View Single Post
Old 28-01-2004, 16:31   #87
Xaccers
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milling around Milton Keynes
Age: 49
Posts: 12,969
Xaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny stars
Xaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny stars
Re: Re-classification Of Cannabis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sociable
To extend the argument to class "A" drugs shows a total lack of understanding of the nature of class "A" drugs and the completely different nature of them. Would you class a child's pea-shooter in the same classification as an AK47?
Class A drugs still enable to you escape from the world.
They still get you high.
It's only if you take too much that they kill.
Isn't that the same as drink?

Isn't part of the problem with the gov bringing in a law banning tobacco, that they get plenty of funds from taxing it, but more so, it would be political suicide?
Tobacco was introduced before it's harm was known, as such people have grown up thinking it isn't that bad. I know several people who run risks of strokes, or have lost limbs due to smoking, but still keep doing it. Like opium it was considered a taxable comodoty, heck we even went to war to keep the opium flowing, but people eventually realised the harm and dangers of it, and so it was banned, but unlike tobacco, there were fewer users of opium, so much less of a backlash.
Xaccers is offline   Reply With Quote