|
Home > Archive > Drugs pot > December 2006 > Petition Tony Blair to legalise cannabis
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Petition Tony Blair to legalise cannabis
|
|
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise cannabis."
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/legalisecannabis/
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| Rachel Harrassment 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
|
"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.15.18.19.52.841521@stovell.org.uk...
> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise cannabis."
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/legalisecannabis/
>
> --
> Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
>
> "They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
> let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
>
XXXX that, let's legalise heroin. I'm sure the good Mr. Crowley would agree.
Harrassment, Inc.
| |
| Cute Little Mexican Midget 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote
> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise cannabis."
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/legalisecannabis/
Don't see your name there, Phil?
| |
| Krustov 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| <uk.rec.drugs.cannabis>
<Rachel Harrassment>
<Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:27:54 -0000>
<8PqdnfO6W8vTwcbYnZ2dnUVZ8sGdnZ2d@bt.com>
>
> XXXX that, let's legalise heroin
>
Why ? .
--
www.cannabiswindow.co.uk
| |
| Rachel Harrassment 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
|
"Krustov" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fc571ab4f81fdc598a1bb@news.newsreader.com...
> <uk.rec.drugs.cannabis>
> <Rachel Harrassment>
> <Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:27:54 -0000>
> <8PqdnfO6W8vTwcbYnZ2dnUVZ8sGdnZ2d@bt.com>
>
>
> Why ? .
>
Why not?
| |
| Cute Little Mexican Midget 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| "Krustov" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>
> Why ? .
To separate supply from criminal control. Duh.
| |
| The Rifleman 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| Why? Doesnt society already have enough problems with tossers who need
artifical stimulation to function.
"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.15.18.19.52.841521@stovell.org.uk...
> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise cannabis."
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/legalisecannabis/
>
> --
> Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
>
> "They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
> let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
>
| |
| Krustov 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| <uk.rec.drugs.cannabis>
<Rachel Harrassment>
<Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:03:02 -0000>
<a4-dnd-ufJgU-cbYRVnyiA@bt.com>
>
> Why not?
>
Its you that wants it to happen - yet you cant even give one good valid
reason .
--
www.cannabiswindow.co.uk
| |
| Cute Little Mexican Midget 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| "The Rifleman" <survivor@northland.co.uk> wrote
> Why? Doesnt society already have enough problems with tossers
Indeed. Well done.
(top posting, illiterate, mumble grumble sigh)
| |
|
| On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:25:34 -0000, "The Rifleman"
<survivor@northland.co.uk> wrote:
>Why? Doesnt society already have enough problems with tossers who need
>artifical stimulation to function.
Oh yes. Wankers like you for a start.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
Keep Science Scientific
BCSE http://bcseweb.org.uk
| |
| Cute Little Mexican Midget 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| "The Rifleman" <survivor@northland.co.uk> wrote
> Why? Doesnt society already have enough problems with tossers who need
> artifical stimulation to function.
I guess you turn your nose up at alcohol, cigarettes, television, cinema and
all other forms of escapism.
WTF are you doing reading news? It gives you cancer, you know.
XXXX me, are you GOD?
| |
| Cute Little Mexican Midget 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote
> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise cannabis."
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/legalisecannabis/
Of course, this relies upon the gubbint reacting to logical argument, such
as 'don't invade Iraq; it'll only make things worse', but hey ho.
| |
| Alex Buell 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:19:57 +0000, I waved a wand and this message
magically appears in front of Phil Stovell:
>
> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise cannabis."
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/legalisecannabis/
Did anyone spot the "Tony Blair" in the petition? Not big and not
clever!
--
http://www.munted.org.uk
You've been eating the cat food again, haven't you?
| |
|
|
"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.15.18.19.52.841521@stovell.org.uk...
> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise cannabis."
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/legalisecannabis/
>
> --
> Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
>
> "They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
> let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
>
You honestly think that people will sign a petition that asks for not only
their email addy but full postal address?
Sorry officer we can`t help you!
| |
|
| On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:21:26 -0000, "G" <j@l.c> wrote:
>
>You honestly think that people will sign a petition that asks for not only
>their email addy but full postal address?
>
Just watch it. It's already the petition with most signatories.
>Sorry officer we can`t help you!
They can't arrest you for signing a petition. Yet.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
Keep Science Scientific
BCSE http://bcseweb.org.uk
| |
| Badger Shame 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| X-Complaints-To: abuse@motzarella.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:02:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com uk.politics.drugs:85117 uk.legal:1261267 uk.rec.drugs.cannabis:4988 alt.drugs.pot:688547 uk.misc:1183923 uk.politics.misc:2074164
Cute Little Mexican Midget qrnq_znatyrq_cvtrba@zfa.pbz wrote in
<455b6576$0$2452$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>:
> "Krustov" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>
>
> To separate supply from criminal control. Duh.
>
Won't happen. Afghanistan would erupt because the price of opium would
drop significantly. Therefore it's not going to be lagalised at least for
a few decades.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
| |
| Badger Shame 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| X-Complaints-To: abuse@motzarella.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:03:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com uk.politics.drugs:85118 uk.legal:1261268 uk.rec.drugs.cannabis:4989 alt.drugs.pot:688548 uk.misc:1183925 uk.politics.misc:2074165
The Rifleman survivor@northland.co.uk wrote in
<MbadnaG4BsI09MbYRVnyjA@bt.com>:
>
> Why? Doesnt society already have enough problems with tossers who need
> artifical stimulation to function.
>
Not really. If you removed all the tea and coffee drinkers from the work
force the entire country would collapse.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
| |
| John of Aix 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| G wrote:
> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.11.15.18.19.52.841521@stovell.org.uk...
>
> You honestly think that people will sign a petition that asks for not
> only their email addy but full postal address?
>
> Sorry officer we can`t help you!
Yeah me neither but isn't thatpart of the validation of a petition, that
the signatories can be traced in case of some dispute (they never are
though). Anyone with a bit of Internet sense can make dozens of e-mail
adresses so could sign the petition as many times as they wished thus
faking the result.
Would it bother you to put your address when signing on paper. And, if
yes or no, why?
Genuine question.
| |
| Cute Little Mexican Midget 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| "G" <j@l.c> wrote in message
> You honestly think that people will sign a petition that asks for not only
> their email addy but full postal address?
I honestly think that this country is in such a XXXXing mess thanks to
pricks with no balls.
| |
|
| On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:14:54 -0000, "Cute Little Mexican Midget"
<qrnq_znatyrq_cvtrba@zfa.pbz> wrote:
>"G" <j@l.c> wrote in message
>
>
>I honestly think that this country is in such a XXXXing mess thanks to
>pricks with no balls.
>
IAWTP.
It's time to stand up and be counted.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
Keep Science Scientific
BCSE http://bcseweb.org.uk
| |
| Krustov 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| <uk.rec.drugs.cannabis>
<G>
<Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:21:26 -0000>
<GJqdnSL_HstEGcbYnZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d@bt.com>
> You honestly think that people will sign a petition that asks for not only
> their email addy but full postal address?
>
> Sorry officer we can`t help you!
>
Have you ever heard of a single instance of the police paying somebody a
visit because they said on the internet they smoke cannabis ? .
--
www.cannabiswindow.co.uk
| |
| Krustov 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| <uk.rec.drugs.cannabis>
<John of Aix>
<Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:10:15 +0100>
<455b9038$0$5103$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>
>
> Yeah me neither but isn't thatpart of the validation of a petition, that
> the signatories can be traced in case of some dispute (they never are
> though). Anyone with a bit of Internet sense can make dozens of e-mail
> adresses so could sign the petition as many times as they wished thus
> faking the result.
>
> Would it bother you to put your address when signing on paper. And, if
> yes or no, why?
>
> Genuine question.
>
Its part paranoia and part jumped up self importance that makes the
average space cadet think they are important enough for the police to be
the least bit interested in them .
Its all quite harmless though .
--
www.cannabiswindow.co.uk
| |
| Krustov 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| <uk.rec.drugs.cannabis>
<JAF>
<Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:08:42 GMT>
<4a7nl214p954q1qlvm40ksshcqb5hpa3mg@4ax.com>
> It's time to stand up and be counted.
>
Dont be so XXXXing stupid .
The average pothead wont even admit they smoke cannabis .
They know if they ever do so then the SPG will reform and they will have
their door kicked in within 24 hours of them saying so :-)
--
www.cannabiswindow.co.uk
| |
| Rachel Harrassment 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
|
"Krustov" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fc57b189a14ec1a98a1bc@news.newsreader.com...
> <uk.rec.drugs.cannabis>
> <Rachel Harrassment>
> <Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:03:02 -0000>
> <a4-dnd-ufJgU-cbYRVnyiA@bt.com>
>
>
> Its you that wants it to happen - yet you cant even give one good valid
> reason .
>
Are you trying to start a fight young man? For every argument for the
legalization of cannabis, there exist several more weighty arguments in
favour of the legalisation of heroin and all other narcotic analgesics, and
for that matter, cocaine and amphetamines. They should all be made legally
available, perhaps by signing a legal disclaimer. But for now, on Fight
Night: Cannabis v. Heroin......
1. Whether cannabis produces a pleasurable experience is questionable, and
the whole experience is very subjective. In many people it has the opposite
effect. Cannabis does not cause physical dependence. It does have proven
medicinal benefits, but so does heroin.
2. Heroin, on the other hand, is pretty much guaranteed to provide profound
euphoria which often proves irresistable, with resultant physical
dependance. Heroin is kickass good, borne out by the fact that people will
do incredibly stupid / desparate / criminal acts to obtain it.
3. Pot smokers are not a huge drain on the criminal justice system.
4. Heroin users are a huge drain on the criminal justice system.
5. By virtue of the fact that cannabis is generally smoked with tobacco it
carries proven health risks.
6. Smoking heroin carries no known physical health risks, even in its impure
street form. Government controlled and taxed supply of pharmaceutical grade
heroin would negate the need for users to move on to intravenous use. But
intravenous use of the purified substance would be far cleaner and safer
than current methods.
7. You can grow your own cannabis even in a small abode. Anyway, it's cheap.
Grow your own.
8. Heroin requires hundreds of plants and a variety of dangerous chemicals
for its manufacture even on a small scale. It's expensive.
9. Cannabis is cheap, controlled & taxed cannabis would not be significantly
cheaper or better.
10. Heroin is cheap to manufacture. It could be taxed greatly, sold at high
profit and still be orders of magnitude cheaper than it currently is. Its
current cost is a major factor in heroin associated crime.
11. Taking out cannabis suppliers would not have any significant effect on
major organised crime and the problems associated with it.
12. Removing heroin suppliers would instantly remove the income of many
tiers of criminality from serious organised crime to the addict shoplifting
for his next dose.
13. I'm bored now. I do hope I have provided at least some reasons for my
proposal but I really must get my supper. Yummy pop-tarts and heroin.
Hoo-ray! Now piss off.
Harrassment, Inc.
| |
| Krustov 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| <uk.rec.drugs.cannabis>
<Rachel Harrassment>
<Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:51:36 -0000>
<oYedneQg2cp-NMbYRVnytA@bt.com>
>
> Are you trying to start a fight young man?
>
You interpret being asked for valid reasons why you think something is a
good idea as being challenge to a duel at dawn ? .
IMHO your just a little boy lost in the ballet of pro usenet .
--
www.cannabiswindow.co.uk
| |
| Badger Shame 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| X-Complaints-To: abuse@motzarella.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:11:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com uk.politics.drugs:85128 uk.legal:1261330 uk.rec.drugs.cannabis:4998 alt.drugs.pot:688557 uk.misc:1183953 uk.politics.misc:2074308
JAF anarchSPAMKILLER@ntlworld.com wrote in
<4a7nl214p954q1qlvm40ksshcqb5hpa3mg@4ax.com>:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:14:54 -0000, "Cute Little Mexican Midget"
> <qrnq_znatyrq_cvtrba@zfa.pbz> wrote:
>
> IAWTP.
>
> It's time to stand up and be counted.
>
There's one of me. Whether I'm standing up or sitting down.
HTH
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:34:51 +0000, Cute Little Mexican Midget wrote:
> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote
>
>
> Don't see your name there, Phil?
I haven't received the confirmation e-mail. I've just signed it again.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:43:15 +0000, JAF wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:21:26 -0000, "G" <j@l.c> wrote:
>
>
> Just watch it. It's already the petition with most signatories.
>
>
> They can't arrest you for signing a petition. Yet.
Only terrorists and rag heads sign petitions, as any fool knows.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:21:05 +0000, Krustov wrote:
> <uk.rec.drugs.cannabis>
> <G>
> <Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:21:26 -0000>
> <GJqdnSL_HstEGcbYnZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d@bt.com>
>
> Have you ever heard of a single instance of the police paying somebody a
> visit because they said on the internet they smoke cannabis ? .
No, because they're all in jail without internet access.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
|
| Rachel Harrassment wrote:
> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.11.15.18.19.52.841521@stovell.org.uk...
>
> XXXX that, let's legalise heroin. I'm sure the good Mr. Crowley would agree.
>
> Harrassment, Inc.
Yes, let's legalize all drugs. If people want to use (or abuse drugs),
it's a choice that concerns their own body/mind and hence ultimately
their own decision. However, I think drugs with greater associated
healthrisks should be regulated more strictly. In particular
potentially lethal drugs like alcohol and heroin.
Drugs like cannabis can be legalized overnight (that is, become
available to well-informed adults), but in the case of heroin I think a
mentality change is needed where the government prepares people with a
campaign to educate (rather than scare) people about the risks involved
before fully legalizing it (say, in a few years or so). There could be
a gradual movement towards general availability of even drugs like
crack, heroin, meth, etc. where these drugs are regulated very strictly
at first (for instance, people could obtain a license to use them or
have to complete some kind of test to demonstrate they are fully aware
of the risks involved).
Ultimately drug prohibition amounts to state sponsored crime regardless
wether it's cannabis, alcohol or heroin. The key to prevent and reduce
drug abuse is to educate and inform people and take them seriously with
respect to their ability to make responsible choices regarding their
own life.
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 05:02:19 +0000, Phil Stovell wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:34:51 +0000, Cute Little Mexican Midget wrote:
>
>
> I haven't received the confirmation e-mail. I've just signed it again.
Looks like there's a bug in the system. It wouldn't recognise my usual
e-mail address, but works with my real one (not the above). I'm now signed
up.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| Cute Little Mexican Midget 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| "Krustov" <me@privacy.net> wrote
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Dont be so XXXXing stupid .
>
> The average pothead wont even admit they smoke cannabis .
And you know all about 'the average pothead', do you, XXXXwit?
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| There's now another cannabis petition:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to remove cannabis and
cannabis products from the Misuse of Drugs Act and associated laws"
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Cannabis/
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| Mike_B 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| In message <pan.2006.11.16.13.34.58.910200@stovell.org.uk>, Phil Stovell
<phil@stovell.org.uk> writes
>There's now another cannabis petition:
>
>"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to remove cannabis and
>cannabis products from the Misuse of Drugs Act and associated laws"
>
>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Cannabis/
>
Is it the same one but the guy was too stoned to remember he had already
put one up?
--
Mike_B
| |
|
| Phil Stovell wrote:
> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise cannabis."
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/legalisecannabis/
OK I'll sign it but I think a better way to get cannabis legalised is to ask
the government to bring in the death penalty for it's use. In my experience
they always do the opposite of what I want!
Slatts
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:16:05 +0000, Mike_B wrote:
> In message <pan.2006.11.16.13.34.58.910200@stovell.org.uk>, Phil Stovell
> <phil@stovell.org.uk> writes
> Is it the same one but the guy was too stoned to remember he had already
> put one up?
:-)
No, the first was from the Cannabis Assembly, the second the Legalise
Cannabis Alliance.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| Cute Little Mexican Midget 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No, the first was from the Cannabis Assembly, the second the Legalise
> Cannabis Alliance.
Splitters!
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:54:20 +0000, Cute Little Mexican Midget wrote:
> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>
>
>
> Splitters!
'kin 'ell! That was quick! You replied 45 seconds after I posted!
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
|
|
| Giacomo 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:pan.2006.11.16.17.53.30.904695@stovell.org.uk...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:16:05 +0000, Mike_B wrote:
>
>
> :-)
>
> No, the first was from the Cannabis Assembly, the second the Legalise
> Cannabis Alliance.
>
Sounds like the Judean People's Front. I mean, the People's Front of Judea!
Judean People's Front. Cawk.
Giacomo
> Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
>
> "They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
> let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
>
| |
| Alex Buell 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:14:06 -0000, I waved a wand and this message
magically appears in front of Cute Little Mexican Midget:
>
> Don't forget to sign this one, too:
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Resign/
Can we have one for Gordon Brown as well?
--
http://www.munted.org.uk
You've been eating the cat food again, haven't you?
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:45:16 +0100, Giacomo wrote:
> Sounds like the Judean People's Front. I mean, the People's Front of
> Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
I've got some pix of the LCC 1980 protest in Hyde Park somewhere.
>
> Giacomo
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| Cute Little Mexican Midget 2006-11-19, 4:44 pm |
| "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> 'kin 'ell! That was quick! You replied 45 seconds after I posted!
And another three hours for Giacomo to explain it ;-D
| |
|
| Cute Little Mexican Midget wrote:
> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>
>
> And another three hours for Giacomo to explain it ;-D
>
>
Phil S. you might know the answer to this. So far as I can tell from the
statistics, which seem to be five years out of date for no obvious
reason, about 2100 people were jailed that year (2002) for cannabis for
an average of eight months each. That makes about seven hundred person
years allowing for 50% time off for good behaviour, in other words 700
prison places.
Is this wrong?
What does it cost to keep someone in jail these days? Is it £24,000?
That makes about £16 million.
This is not much to the Gov. It's not a strong argument to them for
stopping the foolishness. Obviously there's a lot of incidental upset in
there for those concerned plus the ancillary services.
Do you agree with these stats.?
| |
| FriarTuck 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:53:35 +0000, Phil Stovell wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:16:05 +0000, Mike_B wrote:
>
>
> :-)
>
> No, the first was from the Cannabis Assembly, the second the Legalise
> Cannabis Alliance.
bastards split us! (Life of brian... 
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:46:29 +0000, hj wrote:
> Do you agree with these stats.?
When this was discussed previously, the figure of 2 people jailed for
possession per week was quoted. I don't know where that stat came from.
So, I don't know :-).
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:21:01 +0000, Phil Stovell wrote:
> I've got some pix of the LCC 1980 protest in Hyde Park somewhere.
http://www.shuv.nildram.co.uk/lcc1980-05-10/
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
|
| Phil Stovell wrote:
> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise cannabis."
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/legalisecannabis/
>
> --
> Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
>
> "They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
> let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
I presume the purpose of an online petition is to save having to type
names and addresses into the M15/employment blacklist/US entry database.
| |
|
| dwickford@yahoo.com says...
> I presume the purpose of an online petition is to save having to type
> names and addresses into the M15/employment blacklist/US entry database.
If they're going to get MI5 to keep an eye on everyone who thinks the
cannabis laws are foolish, they're going to need to hire a lot more
people.
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
| On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:41:31 -0800, Dave wrote:
> Phil Stovell wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I presume the purpose of an online petition is to save having to type
> names and addresses into the M15/employment blacklist/US entry database.
Strange you should say that. Both myself and a friend who also signed the
petition have had a car with blacked out windows parked outside since
yesterday evening.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
| On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 09:47:30 +0000, Xmas wrote:
> dwickford@yahoo.com says...
>
> If they're going to get MI5 to keep an eye on everyone who thinks the
> cannabis laws are foolish, they're going to need to hire a lot more
> people.
Especially as 50% of them are watching Mike Corley through his TV set.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| dwickford@yahoo.com 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
|
Xmas wrote:
> dwickford@yahoo.com says...
>
> If they're going to get MI5 to keep an eye on everyone who thinks the
> cannabis laws are foolish, they're going to need to hire a lot more
> people.
Really? They have records on everyone. Say 50kBytes of text which is
enough for several pages of A4. 50 000x62 000 000 =3D 3.1 T bytes.
Say quadrouple storage for backup, and a RAID array =3D 12.4 Terra
bytes. A 2T Byte ethernet disk costs =A3864.78 including vat from DABS.
So you need 6 which is about =A34400 pounds excluding VAT. So storage
cost is not a limitation. What is difficult is integrating printed
records, and different computer databases. Haven't you been reading
the Metro job adverts? I'm sure they were after people with database
type experience.
E=2Eg you're 17 and sign the petition, then aged 24 you want to become a
train driver, (a well paid job), but your application is rejected, and
you're not told why.
| |
| Krustov 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
| <uk.rec.drugs.cannabis>
<Phil Stovell>
<Sat, 18 Nov 2006 10:02:22 +0000>
<pan.2006.11.18.10.02.20.885922@stovell.org.uk>
>
> Strange you should say that. Both myself and a friend who also signed the
> petition have had a car with blacked out windows parked outside since
> yesterday evening.
>
You dont mention the black helicopter thats hovering above your house .
But then - that could be because its running in stealth mode and you
cant hear it .
--
www.cannabiswindow.co.uk
| |
| Stephen Horgan 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
|
dwickford@yahoo.com wrote:
> Xmas wrote:
se.[vbcol=seagreen]
> Really? They have records on everyone. Say 50kBytes of text which is
> enough for several pages of A4. 50 000x62 000 000 =3D 3.1 T bytes.
>
> Say quadrouple storage for backup, and a RAID array =3D 12.4 Terra
> bytes. A 2T Byte ethernet disk costs =A3864.78 including vat from DABS.
> So you need 6 which is about =A34400 pounds excluding VAT. So storage
> cost is not a limitation. What is difficult is integrating printed
> records, and different computer databases. Haven't you been reading
> the Metro job adverts? I'm sure they were after people with database
> type experience.
>
> E.g you're 17 and sign the petition, then aged 24 you want to become a
> train driver, (a well paid job), but your application is rejected, and
> you're not told why.
You can certainly store 12.4 terabytes on a modern server system, but
if you actually want to be able to do anything with the data you do
need a few more components than have been described. Cost for something
like this would be in the GBP 1-4 million range depending on the
technologies chosen. Needless to say, there are much larger systems in
existence both in Britain and around the world.
| |
|
| On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 10:03:13 +0000, Phil Stovell <phil@stovell.org.uk>
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 09:47:30 +0000, Xmas wrote:
>
>
>Especially as 50% of them are watching Mike Corley through his TV set.
Joking apart if your name comes up on a list often enough then SB will
check up on you. In future you may even appear on things like 'no fly'
lists or be given just that little extra attention at seaports in the
form of an intimate body search. Fine for those into BDSM but not for
the rest of us 
--
"Evil always goes where the power is"
(Buffy)
| |
|
| In article <pan.2006.11.18.10.03.12.177651@stovell.org.uk>,
phil@stovell.org.uk says...
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 09:47:30 +0000, Xmas wrote:
>
> Especially as 50% of them are watching Mike Corley through his TV set.
I thought they were busy wanking outside his window? I've obviously not
been keeping up to date!
| |
|
| In article <1163868547.069618.65570@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
dwickford@yahoo.com says...
> Really? They have records on everyone.
Records are not the same thing as keeping an eye on someone. If they
want to have more cars with blacked out windows outside Phil's house,
then they have to hire more operatives.
If you put your name to some of the more vociferous 'Tony Blair should
be tarred, feathered THEN hung, drawn and quartered' petitions then I
agree that someone might take more of an interest in you, but I can't
see that they would really care about people's opinion on cannabis use.
Maybe I'm being naive, I dunno.
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
| On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 19:12:16 +0000, Xmas wrote:
> If you put your name to some of the more vociferous 'Tony Blair should be
> tarred, feathered THEN hung, drawn and quartered' petitions then I agree
> that someone might take more of an interest in you, but I can't see that
> they would really care about people's opinion on cannabis use.
It's just the tip of the iceberg, disagreeing with St. Anthony of
Lauranorder about the legality of cannabis. It might mean I'm a member of
the fifth column of uk.legal posters who think he's a danger to freedom
and democracy in Airstrip One.
I'm getting a lot more attacks on my firewall since I signed that
petition. Fortunately, I run Linux and St. Anthony is conspiring with
Pearly in world domination, so it's unlikely the spyware would work. It's
unlikely to work on Windows either, judging by past Government IT projects.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
| On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 18:20:16 +0000, Krustov wrote:
> <uk.rec.drugs.cannabis>
> <Phil Stovell>
> <Sat, 18 Nov 2006 10:02:22 +0000>
> <pan.2006.11.18.10.02.20.885922@stovell.org.uk>
>
> You dont mention the black helicopter thats hovering above your house .
I thought that was plod checking for cannabis factories.
>
> But then - that could be because its running in stealth mode and you cant
> hear it .
ROFL!
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
|
| In article <pan.2006.11.18.20.25.27.841110@stovell.org.uk>,
phil@stovell.org.uk says...
> I'm getting a lot more attacks on my firewall since I signed that
> petition.
I think the smokes may be making you paranoid Phil! I signed one of the
several cannabis petitions too and have noticed no additional firewall
attacks, no black-windowed cars outside my house, and no MI5 agents
wanking outside my window.
| |
|
|
Xmas wrote:
> In article <1163868547.069618.65570@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> dwickford@yahoo.com says...
>
> Records are not the same thing as keeping an eye on someone. If they
> want to have more cars with blacked out windows outside Phil's house,
> then they have to hire more operatives.
>
> If you put your name to some of the more vociferous 'Tony Blair should
> be tarred, feathered THEN hung, drawn and quartered' petitions then I
> agree that someone might take more of an interest in you, but I can't
> see that they would really care about people's opinion on cannabis use.
>
> Maybe I'm being naive, I dunno.
Do you want to be in a plane/train where the pilot/driver has a known
cannabis weakness?
| |
| Krustov 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
| <uk.rec.drugs.cannabis>
<Phil Stovell>
<Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:27:17 +0000>
<pan.2006.11.18.20.27.16.523637@stovell.org.uk>
>
> I thought that was plod checking for cannabis factories.
>
When i brought the CW website online about 3 years ago i was expecting
the old bill to kick my door in within days or a couple of weeks at the
very most .
I've even asked the hosting companys the CW website has been on over the
years and assuming they are telling the truth - not one of the hosting
companys has ever been approached .
The best i can figure is that the old bill has a sense of humour and can
see the joke as i dont take names/adresses or credit card numbers .
But i do sometimes wonder if i've been put on some activist watch list
and/or have ever been followed ..... all quite comical of course as i'm
a real boring bastard and spend most of my time in front of a pc :-)
--
www.cannabiswindow.co.uk
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
| On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:40:09 +0000, Xmas wrote:
> In article <pan.2006.11.18.20.25.27.841110@stovell.org.uk>,
> phil@stovell.org.uk says...
>
> I think the smokes may be making you paranoid Phil! I signed one of the
> several cannabis petitions too and have noticed no additional firewall
> attacks, no black-windowed cars outside my house, and no MI5 agents
> wanking outside my window.
Like a fool, I post using my real name.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| Krustov 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
| <uk.rec.drugs.cannabis>
<Xmas>
<Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:40:09 -0000>
<MPG.1fc980045f973611989789@127.0.0.1>
> I signed one of the
> several cannabis petitions too and have noticed no additional firewall
> attacks, no black-windowed cars outside my house, and no MI5 agents
> wanking outside my window.
>
Thats only because they know you are surveillance consious and they are
using the Telstar satellite to track and monitor you .
--
www.cannabiswindow.co.uk
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
| On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 12:48:18 -0800, Dave wrote:
>
> Xmas wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Do you want to be in a plane/train where the pilot/driver has a known
> cannabis weakness?
Much better for then to be boozers, I take it.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
|
| dwickford@yahoo.com says...
> Do you want to be in a plane/train where the pilot/driver has a known
> cannabis weakness?
With the high prevalence of cannabis use I think it's highly likely I
have been. That said, I cheerfully admit that I've no idea if random
drug tests are mandatory for train drivers.
| |
|
| phil@stovell.org.uk says...
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:40:09 +0000, Xmas wrote:
>
> Like a fool, I post using my real name.
That is foolish, but more 'cos of some of the litigous sods on uk.legal.
I signed the petition with my real name (of course) though, so if they
want me they know where I live
| |
|
| me@privacy.net says...
> Thats only because they know you are surveillance consious and they are
> using the Telstar satellite to track and monitor you .
That's OK, I think that if they did decide to track me they'd need extra
money to cope with the boredom. I don't even smoke cannabis myself,
just think that people should have the right to do so if they want.
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
| On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:57:03 +0000, Xmas wrote:
> phil@stovell.org.uk says...
>
> That is foolish, but more 'cos of some of the litigous sods on uk.legal. I
> signed the petition with my real name (of course) though, so if they want
> me they know where I live
I'm also being sued for libel by Prince Harry, if you recall :-).
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
| On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 21:00:13 +0000, Xmas wrote:
> me@privacy.net says...
>
> That's OK, I think that if they did decide to track me they'd need extra
> money to cope with the boredom. I don't even smoke cannabis myself, just
> think that people should have the right to do so if they want.
That's being an accessory after the fact and conspiracy. 20 years, I
expect.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
| On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:58:23 +0000, Xmas wrote:
> dwickford@yahoo.com says...
>
> With the high prevalence of cannabis use I think it's highly likely I have
> been. That said, I cheerfully admit that I've no idea if random drug
> tests are mandatory for train drivers.
They are.
Now can we get back to the jokes?
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
|
|
| Phil Stovell 2006-11-19, 4:45 pm |
| On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:22:34 +0000, johannes wrote:
>
>
> Phil Stovell wrote:
>
> Nonsense.
You've convinced me. I've rescinded my signature. Thanks for that
comprehensive rebuttal and logical argument.
Glad to see the jokers are back.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| Billy H 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| name wrote:
> Rachel Harrassment wrote:
>
> Yes, let's legalize all drugs. If people want to use (or abuse drugs),
> it's a choice that concerns their own body/mind and hence ultimately
> their own decision. However, I think drugs with greater associated
> healthrisks should be regulated more strictly. In particular
> potentially lethal drugs like alcohol and heroin.
> Drugs like cannabis can be legalized overnight (that is, become
> available to well-informed adults), but in the case of heroin I think
> a mentality change is needed where the government prepares people
> with a campaign to educate (rather than scare) people about the risks
> involved before fully legalizing it (say, in a few years or so).
This last point is utter nonsense. The problems associated with alcohol are
many, varied and large scale. But aren't we all educated concerning the use
of alcohol?
Education, if you want to call it that, of people with regard tot he use of
mind altering drugs, such as alcohol etc., requires a change in the
attitudes of those who are being educated. Many people simply want to get
'wasted', 'off the planet' or something else, sometimes they become
intoxicated beyond their control by accident. To think education can help
relieve a problem of drug abuse and its effects is very naive.
We teach people with regard to maths at school, but how many can add up?
We teach them English, and that 'educated' list of reasoning above began
with the word 'XXXX' - much better ones could be chosen.
So the question to put to you is - does education work? If so what kind of
education, and how?
> There could be a gradual movement towards general availability of
> even drugs like crack, heroin, meth, etc. where these drugs are
> regulated very strictly at first (for instance, people could obtain a
> license to use them or have to complete some kind of test to
> demonstrate they are fully aware of the risks involved).
Crack?
think of the problems in Columbia, the slavery and the mistreatment of the
people in the fields etc. If we legalise crack, on a moral arguement,
shouldn't we also campaign for a change in the staus quo in Columbia and
other cocaine growing countries?
Risks? risk of our country being hated even more by those who are abused in
Columbia etc...
> Ultimately drug prohibition amounts to state sponsored crime
> regardless wether it's cannabis, alcohol or heroin. The key to
> prevent and reduce drug abuse is to educate and inform people and
> take them seriously with respect to their ability to make responsible
> choices regarding their own life.
Bullshit.
If you don't like our civilisation, leave.
--
Billy H
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| There are now 4 cannabis petitions. You can see them all:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/search?q=cannabis
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| Billy H 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| Phil Stovell wrote:
> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise cannabis."
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/legalisecannabis/
Best thing that could happen is the suppliers stop selling it to pricks and
all other forms of dimwit, dolt, social nuisance etc.
Sell it to those who will use it not abuse it.
And legalise it for medicinal purposes.
--
Billy H
| |
| Cute Little Mexican Midget 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| "Billy H" <willhoward@nanteshoward.nospam.f9.co.uk> wrote
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Best thing that could happen is the suppliers stop selling it to pricks
> and all other forms of dimwit, dolt, social nuisance etc.
>
> Sell it to those who will use it not abuse it.
>
> And legalise it for medicinal purposes.
Just sign the petition you XXXXing nob.
| |
| Billy H 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| Cute Little Mexican Midget wrote:
> "Billy H" <willhoward@nanteshoward.nospam.f9.co.uk> wrote
>
>
>
> Just sign the petition you XXXXing nob.
Shall I copy your reply to the petition as an example of the etiquette of a
common and ordinary pothead?
| |
| Raincoat With Four Sleeves 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| "Billy H" <willhoward@nanteshoward.nospam.f9.co.uk> wrote
>
> Shall I copy your reply to the petition as an example of the etiquette of
> a common and ordinary pothead?
I'm just pointing out what a hypocritical, judgemental, small minded little
twat you are.
You can do what the XXXX you like. That's the whole point, shithead.
Everybody draws their own line. Who died and made you King?
| |
| Billy H 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| Cute Little Mexican Midget wrote:
> "Billy H" <willhoward@nanteshoward.nospam.f9.co.uk> wrote
>
>
>
> Just sign the petition you XXXXing nob.
Bit of a stupid prick aint you?
--
Billy H
| |
| Raincoat With Four Sleeves 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| "Billy H" <willhoward@nanteshoward.nospam.f9.co.uk> wrote
> Bit of a stupid prick aint you?
Preferable to being a complete prick like you, I guess.
| |
| Billy H 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| Raincoat With Four Sleeves wrote:
> "Billy H" <willhoward@nanteshoward.nospam.f9.co.uk> wrote
>
>
> Preferable to being a complete prick like you, I guess.
I'll get you later...
--
Billy H
| |
| Raincoat With Four Sleeves 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| "Billy H" <willhoward@nanteshoward.nospam.f9.co.uk> wrote
>
> I'll get you later...
No doubt.
| |
|
| On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:21:25 -0000, "Billy H"
<willhoward@nanteshoward.nospam.f9.co.uk> wrote:
>Shall I copy your reply to the petition as an example of the etiquette of a
>common and ordinary pothead?
Just sign it, self-righteous nob.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
'If god had wanted me to believe in him, he'd exist' - Linda Smith.
| |
|
| On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:04:43 -0000, "Billy H"
<willhoward@nanteshoward.nospam.f9.co.uk> wrote:
>JAF wrote:
>
>I don't want it legalised, can you not read?
Well, you must be a cunt.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
'If god had wanted me to believe in him, he'd exist' - Linda Smith.
| |
| Billy H 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| JAF wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:04:43 -0000, "Billy H"
> <willhoward@nanteshoward.nospam.f9.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Well, you must be a cunt.
This is getting better.
--
Billy H
| |
| Raincoat With Four Sleeves 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| "Billy H" <willhoward@nanteshoward.nospam.f9.co.uk> wrote
> This is getting better.
Good. Don't pick it.
| |
| Billy H 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| Raincoat With Four Sleeves wrote:
> "Billy H" <willhoward@nanteshoward.nospam.f9.co.uk> wrote
>
>
> Good. Don't pick it.
I shan't, and I didn't need that advice from you.
| |
| Raincoat With Four Sleeves 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| "Billy H" <willhoward@nanteshoward.nospam.f9.co.uk> wrote
>
> I shan't, and I didn't need that advice from you.
Oh, FFS. I imagine your bigger brother will be along soon and he's much
tastier?
You whiney little stringbean. Get laid.
| |
| Billy H 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| Raincoat With Four Sleeves wrote:
> "Billy H" <willhoward@nanteshoward.nospam.f9.co.uk> wrote
>
>
> Oh, FFS. I imagine your bigger brother will be along soon and he's
> much tastier?
>
> You whiney little stringbean. Get laid.
Don't argue with my bigger brother, he'll shake and wobble in his boots.
--
Billy H
| |
| Badger Shame 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| X-Complaints-To: abuse@motzarella.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:00:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com uk.politics.drugs:85222 uk.legal:1264445 uk.rec.drugs.cannabis:5070 alt.drugs.pot:689325 uk.misc:1185009 uk.politics.misc:2077057
Phil Stovell phil@stovell.org.uk wrote in
<pan.2006.11.21.19.48.46.321580@stovell.org.uk>:
>
> There are now 4 cannabis petitions. You can see them all:
>
No Phil. There's just two. You are seeing double. Use more baccy.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
| |
|
|
Billy H wrote:
> name wrote:
>
>
> This last point is utter nonsense. The problems associated with alcohol are
> many, varied and large scale. But aren't we all educated concerning the use
> of alcohol?
>
> Education, if you want to call it that, of people with regard tot he use of
> mind altering drugs, such as alcohol etc., requires a change in the
> attitudes of those who are being educated. Many people simply want to get
> 'wasted', 'off the planet' or something else, sometimes they become
> intoxicated beyond their control by accident. To think education can help
> relieve a problem of drug abuse and its effects is very naive.
It's not naive. You grossly underestimate the capability of
well-informed adults to (learn to)
take responsibility for their own behavior.
If parents never let children assume responsibility for their own
actions, those children are likely to remain dependent on their parents
and tend to screw up when their parents are unable to take
responsibility any more. It's a learning process that requires both
sides to actively endeavor towards the desired goal where children have
learned to take responsibility for their own actions.
It makes more sense to rely on education to inform people about such
issues as a healthy lifestyle or a healthy diet rather than
realistically expecting government regulations can impose restrictions
on ignorant citizens in order to protect them against themselves.
>
> We teach people with regard to maths at school, but how many can add up?
>
> We teach them English, and that 'educated' list of reasoning above began
> with the word 'XXXX' - much better ones could be chosen.
>
> So the question to put to you is - does education work? If so what kind of
> education, and how?
>
I think contemporary education leaves a lot to be desired for. In my
opinion education should focus more on learning people to think
critically and independently instead of relying on the authority of
others. Apart from that I think it should be based on the inherent
curiosity of people to
inform themselves and all you need to do is ensure they have access to
information so
they can educate themselves based on their personal interests.
Information communication technology offers many exciting new options
in that respect.
>
>
> Crack?
>
> think of the problems in Columbia, the slavery and the mistreatment of the
> people in the fields etc. If we legalise crack, on a moral arguement,
> shouldn't we also campaign for a change in the staus quo in Columbia and
> other cocaine growing countries?
>
> Risks? risk of our country being hated even more by those who are abused in
> Columbia etc...
Those issues are indepent of each other. You need to empower people in
developing countries so they can improve their economic situation and
this can be achieved by a more fair distribution of wealth and
resources and fair trade regulations. Regardless of whether those
people are involved in drug cultivation or other lines of profession
that offer little or no perspective towards improving their future
circumstances. I see no fundamental difference between people producing
beer (or growing the ingredients for it) and people producing cocaine
(or growing coca). The only difference is that people who happen to
prefer cocaine are frequently demonized in the media (regardless
whether they use it or abuse it), while those who happen to prefer beer
happen to be respected and accepted (if they use it responsibly).
>
>
>
> Bullshit.
Do you agree alcohol prohibition in the previous century was a form of
state sponsored crime?
Why do you think alcohol prohibition was abandoned as an approach to
reduce and prevent alcohol abuse?
Why would the same arguments that apply to alcohol prohibition not
apply to other drugs?
The mechanism is very clear. Prohibition causes the price of drugs to
rise and turns
the drug trade into a very lucrative source for income for criminals.
Are you denying that a drug like cannabis is very expensive on the
street (given
the costs involved to grow it if it was legal) and the people involved
in cannabis production
and distribution are primarily motivated by the money they can earn
this way?
>
> If you don't like our civilisation, leave.
What kind of bullshit argument is that? Would this be your advice to
Jews and homosexuals
in former Nazi Germany? Something like "the majority of people make the
laws and the majority has decided to eliminate unwanted minorities like
Jews and homosexuals. So if you don't like those laws you better get
the hell out of Germany."
>
>
>
> --
> Billy H
| |
| Billy H 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| name wrote:
> Billy H wrote:
>
> It's not naive. You grossly underestimate the capability of
> well-informed adults to (learn to)
> take responsibility for their own behavior.
And you're more naive than the original mentioner of education was. I
underestimate in what sense? In so far as I know my car window was smashed
by some drunk? In so far as I know that I've done in the past and am guilty
of because of excessive intoxication?
Mind altering substances alter the mind. That is logic. An altered mental
state alters the mental state. That is logic too!
> If parents never let children assume responsibility for their own
> actions, those children are likely to remain dependent on their
> parents and tend to screw up when their parents are unable to take
> responsibility any more. It's a learning process that requires both
> sides to actively endeavor towards the desired goal where children
> have learned to take responsibility for their own actions.
> It makes more sense to rely on education to inform people about such
> issues as a healthy lifestyle or a healthy diet rather than
> realistically expecting government regulations can impose restrictions
> on ignorant citizens in order to protect them against themselves.
>
True, and so this happens already and we continue to have the situations we
have.
>
> I think contemporary education leaves a lot to be desired for. In my
> opinion education should focus more on learning people to think
> critically and independently instead of relying on the authority of
> others. Apart from that I think it should be based on the inherent
> curiosity of people to
> inform themselves and all you need to do is ensure they have access to
> information so
> they can educate themselves based on their personal interests.
> Information communication technology offers many exciting new options
> in that respect.
>
In my experience education and learning work the way Illich described it.
Unless the person wants to learn then all the books in the world, all the
lectures in the world are not going to teach what the school teachers wish
to teach. Inherent curiosity is not an inherent curiosity to want to know
what is being taught, it is an inherent curiosity to know what the chemistry
of the body leads the perosn to want to know, if the inherent curiosity
exists at all, it may exist in you, it may exist in your social peer group
but I know it doesn't exist across the spectrum of social peer groups, some
do not want to know much of anything. The inherent curiosity is what makes a
person tick, if you read some about genetics you would learn it is a set of
chemical elements and all people are different genetically. Personal
interests may run to smoking dope and sniffing cocaine and that is all.
Actions throughout a lifetime develop people in ways they become both
accustomed to and/or strong enough to deal with as they come to pass.
Discipline, in the doing of what one does not want to do but doies for some
end (to please the teacher, to learn a new skill) keeps the world ticking
over with a happier moralty in the long term.
Your arguement is quite wild, and ludicrous although I do have some
agreement with what you say with regard to IT. It enables me to call you a
pillock.
So what do we do? Our free learners cannot learn a job, they do not want to.
So we provide easy jobs where they need know nothing, and pay them loads of
money to keep them off the violent crime statistics to feed their habits???
What a farce!!
IT? yes, more credit card fraud options, internet banking fraud. I would
give you one thing, it is more mental than most other things and dope heads
can do well there.
>
> Those issues are indepent of each other. You need to empower people in
> developing countries so they can improve their economic situation and
> this can be achieved by a more fair distribution of wealth and
> resources and fair trade regulations. Regardless of whether those
> people are involved in drug cultivation or other lines of profession
> that offer little or no perspective towards improving their future
> circumstances. I see no fundamental difference between people
> producing beer (or growing the ingredients for it) and people
> producing cocaine (or growing coca).
Ok, I'll stop eating carrots then.
But yes, the cunts in England who are abusing drugs ar giving our farmers a
hard time too.
The only difference is that
> people who happen to prefer cocaine are frequently demonized in the
> media (regardless whether they use it or abuse it), while those who
> happen to prefer beer happen to be respected and accepted (if they
> use it responsibly).
>
All chemicals have an affect upon the body, and upon the mind. Some have
affects which alter personality, some enhance existing personality, others
depress it. Chemicals do many things. Cocaine tends to make people angry and
aggressive for it reduces the sensitivities of all of the bodies organs. It
neutralises the chemicals of the pancreas which carry the greater gentle
emotions thorugh the sugar levels in the system and it thereby allows people
to be freer of their own emotional states, and insensible to the feelings of
others. Study the pancreas, and realise what it does, consider cocaine and
learn what it does in the pancreas and to emotions.
Cocaine abusers are demons, the less educated ones more so.
>
> Do you agree alcohol prohibition in the previous century was a form of
> state sponsored crime?
No.
> Why do you think alcohol prohibition was abandoned as an approach to
> reduce and prevent alcohol abuse?
Don't think it was. I think some should be banned from using alcohol in this
day and age, for reasons you should be able to draw from my arguement
regatrding individual's body chemistry and the affects of chemical upon
them. I am not allergic to yeast, I've heard of some who are. I am not
allergic to dust, I've heard of some who are...
> Why would the same arguments that apply to alcohol prohibition not
> apply to other drugs?
Why do I interpret that you think they are being forwarded as if they don't?
> The mechanism is very clear. Prohibition causes the price of drugs to
> rise and turns
> the drug trade into a very lucrative source for income for criminals.
So what? Who isn't a criminal, I'll be a politician one day, and then the
Civil Service directing me will make me look like a criminal.
> Are you denying that a drug like cannabis is very expensive on the
> street (given
> the costs involved to grow it if it was legal) and the people involved
> in cannabis production
> and distribution are primarily motivated by the money they can earn
> this way?
>
So you want cannabis legalised to reduse its price?
Not kept criminal by virtue of the social, mental and physical effects it
has?
>
> What kind of bullshit argument is that? Would this be your advice to
> Jews and homosexuals
> in former Nazi Germany?
We're talking about laws that exist, and have existed for a long time. Laws
that have upheld the Nations Welath and means of producing Weath. Not ones
imposed by a crazy insane elected governor, nor ones desired to be repealed
by an anarchistic or otherwise lazy XXX and draining group of degenerate
halfwits who can't remember the morals school teaches them.
Aside from that, the Jews have always been persecuted, so have the
Christians, and the Muslims. I don't hold with this WWII reflection you give
me and I often hear. We have a longer history of life on Earth.
Why not use El Cid?
I'm talking about the operations of the Bristish State.
Go to school, learn, be civilised.
Something like "the majority of people make
> the laws and the majority has decided to eliminate unwanted
> minorities like Jews and homosexuals. So if you don't like those laws
> you better get the hell out of Germany."
>
See the above. You're already outlawed, so leave. If you ever come back
bring me a sensible arguement, please.
[vbcol=seagreen]
--
Billy H
| |
|
|
Billy H wrote:
> name wrote:
>
> And you're more naive than the original mentioner of education was. I
> underestimate in what sense?
You assume the current situation regarding educating people about the
risks of
alcohol is optimal and I think it can be improved in many ways such
that education is
a more effective approach towards reducing and preventing alcohol
abuse.
Whenever people buy alcohol, they ought to find a brief overview of the
potential effects and risks on the bottle/can and leaflets next to it
with more elaborate information.
Society as a whole and the educational system and parents in particular
should provide more
elaborate information and young people should learn the difference
between use and abuse
gradually in a social setting where responsible use is the norm.
In case of smoking (regardless of whether it's tobacco or cannabis),
one can argue that any use is irresponsible, but there is still a
difference between smoking an occasional cigarette or spliff at a party
and an addiction of smoking a few packs a day. Just like eating junk
food occasionally isn't as harmful as eating it on a daily basis.
People can be stimulated to adopt a healthy lifestyle by increased
charges for a health insurance in case they insist on unhealthy
behavior like smoking or an unhealthy diet.
> In so far as I know my car window was smashed
> by some drunk? In so far as I know that I've done in the past and am guilty
> of because of excessive intoxication?
Your window might as well be smashed by some teens who are a bit overly
aggressive
from their elevated testosterone levels.
>
> Mind altering substances alter the mind. That is logic. An altered mental
> state alters the mental state. That is logic too!
Lots of things alter the mind. Taking a course at university alters
your mind just the
same and there is nothing inherently wrong with altering your mind.
Drugs can enhance your state of mind (allow for concentration or
relaxation) but they
also potentially distort your cognitive faculties so that brings
inherent risks.
But such risks can never be a ground to prohibit people from taking
those risks, just like
we don't ban mountain climbing or diving simply because it's risky to
do so. It just means people
have to be educated about the risks involved and if they still decide
to neglect all the warnings
and take drugs (or climb mountains) on impulse, it's ultimately their
own decision and they
will have to bear responsibility for the consequences.
The government should only prevent people from endangering other
people's lives and not protect people against themselves. They should
simply provide education and information to enable people to make
informed decisions regarding their own life.
>
>
> True, and so this happens already and we continue to have the situations we
> have.
I think the increased availability of online information (as opposed to
traditional media) allows
for more informed citizens that are able to bear a greater
responsibility and handle
more freedom as a consequence of their increased awareness of reality.
Society will probably be more radically transformed by the internet
than by the printing
press, telephone and television combined. So we can't really argue
about the future based
on the past because of the availability of technology that allows for
society to be more thoroughly
informed.
>
>
> In my experience education and learning work the way Illich described it.
>
> Unless the person wants to learn then all the books in the world, all the
> lectures in the world are not going to teach what the school teachers wish
> to teach. Inherent curiosity is not an inherent curiosity to want to know
> what is being taught, it is an inherent curiosity to know what the chemistry
> of the body leads the perosn to want to know, if the inherent curiosity
> exists at all, it may exist in you, it may exist in your social peer group
> but I know it doesn't exist across the spectrum of social peer groups, some
> do not want to know much of anything. The inherent curiosity is what makes a
> person tick, if you read some about genetics you would learn it is a set of
> chemical elements and all people are different genetically. Personal
> interests may run to smoking dope and sniffing cocaine and that is all.
> Actions throughout a lifetime develop people in ways they become both
> accustomed to and/or strong enough to deal with as they come to pass.
> Discipline, in the doing of what one does not want to do but doies for some
> end (to please the teacher, to learn a new skill) keeps the world ticking
> over with a happier moralty in the long term.
>
> Your arguement is quite wild, and ludicrous although I do have some
> agreement with what you say with regard to IT. It enables me to call you a
> pillock.
>
>
> So what do we do? Our free learners cannot learn a job, they do not want to.
> So we provide easy jobs where they need know nothing, and pay them loads of
> money to keep them off the violent crime statistics to feed their habits???
>
> What a farce!!
>
> IT? yes, more credit card fraud options, internet banking fraud. I would
> give you one thing, it is more mental than most other things and dope heads
> can do well there.
>
People often abuse drugs because they are bored and have little or no
perspective to improve
their circumstances for the future. I don't want to victimize every
drug abuser, but I think a lot of problems associated with drug abuse
would be solved if we ensure society is organized more fairly and
strive towards offering everybody the same basic opportunities towards
a successful and satisfactory life. As far as jobs are concerned, I
think that most (if not all) jobs can be automated in the near future
so we ought to provide everybody a free basic income for food,
clothing, shelter, etc... and people can work in case they are
interested in extra luxury.
Currently, too many people waste their time on pointless jobs and this
prevents them from emancipating themselves and allowing them some time
to think what the hell they are doing in the first place and what they
want to accomplish in life. It's no wonder such people resort to drug
abuse or harassment of innocent people or their possessions (or
vandalizing public possessions) to vent their frustration.
>
>
>
> Ok, I'll stop eating carrots then.
>
> But yes, the cunts in England who are abusing drugs ar giving our farmers a
> hard time too.
>
> The only difference is that
>
> All chemicals have an affect upon the body, and upon the mind. Some have
> affects which alter personality, some enhance existing personality, others
> depress it. Chemicals do many things. Cocaine tends to make people angry and
> aggressive for it reduces the sensitivities of all of the bodies organs. It
> neutralises the chemicals of the pancreas which carry the greater gentle
> emotions thorugh the sugar levels in the system and it thereby allows people
> to be freer of their own emotional states, and insensible to the feelings of
> others. Study the pancreas, and realise what it does, consider cocaine and
> learn what it does in the pancreas and to emotions.
>
> Cocaine abusers are demons, the less educated ones more so.
Bullshit and by the same argument you might call alcohol abusers
demons.
Alcohol and violence are intimately related.
>
>
> No.
So you don't acknowledge the association between organized crime and
alcohol
during prohibition?
>
>
> Don't think it was.
Alcohol is available in lethal quantities for recreational purposes to
any adult, isn't it?
Although there are some restrictions like not being allowed to drink in
public under some circumstances.
> I think some should be banned from using alcohol in this
> day and age, for reasons you should be able to draw from my arguement
> regatrding individual's body chemistry and the affects of chemical upon
> them. I am not allergic to yeast, I've heard of some who are. I am not
> allergic to dust, I've heard of some who are...
So people who are allergic to peanuts should be prohibited from eating
peanuts?
>
>
>
> Why do I interpret that you think they are being forwarded as if they don't?
>
>
> So what? Who isn't a criminal, I'll be a politician one day, and then the
> Civil Service directing me will make me look like a criminal.
In a way the government is little more than the dominant crime
syndicate as long
as they violate basic human rights on a regular basis like they do.
>
>
> So you want cannabis legalised to reduse its price?
No, because I think people who happen to prefer cannabis instead of
alcohol pay taxes
just the same and deserve the same consumer protection that people who
happen to prefer alcohol receive. It's downright ludicrous and
fascistic that adults are not allowed to prefer a non-lethal
alternative like cannabis, supposedly because the government protects
them against themselves, while that same government allows them to buy
alcohol in lethal quantities
for recreational purposes.
>
> Not kept criminal by virtue of the social, mental and physical effects it
> has?
This is an outright lie. If you look into the history of cannabis
prohibition, you will find
that it has no medical nor scientific basis whatsoever. It was based
primarily
on racism and economic motivations (outlawing hemp as an alternative
source for paper,
fuel, etc..).
>
>
>
>
> We're talking about laws that exist, and have existed for a long time. Laws
> that have upheld the Nations Welath and means of producing Weath. Not ones
> imposed by a crazy insane elected governor, nor ones desired to be repealed
> by an anarchistic or otherwise lazy XXX and draining group of degenerate
> halfwits who can't remember the morals school teaches them.
I'm just saying it's ridiculous to accept or respect laws that infringe
on basic human rights, like
the right to pursue a lifestyle of your preference as long as those
activities don't infringe
upon the freedom of others.
>
> Aside from that, the Jews have always been persecuted, so have the
> Christians, and the Muslims. I don't hold with this WWII reflection you give
> me and I often hear. We have a longer history of life on Earth.
Homosexuals haven't exactly been accepted and respected throughout
history either.
I just think that any truly civilized and decent society should accept
and respect minorities
and their right to pursue a lifestyle of their preference as long as
that lifestyle doesn't infringe
upon the freedom of others. If discrimination based on hereditary
background, spiritual/religious/political persuasion and sexual
orientation is wrong, why not acknowledge it's equally wrong to
criminalize people because of a particular preference they happen to
have for substances used for recreational intoxication?
If you insist on banning drugs, you should at least be consistent in
that approach and ban all drugs (including alcohol, tobacco, coffee,
etc..). It would be equally fascistic, but at least it wouldn't be
hypocritical like the current drug laws.
>
> Why not use El Cid?
>
> I'm talking about the operations of the Bristish State.
>
> Go to school, learn, be civilised.
>
>
> Something like "the majority of people make
>
> See the above. You're already outlawed, so leave. If you ever come back
> bring me a sensible arguement, please.
You bring me a substantial argument that justifies the prohibition of a
non-lethal drug like cannabis while allowing a lethal drug like
alcohol.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Billy H
| |
| Phil Stovell 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:58:37 +0000, Badger Shame wrote:
> Phil Stovell phil@stovell.org.uk wrote in
> <pan.2006.11.21.19.48.46.321580@stovell.org.uk>:
> No Phil. There's just two. You are seeing double. Use more baccy.
No, there's definitely 4. I don't smoke tobacco, it makes you stink and
causes lung cancer.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
| |
| Billy H 2006-12-06, 10:05 pm |
| name wrote:
> Billy H wrote:
>
> You assume the current situation regarding educating people about the
> risks of
> alcohol is optimal and I think it can be improved in many ways such
> that education is
> a more effective approach towards reducing and preventing alcohol
> abuse.
> Whenever people buy alcohol, they ought to find a brief overview of
> the potential effects and risks on the bottle/can and leaflets next
> to it with more elaborate information.
> Society as a whole and the educational system and parents in
> particular should provide more
> elaborate information and young people should learn the difference
> between use and abuse
> gradually in a social setting where responsible use is the norm.
> In case of smoking (regardless of whether it's tobacco or cannabis),
> one can argue that any use is irresponsible, but there is still a
> difference between smoking an occasional cigarette or spliff at a
> party and an addiction of smoking a few packs a day. Just like eating
> junk food occasionally isn't as harmful as eating it on a daily basis.
> People can be stimulated to adopt a healthy lifestyle by increased
> charges for a health insurance in case they insist on unhealthy
> behavior like smoking or an unhealthy diet.
>
Passion, pure passion.
>
> Your window might as well be smashed by some teens who are a bit
> overly aggressive
> from their elevated testosterone levels.
>
True, but it wasn't. It was drunken women who had left the local pubs or
clubs and were fighting with each other on the street outside. I live in a
hotel and guests on the front heard the fracas outside in the early hours of
the morning, and complained to my mother in the morning.
>
> Lots of things alter the mind. Taking a course at university alters
> your mind just the
> same
just the same?
what do you learn from smoking a spliff? That the world is wobbly and
everything is heavy.
I'll | | |