name wrote:
> Billy H wrote:
>> name wrote:
>>> Billy H wrote:
>>>> name wrote:
>>>>> Rachel Harrassment wrote:
>>>>>> "Phil Stovell"
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"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fuck 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).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
Passion, pure passion.
>> 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.
>
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.
>>
>> 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
just the same?
what do you learn from smoking a spliff? That the world is wobbly and
everything is heavy.
I'll give you one positive change dope has on the brain, when an artisitic
bent is found under the influence, it can be enhanced and attention to
detail can be increased. On the negative side, the same increase in
attention, speed and motivation leads to irrational thoughts so the drug is
ok for use in training in such subjects as mathematics when lots of mental
energy is required, but it leads to inaccuracies in the scientific process
of thought.
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.
Agreed.
> 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.
Tell that to the groups who walk on Snowdon, having heard the stories and
risks, in winter in light shoes, carrying no safety equipment.
> 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.
>
And they do. I learnt about it in school, heard some stories, was advised
against.
How much time should be focussed on this in schools?
>>
>>> 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 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.
>
LIbraries have been open for decades, a little over fifty years, and you
have to begin somewhere. Internet is good but it doesn't give the basics of
discipline.
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 'Fuck' - 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.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
Negative attitudes, change their social surroundings and give them positive
input regards life chances and opportunities.
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.
I think part of the reason the education system and other systema are not
performing as well as they should because they have been abused and the
system is allowing discipline to lax.
Everyone has the opportunity to go to school, college and university. All
they need do is work hard, follow instructions and give up some of their
pleasures for a while. They need to make sacrifices. Not everyone does,
believes they can nor wants to.
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.
This exists in the form of social security.
> 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.
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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...
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Bullshit and by the same argument you might call alcohol abusers
> demons.
> Alcohol and violence are intimately related.
>
True, but what I say is true also.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Do you agree alcohol prohibition in the previous century was a form
>>> of state sponsored crime?
>>
>> No.
>
> So you don't acknowledge the association between organized crime and
> alcohol
> during prohibition?
>
Not state sponsored crime, that was an unfortunate knock on effect.
>>
>>> Why do you think alcohol prohibition was abandoned as an approach to
>>> reduce and prevent alcohol abuse?
>>
>> 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?
>
No, but let's say people could be assessed for their reactions to alcohol.
Maybe the violent tendencies etc. are a result of excessive use and/or an
allery of sorts. Alcohol is a poison. What if we introduce a card (r.e. the
proof of age card) that says although this person is 18, he can't drink
because it makes him violent, makes him ill etc.
I know many people who are, become merry, more open after drinking lots of
beers and some who respond differently, become aggressive, abusive towards
others etc. Alcohol is known to open us Brits up more, it enables us to
express ourselves more. If we are inherently gentle it'll bring it out, if
we are inhernetly aggressive, it'll bring it out... Introduce an 'alcohol
users license'.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>>
>>> 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?
>
> 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.
>
There's truth in that arguement. But cannabis has direct links to long term
mental health problems and in the short term affects the memory. Alcohol can
become addictive, rot the internal organs etc. But, alcohol does not reduce
memroy capacity when used in moderation, it enhaces mental skills such as
memory although reducinmg others, brewer's yeast is proven to have these
effects. How can we logically and responsibly allow people to use a drug
that reduces memory capacity and enhances fantasty and imagination? We want
our people walking around as liars and dolts do we?
>>
>> 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..).
>
Can yu cite me some sources please? And it was not anoutright lie, cannabis
speeds the brain's natural rhythm, it reduces memory capacity, it could be
legalised for some purposes but not others. And for some people also.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>>
>> 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 ass 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.
>
True, but I think licensing should be tighter than an overall free-for-all,
and same with alcohol also.
>>
>> 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.
>
The self-perpetuating circles which add to social disintegration and other
associated things are being compounded by a growing decline in discipline
that should stem from school and from the home. Single parentdom, lack of
control of children, failing discipline in schools. For every single parent
who has two children, those children are brought up experiencing single
parnet life as their normative mode. Do they go on and have 2 more children
each, and realise the norm is single parentdom? then we have 4 children in
single parent homes, an ever increasing circle. It is not easy rearing
children, thought of all the factors involved tells us so, they mjust be
kept warm, fed, watered., cleaned, and educated in fact figure etiquette and
values...
Drug and alcohol legislation is subject to many other factors that need to
be considered and aside from the social aspects in our country we can also
take a moral outlook. Look at hemp growing countries, Russia. Who controls
that? The Russian Mafia? Cocaine, where does that come from? Columbia and
other similar countries? Heroin, Afghanistan? LSD, now that's a fungus I
believe.
Home grown is more virtuous than most other forms of cannabis, I believe it
should be legal to grow your own but licensed also. And each person should
come to know how it affects them, and laws should be in place to protect
them and the societies around them. I met hundreds of cannabis smokers, from
school into my 30s. And drugs they use affect them all differently. As I
say, drugs enhance charcter, or at least some charcter traits and some
people who smoke pot simply shouldn't, sme who drink alcohol shouldn't.
Cocaine is the biggest evil, in people with a latent aggressive side it
surfaces very readily in cocaine intoxication, in persons with a lid back
side, they get more laid back. Fact, I've been there and seen it. I studied
Sociolgy through college and so am qualified to say. Maybe I should have
made notes and produced a study.
>>
>> 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.
>
> You bring me a substantial argument that justifies the prohibition of
> a non-lethal drug like cannabis while allowing a lethal drug like
> alcohol.
>
Alcohol laws should be subject to better regulation, but it's difficult.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Billy H
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Billy H
