The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Yukikaze wrote:
>
> So? Like I even care, it just shows what kind of person you are
> Snuggly. You'd have to be a pretty sick f**k to wish that on anyone.
> Guess that makes you a sick f**k and only lowers further my opinion
> of you. Which was pretty low before anyway, but I'm guessing that's
> likewise from your side.
As bad and as sick as saying you're glad someone lost their job (your little jibe about the law society)? Or do those rules not apply to you Bell darling?
Heheheheheheh...I've never seen someone get such a wide array of new ones torn for them as you in this thread Bell.
>
> So? Like I even care, it just shows what kind of person you are
> Snuggly. You'd have to be a pretty sick f**k to wish that on anyone.
> Guess that makes you a sick f**k and only lowers further my opinion
> of you. Which was pretty low before anyway, but I'm guessing that's
> likewise from your side.
As bad and as sick as saying you're glad someone lost their job (your little jibe about the law society)? Or do those rules not apply to you Bell darling?
Heheheheheheh...I've never seen someone get such a wide array of new ones torn for them as you in this thread Bell.
Belldandy wrote:
Supreme commander moron, or just a web mod? Is there a difference?
----------------
I would have thought Supreme Commander Moron, and "just a web mod" had the ever-so slight difference between them.
Supreme commander moron, or just a web mod? Is there a difference?
----------------
I would have thought Supreme Commander Moron, and "just a web mod" had the ever-so slight difference between them.
Goatboy wrote:
Just as alcohol doesn't turn every drinker in a pain-wracked addict that beats his family.
-----------
I can adhere to this one. I haven't smacked one family member yet via alcohol.
Being 19 may have some bearing on this, but I'll leave it to the eggheads of the forum to decide that one.
Just as alcohol doesn't turn every drinker in a pain-wracked addict that beats his family.
-----------
I can adhere to this one. I haven't smacked one family member yet via alcohol.
Being 19 may have some bearing on this, but I'll leave it to the eggheads of the forum to decide that one.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> The day Captain Conservative actually experiences some of the things
> he rants and raves about may just be the day he's taken seriously.
-------
That's exactly the problem.
He holds forth on every single issue with a sage-like wisdom, yet has without fail, never experienced or made himself aware of what he is arguing about.
It's all using facts from other people and 2nd hand googled info.
Does smoking pot/cannabis/skunk turn you into a feckless criminal that is filled with murderlust and just wants to lay about thieving all day?
No, I can speak with 100% certainty that it doesn't do that to everybody.
Just as alcohol doesn't turn every drinker in a pain-wracked addict that beats his family.
Does smoking resin lead to heroin, crack and nan rape? Nope.
How do I know this? Because I haven't done anything more illegal than purchase it and enjoy in the comfort of my own home. Never once killed anybody, never once burgled some old pensioner and shat in their tea cosy etc etc.
It's just banner-headlines with your arguments Bell.
"DRUGS ARE EVIL!"
"BLAIR IS GOOD" blah blah blah, there's never any black and white.
Because you have zero life experience. Your views are based on what The Daily Mail and Fox News tells you, and you never go beyond that.
That's why your arguments collapse after more than 2 posts asking you to explain - because you don't actually know what you're talking about.
Anime? Sure and you've discussed that with Kit for an age. There's a subject you know about. And you'll notice a complete lack of ridicule or arguing in that thread.
Why? Because you are familiar with the material.
But as soon as you stray outside the confines of cartoons and computer games, you desperately try and validate points somebody else made and you read.
You can't talk from experience, and there's no amount of google sites can make up for that.
Assface.
> The day Captain Conservative actually experiences some of the things
> he rants and raves about may just be the day he's taken seriously.
-------
That's exactly the problem.
He holds forth on every single issue with a sage-like wisdom, yet has without fail, never experienced or made himself aware of what he is arguing about.
It's all using facts from other people and 2nd hand googled info.
Does smoking pot/cannabis/skunk turn you into a feckless criminal that is filled with murderlust and just wants to lay about thieving all day?
No, I can speak with 100% certainty that it doesn't do that to everybody.
Just as alcohol doesn't turn every drinker in a pain-wracked addict that beats his family.
Does smoking resin lead to heroin, crack and nan rape? Nope.
How do I know this? Because I haven't done anything more illegal than purchase it and enjoy in the comfort of my own home. Never once killed anybody, never once burgled some old pensioner and shat in their tea cosy etc etc.
