The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Well, the drug is being (or has been) downgraded to class C. What does this mean? The government are keen to point out that it is still illegal, that those in possession will still be arrested.
On the news tonight, they used the phrase "Cannabis, a drug tens of thousands of people choose to smoke each week". I think they are seriously underestimating how widespread its use is. I wager everyone on here knows somebody who smokes it, I certainly do. Could decriminalizing the drug work in this country? There are huge benefits for the government in the way that it would free up a lot of police time, which could be used for catching those dealing/possessing harder drugs.
Is there any point whatsoever in downgrading the drug as they have done?
Do you have any views on the drug, or the questions I have asked above?
On the news tonight, they used the phrase "Cannabis, a drug tens of thousands of people choose to smoke each week". I think they are seriously underestimating how widespread its use is. I wager everyone on here knows somebody who smokes it, I certainly do. Could decriminalizing the drug work in this country? There are huge benefits for the government in the way that it would free up a lot of police time, which could be used for catching those dealing/possessing harder drugs.
Is there any point whatsoever in downgrading the drug as they have done?
Do you have any views on the drug, or the questions I have asked above?
Page:
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> the word for this my friend is pedantic.
I'd say it's more like "clutching at straws" or "trying to change the subject".
> the word for this my friend is pedantic.
I'd say it's more like "clutching at straws" or "trying to change the subject".
Timmargh wrote:
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
> Heh - two puns into the bargain there ...
Belldandy wrote:
> Heh, but the meaning of the pun is that both are the same
> essentially...
>
> OWNED !!!!!111 R00LZ UUU !!!11 OTHR ASSTD ASCI CRAP
Oh, grow up!
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
> Heh - two puns into the bargain there ...
Belldandy wrote:
> Heh, but the meaning of the pun is that both are the same
> essentially...
>
> OWNED !!!!!111 R00LZ UUU !!!11 OTHR ASSTD ASCI CRAP
Oh, grow up!
Belldandy wrote:
> Soooo, let me get this straight.
>
> Because I treated Timarrgh like the rest of you I am in the wrong? So
> instead I'm supposed to say;
>
> "I think criminals are wasters but I'll make an exception in one
> case because he's disabled which makes breaking the law okay."
>
> or
>
> "because all you PC idiots are going on at me I'm going to
> change what I think to fit your views."
I can't speak for the others, Belldandy, but I think you're wrong because:-
- you started off by saying that you think people who smoke cannabis are pathetic except in the cases of "pain management", but then at some point you changed your mind and decided that all cannabis users - and, indeed, anyone who breaks a single law - is a waster;
- you keep saying "BUT, IT'S ILLEGAL" even not one single person has said it's not and I myself have quoted what I said in another thread stating that I know it's illegal and that if I was caught and punished then I would accept the consequences of my actions;
- you accuse other member of this forum of starting a slanging match when you were the first to call people names.
> Soooo, let me get this straight.
>
> Because I treated Timarrgh like the rest of you I am in the wrong? So
> instead I'm supposed to say;
>
> "I think criminals are wasters but I'll make an exception in one
> case because he's disabled which makes breaking the law okay."
>
> or
>
> "because all you PC idiots are going on at me I'm going to
> change what I think to fit your views."
I can't speak for the others, Belldandy, but I think you're wrong because:-
- you started off by saying that you think people who smoke cannabis are pathetic except in the cases of "pain management", but then at some point you changed your mind and decided that all cannabis users - and, indeed, anyone who breaks a single law - is a waster;
- you keep saying "BUT, IT'S ILLEGAL" even not one single person has said it's not and I myself have quoted what I said in another thread stating that I know it's illegal and that if I was caught and punished then I would accept the consequences of my actions;
- you accuse other member of this forum of starting a slanging match when you were the first to call people names.
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> The sagacious one wrote:
> I'd like to see you try and play when my magnetic army of steel
> robots ever manages to leave the metal hangar in which I created
> them. For some reason they keep sticking to the ceiling.
>
> your magnetic robots are no match for my slop throwing machine ...
Yeah right; I fit slop buckets to all my creations as standard. However these tin containers are causing me similar problems like what the robots does.
> The sagacious one wrote:
> I'd like to see you try and play when my magnetic army of steel
> robots ever manages to leave the metal hangar in which I created
> them. For some reason they keep sticking to the ceiling.
>
> your magnetic robots are no match for my slop throwing machine ...
Yeah right; I fit slop buckets to all my creations as standard. However these tin containers are causing me similar problems like what the robots does.
Belldandy wrote:
> Contradictory statements. You clearly say "if you were in a
> car". OWNEDZZ etc
the word for this my friend is pedantic. I'm trying to have a civil discussion about times where breaking the law may be morally acceptable, and you are picking holes in the way I've worded it.
C'mon, I thought you were at least above that sort of childishness.
> Contradictory statements. You clearly say "if you were in a
> car". OWNEDZZ etc
the word for this my friend is pedantic. I'm trying to have a civil discussion about times where breaking the law may be morally acceptable, and you are picking holes in the way I've worded it.
C'mon, I thought you were at least above that sort of childishness.
16 more to go and we'll break the 500 mark...
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> By having your phone on in a moving car
>
> Ever heard of hands free? Besides, the exact point at which you
> receive the phone call is irrelevant - you could have got it while
> you were in a building, and then immediately jumped in your car when
> you heard the news.
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> If you were in your car driving 50 or so miles away from your house,
> and you received a phone call telling you that one of your parents
Contradictory statements. You clearly say "if you were in a car". OWNEDZZ etc
> Belldandy wrote:
> By having your phone on in a moving car
>
> Ever heard of hands free? Besides, the exact point at which you
> receive the phone call is irrelevant - you could have got it while
> you were in a building, and then immediately jumped in your car when
> you heard the news.
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> If you were in your car driving 50 or so miles away from your house,
> and you received a phone call telling you that one of your parents
Contradictory statements. You clearly say "if you were in a car". OWNEDZZ etc
Timmargh wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> By having your phone on in a moving car you're at risk of breaking
> another law as well.
>
> Never heard of a car kit, then?
AT RISK.
Got that? Borat never specified any car kit in his crap little scenario. So pretty lame really.
What next? "Never heard of an in ear implanted receiver linked by microwave to an embedded receiver in the car"?
Pah.
> Belldandy wrote:
> By having your phone on in a moving car you're at risk of breaking
> another law as well.
>
> Never heard of a car kit, then?
AT RISK.
Got that? Borat never specified any car kit in his crap little scenario. So pretty lame really.
What next? "Never heard of an in ear implanted receiver linked by microwave to an embedded receiver in the car"?
Pah.
Belldandy wrote:
> By having your phone on in a moving car
Ever heard of hands free? Besides, the exact point at which you receive the phone call is irrelevant - you could have got it while you were in a building, and then immediately jumped in your car when you heard the news.
> The fact is that scenario is bull$hit and unless
> your home is on a motorway lay by you couldn't do much more than the
> speed limite and drive safely anyway. Odds are you'd injure someone
> else.
I doubt injuring someone else would be the most prominent thought in your head. You'd drive as fast as you could without driving beyond your percepted means. Rational thought would not really be an issue now would it? You forget - things are not black and white, emotion often has a huge part to play. If you saw someone kill one of your parents in the street, you'd calmly walk to the nearest phone and call the police would you? Or would it be more likely you'd beat him almost to death? I don't know why I'm asking, I'll just get a textbook answer .....
> By having your phone on in a moving car
Ever heard of hands free? Besides, the exact point at which you receive the phone call is irrelevant - you could have got it while you were in a building, and then immediately jumped in your car when you heard the news.
> The fact is that scenario is bull$hit and unless
> your home is on a motorway lay by you couldn't do much more than the
> speed limite and drive safely anyway. Odds are you'd injure someone
> else.
I doubt injuring someone else would be the most prominent thought in your head. You'd drive as fast as you could without driving beyond your percepted means. Rational thought would not really be an issue now would it? You forget - things are not black and white, emotion often has a huge part to play. If you saw someone kill one of your parents in the street, you'd calmly walk to the nearest phone and call the police would you? Or would it be more likely you'd beat him almost to death? I don't know why I'm asking, I'll just get a textbook answer .....
Timmargh wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Same old Light, peering down at those with different views and
> having
> a laugh like a self important school kid.
>
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
> Heh - two puns into the bargain there ...
Heh, but the meaning of the pun is that both are the same essentially...
OWNED !!!!!111 R00LZ UUU !!!11 OTHR ASSTD ASCI CRAP
> Belldandy wrote:
> Same old Light, peering down at those with different views and
> having
> a laugh like a self important school kid.
>
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
> Heh - two puns into the bargain there ...
Heh, but the meaning of the pun is that both are the same essentially...
OWNED !!!!!111 R00LZ UUU !!!11 OTHR ASSTD ASCI CRAP
Page: