The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I have made up my mind, after years of being Liberal I am going to vote Labour at the elections next Thursday. Reason are way to many to list but in short, since Labour took over I have bought my own home, we have a good life style we want for little and in general for me at least every thing is tickety Boo just now.
Page:
kevstar wrote:
> The fact is light, i've also smoked dope, so your saying that it's up
> to the individual? What if that individual is 13 years old? Would you
> still be willing to suply just because he's got his own choice? This
> is my point, Just because you think it's alright because it hasn't
> done any damage that you know of to yourself doesn't mean that it
> won't do any damage to any one else does it?.
But it's alright that those kids are are smoking cigs and drinking alcohol?
We're not saying that drugs are harmless and cause no wrong, but there's certainly double standards when it comes to pot, tabacco, fast food and alcohol.
Hey, maybe we should ban these kids from MacDonalds too, I mean a great deal are going to suffer a heart attack in the long term...
Look, it sounds like you've had some bad experiences with some drugs.
Fair enough. So you stopped it.
But you seem to be thinking that your experience accounts for everyone.
Yes, you can find examples of where drugs have really hurt people.
You can kind examples of where anything has really hurt someone or other.
Light is a bit in accurate in saying that no one's died from cannabis, as I've heard one or two reports of overdose leading to death (severe crazy overdoses!!), but not as many as there have been alcohol overdoses.
Are you saying that if Cannabis was legalised, regulated, and stricter controls on keeping them away from kids that it would be alright?
> The fact is light, i've also smoked dope, so your saying that it's up
> to the individual? What if that individual is 13 years old? Would you
> still be willing to suply just because he's got his own choice? This
> is my point, Just because you think it's alright because it hasn't
> done any damage that you know of to yourself doesn't mean that it
> won't do any damage to any one else does it?.
But it's alright that those kids are are smoking cigs and drinking alcohol?
We're not saying that drugs are harmless and cause no wrong, but there's certainly double standards when it comes to pot, tabacco, fast food and alcohol.
Hey, maybe we should ban these kids from MacDonalds too, I mean a great deal are going to suffer a heart attack in the long term...
Look, it sounds like you've had some bad experiences with some drugs.
Fair enough. So you stopped it.
But you seem to be thinking that your experience accounts for everyone.
Yes, you can find examples of where drugs have really hurt people.
You can kind examples of where anything has really hurt someone or other.
Light is a bit in accurate in saying that no one's died from cannabis, as I've heard one or two reports of overdose leading to death (severe crazy overdoses!!), but not as many as there have been alcohol overdoses.
Are you saying that if Cannabis was legalised, regulated, and stricter controls on keeping them away from kids that it would be alright?
Strafio wrote:
> Light is a bit in accurate in saying that no one's died from
> cannabis, as I've heard one or two reports of overdose leading to
> death (severe crazy overdoses!!), but not as many as there have been
> alcohol overdoses.
Really? Have you got any links to that? I'm genuinely surprised if that is the case. I remember hearing about 1 gentleman who was supposed to have overdosed on it, but it turned out to be toxic shock syndrome due to the carbon in his lungs rather than the THC in the cannabis itself.
> Light is a bit in accurate in saying that no one's died from
> cannabis, as I've heard one or two reports of overdose leading to
> death (severe crazy overdoses!!), but not as many as there have been
> alcohol overdoses.
Really? Have you got any links to that? I'm genuinely surprised if that is the case. I remember hearing about 1 gentleman who was supposed to have overdosed on it, but it turned out to be toxic shock syndrome due to the carbon in his lungs rather than the THC in the cannabis itself.
There is one I specifically remember.
It was a guy who ate it, extremely large amount.
I can't link it because I can't remember the exact site.
It was less than a year ago though.
I'll take a quick buzz around if you want.
Although it was on these boards that I came across it so I'm surprised you haven't come across it.
It was a guy who ate it, extremely large amount.
I can't link it because I can't remember the exact site.
It was less than a year ago though.
I'll take a quick buzz around if you want.
Although it was on these boards that I came across it so I'm surprised you haven't come across it.
Strafio wrote:
> There is one I specifically remember.
> It was a guy who ate it, extremely large amount.
Well Jesus, if you can't be trusted to take your drugs properly you get everything you deserve...
Thanks for the heads-up on that, though I'm sure you'll agree that using that as an example for cannabis being an evil drug (TM) is like saying drinking 3 bottles of vodka, one after the other, is proof no-one should drink.
> There is one I specifically remember.
> It was a guy who ate it, extremely large amount.
Well Jesus, if you can't be trusted to take your drugs properly you get everything you deserve...
Thanks for the heads-up on that, though I'm sure you'll agree that using that as an example for cannabis being an evil drug (TM) is like saying drinking 3 bottles of vodka, one after the other, is proof no-one should drink.
Yep. I suppose that all it really shows is that some can die from it if they seriously abused. As if no one really knew that.
Although I'd bet more people have died from over-eating or something like that.
Although I'd bet more people have died from over-eating or something like that.
Light wrote:
>
> If you can point out exactly where I said that cannabis is completely
> harmless, I'll be happy to concede the point.
I'm a habitual dope smoker and it relaxes me immeasurably. And I've just been promoted twice in two months. Can't say it's done me any harm.
That more or less says it about yourself in anyways.
As, however, I made the
> point of stating that all drugs are harmful to a greater or lesser
> degree, and further asked you why you're not crying out for caffiene,
> alcohol, nicotiene, salt, and sugar to be banned, you'll pardon me for
> accusing you of doing your usual trick; ignoring what others are
> saying in favour of repeating yourself ad infinitum.
Alchohol has been used like drinking water for hundreds of years, in the days when drinking water was just as likley to kill as alchohol. The fact is, the drugs you talk about wearn't known to do any harm when they were first introduced with the exeption of alchol maybee. The other fact is that once a drug has been made legalised, it's very hard to ban them again. Can you imagine the protests if they banned theese drugs outright, and do you think the prime minister will still be a prime minister if he did?
>
> Or are you now going to claim that all the people disagreeing with
> you are "only doing it cos they don't like me".
>
>
> Even if you do smoke canabis light do you think it's best to
> advitise
> on a website used by children to do so? And so if theres no deaths
> caused by canabis, does that mean that there hasn't been any deaths
> caused related to smoking the s£$t that you preach? You are a
> idiot do you know that, smoking drugs that are known to give
> depression, anxiety and lazyness and saying "it's never
> happened to me" is definatly ignorance on your behalf.
>
> "won't somebody think of the children?"
> /Simpsons
>
> As I keep saying; do you really think it's wise that someone of such
> obviously low intelligence as yourself should continue to call others
> stupid?
I thought it was called common sense to me.
>
> And could you perhaps explain to me why, if you're worried about
> depression, anxiety, and laziness (?), you're not demanding that the
> depressant alcohol hasn't been banned? In your own time...
As I mentioned above, it's to risky for the goverment, and do you not think he's happy with the tax he's making of it. Alchohol is also legal in practically every Country in the world which makes it widley acceptable. Canabis is different, it makes you paranoid, lazy and bad tempered(from what I remember of it anyway). And if they did get dope legalised, do you not think it would make kids more vunerable to try other class c drugs, more vunerable than if they didn't legalise it?
>
> If you can point out exactly where I said that cannabis is completely
> harmless, I'll be happy to concede the point.
I'm a habitual dope smoker and it relaxes me immeasurably. And I've just been promoted twice in two months. Can't say it's done me any harm.
That more or less says it about yourself in anyways.
As, however, I made the
> point of stating that all drugs are harmful to a greater or lesser
> degree, and further asked you why you're not crying out for caffiene,
> alcohol, nicotiene, salt, and sugar to be banned, you'll pardon me for
> accusing you of doing your usual trick; ignoring what others are
> saying in favour of repeating yourself ad infinitum.
Alchohol has been used like drinking water for hundreds of years, in the days when drinking water was just as likley to kill as alchohol. The fact is, the drugs you talk about wearn't known to do any harm when they were first introduced with the exeption of alchol maybee. The other fact is that once a drug has been made legalised, it's very hard to ban them again. Can you imagine the protests if they banned theese drugs outright, and do you think the prime minister will still be a prime minister if he did?
>
> Or are you now going to claim that all the people disagreeing with
> you are "only doing it cos they don't like me".
>
>
> Even if you do smoke canabis light do you think it's best to
> advitise
> on a website used by children to do so? And so if theres no deaths
> caused by canabis, does that mean that there hasn't been any deaths
> caused related to smoking the s£$t that you preach? You are a
> idiot do you know that, smoking drugs that are known to give
> depression, anxiety and lazyness and saying "it's never
> happened to me" is definatly ignorance on your behalf.
>
> "won't somebody think of the children?"
> /Simpsons
>
> As I keep saying; do you really think it's wise that someone of such
> obviously low intelligence as yourself should continue to call others
> stupid?
I thought it was called common sense to me.
>
> And could you perhaps explain to me why, if you're worried about
> depression, anxiety, and laziness (?), you're not demanding that the
> depressant alcohol hasn't been banned? In your own time...
As I mentioned above, it's to risky for the goverment, and do you not think he's happy with the tax he's making of it. Alchohol is also legal in practically every Country in the world which makes it widley acceptable. Canabis is different, it makes you paranoid, lazy and bad tempered(from what I remember of it anyway). And if they did get dope legalised, do you not think it would make kids more vunerable to try other class c drugs, more vunerable than if they didn't legalise it?
There have been no reported casualties from actually smoking cannabis itself.
Most reports of death involve the mix of alcohol with cannabis.
Most reports of death involve the mix of alcohol with cannabis.
kevstar wrote:
> I'm a habitual dope smoker and it relaxes me immeasurably. And I've
> just been promoted twice in two months. Can't say it's done me any
> harm.
> That more or less says it about yourself in anyways.
~sigh~
Yesterday at 1.59pm I said;
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I believe drugs don't harm ones body. Balls. I'm saying that it's up to the individual to choose what they do to their body. Apart from "I don't like drugs", you've not said much to dissuade me.
So in other words, I've said it's fine for me. I've specifically stated I don't think that it's fine for everyone, and that drugs do harm to the body.
Please kevstar; if you're going to misquote when you flatter to deceive, make sure you've actually read what I've said.
> Alchohol has been used like drinking water for hundreds of years, in
> the days when drinking water was just as likley to kill as alchohol.
> The fact is, the drugs you talk about wearn't known to do any harm
> when they were first introduced with the exeption of alchol maybee.
> The other fact is that once a drug has been made legalised, it's very
> hard to ban them again. Can you imagine the protests if they banned
> theese drugs outright, and do you think the prime minister will still
> be a prime minister if he did?
Cannabis was first mentioned by the Chinese in 3000BC. It wasn't known to do harm. Yet it's still banned. Cocaine has been used by tribes in South America for as long as they've existed. Yet it's still banned. Opiates have long formed a part of the culture of numerous tribes in South East Asia. Yet it's still banned.
All of these drugs were once legal in this country (Queen Victoria had a wicked charlie and smack habit...). Yet now they're banned.
Under the logic you're using to say that alcohol is great and should be left alone, so should the other drugs I've mentioned.
And as for the protests...well, I seem to recall you didn't care one bit about people protesting at them having to work longer to get a later pension. Why the sudden social conscience here?
> As I keep saying; do you really think it's wise that someone of such
> obviously low intelligence as yourself should continue to call
> others
> stupid?
>
> I thought it was called common sense to me.
Is that the same common sense that tells you "just because there are no recorded cases of cannabis deaths, doesn't mean it doesn't happen"? Or is it the same common sense that told you "If I don't vote, then I'm making a difference"? Could it perhaps be that common sense that led you to congratulate The Sun and Veritas for "telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? Maybe it's the common sense that led you to post a lengthy diatribe about the countries joining the EU this year...when they actually joined last year.
Common sense? Amazingly, I always find that "common sense" is the last argument used by people with absolutely no evidence to back them up, no real desire to learn anything in debate, and not much in the way of intellect to support them.
Still, since you're trying the "Please, SOMEONE think of the children!!" line of argument, tell me; do you think it's appropriate for someone to boast that they've had group sex on a website viewed by children? You weren't so concerned about 'em then, were you?
> As I mentioned above, it's to risky for the goverment, and do you not
> think he's happy with the tax he's making of it. Alchohol is also
> legal in practically every Country in the world which makes it widley
> acceptable.
Ah, I see! This is another chapter in your "it's okay to pick on minorities" school of thinking? Okay...
However, as all the drugs you mention were once legal in practically every country in the world, doesn't that rather ruin your argument? Are you saying that you're fine with people being depressed, as long as it's alcohol causing it?
By the way, have you considered the availability and decriminalisation of cannabis in Holland? And parts of Spain? And parts of Australia?
> Canabis is different, it makes you paranoid, lazy and bad
> tempered(from what I remember of it anyway).
Bad tempered? As opposed to the violence caused every Friday and Saturday night by drunkards? I have NEVER seen anyone stoned starting a fight. Yet drunkards getting violent? Costs the country a fortune (far more than any immigrant...)
Paranoid? Yup, it does indeed do that. So does caffeine. Any danger of you wanting that banned? Or will you assume that, since it's acceptible in todays society, it's therefore okay?
Lazy? Yup. No question about it. So does valium, yet that's available on prescription. Any chance you'll be leading a crusade against it?
As a side note, I'm guessing that you're no stranger to the Friday and Saturday night drunken brawling fraternity. Would I be right in that? Are you a typical Gateshead lad?
> And if they did get dope
> legalised, do you not think it would make kids more vunerable to try
> other class c drugs, more vunerable than if they didn't legalise it?
Well, as it was drink that led me to try different drugs...oh, and as every person I've ever known who took drugs, took 'em after they'd tried drink first, don't you think that legalised drink makes kids more vulnerable to try other intoxicants?
And I'd be truly touched if you would answer;
So...because you personally made mistakes, and because you personally found it bad for you, EVERYONE should abide by your findings? You don't think that's rather selfish of you?
> Do you know how a family can basically
> dissintigrate of drugs, cos I do, do you know how a family can go
> fron 2.4 children to a bunch of alcholicks because of someone in
> thier family dying of a drugs overdose?
Mm, so you keep saying. On the other hand, you've yet to confirm that you've burned your entire music collection, being as how almost every musician who's ever recorded were REAL high on drugs.
Nor have you yet said anything about banning alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, salt, or sugar. Can they destroy families? Well, if one has high blood pressure from excessive salt intake and dies as a result, couldn't that destroy a family just as quickly as drugs?
> I'm a habitual dope smoker and it relaxes me immeasurably. And I've
> just been promoted twice in two months. Can't say it's done me any
> harm.
> That more or less says it about yourself in anyways.
~sigh~
Yesterday at 1.59pm I said;
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I believe drugs don't harm ones body. Balls. I'm saying that it's up to the individual to choose what they do to their body. Apart from "I don't like drugs", you've not said much to dissuade me.
So in other words, I've said it's fine for me. I've specifically stated I don't think that it's fine for everyone, and that drugs do harm to the body.
Please kevstar; if you're going to misquote when you flatter to deceive, make sure you've actually read what I've said.
> Alchohol has been used like drinking water for hundreds of years, in
> the days when drinking water was just as likley to kill as alchohol.
> The fact is, the drugs you talk about wearn't known to do any harm
> when they were first introduced with the exeption of alchol maybee.
> The other fact is that once a drug has been made legalised, it's very
> hard to ban them again. Can you imagine the protests if they banned
> theese drugs outright, and do you think the prime minister will still
> be a prime minister if he did?
Cannabis was first mentioned by the Chinese in 3000BC. It wasn't known to do harm. Yet it's still banned. Cocaine has been used by tribes in South America for as long as they've existed. Yet it's still banned. Opiates have long formed a part of the culture of numerous tribes in South East Asia. Yet it's still banned.
All of these drugs were once legal in this country (Queen Victoria had a wicked charlie and smack habit...). Yet now they're banned.
Under the logic you're using to say that alcohol is great and should be left alone, so should the other drugs I've mentioned.
And as for the protests...well, I seem to recall you didn't care one bit about people protesting at them having to work longer to get a later pension. Why the sudden social conscience here?
> As I keep saying; do you really think it's wise that someone of such
> obviously low intelligence as yourself should continue to call
> others
> stupid?
>
> I thought it was called common sense to me.
Is that the same common sense that tells you "just because there are no recorded cases of cannabis deaths, doesn't mean it doesn't happen"? Or is it the same common sense that told you "If I don't vote, then I'm making a difference"? Could it perhaps be that common sense that led you to congratulate The Sun and Veritas for "telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? Maybe it's the common sense that led you to post a lengthy diatribe about the countries joining the EU this year...when they actually joined last year.
Common sense? Amazingly, I always find that "common sense" is the last argument used by people with absolutely no evidence to back them up, no real desire to learn anything in debate, and not much in the way of intellect to support them.
Still, since you're trying the "Please, SOMEONE think of the children!!" line of argument, tell me; do you think it's appropriate for someone to boast that they've had group sex on a website viewed by children? You weren't so concerned about 'em then, were you?
> As I mentioned above, it's to risky for the goverment, and do you not
> think he's happy with the tax he's making of it. Alchohol is also
> legal in practically every Country in the world which makes it widley
> acceptable.
Ah, I see! This is another chapter in your "it's okay to pick on minorities" school of thinking? Okay...
However, as all the drugs you mention were once legal in practically every country in the world, doesn't that rather ruin your argument? Are you saying that you're fine with people being depressed, as long as it's alcohol causing it?
By the way, have you considered the availability and decriminalisation of cannabis in Holland? And parts of Spain? And parts of Australia?
> Canabis is different, it makes you paranoid, lazy and bad
> tempered(from what I remember of it anyway).
Bad tempered? As opposed to the violence caused every Friday and Saturday night by drunkards? I have NEVER seen anyone stoned starting a fight. Yet drunkards getting violent? Costs the country a fortune (far more than any immigrant...)
Paranoid? Yup, it does indeed do that. So does caffeine. Any danger of you wanting that banned? Or will you assume that, since it's acceptible in todays society, it's therefore okay?
Lazy? Yup. No question about it. So does valium, yet that's available on prescription. Any chance you'll be leading a crusade against it?
As a side note, I'm guessing that you're no stranger to the Friday and Saturday night drunken brawling fraternity. Would I be right in that? Are you a typical Gateshead lad?
> And if they did get dope
> legalised, do you not think it would make kids more vunerable to try
> other class c drugs, more vunerable than if they didn't legalise it?
Well, as it was drink that led me to try different drugs...oh, and as every person I've ever known who took drugs, took 'em after they'd tried drink first, don't you think that legalised drink makes kids more vulnerable to try other intoxicants?
And I'd be truly touched if you would answer;
So...because you personally made mistakes, and because you personally found it bad for you, EVERYONE should abide by your findings? You don't think that's rather selfish of you?
> Do you know how a family can basically
> dissintigrate of drugs, cos I do, do you know how a family can go
> fron 2.4 children to a bunch of alcholicks because of someone in
> thier family dying of a drugs overdose?
Mm, so you keep saying. On the other hand, you've yet to confirm that you've burned your entire music collection, being as how almost every musician who's ever recorded were REAL high on drugs.
Nor have you yet said anything about banning alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, salt, or sugar. Can they destroy families? Well, if one has high blood pressure from excessive salt intake and dies as a result, couldn't that destroy a family just as quickly as drugs?
I'm taking drugs right now!
Goatboy wrote:
> I'm taking drugs right now!
But...but...WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!?!?!
> I'm taking drugs right now!
But...but...WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!?!?!
Page: