Search results

I bet these guys would disagree ;-) http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/28 But of course, you're right that it can mess you up. I'm not denying that marijuana is dangerous, but as you say that's the same as an alcoholic, so there's no reason there for it to be treated more harshly by law.

You're reading what you want to read behind the lines, just so you can have another pop at Lucas for something she hasn't actually done. You still haven't provided a single argument why marijuana should be treated more harshly by the law than alcohol. I'm asking you specifically now - can you...

70% of addicts now having treatment, HIV and death rates dropped 50%. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/25/us-swiss-drugs-idUSTRE69O3VI20101025

Oh, of course. But then, she hasn't - HB&B completely misrepresented her words. Actually all she's done is call for a rethink on the "war on drugs"

For what it's worth, here's my complete guess out of thin air: 1) Doncaster (h) 2) Swindon (h) - Cup 3) Derby (a) 4) Bristol City (h) 5) Watford (a)

I completely agree with this. I think Lucas believes decriminalising drugs would make it a better place for all that live there (getting the trade, and hence users, off the streets etc) - and I think she's got a point. Regardless of whether she's right or not though, surely it's a debate worth...

Ha! Is that it? You ask a question (two, in fact) and when the answers aren't the ones you want/expect, you just resort to calling them boring? Come on, you don't need to read them - I've answered your question - it's working well for Portugal. So what's your thought on the debate/thread at hand...?

That's a bold assumption - that non-users would not advocate decriminalisation. Or am I mis-reading you?

Then criminalise alcohol. It's more addictive AND more dangerous than marijuana. Or are you a hypocrite?

Given that Wikipedia is never trusted alone, I'll give you the original sources for the studies: http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2007_Caitlin_211672_1.pdf, and: http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_NationalReport.pdf

An increase in numbers seeking treatment, in the knowledge they won't be criminalised, a drop in HIV infection, and a drop in drug related deaths. So... pretty well, actually.

All these responses disagreeing with you, and that's it? Not going to attempt to debate any of the points made head on?

Apologies - didn't spot that you've already said what I was trying to say...

I don't see how that's an argument that any (currently illegal) soft drugs should be treated differently to alcohol. In fact I don't see any real evidence-based reason why marijuana, for example, should be treated differently to alcohol. Legalise it, regulate it and tax it. You'll a) raise tax...

Salad Cream on mash is AMAZING. You have inspired me - I'm going to have that tonight!

Wow - I completely missed that. Getting on a bit at 36, but could do a job, as they say...

Qui? I got a poor 10/16, plus 4 close-runners. Somehow didn't think of Beckham!

Pretty conclusive result, and another vote here for the majority. I might grumble, but tolerate it, if it were Saturday 12:00 (just so we can temporarily be top of the Championship), but anything other than the Saturday would make me most unhappy.

Don't get it WET! It's not wired in and waterproofed yet! Disaster is around the corner! :( Edit - Too slow :dunce:

You can't compare a specific (Wednesday) with a general term (Month), that's where the comparison falls down. Next month means "the next month which comes along", because we are currently IN a month. We are not currently ON a Wednesday - if we were, then it would "mean the next one which comes...