The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> I don't want to get drawn into this, but it's true Bell, you did call
> Timmargh a waster for smoking it, and I thought that was a bit harsh.
> His primary reasons for smoking it are entirely different - even if
> he does enjoy getting stoned :D
BUT IT IS STILL ILLEGAL.
Hwo can you have law and order when people interpret what is okay and not based on benefits to them? Every person comitting crime has a reason and all that seperates them is the degree to which society classes that reason. But ultimately the law is still being broken regardless of the reason.
One thing I hate even more than those who break the law are those who seem to think they have licence to do so.
> I don't want to get drawn into this, but it's true Bell, you did call
> Timmargh a waster for smoking it, and I thought that was a bit harsh.
> His primary reasons for smoking it are entirely different - even if
> he does enjoy getting stoned :D
BUT IT IS STILL ILLEGAL.
Hwo can you have law and order when people interpret what is okay and not based on benefits to them? Every person comitting crime has a reason and all that seperates them is the degree to which society classes that reason. But ultimately the law is still being broken regardless of the reason.
One thing I hate even more than those who break the law are those who seem to think they have licence to do so.
Bell, I really think you'd benefit if YOU took it up...
For one thing you'd actually have experience of what you were talking about, understand what being high really is and how over-exadurated the effects really are, and it'll clear your head of all the stress, anger and confusion you seem to have nowdays.
I mean, you're not exactly a happy bunny nowdays are you... ;-)
For one thing you'd actually have experience of what you were talking about, understand what being high really is and how over-exadurated the effects really are, and it'll clear your head of all the stress, anger and confusion you seem to have nowdays.
I mean, you're not exactly a happy bunny nowdays are you... ;-)
Belldandy wrote:
>
> No I quite like it actually, we've got a thread sent wildly off
> course because a notable decides to just throw abuse around rather
> than talk about the topic, and thanks to Snuggly getting involved we
> can throw insults around at will. And "p!ss on your own
> chips"? That's one of the most crap phrases I've heard from you
> yet.
P!ss on your own chips - A northern colloquialism in widespread use. Mojo can probably confirm that. Heh; you're not much good at this, are you?
Off topic? Most of the posts are still about cannabis, and your total lack of understanding. Just cos you've started pretending those posts don't exist so's you can avoid 'em...well, that's your self-delusion, not the fault of the thread.
By the way, I think you'll find it's a bit hypocritical for you to whine and wail about insults when you start most of them off yourself. You only complain when you're the target of one that is more original than anything you can think up.
>
> No I quite like it actually, we've got a thread sent wildly off
> course because a notable decides to just throw abuse around rather
> than talk about the topic, and thanks to Snuggly getting involved we
> can throw insults around at will. And "p!ss on your own
> chips"? That's one of the most crap phrases I've heard from you
> yet.
P!ss on your own chips - A northern colloquialism in widespread use. Mojo can probably confirm that. Heh; you're not much good at this, are you?
Off topic? Most of the posts are still about cannabis, and your total lack of understanding. Just cos you've started pretending those posts don't exist so's you can avoid 'em...well, that's your self-delusion, not the fault of the thread.
By the way, I think you'll find it's a bit hypocritical for you to whine and wail about insults when you start most of them off yourself. You only complain when you're the target of one that is more original than anything you can think up.
I don't want to get drawn into this, but it's true Bell, you did call Timmargh a waster for smoking it, and I thought that was a bit harsh. His primary reasons for smoking it are entirely different - even if he does enjoy getting stoned :D
Light wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Jackus wrote:
> Bell, you're such an argumentative mongoid. It's not like we need to
> jusp on him for calling a wheel-chair user a waster, because that IS
> political correctness gone mad, but just the fact he's such an
> idiot.
>
>
> It wasn't even typing that TIMMAGH attacked, it was that your bloody
> insult made no sense, Bell!
>
> Now Calm down, you huge pratt.
>
> Jeez, are you lot brain dead or something?
>
> No Bell, but you clearly are. Once again, I'll take this slowly so
> you'll understand it.
>
> 1. You said all cannabis users are wasters.
> 2. Timmargh, who takes it for pain relief, asked if that applied to
> him
> 3. You said it did
> 4. You were then slated for your heartless and priggish lack of
> compassion and empathy.
> 5. You're now trying to say that everyone else was slagging Timmargh,
> and not you.
> 6. It's not working, and you're getting upset.
>
> Do you see?
>
> If some of you had a brain cell you would know that Timmargh had
> been
> making fun of my labelling criminals wasters. Just for the brain
> deficient morons here, that's criminals=wasters.
>
> So...the Tory party front bench; presumably they're all wasters then?
> The ones who admitted to cannabis use?
>
>
> Then Goatboy makes the huge leap that my waster comment referred to
> Timmargh being in a wheelchair. Which to my mind shows that the only
> discrimination in this is the fact that someone can assume such a
> comment refers to a disability. But oh no, Goatboyt hadn't actually
> read the topic back to where the waster comment originated.
>
> No dear boy; as has been said, the discrimination is on your part; in
> your world, Timmargh is a waster for taking a drug that relieves his
> pain.
> It's fun watching you twist yourself into knots trying to distract
> attention from the huge, horrendously idiotic statements you make!
>
>
> So if you lot want to continue to assume that the waster comment was
> referring to any disability then you can, but it is you and not I
> that has made that assumption.
>
> No, we're assuming that your waster comment to Timmargh was on the
> far side of disgraceful, because you're branding all disabled people
> who take a drug that relieves their pain and may or may not cause
> less side effects than any other, a waster.
>
> Got that darling? Or d'you want to avoid addressing it whilst trying
> to insult me? And then complain if anyone DARES to insult you back?
> Heh, same old Bell; a moral, intellectual, and emotional coward.
Same old Light, peering down at those with different views and having a laugh like a self important school kid.
Carry on. Oh, last time I looked there was plenty of pain medication that was legal. You accuse me of branding all disabled people who take a drug, which I do not. Thats....POSSIBLY SLANDEROUS.
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. But without a few posts you two have made it all about him being disabled... when previously everyone just treated him like any other person in this argument. Way to go!
> Belldandy wrote:
> Jackus wrote:
> Bell, you're such an argumentative mongoid. It's not like we need to
> jusp on him for calling a wheel-chair user a waster, because that IS
> political correctness gone mad, but just the fact he's such an
> idiot.
>
>
> It wasn't even typing that TIMMAGH attacked, it was that your bloody
> insult made no sense, Bell!
>
> Now Calm down, you huge pratt.
>
> Jeez, are you lot brain dead or something?
>
> No Bell, but you clearly are. Once again, I'll take this slowly so
> you'll understand it.
>
> 1. You said all cannabis users are wasters.
> 2. Timmargh, who takes it for pain relief, asked if that applied to
> him
> 3. You said it did
> 4. You were then slated for your heartless and priggish lack of
> compassion and empathy.
> 5. You're now trying to say that everyone else was slagging Timmargh,
> and not you.
> 6. It's not working, and you're getting upset.
>
> Do you see?
>
> If some of you had a brain cell you would know that Timmargh had
> been
> making fun of my labelling criminals wasters. Just for the brain
> deficient morons here, that's criminals=wasters.
>
> So...the Tory party front bench; presumably they're all wasters then?
> The ones who admitted to cannabis use?
>
>
> Then Goatboy makes the huge leap that my waster comment referred to
> Timmargh being in a wheelchair. Which to my mind shows that the only
> discrimination in this is the fact that someone can assume such a
> comment refers to a disability. But oh no, Goatboyt hadn't actually
> read the topic back to where the waster comment originated.
>
> No dear boy; as has been said, the discrimination is on your part; in
> your world, Timmargh is a waster for taking a drug that relieves his
> pain.
> It's fun watching you twist yourself into knots trying to distract
> attention from the huge, horrendously idiotic statements you make!
>
>
> So if you lot want to continue to assume that the waster comment was
> referring to any disability then you can, but it is you and not I
> that has made that assumption.
>
> No, we're assuming that your waster comment to Timmargh was on the
> far side of disgraceful, because you're branding all disabled people
> who take a drug that relieves their pain and may or may not cause
> less side effects than any other, a waster.
>
> Got that darling? Or d'you want to avoid addressing it whilst trying
> to insult me? And then complain if anyone DARES to insult you back?
> Heh, same old Bell; a moral, intellectual, and emotional coward.
Same old Light, peering down at those with different views and having a laugh like a self important school kid.
Carry on. Oh, last time I looked there was plenty of pain medication that was legal. You accuse me of branding all disabled people who take a drug, which I do not. Thats....POSSIBLY SLANDEROUS.
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. But without a few posts you two have made it all about him being disabled... when previously everyone just treated him like any other person in this argument. Way to go!
Hmmm...looks like Bell is now in the "screaming frenzy" stage of posting.
By current acclerated standards, he will announce his departure of the forums in a day or so, complaining we're all idiots and that staff pick on him.
And return in 2 weeks.
*yawn*
Nothing like the predictability of the genuinely retarded.
By current acclerated standards, he will announce his departure of the forums in a day or so, complaining we're all idiots and that staff pick on him.
And return in 2 weeks.
*yawn*
Nothing like the predictability of the genuinely retarded.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> No problem. Unfortunately being a commie and all you don't have a
> god...
If only you were more self-effacing with more regularity; after all, theres lots for you to laugh at.
>
> At first I thought about putting some equally nice comments about
> wishing you dragged off to one of those wonderful dictatorships you
> like where you'd be tortured, shot etc, or maybe wishing that you
> od'ed on something and died with your tongue curling down your throat
> and frothing at the mouth.
That would be the dictatorships that are funded by and kept in place by the US, right?
>
> But then I think, do I really care that much, I mean really? After
> all you're just another Goatboy in training whose supposed all
> knowing knowledge has got him not very far. Nope, your continued
> posting is enjoyment enough for me.
Heh. Well, if you don't care that much, why reply? Why post a response at all? And why make a fairly poor attempt to provoke anger if you're so unconcerned? Mwah ha ha ha haaaa! Your attempts at faking a lack of concern rather fall flat after your "Offensive and possibly slanderous" pant-wetter a while back. It's painfully obvious that you do care what others think of you. I say painful, because you're held in as much regard as a Tory at a swingers party. And your only response? "It's not me, it's all of you".
Self delusion has kept you going for a while, hasn't it dear boy?
>
> No problem. Unfortunately being a commie and all you don't have a
> god...
If only you were more self-effacing with more regularity; after all, theres lots for you to laugh at.
>
> At first I thought about putting some equally nice comments about
> wishing you dragged off to one of those wonderful dictatorships you
> like where you'd be tortured, shot etc, or maybe wishing that you
> od'ed on something and died with your tongue curling down your throat
> and frothing at the mouth.
That would be the dictatorships that are funded by and kept in place by the US, right?
>
> But then I think, do I really care that much, I mean really? After
> all you're just another Goatboy in training whose supposed all
> knowing knowledge has got him not very far. Nope, your continued
> posting is enjoyment enough for me.
Heh. Well, if you don't care that much, why reply? Why post a response at all? And why make a fairly poor attempt to provoke anger if you're so unconcerned? Mwah ha ha ha haaaa! Your attempts at faking a lack of concern rather fall flat after your "Offensive and possibly slanderous" pant-wetter a while back. It's painfully obvious that you do care what others think of you. I say painful, because you're held in as much regard as a Tory at a swingers party. And your only response? "It's not me, it's all of you".
Self delusion has kept you going for a while, hasn't it dear boy?
Light wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Maybe at the start, it's more a staff sanctioned slanging match
> now...
>
>
> Aww, poor Bell; what's the matter? Are you upset that you've p!ssed
> on your own chips by slagging off the staff? After all, they rescued
> you last time when you went into auto-squeal. What are you gonna do
> now Bell? Oh, that's right; you're going to blame everyone else, then
> stamp off in a huff, aren't you?
No I quite like it actually, we've got a thread sent wildly off course because a notable decides to just throw abuse around rather than talk about the topic, and thanks to Snuggly getting involved we can throw insults around at will. And "p!ss on your own chips"? That's one of the most crap phrases I've heard from you yet.
> Belldandy wrote:
> Maybe at the start, it's more a staff sanctioned slanging match
> now...
>
>
> Aww, poor Bell; what's the matter? Are you upset that you've p!ssed
> on your own chips by slagging off the staff? After all, they rescued
> you last time when you went into auto-squeal. What are you gonna do
> now Bell? Oh, that's right; you're going to blame everyone else, then
> stamp off in a huff, aren't you?
No I quite like it actually, we've got a thread sent wildly off course because a notable decides to just throw abuse around rather than talk about the topic, and thanks to Snuggly getting involved we can throw insults around at will. And "p!ss on your own chips"? That's one of the most crap phrases I've heard from you yet.
Belldandy wrote:
> Jackus wrote:
> Bell, you're such an argumentative mongoid. It's not like we need to
> jusp on him for calling a wheel-chair user a waster, because that IS
> political correctness gone mad, but just the fact he's such an
> idiot.
>
>
> It wasn't even typing that TIMMAGH attacked, it was that your bloody
> insult made no sense, Bell!
>
> Now Calm down, you huge pratt.
>
> Jeez, are you lot brain dead or something?
No Bell, but you clearly are. Once again, I'll take this slowly so you'll understand it.
1. You said all cannabis users are wasters.
2. Timmargh, who takes it for pain relief, asked if that applied to him
3. You said it did
4. You were then slated for your heartless and priggish lack of compassion and empathy.
5. You're now trying to say that everyone else was slagging Timmargh, and not you.
6. It's not working, and you're getting upset.
Do you see?
>
> If some of you had a brain cell you would know that Timmargh had been
> making fun of my labelling criminals wasters. Just for the brain
> deficient morons here, that's criminals=wasters.
So...the Tory party front bench; presumably they're all wasters then? The ones who admitted to cannabis use?
> Then Goatboy makes the huge leap that my waster comment referred to
> Timmargh being in a wheelchair. Which to my mind shows that the only
> discrimination in this is the fact that someone can assume such a
> comment refers to a disability. But oh no, Goatboyt hadn't actually
> read the topic back to where the waster comment originated.
No dear boy; as has been said, the discrimination is on your part; in your world, Timmargh is a waster for taking a drug that relieves his pain.
It's fun watching you twist yourself into knots trying to distract attention from the huge, horrendously idiotic statements you make!
>
> So if you lot want to continue to assume that the waster comment was
> referring to any disability then you can, but it is you and not I
> that has made that assumption.
No, we're assuming that your waster comment to Timmargh was on the far side of disgraceful, because you're branding all disabled people who take a drug that relieves their pain and may or may not cause less side effects than any other, a waster.
Got that darling? Or d'you want to avoid addressing it whilst trying to insult me? And then complain if anyone DARES to insult you back? Heh, same old Bell; a moral, intellectual, and emotional coward.
> Jackus wrote:
> Bell, you're such an argumentative mongoid. It's not like we need to
> jusp on him for calling a wheel-chair user a waster, because that IS
> political correctness gone mad, but just the fact he's such an
> idiot.
>
>
> It wasn't even typing that TIMMAGH attacked, it was that your bloody
> insult made no sense, Bell!
>
> Now Calm down, you huge pratt.
>
> Jeez, are you lot brain dead or something?
No Bell, but you clearly are. Once again, I'll take this slowly so you'll understand it.
1. You said all cannabis users are wasters.
2. Timmargh, who takes it for pain relief, asked if that applied to him
3. You said it did
4. You were then slated for your heartless and priggish lack of compassion and empathy.
5. You're now trying to say that everyone else was slagging Timmargh, and not you.
6. It's not working, and you're getting upset.
Do you see?
>
> If some of you had a brain cell you would know that Timmargh had been
> making fun of my labelling criminals wasters. Just for the brain
> deficient morons here, that's criminals=wasters.
So...the Tory party front bench; presumably they're all wasters then? The ones who admitted to cannabis use?
> Then Goatboy makes the huge leap that my waster comment referred to
> Timmargh being in a wheelchair. Which to my mind shows that the only
> discrimination in this is the fact that someone can assume such a
> comment refers to a disability. But oh no, Goatboyt hadn't actually
> read the topic back to where the waster comment originated.
No dear boy; as has been said, the discrimination is on your part; in your world, Timmargh is a waster for taking a drug that relieves his pain.
It's fun watching you twist yourself into knots trying to distract attention from the huge, horrendously idiotic statements you make!
>
> So if you lot want to continue to assume that the waster comment was
> referring to any disability then you can, but it is you and not I
> that has made that assumption.
No, we're assuming that your waster comment to Timmargh was on the far side of disgraceful, because you're branding all disabled people who take a drug that relieves their pain and may or may not cause less side effects than any other, a waster.
Got that darling? Or d'you want to avoid addressing it whilst trying to insult me? And then complain if anyone DARES to insult you back? Heh, same old Bell; a moral, intellectual, and emotional coward.
Page: