag.
>
> Yes, alcohol is another drug being widely abused by our young despite the
> supposed legal age. What's that s'posed to prove?
It proves that drug education is generally a bunch of propaganda and
lies, rather than accurate information intended to inform people
enabling them to make responsible choices in life. If teens find out
they are being lied to regarding cannabis, they will not heed advice
regarding more hazardous drugs like alcohol or coke. Politicians are
hypocrite nazi scumbags in any country where it's prohibited to prefer
cannabis, while a lethal and addictive drug like alcohol is freely
available for adults. If you bring up kids in a bigot and hypocritical
society, you can't expect them to grow up like adults capable of
bearing responsibility for their behavior.
>
> --
> Baroness Edwina Frogbucket- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
AlanG
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:31:37 +0000, AlanG <pl...@invalid.com>
>
> typed:
>>On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:30:21 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:15:42 -0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
>>>
>>> typed:
>>>
>>>>However, one important principle ought to be that when you make a carefully
>>>>considered decision, you stick to it. Would we want the speed limits on our
>>>>roads to be changed every couple of years, or to increase the gaol sentences
>>>>for drug possession one year, then reduce them the following year, then put
>>>>them up again, in a rather desperate attempt to discover what works?
>>>
>>>that is the way the real world works....if you are in error the only sane
>>> thing to do is change your mind...and actions
>>
>>So we can assume that for the last 50 or so years the majority of the
>>adult population of this country has been stark staring mad?
>
>only 50 years?
That is approximately when the police started actively enforcing the
drugwar laws
>
>>>as for jail sentences, this socialist government 'policy' is to change
>>> sentencing according to available prison places...ie, once more
>>> pander to the unions and cover their own irresponsibility
>>
>>Of course they don't pander to the unions**. They pander to the owners
>>of the tabloids.
>
>until recently the unions owned the 'news'papers'....
The dirty digger is a trade union???
>as the new owners now pander to the union (and other) idiots....therefore
> those of the 'stark staring mad' majority own the content of the
> fossil media
Ruper Murdoch might sue you for that
Actually I consider Gannet Publishing to be a greater danger to free
thinking and democracy than Rupert. I tried to get Knauer to push the
US NRA for a boycott of their publications because of the gun control
issue in the UK. All the Gannet publications in the UK support
disarming the people.
>
>>>for oldnewold there is no such thing as 'a carefully considered decision'
>>>only populist expediency....
>
>>**
>>except the police fed and the POA
>
>very likely....it is normal for corrupt pols to pander to police and their
> unions
And your Bitch Goddess and her goblins were a firm believer in the
principle.
name
<edwinafrogbuc...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote in message
>
> news:53dfn7F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > To which I suppose the counter-argument is:
> > a) If it is stronger, you simply reduce your intake. Same with low
> > tar/high tar cigarettes - if you need more of a buzz, you smoke more and
> > longer.
>
> Yes, but you're talking 'sensible' here and most teenagers aren't sensible.
Which is why drugs need to be regulated (legalized for adults like
alcohol) to ensure criminals don't sell drugs like alcohol or cannabis
to kids.
>
> > I don't think there is evidence that young people are *more* stoned.
>
> You don't? I think they are, and are also much more open about being so -
> mainly cos it's seen as more socially acceptable now.
As long as it's socially acceptable to buy alcohol in lethal
quantities for recreational purposes it's pure bigotry and hypocrisy
to whine about people getting stoned.
It's very simple basically:
It's socially acceptable for adults to enjoy drugs like alcohol and
cannabis in moderation.
It's not socially acceptable for kids to enjoy drugs like alcohol and
cannabis on a recreational basis.
Anyone who denies this is either misinformed or a fascist who denies
and disrespects individual freedom and responsibility.
>
> > b) If you make it more illegal, that won't stop people using it. It merely
> > drives up the price and perhaps increases the availability of it. I have
> > heard it said that after it was downgraded it became harder to find than
> > cocaine or heroin.
>
> I dunno about that cos I live in the sticks now and depending what town
> you're in decides what's more available/trendy/.
>
> --
> Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Most problems associated with cannabis use are related to poor
legislation with a irrational bias against cannabis and in favor of
alcohol. If laws are unjust and based on myths, you can't expect
people to take drug education seriously.
The government sponsors criminal and terrorist organizations with
their war on some drugs. The more they criminalize drugs, the more
lucrative they become. This is obvious from failed attempts to ban
alcohol in the previous century.
AlanG
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:15:54 -0000, "Sla#s" <ph...@KNOTslatts.net>
>
> typed:
>>abelard wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:15:42 -0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
>>>
>>> typed:
>>>
>>>> However, one important principle ought to be that when you make a
>>>> carefully considered decision, you stick to it. Would we want the
>>>> speed limits on our roads to be changed every couple of years, or to
>>>> increase the gaol sentences for drug possession one year, then
>>>> reduce them the following year, then put them up again, in a rather
>>>> desperate attempt to discover what works?
>>>
>>> that is the way the real world works....if you are in error the only
>>> sane thing to do is change your mind...and actions
>>
>>Oh, if only that were true!
>>The "War on Drugs" has been the greatest failure of goverment policy in the
>>last 50 years and what do they do? More of the same!
>
>maybe i was unclear...it is the way the real world works...
It isn't how the real world works. It is *how* the real world *should*
work.
>it is not the way the @stark staring mad' majority works...
> thus the real world regularly punishes the 'stark staring mad'
> majority...
>
>as for 'the war on drugs'....where would all the bribes come from
> if you stopped it? where would employment for the underclass
> originate?
I'm sure we could find jobs for all those police, customs and prison
warders
Phil Stovell
> What I'm saying, I guess, is that I agree that responsible, discerning
> adults should be able to smoke if they wish - but not kids.
I agree.
> The
> problem, like we've got with alcohol, is how are we going to control it?
> The state I've seen some of them in with puff, alcohol - whatever, is
> not good. They now think getting mashed is not only normal but a
> requirement.
I agree. What to do is the problem.
Cynic
>It's not socially acceptable for kids to enjoy drugs like alcohol and
>cannabis on a recreational basis.
Except with the approval/supervision of a responsible adult.
--
Cynic
Sla#s
> "Sla#s" <ph...@KNOTslatts.net> wrote in message
>> The "War on Drugs" has been the greatest failure of goverment policy
>> in the last 50 years and what do they do? More of the same!
>>
> So what do you want? Do you want them to pack up and go home? By
> the same reasoning murders have been increasing so they must be
> failing. Should be allow murder?
No - Murder is wrong - getting high is not!
Why is it that those who would stop folk from taking the safest recreational
drug known to man equate it's use with murder?
It is a totally factious argument - try something else.
Cannabis is about as dangerous as coffee (Yes I know coffee kills x people
per year but...)
As for what to do. It's obvious - Licence it like alcohol and tobacco.
Slatts
Aaron B
"Sla#s" <ph...@KNOTslatts.net> wrote in message news:45d22f59.0@entanet...
> Aaron B wrote:
>> "Sla#s" <ph...@KNOTslatts.net> wrote in message
> SNIP>
>>> The "War on Drugs" has been the greatest failure of goverment policy
>>> in the last 50 years and what do they do? More of the same!
>>>
>> So what do you want? Do you want them to pack up and go home? By
>> the same reasoning murders have been increasing so they must be
>> failing. Should be allow murder?
>
> No - Murder is wrong - getting high is not!
It depends who you ask. Would you ask Fred West about whether murder should
be illegal or whehter we should spend time and money stopping it? If not,
why ask drug users (and those sympathetic to their cause) what should be
done about drugs.
> Why is it that those who would stop folk from taking the safest
> recreational drug known to man equate it's use with murder?
> It is a totally factious argument - try something else.
It is only so in the minds of those who wish for the de-criminalisation of
drugs. Simiarly, speeding motorists will see nothing wrong with what they
are doing.
Should people only obey the bits of law that they like and be free to ignore
those that they don't? I don't like paying tax - can I avoid it? Fred West
didn't mind killing people - is that allowed?
> Cannabis is about as dangerous as coffee (Yes I know coffee kills x people
> per year but...)
>
That is a point for debate.
AlanG
Lets see..
Committing murder?
Been illegal in all countries as far back as 60000 years
Imbibing cannabis...
Illegal for about 70 years in some countries. Only illegal cos Harry
Anslinger was going to get sacked.
Sla#s
<SNIP>
> Exactly. And you wouldn't want your teenager downing a bottle of
> Glenfiddich every night.
Exactly! That's why one teaches kids how to drink from an early age.
> Anyway, I think it's stronger these days.
Well it's not! As an ex (weekend) hippy from the '60s When my kids became
teenagers I heard all these stories about it being 10/20 times stronger. So
even though I'd given up decades ago I tried several samples - Compared to
the '60s it was rubbish!
Slatts
Cynic
>> No - Murder is wrong - getting high is not!
>It depends who you ask. Would you ask Fred West about whether murder should
>be illegal or whehter we should spend time and money stopping it? If not,
>why ask drug users (and those sympathetic to their cause) what should be
>done about drugs.
Bad analogy. Better to ask the *victims* of Fred West.
The reason I would like to see an end to prohibition is because I
believe that there will be far *fewer* victims of drugs than there are
victims of prohibition.
--
Cynic
Sla#s
<SNIP>
>> No - Murder is wrong - getting high is not!
>
> It depends who you ask. Would you ask Fred West about whether murder
> should be illegal or whehter we should spend time and money stopping
> it? If not, why ask drug users (and those sympathetic to their
> cause) what should be done about drugs.
Don't be ridiculous of course he knew what he was doing was wrong.
You are really clutching at straws now!
How can taking the wrong drug be likened to taking a life?
Your speeding argument is almost as bad - Though I will concede that some
speed limits are largely retained to raise revenue.
Slatts
clough
>> The "War on Drugs" has been the greatest failure of goverment policy in
>> the last 50 years and what do they do? More of the same!
>So what do you want? Do you want them to pack up and go home? By the same
>reasoning murders have been increasing so they must be failing. Should be
>allow murder?
It should only be allowed when it you being murdered.
The world would be a better place for it.
I think you would be better off, too. It can't be very pleasant being
as thick as you.
Clough
clough
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:46:47 +0000, Aaron B wrote:
>> So what do you want? Do you want them to pack up and go home? By the
>> same reasoning murders have been increasing so they must be failing.
>> Should be allow murder?
>Oh dear. Consensual "crime" alert.
It's more like brainless thick cunt alert.
Clough
clough
>> No - Murder is wrong - getting high is not!
>It depends who you ask.
Well, you're definitly the wrong person to ask if a sensible answer is
required.
>> Why is it that those who would stop folk from taking the safest
>> recreational drug known to man equate it's use with murder?
>> It is a totally factious argument - try something else.
>It is only so in the minds of those who wish for the de-criminalisation of
>drugs. Simiarly, speeding motorists will see nothing wrong with what they
>are doing.
Speeding motorists are taking risks with other peoples health. Drug
users are taking risks with their own health.
>Should people only obey the bits of law that they like and be free to ignore
>those that they don't? I don't like paying tax - can I avoid it? Fred West
>didn't mind killing people - is that allowed?
I'm in a generous mood, I'll give you a clue:
Things you do unto yourself concern only you. Things you do unto
others are in the public domain and concern more than you.
Got it?
No, I didn't think you would.
>> Cannabis is about as dangerous as coffee (Yes I know coffee kills x people
>> per year but...)
>That is a point for debate.
That leaves you out.
Clough
The Todal
>
> "Sla#s" <ph...@KNOTslatts.net> wrote in message news:45d22f59.0@entanet...
>> Aaron B wrote:
>>> "Sla#s" <ph...@KNOTslatts.net> wrote in message
>> SNIP>
>>>> The "War on Drugs" has been the greatest failure of goverment policy
>>>> in the last 50 years and what do they do? More of the same!
>>>>
>>> So what do you want? Do you want them to pack up and go home? By
>>> the same reasoning murders have been increasing so they must be
>>> failing. Should be allow murder?
>>
>> No - Murder is wrong - getting high is not!
>
> It depends who you ask. Would you ask Fred West about whether murder
> should be illegal or whehter we should spend time and money stopping it?
> If not, why ask drug users (and those sympathetic to their cause) what
> should be done about drugs.
We are all drug users. I think it is exceedingly unlikely that you could
ever find a person who has resolutely refused to contaminate his body with
aspirin, paracetamol, antibiotics, decongestants, nicotine or alcohol.
You probably mean illegal drugs - and you probably mean, if the government
rules that a drug is illegal we should all fall into line and obey.
One day you will very probably be on heroin. But you probably know that.
Pete nospam Zakel
>There is no evidence that it's significantly stronger, as those hereabouts
>who have used it since the 60s can testify. The ACMD and ECMDDA also
>disagree that it's stronger. Even if it was, it'd be more dangerous in the
>same way that Glenfiddich is more dangerous than Theakston's bitter.
Actually, not in the same way at all. One can drink enough Glenfiddich to
kill oneself. One cannot smoke enough cannabis, no matter how strong, to
kill oneself.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@seeheader.nospam)
"It's not Camelot, but it's not Cleveland, either."
-Kevin White, mayor of Boston
Pete nospam Zakel
>How about :-
>
>Age of consent for everything raised to 25 - including becoming
>cannon-fodder.
>After that you can do what you like to your own body.
>(as most people do anyway - regardless of whether it's class A, B or C.)
Not a good idea. That will just increase binge use among those under 25.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@seeheader.nospam)
"To be awake is to be alive." -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"
Pete nospam Zakel
>> Anyway, I think it's stronger these days.
>Howard Marks was importing fine weed in the 70s, as I recall.
Thailand and other such places have produced cannabis as strong as any we
currently produce for hundreds of years.
Stronger stuff is more generally available now, but that's mainly due to
market forces.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@seeheader.nospam)
Coronation, n.:
The ceremony of investing a sovereign with the outward and
visible signs of his divine right to be blown skyhigh with a dynamite
bomb.
-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Harry McCulla
news:memo.2007021...@pheon.cix.co.uk...
> In article <53dcr4F...@mid.individual.net>, deadm...@beeb.net
> (The Todal) wrote:
>
>> *From:* "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
>> *Date:* Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:56:48 -0000
>>
>> "Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>> >
>> >
>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkill
>> er13.xml>
>> >
>> > Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
>> >
>> > Last Updated: 2:58am GMT 13/02/2007
>> >
>> > David Cameron is urging the Government to take a harder line on
>> > possession
>> > and supply of cannabis use despite reports of his own youthful
>> > indiscretions with the drug, the Conservative Party said yesterday.
>> >
>> > Mr Cameron believes cannabis should be reclassified as a Class B
>> > drug -
>> > reversing Labour's decision to downgrade it to Class C three years
>> > ago.
>>
>> They took a careful, considered decision based on the best available
>> advice, when they downgraded cannabis.
> Actually no-they did not. Blunkett refused to see 6 top independent
> scientists who thought the change was wrong.
Actually, the experts say that cannabis should be in a lower classification
than both alcohol and tobacco:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm#drugs
bobbie sellers
>
> "Sla#s" <ph...@KNOTslatts.net> wrote in message
> news:45d1f169.0@entanet...
> > abelard wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:15:42 -0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
> >>
> >> typed:
> >>
> >>> However, one important principle ought to be that when you make a
> >>> carefully considered decision, you stick to it. Would we want the
> >>> speed limits on our roads to be changed every couple of years, or to
> >>> increase the gaol sentences for drug possession one year, then
> >>> reduce them the following year, then put them up again, in a rather
> >>> desperate attempt to discover what works?
> >>
> >> that is the way the real world works....if you are in error the only
> >> sane thing to do is change your mind...and actions
> >
> > Oh, if only that were true!
> > The "War on Drugs" has been the greatest failure of goverment policy in
> > the last 50 years and what do they do? More of the same!
> >
> So what do you want? Do you want them to pack up and go home? By the
> same reasoning murders have been increasing so they must be failing.
> Should be allow murder?
Murder involves one person hurting another not themself. We outlaw
murder because we cannot maintain a civil society if it is permitted.
This is not the case with drug use. We have the evidence of alcohol
to show that drug use and civil society can coexist. We have the
evidence from the Alcohol Prohibition here in the USA and the current
Drug Prohibition to show that illegalising drugs produces massive
criminality.
So the drugs should be legalised much as wine and spirits are legalised
and taxed accordingly with proof of age on purchase and high fines and
jail time for those who facilitate use of alcohol or any other drug by
persons below a legal age.
later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)
--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco
"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.
Alex Heney
That should, of course, have read "Actually *some* experts say..."
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Phil Stovell
> In article <pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk> Phil Stovell
> <ph...@stovell.org.uk> writes:
>>There is no evidence that it's significantly stronger, as those
>>hereabouts who have used it since the 60s can testify. The ACMD and
>>ECMDDA also disagree that it's stronger. Even if it was, it'd be more
>>dangerous in the same way that Glenfiddich is more dangerous than
>>Theakston's bitter.
>
> Actually, not in the same way at all. One can drink enough Glenfiddich to
> kill oneself. One cannot smoke enough cannabis, no matter how strong, to
> kill oneself.
Well, yes, but what I was trying to say is that to get pissed/stoned on
the strong stuff you consume less.
>
> -Pete Zakel
> (p...@seeheader.nospam)
>
> "It's not Camelot, but it's not Cleveland, either."
>
> -Kevin White, mayor of Boston
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
"Sla#s" <ph...@KNOTslatts.net> wrote in message news:45d23662.0@entanet...
> Baroness Edwina Frogbucket wrote:
> <SNIP>
>> Exactly. And you wouldn't want your teenager downing a bottle of
>> Glenfiddich every night.
>
> Exactly! That's why one teaches kids how to drink from an early age.
You might, but it's obvious many aren't being taught how to drink at all,
judging by the state of many young folk at the weekends.
The Unicef report sits nicely in this conversation.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:11:00 -0800, Pete nospam Zakel wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk> Phil Stovell
>> <ph...@stovell.org.uk> writes:
>>>There is no evidence that it's significantly stronger, as those
>>>hereabouts who have used it since the 60s can testify. The ACMD and
>>>ECMDDA also disagree that it's stronger. Even if it was, it'd be more
>>>dangerous in the same way that Glenfiddich is more dangerous than
>>>Theakston's bitter.
>>
>> Actually, not in the same way at all. One can drink enough Glenfiddich
>> to
>> kill oneself. One cannot smoke enough cannabis, no matter how strong, to
>> kill oneself.
>
> Well, yes, but what I was trying to say is that to get pissed/stoned on
> the strong stuff you consume less.
We know that cos we're sensible and have a brain. That's why we're sitting
here discussing this. Sadly, many youngsters are being brought up by
parents who are thick as two short planks and couldn't give a damn.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
"name" <dohd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171391983.9...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> As long as it's socially acceptable to buy alcohol in lethal
> quantities for recreational purposes it's pure bigotry and hypocrisy
> to whine about people getting stoned.
> It's very simple basically:
> It's socially acceptable for adults to enjoy drugs like alcohol and
> cannabis in moderation.
> It's not socially acceptable for kids to enjoy drugs like alcohol and
> cannabis on a recreational basis.
I agree. We now need to make it clear that it's socially unnacceptable for
kids to get in a mess every weekend, and that might need stricter
legislation because as a mother I often feel like I might as well go and
talk to a brick wall. Peer pressure is huge and what good am I doing by
talking to my own kids when their friends are trollied half the time? I
know for a fact my son drinks more than is good for him and that he and his
friends think there's nowt wrong with it. Drugs are another thing that many
seem to do with careless abandon and they don't go for a buzz with either -
they go for near-on comas. Basically, they never seem to have heard of
moderation or choice. It's what you do. And it's pants.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
>
> It proves that drug education is generally a bunch of propaganda and
> lies, rather than accurate information intended to inform people
> enabling them to make responsible choices in life. If teens find out
> they are being lied to regarding cannabis, they will not heed advice
> regarding more hazardous drugs like alcohol or coke. Politicians are
> hypocrite nazi scumbags in any country where it's prohibited to prefer
> cannabis, while a lethal and addictive drug like alcohol is freely
> available for adults. If you bring up kids in a bigot and hypocritical
> society, you can't expect them to grow up like adults capable of
> bearing responsibility for their behavior.
But sadly, as the Unicef report shows, we've got a hell of along way to go.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
FriarTuck
>
> "FriarTuck" <a...@spammerstheygothehouse.con> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.02.13....@spammerstheygothehouse.con...
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:26:32 +0000, Baroness Edwina Frogbucket wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>>>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkiller13.xml>
>>>>
>>>> Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
>>>
>>> Apart from the fact it's Daffy Dave raising the issue, I agree with him.
>>> The stuff is stronger than it was and it's sad to see so many young folk
>>> completely off their faces on it because it's almost compulsory in some
>>> circles.
>>
>>
>> stooopid caaaah
>
> Hey, do you know people like you make me laugh?
> Get abusive straight away and make yourself look a complete tit-head...
>
>> there are numerous testimonies that its no stronger than it was and the
>> youth are more likely off their heads on alchohol.
>
> 'Youths' happily do both and they're almost seen as weird if they don't
> smoke themselves into a whitey with their mates. You have to be pretty
> strong-minded these days not to follow the trendy sheep.
sounds like a daily express summary based on absolutely no facts
whatsoever, or falsely scaled up from a single example, usual from a
certain kind of bigoted (possibly alchoholic) critic.
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
"FriarTuck" <a...@spammerstheygothehouse.con> wrote in message
How many friends have you lost to heroin? Ever had to pull the needle out
of a junkies arm when he's O.D'd? Ever had to nurse someone back to health
after heroin withdrawal? Ever watched someone cranking in their groin or
neck? Ever looked at the face of a young person after they've choked to
death in their sleep?
Don't talk to me like I'm an idiot.
Smug twit.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
JohnR
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:vs63t2totg55dsda2...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:13:03 -0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:1a33t2pejguoe9b2a...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:56:48 -0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>>>>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkiller13.xml>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
>>>>>
>>>>> Last Updated: 2:58am GMT 13/02/2007
>>>>>
>>>>> David Cameron is urging the Government to take a harder line on
>>>>> possession
>>>>> and supply of cannabis use despite reports of his own youthful
>>>>> indiscretions with the drug, the Conservative Party said yesterday.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr Cameron believes cannabis should be reclassified as a Class B
>>>>> drug -
>>>>> reversing Labour's decision to downgrade it to Class C three years
>>>>> ago.
>>>>
>>>>They took a careful, considered decision based on the best available
>>>>advice,
>>>>Idiocy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They didn't downgrade it.
>>>
>>> Labour did.
>>
>>It was a government decision which Cameron wants the government to
>>reverse.
>
> This is true of many government decisions.
>
> That does tend to be commonplace with the *opposition* :-)
>
>
>>Useful links would seem to be
>>
>
> I'm not bothering to read them.
>
> As I said before, there is so much conflicting advice out there on the
> subject that it is quite easy to find good sources to support whatever
> your personal view happens to be.
>
That's odd, I've yet to see a single source that has any valid claims about
the benefits of prohibiting some drugs.
JohnR
scientific community.
JohnR
"Baroness Edwina Frogbucket" <edwinafr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
message news:53g5ppF...@mid.individual.net...
the town for many young people is to get totally hammered, the only training
that requires is that you keep drinking until you fall over and can't get
back up for another.
The problem isn't directly related to the substance just as with other drugs
elsewhere, it is related to the attitudes of the "sub-culture" within which
that particular drug is being used.
JohnR
have and how these attitudes pervade within their own peer group. Attitudes
towards drugs, either legal or not, are not much of anything to do with what
parents are telling there kids or what they aren't telling their kids.
A big part of this problem is the total disrespect that idiotic drug laws
and their vindictive hateful prosecution have nutured amongst that age group
who are generally rebellious at the best of times.
name
<edwinafrogbuc...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> "name" <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You can't blame everything on parents. Society also has a
responsibility and I think you have to change the mentality/culture
where it's cool if you're able to drink more alcohol than someone
else. I think it's best to educate and inform kids about drugs
(including alcohol) and give them the opportunity to familiarize
themselves with drugs in a context where responsible use is the norm
and abuse is frowned upon. It's natural for kids to experiment and
test their limits but adults (the parents, the educational system and
society in general) should guide them in this process to ensure they
grow into responsible adults.
Scott
> "FriarTuck" <a...@spammerstheygothehouse.con> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.02.14....@spammerstheygothehouse.con...
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:49:50 +0000, Baroness Edwina Frogbucket wrote:
>>
>>> "FriarTuck" <a...@spammerstheygothehouse.con> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2007.02.13....@spammerstheygothehouse.con...
>>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:26:32 +0000, Baroness Edwina Frogbucket wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>>>>>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkiller13.xml>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
When it comes to coke, is he taking a stronger line? :-)
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
"JohnR" <repr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45d2fa94$0$22673$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> The issues surrounding drug use are about the attitudes the kids
> themselves have and how these attitudes pervade within their own peer
> group. Attitudes towards drugs, either legal or not, are not much of
> anything to do with what parents are telling there kids or what they
> aren't telling their kids.
I blame Blair and his 'anything goes' government. Kids need real families
who actually care about them - not 16 year old professional dole-ites and
the like.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Cynic
<edwinafr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>How many friends have you lost to heroin? Ever had to pull the needle out
>of a junkies arm when he's O.D'd? Ever had to nurse someone back to health
>after heroin withdrawal? Ever watched someone cranking in their groin or
>neck? Ever looked at the face of a young person after they've choked to
>death in their sleep?
>Don't talk to me like I'm an idiot.
>Smug twit.
Almost all the things you describe would become *extremely* rare if
heroin were available as a legal drug of consistant strength and
assured purity.
--
Cynic
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
> You can't blame everything on parents. Society also has a
> responsibility and I think you have to change the mentality/culture
> where it's cool if you're able to drink more alcohol than someone
> else. I think it's best to educate and inform kids about drugs
> (including alcohol) and give them the opportunity to familiarize
> themselves with drugs in a context where responsible use is the norm
> and abuse is frowned upon. It's natural for kids to experiment and
> test their limits but adults (the parents, the educational system and
> society in general) should guide them in this process to ensure they
> grow into responsible adults.
I don't know how old you are but when I was younger we liked a 'good drink',
but what was considered cool then was to be able to drink and not show it.
You were considered a lightweight if you acted drunk. Nowdays they have a
sniff of the barmaids apron and all hell breaks loose. You can't blame
everything on parents, this is true, but then take a look at what passes for
parents in many places and you can see why the kids are like it.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
"Scott" <blac...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:equunk$b4b$2$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
Hah! Makes you wonder why he's so vague about his past doesn't it?
Or do you just think he can't remember?
:-))
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sb06t2p6f2nklihul...@4ax.com...
>
> Almost all the things you describe would become *extremely* rare if
> heroin were available as a legal drug of consistant strength and
> assured purity.
Yeh yeh heard it all before but how does one get into it in the first place?
Nip to the chemist and ask for a bag?
Anyway, what junkie have you ever met who doesn't want to be stoned? They
only go for the maintenance option when they have to.
Just don't go near the shite in the first place.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Alex Heney
wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>
>>>Useful links would seem to be
>>>
>>
>> I'm not bothering to read them.
>>
>> As I said before, there is so much conflicting advice out there on the
>> subject that it is quite easy to find good sources to support whatever
>> your personal view happens to be.
>>
>That's odd, I've yet to see a single source that has any valid claims about
>the benefits of prohibiting some drugs.
>
So your personal view is that there are benefits?
If not, then what you say does not go against what I said at all.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway.
clough
<edwinafr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>I don't know how old you are but when I was younger we liked a 'good drink',
>but what was considered cool then was to be able to drink and not show it.
It must have been quite a while since you were younger.
I remember my teenage and early twenties years from a long, long time
ago. Me and my friends used to go out on the town and we were far from
moderate with the booze. But anyone who showed excessive signs of it
was looked down upon and got a reputation that "they couldn't hold
their ale". They seem to be competing to see who can get the most
smashed nowadays.
Clough
clough
<edwinafr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Yeh yeh heard it all before but how does one get into it in the first place?
>Nip to the chemist and ask for a bag?
>Anyway, what junkie have you ever met who doesn't want to be stoned? They
>only go for the maintenance option when they have to.
>Just don't go near the shite in the first place.
Some people have a need for the effects heroin has. There will always
be people who use it.
But most people don't feel a need won't use it.
In the 1960's and early 70's when I was heavily into the hippie scene,
just about anything was easily available in the circles I mixed in.
Heroin was nearly as easy to score as pot and acid. I have never tried
heroin, but I've smoked enough cannabis to make a fair sized haystack
and dropped a lot of acid. It was only the hallucinogens that were of
interest. The rest of the stuff was boring and for losers. One of my
friends did get into heroin and ended up an addict. His life has been
completely wrecked. I've not seen him for many years and have no idea
where he is now. The last I saw of him was over 20 years ago when he
started a prison sentence for thieving to pay for his habit.
Prohibition didn't help him. It was prohibition that turned what
should have ben a relatively minor medical problem into a life
wrecking catastrophe.
As for me and the rest of my friends, it wasn't prohibition that kept
us from heroin. We wouldn't have used it if they were giving free
legal samples at the chemists. It just wasn't our trip.
So it is with most people. But not everyone.
Clough
Cynic
<edwinafr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Almost all the things you describe would become *extremely* rare if
>> heroin were available as a legal drug of consistant strength and
>> assured purity.
>Yeh yeh heard it all before but how does one get into it in the first place?
>Nip to the chemist and ask for a bag?
Same way as you "get into" alcohol and tobacco.
>Anyway, what junkie have you ever met who doesn't want to be stoned? They
>only go for the maintenance option when they have to.
I wasn't talking about maintaiance options.
>Just don't go near the shite in the first place.
Same could be said about alcohol and tobacco
--
Cynic
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
"clough" <in...@canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:hc4fg39hlf7b031lr...@4ax.com...
>
> I remember my teenage and early twenties years from a long, long time
> ago. Me and my friends used to go out on the town and we were far from
> moderate with the booze. But anyone who showed excessive signs of it
> was looked down upon and got a reputation that "they couldn't hold
> their ale". They seem to be competing to see who can get the most
> smashed nowadays.
Agreed, and what's worse is that they go out with the intention of getting
totally mangled and not much else. When I was younger it wasn't the
intention - although sometimes the result. But you couldn't show it!
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Interesting cos it was similar for me. I remember aged about 14 some
friends telling me they were going to have their first 'fix' and did I want
to come along. I declined but most of them went on to become serious users.
Some died in the end. My sense of self-preservation must have been too
developed to do it.
I disagree with the prohibition thing though. Heroin should never be
legalised. In view of this UNICEF report I'm beginning to think we're too
immature and reckless over here to even allow cannabis to be legalised as
we're obviously not grown-up enough to deal with it. The thing is, on a
forum like this, we're talking to sensible, thinking people in the main but
there's too many eejits out there.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:47:22 -0000, "Baroness Edwina Frogbucket"
> <edwinafr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Almost all the things you describe would become *extremely* rare if
>>> heroin were available as a legal drug of consistant strength and
>>> assured purity.
>
>>Yeh yeh heard it all before but how does one get into it in the first
>>place?
>>Nip to the chemist and ask for a bag?
>
> Same way as you "get into" alcohol and tobacco.
And the government doesn't pay for you to do it when you're hooked.
>
>>Anyway, what junkie have you ever met who doesn't want to be stoned? They
>>only go for the maintenance option when they have to.
>
> I wasn't talking about maintaiance options.
What then? Getting smashed options?
>
>>Just don't go near the shite in the first place.
>
> Same could be said about alcohol and tobacco
Damn right but I do both cos I'm a fool - but I pay for it myself.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Cynic
<edwinafr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Same way as you "get into" alcohol and tobacco.
>And the government doesn't pay for you to do it when you're hooked.
No - you end up paying the government. That's one advantage of
legalising drugs.
>> I wasn't talking about maintaiance options.
>What then? Getting smashed options?
Recreational use, same as alcohol and tobacco.
>>>Just don't go near the shite in the first place.
>> Same could be said about alcohol and tobacco
>Damn right but I do both cos I'm a fool - but I pay for it myself.
If heroin were legally available it would be affordable for those who
want to use it. Ready availability means that life will not revolve
around obtaining and using it, and most users, even if addicted will
be able to hold down a job the same as most alcohol and tobacco users
can.
--
Cynic
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
What makes you think heroin would be affordable when people are doing booze
cruises cos they can't afford to buy their tobacco at the corner shop or
they buy their fags from the local Albanian down the market?
The government wouldn't make it affordable.
The government makes nothing affordable.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Cynic
<edwinafr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> If heroin were legally available it would be affordable for those who
>> want to use it. Ready availability means that life will not revolve
>> around obtaining and using it, and most users, even if addicted will
>> be able to hold down a job the same as most alcohol and tobacco users
>> can.
>What makes you think heroin would be affordable when people are doing booze
>cruises cos they can't afford to buy their tobacco at the corner shop or
>they buy their fags from the local Albanian down the market?
>The government wouldn't make it affordable.
>The government makes nothing affordable.
Tobacco and alcohol users do not usually resort to crimes against the
person to fund their habits. And most are capable of holding down a
job.
--
Cynic
clough
You have a point there. It would be advantageous to prohibit alcohol,
too, but unfortunatly prohibiting is not the same as making a thing
cease to exist. It only makes the problems associated with its
existence much, much worse.
Clough
Fred G. Mackey
> "Sla#s" <ph...@KNOTslatts.net> wrote in message news:45d22f59.0@entanet...
>
>>Aaron B wrote:
>>
>>>"Sla#s" <ph...@KNOTslatts.net> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>>The "War on Drugs" has been the greatest failure of goverment policy
>>>>in the last 50 years and what do they do? More of the same!
>>>>
>>>
>>>So what do you want? Do you want them to pack up and go home? By
>>>the same reasoning murders have been increasing so they must be
>>>failing. Should be allow murder?
>>
>>No - Murder is wrong - getting high is not!
>
>
> It depends who you ask. Would you ask Fred West about whether murder should
> be illegal or whehter we should spend time and money stopping it?
I don't know who the hell Fred West is, but I'd hazard a guess that most
people would say getting high should not be illegal - of course, I used
"getting high" in the sense that it includes drinking.
Frankly, if "getting high" on booze should not be illegal (fuck whether
or not you think it's "wrong"), so should "getting high" on anything else.
There is a clear victim in the case of murder. There is no victim in
someone simply getting high.
> If not,
> why ask drug users (and those sympathetic to their cause) what should be
> done about drugs.
IOW, we should only ask people who are against it. There's a great
fucking idea.
Let's apply that to alcohol. Oh, wait - we tried that. It was an
abysmal failure that caused more problems than it solved.
By the same token, maybe we should NOT ask people who have interracial
marriages (or those who are sympathetic to their situation) whether
interracial marriage should be allowed.
And what about Christianity? Why should we let Christians (and those
sympathetic to their choice of religion) whether or not we should allow
people to practice Christianity?
Fred G. Mackey
> "Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.02.13....@stovell.org.uk...
>
>><http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nkiller13.xml>
>>
>>Cameron calls for harder line on cannabis use
>
>
> The stuff is stronger than it was
So you only smoke 2 bonghits instead of a joint rolled with the album
insert from a Cheech and Chong LP.
If I drink a 6-pack of beer, how is that any better for me than if I
drink 6 shots of vodka?
Well, let's see - the beer contains more calories.
Strike once against the less potent stuff.
That's 72 ounces of beer vs. 6 ounces of vodka. You'll piss more from
the beer.
So what's the big deal?
> and it's sad to see so many young folk
> completely off their faces on it
I would agree if that were actually the case. I have yet to ever see
anybody "off their face" from marijuana. I've seen people that way
from alcohol, opiates, cocaine, ecstacy and hallucinogens, but never
from marijuana.
> because it's almost compulsory in some
> circles.
You've gotta be shitting me. That's like saying it's "compulsory" to be
religious to hang out at church on Sunday or it's "compulsory" for you
to drink in order to hang out in a bar.
If you're not religious, you're probably not going to spend a whole lot
of time in church. If you're not a drinker, you're probably not going
to spend a whole lot of time in bars. If you're not a stoner, you're
probably not going to spend a whole lot of time around stoners.
Jethro
<edwinafrogbuc...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> "clough" <i...@canoemail.com> wrote in message
This is the them-and-us view ? "We wouldn't be corrupted by all the
filth we have to censor, but think of the proles."
"Is this a book you would want your wife or servants to read ?"
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Yeh, I understand completely and there seems to be no easy answers.
Creating a more mature society seems to be a good starting point though.
The way things have gone over here in recent years makes me wonder why we're
not all off our faces as a way to cope with it. The drink/drug thing is
merely a sticking plaster over the whole festering wound, perhaps.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket