What are tags?
Old transport cafe as a cannabis coffee shop
Hello Guest
  
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog
  • Who, Where, When
• What can I do?
• What to Read?
  • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests
  • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search
  • Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru
  • Сообщества
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online
 
Зарегистрируйся!

CarGuru > Open discussion > Old transport cafe as a cannabis coffee shop 10 May 2005 03:37:11

  Recent blog posts: 
  They have birthday today: 
  Forums:   
  Discuss: 
  Recent forum topics: 
  Recent forum comments:
  Moderators:

Old transport cafe as a cannabis coffee shop

Gh 10 May 2005 03:37:11
 Perhaps part of the problem with uk cannabis coffee shops is the fact
they have always in or very near the center of the town .

Would a old transport cafe not be a more suitable location as they would
be out of sight and out of town - with the result the police might adopt
a less aggressive approach to them .

Cross posted to uk.rec.cars.misc in case somebodys knows of a ideal
location .
Add comment
Dr Zoidberg 7 May 2005 12:43:15 permanent link ]
 GH wrote:> Perhaps part of the problem with uk cannabis coffee shops is the fact> they have always in or very near the center of the town .>
Would a old transport cafe not be a more suitable location as they> would be out of sight and out of town - with the result the police> might adopt a less aggressive approach to them .

And then they can all drive home stoned.
What a wonderful idea.

--
Alex

Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"

www.drzoidberg.co.u­k
www.sffh.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk


Add comment
Uno Hoo! 7 May 2005 14:15:36 permanent link ]
 
"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@dr­zoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e3dd9Fvrh4U1@­individual.net...> GH wrote:>> Perhaps part of the problem with uk cannabis coffee shops is the fact>> they have always in or very near the center of the town .>>
Would a old transport cafe not be a more suitable location as they>> would be out of sight and out of town - with the result the police>> might adopt a less aggressive approach to them .>
And then they can all drive home stoned.> What a wonderful idea.

Yes indeed - could only have come from the ravaged brain of a druggie!

Kev


Add comment
Gordon Hudson 7 May 2005 14:54:53 permanent link ]
 
"Uno Hoo!" <kev@dropthisbigfoo­t.com> wrote in message
news:d5i4g7$en9$1@n­ewsg3.svr.pol.co.uk.­..>


Yes indeed - could only have come from the ravaged brain of a druggie!

Why do people think that taking drugs is a good thing to do?

I would far rather retain control of my faculties!


Add comment
Taz 7 May 2005 15:07:09 permanent link ]
 
"GH" <invalid@ganjahost.­co.uk.INVALID> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce630ac66­22a5d4989861@no-canc­el.newsreader.com...­> Perhaps part of the problem with uk cannabis coffee shops is the fact> they have always in or very near the center of the town .>
Would a old transport cafe not be a more suitable location as they would> be out of sight and out of town - with the result the police might adopt> a less aggressive approach to them .>
Cross posted to uk.rec.cars.misc in case somebodys knows of a ideal> location .

Whilst I don't really approve, at least the munchies problem would be solved
;-)­


Add comment
Dave Plowman 7 May 2005 15:14:29 permanent link ]
 In article <d5i4g7$en9$1@newsg­3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Uno Hoo! <kev@dropthisbigfoo­t.com> wrote:> > And then they can all drive home stoned.> > What a wonderful idea.
Yes indeed - could only have come from the ravaged brain of a druggie!

So rather like country pubs with car parks?

--
*Remember not to forget that which you do not need to know.*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.u­k London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Add comment
Shroomer 7 May 2005 15:19:44 permanent link ]
 "Gordon Hudson" <gordon@usenet2.hos­troute.co.uk> wrote:
Why do people think that taking drugs is a good thing to do?

Why do people think that going to the moon is a good thing to do? Or
learning to play the piano? Or getting out of bed? People are
different and some people like to explore. Would you not grant the
freedom to explore if it didn't cause you any inconvenience?
I would far rather retain control of my faculties!

Then do so, nobody's saying the moon is for everyone.

Peace

Shroomer

www.BogusFocus.com - online electronica, trance, relaxation and chilled, euphoric vibes.
** Site now includes merchandise and electronic publication of quality literature for the open-minded (OK, it's a bit subversive, sorry). **

STOP PRESS - new Binar CD "Project Poltergeist" available now, like today, weeee.
Add comment
Uno Hoo! 7 May 2005 16:28:05 permanent link ]
 
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.­uk> wrote in message
news:4d67491e15dave­@davenoise.co.uk...>­ In article <d5i4g7$en9$1@newsg­3.svr.pol.co.uk>,> Uno Hoo! <kev@dropthisbigfoo­t.com> wrote:>> > And then they can all drive home stoned.>> > What a wonderful idea.>
Yes indeed - could only have come from the ravaged brain of a druggie!>
So rather like country pubs with car parks?

There is a distinct difference. Many people, like me, do not drink to get
drunk. Also, you can visit a country pub, and have an enjoyable drink and/or
meal without any use of alcohol.
By contrast the whole point of taking cannabis is to get high. I don't think
I've ever heard the argument that people take cannabis because they enjoy
the taste!

Kev


Add comment
Guest 7 May 2005 16:38:55 permanent link ]
 Apparently on date Sat, 7 May 2005 02:57:51 +0100, GH
<invalid@ganjahost.­co.uk.INVALID> said:
Perhaps part of the problem with uk cannabis coffee shops is the fact >they have always in or very near the center of the town .>
Would a old transport cafe not be a more suitable location as they would >be out of sight and out of town - with the result the police might adopt >a less aggressive approach to them .>
Cross posted to uk.rec.cars.misc in case somebodys knows of a ideal >location .

How about lunatic asylums? That way they don't even have to drive home.


Add comment
Dave Plowman 7 May 2005 17:10:19 permanent link ]
 In article <d5ic8k$igs$1@news6­.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Uno Hoo! <kev@dropthisbigfoo­t.com> wrote:> >> > And then they can all drive home stoned.> >> > What a wonderful idea.> >
Yes indeed - could only have come from the ravaged brain of a druggie!> >
So rather like country pubs with car parks?
There is a distinct difference. Many people, like me, do not drink to> get drunk.

But they drink alcohol because of the pleasurable side effects?
Also, you can visit a country pub, and have an enjoyable> drink and/or meal without any use of alcohol. By contrast the whole> point of taking cannabis is to get high.

To get pleasurable side effects. You don't *have* to get totally off your
face.
I don't think I've ever heard the argument that people take cannabis> because they enjoy the taste!

Most never drink alcohol free beer or wine either. Regardless of what
they say they enjoy the effect of alcohol, rather than the taste of beer
or wine. And alcohol is also a drug - and a dangerous one, but simply
legal.

However, there's no reason why sensible people couldn't visit a country
cannabis cafe and have a nominated driver who doesn't partake. Same as
sensible people do when visiting a nice country pub.

FWIW, if we started with a clean slate, alcohol would be on *exactly* the
same footing as other presently illegal drugs. The fact that it's legal is
purely down to history as opium, cocaine and cannabis aren't native to
this country.

--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.u­k London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Add comment
Uno Hoo! 7 May 2005 17:30:06 permanent link ]
 
"AndrewR" <andrew@rockface.fr­eeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e3r14F12ih6U1­@individual.net...> Uno Hoo! wrote:>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.­uk> wrote in message>> news:4d67491e15dave­@davenoise.co.uk...>­
So rather like country pubs with car parks?>>
There is a distinct difference. Many people, like me, do not drink to>> get drunk. Also, you can visit a country pub, and have an enjoyable>> drink and/or meal without any use of alcohol.>
Then the difference is merely cultural. How would it be if the country > pub sold reefers?

It wouldn't be alright at all because often the only means of getting to the
country pub is by car and if, while there, you take drugs to get high then
you would not be fit to drive home.>
By contrast the whole point of taking cannabis is to get high. I>> don't think I've ever heard the argument that people take cannabis>> because they enjoy the taste!>
S'funny you know, but in all of the years I've been drink, with a wide > variety of people from all walks of life, I can't think of any occasion > where somebody who wasn't drinking alcohol, for what-ever reason, opted > for an alcohol free lager rather than a traditional soft-drink. To me > that suggests that those people didn't drink alcoholic drinks for the > taste either.

I'm not sure that I follow your there at all. What are you suggesting? That
people only drink beer or wine to get drunk? If so then I would say that
you are talking out of your backside.>
I would say that the main difference between alcohol and cannabis is that > it has been drummed into you that drug use is bad and, therefore, any > argument that comes from somebody who supports drug use must also be bad. > Lets face it - those of us who are regulars on uk.rec.cars.misc do know > that you have a long history of being unable to think for yourself.

Who am I thinking for then?

Kev


Add comment
Uno Hoo! 7 May 2005 17:36:58 permanent link ]
 
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.­uk> wrote in message
news:4d6753b89fdave­@davenoise.co.uk...>­ In article <d5ic8k$igs$1@news6­.svr.pol.co.uk>,> Uno Hoo! <kev@dropthisbigfoo­t.com> wrote:>> >> > And then they can all drive home stoned.>> >> > What a wonderful idea.>> >
Yes indeed - could only have come from the ravaged brain of a druggie!>> >
So rather like country pubs with car parks?>
There is a distinct difference. Many people, like me, do not drink to>> get drunk.>
But they drink alcohol because of the pleasurable side effects?

So you and others appear to argue. I drink wine, beer and spirits in
moderation because I like the taste of it - not for any side effects at all.>
Also, you can visit a country pub, and have an enjoyable>> drink and/or meal without any use of alcohol. By contrast the whole>> point of taking cannabis is to get high.>
To get pleasurable side effects. You don't *have* to get totally off your> face.

I wouldn't know. I've always managed to get plenty of enjoyment out of life
without seeking intoxication.>
I don't think I've ever heard the argument that people take cannabis>> because they enjoy the taste!>
Most never drink alcohol free beer or wine either.

Probably because it tastes foul. If I could find an alcohol-free wine or
beer that tasted anything like the proper stuff then I would drink it. I
drink for the taste not for any effect.

Regardless of what> they say they enjoy the effect of alcohol, rather than the taste of beer> or wine.

So you say - but I disagree.


And alcohol is also a drug - and a dangerous one, but simply> legal.

See above. Most people that I know drink alcohol for the taste - not for any
after-effect. That may be hard to understand for many people today who's
sole source of 'fun' appears to be getting legless and performing like
cretins.>
However, there's no reason why sensible people couldn't visit a country> cannabis cafe and have a nominated driver who doesn't partake. Same as> sensible people do when visiting a nice country pub.

Can you equate cannabis taker with 'sensible'? Bearing in mind the
increasing amount of medical evidence outlining the serious physical effects
on the human brain?>
FWIW, if we started with a clean slate, alcohol would be on *exactly* the> same footing as other presently illegal drugs. The fact that it's legal is> purely down to history as opium, cocaine and cannabis aren't native to> this country.

Possibly.

Kev


Add comment
Uno Hoo! 7 May 2005 17:55:21 permanent link ]
 
"AndrewR" <andrew@rockface.fr­eeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e3v7kF12m3cU1­@individual.net...> Uno Hoo! wrote:>> "AndrewR" <andrew@rockface.fr­eeserve.co.uk> wrote in message>> news:3e3r14F12ih6U1­@individual.net...>
Then the difference is merely cultural. How would it be if the>>> country pub sold reefers?>>
It wouldn't be alright at all because often the only means of getting>> to the country pub is by car and if, while there, you take drugs to>> get high then you would not be fit to drive home.>
But 4 people could go to a reefer-selling pub in one car and three of > those people could drink or get stoned, leaving one to drive home. Just > like four friends driving to a pub for a drink.

Yes - indeed they could.>
S'funny you know, but in all of the years I've been drink, with a>>> wide variety of people from all walks of life, I can't think of any>>> occasion where somebody who wasn't drinking alcohol, for what-ever>>> reason, opted for an alcohol free lager rather than a traditional>>> soft-drink. To me that suggests that those people didn't drink>>> alcoholic drinks for the taste either.>>
I'm not sure that I follow your there at all. What are you>> suggesting? That people only drink beer or wine to get drunk? If so>> then I would say that you are talking out of your backside.>
What I am saying is that people drink alcoholic drinks for the alcohol. > Wether they're getting a slight buzz, a bit tipsy or off their face is > their personal preference, but they are choosing to inject alcohol because > of its effects. My point was that alcohol-free beers are poor sellers > because the option of having the taste without the drug is not a popular > one.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I drink because I
like the taste and because I am thirsty - I do not drink for any after
effect. Believe it or not.>
I would say that the main difference between alcohol and cannabis is>>> that it has been drummed into you that drug use is bad and,>>> therefore, any argument that comes from somebody who supports drug>>> use must also be bad. Lets face it - those of us who are regulars on>>> uk.rec.cars.misc do know that you have a long history of being>>> unable to think for yourself.>>
Who am I thinking for then?>
You are thinking the way that you've been taught to - that legal drugs are > OK and illegal ones are not, that people who partake of the former can be > fine members of society while those who partake of the latter are > criminals. You fail to realise that the distinction is largely arbitary. > In your other post you mention the body of medical evidence showing the > long term harm of cannabis use, but you must be aware that alcohol and > tobacco are both far more harmful, yet fully legal.>
What you have, my friend, is a nice little piece of double-think.

Well, that's your opinion but I dispute it on the grounds that I have
covered many times before. The sole point of cannabis and other illegal
drugs is to get high. Alcohol can be used in moderation purely for its taste
and without any need for intoxication. *That* is the difference and that is
my argument. You may well disagree with my and that is your prerogative.

Kev


Add comment
Dave Plowman 7 May 2005 18:04:55 permanent link ]
 In article <d5ig9p$eau$1@newsg­4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Uno Hoo! <kev@dropthisbigfoo­t.com> wrote:> See above. Most people that I know drink alcohol for the taste - not for> any after-effect.

I just think you're fooling yourself.

People drink alcoholic drinks for the influence alcohol has on them. Just
try asking a first time drinker - like a child - whether they actually
enjoy the taste. Because they don't. It's acquired.

Plenty of non alcoholic drinks are enjoyable first time around.

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.u­k London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Add comment
Clive George 7 May 2005 18:08:48 permanent link ]
 "Uno Hoo!" <kev@dropthisbigfoo­t.com> wrote in message
news:d5ihc7$hpu$1@n­ews7.svr.pol.co.uk..­.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I drink because I> like the taste and because I am thirsty - I do not drink for any after> effect. Believe it or not.
...> Well, that's your opinion but I dispute it on the grounds that I have> covered many times before. The sole point of cannabis and other illegal> drugs is to get high. Alcohol can be used in moderation purely for its
taste> and without any need for intoxication. *That* is the difference and that
my argument. You may well disagree with my and that is your prerogative.

Er - Kev, you do know that alcohol even used in moderation has effects? Not
necessarily as obvious as those obtained by drinking ten pints of lager, but
the glasses of wine served at social functions are there for more reasons
than taste, and even one will do something to all but the most hardened
drinker.
This applies to other drugs too...

clive




Add comment
Forum User 7 May 2005 18:10:31 permanent link ]
 Gordon Hudson wrote:> "Uno Hoo!" <kev@dropthisbigfoo­t.com> wrote in message> news:d5i4g7$en9$1@n­ewsg3.svr.pol.co.uk.­..>>
Yes indeed - could only have come from the ravaged brain of a>> druggie!>
Why do people think that taking drugs is a good thing to do?>
I would far rather retain control of my faculties!

Agreed.
Except that it's fun.
You know - like drinking to get pissed.
They're both drugs - they just have different effects.
Alcohol is certainly no BETTER than weed.
A lot depends on your life circumstances, as to which you choose.

Personally, I'm too scared to try pot again.
It's been over 20 years !
Why am I scared ?
Because I don't know how long I'd be phucked up for - or how it would affect
me.
With a drink, I know there won't be such a fundamental alteration of
reality.
But then, I don't really drink much either.


Add comment
Forum User 7 May 2005 18:12:40 permanent link ]
 Uno Hoo! wrote:> "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.­uk> wrote in message> news:4d67491e15dave­@davenoise.co.uk...>­> In article <d5i4g7$en9$1@newsg­3.svr.pol.co.uk>,>> Uno Hoo! <kev@dropthisbigfoo­t.com> wrote:>>>> And then they can all drive home stoned.>>>> What a wonderful idea.>>
Yes indeed - could only have come from the ravaged brain of a>>> druggie!>>
So rather like country pubs with car parks?>
There is a distinct difference. Many people, like me, do not drink to> get drunk. Also, you can visit a country pub, and have an enjoyable> drink and/or meal without any use of alcohol.> By contrast the whole point of taking cannabis is to get high. I> don't think I've ever heard the argument that people take cannabis> because they enjoy the taste!


Yeah, like you first drank alcohol because you thought it'd taste nice !

Kev


Add comment
Uno Hoo! 7 May 2005 18:13:15 permanent link ]
 
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.­uk> wrote in message
news:4d6758b85cdave­@davenoise.co.uk...>­ In article <d5ig9p$eau$1@newsg­4.svr.pol.co.uk>,> Uno Hoo! <kev@dropthisbigfoo­t.com> wrote:>> See above. Most people that I know drink alcohol for the taste - not for>> any after-effect.>
I just think you're fooling yourself.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. Certainly I accept that in this day
and age there is a general feeling, especially amongst the young, that the
only way to enjoy yourself is to go out and get legless. I've never ascribed
to that view and still don't. I very genuinely like the taste of certain
alcoholic drinks and that is why I drink them. I certainly would not drink
them if I didn't like the taste - and as I stated previously, if someone
could come up with an alcohol free beer or wine that tasted anything like
the real stuff then I would buy it and drink it.>
People drink alcoholic drinks for the influence alcohol has on them. Just> try asking a first time drinker - like a child - whether they actually> enjoy the taste. Because they don't. It's acquired.

I agree that taste is often acquired - but I dispute that is down to the
intoxicating effect. I never used to like brussels sprouts when I was a
child and I love them now. I never used to like red wine whereas I now
prefer it to white. Tastes mature - it's nothing to do with the alcoholic
content.>
Plenty of non alcoholic drinks are enjoyable first time around.

I agree - but tastes mature with age. Most people begin to appreciate drier
wines rather than sweeter ones for example.

Kev


Add comment
Uno Hoo! 7 May 2005 18:16:57 permanent link ]
 
"Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet­.co.uk> wrote in message
news:427ccbf7$0$549­$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-r­eader03.plus.net...>­ "Uno Hoo!" <kev@dropthisbigfoo­t.com> wrote in message> news:d5ihc7$hpu$1@n­ews7.svr.pol.co.uk..­.>
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I drink because I>> like the taste and because I am thirsty - I do not drink for any after>> effect. Believe it or not.> ...>> Well, that's your opinion but I dispute it on the grounds that I have>> covered many times before. The sole point of cannabis and other illegal>> drugs is to get high. Alcohol can be used in moderation purely for its> taste>> and without any need for intoxication. *That* is the difference and that> is>> my argument. You may well disagree with my and that is your prerogative.>
Er - Kev, you do know that alcohol even used in moderation has effects? > Not> necessarily as obvious as those obtained by drinking ten pints of lager, > but> the glasses of wine served at social functions are there for more reasons> than taste, and even one will do something to all but the most hardened> drinker.> This applies to other drugs too...

Well, so you argue and I am unable to dispute it. I still maintain, however,
that there is a dramatic difference between having a glass of wine with a
meal because you enjoy the taste of the wine, and using cannabis, not
because you like the taste, but purely because you want to get high.

Kev



Add comment
Borg 7 May 2005 18:21:59 permanent link ]
 On Sat, 7 May 2005 02:57:51 +0100, GH
<invalid@ganjahost.­co.uk.INVALID> wrote:
Perhaps part of the problem with uk cannabis coffee shops is the fact >they have always in or very near the center of the town .>
Would a old transport cafe not be a more suitable location as they would >be out of sight and out of town - with the result the police might adopt >a less aggressive approach to them .>
Cross posted to uk.rec.cars.misc in case somebodys knows of a ideal >location .


great get stone sand have the shits, and only the sun to read



--
arjftebhc@jryfutbi.­pb.hx<--ROT13 it
Spam Trap in Header

GS850 Trike

FOR SALE TOUCH SCREEN PC. E MAIL FOR DETAILS

http://borg.no-ip.c­om
Add comment
Gh 7 May 2005 18:57:17 permanent link ]
 <uk.rec.drugs.cannab­is , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>
<d5ic8k$igs$1@news6­.svr.pol.co.uk>
<Sat, 7 May 2005 13:28:05 +0100>
I don't think > I've ever heard the argument that people take cannabis because they enjoy > the taste!>

In the same way as a single malt some people do - but for some people
its the sweet aroma they mostly enjoy .


--
www.ganjahost.co.uk­
Add comment


Gh 7 May 2005 18:57:18 permanent link ]
 <uk.rec.drugs.cannab­is , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>
<d5ifss$obe$1@news8­.svr.pol.co.uk>
<Sat, 7 May 2005 14:30:06 +0100>
Then the difference is merely cultural. How would it be if the country > > pub sold reefers?>
It wouldn't be alright at all because often the only means of getting to the > country pub is by car and if, while there, you take drugs to get high then > you would not be fit to drive home.>

Do you think there would ten foot high sign saying summit like .... you
are not allowed to leave here until you are completely whacked out your
skull :-)­


--
www.ganjahost.co.uk­
Add comment
Gh 7 May 2005 18:57:19 permanent link ]
 <uk.rec.drugs.cannab­is , AndrewR , andrew@rockface.fre­eserve.co.uk>
<3e3v7kF12m3cU1@ind­ividual.net>
<Sat, 7 May 2005 14:48:58 +0100>
It wouldn't be alright at all because often the only means of getting> > to the country pub is by car and if, while there, you take drugs to> > get high then you would not be fit to drive home.>
But 4 people could go to a reefer-selling pub in one car and three of those > people could drink or get stoned, leaving one to drive home. Just like four > friends driving to a pub for a drink.>

Or in the same way that people can buy booze in off licence and dont
feel the urge or compulsion to open and drink in the shop .


--
www.ganjahost.co.uk­
Add comment


Gh 7 May 2005 18:57:21 permanent link ]
 <uk.rec.drugs.cannab­is , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>
<d5ihc7$hpu$1@news7­.svr.pol.co.uk>
<Sat, 7 May 2005 14:55:21 +0100>
Alcohol can be used in moderation purely for its taste > and without any need for intoxication.>

What do you think of binge drinkers ? .


--
www.ganjahost.co.uk­
Add comment
Gh 7 May 2005 18:57:22 permanent link ]
 <uk.rec.drugs.cannab­is , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>
<d5ig9p$eau$1@newsg­4.svr.pol.co.uk>
<Sat, 7 May 2005 14:36:58 +0100>
However, there's no reason why sensible people couldn't visit a country> > cannabis cafe and have a nominated driver who doesn't partake. Same as> > sensible people do when visiting a nice country pub.>
Can you equate cannabis taker with 'sensible'?>

Compared to who ? .


--
www.ganjahost.co.uk­
Add comment


Gh 7 May 2005 18:59:33 permanent link ]
 <uk.rec.drugs.cannab­is , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>
<d5iikn$10a$1@newsg­2.svr.pol.co.uk>
<Sat, 7 May 2005 15:16:57 +0100>
Well, so you argue and I am unable to dispute it. I still maintain, however, > that there is a dramatic difference between having a glass of wine with a > meal because you enjoy the taste of the wine, and using cannabis, not > because you like the taste, but purely because you want to get high.>

You mention the word "high" quite a few times - would you care to give
your definition of what high is ? .


--
www.ganjahost.co.uk­
Add comment
Uno Hoo! 7 May 2005 19:18:59 permanent link ]
 
"AndrewR" <andrew@rockface.fr­eeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e41fgF1481iU1­@individual.net...> Uno Hoo! wrote:>> "AndrewR" <andrew@rockface.fr­eeserve.co.uk> wrote in message>> news:3e3v7kF12m3cU1­@individual.net...>
What I am saying is that people drink alcoholic drinks for the>>> alcohol. Wether they're getting a slight buzz, a bit tipsy or off>>> their face is their personal preference, but they are choosing to>>> inject alcohol because of its effects. My point was that>>> alcohol-free beers are poor sellers because the option of having the>>> taste without the drug is not a popular one.>>
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I drink>> because I like the taste and because I am thirsty - I do not drink>> for any after effect. Believe it or not.>
Obviously I'm poorly place to argue the whys and wherefores of your > personal alcohol consumption, but I would say it's irrelevant to the > argument, because you can not generalise from self and apply your drinking > principles to the whole of society.>
Alcohol my well have a history of being a social drug and of encouraging > connoisseurs, but that is unrelated to the physiological effects of the > drug and its long-term health implications.>
Basically your arguement boils down to; "Alcohol should be legal because > lots of people like it, but cannabis shouldn't be legal because I don't > like it and I don't like the idea of people taking a drug purely for its > narcotic effect".>
That's a pretty poor argument, really.

Well, it's an argument that holds sway in most countries in the world isn't
it?

Kev


Add comment
Uno Hoo! 7 May 2005 19:19:23 permanent link ]
 
"GH" <invalid@ganjahost.­co.uk.INVALID> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce6e643cb­80d55d989866@no-canc­el.newsreader.com...­> <uk.rec.drugs.canna­bis , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>> <d5ihc7$hpu$1@news7­.svr.pol.co.uk>> <Sat, 7 May 2005 14:55:21 +0100>>
Alcohol can be used in moderation purely for its taste>> and without any need for intoxication.>>
What do you think of binge drinkers ? .

I think they are sad and pathetic quite frankly!

Kev


Add comment
Gh 7 May 2005 19:22:33 permanent link ]
 <uk.rec.drugs.cannab­is , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>
<d5im9q$lgm$1@news7­.svr.pol.co.uk>
<Sat, 7 May 2005 16:19:23 +0100>
Alcohol can be used in moderation purely for its taste> >> and without any need for intoxication.> >>
What do you think of binge drinkers ? .>
I think they are sad and pathetic quite frankly!>

What do you think of people who use cannabis in moderation in the same
way you use alcohol in moderation .


--
www.ganjahost.co.uk­
Add comment
Uno Hoo! 7 May 2005 19:23:21 permanent link ]
 
"GH" <invalid@ganjahost.­co.uk.INVALID> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce6e82d28­107696989868@no-canc­el.newsreader.com...­> <uk.rec.drugs.canna­bis , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>> <d5iikn$10a$1@newsg­2.svr.pol.co.uk>> <Sat, 7 May 2005 15:16:57 +0100>>
Well, so you argue and I am unable to dispute it. I still maintain, >> however,>> that there is a dramatic difference between having a glass of wine with a>> meal because you enjoy the taste of the wine, and using cannabis, not>> because you like the taste, but purely because you want to get high.>>
You mention the word "high" quite a few times - would you care to give> your definition of what high is ? .

I use the word 'high' because it is a term that is generally used to denote
the form of intoxication derived from drug use rather than alcohol use (yes
I know that will argue that alcohol is a drug as well). I have never taken a
controlled drug in my life and so have no personal idea of how to describe
the effect (and yes, I realise you will state now state that I am poorly
placed to criticise something that I have not tried - but I don't need to
practise paedophilia to know that it is wrong).

Kev


Add comment
Uno Hoo! 7 May 2005 19:23:52 permanent link ]
 
"GH" <invalid@ganjahost.­co.uk.INVALID> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce6e727fe­640f989867@no-cancel­.newsreader.com...> <uk.rec.drugs.canna­bis , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>> <d5ig9p$eau$1@newsg­4.svr.pol.co.uk>> <Sat, 7 May 2005 14:36:58 +0100>>
However, there's no reason why sensible people couldn't visit a country>> > cannabis cafe and have a nominated driver who doesn't partake. Same as>> > sensible people do when visiting a nice country pub.>>
Can you equate cannabis taker with 'sensible'?>>
Compared to who ? .

With a none cannabis taker?

Kev


Add comment
Gh 7 May 2005 19:29:08 permanent link ]
 <uk.rec.drugs.cannab­is , Gordon Hudson , gordon@usenet2.host­route.co.uk>
<427c9e7f$0$38041$5­a6aecb4@news.aaisp.n­et.uk>
<Sat, 7 May 2005 11:54:53 +0100>
Yes indeed - could only have come from the ravaged brain of a druggie!>
Why do people think that taking drugs is a good thing to do?>
I would far rather retain control of my faculties>

www.cannabiscoffees­hops.co.uk/guest_alt­er_002.html

Bookmark the above in case you are ever tempted :-)­


--
www.ganjahost.co.uk­
Add comment
Gh 7 May 2005 19:31:39 permanent link ]
 <uk.rec.drugs.cannab­is , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>
<d5imh7$s5e$1@newsg­3.svr.pol.co.uk>
<Sat, 7 May 2005 16:23:21 +0100>
You mention the word "high" quite a few times - would you care to give> > your definition of what high is ? .>
I use the word 'high' because it is a term that is generally used to denote > the form of intoxication derived from drug use rather than alcohol use (yes > I know that will argue that alcohol is a drug as well). I have never taken a > controlled drug in my life and so have no personal idea of how to describe > the effect (and yes, I realise you will state now state that I am poorly > placed to criticise something that I have not tried - but I don't need to > practise paedophilia to know that it is wrong).>

Do you believe if you buy cannabis you are helping to support terrorism
and child pornography ? .


--
www.ganjahost.co.uk­
Add comment
Gh 7 May 2005 19:33:40 permanent link ]
 <uk.rec.drugs.cannab­is , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>
<d5imi6$ln2$1@news7­.svr.pol.co.uk>
<Sat, 7 May 2005 16:23:52 +0100>
Can you equate cannabis taker with 'sensible'?> >>
Compared to who ? .>
With a none cannabis taker?>

Can you be a bit more specific .


--
www.ganjahost.co.uk­
Add comment
Uno Hoo! 7 May 2005 19:33:45 permanent link ]
 
"GH" <invalid@ganjahost.­co.uk.INVALID> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce6ed81e5­3f592b989869@no-canc­el.newsreader.com...­> <uk.rec.drugs.canna­bis , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>> <d5im9q$lgm$1@news7­.svr.pol.co.uk>> <Sat, 7 May 2005 16:19:23 +0100>>
Alcohol can be used in moderation purely for its taste>> >> and without any need for intoxication.>> >>
What do you think of binge drinkers ? .>>
I think they are sad and pathetic quite frankly!>>
What do you think of people who use cannabis in moderation in the same> way you use alcohol in moderation .

I think about them in much the same way that I think about anyone who
deliberately flouts the law. There is still the question, although you
appear to be trying to get around it, that people can drink alcoholic drinks
in moderation purely and solely and for no other reason than because they
enjoy the taste of it. For many such moderate drinkers, the intoxicating
effects are unwanted and unwelcome. I have already stated that if
alcohol-free beer and wine were available, and tasted exactly the same as
the 'proper' product, I would buy it. Would you buy and use cannabis if its
narcotic effect was removed? I think not.

Kev


Add comment
Uno Hoo! 7 May 2005 19:37:30 permanent link ]
 
"GH" <invalid@ganjahost.­co.uk.INVALID> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce6efba11­5920e898986b@no-canc­el.newsreader.com...­> <uk.rec.drugs.canna­bis , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>> <d5imh7$s5e$1@newsg­3.svr.pol.co.uk>> <Sat, 7 May 2005 16:23:21 +0100>>
You mention the word "high" quite a few times - would you care to give>> > your definition of what high is ? .>>
I use the word 'high' because it is a term that is generally used to >> denote>> the form of intoxication derived from drug use rather than alcohol use >> (yes>> I know that will argue that alcohol is a drug as well). I have never >> taken a>> controlled drug in my life and so have no personal idea of how to >> describe>> the effect (and yes, I realise you will state now state that I am poorly>> placed to criticise something that I have not tried - but I don't need to>> practise paedophilia to know that it is wrong).>>
Do you believe if you buy cannabis you are helping to support terrorism> and child pornography ? .

Not particularly - but clearly illegal drug suppliers are serious criminals-
particularly higher up the chain.

Kev


Add comment
Uno Hoo! 7 May 2005 19:38:31 permanent link ]
 
"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveForesk­inWeb.com> wrote in message
news:8a5fe.17901$wu­2.6137@newsfe1-gui.n­tli.net...>> >> Alcohol can be used in moderation purely for its taste>> >> and without any need for intoxication.>> >
What do you think of binge drinkers ? .>>
I think they are sad and pathetic quite frankly!>
So anyone that has more than 3 pints in one drinking session (that's the> definition IIRC) is sad and pathetic?

The ones who are sad and pathetic are those who drink to get drunk.

Kev


Add comment
Uno Hoo! 7 May 2005 19:39:45 permanent link ]
 
"GH" <invalid@ganjahost.­co.uk.INVALID> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce6f02ac2­751e5498986c@no-canc­el.newsreader.com...­> <uk.rec.drugs.canna­bis , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>> <d5imi6$ln2$1@news7­.svr.pol.co.uk>> <Sat, 7 May 2005 16:23:52 +0100>>
Can you equate cannabis taker with 'sensible'?>> >>
Compared to who ? .>>
With a none cannabis taker?>>
Can you be a bit more specific .

If you wish. Using cannabis is against the law. By using it you risk
prosecution. That is not a sensible thing to do. Ergo there is no such thing
as a sensible cannabis user.

Kev


Add comment
Gh 7 May 2005 19:40:21 permanent link ]
 <uk.rec.drugs.cannab­is , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>
<d5in4n$jhn$1@newsg­4.svr.pol.co.uk>
<Sat, 7 May 2005 16:33:45 +0100>
Alcohol can be used in moderation purely for its taste> >> >> and without any need for intoxication.> >> >>
What do you think of binge drinkers ? .> >>
I think they are sad and pathetic quite frankly!> >>
What do you think of people who use cannabis in moderation in the same> > way you use alcohol in moderation .>
I think about them in much the same way that I think about anyone who > deliberately flouts the law. There is still the question, although you > appear to be trying to get around it,>

Not trying to get around anything , I asked you a comparison based
question on what you have said so far .


--
www.ganjahost.co.uk­
Add comment
Gh 7 May 2005 19:45:30 permanent link ]
 <uk.rec.drugs.cannab­is , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>
<d5infv$mdh$1@news7­.svr.pol.co.uk>
<Sat, 7 May 2005 16:39:45 +0100>
Can you equate cannabis taker with 'sensible'?> >> >>
Compared to who ? .> >>
With a none cannabis taker?> >>
Can you be a bit more specific .>
If you wish. Using cannabis is against the law. By using it you risk > prosecution. That is not a sensible thing to do. Ergo there is no such thing > as a sensible cannabis user.>

What about people with MS who use it for pain relief as its more
effective and less damaging than prescription drugs .


--
www.ganjahost.co.uk­
Add comment
Tim S Kemp 7 May 2005 19:51:36 permanent link ]
 AndrewR wrote:> Uno Hoo! wrote:>
If you wish. Using cannabis is against the law. By using it you risk>> prosecution. That is not a sensible thing to do. Ergo there is no>> such thing as a sensible cannabis user.>
Cars are sometimes involved in fatal crashes. By travelling in a car> you risk being involved in a fatal crash. That is not sensible risk.> Ergo there is no such thing as a sensible car user.>
Sunlight causes skin cancer. By exposing yourself to sunshine you> risk skin cancer. That is not a sensible thing to do. Ergo there is> no such thing as a sensible t-shirt wearer.>
Everybody who lives eventually dies. By living you take the risk> that you will die. Dying is a bad thing. Ergo there is no such> thing as a sensible person.>
Do you spot the flaw in Mr Argument?

Usenet is full of tossers and pedants, by using usenet you risk
dissillusionment in mankind's ability to make reasoned debate. Ergo there is
no such thing as a sensible argument in usenet.


--
"Excuse me, would you mind not farting while I'm saving the world?"

"Would you rather silent but deadly?"


Add comment
Conor 7 May 2005 20:36:56 permanent link ]
 In article <427c9e7f$0$38041$5­a6aecb4@news.aaisp.n­et.uk>, Gordon Hudson
says...>
"Uno Hoo!" <kev@dropthisbigfoo­t.com> wrote in message > news:d5i4g7$en9$1@n­ewsg3.svr.pol.co.uk.­..> >
Yes indeed - could only have come from the ravaged brain of a druggie!>
Why do people think that taking drugs is a good thing to do?>
I would far rather retain control of my faculties! >
I occassionally smoked cannabis a couple of years ago to alleviate the
incredible pain I was enduring. It gave me a few hours of relief. The
one thing it didn't do was to make me feel high. In fact, apart from
the pain relief, it appeared to have no effect.

However I still didn't think it was a good idea to drive though and
I've not used it since.


--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.
Add comment
David Taylor 7 May 2005 20:48:48 permanent link ]
 Uno Hoo! <kev@dropthisbigfoo­t.com> wrote on Sat, 7 May 2005 14:30:06 +0100:> "AndrewR" <andrew@rockface.fr­eeserve.co.uk> wrote in message > news:3e3r14F12ih6U1­@individual.net...>>­
Then the difference is merely cultural. How would it be if the country >> pub sold reefers?>
It wouldn't be alright at all because often the only means of getting to the > country pub is by car and if, while there, you take drugs to get high then > you would not be fit to drive home.

Er. You do realise that such pubs (without the reefers) already exist
and sell alcohol? Again: the difference is merely cultural.

You beleive cannabis is "bad", thus come up with illogical arguments
against it. Alcohol, OTOH, is normal and socially acceptable.
I would say that the main difference between alcohol and cannabis is that >> it has been drummed into you that drug use is bad and, therefore, any >> argument that comes from somebody who supports drug use must also be bad. >> Lets face it - those of us who are regulars on uk.rec.cars.misc do know >> that you have a long history of being unable to think for yourself.>
Who am I thinking for then?

Rather: who is thinking for you?

--
David Taylor
Add comment
David Taylor 7 May 2005 20:55:15 permanent link ]
 Uno Hoo! <kev@dropthisbigfoo­t.com> wrote on Sat, 7 May 2005 16:23:21 +0100:> "GH" <invalid@ganjahost.­co.uk.INVALID> wrote in message > news:MPG.1ce6e82d28­107696989868@no-canc­el.newsreader.com...­>>
You mention the word "high" quite a few times - would you care to give>> your definition of what high is ? .>
I use the word 'high' because it is a term that is generally used to denote > the form of intoxication derived from drug use rather than alcohol use (yes > I know that will argue that alcohol is a drug as well). I have never taken a > controlled drug in my life and so have no personal idea of how to describe > the effect (and yes, I realise you will state now state that I am poorly > placed to criticise something that I have not tried - but I don't need to > practise paedophilia to know that it is wrong).

Why do you beleive that all illegal drugs get you "high" when legal
drugs (i.e. alcohol) get you "drunk"? There is likely to be as much
difference between one illegal drug and another, as there is between
alcohol and an illegal drug.

--
David Taylor
Add comment
David Taylor 7 May 2005 20:56:07 permanent link ]
 Uno Hoo! <kev@dropthisbigfoo­t.com> wrote on Sat, 7 May 2005 16:18:59 +0100:> "AndrewR" <andrew@rockface.fr­eeserve.co.uk> wrote in message > news:3e41fgF1481iU1­@individual.net...>>­
Basically your arguement boils down to; "Alcohol should be legal because >> lots of people like it, but cannabis shouldn't be legal because I don't >> like it and I don't like the idea of people taking a drug purely for its >> narcotic effect".>>
That's a pretty poor argument, really.>
Well, it's an argument that holds sway in most countries in the world isn't > it?

Which makes it valid?

--
David Taylor

Add comment
Sme 7 May 2005 21:40:03 permanent link ]
 On Sat, 07 May 2005 14:57:18 GMT and in uk.rec.cars.misc, GH wrote....
<uk.rec.drugs.canna­bis , Uno Hoo! , kev@dropthisbigfoot­.com>> <d5ifss$obe$1@news8­.svr.pol.co.uk>> <Sat, 7 May 2005 14:30:06 +0100>>
Then the difference is merely cultural. How would it be if the>> > country pub sold reefers?>>
It wouldn't be alright at all because often the only means of getting>> to the country pub is by car and if, while there, you take drugs to>> get high then you would not be fit to drive home.>>
Do you think there would ten foot high sign saying summit like ....> you are not allowed to leave here until you are completely whacked out> your skull :-)­

What you doing here??

The problem you have is that you would have to regulate the different
ways of smoking cannabis. People would have to know the 'limits' and they
would have to know how much to use.

Most people know more than a pint will put them over the limit, how would
people know how much cannabis would put them over a limit??

--
sme
http://www.atbg60.d­sl.pipex.com/page3.h­tml
Add comment
Shroomer 7 May 2005 23:23:31 permanent link ]
 GH <invalid@ganjahost.­co.uk.INVALID> wrote:

Do you believe if you buy cannabis you are helping to support terrorism >and child pornography ? .

Nobody with more than three synapses to zap into life would believe
that!

However, prohibition gives rise to criminality and funds criminal
empires; so it could argued, though I wouldn't bother, that
prohibition both is and supports a very tangible form of terrorism.

Shroomer

www.BogusFocus.com - online electronica, trance, relaxation and chilled, euphoric vibes.
** Site now includes merchandise and electronic publication of quality literature for the open-minded (OK, it's a bit subversive, sorry). **

STOP PRESS - new Binar CD "Project Poltergeist" available now, like today, weeee.
Add comment
Pete Smith 8 May 2005 00:04:48 permanent link ]
 In article <8a5fe.17901$wu2.61­37@newsfe1-gui.ntli.­net>,
Peter@SwerveForeski­nWeb.com says...> > >> Alcohol can be used in moderation purely for its taste> > >> and without any need for intoxication.> > >
What do you think of binge drinkers ? .> >
I think they are sad and pathetic quite frankly!>
So anyone that has more than 3 pints in one drinking session (that's the> definition IIRC) is sad and pathetic?

The definition of someone who has 3 pints is a binge drinker is sad &
pathetic.

It's not someone who goes out to have 3 pints - it's someone who goes out
and gets totally trollied, 2 nights a week, every singe week.

Just IMO!

Pete.

--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be deleted
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail
Add comment
Guest 8 May 2005 00:17:47 permanent link ]
 Apparently on date Sat, 7 May 2005 16:18:59 +0100, "Uno Hoo!"
<kev@dropthisbigfoo­t.com> said:
"AndrewR" <andrew@rockface.fr­eeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >news:3e41fgF1481iU­1@individual.net...>­> Uno Hoo! wrote:>>> "AndrewR" <andrew@rockface.fr­eeserve.co.uk> wrote in message>>> news:3e3v7kF12m3cU1­@individual.net...>>­
What I am saying is that people drink alcoholic drinks for the>>>> alcohol. Wether they're getting a slight buzz, a bit tipsy or off>>>> their face is their personal preference, but they are choosing to>>>> inject alcohol because of its effects. My point was that>>>> alcohol-free beers are poor sellers because the option of having the>>>> taste without the drug is not a popular one.>>>
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I drink>>> because I like the taste and because I am thirsty - I do not drink>>> for any after effect. Believe it or not.>>
Obviously I'm poorly place to argue the whys and wherefores of your >> personal alcohol consumption, but I would say it's irrelevant to the >> argument, because you can not generalise from self and apply your drinking >> principles to the whole of society.>>
Alcohol my well have a history of being a social drug and of encouraging >> connoisseurs, but that is unrelated to the physiological effects of the >> drug and its long-term health implications.>>
Basically your arguement boils down to; "Alcohol should be legal because >> lots of people like it, but cannabis shouldn't be legal because I don't >> like it and I don't like the idea of people taking a drug purely for its >> narcotic effect".>>
That's a pretty poor argument, really.>
Well, it's an argument that holds sway in most countries in the world isn't >it?

What, that alcohol/cannabis is an illegal drug? I think it's generally split
about 50:50.

But I think most civilised countries recognise that it is 100% illegal to drive
a car while under the influence of any drugs including alcohol, and isolated
roadside shops where these are sold are a very poor idea.

I get the impression your argument boils down to alcohol being ok and cannabis
not, on the basis of which ones happen to be legal and which are banned, in
your country.

In a purely clinical sense this argument is very impoverished.

A better line of reasoning is that people who indulge in illegal drugs, are
more likely to break the law in other ways, e.g. by driving while under the
influence of their drug of choice.

Thus, if alcohol was illegal instead, you would be reasoning that people who
take alcohol do it only to get completely drunk and would be willing to drive
home afterwards. And anyway, then, the police would have roadside equipment to
test for being under the influence of cannabis but would have less idea what to
do with the driver who passes the cannabis test but is acting oddly, telling
the officers that he is willing to "take them all on" and wobbling about on his
feet. Sommat like that, anyway.

Easy test, really, if cannabis was the legal pressure release valve and alcohol
was strictly illegal, would you toke the odd handmade instead? Even if planning
to drive afterwards?


Add comment
Ben Blaney 8 May 2005 11:40:39 permanent link ]
 Gordon Hudson wrote:
Why do people think that taking drugs is a good thing to do?

Why do you think it is a bad thing to do?

--
Ben Blaney