Mrs Moroccan Roll...?

Former Member

http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html

Former Member

http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/jansen.economics.html

Former Member

Spliffie wrote:

You sound like a fucking SS officer. Take a step back and look at yourself.

No room for sentiment in logic? Sounds like a quote straight from Mein Kampf. I presume you reckon the Nazi race laws gave the Third Reich's racial policies a fair basis then...

And if you want to look at it from a logic point of view, the law under which she is being prosecuted wouldn't exist.

Godwin's Law anyone?

Don't really agree with Whowhere but the Nazi comparison isn’t really necessary. Hasn’t Ken's latest embarrassment taught you anything? :rolleyes:

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

Godwin's Law anyone?

Don't really agree with Whowhere but the Nazi comparison isn’t really necessary. Hasn’t Ken's latest embarrassment taught you anything? :rolleyes:

I hope that was sarcasm...

If not, I truly despair.

Former Member

Spliffie wrote:

I hope that was sarcasm...

If not, I truly despair.

If you fail to see how calling somebody an SS Officer without any credible reason doesn’t trivialise the horrors of Nazism and the Holocaust I'm guessing you lack intelligence.

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/jansen.economics.html

Porter doesn't consider specific governmental measures to promote 'a competitive advantage' to be of great benefit. On the contrary, they may even be counterproductive. Government help that removes the pressure on firms to improve and upgrade, may prevent these firms from reaching the stage of 'competitive advantage'. As figure 1 illustrates, government policy influences the national 'diamond' rather than being part of it.

The economics of an illegal production such as Eurocannabis makes a government a very powerful influencer of the 'diamond'. The worldwide prohibition of cannabis has indeed provided the circumstances for high levels of innovation and growth, which generally characterizes cannabis industry in the Western world.

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

If you fail to see how calling somebody an SS Officer without any credible reason doesn’t trivialise the horrors of Nazism and the Holocaust I'm guessing you lack intelligence.

why would it trivilise it?

Former Member

Spliffie wrote:

Right...so just remind me here - what are these "good arguments" for prohibiting recreational cannabis use?

I haven't seen you make any.

I have stated all my arguments on this thread. I'm not going to bore everyone by going over them again. There is strong evidence of a causal link between cannabis use and certain types of mental illness. Not to mention a recently described syndrome of vomiting, abdominal pain and obsessive behaviour in regular users. It may not happen to everyone, but alcoholic liver disease doesn't occur in all heavy drinkers. It's still something to be considered.

As for comparing drink driving and smoking cannabis...you are joking, surely? When I smoke a joint, I put no-one else at risk of harm...are you really not able to grasp that concept? Smoking cannabis harms no-one but the smoker. I've already said, probably countless times, that providing you harm no-one else, you have a fundamental right to "do as thou wilt". Stop twisting points because you can't provide an answer.

At least you can admit that smoking cannabis does harm the smoker. That's more than some will acknowledge. But we're straying from the topic of this thread yet again. The NHS and social services would still have to pick up the pieces of any health problems caused by cannabis use, so I do think all taxpayers have the right to question blanket legalisation of cannabis and all drugs.

Illegal for a reason? Do you know anything about the climate in which cannabis was originally prohibited? If you did, you'd understand cannabis was banned under ridiculously false pretexts (smoke a joint and you'll go insane, smoke a joint and you'll become a rapist), and under pressure from industry (hemp was seen as a threat).

Yeah, I've heard it before. That doesn't alter the health arguments, it just adds a conspiracy theory into the argument.

And where have I mentioned "drugs"? I'm talking about cannabis. Nothing else....Why are you talking about "drugs"? We're talking about cannabis, not crack or heroin...

Cannabis is a drug. "Hard" and "soft" are legal distinctions, again not relevant to this argument.

What do you need to convince you? Divine intervention?

Evidence would do.

The situation is like this - people are going to smoke cannabis recreationally whether the government likes it or not. America has a higher % per population of cannabis smokers than Holland - now that's a pretty good indication that prohibition does nothing to reduce use.

So, prohibition doesn't result in reduced use. What it does result in, is the market being flooded with poisonous, foul products.

They also have a much higher teenage pregnancy rate in the States. There are social and societal reasons for these differences, making comparisons difficult.

Legalise cannabis, the government gets a good revenue for taxation, people get a clean supply of cannabis...what's the problem?

Now, Kentish, please tell me - for about the fuck-knows-how-many-time - what is your counter argument?

Indeed, if you could come up with a convincing argument that the government would be able to control the supply of cannabis then you could try and persuade me that it would be preferable to the status quo.

Socio-economically linked drug use? You're talking crack & heroin. Yeah, improving social inequality would reduce use massively no doubt...but what's that got to do with cannabis?

In my experience, all drug use is linked to social inequality. Especially drug use where there is no consideration of the effects of the drugs or long term consequences - i.e. drug use due to social deprivation.

Spliffie wrote:

I notice Kentish has quietly forgotten all about this thread...I wonder why ?

I really don't know how people can continue to hold such mindlessly obtuse beliefs these days :rolleyes: .

Give me a chance to reply at least

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Cannabis is a drug. "Hard" and "soft" are legal distinctions, again not relevant to this argument.

:eek: care to elaborate on why it's not relevant.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

:eek: care to elaborate on why it's not relevant.

Both cause ill health.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Both cause ill health.

both have the potential ...to cause ill health.
huge difference!

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Both cause ill health.

so does alot of things, and you talk about harm minimilisation and how the NHS would have to pay for treating people who have suffered form cannabis, well let me say, they're treating them now anyway, if the government legalised it then yes we would still have the vicims but because of massive money raised by it's taxation we'd be able to pay for it easily and still have extra money to for public services andd schools etc etc.

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

both have the potential ...to cause ill health.
huge difference!

Good point.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

so does alot of things, and you talk about harm minimilisation and how the NHS would have to pay for treating people who have suffered form cannabis, well let me say, they're treating them now anyway, if the government legalised it then yes we would still have the vicims but because of massive money raised by it's taxation we'd be able to pay for it easily and still have extra money to for public services andd schools etc etc.

You're making that up, but yes it's an argument. Until you get people saying that they should be allowed to grow their own. In which case your whole theory of it being self funding is a bit of a red herring.

Yes, the NHS is paying for these treatments, but I am assuming that legalisation would increase use. I may be wrong, but that's an assumption inherent in my argument which is open to challenge.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Yes, the NHS is paying for these treatments, but I am assuming that legalisation would increase use. I may be wrong, but that's an assumption inherent in my argument which is open to challenge.

i don't think it would you see, if there is a relaxed approach to cannabis then i'd say after a generation it'll just be seen as an alternative to alcohol, not taboo, yes you mention social depravation aswell as a contribution to drug use but who's fault is it that there is deprivation and is the drug user to blame for why he takes drugs then?

Former Member

turlough wrote:

why would it trivilise it?

I cannot believe I am having to explain why it trivialises it. The actions carried out by SS Officers were evil beyond words.

The millions that perished in the Holocaust endured the most horrible awful unimaginable painful suffering. It’s therefore extremely offensive when their ordeal is cheapened by somebody using their tormentors – the Nazis and SS Officers as cheap childish insults.

Using the term as an insult desensitises us even more from what happened and belittles what happened. If the term Nazi or SS Officer just becomes an insult for somebody a bit right wing or a bit intrusive it plays down the Holocaust.

I don't think I've explained it clearly, it's hard to explain. But thankfully most people can see why. Not really surprised that some people on here can't though.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

i don't think it would you see, if there is a relaxed approach to cannabis then i'd say after a generation it'll just be seen as an alternative to alcohol

Which is probably the most widely used and abused substance in this country. You're not convincing me that use would decrease.

who's fault is it that there is deprivation and is the drug user to blame for why he takes drugs then?

Society's, but users have personal responsibility for their actions too. I link drugs (incl. cannabis) to social deprivation because I think that is a contributing factor in problem drug use.

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

I cannot believe I am having to explain why it trivialises it. The actions carried out by SS Officers were evil beyond words.

The millions that perished in the Holocaust endured the most horrible awful unimaginable painful suffering. It’s therefore extremely offensive when their ordeal is cheapened by somebody using their tormentors – the Nazis and SS Officers as cheap childish insults.

Using the term as an insult desensitises us even more from what happened and belittles what happened. If the term Nazi or SS Officer just becomes an insult for somebody a bit right wing or a bit intrusive it plays down the Holocaust.

I don't think I've explained it clearly, it's hard to explain. But thankfully most people can see why. Not really surprised that some people on here can't though.

aye but it's only word connotations and images that you conjour up at the end of the day, if i saw someone hit a child hard i'd say "he's like an SS officer doing that" implying what he done was brutal, doesn't mean i'm belitteling the horrors of the holocaust cos anyone in their right mind knows the true horrors and i'm just using the example of an SS gaurd to show how i feel about someone hitting a child, just look at it from that point of view.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

aye but it's only word connotations and images that you conjour up at the end of the day, if i saw someone hit a child hard i'd say "he's like an SS officer doing that" implying what he done was brutal, doesn't mean i'm belitteling the horrors of the holocaust cos anyone in their right mind knows the true horrors and i'm just using the example of an SS gaurd to show how i feel about someone hitting a child, just look at it from that point of view.

You are though because the fact is that "he's not like an SS officer doing that".

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Society's, but users have personal responsibility for their actions too.

it's not as clear cut as that, i have many friends who come from broken homes, have suffered alot, they're really good genuine people but have just fucked their whole lives up on drugs because that's their only solution to their problems, personal responsibility doesn't really come into it in cases of social deprivation IMHO.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

You are though because the fact is that "he's not like an SS officer doing that".

i've already stated it's all about word connotations, and everyone uses hyperbole anyway when they want to express an opinion.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

fucked their whole lives up on drugs because that's their only solution to their problems

I totally agree that they may see that as the only solution, and that in itself has social and societal roots. But they have still made that choice; no one forced them down that road.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

everyone uses hyperbole

Yep, valid point. But there are some situations in which hyperbole strays into ridiculous extremes.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

But there are some situations in which hyperbole strays into ridiculous extremes.

tis the nature of the word is it not though

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

I totally agree that they may see that as the only solution, and that in itself has social and societal roots. But they have still made that choice; no one forced them down that road.

of course no one did but when there are so many things going against them in the world and where they've been neglected for so long, they really are forced by invisible forces to get into drugs

Former Member

turlough wrote:

invisible forces

Yeah.

Not really relevant here though.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Yeah.

Not really relevant here though.

it is really, just because there isn't some evil drug pusher shoving joints down childrens mouths doesn't mean they aren't forced into drugs. therefore eliminating the personal responsibility arguement.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

it is really, just because there isn't some evil drug pusher shoving joints down childrens mouths doesn't mean they aren't forced into drugs. therefore eliminating the personal responsibility arguement.

If you are denying personal responsibility, then it matters not whether the drugs are legal or illegal. Thus not of relevance in this argument.

Former Member

mrs roll is gob smacked theres such a long thread bearing her title.

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

If you fail to see how calling somebody an SS Officer without any credible reason doesn’t trivialise the horrors of Nazism and the Holocaust I'm guessing you lack intelligence.

The rationale for the "final solution" - "there can be no sentiment in logic".

Following the law blindly "because it is the law" - pure fascism.

If you can't see the similarity of mindset...then I'm more than guessing that it's you who's lacking in the intelligence department :rolleyes: .