Should we 'legalise illegal drugs'? - Poll. - Page 37

garinda · 06-09-2012, 12:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

but you implied, that anyone has the choice now, although we have established that they dont actually have a choice, if they wish to stay within the law

certainly they have a choice without fear of judicial retribution, but thats not the same

I've just rembered why I never saw the appeal of weed.

Too much sitting around talking gibberish, thinking what's being discussed is meaningful, and deep...man.

churchfcrules · 06-09-2012, 12:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Oh dear, I think they might be right.

Tenage weed smokers do impair their I.Q,

thought you were better than that, and you was actually having a conversation, obviously not, and has to resort to same old, shame, nice while it lasted!

garinda · 06-09-2012, 12:26

The law's not been used as forcefully over the last few decades.

Meanwhile the number of users, and addicts, has increased dramatically.

Go figure.

churchfcrules · 06-09-2012, 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

The law's not been used as forcefully over the last few decades.

Meanwhile the number of users, and addicts, has increased dramatically.

Go figure.

do you have those statistics?

Houseboy · 06-09-2012, 12:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

surely the Volsted act, in america, proved that all that you do is create crime, through prohibition, not irradicate it.

Absolutely!!! My point entirely.

By the way Garinda, nice to see that you are keeping the old open mind about things. Nothing like having an argument with someone who is so convinced of their "rightness" that everyone else has to be wrong if they don't fit in. In case you hadn't noticed, I have agreed with you on some points but I don't see that being the case with you, are you always so convinced of your beliefs (because that is what they are, not facts).
If only you had my knowledge on this you may, just possibly, move slightly from your entrenched view. Unfortunately, due to this being a public forum I am limited as to what I can say for a number of reasons. Both from a historical and sociological point of view this is a subject I have extensive knowledge on. There are facts and there are opinions and they do not always equate to the same thing.

garinda · 06-09-2012, 12:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

thought you were better than that, and you was actually having a conversation, obviously not, and has to resort to same old, shame, nice while it lasted!

Read what's already been posted, ask me something new, and I won't be flippant, because you won't bore me.

churchfcrules · 06-09-2012, 12:30

Among 16 to 24 year olds in England and Wales in 2002/03:

Prevalence of taking drugs in the last year decreased slightly between 2001/02 and 2002/03 (from 30% to 28%); prevalence of taking drugs in the last month was 18% in 2002/03 (compared with 19% in 2001/02).

we can all find them

churchfcrules · 06-09-2012, 12:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Read what's already been posted, ask me something new, and I won't be flippant, because you won't bore me.

then dont bore the rest of us with points you have already made!

churchfcrules · 06-09-2012, 12:32

remember only 3 types of lies!

susie123 · 06-09-2012, 13:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Too much sitting around talking gibberish, thinking what's being discussed is meaningful, and deep...man.

Just like this thread.

garinda · 06-09-2012, 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

do you have those statistics?

Why, do you need glasses, or do you just walk around in a bubble, with the view obscured because of the condensation in there?

After you've read all that's been discussed on the legalisation of recreational drugs on here, I'm sure some kind soul will pop along and answer any as yet unanswered questions you might have.

This isn't the thead by the way.

This is just a subsequent poll, created to accompany the thread.

This is the thread.

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...ugs-55943.html

Knowledge is power.

Happy reading.

Any failure to do so could be seen as yet one more long-term effect of teenage weed smoking, lethargy.

garinda · 06-09-2012, 17:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by susie123

Just like this thread.

...and yet you keep reading it, and occasionally posting, off thread, little comments, you silly little goose.

I don't know who's the bigger fool.

You, reading things you have no interest in, or myself.

Answering the same old questions, by members who haven't the sense to read what's all ready been discussed, and addressed.

My money's on you.

churchfcrules · 06-09-2012, 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Why, do you need glasses, or do you just walk around in a bubble, with the view obscured because of the condensation in there?

After you've read all that's been discussed on the legalisation of recreational drugs on here, I'm sure some kind soul will pop along and answer any as yet unanswered questions you might have.

This isn't the thead by the way.

This is just a subsequent poll, created to accompany the thread.

This is the thread.

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...ugs-55943.html

Knowledge is power.

Happy reading.

Any failure to do so could be seen as yet one more long-term effect of teenage weed smoking, lethargy.

the way you spout rhetorically, i am beginning to think, that you yourself have been wandering outside of the bathroom cupboard for your meds

Gordon Booth · 06-09-2012, 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

and should we really care, how many do? i think drugs are not allowed, to control the masses, you dont want an entire economy brought to its knees, cos everyone is out of their face, did we not face the same issues with the gin joints of victorian london?

i am sure throughout history, you will find cases of "the lower classes", using something as escapism from their pitifull lives.

Come the Revolution, Brother!
So you think drugs are not allowed to control the masses? Should we really care how many use them?
By inference you appear to suggest we should allow them and if the economy is brought to it's knees so be it! Or perhaps your post is badly put together and I misunderstood?
Perhaps they're not allowed because they're bad for you? That would not seem unreasonable.
As for 'the lower classes' seeking escapism from their pitiful lives, what year do you think it is, 1812 not 2012? Most of the people on Accyweb appear to be ordinary working class people, members of the 'lower classes'(couldn't you have put that better?). I doubt if many of them feel they have lived pitiful lives or know anyone else who has.

churchfcrules · 06-09-2012, 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth

Come the Revolution, Brother!
So you think drugs are not allowed to control the masses? Should we really care how many use them?
By inference you appear to suggest we should allow them and if the economy is brought to it's knees so be it! Or perhaps your post is badly put together and I misunderstood?
Perhaps they're not allowed because they're bad for you? That would not seem unreasonable.
As for 'the lower classes' seeking escapism from their pitiful lives, what year do you think it is, 1812 not 2012? Most of the people on Accyweb appear to be ordinary working class people, members of the 'lower classes'(couldn't you have put that better?). I doubt if many of them feel they have lived pitiful lives or know anyone else who has.

i am sure many on here would argue that there is a class below them, just read some of the posts they make