Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
what's your thoughts?
i dont think many will stop doing it as a result? and how many people actually do get caught?
i dont think i deserve to go to jail cos i like a cheeky toke on a doobie every now and again.
plus i'd never survive in jail!
I HATE paris!
im nothing like her!
Sorry... you wished me happy birthday and everything. That was uncalled for. But funny ;)
and a slightly heartfelt one at that
you've lost me here!
and the bloke with glasses and no hair (i forgot his name) said he reckons its just political tactics, i.e. bringing up Camerons previous drug issues among other things. That doesnt mean he wont bring it in, in which case i wouldnt be too happy.
there are obviously bad aspects to the drug, it does mess with your head if you use too much, but why make it's use in affect more illegal than it currently is. what has gone wrong to smokers since it was declassified?
Part of the argument for raising the classification is that stronger variants are more easily available now.
which is a good point seeing as how Cameron at least often leads with the 'it's so much stronger now than it was in my day' line, if it really is a stregth thing perhaps they should look at thc levels
If so i dislike him even more.
at some conferance where he told a story of how he was with some police in Walse and they arrested dem yoot with some skunk which smelt so strong, much stronger than... then he realised the implications. >:(
although id like to become involved in politics and i think every so often of the things that might come back to haunt me...
ive never really posted anything that is too personal, mainly silly unfunny remarks
to that of someone else called Jasmine Pearson off MySpace, over in New Zealand of something, you'll be fine.
my friend will have to reintroduce his clumsy handshakes again.
Even really strong stuff's not been completely proved to mess you up any more than alcohol, right?
lung cancer etc. for the smoking and all manner of things for the alcohol
At like, a high enough level?
And smoking causes lung cancer, not cannabis. You can buy cigarettes in every second shop from the age of 16.
the data basically suggests that if you're a wee bit delicate mental-wise anyway, taking weed won't help. Nothing's been proven.
it can send you over the edge, and you can often see the effects of excessive smoking of weed on people, in my opinion though its no worse than drinking or smoking.
when i stop smoking it for a bit i definitely feel more alert and less brain dead and apathetic.
and it isn't wise at all for people who have/have had any kind of mental illness.
or for people who've had schizophrenia sufferers in the family, as it makes you more susceptible to developing the illness.
Even stable people I have known have been destabilized and had symptoms of panic and paranoia from smoking too much weed.
Seems hard to believe when it hasn't happened to you yet, but trust me, it comes along.
I mean - stripping fittings out of their house looking for cameras.
And these are totally fucking normal people who have been messed up over time.
the news on tv and in papers has had a similar efect on me, even in times of tee totalism
It drives people crazy.
It's not cool particularly, but I personally know people who have suffered mental illness and psychosis just form being a bit of a stoner.
I can see why people get more tory as they get older.
you dont have to smoke it!
not have stolen his mum's car, crashed it, then punched her in the face and been sectioned, were it not for the fact that he smoked skunk every day.
There are more.
but theres plenty of examples of people dying from lung cancer as a result of smoking, or alcoholism etc. yet they are legal. I assume you are opposed to those as well?
drinking doesn't regularly lead to mental illness. Other things do. So yes, other things should be 'flagged up' as being harmful more.
And I know that drinking is linked with depression and addiction, but in a much less openly apparent and consistent way.
harm as a result of alcohol. Yes it linked to depression and addiction, but on a different level the violence associated with alcohol simply does not exist with weed.
can be pretty violent. And it's true that they don't have as much fighting in the streets in Amsterdam, but check out that impressive suicide rate.
Same with alcohol, but its legal.
It's up to the person to be responsible for themselves.
i think most people know if they can deal with it after the first few joints. a lot of people just carry on regardless...
people generally always do whats in their "best interest". most people just continue with however they feel.i dont think anything coercive should be done about it though!
so long that it doesnt adversely affect others
all went a bit crazy, and put a massive strain on the mental health services that all taxpayers pay for? That would be adversely affecting others, no?
but a bit closer to home, it generally adversely affects the people stoners live with..
living with stoners, especially if you smoke, is an awful idea
and theres not a lot you can do about it im afraid
the recognition that weed is not NECESSARILY harmful is a valuable one, but that the kneejerk reaction to reclassify it has probably confirmed in people's minds that unlimited consumption is harmless, when it blatantly isn't.
Maybe the only sensible solution is decriminalisation and regulation. Maybe it isn't. Hard to predict.
four years ago I think. I don't imagine it losing them any votes really and they'll see it as a vote winner. The opinions of the users don't exactly sway opinion, pretty much the same as habitual speeders kicking up a fuss about speed cameras, they're breaking the law so their tantrums count for diddlysquat
as are alcohol and nicotine and to a lesser extent caffeine, but when people suggest that the only way to keep the strain off our health services i think they need to look at countries where it has been decriminalised. I have to admit i do lean towards legalisation and regulation, but mainly because i see absolutely no point in handing out criminal sentences to people for using narcotics.
if the government thinks it is bad for you they should help people not to take them not prosecute them and leave them with a record which could harm their chances of work later in life when they no longer even want to experiment with drugs. Or even worse send them to jail, which probably isn’t very good for your mental health either I would suspect.
Also following on form what I said about Cameron up there ^^ the home secretary has today admitted smoking it at University, and she thinks it is bad and that no one should. So essentially if she does reclassify the drug, does it not suggest that she thinks she should have gone to prison for what she did?
who come out and give it the 'I smoked it, I regret it' shit. Really fucking irritating. WHO GIVES A SHIT.
I don't. And regarding re-classification: it will not make the blindest bit of difference to 90% of people who smoke the drug.
Now they've banned smoking everywhere the idea of legalising it becomes pretty much moot anyway as there's few places you could smoke it recreationally so people will smoke it at home and no one gets caught in any case.
that made me chuckle. "Over 10 billion (or whatever number) are "dependent" on the drug in the UK" !! DEPENDENT??
I can't see how anyone could ever be described as 'dependant' on a recreational drug.
i lived with one and he is a compete mess. i think a stretch in jail will sort him out though.
just like it didn't make any difference last time they reclassified it
the scum who smoke weed don't give a stuff what classification it is. The scum who sell it to them may do, if it means being banged up rather than fined.
too many to list here in fact!
there are far more important things the government should be looking into, not starting up debates about drug laws again. It's just a timewasting exercise.
slightly insane and sociopathic.
Adverts cause severe impairment to brain activity.
The TV news and newspapers.
Indeed even state approved mind control and indoctrination at school is not only tolerated but actually funded by taxes.
Is Grodon Brown particularly qualified to make these decisions?
sometimes i feel im possessed with a sort of monomania when i argue points like these though, because i find my discussions always revert back to a reference to some sort of collective psychosis :) then i wonder if its me..
does he have the ability to make a considered and helpful decision in these matters.........he seems to have a very large range of opinion, if he feels capable of reclassifying and passing judgement on so many people...............I know that I talk a=on a vast range of subjects too.....but I will back up my comments with supporting evidence.....and very wise ranging pontificating.....I am able to debate the pros AND cons..............why do Rulers never point out pros AND cons to stuff they decide on I wonder? It would be a lot more helpful.
Has Grodon Bowrn discussed or explained his decision at length.........does he discuss and explain any decision at length? do any of your RULERS do this? Im a bit baffled as to the initial post, perhaps that just how it was reported.
yeah, mickey-loosefit is pro-reclassification, that's a turn-up for the books, no?
*for fucks sake prole, please log out your alter egos when you're done
to explain the dangers and talk about the facts of life as they are.....not just to have a crusade......I once had a mate who snorted some vim....he thought it was am*******ine.... it didnt do him any good.
Drinking meths is not good for you either.
If you drink too much water you can kill yourself.
If you eat too much fatty food you stand a chance of killing yourself, is it right to prosecute the 'posessors' of a chocolate bar....or a sweet tooth?
We have a society that is dedicated to 'excess' this is what causes people to do 'too much' (apart from accidents...based on ignorance)
and without any prevention 'kill yourself with alcahol' sometimes others join in.
e.g. 'barman fill up this pint pot with a bit of everything from your top shelf'
then give it to young lad.....maybe 18/21 birthday.....mates cheer on and encourage and call him a wimp if not.........yay....he did it........barman same again........repeat...
young lad died of alcaholic poisoning.....regularly young men are encouraged by peer pressure and advertising to drink so much that they are sick (body rejecting the poison).....many men who get into trouble with the law and go to prison for aggressive actions may heve been pushed that far by alcahol, it often destroys their lives..............luckily it is seen as a nice cuddly drug because it is taxed and xontrolled by industrial companies, with MDs and accountants and they will have been audited so they must be ok
SEVERELY afected by alcahol.
with distinctive colours and fans strips and segregation has a tendancy to encourage mass violent clashes......surely fan segregation and wearing of colours should be 'reclasified'
It is an offence to be inebriated in public........surely it should be made illegal to sell or consume more than two pints per person (especially as this increases peoples agressiveness)
It is an offence to travel at more than 70mph on the motorway, and 'speed kills' surely all motor cars should be fitted with a speed limiter (MOT checked) anyone who sells motor cars in this country that can go at more than 70 mph is encouraging people to break the law and should be reclassified as criminals......hurrah car dealers = crims.....at last (glad I managed to make the connection)
Unfair discrimination is outlawed in regard of race and s** and S***** orient******.........apparently there are moves to extend this to age .....I agree.....but hang on there is discrimination according to ability, as measures in a particular way by government.......i.e. academic certification......since this only measures a particular type of performance (exam and written work) surely this is tantamount to the government encouraging unfair discrimination, perhaps they should be reclassified as '*****ists'
oh hang on ,,,,no matter what an mp does to displease his employers (you) he cant necessarily be got rid of till the next election........what other job has that protection.......surely the laws that parliament has passed with regard to their own job amounts to unfair job protectionism and sh be reclassified as such as protectionist and self serving.
Perhaps also the ability of 'freinds of powerful bodies' not to have to reveal to courts of law 'all thefacts because of 'commercial confidentiality' should be reclassified as @embarrissing COVER UP'
should be reclassified as 'theres no mud thrown thats stuck to me yet...member'
These days all of our consumable goods come with guideline daily allowances. the only two omissions are tobacco, which at least states it's tar and nicotine content, (though even then we don't get told whether high tar cigarettes are worse, we assume they are, but how do we know the tar doesn't protect us to some extent from the affects of taking in burning hot smoke) and illegal drugs.
Surely through a controlled and much more realistic approach to drugs (after all people will always do them) there would be a clearer limit to how much you can take before you are binging.
Let’s take beer again as an example. On most cans you have a message saying "responsible drinkers do not exceed 4 units per day" now obviously this doesn't stop anyone drinking much more, but it at least helps you realise what you are doing. Especially with the current climate of people paying more attention to fat intake and calories and such I think it would help people to step back and consider. It does no one any good being told something is bad for them, when they will do it anyway.
Also if the government did take ownership of the problem, they could actually rate the strength of what you are smoking/taking. Again it wouldn't stop some people getting hold of the strongest stuff, in the same way that people still get hold of proper absinthe if they really want to, but I know for one, that a mellower weed is often favourable to the knockout stuff you can get.
cos it makes people think fucking Pink Floyd are good
BAN THIS SICK FILTH
why on earth would you want to limit yourself to two pints......whats the point, many people drink to get drunk...two pints aint gonna do it,
but t least there is a start there, and you know that you are going to do yourself some damage after said amount. I don't believe for one minute that it would stop people getting well and truely stoned, but some kind of rating system would at least helf, and as i said certainly limiting the strength is a more useful idea than making criminals out of addicts.
i mean take a look at the so cal and bacardi adverts........does one get the impression that these party animals have two large ones for the whole night.......no the bacardi is flowing liberally through the air.....by allowing such adverts the rulers are surely undermining the efectiveness of their insistance on publishing guidelines....they should reclassify such adverts
to be a grading of how harmful substances were and, correspondingly, how much time and effort and resources were directed towards discouraging them.
it has since evolved into an utter mockery of this purpose, as demonstrated bluntly by that BBC thing a few months ago about how alcohol and nicotine would both come above MDMA in terms of harmfulness, and by the reclassification of shrooms to Class A.
i'm not saying that drugs aren't harmful, but it's time someone in power had the balls to say yes, they're harmful, so let's stop the classification system, which is arbitrarily organised, costly and ineffective propaganda for daily mail wankers, and actually got on with finding a solution that works - i.e. not necessarily stops people taking drugs or goes on moral crusades, but MINIMISES HARM.
so - yes. won't make any difference, will cost a lot of time and money, and will probably get a load of twats saying yars yars it should never have been made class C in the first place, hang them etc etc.