Another petition for the former toking Home Secretary to ignore. No doubt
it'll be another case of cannabis causes illnesses, like it didn't for her
and criminalisation deters, like it didn't her.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cannabisCampaign/

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:5vmjpkF1nenlaU1@mid.individual.net...
> Another petition for the former toking Home Secretary to ignore. No doubt
> it'll be another case of cannabis causes illnesses, like it didn't for her
> and criminalisation deters, like it didn't her.
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cannabisCampaign/

I know people who smoke cigarettes but aren't ill, so does that prove 
cigarette-smoking doesn't cause illness?

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:32:30 +0000, mentalguy2004 wrote:

> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> news:5vmjpkF1nenlaU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Another petition for the former toking Home Secretary to ignore. No
>> doubt it'll be another case of cannabis causes illnesses, like it
>> didn't for her and criminalisation deters, like it didn't her.
>>
>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cannabisCampaign/
> 
> I know people who smoke cigarettes but aren't ill, so does that prove
> cigarette-smoking doesn't cause illness?

crossing the road can, undoubtedly, get you killed, when was that banned?

"FriarTuck"  wrote in message 
news:L5plj.29589$a61.25015@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:32:30 +0000, mentalguy2004 wrote:
>
>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>> news:5vmjpkF1nenlaU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Another petition for the former toking Home Secretary to ignore. No
>>> doubt it'll be another case of cannabis causes illnesses, like it
>>> didn't for her and criminalisation deters, like it didn't her.
>>>
>>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cannabisCampaign/
>>
>> I know people who smoke cigarettes but aren't ill, so does that prove
>> cigarette-smoking doesn't cause illness?
>
> crossing the road can, undoubtedly, get you killed, when was that banned?

I've never been killed crossing the road, so therefore it never happens to 
anyone.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:47:39 +0000, mentalguy2004 wrote:

> "FriarTuck"  wrote in message
> news:L5plj.29589$a61.25015@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:32:30 +0000, mentalguy2004 wrote:
>>
>>> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>>> news:5vmjpkF1nenlaU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Another petition for the former toking Home Secretary to ignore. No
>>>> doubt it'll be another case of cannabis causes illnesses, like it
>>>> didn't for her and criminalisation deters, like it didn't her.
>>>>
>>>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cannabisCampaign/
>>>
>>> I know people who smoke cigarettes but aren't ill, so does that prove
>>> cigarette-smoking doesn't cause illness?
>>
>> crossing the road can, undoubtedly, get you killed, when was that
>> banned?
> 

OK I forgot about crossing motorways, that is illegal isn't it (as well 
as particularly silly...)

> I've never been killed crossing the road, so therefore it never happens
> to anyone.

wrong deductions aside, you would not want to ban it though would you 
except perhaps in certain circumstances like motorways.

On 22 jan, 17:32, "mentalguy2004"  wrote:
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in messagenews:5vmjpkF1nenlaU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Another petition for the former toking Home Secretary to ignore. No doubt
> > it'll be another case of cannabis causes illnesses, like it didn't for her
> > and criminalisation deters, like it didn't her.
>
> >http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cannabisCampaign/
>
> I know people who smoke cigarettes but aren't ill, so does that prove
> cigarette-smoking doesn't cause illness?

That's not the issue at stake here. Cannabis isn't harmless. Nobody
claims it is.
The question is whether or not it's the governments business to
protect adults against themselves by banning cannabis. If you think
the government is allowed to protect adults against themselves, where
do you draw the line exactly? Can the government dictate your diet?
Can the government decide at what time you should go to bed?
Does it make any sense for the government to ban cannabis when a drug
like alcohol, that everybody agrees is more harmful than cannabis in
case of abuse, is freely available to adults?

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:32:30 GMT, "mentalguy2004" 
wrote:

>> Another petition for the former toking Home Secretary to ignore. No doubt
>> it'll be another case of cannabis causes illnesses, like it didn't for her
>> and criminalisation deters, like it didn't her.

>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cannabisCampaign/

>I know people who smoke cigarettes but aren't ill, so does that prove 
>cigarette-smoking doesn't cause illness? 

No, but it proves that it does not *inevitably* cause illness.

-- 
Cynic

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:26:28 +0000, Dr John Watson
 wrote:

>Another petition for the former toking Home Secretary to ignore. No doubt
>it'll be another case of cannabis causes illnesses, like it didn't for her
>and criminalisation deters, like it didn't her.
>
>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cannabisCampaign/

Probably why she is so full of shitty ideas!
Too many splifs....

Gill.
--------------------------
The Internet will become the 
Sacred Sanctuary for Nutters and Idiots.
(Michel Nostradamus, December 14, 1503, July 2, 1566).
--------------------------

In article <yUolj.16889$g%2.9053@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net> "mentalguy2004"  writes:
>"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
>news:5vmjpkF1nenlaU1@mid.individual.net...

>> Another petition for the former toking Home Secretary to ignore. No doubt
>> it'll be another case of cannabis causes illnesses, like it didn't for her
>> and criminalisation deters, like it didn't her.
>>
>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cannabisCampaign/

>I know people who smoke cigarettes but aren't ill, so does that prove 
>cigarette-smoking doesn't cause illness? 

There are many tobacco smokers who claim this.  So it must be true.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"I used to get high on life but lately I've built up a resistance."

Noticed at Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:32:30 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:

> 
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:5vmjpkF1nenlaU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Another petition for the former toking Home Secretary to ignore. No doubt
>> it'll be another case of cannabis causes illnesses, like it didn't for her
>> and criminalisation deters, like it didn't her.
>>
>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cannabisCampaign/
> 
> I know people who smoke cigarettes but aren't ill, so does that prove 
> cigarette-smoking doesn't cause illness?

Cigarette smokers aren't criminalised (yet).

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:55:43 +0000: Gill informed us:

> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:26:28 +0000, Dr John Watson
>  wrote:
> 
>>Another petition for the former toking Home Secretary to ignore. No doubt
>>it'll be another case of cannabis causes illnesses, like it didn't for her
>>and criminalisation deters, like it didn't her.
>>
>>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cannabisCampaign/
> 
> Probably why she is so full of shitty ideas!
> Too many splifs....

Thinking that something that didn't deter her, her predecessor, the leader
of the opposition etc etc, will deter her subjects certainly is a shitty
idea. Or a hypocritical idea.

> 
> Gill.
> --------------------------
> The Internet will become the 
> Sacred Sanctuary for Nutters and Idiots.
> (Michel Nostradamus, December 14, 1503, July 2, 1566).
> --------------------------
-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

On 23 jan, 15:49, Dr John Watson  wrote:
> Noticed at Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:32:30 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>
>
>
> > "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> >news:5vmjpkF1nenlaU1@mid.individual.net...
> >> Another petition for the former toking Home Secretary to ignore. No doubt
> >> it'll be another case of cannabis causes illnesses, like it didn't for her
> >> and criminalisation deters, like it didn't her.
>
> >>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cannabisCampaign/
>
> > I know people who smoke cigarettes but aren't ill, so does that prove
> > cigarette-smoking doesn't cause illness?
>
> Cigarette smokers aren't criminalised (yet).
>
> --
> Dr John Watson
> Baker Street

Maybe we should really be serious about getting rid of drug use in
society and start criminalizing people who enjoy the killer drug
tobacco or even an occasional glass of wine or beer (or cup of coffee
for that matter).
If we're fascistic enough to criminalize people who happen to prefer
cannabis, we should be consistent in that approach and really try to
eradicate drug use and lock up everybody who enjoys a little
recreational intoxication every once in a while.
It's hypocritical to condone some drugs while keeping up the
appearance of striving to eradicate drug use. Either we have a drug-
free society or we have a society where the government ensures adults
are well-informed about the risks involved (in order to ensure people
can distinguish between use and abuse) and leaves it to their
discretion to decide which drugs they might prefer (e.g. a dangerous
drug like alcohol or a less dangerous drug like cannabis) in
combination with regulation in the sense of controls being imposed on
availability commensurate with the relative health risks involved.
People can be expected to take drug education more seriously if they
are well informed about drugs and drug laws don't seem to arbitrarily
outlaw some relatively less harmful drugs like cannabis while allowing
more addictive and downright lethal drugs like alcohol.

Noticed at Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:09:44 -0800: sobriquet informed us:

> On 23 jan, 15:49, Dr John Watson  wrote:
>> Noticed at Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:32:30 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>> >news:5vmjpkF1nenlaU1@mid.individual.net...
>> >> Another petition for the former toking Home Secretary to ignore. No doubt
>> >> it'll be another case of cannabis causes illnesses, like it didn't for her
>> >> and criminalisation deters, like it didn't her.
>>
>> >>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cannabisCampaign/
>>
>> > I know people who smoke cigarettes but aren't ill, so does that prove
>> > cigarette-smoking doesn't cause illness?
>>
>> Cigarette smokers aren't criminalised (yet).
>>
>> --
>> Dr John Watson
>> Baker Street
> 
> Maybe we should really be serious about getting rid of drug use in
> society and start criminalizing people who enjoy the killer drug
> tobacco or even an occasional glass of wine or beer (or cup of coffee
> for that matter).
> If we're fascistic enough to criminalize people who happen to prefer
> cannabis, we should be consistent in that approach and really try to
> eradicate drug use and lock up everybody who enjoys a little
> recreational intoxication every once in a while.
> It's hypocritical to condone some drugs while keeping up the
> appearance of striving to eradicate drug use. Either we have a drug-
> free society or we have a society where the government ensures adults
> are well-informed about the risks involved (in order to ensure people
> can distinguish between use and abuse) and leaves it to their
> discretion to decide which drugs they might prefer (e.g. a dangerous
> drug like alcohol or a less dangerous drug like cannabis) in
> combination with regulation in the sense of controls being imposed on
> availability commensurate with the relative health risks involved.
> People can be expected to take drug education more seriously if they
> are well informed about drugs and drug laws don't seem to arbitrarily
> outlaw some relatively less harmful drugs like cannabis while allowing
> more addictive and downright lethal drugs like alcohol.

There's a petition calling for a consistent approach to drugs:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/DrugConsistency/

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

On 23 jan, 20:46, Dr John Watson  wrote:
> Noticed at Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:09:44 -0800: sobriquet informed us:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 23 jan, 15:49, Dr John Watson  wrote:
> >> Noticed at Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:32:30 +0000: mentalguy2004 informed us:
>
> >> > "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> >> >news:5vmjpkF1nenlaU1@mid.individual.net...
> >> >> Another petition for the former toking Home Secretary to ignore. No doubt
> >> >> it'll be another case of cannabis causes illnesses, like it didn't for her
> >> >> and criminalisation deters, like it didn't her.
>
> >> >>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cannabisCampaign/
>
> >> > I know people who smoke cigarettes but aren't ill, so does that prove
> >> > cigarette-smoking doesn't cause illness?
>
> >> Cigarette smokers aren't criminalised (yet).
>
> >> --
> >> Dr John Watson
> >> Baker Street
>
> > Maybe we should really be serious about getting rid of drug use in
> > society and start criminalizing people who enjoy the killer drug
> > tobacco or even an occasional glass of wine or beer (or cup of coffee
> > for that matter).
> > If we're fascistic enough to criminalize people who happen to prefer
> > cannabis, we should be consistent in that approach and really try to
> > eradicate drug use and lock up everybody who enjoys a little
> > recreational intoxication every once in a while.
> > It's hypocritical to condone some drugs while keeping up the
> > appearance of striving to eradicate drug use. Either we have a drug-
> > free society or we have a society where the government ensures adults
> > are well-informed about the risks involved (in order to ensure people
> > can distinguish between use and abuse) and leaves it to their
> > discretion to decide which drugs they might prefer (e.g. a dangerous
> > drug like alcohol or a less dangerous drug like cannabis) in
> > combination with regulation in the sense of controls being imposed on
> > availability commensurate with the relative health risks involved.
> > People can be expected to take drug education more seriously if they
> > are well informed about drugs and drug laws don't seem to arbitrarily
> > outlaw some relatively less harmful drugs like cannabis while allowing
> > more addictive and downright lethal drugs like alcohol.
>
> There's a petition calling for a consistent approach to drugs:
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/DrugConsistency/
>
> --
> Dr John Watson
> Baker Street- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

Can't sign it since I'm not a British citizen.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:09:44 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
 wrote:

>> > "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
>> >news:5vmjpkF1nenlaU1@mid.individual.net...
>> >> Another petition for the former toking Home Secretary to ignore. No doubt
>> >> it'll be another case of cannabis causes illnesses, like it didn't for her
>> >> and criminalisation deters, like it didn't her.
>>
>> >>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cannabisCampaign/
>>
>> > I know people who smoke cigarettes but aren't ill, so does that prove
>> > cigarette-smoking doesn't cause illness?
>>
>> Cigarette smokers aren't criminalised (yet).
>>
>> --
>> Dr John Watson
>> Baker Street
>
>Maybe we should really be serious about getting rid of drug use in
>society and start criminalizing people who enjoy the killer drug
>tobacco or even an occasional glass of wine or beer (or cup of coffee
>for that matter).
>If we're fascistic enough to criminalize people who happen to prefer
>cannabis, we should be consistent in that approach and really try to
>eradicate drug use and lock up everybody who enjoys a little
>recreational intoxication every once in a while.
>It's hypocritical to condone some drugs while keeping up the
>appearance of striving to eradicate drug use. Either we have a drug-
>free society or we have a society where the government ensures adults
>are well-informed about the risks involved (in order to ensure people
>can distinguish between use and abuse) and leaves it to their
>discretion to decide which drugs they might prefer (e.g. a dangerous
>drug like alcohol or a less dangerous drug like cannabis) in
>combination with regulation in the sense of controls being imposed on
>availability commensurate with the relative health risks involved.
>People can be expected to take drug education more seriously if they
>are well informed about drugs and drug laws don't seem to arbitrarily
>outlaw some relatively less harmful drugs like cannabis while allowing
>more addictive and downright lethal drugs like alcohol.

Yeah, I've been thinking alot about the complete hypocrisy in the
government's stand on drug use, as I watch the news lately. 

The Western world is the most drugged and drug-dependent society
ever on this planet.  Drugs for everything.... pain, diabetes, heart
problems, aging, on, and on.

What really gets my dander up, is the "sport's use" issues. The gov
claims that steroids can't be allowed because they give an unfair
advantage to the users. But what about people who for various reasons
are steroid deficient? Why are they not allowed  to compete? 
 If they are
trying to make this "master pure race" of athletes, why are people who
use insulin or blood pressure medecine allowed to compete? Dosn't
that discriminate against the "pure athelete" who ate a good diet all 
his/her life, and didn't try to gain advantages by eating alot of meat
and sugar?
Why can't a natural plant extract be used by athletes to relieve
stiffness, if all the other artificial pills (like celebrex etc) can be
used? Dosn't that discriminate?

It's not just drugs either. I just saw on the news, a female runner was
denied the ability to compete because she was an amputee, and
her artificial leg gave her an unfair advantage!!! 

Should athletes who had their appendices removed be denied 
the right to compete? What if they had ligaments surgically 
repaired/enhanced?

As far as cannabis goes, I personnaly see it to be an insidious
corruption in law-enforcement/government.  The lawyer/court system just
makes too much money off of busting people.... and they don't
want to give that cash cow up.  You can bust someone for a joint, and
end up getting $10000 in lawyer fees and court costs.  

The police like it because they 
can use it to selectively bust people( for various reasons ). 

The gangs like it, because they can make 1000% profit on it's
illegality, and that gets them power and weapons.

The politicians like it, because of all the pay-offs they get to
look the other way.

The only solution is to legalize it, and take all these motivations away
from the players  in the illegality game.

zentara


-- 
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
http://zentara.net/japh.html

On Jan 25, 12:44 am, zentara  wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:09:44 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
>
>
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >> > "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
> >> >news:5vmjpkF1nenlaU1@mid.individual.net...
> >> >> Another petition for the former toking Home Secretary to ignore. No doubt
> >> >> it'll be another case of cannabis causes illnesses, like it didn't for her
> >> >> and criminalisation deters, like it didn't her.
>
> >> >>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cannabisCampaign/
>
> >> > I know people who smoke cigarettes but aren't ill, so does that prove> >> > cigarette-smoking doesn't cause illness?
>
> >> Cigarette smokers aren't criminalised (yet).
>
> >> --
> >> Dr John Watson
> >> Baker Street
>
> >Maybe we should really be serious about getting rid of drug use in
> >society and start criminalizing people who enjoy the killer drug
> >tobacco or even an occasional glass of wine or beer (or cup of coffee
> >for that matter).
> >If we're fascistic enough to criminalize people who happen to prefer
> >cannabis, we should be consistent in that approach and really try to
> >eradicate drug use and lock up everybody who enjoys a little
> >recreational intoxication every once in a while.
> >It's hypocritical to condone some drugs while keeping up the
> >appearance of striving to eradicate drug use. Either we have a drug-
> >free society or we have a society where the government ensures adults
> >are well-informed about the risks involved (in order to ensure people
> >can distinguish between use and abuse) and leaves it to their
> >discretion to decide which drugs they might prefer (e.g. a dangerous
> >drug like alcohol or a less dangerous drug like cannabis) in
> >combination with regulation in the sense of controls being imposed on
> >availability commensurate with the relative health risks involved.
> >People can be expected to take drug education more seriously if they
> >are well informed about drugs and drug laws don't seem to arbitrarily
> >outlaw some relatively less harmful drugs like cannabis while allowing
> >more addictive and downright lethal drugs like alcohol.
>
> Yeah, I've been thinking alot about the complete hypocrisy in the
> government's stand on drug use, as I watch the news lately.
>
> The Western world is the most drugged and drug-dependent society
> ever on this planet.  Drugs for everything.... pain, diabetes, heart
> problems, aging, on, and on.
>
> What really gets my dander up, is the "sport's use" issues. The gov
> claims that steroids can't be allowed because they give an unfair
> advantage to the users. But what about people who for various reasons
> are steroid deficient? Why are they not allowed  to compete?
>  If they are
> trying to make this "master pure race" of athletes, why are people who
> use insulin or blood pressure medecine allowed to compete? Dosn't
> that discriminate against the "pure athelete" who ate a good diet all
> his/her life, and didn't try to gain advantages by eating alot of meat
> and sugar?
> Why can't a natural plant extract be used by athletes to relieve
> stiffness, if all the other artificial pills (like celebrex etc) can be
> used? Dosn't that discriminate?
>
> It's not just drugs either. I just saw on the news, a female runner was
> denied the ability to compete because she was an amputee, and
> her artificial leg gave her an unfair advantage!!!
>
> Should athletes who had their appendices removed be denied
> the right to compete? What if they had ligaments surgically
> repaired/enhanced?
>
> As far as cannabis goes, I personnaly see it to be an insidious
> corruption in law-enforcement/government.  The lawyer/court system just
> makes too much money off of busting people.... and they don't
> want to give that cash cow up.  You can bust someone for a joint, and
> end up getting $10000 in lawyer fees and court costs.  
>
> The police like it because they
> can use it to selectively bust people( for various reasons ).
>
> The gangs like it, because they can make 1000% profit on it's
> illegality, and that gets them power and weapons.
>
> The politicians like it, because of all the pay-offs they get to
> look the other way.
>
> The only solution is to legalize it, and take all these motivations away
> from the players  in the illegality game.
>
> zentara
>
> --
> I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.http://zentara.net/japh.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Over the 30 years or so, it is quite clear that the people must be
suppressed, it is the only way that the Masses can be controlled, how
many people are arrested each week for using cannabis, the role of the
legal system is to suppress the people, and Lawyers make laws to do
that. If think it was King Henry the 8th that ruled the peolpe must
always be suppressed,  kept undercontrol, cannibis prohibit is just
one case that cleary illistrates suppressing the people is working,
may be one day the people will wake up,