My concern is the reported mental retardation of Mr Thompson.

If the statement is an accurate representation of what was said i do question his suitability to represent the Police.

Looking forward to the appointment of a child **** tsar myself.

After all in Holland it is legal to shag 12 year olds and as our junkie junta pointed out, Holland came top in a recent poll in terms of child happiness etc.etc.etc.

This ABC crap is pointless and does more to advertise the crap than anything else. It is either legal or illegal, if it is the former leave it, if it is the latter follow it up. Simple really.

Mr Ison wrote:
My concern is the reported mental retardation of Mr Thompson. If the statement is an accurate representation of what was said i do question his suitability to represent the Police.

In this country it seems to be legal to worship gas chambers.

They are accorded as much space in our educational system as matters theological.

I use cannabis regularly. Never done me any harm.

Last Friday Gordon got battered at the polls and so now will start to listen.

Next day he declares that he is going to ignore advice from a panel of top scientists to get a few middle class votes from the suberbia.

Same liar as BLiar only not as clever.

peter Grimes wrote:
Last Friday Gordon got battered at the polls and so now will start to listen. Next day he declares that he is going to ignore advice from a panel of top scientists to get a few middle class votes from the suberbia. Same liar as BLiar only not as clever.

Kinsey was also a top scientist.

His position regarding paedophilia being generally a harmless pastime also sends echoes through suburbia.

If you believe that bodies of scientists are not capable of manipulating evidence to suit groups with vested commercial interests then you are very naive.

Brown made the absolutely right decision.

As "The Daily Mash" put it "Government Health Warning: Smoking Cannabis can lead to a long, slow, painful conversation".

Why should the government listen to a load of dribbling vegetables for anyway?

Cannabis consumption is decreasing anyway as people see what effects it has on their friends and importers like Howard Marks.

The argument is old, creaky, moth eaten, commercially oriented and thoroughly discredited.

Now get a life, try googling "fractal foundation" and take a narcotic free trip. That is if that is all you aspire to.

Comparison of the GROUP of scientists in question and an extreme individual from another era like Kinsey is rediculous, and you know it, so please stop insulting our intellegence.

All humans are capable of distorting evidence but do you truly believe they did in this case? Please specify individual self interests from the group. In truth, the self interest is more likely to come from the government, why else would companies lobby and donate to party funds?

What evidence do you have to back up the rest of the wild statements? and why not ban alcohol and nicotene if you follow your health arguments. They are more dangerous to health, FACT.

It looks to me you are starting with the answer and working backwards to accomodate the facts which suit, take the opposite approach (the scientific approach) and you might get rid of all your built up bile and manage a reasoned arguement.

Oh and I have not smoked cannabis since it used to come in little brown blocks at university, (nostalgia) but I don't see what harm we ever did anybody when I did. I am now an MD, close to retirement and have worked very hard to get there (and now live a comfortable life). Had I have been caught smoking just one joint at university, I would have been criminalised and I would have had a much harder life and never got where I am. Do you really think that that is what I deserved for the half a dozen times I smoked cannabis?

...or alternatively, do you think consider that people starting out in life should have any chance of success removed because Gordon needs votes?

peter Grimes wrote:
Comparison of the GROUP of scientists in question and an extreme individual from another era like Kinsey is rediculous, and you know it, so please stop insulting our intellegence. All humans are capable of distorting evidence but do you truly believe they did in this case? Please specify individual self interests from the group. In truth, the self interest is more likely to come from the government, why else would companies lobby and donate to party funds? What evidence do you have to back up the rest of the wild statements? and why not ban alcohol and nicotene if you follow your health arguments. They are more dangerous to health, FACT. It looks to me you are starting with the answer and working backwards to accomodate the facts which suit, take the opposite approach (the scientific approach) and you might get rid of all your built up bile and manage a reasoned arguement. Oh and I have not smoked cannabis since it used to come in little brown blocks at university, (nostalgia) but I don't see what harm we ever did anybody when I did. I am now an MD, close to retirement and have worked very hard to get there (and now live a comfortable life). Had I have been caught smoking just one joint at university, I would have been criminalised and I would have had a much harder life and never got where I am. Do you really think that that is what I deserved for the half a dozen times I smoked cannabis? ...or alternatively, do you think consider that people starting out in life should have any chance of success removed because Gordon needs votes?

Everybody knows there is a major push to return to the good old days of the Opium trade.

The attempt to downgrade cannabis is the thin end of the wedge.

I do not consider it an absurdity to cite Kinsey. He blamed prohibition as well, and put the situation down to public hysteria generated by a lying media. Exactly the same PR only a different subject.

Do I think you should have been criminalised? Well you criminalised yourself by actively choosing to go against the law. If you got caught it would have been your own fault, nobody elses.

As for extra votes, well anything that alienates middle class druggies from the left is a good thing for me. The idea that drug abuse sits with left wing thought is not borne out by any logic. Robert Owen saw alcohol as a major stumbling block from working class people achieving their intellectual potentials and had it banned from his ideal communities. Marx was similarly convinced that drugs were a tool of class war used to keep the lower orders in their places by distracting them.

Perhaps you are the one caught in the past.You haven't done it for many years so you know nothing about it, wheras I had to spend fifteen years living with somebody it turned into a violent freak.

As seems to be the case for many other people, the junkie junta attempt to silence.

It all boils down to money, lots of companies are rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of getting their scummy products back on the shelves so we can return to the good old 18th and 19th century. It is they who tend to fund research these days and if somebody doesn't come up with the results needed they are replaced by somebody who will.

The aim is the setting up of a highly lucrative short term focussed based recreational drugs market where research will be redirected from medicinal cures to recreational drugs. Short term profiteering at the expense of long term health care.

I would have thought as an MD you would oppose such a way forward. Clearly not.

We can see here, however, the real meaning (aside from the purely financial corporate agenda of course) behind the druggies screaming.

"Oh it's so unfair that one little smoke could bugger up my career progression, which mater and pater are so desperate for me to follow!!"

Self centred as ever,our beloved bourgeois.

It should also be borne in mind that at the same time the idiots in charge decided to lower the rating they were also intent on foisting Supercasinos on poor areas and (re)imposing 24 drinking on society using similarly specious arguments to justify themselves.

The only beneficiaries of which would be all their corporate sponsors. If that doesn't give pause for thought nothing will.

These are all things the Left complained about and got abolished in the latter half of the 19th century.

Now our bourgeois seek to reimpose them believing that their crap will be swallowed whole by the masses.

Think again corporate freaks!!

Sorry mate but you are missing he point. To trivialise this issue by ignoring it's most important consequence and using it as an excuse to rant on about how bad drugs are, is about as cynical as criminalising a generation to win some cheap votes from suburban housewives.

Are you Gordon Brown in disguise?

Oh and with regard to the Kinsey reference, the difference between paedophilia and cannabis is the lack of a victim in the latter.

...........and when I went to school, religion was the opium of the people.

by the way you sound as nutty as me.

Peter Grimes wrote:
Sorry mate but you are missing he point. To trivialise this issue by ignoring it's most important consequence and using it as an excuse to rant on about how bad drugs are, is about as cynical as criminalising a generation to win some cheap votes from suburban housewives. Are you Gordon Brown in disguise?

I am not criminalising anybody.
They are criminalising themselves.

It is hilarious that one of the reasons junkies give for wanting this crap legal is because they are mature enough to make decisions.

Shame they can't decide not to criminalise themselves by keeping within legal parameters isn't it?

Now bugger off and wave your little placard elsewhere you posturing little creep.

Peter Grimes wrote:
Oh and with regard to the Kinsey reference, the difference between paedophilia and cannabis is the lack of a victim in the latter. ...........and when I went to school, religion was the opium of the people. by the way you sound as nutty as me.

Kinsey? Your point is irrelevant. His findings point to a trauma rate of 25%, a "vast minority" suffering an adverse effect. Now where have I heard that argument given in support of other criminal activities? Mmmm let me think.

So you are now claiming that Marx was pro religion are you?

For somebody supposedly nearing retirement age you don't seem to be terribly well informed do you?

Too many drugs and too few books I suppose.

Each totheir own.