| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| moon23 |
Posted - 19/07/2007 : 10:40:03
So it turns out that Jacqui Smith has smoked weed as well. The current argument seems to be that skunk has got so much stronger that is quite true. I wish it was easier to get hold of some milder weed these days.
I think the solution might be to regulate the drug and start officially producing it. This would provide a bit of rural re-investment and also take the supply out of the hands of criminals that profit from the trade. The money could go to the treasury and it would be a good boost for the economy, It would also mean that the strength could be controlled like with spirits.
It seems like a perfect solution. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| moon23 |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 12:15:56
quote:
Originally posted by long time no see
Into the System
for Near Death - Cold Turkey ONLY.
Life In The City.
You could immeditatley inforce a complusory cold turkey on all addicts, but it would make many try and avoid the authorites and stay in a life of addiction and crime. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 11:47:52
Into the System
for Near Death - Cold Turkey ONLY.
Life In The City. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 10:49:25
quote:
Originally posted by long time no see
Sure
on now the old NHS Thatcher adviser
Dr.Froggatt.
It will never be made Legal.
Near Death - Cold Turkey is the ONLY option.
Life In The City.
It would cut drug related crime if it was supplied by the NHS. Also bring addicts into a system that can help rehabilitee them |
| long time no see |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 19:35:52
Sure
on now the old NHS Thatcher adviser
Dr.Froggatt.
It will never be made Legal.
Near Death - Cold Turkey is the ONLY option.
Life In The City.
|
| Horseman7 |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 18:35:59
1930 tonight on Channel 4:
The Insider - Heroin on the NHS
A doctor, himself a (former?) addict, puts the case for.
|
| moon23 |
Posted - 01/08/2007 : 09:34:08
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
Scrambling are we Moon. Fact boyo ... you have a spurious argument.
Not really Mim, seeing as yours and no experts 'wonderful' argument about energy consumption is based on a huge assumption that cannabis is only grown under lights whilst forgetting that a legalized trade can be brought under governmental legislation to controll CO2 emissions.
You're scraping the barrel big time if that's your best shot. |
| Fluffy Sheep |
Posted - 01/08/2007 : 00:11:17
A thingy that once went `heyyy` |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 31/07/2007 : 20:13:30
Scrambling are we Moon. Fact boyo ... you have a spurious argument. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 31/07/2007 : 13:24:30
quote:
Originally posted by No Expert
"Another double-standard is the way in which the government insists on keeping the cannabis trade in the black market"
Yes! And another is that you're advocating legalising a drug that grows under lights that consume more power than a washing machine on spin cycle. Multiply that by a crop and you're using more power than the blackpool illuminations. Multilply that nationwide, and we're talking about a carbon footprint the size of your idiocy. Huuuuuge!
So, another slice of hypocrisy is exposed.
So let me spell it out: Growing cannabis requires an enormous amount of electricity. End of.
Feel free to argue that it's not the case but it is.
No Expert this would be hypocrisy if all cannabis was grown under lights and the only way that cannabis could be grown was under lights. However it is not hypocrisy because there are many strains that grow naturally outside. I've grown it outside in Patcham before and it was fine. Some of the weaker strains of cannabis are very hardy, it is only some of the hybrid skunk varieties that don't grow so well without the add of artificial lights. It would grow very well in poly tunnels or green houses.
One of the reason why so many people grow it indoors under lights is to avoid detection. Legalizing the drug might well bring down energy consumption as more people would be free to grow it naturally without the risk of being prosecuted. It would also allow for the industry to be properly regulated by any future governmental legislation or schemes designed to reduce energy consumption. An unregulated and illegal trade is one which is outside of any environmental protection laws.
Hemp can also be used as a biofuel crop and makes an excellent natural fiber for use in many house hold products.
Another ill thought out and flawed argument by No Expert exposed…
Mim
Although I agree that the government is blurring the arguments and piggy backing on the smoking ban to moralize on everything from Drink to Food, I think the solution lies exposing where they have blurred the arguments and exposing their irrational thinking.
Smoking and personal liberty issues are not simply reducible to a pro/against lobby as you suggest. All you are doing is painting a false dichotomy which prevents anyone reaching a compromise that respects people's freedom from smoke and also their freedom to smoke.
People need to be clearer about understanding the distinctions between different rationale arguments. Saying you should ban smoking in public places when it affects others does not equate to saying you should ban all smoking/drinking/drug/fatty foods. You suggest that smoking shouldn't be banned in public and this ignores the views of many non-smokers. If you said instead that yes smoking should be banned where it affects others, but smokers have a right to smoke in private then you are still in a consistent and strong position.
A stronger position would be to say that you agree with the smoking ban in principle but you fear that once it is in place the government will then proceed to try and ban smoking where it doesn’t affect other people and that this intrusion into our personal liberty is unwarranted. This is the position that I am starting to come to following the governments quick announcements on Drinking and Cannabis after the smoking ban.
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 31/07/2007 : 12:41:58
quote:
Originally posted by No Expert
"Another double-standard is the way in which the government insists on keeping the cannabis trade in the black market"
Yes! And another is that you're advocating legalising a drug that grows under lights that consume more power than a washing machine on spin cycle. Multiply that by a crop and you're using more power than the blackpool illuminations. Multilply that nationwide, and we're talking about a carbon footprint the size of your idiocy. Huuuuuge!
So, another slice of hypocrisy is exposed.
So let me spell it out: Growing cannabis requires an enormous amount of electricity. End of.
Feel free to argue that it's not the case but it is.
Wonderful point No Expert and very well made.
I'd be tempted to tell Moon to put that in his pipe and smoke it but ... hey hop, not in an enclosed public space eh Moon. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 31/07/2007 : 12:35:46
No Moon as I have had occasion to mention before and for a moment I actually thought it had sunk in when you mentioned the fact that the government has been able to use the same argument for both issues, you are self serving to the extent where you cannot even see it. You cannot on the one hand agree to a ban on smoking, even a so called limited ban as this is, and then expect similar arguments not to be used in other 'smoking' issues. I remember telling you at the time that it was a 'thin end of the wedge'. Many things are and you would do better looking at issues in that context then trying to justify them because they suit you.
Once you agree that 'x' justifies 'y' then 'x' justifies 'y' ... end of, no arguments, no debates, no whys or wherefores. Such is the way of politics, policy making and all matters pertaining to the same. |
| No Expert |
Posted - 31/07/2007 : 12:28:09
"Another double-standard is the way in which the government insists on keeping the cannabis trade in the black market"
Yes! And another is that you're advocating legalising a drug that grows under lights that consume more power than a washing machine on spin cycle. Multiply that by a crop and you're using more power than the blackpool illuminations. Multilply that nationwide, and we're talking about a carbon footprint the size of your idiocy. Huuuuuge!
So, another slice of hypocrisy is exposed.
So let me spell it out: Growing cannabis requires an enormous amount of electricity. End of.
Feel free to argue that it's not the case but it is. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 31/07/2007 : 12:04:46
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
It’s a national disgrace that we are so unenlightened as to criminalize smoking of weed.
So, smoking of weed is okay but smoking tobacco must be discouraged? Sheesh Moon, I wish I had the myopia you seem to enjoy when it comes to debating matters of conscience and consequence.
No Mim as i've said before I don't think smoking should be discouraged. I just think it should be banned from areas where it affects other people's health. People should be free to smoke in their own homes or outside if they want. Or perhaps even in some special smoking rooms if they were airtight and probably ventilated. I don't think that spiffs if legalized should be exempt from the smoking ban
Do what you will, least it harms none.
It’s the harms none that makes me support the smoking ban and the do what you will that means I support the legalization of cannabis. Come on it’s not the hardest position to get your head around and it is perfectly consistent.
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 31/07/2007 : 11:31:51
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
It’s a national disgrace that we are so unenlightened as to criminalize smoking of weed.
So, smoking of weed is okay but smoking tobacco must be discouraged? Sheesh Moon, I wish I had the myopia you seem to enjoy when it comes to debating matters of conscience and consequence. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 31/07/2007 : 11:19:02
Look at page 27 of this report
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/FinalBatesreport.pdf
How much do you think Cannabis prohibition costs the UK? How much do you think we could make if the trade was taxed.
It's a scandal when people are crying out for extra hospitals, schools etc that we are wasting this potential tax revune. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 31/07/2007 : 11:13:49
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
What a load of emotive blackmail. Children and youngsters are always going to be more apt to influence. Would you have us cease all activites that aren't child friendly?
What's this go to do with ceasing all child unfriendly activities?
If cannabis wasn't illegal then people wouldn't have to go to drug dealers and get exposed to harder drugs. The fact is that the governments stance on the drug forces people who want to have the odd smoke to become exposed to harder drugs and underground criminal elements within society. It also forces millions of pounds that could go to towards the Treasury coffers into the hands of criminals.
Prohibition just turns drugs into more of a problem then they need be.
Saw a report in the Metro and air pollution causes 32,000 deaths a year in the UK. I don't see cars being re-classified though.
Double standards, you can drive a car that kills thousands through road deaths, air pollution and contribution to global warming. If you want to smoke a spiff that can cause a 1%-3% risk in your chances of getting schizophrenia and a risk of cancer then there is a load of scare mongering and you risk getting thrown in jail for years and a criminal record. It’s a person’s own choice to do what they want to their own body. If it brings them pleasure and improves their lives then who is the state to outlaw it.
Another double-standard is the way in which the government insists on keeping the cannabis trade in the black market, thus contributing to organized crime and terrorism. It’s a national disgrace that we are so unenlightened as to criminalize smoking of weed.
We don’t live in a free country at all, just a place where you are allowed to do what you want as long as you are making money and spending money.
|
| long time no see |
Posted - 30/07/2007 : 20:47:44
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
Another point worth considering
You must be in a DreamWorld,
None of this will Ever be made Legal.
Go live in Holland. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 30/07/2007 : 17:28:30
What a load of emotive blackmail. Children and youngsters are always going to be more apt to influence. Would you have us cease all activites that aren't child friendly? |
| moon23 |
Posted - 30/07/2007 : 17:22:39
Another point worth considering that is often missed is the extent to which cannabis illegality leads young people to become exposed to harder drugs.
For instance many drug dealers also sell other drugs and through having to go to these dealers to get cannabis people are often exposed to a 'drug taking' culture which has a different set of cultural and social norms. If cannabis was legal then it would be easier to make the distinction between soft and hard drugs.
In addition to the exposure to harder drugs the money spent on these drugs goes to someone who is not paying tax. They then give larger amounts of money to their supplier. A few people up the supply line and you will discover that the nice hippy dealer who sells the odd bit of weed is being supplied by an organized gang, the Mafia or organizations with links to arms dealing, human trafficking and terrorism. The governments solution to the problem e.g. prohibition has created an illegal black-market that contributes to organized crime and in all likelihood terrorism.
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 30/07/2007 : 16:18:02
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
Yes i'm better at looking rationally at the argument to hand rather than the social reactions of the populace as a living entity.
Except that you signally and consistently fail to show any ability to look at issues dispassionately and rationally I can find nothing to argue with in that statement. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 30/07/2007 : 15:16:45
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
What I failed to anticipate was the extent to which the government is able to use the same argument for both instances. However it seems there are plenty of people on this forum who were unable to grasp the differeance.
You did indeed fail to anticipate and that is far from a good philosophical habit
Yes i'm better at looking rationally at the argument to hand rather than the social reactions of the populace as a living entity. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 30/07/2007 : 13:21:03
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
What I failed to anticipate was the extent to which the government is able to use the same argument for both instances. However it seems there are plenty of people on this forum who were unable to grasp the differeance.
You did indeed fail to anticipate and that is far from a good philosophical habit |
| moon23 |
Posted - 30/07/2007 : 12:19:22
quote:
Originally posted by nightbird
Freedom, the freedom to choose providing it doesn't harm or damage others.
Thats what its about, but its so much easier to take a puritan stance... 
Yes [b]providing it doesn't harm or damage others[/b.. this is the bit which can sometimes be nebulous.
I mean does driving a car harm others? Lot's of things cause a little bit of harm to others if you consider global warming.
|
| moon23 |
Posted - 30/07/2007 : 12:17:25
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke of Uranus
The problem is moon that you're happy to have the government intervene when it suits you but fail to see the bigger picture, an attitude which is naive at best. Our government has gradually been given a big green light to interfere in all aspects of our lives all in the name of protection.
Years ago when I was little my grandmother told me that 95% of mankind are stupid. It is only when seeing the inconsistencies highlighted by myopic self-servers that the strength of her argument comes home to me.
There is actually a philosophical differance between state intervention to protect indivduals from their selves and state internvention to protect indivduals from other indivduals.
What I failed to anticipate was the extent to which the government is able to use the same argument for both instances. However it seems there are plenty of people on this forum who were unable to grasp the differeance.
It is interesting to note that in the recent government response to an e-petition to legalize cannabis they sited protecting people's human rights as one reason to keep it outlawed. e.g. they have a duty to protect us from ourselves.
|
| nightbird |
Posted - 30/07/2007 : 12:16:17
Freedom, the freedom to choose providing it doesn't harm or damage others.
Thats what its about, but its so much easier to take a puritan stance... |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 30/07/2007 : 12:03:34
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke of Uranus
The problem is moon that you're happy to have the government intervene when it suits you but fail to see the bigger picture, an attitude which is naive at best. Our government has gradually been given a big green light to interfere in all aspects of our lives all in the name of protection.
Years ago when I was little my grandmother told me that 95% of mankind are stupid. It is only when seeing the inconsistencies highlighted by myopic self-servers that the strength of her argument comes home to me. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 30/07/2007 : 12:02:44
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke of Uranus
quote:
What's the relevance of this though? I'm talking about the risk an adult chooses to accept in partaking in something they enjoy and you're comparing it to a risk that someone subjects another person to without their consent.
The cost to the nhs is highly relevant i would have thought.
quote:
What worries me is that the government also isn't able to make this distinction and is now going to start legislating to prevent indivduals from indulging in pleasurable risks.
And when that risk affects others in society why shouldn't they? The problem is moon that you're happy to have the government intervene when it suits you but fail to see the bigger picture, an attitude which is naive at best. Our government has gradually been given a big green light to interfere in all aspects of our lives all in the name of protection.
I said before in the smoking post that I was worried that the government would smell blood over the smoking ban and move onto other things. I think their recent hardline on alcohol shows this might be coming true.
I'm also thinking that perhaps if things got any worse then it would be preferable for smokers to mass revolt to scare the government, despite the fact that I support the ban in principle. I should have had more foresight in predicting the governments behavior after the ban but I was too focused on the issue at hand.
Yes there is a problem with the NHS and the under funding of mental healthcare. However just imagine how much money could be spent on providing decent treatment and therapy if the cannabis trade was taxed and regulated.
|
| moon23 |
Posted - 30/07/2007 : 11:56:14
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
No fair No Expert ... Moon has repeatedly told us that he has an issue with spelling.
I don't mind the fact that No Expert is taking the piss out of someone with a disabilty. It's the quality of his jokes that makes them offensive. |
| The Duke of Uranus |
Posted - 30/07/2007 : 11:52:12
quote:
What's the relevance of this though? I'm talking about the risk an adult chooses to accept in partaking in something they enjoy and you're comparing it to a risk that someone subjects another person to without their consent.
The cost to the nhs is highly relevant i would have thought.
quote:
What worries me is that the government also isn't able to make this distinction and is now going to start legislating to prevent indivduals from indulging in pleasurable risks.
And when that risk affects others in society why shouldn't they? The problem is moon that you're happy to have the government intervene when it suits you but fail to see the bigger picture, an attitude which is naive at best. Our government has gradually been given a big green light to interfere in all aspects of our lives all in the name of protection. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 30/07/2007 : 11:37:05
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
The risk of developing any illness is still very low even for regular users although with everything fun in life there is normally some risk involved.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jul/28/drugs.drugsandalcohol
maybe ... but the risk is there Moon. Actually looking at it, the risks are slightly higher then the risks of developing lung cancer by passive smoking ....
What's the relevance of this though? I'm talking about the risk an adult chooses to accept in partaking in something they enjoy and you're comparing it to a risk that someone subjects another person to without their consent.
What worries me is that the government also isn't able to make this distinction and is now going to start legislating to prevent indivduals from indulging in pleasurable risks. |
