The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Maverick42 wrote:
> That's actually a compelling argument.
>
> How come everyone's against you?
We're against him because most of his posts weren't arguments, they were sweeping statements branding any drug user - and indeed anyone who breaks a single law - a waster.
> That's actually a compelling argument.
>
> How come everyone's against you?
We're against him because most of his posts weren't arguments, they were sweeping statements branding any drug user - and indeed anyone who breaks a single law - a waster.
English_Bloke wrote:
> Maverick42 wrote:
> Yukikaze wrote:
> You cannot have law and order when a society decides who can break
> the law based on their social status.
>
> I have no idea WHAT has been going on.
>
> But surely everyone agrees that you can't fault that statement? No?
> Yes?
>
> Yep, that statement is fairly astute...it has no relevance to the
> thread, but it is astute none-the-less.
Really? I think it is really relevant. I don't see much political will to downgrade or legalise other drugs which are not the soft drug of choice for the middle and upper class...
I will bet you EB that if you arrested two people for Cannabis use - one a homeless person, the other a twentysomething office worker, and put them in court, that the sentences would be entirely different
> Maverick42 wrote:
> Yukikaze wrote:
> You cannot have law and order when a society decides who can break
> the law based on their social status.
>
> I have no idea WHAT has been going on.
>
> But surely everyone agrees that you can't fault that statement? No?
> Yes?
>
> Yep, that statement is fairly astute...it has no relevance to the
> thread, but it is astute none-the-less.
Really? I think it is really relevant. I don't see much political will to downgrade or legalise other drugs which are not the soft drug of choice for the middle and upper class...
I will bet you EB that if you arrested two people for Cannabis use - one a homeless person, the other a twentysomething office worker, and put them in court, that the sentences would be entirely different
Flockhart wrote:
> the fact is that when society decides to break a law on mass,the
> police cant do f**k about it.so by this notion we are the law and we
> control this country.
Spoken like a person who has only lived in a reasonably free democracy. Actually, under laws brought in by our very own Tony Blair, the police actually have greater powers and could certainly deal with enmass law breaking on a certain scale.
Your notion is shortsighted, what has actually happened in the past decades is that the powers of the state have appeared to decline when in actual fact they have increased and can be brought into action when needed.
> the fact is that when society decides to break a law on mass,the
> police cant do f**k about it.so by this notion we are the law and we
> control this country.
Spoken like a person who has only lived in a reasonably free democracy. Actually, under laws brought in by our very own Tony Blair, the police actually have greater powers and could certainly deal with enmass law breaking on a certain scale.
Your notion is shortsighted, what has actually happened in the past decades is that the powers of the state have appeared to decline when in actual fact they have increased and can be brought into action when needed.
Strafio wrote:
> For what it does to people's health?
> Well... in Timmargh's case it's good for his health, and that the
> good effects outweigh the bad (almost non-existant effects) of his
> moderate use.
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?
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. Cannabis also contains more tar than any legal cigarettes. 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".
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> So why do YOU think it should be so illeagal?
Read what I've put. And it's illegal, not illeagal.
> For what it does to people's health?
> Well... in Timmargh's case it's good for his health, and that the
> good effects outweigh the bad (almost non-existant effects) of his
> moderate use.
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?
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. Cannabis also contains more tar than any legal cigarettes. 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".
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> So why do YOU think it should be so illeagal?
Read what I've put. And it's illegal, not illeagal.
Ah good. Just wanted to make sure people knew that I was referring to that statement when I said Yukikaze had a "compelling argument". Didn't want people thinking I was agreeing with everything Bell said, as I haven't got a clue about half of what's gone on.
Depends, doesn't it though?
When we are given the power, and a water cannon, we can do something about it.
When we are given the power, and a water cannon, we can do something about it.
the fact is that when society decides to break a law on mass,the police cant do f**k about it.so by this notion we are the law and we control this country.
Maverick42 wrote:
> Yukikaze wrote:
> You cannot have law and order when a society decides who can break
> the law based on their social status.
>
> I have no idea WHAT has been going on.
>
> But surely everyone agrees that you can't fault that statement? No?
> Yes?
Yep, that statement is fairly astute...it has no relevance to the thread, but it is astute none-the-less.
> Yukikaze wrote:
> You cannot have law and order when a society decides who can break
> the law based on their social status.
>
> I have no idea WHAT has been going on.
>
> But surely everyone agrees that you can't fault that statement? No?
> Yes?
Yep, that statement is fairly astute...it has no relevance to the thread, but it is astute none-the-less.
I have never taken cannabis and I don't plan on trying it, what I disliked about your argument, Bell, was the way you labled everyone who commits any crime to be a waster.
I also disliked the way that you then moved on to name-calling just because people picked your posts to pieces.
I also disliked the way that you then moved on to name-calling just because people picked your posts to pieces.
Yukikaze wrote:
> You cannot have law and order when a society decides who can break
> the law based on their social status.
I have no idea WHAT has been going on.
But surely everyone agrees that you can't fault that statement? No? Yes?
> You cannot have law and order when a society decides who can break
> the law based on their social status.
I have no idea WHAT has been going on.
But surely everyone agrees that you can't fault that statement? No? Yes?
Page: