Hello whats going on here? Someone forgot to follow the script.
"But politics is politics and science is science and there's a bit of a tension between them sometimes."
Garside added: "I'm shocked and dismayed that the home secretary appears to believe that political calculation trumps honest and informed scientific opinion. The message is that when it comes to the Home Office's relationship with the research community honest researchers should be seen but not heard.
"The home secretary's action is a bad day for science and a bad day for the cause of evidence-informed policy making."
Professor David Nutt asked to resign after his claims that ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol. You can bet the next bloke will be towing the line with an unbiased view!
Yes like when the science doesnt match the political agenda. Sounds like another debate which is going on at the moment.
You could argue that alcohol is a gateway drug, as most people try alcohol before anything else. Alcohol is the only drug I know of that has the ability to attack every cell in the human body.Im not a drug taker myself, but from everything I understand, weed is just a gateway towards other drugs, so having pot legalized, is just going to improve the numbers of people who cross over to harder drugs - but i am fairly sure that most people will get there anyway.
Spending 12hrs in the Emergency Ward on Saturday night reaffirms my view that I'd have no problem if alcohol were to be banned. The amount of alcohol related cases in the Emergency Ward was rediculous. People needing their stomach's pumped, injuries from alcohol fuelled fights, or people simply being so drunk they fall and hurt themselves. What's worse is that there were people waiting in the waiting room for hours whilst these scumbags were attended to.
And on more than one occasion these drunks were physically aggressive towards the poor hospital staff and patients.
Emotive rants like this are really just distractions, especially the irrelevant comment in all caps. Even if daily use over 10 years is destructive, so what? Eating a huge block of chocolate every day for 10 years is destructive too, so do we ban chocolate, too?I know its anecdotal, but long term daily or weekly use (Im talking over 10 years here) is utterly destructive. And the ONLY PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH THAT ARE THE USERS!!! And they dont count - because they are ADDICTS.
Emotive rants like this are really just distractions, especially the irrelevant comment in all caps. Even if daily use over 10 years is destructive, so what? Eating a huge block of chocolate every day for 10 years is destructive too, so do we ban chocolate, too?
Reccomendation by Queensland's top policeman of zero level alcohol when driving:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/...952,00.html?referrer=email&source=CM_email_nl
Seems over the top and unrealistic to me. Those who have always ignored drink driving laws will continue to do so, and people who have a single glass of wine after work, will no longer be able to do so safely.
Typical exaggerated and thoughtless response.
I'm still trying to find some evidence or instance of a violent act committed by a pot smoker.........
The arguments against legalising marijuana, seem to dwell on the risk of psychosis occurring in vulnerable young people and the deadening effect on the personalities of long term older users. Why allow another substance to be legalised when we have legal harmful substances such as tobacco and alcohol, the wowser camp say.
The arguments for, seem to concentrate on the widespread use by a signficant minority of the population without apparent effect and the criminalisation of those unlucky enough to be caught in possession. The stoners further argue the cost of policing a widely flouted law.
There seems to be no push to legalise it, except from the Marijuana Party who routinely poll less than 5% of the vote, so even the stoners couldn't be bothered to vote for them. This may be because elections are held on Saturdays when bongs are being filled and apathy reigns.
The ASF poll is not convincing enough to show a push among the indigent and reckless who haunt these pages.
So it looks as f it will remain an illegal substance.
gg
There seems to be no push to legalise it, except from the Marijuana Party who routinely poll less than 5% of the vote, so even the stoners couldn't be bothered to vote for them. This may be because elections are held on Saturdays when bongs are being filled and apathy reigns.
The ASF poll is not convincing enough to show a push among the indigent and reckless who haunt these pages.
So it looks as f it will remain an illegal substance.
gg
I don't see any need to change it from what it is at present.Julia so what limit is fine with you 2 glasses of wine 4 stubbies of beer! At the end of the day I dont have a problem with zero limit its called get a cab
Jack
I think it's the basket weaving that gg would have a difficulty with, moXJO.That’s a U turn from your other posts GG. I was getting ready for you to embark in a new life amongst a commune of pot smoking basket weavers, while freeballing in a kaftan or something.
Kremmen, given he/she can't even distinguish between a user and an addict, I'm not sure you're going to get a response of the same quality as your reply.Emotive rants like this are really just distractions, especially the irrelevant comment in all caps. Even if daily use over 10 years is destructive, so what? Eating a huge block of chocolate every day for 10 years is destructive too, so do we ban chocolate, too?
There is also soem alcoholic content in simple cough medicines, so someone with a cold may register a 0.01% reading without consuming non-medicinal drinks and under a zero tolerance policy would be pinged. Doesn't seem right.I dont agree with zero level.
I think people that drink and drive 'try' to continue to do so, but the attitude has changed within society regarding alcohol which has been a good thing.
For once I am glad the media has put it out there.
I have noticed a few now more concerned about drink driving than they ever did.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?