The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Timmargh wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> The moment Light can frame a question without a verbal tirrade he
> gets an answer. Until then, well, it's Light.
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
You really want to check out the meaning of that phrase because essentially you are saying me and Light are both as bad as each other. Whilst I would agree with that I don't think he would....unless you'd care to clarify...
> Belldandy wrote:
> The moment Light can frame a question without a verbal tirrade he
> gets an answer. Until then, well, it's Light.
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
You really want to check out the meaning of that phrase because essentially you are saying me and Light are both as bad as each other. Whilst I would agree with that I don't think he would....unless you'd care to clarify...
Timmargh wrote:
> Oh, my aching sides! Oh, hang on - that's my disability; I'd better
> go and smoke some cannabis ...
LOL
> Oh, my aching sides! Oh, hang on - that's my disability; I'd better
> go and smoke some cannabis ...
LOL
Belldandy wrote:
> The moment Light can frame a question without a verbal tirrade he
> gets an answer. Until then, well, it's Light.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
> And Snuggly has retreated to play with his balls.
Oh, my aching sides! Oh, hang on - that's my disability; I'd better go and smoke some cannabis ...
> The moment Light can frame a question without a verbal tirrade he
> gets an answer. Until then, well, it's Light.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
> And Snuggly has retreated to play with his balls.
Oh, my aching sides! Oh, hang on - that's my disability; I'd better go and smoke some cannabis ...
Timmargh wrote:
> Mr Snuggly: can I have the ability to ban people, pleeeeeease? I'd
> only ban those who *really* deserved it, honest.
Belldandy wrote:
> Because I disagree with you?
Who mentioned you?
Belldandy wrote:
> My opinion of you is now ever lower.
Boo f***king hoo.
> Mr Snuggly: can I have the ability to ban people, pleeeeeease? I'd
> only ban those who *really* deserved it, honest.
Belldandy wrote:
> Because I disagree with you?
Who mentioned you?
Belldandy wrote:
> My opinion of you is now ever lower.
Boo f***king hoo.
Timmargh wrote:
> Mr Snuggly: can I have the ability to ban people, pleeeeeease? I'd
> only ban those who *really* deserved it, honest.
Because I disagree with you?
My opinion of you is now ever lower.
> Mr Snuggly: can I have the ability to ban people, pleeeeeease? I'd
> only ban those who *really* deserved it, honest.
Because I disagree with you?
My opinion of you is now ever lower.
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> Pot is fairly unlikely to cause lung cancer - the amount of smoke you
> inhale is minimal, getting stoned takes most people 3 joints at most.
The entire british medical establishment disagrees with you there, you actually have a greater risk than smokers if you are a long term user because the smoke is inhaled more deeply than that of cigarette smoke.
Hey, maybe this £1 million advertising campaign is needed.
The moment Light can frame a question without a verbal tirrade he gets an answer. Until then, well, it's Light.
And Snuggly has retreated to play with his balls.
> Pot is fairly unlikely to cause lung cancer - the amount of smoke you
> inhale is minimal, getting stoned takes most people 3 joints at most.
The entire british medical establishment disagrees with you there, you actually have a greater risk than smokers if you are a long term user because the smoke is inhaled more deeply than that of cigarette smoke.
Hey, maybe this £1 million advertising campaign is needed.
The moment Light can frame a question without a verbal tirrade he gets an answer. Until then, well, it's Light.
And Snuggly has retreated to play with his balls.
Mr Snuggly: can I have the ability to ban people, pleeeeeease? I'd only ban those who *really* deserved it, honest.
I think the phrase is 'roundly trounced'.
Belldandy wrote:
> I'll ignore Light because the topic is actually reverting to normality.
Coward.
> I'll ignore Light because the topic is actually reverting to normality.
Coward.
Goaty was right, Bell's furious denial and angry child-rage is accelerating at a rate off the scale. He'll have vowed to leave by tonight at this rate!
I'm taking my ball and going home!
I'm taking my ball and going home!
Page: