The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Mr Snuggly wrote:
> crap
>
> Says Mr "URGAY"...I believe the colloquialism "pull
> the other one" is appropriate here...
>
>
> I'm utterly baffled by this post and how it has any relevance to the
> topic. For the record, my 'hilarious' 123 URGAY post wasn't anything
> to do with the cannabis debate, but was directed at English Bloke
> when he jokingly asked for my number plate. Nowt to do with you,
> sonny boy.
>
> But that still doesn't excuse why you seem to think a perfectly
> reasonable request that you explain your waster comments is 'crap'.
> Or could it be you don't want to face up to the cold, hard truth that
> you do, in fact, suck at arguing?
You misunderstand. I am not saying that your request was crap. I am saying what you write is crap.
> Belldandy wrote:
> Mr Snuggly wrote:
> crap
>
> Says Mr "URGAY"...I believe the colloquialism "pull
> the other one" is appropriate here...
>
>
> I'm utterly baffled by this post and how it has any relevance to the
> topic. For the record, my 'hilarious' 123 URGAY post wasn't anything
> to do with the cannabis debate, but was directed at English Bloke
> when he jokingly asked for my number plate. Nowt to do with you,
> sonny boy.
>
> But that still doesn't excuse why you seem to think a perfectly
> reasonable request that you explain your waster comments is 'crap'.
> Or could it be you don't want to face up to the cold, hard truth that
> you do, in fact, suck at arguing?
You misunderstand. I am not saying that your request was crap. I am saying what you write is crap.
Belldandy wrote:
> Mr Snuggly wrote:
> crap
>
> Says Mr "URGAY"...I believe the colloquialism "pull
> the other one" is appropriate here...
I'm utterly baffled by this post and how it has any relevance to the topic. For the record, my 'hilarious' 123 URGAY post wasn't anything to do with the cannabis debate, but was directed at English Bloke when he jokingly asked for my number plate. Nowt to do with you, sonny boy.
But that still doesn't excuse why you seem to think a perfectly reasonable request that you explain your waster comments is 'crap'. Or could it be you don't want to face up to the cold, hard truth that you do, in fact, suck at arguing?
> Mr Snuggly wrote:
> crap
>
> Says Mr "URGAY"...I believe the colloquialism "pull
> the other one" is appropriate here...
I'm utterly baffled by this post and how it has any relevance to the topic. For the record, my 'hilarious' 123 URGAY post wasn't anything to do with the cannabis debate, but was directed at English Bloke when he jokingly asked for my number plate. Nowt to do with you, sonny boy.
But that still doesn't excuse why you seem to think a perfectly reasonable request that you explain your waster comments is 'crap'. Or could it be you don't want to face up to the cold, hard truth that you do, in fact, suck at arguing?
Belldandy wrote:
> If someone is
> a Cannabis user and has Lung Cancer at 50 then they're going to want
> treating, and that would have been preventable had they not taken the
> drug in the first place, and those resources used to treat them will
> not be used for someone else whose condition was not preventable.
But you can say the same about people who eat loads of crisps and chocolate; or who never exercise; or who sunbathe a lot; or who don't look both ways before crossing the road. People just *are* self-destructive and unwilling to think about the consequences - so if we're going to live in a health utopia then it's going to need a hell of a repressive regime to enforce it. I'd rather keep my personal freedoms and pay higher taxes than have to eat five portions of fruit and veg a day just to avoid being sent to jail.
> If someone is
> a Cannabis user and has Lung Cancer at 50 then they're going to want
> treating, and that would have been preventable had they not taken the
> drug in the first place, and those resources used to treat them will
> not be used for someone else whose condition was not preventable.
But you can say the same about people who eat loads of crisps and chocolate; or who never exercise; or who sunbathe a lot; or who don't look both ways before crossing the road. People just *are* self-destructive and unwilling to think about the consequences - so if we're going to live in a health utopia then it's going to need a hell of a repressive regime to enforce it. I'd rather keep my personal freedoms and pay higher taxes than have to eat five portions of fruit and veg a day just to avoid being sent to jail.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> crap
Says Mr "URGAY"...I believe the colloquialism "pull the other one" is appropriate here...
> crap
Says Mr "URGAY"...I believe the colloquialism "pull the other one" is appropriate here...
Belldandy wrote:
> ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> Belldandy, I am NOT trying to justify breaking the law. I am simply
> trying to point out occasions where people will break it and WHY
> they
> will break it.
>
> My point is that every person breaking the law has their own reasons
> for doing so. People use illegal MP3 files because they do not want
> to buy the music before listening to it and they can justify it by
> saying they might then go buy an album. It's a point, but ultimately
> the law does not have little additional clauses tagged on to it.
Yes... and the point that most of us are trying to get across to you is that doesn't necessarily make you a waster. Your definition of the word is very loose indeed. Yes, there are some people out there who abuse drugs and can correctly be labelled a waster, but there's no way that someone breaking some minor law can be described on the same level. It doesn't excuse it, but no one was saying it does.
And I still don't buy your 'I thought about it a bit more' excuse. You were caught out good and proper. If anything, it proves you don't always believe in what you say and post without thinking.
> ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> Belldandy, I am NOT trying to justify breaking the law. I am simply
> trying to point out occasions where people will break it and WHY
> they
> will break it.
>
> My point is that every person breaking the law has their own reasons
> for doing so. People use illegal MP3 files because they do not want
> to buy the music before listening to it and they can justify it by
> saying they might then go buy an album. It's a point, but ultimately
> the law does not have little additional clauses tagged on to it.
Yes... and the point that most of us are trying to get across to you is that doesn't necessarily make you a waster. Your definition of the word is very loose indeed. Yes, there are some people out there who abuse drugs and can correctly be labelled a waster, but there's no way that someone breaking some minor law can be described on the same level. It doesn't excuse it, but no one was saying it does.
And I still don't buy your 'I thought about it a bit more' excuse. You were caught out good and proper. If anything, it proves you don't always believe in what you say and post without thinking.
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> Belldandy, I am NOT trying to justify breaking the law. I am simply
> trying to point out occasions where people will break it and WHY they
> will break it.
My point is that every person breaking the law has their own reasons for doing so. People use illegal MP3 files because they do not want to buy the music before listening to it and they can justify it by saying they might then go buy an album. It's a point, but ultimately the law does not have little additional clauses tagged on to it.
> You seem to think that everyone in this country breaks the law just
> to say they got one over on the government. As though they do it
> just for the sake of doing it.
Well I don't think everyone in the country does break the law, in fact I'd say it is a very small minority who do break the law and largely because they cannot take responsibility for themselves and the consequences of their actions, short or long term. If someone is a Cannabis user and has Lung Cancer at 50 then they're going to want treating, and that would have been preventable had they not taken the drug in the first place, and those resources used to treat them will not be used for someone else whose condition was not preventable. Yes, you can compare this to a smoker in a similar situation but smoking is legal, to a degree the blame for ill smokers falls on successive governments who spend money on anti smoking campaigns with one hand whilst accepting tax and money from the smoking industry with the other.
> If I rushed home and ran some poor kid over, I would deserve to be
> put away. There is no excuse. I am simply trying to illustrate WHY
> I would break the law in the first place, as you seem to think that
> there is no reason good enough.
My point is that the reason is only good enough to the person breaking the law. The reason does not make it legal. Every crime has a reason.
I'll ignore Light because the topic is actually reverting to normality.
> Belldandy, I am NOT trying to justify breaking the law. I am simply
> trying to point out occasions where people will break it and WHY they
> will break it.
My point is that every person breaking the law has their own reasons for doing so. People use illegal MP3 files because they do not want to buy the music before listening to it and they can justify it by saying they might then go buy an album. It's a point, but ultimately the law does not have little additional clauses tagged on to it.
> You seem to think that everyone in this country breaks the law just
> to say they got one over on the government. As though they do it
> just for the sake of doing it.
Well I don't think everyone in the country does break the law, in fact I'd say it is a very small minority who do break the law and largely because they cannot take responsibility for themselves and the consequences of their actions, short or long term. If someone is a Cannabis user and has Lung Cancer at 50 then they're going to want treating, and that would have been preventable had they not taken the drug in the first place, and those resources used to treat them will not be used for someone else whose condition was not preventable. Yes, you can compare this to a smoker in a similar situation but smoking is legal, to a degree the blame for ill smokers falls on successive governments who spend money on anti smoking campaigns with one hand whilst accepting tax and money from the smoking industry with the other.
> If I rushed home and ran some poor kid over, I would deserve to be
> put away. There is no excuse. I am simply trying to illustrate WHY
> I would break the law in the first place, as you seem to think that
> there is no reason good enough.
My point is that the reason is only good enough to the person breaking the law. The reason does not make it legal. Every crime has a reason.
I'll ignore Light because the topic is actually reverting to normality.
Sorry to go back to Bell, but...(oh, and I think Ginseng is considered to be a good memory drug. You may also be interested to know that the first recorded mention of cannabis in history was in the records of a Chinese Emperor in 3000BC. It's recommended as a cure for absentmindedness...)
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Same old Light, peering down at those with different views and having
> a laugh like a self important school kid.
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa! Let me give you a hint; try not to use an insult along the lines of "Looking down on others with different views" when you've just spent the whole thread labelling people who do something you disagree with as "wasters", 'kay? It just shows up your lack of self-awareness, and makes you look dumber.
For the record, I have no problem admitting to my less desireable traits when posting; I can come across as supremely arrogant, thoroughly conceited, and deeply & meaningfully condescending. All of which are rather unpleasant things to be, and as I'm aware of them, I do my very best to control them. But I freely admit that I'm not perfect, so sometimes that's how I'll appear. When I do, I always do my best to remedy that. You on the other hand are guilty of all those traits and more, yet you seem to think that they don't apply to you.
I think you'll find I show respect to the views of others when they are respectful in return. Hence all those arguments I've had about religion or the Iraqi land grab where, after spending most of a post disagreeing, I believe I basically said how much respect I had for them for posting a defence of an unpopular viewpoint (unpopular in this respect is to be taken as meaning "differing from the views of the majority of posters on this board"). You'll also see that mostly, the only time any slanging matches develop is when you get involved. Funny that, isn't it? Almost as if...as if you show such a lack of respect to all the other posters here that they show you the same contempt in response. Oh, but no; silly me. It's not you, it's everyone else isn't it?
Once again Bell; if you actually listened to some of the criticisms of you rather than clamping your mittens over your ears and squealing "NOOOO! I'm PERFECT!", and then getting upset at finding no-one shares that opinion of you, you'd probably have an easier time in life. Perversely, you seem happy to be unhappy. In fact, you seem pathologically determined to stay unhappy, as if admitting otherwise makes you a failure. ~shrugs~ Your choice, but believe it or not I worry about your mental health. It cannot be good for you to keep putting yourself through the emotional flaying you suffer on this board. And judging by the frenzied quality of your weekend posts, I'm right to be concerned.
>
> Carry on. Oh, last time I looked there was plenty of pain medication
> that was legal. You accuse me of branding all disabled people who
> take a drug, which I do not. Thats....POSSIBLY SLANDEROUS.
>
Heh. If only you were taking the proverbial when you actually did wail about this, eh? Incidentally, did you ever answer Goaty about not knowing the difference between slander and libel? Or is that another one you're going to avoid?
Anyway, you're being accused of branding all disabled people who take cannabis for pain relief as 'wasters'. Are you denying that accusation? Or, like all the others, are you going to avoid it?
> Still, you gotta love people like you and Goatboy. Not one person in
> 300+ posts even refers to Timarrgh being disabled or in a wheelchair,
> simply that he takes it like any other person using the drug. But
> without a few posts you two have made it all about him being
> disabled... when previously everyone just treated him like any other
> person in this argument. Way to go!
And way to go Bell; despite the fact that it has been explicitly pointed out why people are taking such issue with your slating of Timmargh, you persist in trying to say it's everyone else fault! You'll keep on at that too, won't you? Despite the fact that pretty much everyone who's taken part can see that the reason you're getting grief is that you very heartlessly criticised someone for taking a pain relief drug for their medical condition, and continued to condemn them for not taking one that you approve of. C'mon Bell, lets hear your next effort at avoiding taking any responsibility for your words!
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Same old Light, peering down at those with different views and having
> a laugh like a self important school kid.
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa! Let me give you a hint; try not to use an insult along the lines of "Looking down on others with different views" when you've just spent the whole thread labelling people who do something you disagree with as "wasters", 'kay? It just shows up your lack of self-awareness, and makes you look dumber.
For the record, I have no problem admitting to my less desireable traits when posting; I can come across as supremely arrogant, thoroughly conceited, and deeply & meaningfully condescending. All of which are rather unpleasant things to be, and as I'm aware of them, I do my very best to control them. But I freely admit that I'm not perfect, so sometimes that's how I'll appear. When I do, I always do my best to remedy that. You on the other hand are guilty of all those traits and more, yet you seem to think that they don't apply to you.
I think you'll find I show respect to the views of others when they are respectful in return. Hence all those arguments I've had about religion or the Iraqi land grab where, after spending most of a post disagreeing, I believe I basically said how much respect I had for them for posting a defence of an unpopular viewpoint (unpopular in this respect is to be taken as meaning "differing from the views of the majority of posters on this board"). You'll also see that mostly, the only time any slanging matches develop is when you get involved. Funny that, isn't it? Almost as if...as if you show such a lack of respect to all the other posters here that they show you the same contempt in response. Oh, but no; silly me. It's not you, it's everyone else isn't it?
Once again Bell; if you actually listened to some of the criticisms of you rather than clamping your mittens over your ears and squealing "NOOOO! I'm PERFECT!", and then getting upset at finding no-one shares that opinion of you, you'd probably have an easier time in life. Perversely, you seem happy to be unhappy. In fact, you seem pathologically determined to stay unhappy, as if admitting otherwise makes you a failure. ~shrugs~ Your choice, but believe it or not I worry about your mental health. It cannot be good for you to keep putting yourself through the emotional flaying you suffer on this board. And judging by the frenzied quality of your weekend posts, I'm right to be concerned.
>
> Carry on. Oh, last time I looked there was plenty of pain medication
> that was legal. You accuse me of branding all disabled people who
> take a drug, which I do not. Thats....POSSIBLY SLANDEROUS.
>
Heh. If only you were taking the proverbial when you actually did wail about this, eh? Incidentally, did you ever answer Goaty about not knowing the difference between slander and libel? Or is that another one you're going to avoid?
Anyway, you're being accused of branding all disabled people who take cannabis for pain relief as 'wasters'. Are you denying that accusation? Or, like all the others, are you going to avoid it?
> Still, you gotta love people like you and Goatboy. Not one person in
> 300+ posts even refers to Timarrgh being disabled or in a wheelchair,
> simply that he takes it like any other person using the drug. But
> without a few posts you two have made it all about him being
> disabled... when previously everyone just treated him like any other
> person in this argument. Way to go!
And way to go Bell; despite the fact that it has been explicitly pointed out why people are taking such issue with your slating of Timmargh, you persist in trying to say it's everyone else fault! You'll keep on at that too, won't you? Despite the fact that pretty much everyone who's taken part can see that the reason you're getting grief is that you very heartlessly criticised someone for taking a pain relief drug for their medical condition, and continued to condemn them for not taking one that you approve of. C'mon Bell, lets hear your next effort at avoiding taking any responsibility for your words!
Icarus wrote:
> Erm, OK. What next?
That the average person can remember 7 (+/- 2) things in short term memory at any one time. Very important in design modules. That is why you get chunking on menus.
> Erm, OK. What next?
That the average person can remember 7 (+/- 2) things in short term memory at any one time. Very important in design modules. That is why you get chunking on menus.
Well dandruff can enhance the taste... possibly.
Page: