The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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."
So you are all telling me every single disabled person who needs pain medication is on Cannabis then? What's that, no? Wow that is strange...
You're the idiots who went ape at Kilroy and that Liberal Democrat woman.
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."
So you are all telling me every single disabled person who needs pain medication is on Cannabis then? What's that, no? Wow that is strange...
You're the idiots who went ape at Kilroy and that Liberal Democrat woman.
Timmargh wrote:
> And, while I was trawling, I came across Belldandy's first comment on
> the subject ...
>
> Yukikaze wrote:
> I think anyone who needs illegal drugs for anything other than clear
> medicinal reasons (such as pain management) is pretty pathetic. A
> few
> legal ones are also pretty sad - cigarettes for one.
>
> That's my unforgiving Conservative view, just in case you couldn't
> tell.
>
>
> So, at what point did you change your mind about it being pathetic
> *except* when used for "pain management" and decide I was a
> waster?
OWNED!!!
> And, while I was trawling, I came across Belldandy's first comment on
> the subject ...
>
> Yukikaze wrote:
> I think anyone who needs illegal drugs for anything other than clear
> medicinal reasons (such as pain management) is pretty pathetic. A
> few
> legal ones are also pretty sad - cigarettes for one.
>
> That's my unforgiving Conservative view, just in case you couldn't
> tell.
>
>
> So, at what point did you change your mind about it being pathetic
> *except* when used for "pain management" and decide I was a
> waster?
OWNED!!!
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?
> 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?
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 ...
> 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 ...
And, while I was trawling, I came across Belldandy's first comment on the subject ...
Yukikaze wrote:
> I think anyone who needs illegal drugs for anything other than clear
> medicinal reasons (such as pain management) is pretty pathetic. A few
> legal ones are also pretty sad - cigarettes for one.
>
> That's my unforgiving Conservative view, just in case you couldn't
> tell.
So, at what point did you change your mind about it being pathetic *except* when used for "pain management" and decide I was a waster?
Yukikaze wrote:
> I think anyone who needs illegal drugs for anything other than clear
> medicinal reasons (such as pain management) is pretty pathetic. A few
> legal ones are also pretty sad - cigarettes for one.
>
> That's my unforgiving Conservative view, just in case you couldn't
> tell.
So, at what point did you change your mind about it being pathetic *except* when used for "pain management" and decide I was a waster?
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> BUT IT IS STILL ILLEGAL.
>
> But not all criminals are wasters. People break the law all the
> time, but they are not always wasters.
>
> 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
> were dying, and your last chance to speak to them may be slipping
> away, you'd drive at the exact speed limit all the way home would
> you? And if you didn't, you'd be a waster? That's complete rubbish.
By having your phone on in a moving car you're at risk of breaking another law as well. The fact is that scenario is bull$hit and unless your home is on a motorway lay by you couldn't do much more than the speed limite and drive safely anyway. Odds are you'd injure someone else.
So, anyone else want to try and argue this?
Snuggly, nice joke but so much better if you had put "retarded" instead of "retardant"...but hey it is you....
> Belldandy wrote:
> BUT IT IS STILL ILLEGAL.
>
> But not all criminals are wasters. People break the law all the
> time, but they are not always wasters.
>
> If you were in your car driving 50 or so miles away from your house,
> and you received a phone call telling you that one of your parents
> were dying, and your last chance to speak to them may be slipping
> away, you'd drive at the exact speed limit all the way home would
> you? And if you didn't, you'd be a waster? That's complete rubbish.
By having your phone on in a moving car you're at risk of breaking another law as well. The fact is that scenario is bull$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.
So, anyone else want to try and argue this?
Snuggly, nice joke but so much better if you had put "retarded" instead of "retardant"...but hey it is you....
Belldandy wrote:
> Still, you gotta love people like you and Goatboy. Not one person in
> 300+ posts even refers to Timarrgh being disabled or in a wheelchair,
> simply that he takes it like any other person using the drug.
After trawling back through the thread I found my very first post on the subject ...
Timmargh wrote:
> I smoke cannabis on a daily basis and know that I am breaking the law.
> Why do I do it? Because I have muscular dystrophy and it causes me a
> lot of pain.
... and then, not too long after ...
gamezfreak wrote:
> For people like Timmargh I think it should be legalised, why should
> he suffer pain when he can just make it go away for a few hours after
> having a joint?
> Still, you gotta love people like you and Goatboy. Not one person in
> 300+ posts even refers to Timarrgh being disabled or in a wheelchair,
> simply that he takes it like any other person using the drug.
After trawling back through the thread I found my very first post on the subject ...
Timmargh wrote:
> I smoke cannabis on a daily basis and know that I am breaking the law.
> Why do I do it? Because I have muscular dystrophy and it causes me a
> lot of pain.
... and then, not too long after ...
gamezfreak wrote:
> For people like Timmargh I think it should be legalised, why should
> he suffer pain when he can just make it go away for a few hours after
> having a joint?
Belldandy wrote:
> Now if one of you could give me your credit card details please
> because I really need a new PS2 game from Amazon. It's theft but god
> damn I need this game.
And it's this utter misunderstanding of the subject that keeps the insults flowing and the thread growing and growing.
Theft of an item is not the same as smoking cannabis for medicinal use. It's not in the same league. Try to see this from someone else's point of view, for God's sake. Even Kilroy retracted his statements eventually.
And I'd still like to see you call someone who smokes medical cannabis to ease their pain a waster to their face.
> Now if one of you could give me your credit card details please
> because I really need a new PS2 game from Amazon. It's theft but god
> damn I need this game.
And it's this utter misunderstanding of the subject that keeps the insults flowing and the thread growing and growing.
Theft of an item is not the same as smoking cannabis for medicinal use. It's not in the same league. Try to see this from someone else's point of view, for God's sake. Even Kilroy retracted his statements eventually.
And I'd still like to see you call someone who smokes medical cannabis to ease their pain a waster to their face.
Belldandy wrote:
> Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Jeez... I didn't actually wish a crippling disease on Bell. I
> wasn't
> sitting there with my eyes closed, clapping my hands and chanting.
> It was my way of responding to a frankly heartless pos**t from Bell
> sugges**ting that perhaps if he had any experience in the matter,
> maybe
> he'd be more accepting of other people's opinions.
>
> Lying b£s**tard. More like you typed it in anger then did a
> retake along the lines of "sh*t he has a point and it looks a
> bit sick what with me being the mod here, better pretend I was
> joking".
>
> Was**ter.
Your attempts at flaming are laughable. I am flame retardant, whereas you are jus**t retardant.
> Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Jeez... I didn't actually wish a crippling disease on Bell. I
> wasn't
> sitting there with my eyes closed, clapping my hands and chanting.
> It was my way of responding to a frankly heartless pos**t from Bell
> sugges**ting that perhaps if he had any experience in the matter,
> maybe
> he'd be more accepting of other people's opinions.
>
> Lying b£s**tard. More like you typed it in anger then did a
> retake along the lines of "sh*t he has a point and it looks a
> bit sick what with me being the mod here, better pretend I was
> joking".
>
> Was**ter.
Your attempts at flaming are laughable. I am flame retardant, whereas you are jus**t retardant.
Belldandy wrote:
> BUT IT IS STILL ILLEGAL.
But not all criminals are wasters. People break the law all the time, but they are not always wasters.
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 were dying, and your last chance to speak to them may be slipping away, you'd drive at the exact speed limit all the way home would you? And if you didn't, you'd be a waster? That's complete rubbish.
> BUT IT IS STILL ILLEGAL.
But not all criminals are wasters. People break the law all the time, but they are not always wasters.
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 were dying, and your last chance to speak to them may be slipping away, you'd drive at the exact speed limit all the way home would you? And if you didn't, you'd be a waster? That's complete rubbish.
Page: