The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> He's not wrong, it's one of those urban legends which is actually
> true. I've seen police admit it.
No, he is wrong. What he means is that you wont be prosecuted, but you do still break the law.
> Also, isn't there some law that forbids the police from arresting
> someone if they're not wearing certain items? Like the hat or
> something?
No, I can arrest people off duty in full civilian clothing if I so wish.
> He's not wrong, it's one of those urban legends which is actually
> true. I've seen police admit it.
No, he is wrong. What he means is that you wont be prosecuted, but you do still break the law.
> Also, isn't there some law that forbids the police from arresting
> someone if they're not wearing certain items? Like the hat or
> something?
No, I can arrest people off duty in full civilian clothing if I so wish.
He's not wrong, it's one of those urban legends which is actually true. I've seen police admit it.
Also, isn't there some law that forbids the police from arresting someone if they're not wearing certain items? Like the hat or something?
Also, isn't there some law that forbids the police from arresting someone if they're not wearing certain items? Like the hat or something?
:^)
Yukikaze wrote:
> Timmargh wrote:
> Can everyone say "pedantic" ?
>
> "Informed" is the word you are looking for. It's a fact
> that at 41 MPH in a 40MPH zone Snuggly, if stopped, would not be
> breaking the law unless he exceeded 44MPH.
I don't want to seem mean, but you're wrong.
> Timmargh wrote:
> Can everyone say "pedantic" ?
>
> "Informed" is the word you are looking for. It's a fact
> that at 41 MPH in a 40MPH zone Snuggly, if stopped, would not be
> breaking the law unless he exceeded 44MPH.
I don't want to seem mean, but you're wrong.
Yukikaze wrote:
> Mr Snuggly wrote:
> So every time I hit 41mph in a 40mph zone, that turns me into a
> waster? It's not the same thing, but you did ask someone to fault
> your logic. So I did.
>
> No, because you haven't broken the law.
>
> Speed limits can be exceeded by 10% of the stated total because of
> inconsistencies between speedometers on different makes of cars, same
> for speed cameras, most allow at least 10% before they are
> activated.
I would like to know where you got this from. If you drive at 41mph in a 40 zone then you are breaking the law.
Speed limits can be exceeded lawfully? What? They're a limit, they are THE limit, you exceed it you break the law.
> Mr Snuggly wrote:
> So every time I hit 41mph in a 40mph zone, that turns me into a
> waster? It's not the same thing, but you did ask someone to fault
> your logic. So I did.
>
> No, because you haven't broken the law.
>
> Speed limits can be exceeded by 10% of the stated total because of
> inconsistencies between speedometers on different makes of cars, same
> for speed cameras, most allow at least 10% before they are
> activated.
I would like to know where you got this from. If you drive at 41mph in a 40 zone then you are breaking the law.
Speed limits can be exceeded lawfully? What? They're a limit, they are THE limit, you exceed it you break the law.
Yukikaze wrote:
> Even as medication it's like saying "I'm broke so I'll go steal
> some money. It's okay because otherwise I'd have to work for it
> otherwise but then it'd take time and I'd get tired."
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> I pray you one day get a crippling disease that is untreatable using
> conventional medicine. And I mean that more than you might think.
Go Mr Snuggly!
> Even as medication it's like saying "I'm broke so I'll go steal
> some money. It's okay because otherwise I'd have to work for it
> otherwise but then it'd take time and I'd get tired."
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> I pray you one day get a crippling disease that is untreatable using
> conventional medicine. And I mean that more than you might think.
Go Mr Snuggly!
Yukikaze wrote:
> Because it's definitely illegal and we have a newly launched £1
> million campaign by the government to back that up. See, that is 1
> million that could have been used elsewhere, but instead has to be
> used for this. Now unless you have some liberal argument about the
> value of criminals to society or why some law breaking is okay then
> I'm wondering what reason you have EB.
I wasn't saying it wasn't illegal, I was saying not every criminal is a waster.
> While were here, and someone has used the example. If Cannabis use is
> okay, then it it okay if I do 50 mph around a residential area?
> Because it's not harming anyone, and I know what I'm doing, honest.
That is one of the most stupid comparisons I've heard.
> Because it's definitely illegal and we have a newly launched £1
> million campaign by the government to back that up. See, that is 1
> million that could have been used elsewhere, but instead has to be
> used for this. Now unless you have some liberal argument about the
> value of criminals to society or why some law breaking is okay then
> I'm wondering what reason you have EB.
I wasn't saying it wasn't illegal, I was saying not every criminal is a waster.
> While were here, and someone has used the example. If Cannabis use is
> okay, then it it okay if I do 50 mph around a residential area?
> Because it's not harming anyone, and I know what I'm doing, honest.
That is one of the most stupid comparisons I've heard.
Yukikaze wrote:
> And in answer to Snuggly, yes you are still a waster even if you go
> to Amsterdam because you've gone all that way, and akin to people who
> spend their days in Spain recovering from a nights excess drinking,
> you've gone all that way for sweet FA.
What if I went to Amsterdam to a cousin's wedding and smoked cannabis whilst I was there? Would that still make me a waster?
> And in answer to Snuggly, yes you are still a waster even if you go
> to Amsterdam because you've gone all that way, and akin to people who
> spend their days in Spain recovering from a nights excess drinking,
> you've gone all that way for sweet FA.
What if I went to Amsterdam to a cousin's wedding and smoked cannabis whilst I was there? Would that still make me a waster?
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> Just why you think I would need help requires explanation. I am
> responsible for my actions
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Yet you clearly break the law with your drug abuse? Doesn;t sound
> particularly responsible to me...
He didn't say "I'm acting responsibly", he said "I am responsible for my actions" meaning he's got no-one to blame but himself.
But, I assume you knew that but chose to ignore it to make yourself sound righteous.
> Just why you think I would need help requires explanation. I am
> responsible for my actions
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Yet you clearly break the law with your drug abuse? Doesn;t sound
> particularly responsible to me...
He didn't say "I'm acting responsibly", he said "I am responsible for my actions" meaning he's got no-one to blame but himself.
But, I assume you knew that but chose to ignore it to make yourself sound righteous.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> And if driving at 46mph makes me a waster, then I guess I'm just a
> big ol' wasteroo. I've wasted my life, whatever am I to do etc.
You waster!
*points*
Waster! Waster! Waster!
Etc.
:^D
> And if driving at 46mph makes me a waster, then I guess I'm just a
> big ol' wasteroo. I've wasted my life, whatever am I to do etc.
You waster!
*points*
Waster! Waster! Waster!
Etc.
:^D
Page: