Holy Smoke

Opponents of decriminalisation often do not read reports into research of cannabis,
it's illegal - law-abiding people are not obliged to read reports about it; we just want it kept away from us.
 
..... law-abiding people are not obliged to read reports about it; we just want it kept away from us.

Reminds me of a quote from The Pub Landlord :


"We're honest, law - abiding, tax - paying, law - abiding, upstanding, honest people.....
.... who don't want to pay our speeding fines".
 
On the 'Reefer Madness' campaign of the 1930s.... I've got an LP of songs about drugs from that era, containing such titles as 'Whacky Dust', 'Reefer Man' and the all-time classic 'Who Put The Benzedrine In Mrs. Murphy's Ovaltine '.


In 'You're A Viper', the singer tells us "I'm the king of everything but I've got to be high before I can swing", which is very sad. You don't need drugs for anything.

 
You are wrong.

Organised crime would not longer profit from it.

It could be taxed

Public safety would be improved by controlling purity and strength

Sales could be regulated in licenced premises.

I don't know why you pretend you weren't told already
 
Funny that John isn't it because if you read your post it looks like you did indeed say this, so not actually a false allegation nor is it false.
 
I showed you.
JohnD said:
You are wrong.

Organised crime would not longer profit from it.

It could be taxed

Public safety would be improved by controlling purity and strength

Sales could be regulated in licenced premises.

I don't know why you pretend you weren't told already
 
JohnD said:
You are wrong.

Organised crime would not longer profit from it.

It could be taxed

Public safety would be improved by controlling purity and strength

Sales could be regulated in licenced premises.

I don't know why you pretend you weren't told already
You seem to be conflating observations of the consequences for decriminalisation with a personal endorsement of that policy. A common mistake you make consistently when it comes to an actual discussion rather than a glib thread full of irrelevance to the actual topic.
 
You seem to be conflating observations of the consequences for decriminalisation with a personal endorsement of that policy. A common mistake you make consistently when it comes to an actual discussion rather than a glib thread full of irrelevance to the actual topic.
Of course it is my personal view, other views may differ, what is your point?
 
Of course it is my personal view, other views may differ, what is your point?
No, you claimed Johnny D. was in favour of turning pubs into drug dens when he said nothing of the kind. That's not an opinion, it's flat out wrong.
 
Back
Top