Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen in Prime Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Why is cannabis illegal?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 526-550 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Jul 2012 16:17:35 BDT
They drug is made gas from to be inhaled, like others drugs are such is asthma inhalers, although they are kept in pressurised containers.

I ahve never used it, but seen on TV someone using an inhaltor for medical consumption of marijuana and several scientists saying this was parctivcally zero risk of affecting ones health from smoking.

Its not the fact you inhale smoke in tobaccdo spin, ist the chemicals within that gas which damage your lungs etc.

Try reading about stuff before posting your thoughts on it when clearly you know nothing about it. Its always recommended IMO.

i.e. You dont instantly know everything about everything and yet conduct yourself as if you do, when you dont have a clue you look silly as has happened several times in this thread alone.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Jul 2012 16:18:29 BDT
Se your using the worng context of what I was syaing indicating you never fully understood the concept or the analogy.

Hence you are making yourself look like a fool

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Jul 2012 16:20:41 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Jul 2012 16:21:39 BDT
LOL, Well I have higher and Degree level Chemistry Spin, I have vaporised many things, but you often refer to science as one who knows without actually understanding even basic concepts dont you.

Burning is a different chemical process from heating, you do understand the difference between a person who gets a tan from sunbathing and someone who burns alive from being set on fire dont you old boy?

Tell you what next X mas just set fire to the Turkey and see how it tastes

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jul 2012 15:38:57 BDT
TomC says:
"Thanks Tom C,
Firstly for deciding i'm a liar, basically jumping to some daft conclusion when you really don't know me. "

No problem. I know as much as I need to, and it's actually very mild, compared to what I really think of you.

"Just had a brief flick through your research, and as a scientist i'm not impressed at all."

Why doesn't that surprise me? But there's plenty more out there; go ahead, knock yourself out. But you won't.

"When a fair study takes place I will hold my hands up, if the results aren't to my liking. "

I don't believe you. You're not going to accept any evidence, because your continued self-indulgence depends on your not accepting it. You've reached your conclusion already, and you'll accept any evidence - however poor - which supports it, and reject any evidence - however good - which challenges it. This says little for your honesty or indeed your claim to be an objective "scientist".

Let me be clear. It doesn't bother me at all if you ram a motorway bridge at 90; in social terms, that's a win. If you could do it before you breed, even better. The problem is that people like you don't, as a rule, pay the full cost of their encounter with reality themselves. It's a lot more likely to happen when you ram someone else, who did nothing to deserve it other than to drive down the same stretch of road as a vacuous callous self-absorbed pr i ck like you.

And who knows - that person might even be me.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jul 2012 15:44:13 BDT
TomC says:
Oh, please grow up. So it's all done to "get at" you, is it?

"I can safely say, smoking 5 joints and then driving a car - I would still be more in control of the car than my 85 year old grandmother."

This is no justification for you being allowed to drive in that state. It is, however, an excellent reason for disqualifying your grandmother.

"This kind of thing ALWAYS depends on the individual and never 'as a whole'."

So what do you want - a special driving license that gives you a special dispensation? Because you're - you know - special?

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jul 2012 15:46:57 BDT
No, never said it should be legal to drive under influence of anything, misinterpretation once again.
Once again, as much as you and the gvmt oppose cannabis - its a plant, less addictive than codine, less harmful than alcohol and tabacco (scientifically proven) No further comment.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jul 2012 15:52:22 BDT
"So what do you want - a special driving license that gives you a special dispensation? Because you're - you know - special?" - Again, No. Your assumptions are ridiculous, it should remain illegal to drive whilst under the influence of anything. Hands free included.
Why do think weed should remain illegal then?

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jul 2012 16:18:12 BDT
Wow, your opinion is right and everyone else garbage huh.

Typical, you should be in politics

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jul 2012 16:19:19 BDT
What about the trials they did, they showed an improvement, or you just ignoring that?

Hmm

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Jul 2012 22:55:36 BDT
Charlieost says:
Spin says:
Excuse me, folks, I'm stepping outside for a "Vapour"..

Hi Spin. You really do not have to step outside. Throughout this whole discussion there has been nothing but vapour from you. You have failed to argue your case or engage in discussion. You have not even attempted to see anyone elses point of view. Perhaps you could let me know how you think the families of the sixty men locked up for life in California for possession of marijuana feel. The most harm done by drugs in society is in the continued criminalisation of possessing them.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Jul 2012 23:33:24 BDT
is it not the thc on the plant that's being vaporised not the plant being burnt? pretty much like you can boil water out of a pan without needing to melt the pan to do so.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jul 2012 02:40:23 BDT
Spin says:
Charliost: If an activity is illegal, and one still chooses to engage in it, then one has no-one to blame but oneself. Obviously those men thought more of drugs and profit than they did of thier families., so they cannot claim to be "family men". Further, given the mentality of these men thier families are better off without them.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jul 2012 18:28:37 BDT
Last edited by the author on 6 Jul 2012 18:30:09 BDT
Joe. C says:
Tom C,
"No problem. I know as much as I need to, and it's actually very mild, compared to what I really think of you."

I really, don't care what you think of me, your quite clearly a judgmental c***.

"Why doesn't that surprise me? But there's plenty more out there; go ahead, knock yourself out. But you won't."

I am aware of the kinds of research that have taken place, and as an active scientist i'm not impressed, as I've stated car simulators are a poor test, I explained the inaccuracy of blood samples, the lack of understanding regarding tolerance to the substance. But then again you don't care about that, your just reading someone else's work and buying into it, without fully understanding it. And you question my scientific reasoning?

"I don't believe you. You're not going to accept any evidence, because your continued self-indulgence depends on your not accepting it. You've reached your conclusion already, and you'll accept any evidence - however poor - which supports it,"

Again I really don't care what you believe, and my continued self indulgence as you say, does not depend on it at all. I have been driving for 35 years, I've had 1 crash which I was not at fault for. I have averted incidents many times whilst stoned, and driven stoned countless times, without incident. I passed my test stoned.

A fair test would actually involve testing a large number drivers in real driving situations, using people with varying tolerance to cannabis, I am aware of no such tests, but I will hold my hands up if you can show me otherwise.

"Let me be clear. It doesn't bother me at all if you ram a motorway bridge at 90; in social terms, that's a win. If you could do it before you breed, even better. The problem is that people like you don't, as a rule, pay the full cost of their encounter with reality themselves. It's a lot more likely to happen when you ram someone else, who did nothing to deserve it other than to drive down the same stretch of road as a vacuous callous self-absorbed pr i ck like you."

I don't drive fast, alcohol causes irrational behavior not, cannabis. As i've said in the past 35 years no such thing has happened, it's incredibly unlikely as i am a focused driver, stoned or not, unlike most. But after the way you have spoke to me if it does happen I can only hope it is you.
By the way, does it make you feel big speaking to me like that? When you know next to nothing about me. Whilst your sat behind that computer screen, lol.
I don't claim to know anything about you, other than the judgmental comment, but that is self evident. I don't think I want to either.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jul 2012 18:44:33 BDT
Last edited by the author on 6 Jul 2012 20:22:14 BDT
Joe. C says:
Sally,
So you have rational deep conversations with most of your customers do you? Just wondering how you have jumped to that conclusion. If anything deep conversations and being stoned go hand in hand.
"But you know even if you are able to sustain a job while 'using', doesn't it feel like an awful waste of life when you're in your prime, to be 'out of it' when you could be doing something interesting."
Out of it? It's not heroin it's cannabis. My work is very interesting I get to study the cosmos, it doesn't get anymore interesting for me. I also enjoy, hiking and rock climbing. Or sitting in with a book, or my PS3 and also spending time with my partner. All can be done stoned. So in answer to your question, What does your lifestyle give you that mine lacks?? I don't know your lifestyle but probably very little, but I ask you the same question. And also back to the topic, why should it be illegal?

Posted on 6 Jul 2012 19:56:04 BDT
Spin says:
I'm sure the drugs gang of the worlds appreciate your support. The horrific murders in Mexico are worth a toke, are they not?

Posted on 6 Jul 2012 20:05:27 BDT
Last edited by the author on 6 Jul 2012 20:06:36 BDT
Joe. C says:
Spin, if I had my way those gangs would but out of business, on the cannabis front anyway, it would be legally sold and legal to grow. As for the cannabis I smoke, I know where it comes from and nobody is murdered in the process.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jul 2012 20:23:04 BDT
what about the red spider mites! where's the justice for them?

Posted on 6 Jul 2012 20:26:23 BDT
Last edited by the author on 7 Jul 2012 00:02:05 BDT
Joe. C says:
Lol, I know. Plant murderers!

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jul 2012 20:48:26 BDT
Spin says:
Joe: If cannibas is legalised, those very people will become legitimate businessmen, having more finance and crop than the average guy growing it in his bedroom. As legit businesses these criminals will launder thier cash from other criminal activities through thier now legal weed businesses. If you really think the legalisation of weed will halt criminal activity you are very mistaken. All you would be doing is strengthning the ground for crime-lords, enabling them to profit from the sale of weed and further thier operations in producing and selling other drugs. Just as the mega-markets like Asda and Tescos put the small retailer out of business, so these drug lords, bringing thier gang-culture to the high-street, will eliminate the small producer. Capitalism and crime go hand in hand...Legalise weed and you hand over financial, and political power, to criminals for whom thier trade in drugs is but a small element of thier total criminal activity.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jul 2012 21:32:39 BDT
Last edited by the author on 6 Jul 2012 21:36:24 BDT
Joe. C says:
Spin,
I'm sorry your just outright wrong, the cannabis cafe's in Amsterdam are not run by criminals or drug lords, they are genuine businesses, and there is no equivalent, Tesco mega stores for ganja over there either, they are small time businessmen. The criminals will just continue selling other illegal drugs.
Also if I could grow it I wouldn't need to buy it anyway.
If it is somebody like I know, who just grows ganja, for himself and sells a bit as well, I would have no problem with somebody like that opening a cafe.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Jul 2012 19:15:01 BDT
Charlieost says:
You are on dodgy ground Spin. On the one hand you say that the men who are locked up for posession of marijuana deserve it because they have broken the law and earlier in this discussion you have warned against the addictive properties of this drug. So if someone is hooked on a drug and perhaps have been so since they were a juvenile then how can they be responsible for seeking and craving and so being in posession of this drug. That arguement of yours just does not make sense.

Secondly. Many laws are broken simply because they are bad laws and cause more problems than if they were repealed. Slavery, emanipation, same sex relationships, a man having to walk in front of a car with a flag. The world is littered with laws that have fallen foul of progress so I feel that demolishes your "against the law" arguement.

And finally your assertion that families are better off without the men locked up for the use of marijuana. You use the word "mentality" and claim that they are not fit to be family men. I think this is outright arrogance on your part and unless you have some special knowledge denied to the rest of us I do not see how you can possibly sustain this position. The sheer numbers of people who regularly smoke dope shows that many of them have families and I have never come across any indication or figures to show that they make any less of a parent than non dope smokers.

Perhaps you could prove otherwise but I can tell you that Social Services will not remove a child from a family on the grounds that the parents smoke dope. We are a little more civilised in Europe than in the Emotional States of America.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Jul 2012 19:24:33 BDT
Charlieost says:
Spin says:
I'm sure the drugs gang of the worlds appreciate your support. The horrific murders in Mexico are worth a toke, are they not?

Ah Spin again with his usual misunderstanding. The drug murders in Mexico occur because the produce is illegal and so under the control of the various gangs who fight over the produce.

You remind me Spin of a young (14yrs) teenage girl with whom I was discussing this very issue a few nights ago. She said that drugs should continue to be illegal because "they kill people". I gave several reasons why they should not and when it was her turn to respond she shouted at me, "SHUT UP".

The reasons you give are every bit as valid as her final one.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Jul 2012 19:40:11 BDT
Spin says:
Charliost: If you are the type of person to justify the use of mind-altering substances to a fourteen year old girl, then shame on you. You are not the kind of person who should be moralising. If that is the opinion you give to our kids, then stay away from them. The kids have more sense than you do...

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Jul 2012 19:46:28 BDT
Last edited by the author on 8 Jul 2012 19:48:30 BDT
"legalise it
don't criticise it
legalise it
and i will advertise it"

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2012 09:12:56 BDT
Charlie, as a parent I'll be doing what I can to prevent my daughter touching drugs or alcohol, I'm not going to demonise it - I'll just make sure she knows what it can do to her and the negative effects it can have. The conversation detailing all of the negatives about alcohol will no doubt be a longer discussion mind.

As for the 14 year old you know - she's probably not going to abuse drugs with that view, lets just hope she doesnt fall into the trap most teens from my gen fell into and lets hope she doesn't abuse alcohol because its 'legal'.

For the record, I'd never want my daughter addicted to anything but I'd rather her addicted to cannabis than alcohol anyday why? I want to die before my daughter does - alcoholics almost always die young and as a parent, I don't want any of my family making the same mistakes as my uncle.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  84
Total posts:  1195
Initial post:  24 Apr 2012
Latest post:  27 Apr 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions