The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> Comparing the sale of cannabis, a drug which although harmful, is a
> lot less harmful than alcohol and tobacco put together, to legalising
> violent crime, is a bit silly.
Yes, I can see how legalising yet another drug which impairs mental thinking and is known to induce hallucinations is great idea. And you'll also, I hope, note recent government trends to slowly tax both Alcohol and tobbacco out of the market. So, rather than legalising more drugs for increased tax income, the government should instead be looking to continue the trend of slowly forcing people to rid themselves of the vices they already have.
And the comparison is apt, in this context. Legalising something just so it won't be a crime anymore (hence improving national crime statistics etc) is quite simply dumb, and defeats the object of recording crime in the first place.
I can see the pro-weed point of view clearly enough. Wasters get to smoke drugs - and people who smoke that crap ARE wasters, without exception - and the government gets increased tax income and an improvement on drug related crime.
Personally, though, I don;t see why people should have to rely on drugs to entertain themselves, when the human brain is more than capable of produing suitable alternatives at will.
> Comparing the sale of cannabis, a drug which although harmful, is a
> lot less harmful than alcohol and tobacco put together, to legalising
> violent crime, is a bit silly.
Yes, I can see how legalising yet another drug which impairs mental thinking and is known to induce hallucinations is great idea. And you'll also, I hope, note recent government trends to slowly tax both Alcohol and tobbacco out of the market. So, rather than legalising more drugs for increased tax income, the government should instead be looking to continue the trend of slowly forcing people to rid themselves of the vices they already have.
And the comparison is apt, in this context. Legalising something just so it won't be a crime anymore (hence improving national crime statistics etc) is quite simply dumb, and defeats the object of recording crime in the first place.
I can see the pro-weed point of view clearly enough. Wasters get to smoke drugs - and people who smoke that crap ARE wasters, without exception - and the government gets increased tax income and an improvement on drug related crime.
Personally, though, I don;t see why people should have to rely on drugs to entertain themselves, when the human brain is more than capable of produing suitable alternatives at will.
Besides, in this day and age it seems the people who commit violent crime are gaining more and more rights all the time.
No, please go on .....
I didn't say decriminalise 'things', I was referring solely to cannabis, which is a minor drug, something the goverment is already quite happy to sell for massive profit, in alcohol and tobacco.
Comparing the sale of cannabis, a drug which although harmful, is a lot less harmful than alcohol and tobacco put together, to legalising violent crime, is a bit silly.
I didn't say decriminalise 'things', I was referring solely to cannabis, which is a minor drug, something the goverment is already quite happy to sell for massive profit, in alcohol and tobacco.
Comparing the sale of cannabis, a drug which although harmful, is a lot less harmful than alcohol and tobacco put together, to legalising violent crime, is a bit silly.
That's clever. Reduce crime rates by decriminalising things.
Make drugs legal, make small theft cases become a matter for civil action, legalise the carrying of (registered or otherwise) firearms, and maybe even shooting people too.
Decriminalise stabbing someone - as long as it's a non-lethal strike.
I'm sure you can see where this is going...
Make drugs legal, make small theft cases become a matter for civil action, legalise the carrying of (registered or otherwise) firearms, and maybe even shooting people too.
Decriminalise stabbing someone - as long as it's a non-lethal strike.
I'm sure you can see where this is going...
> The
> setting and your perception is different, but you're all comitting a
> crime and creating a demand for illegal drugs.
You're right, but perhaps this is the precise issue we are talking about. If cannabis was decriminalised and monitored by the government, then there would be far less demand for other illegal drugs. Casual smokers would probably not even come into contact with illegal drug dealers, meaning the phrase "Cannabis leads onto harder drugs" would become invalid for the most part.
> setting and your perception is different, but you're all comitting a
> crime and creating a demand for illegal drugs.
You're right, but perhaps this is the precise issue we are talking about. If cannabis was decriminalised and monitored by the government, then there would be far less demand for other illegal drugs. Casual smokers would probably not even come into contact with illegal drug dealers, meaning the phrase "Cannabis leads onto harder drugs" would become invalid for the most part.
That's the problem. Everyone wants the government to get tough on to get tough on law and order, but just not on anything they themselves do that is illegal. I mean it is an impossible job for Blunkett.
We want safer roads but no speed cameras, speed humps, high penalties for offenders, safer streets without cracking down on all drug users or paying for more police or having zero tolerance. And so on. In other words we want the police to be arresting those "bad" people that are not the same as us, generally because they have less money.
It doesn't work like that and it shouldn't. If you are taking illegal drugs with friends around a console you are no better than someone snorting them (or whatever) in a club or some derelict building. The setting and your perception is different, but you're all comitting a crime and creating a demand for illegal drugs.
We want safer roads but no speed cameras, speed humps, high penalties for offenders, safer streets without cracking down on all drug users or paying for more police or having zero tolerance. And so on. In other words we want the police to be arresting those "bad" people that are not the same as us, generally because they have less money.
It doesn't work like that and it shouldn't. If you are taking illegal drugs with friends around a console you are no better than someone snorting them (or whatever) in a club or some derelict building. The setting and your perception is different, but you're all comitting a crime and creating a demand for illegal drugs.
I've smoked cannabis. I enjoyed it too. It was in the kind of environment described earlier in this thread - with friends, playing video games and generally having a laugh. If the government wants me in trouble over that then I laugh at my government. Don't they have more pressing issues to think about?
Yukikaze wrote:
> Alcohol - in moderation it has little short term effect and no long
> term effects. In excess that's a different story. If you can't enjoy
> yourself without getting drunk thats a sad life indeed.
Speaking for myself, I don't need alcohol to enjoy myself. I am quite often the designated driver and don't mind one bit, apart from having lairy loonies in my car on the way home. I do enjoy a drink though, not for any perverse reason, just because I enjoy the relaxing effect it has on me and the way it can promote far more extroverted conversations and behaviour.
> And while were here, cigarettes - if you want to smoke crap then fine
> but do it in your own homes and don't expect me to care when you get
> lung cancer and want my taxes to pay for it.
Fair enough, I can respect some people don't like smoking, but I suspect that a lot of none-smokers do not have the same respect. We live in a world where people are happy to persecute those who do not share their choice of lifestyle. But it has always been like that.
As for this breaking news about banning smoking in public places, I can't agree with it. Smokers should have their own designated areas to smoke should they wish, perhaps a seperate room in bars and pubs. But banning it outright is publicly persecuting those who choose to smoke. If the government hates smoking so much, it should ban it, not sell the products, then persecute those who choose to use them.
> Alcohol - in moderation it has little short term effect and no long
> term effects. In excess that's a different story. If you can't enjoy
> yourself without getting drunk thats a sad life indeed.
Speaking for myself, I don't need alcohol to enjoy myself. I am quite often the designated driver and don't mind one bit, apart from having lairy loonies in my car on the way home. I do enjoy a drink though, not for any perverse reason, just because I enjoy the relaxing effect it has on me and the way it can promote far more extroverted conversations and behaviour.
> And while were here, cigarettes - if you want to smoke crap then fine
> but do it in your own homes and don't expect me to care when you get
> lung cancer and want my taxes to pay for it.
Fair enough, I can respect some people don't like smoking, but I suspect that a lot of none-smokers do not have the same respect. We live in a world where people are happy to persecute those who do not share their choice of lifestyle. But it has always been like that.
As for this breaking news about banning smoking in public places, I can't agree with it. Smokers should have their own designated areas to smoke should they wish, perhaps a seperate room in bars and pubs. But banning it outright is publicly persecuting those who choose to smoke. If the government hates smoking so much, it should ban it, not sell the products, then persecute those who choose to use them.
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> heh heh heh. you're sick in the head, you know that? :D
Yup that's what they tell me. The voices in my head. They tell me many things.
> heh heh heh. you're sick in the head, you know that? :D
Yup that's what they tell me. The voices in my head. They tell me many things.
English_Bloke wrote:
> Then what are your views on caffeine and alcohol?
Caffeine - no problem. You'd have to drink gigantic amounts to have any adverse effects and odds are those effects won't be long lasting or require medical care which taxpayers have to fork out for at some point in your life.
Alcohol - in moderation it has little short term effect and no long term effects. In excess that's a different story. If you can't enjoy yourself without getting drunk thats a sad life indeed.
And while were here, cigarettes - if you want to smoke crap then fine but do it in your own homes and don't expect me to care when you get lung cancer and want my taxes to pay for it.
> Then what are your views on caffeine and alcohol?
Caffeine - no problem. You'd have to drink gigantic amounts to have any adverse effects and odds are those effects won't be long lasting or require medical care which taxpayers have to fork out for at some point in your life.
Alcohol - in moderation it has little short term effect and no long term effects. In excess that's a different story. If you can't enjoy yourself without getting drunk thats a sad life indeed.
And while were here, cigarettes - if you want to smoke crap then fine but do it in your own homes and don't expect me to care when you get lung cancer and want my taxes to pay for it.
Page: