Rapture.....

[Reaktor4]

I can only go by what you say, ie: the laws are reasonable, i ask to explain how considering the destruction they cause and you refuse to answer.
You say drinking isnt the same as getting drunk but toking 'can easily be' the same as getting stoned. Any drug can be taken in amounts small enough to have little noticable effect.
You even implied that alcohol doesnt 'alter the perceptions and minds' of the users of it and is different to cannabis because you can, as you can with cannabis, take it in small dosages. oooooooook.

 

[Raziaar]

I can only go by what you say, ie: the laws are reasonable, i ask to explain how considering the destruction they cause and you refuse to answer.
You say drinking isnt the same as getting drunk but toking 'can easily be' the same as getting stoned. Any drug can be taken in amounts small enough to have little noticable effect.
You even implied that alcohol doesnt 'alter the perceptions and minds' of the users of it and is different to cannabis because you can, as you can with cannabis, take it in small dosages. oooooooook.

I don't think all the laws are reasonable. If you'd actually listen from time to time, I think that jail time for simple possession can be quite excessive at times.

Lets be honest here. Why do people smoke Cannabis? For the high, for the mentally altering capabilities that it has. I don't know a single damn person who smokes the stuff simply to smoke in such small quantities that they won't be affected at all. Such is not the case for alcohol. Many people only drink enough to enjoy it, but not succum to its most serious affects.

You even implied that alcohol doesnt 'alter the perceptions and minds'

Of course alcohol alters the perceptions and minds, but not even remotely in comparison to what cannabis does, when considering the amounts in which people usually consume it. If you compare a casual drinker, to a casual smoker, the drinker's goal can often times be not to get smashed, but rather drink it as a drink. Sure, some people may drink to get the buzz or get completely wasted by the alcohol. A casual smoker on the other hand... their goal nearly always is to get high. If they don't get high, whats the point for them? That's the appeal of cannabis. To get high. And to get high, they need to take in higher concentrations of the substance.

Anyways, i'm off to bed. I'll discuss further if you have more things to discuss rather than twisting my words around to suit your agenda.

 

[KoreBolteR]

unless major security issues like cameras all round the UK, and tougher jail sentances, making jail "hell" for the prisoners (not a 5 star hotel), crime is always going to be around.

but i would say that most of the crime in the UK is mostly in London.
i hardly see any here.

 

[Reaktor4]

Many people only drink enough to enjoy it, but not succum to its most serious affects.

Alcohol poisoning/blackouts/death you mean? :E Many people seem to drink purely to get to that stage nowadays, binge drinkers. Of course they are a minority. As are, i would imagine, people who drink 'for the taste' or whatever possible reason there is to drink without getting to the stage where you feel something. If you know better, please show me some stats or at least tell me why you think so.

Of course alcohol alters the perceptions and minds, but not even remotely in comparison to what cannabis does,

I think maybe youre overestimating the intensity of the effects of cannabis.

 

[Apos]

Drunk people are ten times worse than stoned people, and everyone knows it.

 

[Tr0n]

How about get back on topic...about the rapture.

Sound like a good plan?

 

[Absinthe]

Ideally, I'd like to meet God face to face and tell him to suck it.

But I'd most likely get on my knees and pathetically plead for his forgiveness. :\

 

[Raziaar]

Ideally, I'd like to meet God face to face and tell him to suck it.

But I'd most likely get on my knees and pathetically plead for his forgiveness. :\

So if you knew god existed, and all the stuff was going to happen and you had the chance to meet god... you'd tell him to suck it? lol

Very strange! Someone has a serious resentment! Most non believers simply don't believe... they don't have an underlying hatred

 

[Absinthe]

Meh, I don't believe in the guy. But if he does exist, I don't like him.

But I don't feel like getting into that atm.

 

[Tr0n]

Ideally, I'd like to meet God face to face and tell him to suck it.

But I'd most likely get on my knees and pathetically plead for his forgiveness. :\

I would probally do the 2nd option you put...I would be crying and begging for his forgiveness.

 

[burner69]

I don't think all the laws are reasonable. If you'd actually listen from time to time, I think that jail time for simple possession can be quite excessive at times.

Of course alcohol alters the perceptions and minds, but not even remotely in comparison to what cannabis does, when considering the amounts in which people usually consume it.

"At times"? Seriously Raziaar, you're a clever dude, consider that. To put things in perspective; one time I did shrooms, drying them out first, making them class A drugs, meaning I could, if busted, get 7 years. During my trip I went and visited a house mate who I hadn't spoken to in weeks, and chatted about stuff (he said in the morning it was really nice to speak to me, he got a lot off his chest), I danced around the kitchen with two wooden spoons, I laughed, I saw milk bottles dancing. I harmed nobody. I was sociable. I didn't damage anything... and the law states I should go down for 7 years for that... think about that... 7 years. That's more than manslaughter.

And alcohol will screw your head up MUCH more than weed if you do a lot. Weed has a limit, called a whitey, you'll mong out, sleep, and wake feeling a little tired the next day. What you won't do, no matter how much you smoke, is turn violent, be aggressive, and confrontational... unlike a certain legal drug...

 

[AzzMan]

I know of people who have gotten busted for weed and been sentence to more time than people who have been convicted of murder. So tell me, how is smoking weed worse than murder? anyone?

 

[Apos]

It's not. The Drug War, in addition to being a complete failure, is unjust beyond belief. You seriously have to wonder about people that support it. They might seem like nice people, but deep down, they believe that families should be destroyed, lives ruined, and so on, all because of a little pot smoking. That's chilling. Sociopaths at least know they're evil, deep down.

 

[AzzMan]

I think it's just that they've dug themselves so deep in this, that any attempt to go back would destory all their credibility, and of course we all know politicians' credibility is more important than thousands of lives of other people... :|

 

[Absinthe]

The unwillingness to abandon the pointless War on Drugs, IMO, is a result of political groupthink. Not too many people want to make such a drastic change. I honestly think that any end to it is going to require baby steps over an extensive period of time.

 

[burner69]

I've noticed in the UK media a much more pro-drug stance, which is nice. Well, not so much pro-drug, as pro fact, shall we say.

I watched a documentary on London drug dealers, which removed the myth of dealers being evil money grabbing b*stards to anyone who watched it.

I watched a docu-drama imaging what the UK would be like in 8 years if they legalised drugs - it was honest, and showed both good and bad sides... but to be honest there wasn't much of a bad side to show.

And I've seen papers printing stories about public unhappiness about current drug laws.

Of course the Daily Mail managed to squeeze in a story about kids doing drugs so of course society is collapsing and house prices will probably go up as a result.

 

[Scoobnfl]

having been a law enforcement officer I can tell you 100% with unequivocal honesty that the war on drugs is an absolute joke.

Ya'll miss the real reason for the WOD though, it's not about drugs, violence, health or welfare, the WOD is about taxes, jobs and revenue.

If drugs were legalized and the WOD was abandoned what would happen to all the police offciers, corrections officers, judges, bailiffs, court personnel etc..... that are all paid and in turn pay taxes in the war on drugs? This is the reason that the WOD is maintained and "fought" on the poor and addicted. Tax dollars plain and simple.

In a side note it's also why there will never be a simplified tax code, or national sales tax. What would happen to the 300,000 people employed by the IRS and the hundreds of thousands of tax lawyers and CPA's across the country? Do you really think the govt. is going to do something to help the people that will result in mass unemployment and the elimination of hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs/tax payers?

not gonna happen.

 

[burner69]

VERY interesting scoob, didn't know u used to keep the peace. Nice one :thumbs:

The annoying thing about the war on drugs is if you start looking for information, rather than relying on school anti-drugs programmes, you realise most drugs SHOULD be legal - but aren't, and there's no answers for it.

It could be tax, as you've mentioned.
It could be that politicians don't like admitting they were wrong.
It could just be so deeply rooted in society that it's just a norm we accept.
Media portrayal, scare stories, all contribute to it. The truth, it seems, we'll never know.

 

[Scoobnfl]

VERY interesting scoob, didn't know u used to keep the peace. Nice one :thumbs:

The annoying thing about the war on drugs is if you start looking for information, rather than relying on school anti-drugs programmes, you realise most drugs SHOULD be legal - but aren't, and there's no answers for it.

It could be tax, as you've mentioned.
It could be that politicians don't like admitting they were wrong.
It could just be so deeply rooted in society that it's just a norm we accept.
Media portrayal, scare stories, all contribute to it. The truth, it seems, we'll never know.

It's a combination of all of those things Burner, but I promise you the main reason is revenue for the govt. The war on drugs is a ca$h cow for the feds. It $hit$ $$$$$$ and employs people that pay taxes.

The govt. by outlawing drugs has pretty much eliminated rational debate on the subject by interjecting FEAR in place of reason and hyping the plight of the "victims".

I worked street crimes for 3 years during which I was a member of the DEA's HIDTA task force. It's all a shameful sham. If the govt. was worried about, or concerned with winning the WOD they would be treating the problem ADDICTION and not the symptom use. I got fed up with being part of the system, especially after seeing firsthand how fawked up it is.

There is a barometer in this country by which you can measure the amount of justice you will receive, it's color is green and it is measured in dollar$.

 

[burner69]

What about the billions they'd make in taxes off drugs.

In Britain alone they'd have £11bn worth of taxable goods if they legalised pot. Plus they'd save the £1bn they spend a year fighting drugs.

In the states, naturally, it's much higher.

I don't quite get how legalising would reduce taxes... I mean, yes some jobs would go - like drug squads, but... well... I don't get it.

 

[CptStern]

"The govt. by outlawing drugs has pretty much eliminated rational debate on the subject by interjecting FEAR in place of reason and hyping the plight of the "victims". "



sounds like the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

George Bush February 8, 2003

 

[Tr0n]

"The govt. by outlawing drugs has pretty much eliminated rational debate on the subject by interjecting FEAR in place of reason and hyping the plight of the "victims". "



sounds like the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

George Bush February 8, 2003

That actually brings up a good point.

If saddams commanders had them...why didn't they use them on our troops?

Hell I would have as a last ditch card...they knew they was gonna lose.So why didn't the play the card...?They would have killed thousands of soldiers and helped slowed the movement down.

Now...to play the other side...what if they did have them, but sent them secretly over the boarder to syria or some country like that?

We won't know for a long time.

 

[Raziaar]

That actually brings up a good point.

If saddams commanders had them...why didn't they use them on our troops?

Hell I would have as a last ditch card...they knew they was gonna lose.So why didn't the play the card...?They would have killed thousands of soldiers and helped slowed the movement down.

Now...to play the other side...what if they did have them, but sent them secretly over the boarder to syria or some country like that?

We won't know for a long time.

Umm.. Tron, Saddam had gas weapons that he used on the Iranians and yet he never used them on the american troops. Why don't you imigine why about that too. It's no quesiton that he had those chemical weapons, yet he never used them on the american troops. Our troops were expecting him to use them, too, and they were all geared up for biological and chemical warfare.

 

[Tr0n]

Umm.. Tron, Saddam had gas weapons that he used on the Iranians and yet he never used them on the american troops. Why don't you imigine why about that too. It's no quesiton that he had those chemical weapons, yet he never used them on the american troops. Our troops were expecting him to use them, too, and they were all geared up for biological and chemical warfare.

Ok...what point are you trying to prove?

He used them on the Iranians and then hid them?

He still should have used them if he had them.

 

[burner69]

Umm.. Tron, Saddam had gas weapons that he used on the Iranians and yet he never used them on the american troops. Why don't you imigine why about that too. It's no quesiton that he had those chemical weapons, yet he never used them on the american troops. Our troops were expecting him to use them, too, and they were all geared up for biological and chemical warfare.

Yeah, we sold um to him.

Do you mean theres no doubt he has wmd now? or back in the first gulf?

 

[Raziaar]

Ok...what point are you trying to prove?

He used them on the Iranians and then hid them?

He still should have used them if he had them.

I'm just trying to say, just because somebody has the weapons(he had the chemical weapons back in the first gulf war), doesn't mean they'll always have the courage to use them.

If he was so afraid of using the chemical weapons on the US troops, for whatever reason... do you think he'd really resort to using nuclear weapons if he had them? I don't think so.

 

[Raziaar]

Yeah, we sold um to him.

Do you mean theres no doubt he has wmd now? or back in the first gulf?

I'm not saying he has WMDS, as its obvious now that there were none found in the confines of the country... but he did have chemical weapons. You'd have to be ignoring all factual evidence to believe he didn't. And i'm not talking CIA evidence, i'm talking evidence evidence!

 

[burner69]

I'm not saying he has WMDS, as its obvious now that there were none found in the confines of the country... but he did have chemical weapons. You'd have to be ignoring all factual evidence to believe he didn't. And i'm not talking CIA evidence, i'm talking evidence evidence!

Oh I know he used to have them, we sold them to him, and he used them on his own people, then we sold him some more.

Crazy world we live in.

 

[Tr0n]

I'm not saying he has WMDS, as its obvious now that there were none found in the confines of the country... but he did have chemical weapons. You'd have to be ignoring all factual evidence to believe he didn't. And i'm not talking CIA evidence, i'm talking evidence evidence!

Wasn't that one of the reasons why we went to war with him for the 2nd time?

For WMD's?

 

[Raziaar]

Oh I know he used to have them, we sold them to him, and he used them on his own people, then we sold him some more.

Crazy world we live in.

What... do you think i'm DEFENDING my government about that?

Wasn't that one of the reasons why we went to war with him for the 2nd time?

For WMD's?

Dude, are you hearing anything I'm saying? I'm saying yes, we went to war with him for WMDS, but it was concluded later that he had none. That's not the case with the chemical weapons. we KNEW he had them, as in actual, undeniable, 100% proof that the world knew about.

Unless you'd like to ignore all the people who were gassed.

 

[burner69]

Are you saying chemical weapons aren't WMDs?

He may have had them, but dosen't seem to have them anymore... as the poor ole US gvernment had to admit.. haha

 

[Raziaar]

Are you saying chemical weapons aren't WMDs?

He may have had them, but dosen't seem to have them anymore... as the poor ole US gvernment had to admit.. haha

I'm talking about the FIRST gulf war. I don't know if I specified that or not. Regarding the WMDS, i'm talking about the second gulf war, but regarding chemical weapons, i'm talking about the first gulf war. We never had the chance to inspect the country back then because we pulled out and didn't occupy, but it was all over the news many years ago about how saddam gassed his own people, and the iranians and iraqi's were gassing each others military troops as well.

And when I personally say WMD's, i'm talking about nuclear weapons. When I say chemical weapons and biological weapons, i'm talking about biological and chemical weapons. I try not to lump them all up in one word, because I like to distinguish when i'm talking about nuclear, chemical, or biological. This is me only, not the US government.


EDIT: Of course, now that I think about it, i'm not certain he didn't use them, but there isn't any evidence to support he did. I am curious about the whole gulf war syndrome thing though.

My uncle was in desert storm, but he didn't come home with gulf war syndrome because he was up in the air dropping equipment from Hurcules C130's.



EDIT: And just to specify even further... I don't really think he had chemical and biological weapons in the second war. The only ones he had were ones that were unburied from over 10 years previously.

 

[Scoobnfl]

the first go round president Bush let it be known that we would nuke them if they used their WMD on us. that's why he didn't use them that time.

this time I'm not sure. it doesn't make sense really. there are lots of questions and circumstances that are weird. like Iraq buying the antidote for serin and having bio-chem warfare suits in theatre, why were they there and why the expense of purchasing the antidote if there was no plan to use them. I still think they had them, were planning on using them and at the last moment (days preceding conflict) they were convinced by France or the like that they should move them to Syria or Iran.

 

[Apos]

It's pretty conclusive that they didn't have them, nor were they moved out of the country as some claimed as an excuse. They had nothing to lose by using them if they had them this time around.

"My uncle was in desert storm, but he didn't come home with gulf war syndrome because he was up in the air dropping equipment from Hurcules C130's."

My guess is that GWS is caused by equipment and chemicals that our own government used and put soldiers in contact with. Everything from depleted uranium to bio-vaccinations, massive EM radiation, to extremely toxic chemicals and materials necessary for our very high-tech weapons