Truth hurts, eh!?!? - Page 2

Anonymouse · 31-10-2009, 13:00

Wasn't the late Bill Hicks the first to point out the most significant difference between those drugs which are legal and those that aren't...namely, that the ones which are legal are taxed?

He also pointed out that no-one ever gets arrested for speeding on dope while driving - because as he observed, how can you?

You never hear of positive stories of drug-taking, either, it's all 'drugs are bad, m'kay?' - ignoring the fact that the majority of great rock & roll was produced when the artists were off their heads on something illegal. "Jumpin' Jack Flash" being a case in point - the lyrics don't make any sense whatsoever, but it's such a rockin' track no-one cares.

"If you think drugs are bad, then do me a favour: throw away your CDs and records. All of 'em." - Bill Hicks

He was a wise, dangerous man - dangerous because he dared to speak what seems to be almost a criminal offence in the States (and here, too): the truth.

---------- Post added at 13:00 ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze

Its been known since the 1930's/40's that tobacco was linked to cancer.

Though it took 'em nearly 50 years to admit it! The research proving the link was suppressed - oh, very scientific!

Taf · 31-10-2009, 13:10

I don't think there's any science in all of this... just statistics!

If a drug is illegal why "classify on a scale"? Why "hard" and "soft" drugs? Why "A", "B" and "C"?

Just say they are illegal and send the cops in. Possesion and/or use a criminal act that won't get you sent off with a caution but with a criminal record and a fine/jail time.

Mick Fisher · 31-10-2009, 13:48

Government is all about managing the livestock.

This is easier if most of 'em are bladdered and/or happilly puffing their lives away with the added bonus of making said Administration shedloads of cash in Duty.

In order to maintain the level of duty raised it is necessary to stamp down on alternative drug use as it discourages alchohol and tobacco consumption and thus decreases the amount of duty raised.

Governments who legalise and license alchohol and tobacco products are the biggest drug dealers. Anyone selling alchohol and tobacco products are just licensed drug pushers.

TheDaddy · 31-10-2009, 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

But surely the government hire the expert for his Subject Matter knowledge - and should take notice of it.

If he was hired, then his job is to give advice not issue statements to the media, it's up to who ever hires him to decide whether or not to take his advice after all.

SB_07 · 31-10-2009, 15:47

Drugs don't make the government any money so they'd rather just keep things how they are and rack up that tax money.

idi banashapan · 31-10-2009, 15:51

from the BBC site:

In a letter, the home secretary wrote: "I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as chair of the ACMD.

"I would therefore ask you to step down from the Council with immediate effect."

End quotation

kind of says it all really - it's basically saying, we don't want the facts to ruin our income!!

Will21st · 31-10-2009, 15:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taf

I don't think there's any science in all of this... just statistics!

If a drug is illegal why "classify on a scale"? Why "hard" and "soft" drugs? Why "A", "B" and "C"?

Just say they are illegal and send the cops in. Possesion and/or use a criminal act that won't get you sent off with a caution but with a criminal record and a fine/jail time.

Yep,you're gonna arrest over a million dope-smokers,and send them to prison,or fine them....

Osem · 31-10-2009, 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bender

from the BBC site:

In a letter, the home secretary wrote: "I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as chair of the ACMD.

"I would therefore ask you to step down from the Council with immediate effect."

Let's get this right - they lost confidence in him and expected his immediate resignation. It's odd how they don't expect such standards to apply when the boot's on the other foot and the electorate have lost faith in them..

idi banashapan · 31-10-2009, 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Let's get this right - they lost confidence in him and expected his immediate resignation. It's odd how they don't expect such standards to apply when the boot's on the other foot and the electorate have lost faith in them..

too true

Mick Fisher · 31-10-2009, 16:36

This Government long ago lost what small bit of credibility it once had and they know it.

So nowadays they don't give a damn about how things look so long as they bully enough to get there own way.

Speaking of credibility, Jacqui Smith on Question Time seemed to have had a complete bypass fitted. I enjoyed every minute of watching her squirm. The only downer is she is still an MP and seems to have got away without paying back the Â£160,000.00 expenses she admits she blatently screwed over the system for. The only hope now is the Police Investigation. Hope she goes down for it.

idi banashapan · 31-10-2009, 16:42

I'm pretty sure that if it were you or I, it would be called 'Fraud'

Osem · 31-10-2009, 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Speaking of credibility, Jacqui Smith on Question Time seemed to have had a complete bypass fitted. I enjoyed every minute of watching her squirm. The only downer is she is still an MP and seems to have got away without paying back the Â£160,000.00 expenses she admits she blatently screwed over the system for. The only hope now is the Police Investigation. Hope she goes down for it.

Yes - odd that the (then) Home Secretary didn't seem to know where her home was eh?

Too busy counting all that cash no doubt....

Don't hold your breath re the police investigation......

Mick Fisher · 31-10-2009, 17:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Don't hold your breath re the police investigation......

Yeah I know you are right..but I can still fantasise about the idea.

TheDaddy · 31-10-2009, 17:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Yeah I know you are right..but I can still fantasise about the idea.

Just as long as your not fantasising about Jacqui Smith I guess

Stuart · 31-10-2009, 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by SB_07

Drugs don't make the government any money so they'd rather just keep things how they are and rack up that tax money.

OK. The government makes no money from drugs. If that was the reason they are banned, do you not think they would just legalise and tax them?