It's just banner-headlines with your arguments Bell.
"DRUGS ARE EVIL!"
"BLAIR IS GOOD" blah blah blah, there's never any black and white.
Because you have zero life experience. Your views are based on what The Daily Mail and Fox News tells you, and you never go beyond that.
That's why your arguments collapse after more than 2 posts asking you to explain - because you don't actually know what you're talking about.
Anime? Sure and you've discussed that with Kit for an age. There's a subject you know about. And you'll notice a complete lack of ridicule or arguing in that thread.
Why? Because you are familiar with the material.
But as soon as you stray outside the confines of cartoons and computer games, you desperately try and validate points somebody else made and you read.
You can't talk from experience, and there's no amount of google sites can make up for that.
Assface.
Timmargh wrote:
> If other people want to speak for me then they're welcome to. There
> seems to be a common misconception that disabled people are
> ferociously independent and have huge chips on their shoulder. Not
> true.
---
*ruffles his hair*
That's my special little soldier!
> If other people want to speak for me then they're welcome to. There
> seems to be a common misconception that disabled people are
> ferociously independent and have huge chips on their shoulder. Not
> true.
---
*ruffles his hair*
That's my special little soldier!
The day Captain Conservative actually experiences some of the things he rants and raves about may just be the day he's taken seriously.
Bell is... adamant that drugs are bad, kill people, make them 'trip out' and turn you into a waster. But Bell has never tried drugs, and isn't willing to listen to people that have.
Bell is... sure that Michael Moore is a 'whinging liberal' who is guilty of stirring up trouble and falsifying his evidence. But Bell has never read or seen any of Moore's work. Ditto Chomsky.
Bell is... sick of people 'raising his taxes' by speeding and breaking the law. But Bell does not drive and has never broken even the smallest law in his life.
You don't have to have experienced drugs to comment on them, likewise you don't have to have read any Moore to comment on him, but 99% of your arguments are paper-thin, Google-linked, group-think gobbledegook which most of the time you have trouble keeping up with yourself. You run yourself round in circles (this 'waster' issue got hilariously out of hand - you never did manage to back your own theory up) and ultimately end up tripping over your own retarded shoelaces.
But alas, the forums wouldn't be the same without its 'shame-pinata'. So keep posting Bell, it's fun to fall in on the dumb kid every now and then.
Bell is... adamant that drugs are bad, kill people, make them 'trip out' and turn you into a waster. But Bell has never tried drugs, and isn't willing to listen to people that have.
Bell is... sure that Michael Moore is a 'whinging liberal' who is guilty of stirring up trouble and falsifying his evidence. But Bell has never read or seen any of Moore's work. Ditto Chomsky.
Bell is... sick of people 'raising his taxes' by speeding and breaking the law. But Bell does not drive and has never broken even the smallest law in his life.
You don't have to have experienced drugs to comment on them, likewise you don't have to have read any Moore to comment on him, but 99% of your arguments are paper-thin, Google-linked, group-think gobbledegook which most of the time you have trouble keeping up with yourself. You run yourself round in circles (this 'waster' issue got hilariously out of hand - you never did manage to back your own theory up) and ultimately end up tripping over your own retarded shoelaces.
But alas, the forums wouldn't be the same without its 'shame-pinata'. So keep posting Bell, it's fun to fall in on the dumb kid every now and then.
And Bell, we're not importing THAT much anymore, and we're not accepting the poor quality of tar filled hash resins either.
Look:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ uk_news/story/0,3604,915712,00.html
Look:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ uk_news/story/0,3604,915712,00.html
Sheesh!
This has gone a long way since last night... :-S
Yukikaze wrote:
> But no one ever actually answered my perfectly reasonable question.
>
> If it has medicinal uses why has no one developed a legal drug from
> it? Medicine largely comes from plant sources and nature. Why has no
> one ever manufactured this wonder drug that would have massive
> potential as it would apparently be the only thing to work?
I don't know.
Perhaps scientists were sort of reserved about promoting illegal (splet it right this time :-D) substances without full testing first.
Anyway, they seem to be fine with it now.
> Timmargh may well be relieving pain now but as a long term user he's
> storing up trouble for the future. Long term mild cannabis users have
> greater risk of lung cancer, respiratory diseases and bronchitus than
> regular smokers.
Yeah. Smoking it does your lungs in, but seeing as he's only doing no more than 2 joints a day, that's less damaging than a pack of 10 ciggarettes.
(1 joint is supposedly the equvilant of 4 regulars).
Besides, not EVERYONE wants to smoke it.
If I were to take it, I'd stew it in tea or mix in food.
> Cannabis also contains more tar than any legal
> cigarettes.
The plant grows with natural tar?
You mean the average hash resin has more tar than any legal ciggarettes.
Well if it was legalised or home grown then purity of the product wouldn't be such an issue.
Infact, when pure I've heard (although this might have been incorrect) that it's less harmful than regular ciggs.
> Plus research in this field is at the stage of that into
> smoking about 50 years ago, back when it was thought "safe to
> smoke".
That's actually a fair point (if an exaduration - we all know there's risks).
We don't FULLY understand all the consequences, but the tests so far that the effects of moderate cannabis intake are fairly light, and they do slow down the brain reactions but this process reverses once the user gives up the drug.
> The fact is that it is not the Cannabis which is having the effect,
> but one component of it - Cannabinoid. The other 399 parts are all
> useless as far as medicinal properties go and are effectively crap.
I'm no doctor so I can't argue this one, but it wouldn't suprise me if this one compoment accounted for a large percentage if the drug, if it was the ONLY helpful substance within it.
> There is also the case of how Cannabis is obtained because it's
> illegal to grow or buy it (without a licence). Revenue from illegal
> sales is untaxed and there are thought to be only a few actual
> distributors in the UK for the necessary gear to grow Cannabis - they
> accept the risk of being caught because the profit is around 60-70%
> on everything involved. In 2002 the Cannabis industry was estimated
> to be worth £5 billion in the UK alone. That's five billion
> pounds of illegal and untaxed revenue in this country that is finding
> it's way into other illegal activities by it's very nature in many
> cases. Much of the Cannabis comes from North African countries where
> workers are paid on par with Nike sweatshop workers and whose owners
> are akin to the near untouchable drug barons of South America.
Well that's what happens to anything that's been outlawed and illeagalised.
It's like a light scale version on 1920's "prohibited" America.
> Now bear in mind that leagal alcohol and leagal tobacco are just as
> bad, and in some ways worse.
> For starters get your facts straight. Normal alcohol drinking within
> recommended limits has no long term adverse effects, in fact certain
> kinds appear to have positive effects on people's health.
Well yeah.
And I think you'll find that pure Cannabis is similar in that moderate consumption within certain limits leave no long term effects.
It's only serious abuse that leads to brain damage, just like serious alcohol abuse leads to liver problems.
> Cigarettes are not as bad as Cannabis, but they are certainly bad in
> terms of health implications for people using them for even a short
> period of time. Unfortunately our government receives vast amounts of
> revenue from the activity and years of advertising has created a mass
> of smokers who are quite happy to pay to kill themselves. In addition
> the industry has proven adept at keeping it's secrets to itself. Like
> what is actually in a cigarette and, another star example, that
> lights are actually as bad as regular cigarettes.
Fair enough.
I'm not a big fan of smoking either.
But hey, you don't have to SMOKE cannabis! ;-)
>> So why do YOU think it should be so illeagal?
>
> Read what I've put. And it's illegal, not illeagal.
Okay.
So I can see why you don't want it so easily available to the masses, with good reason. Even if it's only on the same scale as ciggs and alcohol then you see them as problems enough and don't want to add even more. That's fine.
But calling people wasters, simply because they're doing something that breaks the law, despite it harming no one and actually benefiting their health, and comparing drug use (where the only possible victim is the user) to commiting crimes where other people are the victim is plain blind biggoted ignorance.
This has gone a long way since last night... :-S
Yukikaze wrote:
> But no one ever actually answered my perfectly reasonable question.
>
> If it has medicinal uses why has no one developed a legal drug from
> it? Medicine largely comes from plant sources and nature. Why has no
> one ever manufactured this wonder drug that would have massive
> potential as it would apparently be the only thing to work?
I don't know.
Perhaps scientists were sort of reserved about promoting illegal (splet it right this time :-D) substances without full testing first.
Anyway, they seem to be fine with it now.
> Timmargh may well be relieving pain now but as a long term user he's
> storing up trouble for the future. Long term mild cannabis users have
> greater risk of lung cancer, respiratory diseases and bronchitus than
> regular smokers.
Yeah. Smoking it does your lungs in, but seeing as he's only doing no more than 2 joints a day, that's less damaging than a pack of 10 ciggarettes.
(1 joint is supposedly the equvilant of 4 regulars).
Besides, not EVERYONE wants to smoke it.
If I were to take it, I'd stew it in tea or mix in food.
> Cannabis also contains more tar than any legal
> cigarettes.
The plant grows with natural tar?
You mean the average hash resin has more tar than any legal ciggarettes.
Well if it was legalised or home grown then purity of the product wouldn't be such an issue.
Infact, when pure I've heard (although this might have been incorrect) that it's less harmful than regular ciggs.
> Plus research in this field is at the stage of that into
> smoking about 50 years ago, back when it was thought "safe to
> smoke".
That's actually a fair point (if an exaduration - we all know there's risks).
We don't FULLY understand all the consequences, but the tests so far that the effects of moderate cannabis intake are fairly light, and they do slow down the brain reactions but this process reverses once the user gives up the drug.
> The fact is that it is not the Cannabis which is having the effect,
> but one component of it - Cannabinoid. The other 399 parts are all
> useless as far as medicinal properties go and are effectively crap.
I'm no doctor so I can't argue this one, but it wouldn't suprise me if this one compoment accounted for a large percentage if the drug, if it was the ONLY helpful substance within it.
> There is also the case of how Cannabis is obtained because it's
> illegal to grow or buy it (without a licence). Revenue from illegal
> sales is untaxed and there are thought to be only a few actual
> distributors in the UK for the necessary gear to grow Cannabis - they
> accept the risk of being caught because the profit is around 60-70%
> on everything involved. In 2002 the Cannabis industry was estimated
> to be worth £5 billion in the UK alone. That's five billion
> pounds of illegal and untaxed revenue in this country that is finding
> it's way into other illegal activities by it's very nature in many
> cases. Much of the Cannabis comes from North African countries where
> workers are paid on par with Nike sweatshop workers and whose owners
> are akin to the near untouchable drug barons of South America.
Well that's what happens to anything that's been outlawed and illeagalised.
It's like a light scale version on 1920's "prohibited" America.
> Now bear in mind that leagal alcohol and leagal tobacco are just as
> bad, and in some ways worse.
> For starters get your facts straight. Normal alcohol drinking within
> recommended limits has no long term adverse effects, in fact certain
> kinds appear to have positive effects on people's health.
Well yeah.
And I think you'll find that pure Cannabis is similar in that moderate consumption within certain limits leave no long term effects.
It's only serious abuse that leads to brain damage, just like serious alcohol abuse leads to liver problems.
> Cigarettes are not as bad as Cannabis, but they are certainly bad in
> terms of health implications for people using them for even a short
> period of time. Unfortunately our government receives vast amounts of
> revenue from the activity and years of advertising has created a mass
> of smokers who are quite happy to pay to kill themselves. In addition
> the industry has proven adept at keeping it's secrets to itself. Like
> what is actually in a cigarette and, another star example, that
> lights are actually as bad as regular cigarettes.
Fair enough.
I'm not a big fan of smoking either.
But hey, you don't have to SMOKE cannabis! ;-)
>> So why do YOU think it should be so illeagal?
>
> Read what I've put. And it's illegal, not illeagal.
Okay.
So I can see why you don't want it so easily available to the masses, with good reason. Even if it's only on the same scale as ciggs and alcohol then you see them as problems enough and don't want to add even more. That's fine.
But calling people wasters, simply because they're doing something that breaks the law, despite it harming no one and actually benefiting their health, and comparing drug use (where the only possible victim is the user) to commiting crimes where other people are the victim is plain blind biggoted ignorance.
Icarus wrote:
> I hope you did't give the dog some; wouldn't want to see a dog high.
>
> On second thoughts, give him a little. WOOF!
Heh. No, I love him too much to do something stupid like that. Besides, I always smoke outside.
> I hope you did't give the dog some; wouldn't want to see a dog high.
>
> On second thoughts, give him a little. WOOF!
Heh. No, I love him too much to do something stupid like that. Besides, I always smoke outside.
*long low whistle*
Do you guys even care any more? If Bell wants to go around thinking everyone in this world is a waster then that's his problem. I don't think this argument is going anywhere - do you?
Do you guys even care any more? If Bell wants to go around thinking everyone in this world is a waster then that's his problem. I don't think this argument is going anywhere - do you?
Page: