Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options

Mrs Moroccan Roll...?

145791015

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    apollo_69 wrote:
    and that is why you just don't get it...........cannabis was never banned for medical reasons, and therein lies the injustice.
    It doesn't really matter why it was banned. We're on about whether the government should release to a wider sector of society a drug that has been shown to damage health. Not to mention the fact that we don't yet have a roadside test for drug driving.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it's been legal and widely used since the dawn of time for all the purposes i have stated in this thread ...for economic reasons alone it is now outlawed.
    how do you react to a united nations study that proved a certain ammount of cannabis actualy improved driving skills?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i don't understand this bit.
    If you're going to use as an argument the fact that a lot of money is being spent on the black market and going to the criminal gangs rather than the Treasury, then you cannot then justify legalising cannabis by saying you will spend all the money raised on trying to treat or rehabilitate those who have been harmed by that drug.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    how do you react to a united nations study that proved a certain ammount of cannabis actualy improved driving skills?
    With surprise.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    It doesn't really matter why it was banned

    sorry but you're an idiot when it comes to this topic, it's like talking about iraq with lukesh.........like saying it doesn't matter why we went to war with iraq.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    If you're going to use as an argument the fact that a lot of money is being spent on the black market and going to the criminal gangs rather than the Treasury, then you cannot then justify legalising cannabis by saying you will spend all the money raised on trying to treat or rehabilitate those who have been harmed by that drug.
    sorry i didn't make myself clear ...who are all these people who will need treating is what i meant.
    the five to ten percent that have problems ...that would have problems with something else no doubt if there were no drugs ...like an alcohol problem no doubt.
    the better controlled the drugs the less people have problems.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    With surprise.
    if i knew where to start i'd find you a link ...it was supressed for a long time ...cos as usual they don't want you to know the truth.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    We're on about whether the government should release to a wider sector of society a drug that has been shown to damage health.

    But if this does infact give the patient better quality of life rather than be in pain blah blah then surely they should allow this woman to use it, not bang her up. (are we still on about the same thing cos I missed a couple of pages) :blush:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    apollo_69 wrote:
    sorry but you're an idiot when it comes to this topic, it's like talking about iraq with lukesh.........like saying it doesn't matter why we went to war with iraq.
    I've argued my case. I can't be an expert on everything can I? But I don't believe in legalising cannabis from a civil liberties point of view.

    I'd be delighted, however, to prescribe cannabis based painkillers, even if the side effects were exactly the same.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    BeckyBoo wrote:
    But if this does infact give the patient better quality of life rather than be in pain blah blah then surely they should allow this woman to use it, not bang her up. (are we still on about the same thing cos I missed a couple of pages) :blush:
    I'm trying to keep painkilling out of their debate because they just want blanket legalisation. Dealing with pain and improving QOL are basic forms of compassionate humanity in my view.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    I've argued my case. I can't be an expert on everything can I? But I don't think legalising cannabis from a civil liberties point of view.

    I'd be delighted, however, to prescribe cannabis based painkillers, even if the side effects were exactly the same.

    don't take it personally, it's just frustrating to see yet another person deluded by the blatant propaganda.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    apollo_69 wrote:
    don't take it personally, it's just frustrating to see yet another person deluded by the blatant propaganda.
    Trust me, I'm no gullible fool. I wouldn't argue so passionately if I didn't have some knowledge and experience of the detrimental effects of cannabis.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Trust me, I'm no gullible fool. I wouldn't argue so passionately if I didn't have some knowledge and experience of the detrimental effects of cannabis.
    so ...lets keep this multi billion quids industry in the hands of criminals.
    lets wash our hands of the situation and have no control whatsoever ...
    lets leave the streets awash with all manner of drugs with no quality control ...doesn't sound at all sensible to me but do i care ...no.
    i have my quality weed thankyou ...and some very very clean unadulterated moroccan to boot!
    so stuff the lot of you.
    by the way ...i hope none of you noticed i have been indulging in this wicked substance all evening.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Trust me, I'm no gullible fool. I wouldn't argue so passionately if I didn't have some knowledge and experience of the detrimental effects of cannabis.

    Truth is we're are all gullible when it comes to accepting government lies in whatever shape and form.........and the easiest lie is a half-truth.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    apollo_69 wrote:
    government lies
    I don't trust the government any more.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    there used to be an economic argument that said ...the west would be allowing billions upon billions of all the worlds currencies going to the third world if they legalised cannabis.
    that argument no longer holds ...dodgy as it was anyway ...cos now ...all western nations are producing their own in huge ammounts ...so huge that the UK actualy exports top weed now.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i blame cannabis for rock n roll ...the blues ...jazz ...especialy new oreans jazz.
    soul ...reggae ...grunge punk electronica and dance ...
    captain beefheart should be in an assylum but thanks to cannabis ...he gets fame and glory.
    what about all those classical composers ...and opium and cannabis remedies?
    not to forget the poets and admirals ...
    the queen and the greatest fictional detective ever ...linked by opiates ...
    funny how back then ...these people were heroes ...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Two separate arguments.

    Yeah, that's why i've listed them individually as separate arguments... :rolleyes: . I think you need your eyes checked - glaucoma anyone? Oh wait... :thumb:

    Kentish wrote:
    Let me rearrange that for accuracy's sake.
    People smoking "soapbar" causes health problems.
    You can either claim personal choice, or deny it and blame this on prohibition.

    If people smoke soapbar because they believe it to be a harmless painkiller then I may reconsider my position. If there are other reasons for soapbar use, then I stand by my argument.

    Not it's not logical to tax something, claim the government will make money out of legalising drugs, and then express a desire to spend the tax money on treating the effects of the very same drugs.

    You can't grasp the concept, can you?

    People smoke soapbar because they want to smoke cannabis...and often, they can't afford or aquire actual proper bud, or real hashish...there's some stoners on here who have the problem. The government has no right to intervene here, especially when their intervention is causing harm to people they're supposedly trying to protect by allowing "soapbar" to flood the UK.

    So...prohibition leads to chronic health problems by not allowing people to smoke real cannabis. Get caught growing your own plants, even for personal use, and there's a good chance you're up shit creek without even a joint to smoke. Where's the fucking logic in this? There is none, and your arguments don't hold.

    You've also said legalisation would lead to increased use - but the evidence there is from Holland indicates the opposite is true. So you've effectively got no basis for anything you've said.

    So what exactly is your argument here Kentish, just out of interest? Do you have any arguments? I'm beginning to wonder, as you don't seem able to be able to address ANY of the points i've put forth...a bit like my MP :rolleyes:.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    Yeah, that's why i've listed them individually as separate arguments... :rolleyes: . I think you need your eyes checked - glaucoma anyone? Oh wait... :thumb:
    If you won't acknowledge the potentially harmful effects of cannabis (soapbar or not), then there's not a lot of point arguing about it.

    All your arguments are based on civil liberties.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    You know nothing about the drug, nothing about the nature of the drug, and nothing about the people who smoke the drug.

    You've not been there, you've not experienced the experience - you have no idea. And to be honest, you're making a fool of yourself.

    :thumb: couldn't have said it better myself, why is it that only stoners know what the craic is?????
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    If you won't acknowledge the potentially harmful effects of cannabis (soapbar or not), then there's not a lot of point arguing about it.

    All your arguments are based on civil liberties.

    Where have I denied potential harm?

    You've stated you don't support legalisation, recreationally or medicinally; but you can't produce any arguments that hold any weight for prohibiting either.

    Do you not agree the points i've made, overall? Do you not see the flaws in government policy and breeches of basic freedoms?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    :thumb: couldn't have said it better myself, why is it that only stoners know what the craic is?????

    Because it opens your mind... :p

    That and the fact that being a stoner, you get aquainted with law on a more personal level. Stoners see through the shit by which others are blinded.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    Stoners see through the shit by which others are blinded.

    What a load of smug shite.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    Where have I denied potential harm?
    I can't recall you acknowledging it.
    You've stated you don't support legalisation, recreationally or medicinally
    No I haven't.
    you can't produce any arguments that hold any weight for prohibiting either.
    I've stated my arguments enough times on this thread and others. You can agree or disagree with me, and I'm quite happy to argue my case and share my experience with you.
    Do you not agree the points i've made, overall? Do you not see the flaws in government policy and breeches of basic freedoms?
    I do see the argument for having the right to do whatever you want; I see the argument that cannabis is less harmful than some already legal substances; I see powerful evidence of cannabis as a medicine; I see arguments for improving the quality of drugs by controlling the supply.

    However, we don't argue for the legalisation of drink driving because falling asleep at the wheel causes more accidents.

    The government does have a duty to prevent harm and promote health.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    What a load of smug shite.

    Should be right up your street then eh?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    What a load of smug shite.

    you can't deny that once everyone smokes dope they see the world through a new perscpective, the intenllectuality of these people is not an issue, kentishs' weak arguements are a classic example of this, any stoner will tell him what the craic is because he knows what dope does, doesn't mean he's smarter than kentish.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    I can't recall you acknowledging it.

    Well I wasn't prompted to acknowledge it. Yeah, it has some potential for harm, but that's not a pratical basis for prohibition.
    Kentish wrote:
    I've stated my arguments enough times on this thread and others. You can agree or disagree with me, and I'm quite happy to argue my case and share my experience with you.

    I do see the argument for having the right to do whatever you want; I see the argument that cannabis is less harmful than some already legal substances; I see powerful evidence of cannabis as a medicine; I see arguments for improving the quality of drugs by controlling the supply.

    So what's your stance? Do you support legalisation? If you can understand those arguments, then you can obviously understand the current situation of prohibition causing more health problems than it supposedlky seeks to prevent, yes?
    Kentish wrote:
    However, we don't argue for the legalisation of drink driving because falling asleep at the wheel causes more accidents.

    The government does have a duty to prevent harm and promote health.

    Forget silly analogies, and where does this whole "duty to prevent harm and promote health come from"? Read my posts. It's there, as plain as you can get. Prohibition causes more harm than legalisation would - you get rid of the soapbar and provide a clean supply of hash & grass...less health problem for smokers as a result, and a sizeable tax revenue. There's no evidence to suggest smoking will increase - the opposite is true. I've said this again and again, why don't you get it? It's pure fucking logic!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    you can't deny that once everyone smokes dope they see the world through a new perscpective, the intenllectuality of these people is not an issue, kentishs' weak arguements are a classic example of this, any stoner will tell him what the craic is because he knows what dope does, doesn't mean he's smarter than kentish.

    Yes Kentish is chatting shit, but it does not automatically follow that dope smokers know what they're talking about. Stoner culture is renowned for bullshit. "Yeah maaaaan its only a herb" etc.

    The debate is too polarised IMO. On one side you have the "cannabis will save the world" hippy crap and on the other you have the "cannabis will send you crazy" reactionary crap.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    The debate is too polarised IMO. On one side you have the "cannabis will save the world" hippy crap and on the other you have the "cannabis will send you crazy" reactionary crap.

    aye thats cos people aren't actually looking at the logistics of the situation, too busy trying to promote their opinions without looking at it sensibly, yes it's no panacea but kentishs is way way way off also, i think the right answers to the problem are here to be seen in this thread but i'm not typing it out cos i'll just get a negative reaction from someone so i'll sit back and let you all find it out aswell
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    aye thats cos people aren't actually looking at the logistics of the situation, too busy trying to promote their opinions without looking at it sensibly, yes it's no panacea but kentishs is way way way off also, i think the right answers to the problem are here to be seen in this thread but i'm not typing it out cos i'll just get a negative reaction from someone so i'll sit back and let you all find it out aswell

    You may as well type it out, try and educate these people.
Sign In or Register to comment.