I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
right. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.

Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in
science, medical studies and the law have not been elected by the
people.

The judges nowadays seem to want to rule the country by using the
Human Rights Act as a weapon. Now the scientists are telling the
government that only they are qualified to make decisions on what
drugs the public should have easy access to.

What next, will beauticians be telling the government that everybody
should be able to obtain free face lifts on the NHS.

It is ridiculous, in a democracy we vote in a government to rule……Not
to have their decisions set aside by any that think they know better.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6480843/Two-members-of-drugs-panel-quit.html

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:41:33 -0800, Jon° wrote:

> I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
> right. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
> out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
> reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.
> 
> Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in science,
> medical studies and the law have not been elected by the people.
> 

From what I heard of Professor Nutt his complaint was not the the govt 
was setting policy against the advice of the ACMD but that they were 
setting policy based on a political or moral basis but claiming it was 
based science.

If Smith/Johnson & Brown want to set drug policy based on their on 
opinions & morals then fine, let them do so *and* be clear about it. They 
should not set policy based on some supposed notion of quantifiable harm 
when the evidence just does not support it.

BW

On Nov 1, 6:41 pm, Jon°  wrote:

> It is ridiculous, in a democracy we vote in a government to rule……Not
> to have their decisions set aside by any that think they know better.

Yes but look in a mirror and see the quality of some who have the vote!

Jon° wrote:
> I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
> right. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
> out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
> reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.
> 
> Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in
> science, medical studies and the law have not been elected by the
> people.
> 
> The judges nowadays seem to want to rule the country by using the
> Human Rights Act as a weapon. Now the scientists are telling the
> government that only they are qualified to make decisions on what
> drugs the public should have easy access to.
> 
> What next, will beauticians be telling the government that everybody
> should be able to obtain free face lifts on the NHS.

That you can't tell the difference between a full professor at a British 
university and your local beautician doesn't come as a surprise...

-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

Bambleweeny57 wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:41:33 -0800, Jon° wrote:
> 
>> I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
>> right. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
>> out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
>> reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.
>>
>> Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in science,
>> medical studies and the law have not been elected by the people.
>>
> 
> From what I heard of Professor Nutt his complaint was not the the govt 
> was setting policy against the advice of the ACMD but that they were 
> setting policy based on a political or moral basis but claiming it was 
> based science.
> 
> If Smith/Johnson & Brown want to set drug policy based on their on 
> opinions & morals then fine, let them do so *and* be clear about it. They 
> should not set policy based on some supposed notion of quantifiable harm 
> when the evidence just does not support it.
> 
> BW 


No-one in the right mind would ever accuse Labour of having any moral 
scruples, about anything - so if the government want to reclassify 
Cannabis one can be pretty sure that they are not motivated by any 
desire do something that is *right*.

There is disturbing evidence about the severe damage to mental health 
caused by Cannabis - particularly the new varieties.

Nutt is just another hypocritical libertine who is quite happy to see 
societal damage inflicted by drugs - as long, presumably, his own 
children and grandchildren are not destroyed by them.

The gods have made us mad wrote:

> Nutt is just another hypocritical libertine who is quite happy to see 
> societal damage inflicted by drugs - as long, presumably, his own 
> children and grandchildren are not destroyed by them.
> 

Are you saying his research results are falsified?


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On 1 Nov, 18:41, Jon°  wrote:
> I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
> right. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
> out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
> reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.
>
> Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in
> science, medical studies and the law have not been elected by the
> people.

>
> The judges nowadays seem to want to rule the country by using the
> Human Rights Act as a weapon. Now the scientists are telling the
> government that only they are qualified to make decisions on what
> drugs the public should have easy access to.

Individuals should make their own decisions, not government not
experts.
>
> What next, will beauticians be telling the government that everybody
> should be able to obtain free face lifts on the NHS.

No comparison.
>
> It is ridiculous, in a democracy we vote in a government to rule……Not
> to have their decisions set aside by any that think they know better.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6480843/Two-membe...

Prohibition is an abomination.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:41:33 -0800 (PST), Jon° 
wrote:

>
>I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
>right.

you've always been a socialist...what's new...

your prime reason is that in your ignorance your fellow
    marxist has the same prejudices as yourself
yet he's only doing it to get votes from similar useful
   idiots to yourself...

your fellow marxist in no. 10 has banished boom and
    bust...
others have discovered that helicopters ain't needed in
   afghan...

you marxist always prefer your emotions to facts

> Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
>out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
>reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.
>
>Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in
>science, medical studies and the law have not been elected by the
>people.
>
>The judges nowadays seem to want to rule the country by using the
>Human Rights Act as a weapon. Now the scientists are telling the
>government that only they are qualified to make decisions on what
>drugs the public should have easy access to.
>
>What next, will beauticians be telling the government that everybody
>should be able to obtain free face lifts on the NHS.
>
>It is ridiculous, in a democracy we vote in a government to rule……Not
>to have their decisions set aside by any that think they know better.
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6480843/Two-members-of-drugs-panel-quit.html
>

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:50:27 GMT, Bambleweeny57 <here@there.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:41:33 -0800, Jon° wrote:
>
>> I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
>> right. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
>> out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
>> reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.
>> 
>> Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in science,
>> medical studies and the law have not been elected by the people.
>> 
>
>From what I heard of Professor Nutt his complaint was not the the govt 
>was setting policy against the advice of the ACMD but that they were 
>setting policy based on a political or moral basis but claiming it was 
>based science.

precisely

>If Smith/Johnson & Brown want to set drug policy based on their on 
>opinions & morals then fine, let them do so *and* be clear about it. They 
>should not set policy based on some supposed notion of quantifiable harm 
>when the evidence just does not support it.

that would require socialists to tell the truth....that would
    never do...it would be against their religion

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:16:18 -0800 (PST), Saracene 
wrote:

>On 1 Nov, 18:41, Jon°  wrote:
>> I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
>> right. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
>> out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
>> reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.
>>
>> Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in
>> science, medical studies and the law have not been elected by the
>> people.
>
>>
>> The judges nowadays seem to want to rule the country by using the
>> Human Rights Act as a weapon. Now the scientists are telling the
>> government that only they are qualified to make decisions on what
>> drugs the public should have easy access to.
>
>Individuals should make their own decisions, not government not
>experts.

but jon the star has a marshal's baton in his purse....
    he wants to rule the lives of others just like every interfering
    socialist

>> What next, will beauticians be telling the government that everybody
>> should be able to obtain free face lifts on the NHS.
>
>No comparison.
>>
>> It is ridiculous, in a democracy we vote in a government to rule……Not
>> to have their decisions set aside by any that think they know better.
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6480843/Two-membe...
>
>Prohibition is an abomination.

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 1 Nov, 18:58, The gods have made us mad 
wrote:
> Bambleweeny57 wrote:
> > On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:41:33 -0800, Jon° wrote:
>
> >> I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
> >> right. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
> >> out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
> >> reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.
>
> >> Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in science> >> medical studies and the law have not been elected by the people.
>
> > From what I heard of Professor Nutt his complaint was not the the govt
> > was setting policy against the advice of the ACMD but that they were
> > setting policy based on a political or moral basis but claiming it was
> > based science.
>
> > If Smith/Johnson & Brown want to set drug policy based on their on
> > opinions & morals then fine, let them do so *and* be clear about it. They
> > should not set policy based on some supposed notion of quantifiable harm
> > when the evidence just does not support it.
>
> > BW
>
> No-one in the right mind would ever accuse Labour of having any moral
> scruples, about anything - so if the government want to reclassify
> Cannabis one can be pretty sure that they are not motivated by any
> desire do something that is *right*.
>
> There is disturbing evidence about the severe damage to mental health
> caused by Cannabis - particularly the new varieties.
>
> Nutt is just another hypocritical libertine who is quite happy to see
> societal damage inflicted by drugs - as long, presumably, his own
> children and grandchildren are not destroyed by them.

Would you let your granddaughter ride a horse? Or do you think
horseriding should be banned? Of course not, you are just a
sanctimonious bigot.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:58:46 +0000, The gods have made us mad wrote:

> 
> There is disturbing evidence about the severe damage to mental health
> caused by Cannabis - particularly the new varieties.
Which is where precisely?


> Nutt is just another hypocritical libertine 
No he is not! He is a scientist and uses hard, quantifiable evidence as 
the basis for his opinions.

> who is quite happy to see
> societal damage inflicted by drugs 
Where precisely has he said is is happy to see damage done to anyone, or 
are you just going off the deep end because you don't agree with him? 

Professor Nutt's basic point is about relative harm...
 - more deaths are caused by horse riding than by the use of ecstasy
 - more damage is done by tobacco & alcohol than is done by cannabis

There is solid statistical evidence to support both points as well as a 
large amount of evidence that most of the harm arising from other drugs 
is as a result of them being illegal (with the associated prices, crime 
and lack of quality control) rather than from the drugs themselves.

There have always been weak, self-destructive personalties who will use 
whatever "poison" they can get their hands on to destroy themselves and 
those close to them. That does not necessarily imply the substances they 
use are inherently bad for all.

BW

Saracene wrote:
> Individuals should make their own decisions, not government not
> experts.

Quite.

> Prohibition is an abomination.

As is the sacking of a scientist because he refused to fabricate 
"evidence" to suit Nu-Labor's hypocrisy.

William Black wrote:
> The gods have made us mad wrote:
> 
>> Nutt is just another hypocritical libertine who is quite happy to see 
>> societal damage inflicted by drugs - as long, presumably, his own 
>> children and grandchildren are not destroyed by them.
>>
> 
> Are you saying his research results are falsified?


Oh, please!, can't you give it a rest for once?

Since the 50's, we have been inundated with bogus research - peddling 
everything from pornography to 'wimmin's lib', and behind every 
pernicious attack on Christian morality has been an 'academic'

Surely, even *you* can what their 'research' has reduced this country to?

The only people who welcome this sort of deviancy are those who want to 
see this nation degraded for socio-political ends, and the scum (many 
from the 'sub-continent')  who make a bob or two out of the misery, 
along the way.

Which of these are you?

Saracene wrote:
> On 1 Nov, 18:58, The gods have made us mad 
> wrote:
>> Bambleweeny57 wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:41:33 -0800, Jon° wrote:
>>>> I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
>>>> right. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
>>>> out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
>>>> reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.
>>>> Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in science,
>>>> medical studies and the law have not been elected by the people.
>>> From what I heard of Professor Nutt his complaint was not the the govt
>>> was setting policy against the advice of the ACMD but that they were
>>> setting policy based on a political or moral basis but claiming it was
>>> based science.
>>> If Smith/Johnson & Brown want to set drug policy based on their on
>>> opinions & morals then fine, let them do so *and* be clear about it. They
>>> should not set policy based on some supposed notion of quantifiable harm
>>> when the evidence just does not support it.
>>> BW
>> No-one in the right mind would ever accuse Labour of having any moral
>> scruples, about anything - so if the government want to reclassify
>> Cannabis one can be pretty sure that they are not motivated by any
>> desire do something that is *right*.
>>
>> There is disturbing evidence about the severe damage to mental health
>> caused by Cannabis - particularly the new varieties.
>>
>> Nutt is just another hypocritical libertine who is quite happy to see
>> societal damage inflicted by drugs - as long, presumably, his own
>> children and grandchildren are not destroyed by them.
> 
> Would you let your granddaughter ride a horse? Or do you think
> horseriding should be banned? Of course not, you are just a
> sanctimonious bigot.


If her horse was a menace to society - if it was prone to wandering 
around killing people at random, then it would be shot.

Unfortunately, when people whose minds have been deranged by drugs act 
similarly, bleeding hearts intervene, and the rifle is put away.

Might I suggest that you spend the weekend locked in a cell with some 
Jamaican ganja-puffing murderer's, and see if you are still as liberal 
when (if) you emerge.

Bambleweeny57 wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:58:46 +0000, The gods have made us mad wrote:
> 
>> There is disturbing evidence about the severe damage to mental health
>> caused by Cannabis - particularly the new varieties.
> Which is where precisely?
> 
> 
>> Nutt is just another hypocritical libertine 
> No he is not! He is a scientist and uses hard, quantifiable evidence as 
> the basis for his opinions.
> 
>> who is quite happy to see
>> societal damage inflicted by drugs 
> Where precisely has he said is is happy to see damage done to anyone, or 
> are you just going off the deep end because you don't agree with him? 
> 
> Professor Nutt's basic point is about relative harm...
>  - more deaths are caused by horse riding than by the use of ecstasy
>  - more damage is done by tobacco & alcohol than is done by cannabis
> 
> There is solid statistical evidence to support both points as well as a 
> large amount of evidence that most of the harm arising from other drugs 
> is as a result of them being illegal (with the associated prices, crime 
> and lack of quality control) rather than from the drugs themselves.


Stop confusing him with facts.

It gives him a headache...


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

Saracene wrote:

> Individuals should make their own decisions, not government not
> experts.

So if you're rich enough you can decide to buy a nuclear weapon?

Remembering that Osama bin Ladin is very rich indeed...

-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

William Black wrote:
> Bambleweeny57 wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:58:46 +0000, The gods have made us mad wrote:
>>
>>> There is disturbing evidence about the severe damage to mental health
>>> caused by Cannabis - particularly the new varieties.
>> Which is where precisely?
>>
>>
>>> Nutt is just another hypocritical libertine 
>> No he is not! He is a scientist and uses hard, quantifiable evidence 
>> as the basis for his opinions.
>>
>>> who is quite happy to see
>>> societal damage inflicted by drugs 
>> Where precisely has he said is is happy to see damage done to anyone, 
>> or are you just going off the deep end because you don't agree with him?
>> Professor Nutt's basic point is about relative harm...
>>  - more deaths are caused by horse riding than by the use of ecstasy
>>  - more damage is done by tobacco & alcohol than is done by cannabis
>>
>> There is solid statistical evidence to support both points as well as 
>> a large amount of evidence that most of the harm arising from other 
>> drugs is as a result of them being illegal (with the associated 
>> prices, crime and lack of quality control) rather than from the drugs 
>> themselves.
> 
> 
> Stop confusing him with facts.
> 
> It gives him a headache...


You seem keen on the drug trade, William - that, er, wouldn't be the 
reason for your regular jaunts back home, would it?

I hope not - I wouldn't like to think that you were the sort of person 
who deserves to have his testicles stuffed into his mouth, before being 
shot in the head.

As for 'facts':

" Dr Henry is planning to tell a conference at the Royal Society of 
Medicine on Monday that it appears likely that some cases of 
schizophrenia are attributable to the consumption of cannabis, rather 
than the alternative explanation that patients prone to mental illness 
are more likely to be drawn to use the drug"


"Dr Henry says that the strength of cannabis on sale now far outstrips 
the strength of the drug sold during the "flower power" era of the 1960s 
and 1970s. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2923647.stm

The gods have made us mad wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>> The gods have made us mad wrote:
>>
>>> Nutt is just another hypocritical libertine who is quite happy to see 
>>> societal damage inflicted by drugs - as long, presumably, his own 
>>> children and grandchildren are not destroyed by them.
>>>
>>
>> Are you saying his research results are falsified?
> 
> 
> Oh, please!, can't you give it a rest for once?
> 
> Since the 50's, we have been inundated with bogus research - peddling 
> everything from pornography to 'wimmin's lib', and behind every 
> pernicious attack on Christian morality has been an 'academic'

So you're saying a full professor at a British university can falsify 
results and get away with it,  even though Gordon Brown has seen through 
him...

Right...

> The only people who welcome this sort of deviancy are those who want to 
> see this nation degraded for socio-political ends, and the scum (many 
> from the 'sub-continent')  who make a bob or two out of the misery, 
> along the way.
> 
> Which of these are you?
> 

Do try and grow up son.

The professor seems to be an honest man who has had the misfortune to 
fall amongst people who take their view of the world from Daily Mail 
leader writers.

What's more the professor's colleagues seem to be agreeing with him and 
not the politicians,  in a display of professional ethics that is 
becoming less and less common as this government continues in office.

As for your tirade about 'deviancy' and 'scum',  I suggest you direct 
you scorn at the brewers and operators of riding stables who seem to be 
killing far more than dealers in soft drugs...



-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:01:41 +0000, William Black wrote:

> Saracene wrote:
> 
>> Individuals should make their own decisions, not government not
>> experts.
> 
> So if you're rich enough you can decide to buy a nuclear weapon?
If someone wants to acquire a nuclear weapon where's the problem? The 
issue is not the acquisition but the use. The libertarian proposition 
(which I what I assume the PP is arguing) what right does the govt have 
to control personal decisions that affect the person involved? A 
libertarian's freedom to act stops when it directly affects anothers 
freedom... it is not a free for all. 
 
> Remembering that Osama bin Ladin is very rich indeed...
Is OBL any more or less moral or principled that any of the govts that 
hold nuclear weapons?

BW

Bambleweeny57 wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:01:41 +0000, William Black wrote:
> 
>> Saracene wrote:
>>
>>> Individuals should make their own decisions, not government not
>>> experts.
>> So if you're rich enough you can decide to buy a nuclear weapon?
> If someone wants to acquire a nuclear weapon where's the problem? The 
> issue is not the acquisition but the use. The libertarian proposition 
> (which I what I assume the PP is arguing) what right does the govt have 
> to control personal decisions that affect the person involved? A 
> libertarian's freedom to act stops when it directly affects anothers 
> freedom... it is not a free for all. 

In such a society there would be no nation states.

We would become mere vassals of the local thugs/aristocrats/warriors.
>  
>> Remembering that Osama bin Ladin is very rich indeed...
> Is OBL any more or less moral or principled that any of the govts that 
> hold nuclear weapons?

So far he has shown no restraint at all in the use of any weapons he can 
get hold of.

It is reasonable to assume he'd use whatever he can get hold of.

Allowing such a person access to such weapons would be an act of utter 
folly.

That you can't see this says more about you than about him.



-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:57:05 +0000, The gods have made us mad wrote:

>> Would you let your granddaughter ride a horse? Or do you think
>> horseriding should be banned? Of course not, you are just a
>> sanctimonious bigot.
> 
> If her horse was a menace to society - if it was prone to wandering
> around killing people at random, then it would be shot.
You are (deliberately I suspect) mis-characterising the question. The 
question is would you prefer your granddaughter to take ecstasy or ride a 
horse knowing that the probability is that she will come to greater harm 
on the horse?

> Might I suggest that you spend the weekend locked in a cell with some
> Jamaican ganja-puffing murderer's, and see if you are still as liberal
> when (if) you emerge.
When was the last time you tried it? And was the ganja the root cause of 
their murderous habits?

BW

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:03:29 +0000, William Black
 wrote:

>The gods have made us mad wrote:
>
>> Nutt is just another hypocritical libertine who is quite happy to see 
>> societal damage inflicted by drugs - as long, presumably, his own 
>> children and grandchildren are not destroyed by them.
>> 
>
>Are you saying his research results are falsified?

You're arguing with a bunch of fascists who think the state should own
us all like cattle and have the right to dictate what we put in our
own bodies.

William Black wrote:
> The gods have made us mad wrote:
>> William Black wrote:
>>> The gods have made us mad wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nutt is just another hypocritical libertine who is quite happy to 
>>>> see societal damage inflicted by drugs - as long, presumably, his 
>>>> own children and grandchildren are not destroyed by them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying his research results are falsified?
>>
>>
>> Oh, please!, can't you give it a rest for once?
>>
>> Since the 50's, we have been inundated with bogus research - peddling 
>> everything from pornography to 'wimmin's lib', and behind every 
>> pernicious attack on Christian morality has been an 'academic'
> 
> So you're saying a full professor at a British university can falsify 
> results and get away with it,  even though Gordon Brown has seen through 
> him...
> 
> Right...
> 
>> The only people who welcome this sort of deviancy are those who want 
>> to see this nation degraded for socio-political ends, and the scum 
>> (many from the 'sub-continent')  who make a bob or two out of the 
>> misery, along the way.
>>
>> Which of these are you?
>>
> 
> Do try and grow up son.
> 
> The professor seems to be an honest man who has had the misfortune to 
> fall amongst people who take their view of the world from Daily Mail 
> leader writers.
> 
> What's more the professor's colleagues seem to be agreeing with him and 
> not the politicians,  in a display of professional ethics that is 
> becoming less and less common as this government continues in office.
> 
> As for your tirade about 'deviancy' and 'scum',  I suggest you direct 
> you scorn at the brewers and operators of riding stables who seem to be 
> killing far more than dealers in soft drugs...


"Tell me the old, old story...."

Doubtless Kinsey was an 'honest man' to you, or Leary, or Stopes, or any 
of the other 'learned' people who devoted their lives to the debasement 
of society? - or perhaps you prefer the great racial thinkers who 
promulgated multi-culturalism? plenty of them, all with impeccable 
credentials, and maggots in their souls.

Thanks to them, we now enjoy rampant sexual disease, an abortion 
holocaust, social breakdown - and, of course, not forgetting the 
swamping of Britain by hate-filled migrants.

No *wonder* you dislike National Socialism so much, and you're right to 
fear them - I'm afraid you'd probably be swept up in any national 
cleansing that they might undertake.

I'd regret it, of course, but.....

Bambleweeny57 wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:57:05 +0000, The gods have made us mad wrote:
> 
>>> Would you let your granddaughter ride a horse? Or do you think
>>> horseriding should be banned? Of course not, you are just a
>>> sanctimonious bigot.
>> If her horse was a menace to society - if it was prone to wandering
>> around killing people at random, then it would be shot.
> You are (deliberately I suspect) mis-characterising the question. The 
> question is would you prefer your granddaughter to take ecstasy or ride a 
> horse knowing that the probability is that she will come to greater harm 
> on the horse?


Statistics?
> 
>> Might I suggest that you spend the weekend locked in a cell with some
>> Jamaican ganja-puffing murderer's, and see if you are still as liberal
>> when (if) you emerge.
> When was the last time you tried it? And was the ganja the root cause of 
> their murderous habits?

My own philosophy is to stay as far away as possible from ganja-crazed 
blacks.

Well, if I'm being honest, from *most* blacks.....and Asians - *all* 
foreigners,in fact,as much as it's possible.

I've spent most of my life quite happily without them - so I just don't 
feel any need for them.  A personal choice, obviously - but mine, 
nonetheless.

Saracene wrote:
> On 1 Nov, 18:41, Jon°  wrote:
>> I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
>> right. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
>> out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
>> reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.
>>
>> Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in
>> science, medical studies and the law have not been elected by the
>> people.
> 
>> The judges nowadays seem to want to rule the country by using the
>> Human Rights Act as a weapon. Now the scientists are telling the
>> government that only they are qualified to make decisions on what
>> drugs the public should have easy access to.
> 
> Individuals should make their own decisions, not government not
> experts.
>> What next, will beauticians be telling the government that everybody
>> should be able to obtain free face lifts on the NHS.
> 
> No comparison.
>> It is ridiculous, in a democracy we vote in a government to rule……Not
>> to have their decisions set aside by any that think they know better.
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6480843/Two-membe...
> 
> Prohibition is an abomination<


Oddly, that's pretty much what the homosexuals said when they wanted the 
  legal age of 'consent' (sic)  to buggery reduced to 14 years old.

Once they *do* finally get 14, who can say what their next demand would 
be? - 12?, 11?, 9?.

After all, as you so eloquently put it, 'Prohibition is an abomination'

Some people even think that the Nazi work camps were an abomination - 
but they did keep a lot of undesirables of German streets, it has to be 
said.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:13:48 +0000, William Black wrote:

> Bambleweeny57 wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:01:41 +0000, William Black wrote:
>> 
>>> Saracene wrote:
>>>
>>>> Individuals should make their own decisions, not government not
>>>> experts.
>>> So if you're rich enough you can decide to buy a nuclear weapon?
>> If someone wants to acquire a nuclear weapon where's the problem? The
>> issue is not the acquisition but the use. The libertarian proposition
>> (which I what I assume the PP is arguing) what right does the govt have
>> to control personal decisions that affect the person involved? A
>> libertarian's freedom to act stops when it directly affects anothers
>> freedom... it is not a free for all.
> 
> In such a society there would be no nation states.
> 
> We would become mere vassals of the local thugs/aristocrats/warriors.
You are falling into the trap of equating the libertarian stance with a 
free for all, and it is not! Libertarians do not reject the need for a 
govt., but the what govt. there is is small and well defined in scope.

 
>>> Remembering that Osama bin Ladin is very rich indeed...
>> Is OBL any more or less moral or principled that any of the govts that
>> hold nuclear weapons?
> 
> So far he has shown no restraint at all in the use of any weapons he can
> get hold of.
I don't recall OBL using nuclear weapons... I must have not been 
listening to the news that day. All I recall his bunch using some pretty 
straightforward weapons, explosives & bolt cutters. If he is as rich as 
you suggest (and he is related to the Saudi royal family after all) then 
it would have been a simple matter for him to acquire something more 
serious from the remnants of the Soviet Union if he wished.

> It is reasonable to assume he'd use whatever he can get hold of.
> 
> Allowing such a person access to such weapons would be an act of utter
> folly.
> 
> That you can't see this says more about you than about him.

The assertion of "folly" is based solely on the basis that it would be 
used. What on earth would be the problem if OBL did acquire a nuke, as 
long as he didn't use it? However, I quite accept that the likelihood of 
him getting a nuke and not using it, even if just for blackmail, is 
remote.

But what you're actually doing is setting up absurd, extreme cases to 
distract from the basic question to wit, where do govts get the right to 
interfere with individual freedom (given the boundary of impinging of the 
freedom of others)?

BW

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:41:33 -0800 (PST), Jon° 
wrote:

>I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
>right. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
>out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
>reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.
>
>Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in
>science, medical studies and the law have not been elected by the
>people.
>
>The judges nowadays seem to want to rule the country by using the
>Human Rights Act as a weapon. Now the scientists are telling the
>government that only they are qualified to make decisions on what
>drugs the public should have easy access to.

The Home Secretary can ignore the scientific evidence and tailor the
law according to his own personal prejudices if he wants to, but he
shouldn't try to pretend that what he is doing is based on science
when it is not.

The professor is quite within his rights to say that the Government is
not basing it's policy on what science says and that the governments
pronouncements on the dangers of drugs are not scientifically correct.

It would be a dereliction of duty for the professor to leave the
public with the impression that government policy was based on the
evidence of its scientific advisory committee when it is not.

This in no way detracts for the right of the government to pull policy
based on pure nonsense out of its hat, it should just be more honest
and straightforward about what it is doing.

>What next, will beauticians be telling the government that everybody
>should be able to obtain free face lifts on the NHS.
>
>It is ridiculous, in a democracy we vote in a government to rule……Not
>to have their decisions set aside by any that think they know better.

The professor and his collegues who have resigned know far more about
the issue than a bunch of Stalinist politicians. It is the job of
scientists to advise and this in no way impinges on the right of
elected representatives to ignore the truth and make laws based on
pure crap if they want to.

Svenne

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:28:13 +0000, The gods have made us mad wrote:

> Bambleweeny57 wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:57:05 +0000, The gods have made us mad wrote:
>> 
>>>> Would you let your granddaughter ride a horse? Or do you think
>>>> horseriding should be banned? Of course not, you are just a
>>>> sanctimonious bigot.
>>> If her horse was a menace to society - if it was prone to wandering
>>> around killing people at random, then it would be shot.
>> You are (deliberately I suspect) mis-characterising the question. The
>> question is would you prefer your granddaughter to take ecstasy or ride
>> a horse knowing that the probability is that she will come to greater
>> harm on the horse?
> 
> 
> Statistics?
Interesting way to avoid the question....
If Professor Nutt's assertion is correct then riding a horse is more 
dangerous that taking ecstasy. On that basis would you care to answer the 
question?


>> 
>>> Might I suggest that you spend the weekend locked in a cell with some
>>> Jamaican ganja-puffing murderer's, and see if you are still as liberal
>>> when (if) you emerge.
>> When was the last time you tried it? And was the ganja the root cause
>> of their murderous habits?
> 
> My own philosophy is to stay as far away as possible from ganja-crazed
> blacks.
> 
So you experience of "Jamaican ganja-puffing murderer's[sic]" is based on 
nothing but personal prejudice? At least Prof. Nutt has the decency to 
gather evidence.

BW

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:28:13 +0000, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:


>I've spent most of my life quite happily without them - so I just don't 
>feel any need for them.  A personal choice, obviously - but mine, 
>nonetheless.

are they after you then

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:58:46 +0000, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:


>No-one in the right mind would ever accuse Labour of having any moral 
>scruples, about anything - so if the government want to reclassify 
>Cannabis one can be pretty sure that they are not motivated by any 
>desire do something that is *right*.

>There is disturbing evidence about the severe damage to mental health 
>caused by Cannabis - particularly the new varieties.

No conclusive evidence exists that cannabis presents more significant
danger of damage to mental health than much else that people do.

>Nutt is just another hypocritical libertine who is quite happy to see 
>societal damage inflicted by drugs - as long, presumably, his own 
>children and grandchildren are not destroyed by them.

Professor Nutt is a scientist and knows the facts and the facts do not
support what you claim.

You are still free to rant all you want about it, but don't pretend
that what you claim has anything to do with evidence and truth.

Svenne

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:33:24 +0000, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:

>Oddly, that's pretty much what the homosexuals said when they wanted the 
>  legal age of 'consent' (sic)  to buggery reduced to 14 years old.

are they after you as well

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:33:24 +0000, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:

>Some people even think that the Nazi work camps were an abomination - 
>but they did keep a lot of undesirables of German streets, it has to be 
>said.

From 1933 to 1934 the most undesirable Germans were not in work camps,
they were in government.

Svenne

abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:41:33 -0800 (PST), Jon° 
> wrote:
> 
>> I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
>> right.
> 
> you've always been a socialist...what's new...
> 
> your prime reason is that in your ignorance your fellow
>     marxist has the same prejudices as yourself
> yet he's only doing it to get votes from similar useful
>    idiots to yourself...
> 
> your fellow marxist in no. 10 has banished boom and
>     bust...
> others have discovered that helicopters ain't needed in
>    afghan...
> 
> you marxist always prefer your emotions to facts<<


Perhaps we could examine one or two of these 'facts', Abelard?

Fact #1, you live deep in the French countryside, from where you boast 
about your relative isolation from your neighbours - which, of course, 
means that you are shielded from the harmful effects of the liberal 
policies your favour.

Hypocrite.

Fact #2, you enthusiastically embrace an unbridled 'free market' - while 
appearing to do absolutely nothing that is useful, preferring instead to 
posture as a 'profound thinker' on a distinctly non-academic Usenet 
group, where you can portray yourself as something of a Seer, without 
running the risk of meeting people who *are* genuinely insightful, and 
who would rip you into shreds and expose you for the blatant fraud that 
you are  Speaking entirely personally, your entire repository of 
'wisdom', to which you habitually link so proudly, is nothing more than 
the egotistical product of a diseased mind with too much time on its hands.

Your embrace of 'the free market, of course, also means that you are 
more than happy to receive interest and dividends, earned for you, in 
many instances, by the young children who sweat and toil in the third 
world countries to which your esteemed Corporations located in search of 
ever cheaper labour.

Fact #3,  you are a person who, if judged by your own value system, 
should be expunged immediately as a non-productive unit.  You contribute 
nothing, yet you consume with alacrity.

Your beloved 'free market', if properly implemented, would decree. that 
you were eliminated as a 'useless eater' without further ado.

"Jon°"  wrote in message 
news:636e2226-82a1-475f-9474-dd98748b4ad4@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...

I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
right. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.

Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in
science, medical studies and the law have not been elected by the
people.
----------------------------------------

Nor should they be. Science is not a populist agreement of opinon, even if 
many 'game show hosts' masquerade under the 'science' banner in order to 
push gibberish by garnering populist opinion. Like it or not, it's up to us 
to discern who is who but many would say, that's 'science' for you. 
Unfortunately, the elected body, are populist and therefor by definition, 
unreliable.
-----------------------------------------


The judges nowadays seem to want to rule the country by using the
Human Rights Act as a weapon. Now the scientists are telling the
government that only they are qualified to make decisions on what
drugs the public should have easy access to.
--------------------------------------------------------

Like it or not, scientists are infinately more qualified to speak on this 
subject than the Daily Mail or the government is. The majority voting that 
something is dangerous, does not make it so
----------------------------------------------------------

What next, will beauticians be telling the government that everybody
should be able to obtain free face lifts on the NHS.
------------------------------------------

You're comparing apples and oranges .. that would be self-serving
----------------------------------------------

It is ridiculous, in a democracy we vote in a government to rule……Not
to have their decisions set aside by any that think they know better.
-----------------------------------------------------------

For heaven's sake John, you're in here every day second guessing the 
government. Instead of armchair debaters we now have educated people second 
guessing the government and you're saying they have no right to do so. If 
you and me have a right to second guess governmental policy then surely 
people who are actually qualified in their particular field, must also have 
that right .. even if you disagree

Svenne wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:58:46 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>> No-one in the right mind would ever accuse Labour of having any moral 
>> scruples, about anything - so if the government want to reclassify 
>> Cannabis one can be pretty sure that they are not motivated by any 
>> desire do something that is *right*.
> 
>> There is disturbing evidence about the severe damage to mental health 
>> caused by Cannabis - particularly the new varieties.
> 
> No conclusive evidence exists that cannabis presents more significant
> danger of damage to mental health than much else that people do.
> 
>> Nutt is just another hypocritical libertine who is quite happy to see 
>> societal damage inflicted by drugs - as long, presumably, his own 
>> children and grandchildren are not destroyed by them.
> 
> Professor Nutt is a scientist and knows the facts and the facts do not
> support what you claim.
> 
> You are still free to rant all you want about it, but don't pretend
> that what you claim has anything to do with evidence and truth.


If you *wanted* to see the evidence about Cannabis, the web is 
overflowing with it.

You're not stupid enough to (a) not know this, and [b) to require being 
led by your hand to a suitable link.

which means, sadly, that you don't *want* to know the truth, and prefer 
to join in the general inane babbling of 'freedom loving ' idiots who 
won't change (what passes for) their minds about drugs - until some 
worthless junkie stabs them, and rapes their wife.

Disappointing - I would have thought you were better than that.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:07:16 +0000, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:

>As for 'facts':
>
>" Dr Henry is planning to tell a conference at the Royal Society of 
>Medicine on Monday that it appears likely that some cases of 
>schizophrenia are attributable to the consumption of cannabis, rather 
>than the alternative explanation that patients prone to mental illness 
>are more likely to be drawn to use the drug"

>"Dr Henry says that the strength of cannabis on sale now far outstrips 
>the strength of the drug sold during the "flower power" era of the 1960s 
>and 1970s. "
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2923647.stm

That "talk on Monday" referred to took place in 2003 and the Swedish
study referred to is the report to the Swedish Institute of Health by
professor Jan Ramstrom:

 www.fhi.se/PageFiles/3435/skador_hasch_mariujana.pdf

The fears raised back then have been taken into consideration and been
shown to be unfounded by the British Standing Committee.

Svenne

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:55:20 +0000, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:41:33 -0800 (PST), Jon° 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
>>> right.
>> 
>> you've always been a socialist...what's new...
>> 
>> your prime reason is that in your ignorance your fellow
>>     marxist has the same prejudices as yourself
>> yet he's only doing it to get votes from similar useful
>>    idiots to yourself...
>> 
>> your fellow marxist in no. 10 has banished boom and
>>     bust...
>> others have discovered that helicopters ain't needed in
>>    afghan...
>> 
>> you marxist always prefer your emotions to facts<<

>Perhaps we could examine one or two of these 'facts', Abelard?
>
>Fact #1, you live deep in the French countryside, from where you boast 
>about your relative isolation from your neighbours - which, of course, 
>means that you are shielded from the harmful effects of the liberal 
>policies your favour.

i'm also shielded from idiots like you

that is my free choice...i do realise you object to free choices
    but you're stuck with that

>Hypocrite.
>
>Fact #2, you enthusiastically embrace an unbridled 'free market' 

i don't....i regard market fundamentalism with as much contempt
    as i regard socialism...though socialism does vastly more damage

so, you're wrong again

>- while 
>appearing to do absolutely nothing that is useful, preferring instead to 
>posture as a 'profound thinker' on a distinctly non-academic Usenet 
>group,

that is because i have far less respect for pseudo-academics
    than those natural dhimmis like yourself....

i therefore address my activities primarily to the real world
    rather than pseuds like yourself

so, you're wrong again

> where you can portray yourself as something of a Seer, without 
>running the risk of meeting people who *are* genuinely insightful, and 
>who would rip you into shreds 

all of which most certainly leave you out....way way out

so, you're wrong again

>and expose you for the blatant fraud that 
>you are  Speaking entirely personally, your entire repository of 
>'wisdom', to which you habitually link so proudly, is nothing more than 
>the egotistical product of a diseased mind with too much time on its hands.

now you're blathering...

so, you're wrong again

>Your embrace of 'the free market, of course, also means that you are 
>more than happy to receive interest and dividends, earned for you, in 
>many instances, by the young children who sweat and toil in the third 
>world countries to which your esteemed Corporations located in search of 
>ever cheaper labour.

you sure do have that marxist dogma bad!

so, you're wrong again

>Fact #3,  you are a person who, if judged by your own value system, 
>should be expunged immediately as a non-productive unit.  You contribute 
>nothing, yet you consume with alacrity.
>
>Your beloved 'free market', if properly implemented, would decree. that 
>you were eliminated as a 'useless eater' without further ado.

so, you're wrong again
otherwise i wouldn't be here pointing out

that you're wrong yet again...

keep digging

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:02:16 -0000, "Hotblack Desiato"
 wrote:

>"Jon°"  wrote in message 
>news:636e2226-82a1-475f-9474-dd98748b4ad4@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
>I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
>right. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
>out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
>reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.
>
>Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in
>science, medical studies and the law have not been elected by the
>people.

he was sacked because he refused to be silenced
   by the marxist postman

and apparently because he also refused to sex up
    his advice to pander to the postman's lies and
    political posturing

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Svenne wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:07:16 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>  wrote:
> 
>> As for 'facts':
>>
>> " Dr Henry is planning to tell a conference at the Royal Society of 
>> Medicine on Monday that it appears likely that some cases of 
>> schizophrenia are attributable to the consumption of cannabis, rather 
>> than the alternative explanation that patients prone to mental illness 
>> are more likely to be drawn to use the drug"
> 
>> "Dr Henry says that the strength of cannabis on sale now far outstrips 
>> the strength of the drug sold during the "flower power" era of the 1960s 
>> and 1970s. "
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2923647.stm
> 
> That "talk on Monday" referred to took place in 2003 and the Swedish
> study referred to is the report to the Swedish Institute of Health by
> professor Jan Ramstrom:
> 
>  www.fhi.se/PageFiles/3435/skador_hasch_mariujana.pdf
> 
> The fears raised back then have been taken into consideration and been
> shown to be unfounded by the British Standing Committee.<<<


'Unfounded fears', wonderful news.

Just like the 'unfounded fears' about the effects of mass immigration 
have also proved to be untrue?....

Gimmee strength! - perhaps the single *most* important question about 
Nutt is *who*, if anyone,  is paying him to say *what*!

I saw one of his colleagues on BBC TV yesterday - and he was very clear 
in his opposition to Nutt's so-called 'research'.

There is a danger here that because Nutt has disagreed with an unpopular 
government, people will back him - even though he's wrong (or worse!)

It's a truism that even bad people can sometimes do good things - and 
the decision to reclassify Cannabis is proof of that.

abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:55:20 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>  wrote:
> 
>> abelard wrote:
>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:41:33 -0800 (PST), Jon° 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
>>>> right.
>>> you've always been a socialist...what's new...
>>>
>>> your prime reason is that in your ignorance your fellow
>>>     marxist has the same prejudices as yourself
>>> yet he's only doing it to get votes from similar useful
>>>    idiots to yourself...
>>>
>>> your fellow marxist in no. 10 has banished boom and
>>>     bust...
>>> others have discovered that helicopters ain't needed in
>>>    afghan...
>>>
>>> you marxist always prefer your emotions to facts<<
> 
>> Perhaps we could examine one or two of these 'facts', Abelard?
>>
>> Fact #1, you live deep in the French countryside, from where you boast 
>> about your relative isolation from your neighbours - which, of course, 
>> means that you are shielded from the harmful effects of the liberal 
>> policies your favour.
> 
> i'm also shielded from idiots like you
> 
> that is my free choice...i do realise you object to free choices
>     but you're stuck with that
> 
>> Hypocrite.
>>
>> Fact #2, you enthusiastically embrace an unbridled 'free market' 
> 
> i don't....i regard market fundamentalism with as much contempt
>     as i regard socialism...though socialism does vastly more damage
> 
> so, you're wrong again
> 
>> - while 
>> appearing to do absolutely nothing that is useful, preferring instead to 
>> posture as a 'profound thinker' on a distinctly non-academic Usenet 
>> group,
> 
> that is because i have far less respect for pseudo-academics
>     than those natural dhimmis like yourself....
> 
> i therefore address my activities primarily to the real world
>     rather than pseuds like yourself
> 
> so, you're wrong again
> 
>> where you can portray yourself as something of a Seer, without 
>> running the risk of meeting people who *are* genuinely insightful, and 
>> who would rip you into shreds 
> 
> all of which most certainly leave you out....way way out
> 
> so, you're wrong again
> 
>> and expose you for the blatant fraud that 
>> you are  Speaking entirely personally, your entire repository of 
>> 'wisdom', to which you habitually link so proudly, is nothing more than 
>> the egotistical product of a diseased mind with too much time on its hands.
> 
> now you're blathering...
> 
> so, you're wrong again
> 
>> Your embrace of 'the free market, of course, also means that you are 
>> more than happy to receive interest and dividends, earned for you, in 
>> many instances, by the young children who sweat and toil in the third 
>> world countries to which your esteemed Corporations located in search of 
>> ever cheaper labour.
> 
> you sure do have that marxist dogma bad!
> 
> so, you're wrong again
> 
>> Fact #3,  you are a person who, if judged by your own value system, 
>> should be expunged immediately as a non-productive unit.  You contribute 
>> nothing, yet you consume with alacrity.
>>
>> Your beloved 'free market', if properly implemented, would decree. that 
>> you were eliminated as a 'useless eater' without further ado.
> 
> so, you're wrong again
> otherwise i wouldn't be here pointing out
> 
> that you're wrong yet again...
> 
> keep digging



Oh.....Dear...

I've upset you, I'm genuinely sorry!

I assumed, naturally enough, that you were just camping it up on Usenet!

  - but, now, I see that you really *do* imagine yourself to a deeply 
profound thinker!!!

Bwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!

Sorry, again....

On Nov 1, 6:53 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> On Nov 1, 6:41 pm, Jon°  wrote:
>
> > It is ridiculous, in a democracy we vote in a government to rule……Not
> > to have their decisions set aside by any that think they know better.
>
> Yes but look in a mirror and see the quality of some who have the vote!

That statement just shows what a pig you are…….Not just a pig but an
ant-democratic pig who would be a bastard if he ever had any
power………………….Which a you would never get because you haven’t the
brains or the guts for any responsibility accepting looking after tiny-
tots in an infant school.

Socialist you call yourself…….You are a fascist of the first order
with no decency or respect for anybodies ideas but your own………..May
the good Lord put you out of the life long agony you must suffer in
having to live with yourself. SAP.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:17:52 +0000, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:

>Svenne wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:07:16 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> As for 'facts':
>>>
>>> " Dr Henry is planning to tell a conference at the Royal Society of 
>>> Medicine on Monday that it appears likely that some cases of 
>>> schizophrenia are attributable to the consumption of cannabis, rather 
>>> than the alternative explanation that patients prone to mental illness 
>>> are more likely to be drawn to use the drug"
>> 
>>> "Dr Henry says that the strength of cannabis on sale now far outstrips 
>>> the strength of the drug sold during the "flower power" era of the 1960s 
>>> and 1970s. "
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2923647.stm
>> 
>> That "talk on Monday" referred to took place in 2003 and the Swedish
>> study referred to is the report to the Swedish Institute of Health by
>> professor Jan Ramstrom:
>> 
>>  www.fhi.se/PageFiles/3435/skador_hasch_mariujana.pdf
>> 
>> The fears raised back then have been taken into consideration and been
>> shown to be unfounded by the British Standing Committee.<<<
>
>
>'Unfounded fears', wonderful news.
>
>Just like the 'unfounded fears' about the effects of mass immigration 
>have also proved to be untrue?....
>
>Gimmee strength! - perhaps the single *most* important question about 
>Nutt is *who*, if anyone,  is paying him to say *what*!

http://pr.cannazine.co.uk/200911011226/green/eco-news/the-professor-and-the-postman.html
"It was whilst delivering a lecture at King's College London, that
Professor Nutt, who's area of expertise is brain circuits and
receptors in anxiety and addiction, took exception to what he called
the "artificial" separation of alcohol and tobacco from illegal drugs.

He also said smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk"
of psychotic illness, and claimed those who advocated moving ecstasy
into Class B had "won the intellectual argument".   "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/01/david-nutt-alan-johnstone-drugs
"As the controversy intensified today, Nutt said he had been contacted
by more than half the council's members who had shared their "horror
and disgust" over the manner of his dismissal and were now considering
resigning en masse."
...
"Nutt said he could "fully understand" why his two former colleagues
had chosen to resign. "The government has interfered with the
scientific processes of the panel for several years and it has caused
significant resentment," he said."


elsewhere it is suggested that those working for this group do
    so pro bono...i do not yet know if that is true
but it would explain the readiness for the members to resign

you are extremely ignorant....so stop posturing and attempt
   to learn instead

>I saw one of his colleagues on BBC TV yesterday - and he was very clear 
>in his opposition to Nutt's so-called 'research'.
>
>There is a danger here that because Nutt has disagreed with an unpopular 
>government, people will back him - even though he's wrong (or worse!)
>
>It's a truism that even bad people can sometimes do good things - and 
>the decision to reclassify Cannabis is proof of that.

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:26:28 +0000, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:


>
>
>Oh.....Dear...
>
>I've upset you, I'm genuinely sorry!

stupidity does  not 'upset' me...it is far too common
    a part of life
so, you're wrong yet again

>I assumed, naturally enough, that you were just camping it up on Usenet!
>
>  - but, now, I see that you really *do* imagine yourself to a deeply 
>profound thinker!!!
>
>Bwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!
>
>Sorry, again....

keep digging

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:17:52 +0000, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:

>Svenne wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:07:16 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> As for 'facts':
>>>
>>> " Dr Henry is planning to tell a conference at the Royal Society of 
>>> Medicine on Monday that it appears likely that some cases of 
>>> schizophrenia are attributable to the consumption of cannabis, rather 
>>> than the alternative explanation that patients prone to mental illness 
>>> are more likely to be drawn to use the drug"
>> 
>>> "Dr Henry says that the strength of cannabis on sale now far outstrips 
>>> the strength of the drug sold during the "flower power" era of the 1960s 
>>> and 1970s. "
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2923647.stm
>> 
>> That "talk on Monday" referred to took place in 2003 and the Swedish
>> study referred to is the report to the Swedish Institute of Health by
>> professor Jan Ramstrom:
>> 
>>  www.fhi.se/PageFiles/3435/skador_hasch_mariujana.pdf
>> 
>> The fears raised back then have been taken into consideration and been
>> shown to be unfounded by the British Standing Committee.<<<

>'Unfounded fears', wonderful news.

Certainly. Cannabis is no more dangerous than many things people do
and certainly less dangerous than drinking alcohol.

>Just like the 'unfounded fears' about the effects of mass immigration 
>have also proved to be untrue?....

You have an undisciplined mind and make connections where there are
non.

>Gimmee strength! - perhaps the single *most* important question about 
>Nutt is *who*, if anyone,  is paying him to say *what*!

Professor Nutt is doing his job honestly and diligently and has the
strength of character to stand by the truth in the face of political
attack.

>I saw one of his colleagues on BBC TV yesterday - and he was very clear 
>in his opposition to Nutt's so-called 'research'.
>
>There is a danger here that because Nutt has disagreed with an unpopular 
>government, people will back him - even though he's wrong (or worse!)

Professor Nutt has disagreed with no-one. He has stated the truth and
stood by it in the face of attack by idiots, ignoramuses and
nincompoops

>It's a truism that even bad people can sometimes do good things - and 
>the decision to reclassify Cannabis is proof of that.

The decision to reclassify Cannabis is proof that the government are
idiots swayed by cynicism and dishonesty in a scramble to win
popularity and votes from other idiots.

Svenne

On Nov 1, 7:16 pm, abelard  wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:41:33 -0800 (PST), Jon° 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
> >right.
>
> you've always been a socialist...what's new...
>
> your prime reason is that in your ignorance your fellow
>     marxist has the same prejudices as yourself
> yet he's only doing it to get votes from similar useful
>    idiots to yourself...
>
> your fellow marxist in no. 10 has banished boom and
>     bust...
> others have discovered that helicopters ain't needed in
>    afghan...
>
> you marxist always prefer your emotions to facts
>
>
>
>
>
> > Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
> >out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
> >reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.
>
> >Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in
> >science, medical studies and the law have not been elected by the
> >people.
>
> >The judges nowadays seem to want to rule the country by using the
> >Human Rights Act as a weapon. Now the scientists are telling the
> >government that only they are qualified to make decisions on what
> >drugs the public should have easy access to.
>
> >What next, will beauticians be telling the government that everybody
> >should be able to obtain free face lifts on the NHS.
>
> >It is ridiculous, in a democracy we vote in a government to rule……Not
> >to have their decisions set aside by any that think they know better.
>
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6480843/Two-membe...
>
> --
> web site atwww.abelard.org- news comment service, logic, economics
>  energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----
>   all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
>   the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
>   good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
>                     only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­------ Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Your childishness know no bounds, you know very well that I am
opposite to being a socialist…..In fact you have even called me a
right-wing fascist in the past……………Your trouble lardy is that I sussed
you out years ago and you cannot forgive me for, then, showing Usenet
what an uninformed poser you are.

A poser with little knowledge accept that which you pick up off of
search engines……Nobody with any self pride or real intelligence would
put such a ridiculous and self gratifying sig. on the bottom of their
puerile posts as you do.

Svenne wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:17:52 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>  wrote:
> 
>> Svenne wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:07:16 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> As for 'facts':
>>>>
>>>> " Dr Henry is planning to tell a conference at the Royal Society of 
>>>> Medicine on Monday that it appears likely that some cases of 
>>>> schizophrenia are attributable to the consumption of cannabis, rather 
>>>> than the alternative explanation that patients prone to mental illness 
>>>> are more likely to be drawn to use the drug"
>>>> "Dr Henry says that the strength of cannabis on sale now far outstrips 
>>>> the strength of the drug sold during the "flower power" era of the 1960s 
>>>> and 1970s. "
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2923647.stm
>>> That "talk on Monday" referred to took place in 2003 and the Swedish
>>> study referred to is the report to the Swedish Institute of Health by
>>> professor Jan Ramstrom:
>>>
>>>  www.fhi.se/PageFiles/3435/skador_hasch_mariujana.pdf
>>>
>>> The fears raised back then have been taken into consideration and been
>>> shown to be unfounded by the British Standing Committee.<<<
> 
>> 'Unfounded fears', wonderful news.
> 
> Certainly. Cannabis is no more dangerous than many things people do
> and certainly less dangerous than drinking alcohol.
> 
>> Just like the 'unfounded fears' about the effects of mass immigration 
>> have also proved to be untrue?....
> 
> You have an undisciplined mind and make connections where there are
> non.
> 
>> Gimmee strength! - perhaps the single *most* important question about 
>> Nutt is *who*, if anyone,  is paying him to say *what*!
> 
> Professor Nutt is doing his job honestly and diligently and has the
> strength of character to stand by the truth in the face of political
> attack.
> 
>> I saw one of his colleagues on BBC TV yesterday - and he was very clear 
>> in his opposition to Nutt's so-called 'research'.
>>
>> There is a danger here that because Nutt has disagreed with an unpopular 
>> government, people will back him - even though he's wrong (or worse!)
> 
> Professor Nutt has disagreed with no-one. He has stated the truth and
> stood by it in the face of attack by idiots, ignoramuses and
> nincompoops
> 
>> It's a truism that even bad people can sometimes do good things - and 
>> the decision to reclassify Cannabis is proof of that.
> 
> The decision to reclassify Cannabis is proof that the government are
> idiots swayed by cynicism and dishonesty in a scramble to win
> popularity and votes from other idiots.


So, if it's going to win them votes, then most people in the UK would 
agree with the decision to reclassify Cannabis. yes?

So, why can't the majority have their way?

Or is democracy only tenable when it produces the result that you favour?

Nutt was paid to advise.  He advised, and got paid for so doing. End of 
story.  He has no God-given right to see his advice implemented.

abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:26:28 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>> Oh.....Dear...
>>
>> I've upset you, I'm genuinely sorry!
> 
> stupidity does  not 'upset' me...it is far too common
>     a part of life
> so, you're wrong yet again
> 
>> I assumed, naturally enough, that you were just camping it up on Usenet!
>>
>>  - but, now, I see that you really *do* imagine yourself to a deeply 
>> profound thinker!!!
>>
>> Bwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!
>>
>> Sorry, again....
> 
> keep digging


I'm suitably ashamed to admit it - but I enjoy baiting you.

It's rather like coming across a fat pretentious old bear, and poking it 
with a stick in order to hear the aged toothless creature growl.

I know it's unworthy, I know that it's wrong - but it's still 
fun.....particularly when the bear puts on its tattered robes of 
academia and starts dancing ;)

Just don't tell Sting....

Now - how about a few steps from The Thinker's Waltz?....oh, go on!.....

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:52:13 +0000, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:

>Svenne wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:17:52 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Svenne wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:07:16 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As for 'facts':
>>>>>
>>>>> " Dr Henry is planning to tell a conference at the Royal Society of 
>>>>> Medicine on Monday that it appears likely that some cases of 
>>>>> schizophrenia are attributable to the consumption of cannabis, rather 
>>>>> than the alternative explanation that patients prone to mental illness 
>>>>> are more likely to be drawn to use the drug"
>>>>> "Dr Henry says that the strength of cannabis on sale now far outstrips 
>>>>> the strength of the drug sold during the "flower power" era of the 1960s 
>>>>> and 1970s. "
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2923647.stm
>>>> That "talk on Monday" referred to took place in 2003 and the Swedish
>>>> study referred to is the report to the Swedish Institute of Health by
>>>> professor Jan Ramstrom:
>>>>
>>>>  www.fhi.se/PageFiles/3435/skador_hasch_mariujana.pdf
>>>>
>>>> The fears raised back then have been taken into consideration and been
>>>> shown to be unfounded by the British Standing Committee.<<<
>> 
>>> 'Unfounded fears', wonderful news.
>> 
>> Certainly. Cannabis is no more dangerous than many things people do
>> and certainly less dangerous than drinking alcohol.
>> 
>>> Just like the 'unfounded fears' about the effects of mass immigration 
>>> have also proved to be untrue?....
>> 
>> You have an undisciplined mind and make connections where there are
>> non.
>> 
>>> Gimmee strength! - perhaps the single *most* important question about 
>>> Nutt is *who*, if anyone,  is paying him to say *what*!
>> 
>> Professor Nutt is doing his job honestly and diligently and has the
>> strength of character to stand by the truth in the face of political
>> attack.
>> 
>>> I saw one of his colleagues on BBC TV yesterday - and he was very clear 
>>> in his opposition to Nutt's so-called 'research'.
>>>
>>> There is a danger here that because Nutt has disagreed with an unpopular 
>>> government, people will back him - even though he's wrong (or worse!)
>> 
>> Professor Nutt has disagreed with no-one. He has stated the truth and
>> stood by it in the face of attack by idiots, ignoramuses and
>> nincompoops
>> 
>>> It's a truism that even bad people can sometimes do good things - and 
>>> the decision to reclassify Cannabis is proof of that.
>> 
>> The decision to reclassify Cannabis is proof that the government are
>> idiots swayed by cynicism and dishonesty in a scramble to win
>> popularity and votes from other idiots.

>So, if it's going to win them votes, then most people in the UK would 
>agree with the decision to reclassify Cannabis. yes?

most people, like you, are ignorant...
that is why we have representational government...
    not government by referenda...

>So, why can't the majority have their way?

science is about consensus of informed persons...
not consensus of idiots like you

>Or is democracy only tenable when it produces the result that you favour?
>
>Nutt was paid to advise.

provide evidence he was paid....

>  He advised, and got paid for so doing. End of 
>story.  He has no God-given right to see his advice implemented.

god you're thik....if the majority of idiots like you believe
   in witches and they should be burned...
god you're thik....

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:00:13 +0000, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:26:28 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>
>>> Oh.....Dear...
>>>
>>> I've upset you, I'm genuinely sorry!
>> 
>> stupidity does  not 'upset' me...it is far too common
>>     a part of life
>> so, you're wrong yet again
>> 
>>> I assumed, naturally enough, that you were just camping it up on Usenet!
>>>
>>>  - but, now, I see that you really *do* imagine yourself to a deeply 
>>> profound thinker!!!
>>>
>>> Bwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!
>>>
>>> Sorry, again....
>> 
>> keep digging
>
>
>I'm suitably ashamed to admit it - but I enjoy baiting you.

yet again, you are fooling yourself

>It's rather like coming across a fat pretentious old bear, and poking it 
>with a stick in order to hear the aged toothless creature growl.
>
>I know it's unworthy, I know that it's wrong - but it's still 
>fun.....particularly when the bear puts on its tattered robes of 
>academia and starts dancing ;)
>
>Just don't tell Sting....
>
>Now - how about a few steps from The Thinker's Waltz?....oh, go on!.....

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:06:17 +0000, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:


>> Professor Nutt is a scientist and knows the facts and the facts do not
>> support what you claim.
>> 
>> You are still free to rant all you want about it, but don't pretend
>> that what you claim has anything to do with evidence and truth.

>If you *wanted* to see the evidence about Cannabis, the web is 
>overflowing with it.

I have read a lot of evidence and seen alot arguments and it is clear
that cannabis is not particularly dangerous.

>You're not stupid enough to (a) not know this, and [b) to require being 
>led by your hand to a suitable link.

You led me to another link which referred to a Swedish report on the
dangers of cannabis which I am familiar with and which has been shown
to be unfounded.

I doubt that you could lead me to any source which would change my
position since if such a source existed it would be beyond doubt that
cannabis is dangerous and since this is not the case, no such scource
exists.

>which means, sadly, that you don't *want* to know the truth, and prefer 
>to join in the general inane babbling of 'freedom loving ' idiots who 
>won't change (what passes for) their minds about drugs - until some 
>worthless junkie stabs them, and rapes their wife.

On the contrary, I do want to know the truth and have sought it. My
position is based on fact. 

Now I don't mind you hating cannabis and wanting to severely punish
people who use it, you are quite free to be an intolerant bigot if you
want to. But you can at least be honest about it and stop trying to
claim that your postition is based on fact. I would respect you more
if you admitted that your beliefs are based on emotion, ignorance and
stupidity.

>Disappointing - I would have thought you were better than that.

I'm certainly more honest than you.

Svenne

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 13:48:19 -0800 (PST), Jon° 
wrote:

>On Nov 1, 7:16 pm, abelard  wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:41:33 -0800 (PST), Jon° 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
>> >right.
>>
>> you've always been a socialist...what's new...
>>
>> your prime reason is that in your ignorance your fellow
>>     marxist has the same prejudices as yourself
>> yet he's only doing it to get votes from similar useful
>>    idiots to yourself...
>>
>> your fellow marxist in no. 10 has banished boom and
>>     bust...
>> others have discovered that helicopters ain't needed in
>>    afghan...
>>
>> you marxist always prefer your emotions to facts
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
>> >out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
>> >reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.
>>
>> >Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in
>> >science, medical studies and the law have not been elected by the
>> >people.
>>
>> >The judges nowadays seem to want to rule the country by using the
>> >Human Rights Act as a weapon. Now the scientists are telling the
>> >government that only they are qualified to make decisions on what
>> >drugs the public should have easy access to.
>>
>> >What next, will beauticians be telling the government that everybody
>> >should be able to obtain free face lifts on the NHS.
>>
>> >It is ridiculous, in a democracy we vote in a government to rule……Not
>> >to have their decisions set aside by any that think they know better.
>>
>> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6480843/Two-membe...

>Your childishness know no bounds,

indeed....i prefer to talk to you on your own level

> you know very well that I am
>opposite to being a socialist…..

no you're  not

>In fact you have even called me a
>right-wing fascist in the past

no i haven't

>……………Your trouble lardy is that I sussed
>you out years ago and you cannot forgive me for, then, showing Usenet
>what an uninformed poser you are.
>
>A poser with little knowledge accept that which you pick up off of
>search engines……Nobody with any self pride or real intelligence would
>put such a ridiculous and self gratifying sig. on the bottom of their
>puerile posts as you do.

keep digging

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:52:13 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>  wrote:
> 
>> Svenne wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:17:52 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Svenne wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:07:16 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As for 'facts':
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " Dr Henry is planning to tell a conference at the Royal Society of 
>>>>>> Medicine on Monday that it appears likely that some cases of 
>>>>>> schizophrenia are attributable to the consumption of cannabis, rather 
>>>>>> than the alternative explanation that patients prone to mental illness 
>>>>>> are more likely to be drawn to use the drug"
>>>>>> "Dr Henry says that the strength of cannabis on sale now far outstrips 
>>>>>> the strength of the drug sold during the "flower power" era of the 1960s 
>>>>>> and 1970s. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2923647.stm
>>>>> That "talk on Monday" referred to took place in 2003 and the Swedish
>>>>> study referred to is the report to the Swedish Institute of Health by
>>>>> professor Jan Ramstrom:
>>>>>
>>>>>  www.fhi.se/PageFiles/3435/skador_hasch_mariujana.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> The fears raised back then have been taken into consideration and been
>>>>> shown to be unfounded by the British Standing Committee.<<<
>>>> 'Unfounded fears', wonderful news.
>>> Certainly. Cannabis is no more dangerous than many things people do
>>> and certainly less dangerous than drinking alcohol.
>>>
>>>> Just like the 'unfounded fears' about the effects of mass immigration 
>>>> have also proved to be untrue?....
>>> You have an undisciplined mind and make connections where there are
>>> non.
>>>
>>>> Gimmee strength! - perhaps the single *most* important question about 
>>>> Nutt is *who*, if anyone,  is paying him to say *what*!
>>> Professor Nutt is doing his job honestly and diligently and has the
>>> strength of character to stand by the truth in the face of political
>>> attack.
>>>
>>>> I saw one of his colleagues on BBC TV yesterday - and he was very clear 
>>>> in his opposition to Nutt's so-called 'research'.
>>>>
>>>> There is a danger here that because Nutt has disagreed with an unpopular 
>>>> government, people will back him - even though he's wrong (or worse!)
>>> Professor Nutt has disagreed with no-one. He has stated the truth and
>>> stood by it in the face of attack by idiots, ignoramuses and
>>> nincompoops
>>>
>>>> It's a truism that even bad people can sometimes do good things - and 
>>>> the decision to reclassify Cannabis is proof of that.
>>> The decision to reclassify Cannabis is proof that the government are
>>> idiots swayed by cynicism and dishonesty in a scramble to win
>>> popularity and votes from other idiots.
> 
>> So, if it's going to win them votes, then most people in the UK would 
>> agree with the decision to reclassify Cannabis. yes?
> 
> most people, like you, are ignorant...
> that is why we have representational government...
>     not government by referenda...
> 
>> So, why can't the majority have their way?
> 
> science is about consensus of informed persons...
> not consensus of idiots like you
> 
>> Or is democracy only tenable when it produces the result that you favour?
>>
>> Nutt was paid to advise.
> 
> provide evidence he was paid....
> 
>>  He advised, and got paid for so doing. End of 
>> story.  He has no God-given right to see his advice implemented.
> 
> god you're thik....if the majority of idiots like you believe
>    in witches and they should be burned...
> god you're thik....

an an orful spellar, two boot.

I don't know if anyone's ever mentioned this, Abelard - but you're 
actually far more entertaining than one might at first think.

You dance well - but even funnier is your (apparently sincerely held) 
belief that you are greater than the common herd, and that you know what 
is best for them ;)

Your maxim appears to be, 'Follow me, I am Truth"

Is there no Vaudeville left in France?, must you waste your talent for 
comedy on the modest stage of Usenet?

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:52:13 +0000, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:

>> The decision to reclassify Cannabis is proof that the government are
>> idiots swayed by cynicism and dishonesty in a scramble to win
>> popularity and votes from other idiots.

>So, if it's going to win them votes, then most people in the UK would 
>agree with the decision to reclassify Cannabis. yes?

>So, why can't the majority have their way?

The majority do get their way. It's called democracy.

Though this doesn't mean the majority are always right and that
dissent and criticism are out of place.

>Or is democracy only tenable when it produces the result that you favour?

Democracy does not preclude dissent and criticism, in fact democracy
demands it.

>Nutt was paid to advise.  He advised, and got paid for so doing. End of 
>story.  He has no God-given right to see his advice implemented.

Professor Nutt was not paid. His position was voluntary. 

He gave the best scientific advice, the government ignored it as was
their right. Professor Nutt pointed out that the actions and
statements of the government were not based on scientific fact, which
was true as well as his right.

Svenne

Svenne wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:06:17 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Professor Nutt is a scientist and knows the facts and the facts do not
>>> support what you claim.
>>>
>>> You are still free to rant all you want about it, but don't pretend
>>> that what you claim has anything to do with evidence and truth.
> 
>> If you *wanted* to see the evidence about Cannabis, the web is 
>> overflowing with it.
> 
> I have read a lot of evidence and seen alot arguments and it is clear
> that cannabis is not particularly dangerous.
> 
>> You're not stupid enough to (a) not know this, and [b) to require being 
>> led by your hand to a suitable link.
> 
> You led me to another link which referred to a Swedish report on the
> dangers of cannabis which I am familiar with and which has been shown
> to be unfounded.
> 
> I doubt that you could lead me to any source which would change my
> position since if such a source existed it would be beyond doubt that
> cannabis is dangerous and since this is not the case, no such scource
> exists.
> 
>> which means, sadly, that you don't *want* to know the truth, and prefer 
>> to join in the general inane babbling of 'freedom loving ' idiots who 
>> won't change (what passes for) their minds about drugs - until some 
>> worthless junkie stabs them, and rapes their wife.
> 
> On the contrary, I do want to know the truth and have sought it. My
> position is based on fact. 
> 
> Now I don't mind you hating cannabis and wanting to severely punish
> people who use it, you are quite free to be an intolerant bigot if you
> want to. But you can at least be honest about it and stop trying to
> claim that your postition is based on fact. I would respect you more
> if you admitted that your beliefs are based on emotion, ignorance and
> stupidity.


I hope that I've never claimed to be 'tolerant!  Tolerant societies 
invariably become sewers.

My objection to Cannabis is rooted firmly in the damage it causes - 
studies  (which, of course, you will airily reject) conducted over many 
years link Cannabis consumption squarely to mental health problems, and 
also to a propensity to move on to 'harder' drugs.

But, of course, that means banning these things - which upsets the 
freedom loving crowd.

That's where intolerance has to step in.  I don't care tuppence about 
your perceived right to smoke Cannabis - but I do care about the 
gruesome crimes that are committed by people who have developed severe 
personality disorders through using it.

I read a study (which I now wish I'd bookmarked) about the amazingly 
high levels of severe mental illness among Jamaican prisoners - most of 
whom have smoked themselves stupid with Cannabis.

Wrap it any way you wish - Cannabis consumption is highly dangerous.  I 
couldn't care less if psychotic Cannabis users leap from bridges, or 
hurl themselves under buses - but I *do* care when these deranged 
creatures roam the streets with machetes looking for a victim.

*That's* when Cannabis becomes a societal problem, and when society has 
the right to proscribe it.

Svenne wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:52:13 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>  wrote:
> 
>>> The decision to reclassify Cannabis is proof that the government are
>>> idiots swayed by cynicism and dishonesty in a scramble to win
>>> popularity and votes from other idiots.
> 
>> So, if it's going to win them votes, then most people in the UK would 
>> agree with the decision to reclassify Cannabis. yes?
> 
>> So, why can't the majority have their way?
> 
> The majority do get their way. It's called democracy.
> 
> Though this doesn't mean the majority are always right and that
> dissent and criticism are out of place.
> 
>> Or is democracy only tenable when it produces the result that you favour?
> 
> Democracy does not preclude dissent and criticism, in fact democracy
> demands it.
> 
>> Nutt was paid to advise.  He advised, and got paid for so doing. End of 
>> story.  He has no God-given right to see his advice implemented.
> 
> Professor Nutt was not paid. His position was voluntary. 
> 
> He gave the best scientific advice, the government ignored it as was
> their right. Professor Nutt pointed out that the actions and
> statements of the government were not based on scientific fact, which
> was true as well as his right.
> 
> Svenne<<


Fine, well he hasn't lost anything by being 'sacked' then, has he?

So his histrionics boil down to his wounded pride because his advice 
wasn't taken.

He seems a bit emotionally fragile - do you think he uses weed?....

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:27:23 +0000, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:

>Svenne wrote:

>> Now I don't mind you hating cannabis and wanting to severely punish
>> people who use it, you are quite free to be an intolerant bigot if you
>> want to. But you can at least be honest about it and stop trying to
>> claim that your postition is based on fact. I would respect you more
>> if you admitted that your beliefs are based on emotion, ignorance and
>> stupidity.

>I hope that I've never claimed to be 'tolerant!  Tolerant societies 
>invariably become sewers.

Intolerant societies end up building death camps.

>My objection to Cannabis is rooted firmly in the damage it causes - 
>studies  (which, of course, you will airily reject) conducted over many 
>years link Cannabis consumption squarely to mental health problems, and 
>also to a propensity to move on to 'harder' drugs.

Your objection to cannabis cannot be rooted in the damage it causes
since such damage is minimal and well within the parameters accepted
by society for many substances and activities.

You are either a very dishonest person who deliberately hides his true
motives or very unintelligent.

>But, of course, that means banning these things - which upsets the 
>freedom loving crowd.
>
>That's where intolerance has to step in.  I don't care tuppence about 
>your perceived right to smoke Cannabis - but I do care about the 
>gruesome crimes that are committed by people who have developed severe 
>personality disorders through using it.

And delusional, too.

>I read a study (which I now wish I'd bookmarked) about the amazingly 
>high levels of severe mental illness among Jamaican prisoners - most of 
>whom have smoked themselves stupid with Cannabis.

It is quite clear you have nothing of substance to support your
position.

>Wrap it any way you wish - Cannabis consumption is highly dangerous.  I 
>couldn't care less if psychotic Cannabis users leap from bridges, or 
>hurl themselves under buses - but I *do* care when these deranged 
>creatures roam the streets with machetes looking for a victim.

And also living proof that it is possible to be mentally deranged
without using cannabis.

Svenne

On 1 Nov, 22:27, The gods have made us mad 
wrote:

>
> I hope that I've never claimed to be 'tolerant!  Tolerant societies
> invariably become sewers.
>
Free ones too, I take it you mean.

> My objection to Cannabis is rooted firmly in the damage it causes -
> studies  (which, of course, you will airily reject) conducted over many
> years link Cannabis consumption squarely to mental health problems, and
> also to a propensity to move on to 'harder' drugs.

You believe what studies you choose to believe.
>
> But, of course, that means banning these things - which upsets the
> freedom loving crowd.

It upsets freedom loving people and delights authoritarian cunts.
>
> That's where intolerance has to step in.  I don't care tuppence about
> your perceived right to smoke Cannabis -

That is because you are an uptight boring shit cares nothing for
freedom and who upholds his own miserable life as a model the rest of
us should follow..

> but I do care about the
> gruesome crimes that are committed by people who have developed severe
> personality disorders through using it.
>
> I read a study (which I now wish I'd bookmarked) about the amazingly
> high levels of severe mental illness among Jamaican prisoners - most of
> whom have smoked themselves stupid with Cannabis.
>
> Wrap it any way you wish - Cannabis consumption is highly dangerous.

So you wrongly assert. More informed people disagree, and have for a
very long time.

  > I couldn't care less if psychotic Cannabis users leap from
bridges, or
> hurl themselves under buses - but I *do* care when these deranged
> creatures roam the streets with machetes looking for a victim.
>
> *That's* when Cannabis becomes a societal problem, and when society has
> the right to proscribe it.

Alcohol is far more dangerous from that point of view than cannabis,.I
doubt if you'd want to ban that though. One could write
bloodcurdlingly about the dangers of nazism, though I would not
presume to try and stop your fun. We are strong enough to afford quite
a lot of  freedom.

On Nov 1, 10:27 pm, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:
> Svenne wrote:

> > Now I don't mind you hating cannabis and wanting to severely punish
> > people who use it, you are quite free to be an intolerant bigot if you
> > want to. But you can at least be honest about it and stop trying to
> > claim that your postition is based on fact. I would respect you more
> > if you admitted that your beliefs are based on emotion, ignorance and
> > stupidity.
>
> I hope that I've never claimed to be 'tolerant!  Tolerant societies
> invariably become sewers.
>
> My objection to Cannabis is rooted firmly in the damage it causes -
> studies  (which, of course, you will airily reject) conducted over many
> years link Cannabis consumption squarely to mental health problems, and
> also to a propensity to move on to 'harder' drugs.
>
> But, of course, that means banning these things - which upsets the
> freedom loving crowd.
>
> That's where intolerance has to step in.  I don't care tuppence about
> your perceived right to smoke Cannabis - but I do care about the
> gruesome crimes that are committed by people who have developed severe
> personality disorders through using it.
>
> I read a study (which I now wish I'd bookmarked) about the amazingly
> high levels of severe mental illness among Jamaican prisoners - most of
> whom have smoked themselves stupid with Cannabis.
>
> Wrap it any way you wish - Cannabis consumption is highly dangerous.  I
> couldn't care less if psychotic Cannabis users leap from bridges, or
> hurl themselves under buses - but I *do* care when these deranged
> creatures roam the streets with machetes looking for a victim.

I don't think Professor Nutt did claim that Cannabis and Ecstasy are
both harmless. but rather that neither was as dangerous as alcohol or
tobacco. In essence he was almost certainly right. His argument was
that Brown's government upgraded Cannabis  on the classification list
on the basis of its threat to health. Now there may well be a social
or political argument in favour of the upgrade but at a scientific
level there would appear to be none.

On coming to office this was a government that was going to base
social policy on scientific evidence. In Nutt's words  (Friday night)
they are "talking the talk but not walking the walk". Why o through
motions?

Fine if there is a basis for the reclassification of Cannabis then
lets hear it and be done with what is beginning to look like a
somewhat feeble excuse. Bogus explanations have the attendant danger
of masking good reasons as to why certain actions should be taken.

BTW I speak as someone who is not averse to the upgrading of cannabis.

On 1 Nov, 20:33, The gods have made us mad 
wrote:
> Saracene wrote:
> > On 1 Nov, 18:41, Jon°  wrote:
> >> I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
> >> right. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
> >> out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
> >> reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.
>
> >> Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in
> >> science, medical studies and the law have not been elected by the
> >> people.
>
> >> The judges nowadays seem to want to rule the country by using the
> >> Human Rights Act as a weapon. Now the scientists are telling the
> >> government that only they are qualified to make decisions on what
> >> drugs the public should have easy access to.
>
> > Individuals should make their own decisions, not government not
> > experts.
> >> What next, will beauticians be telling the government that everybody
> >> should be able to obtain free face lifts on the NHS.
>
> > No comparison.
> >> It is ridiculous, in a democracy we vote in a government to rule……Not
> >> to have their decisions set aside by any that think they know better.
>
> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6480843/Two-membe..> > Prohibition is an abomination<
>
> Oddly, that's pretty much what the homosexuals said when they wanted the
>   legal age of 'consent' (sic)  to buggery reduced to 14 years old.

I care about freedom, not equality. No one wants to extend all
freedoms to children, and ages of consent are up fro negotiation. You
might like to read J S Mill's essay on Liberty where the arguments are
quite well put. There are some old fashioned Victorian values for you
to ponder, though I know you prefer Germany circa 1936.
>
> Once they *do* finally get 14, who can say what their next demand would
> be? - 12?, 11?, 9?.
>
> After all, as you so eloquently put it, 'Prohibition is an abomination'
>
> Some people even think that the Nazi work camps were an abomination -
> but they did keep a lot of undesirables of German streets, it has to be
> said.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:12:11 -0800 (PST), Saracene 
wrote:

>On 1 Nov, 22:27, The gods have made us mad 

>> Wrap it any way you wish - Cannabis consumption is highly dangerous.
>
>So you wrongly assert. More informed people disagree, and have for a
>very long time.

how about defining 'highly dangerous'

>  > I couldn't care less if psychotic Cannabis users leap from
>>bridges, or hurl themselves under buses - but I *do* care when these deranged
>> creatures roam the streets with machetes looking for a victim.

rotfl...reefer madness strikes again

>> *That's* when Cannabis becomes a societal problem, and when society has
>> the right to proscribe it.
>
>Alcohol is far more dangerous from that point of view than cannabis,.I
>doubt if you'd want to ban that though. 

ps, while dealing with the brain donors i have restrained
    myself from putting a pov...
however, now they've retired in confusion and blithering
   i will add a bit...

i've worked with druggies....quite a lot...and i dislike cannabis more
    than any other drug i've dealt with....
imv it undermines intelligence

regards

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bambleweeny57 wrote:

> So you experience of "Jamaican ganja-puffing murderer's[sic]" is based on 
> nothing but personal prejudice? At least Prof. Nutt has the decency to 
> gather evidence.

Black people account for 45% of all crime in London and 79% of all 
violent crimes.  What other statistics do you need?

"The gods have made us mad"  wrote in message 
news:4AEE030D.90104@destruction.com...
> Svenne wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:17:52 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Svenne wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:07:16 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As for 'facts':
>>>>>
>>>>> " Dr Henry is planning to tell a conference at the Royal Society of 
>>>>> Medicine on Monday that it appears likely that some cases of 
>>>>> schizophrenia are attributable to the consumption of cannabis, rather 
>>>>> than the alternative explanation that patients prone to mental illness 
>>>>> are more likely to be drawn to use the drug"
>>>>> "Dr Henry says that the strength of cannabis on sale now far outstrips 
>>>>> the strength of the drug sold during the "flower power" era of the 
>>>>> 1960s and 1970s. "
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2923647.stm
>>>> That "talk on Monday" referred to took place in 2003 and the Swedish
>>>> study referred to is the report to the Swedish Institute of Health by
>>>> professor Jan Ramstrom:
>>>>
>>>>  www.fhi.se/PageFiles/3435/skador_hasch_mariujana.pdf
>>>>
>>>> The fears raised back then have been taken into consideration and been
>>>> shown to be unfounded by the British Standing Committee.<<<
>>
>>> 'Unfounded fears', wonderful news.
>>
>> Certainly. Cannabis is no more dangerous than many things people do
>> and certainly less dangerous than drinking alcohol.
>>
>>> Just like the 'unfounded fears' about the effects of mass immigration 
>>> have also proved to be untrue?....
>>
>> You have an undisciplined mind and make connections where there are
>> non.
>>
>>> Gimmee strength! - perhaps the single *most* important question about 
>>> Nutt is *who*, if anyone,  is paying him to say *what*!
>>
>> Professor Nutt is doing his job honestly and diligently and has the
>> strength of character to stand by the truth in the face of political
>> attack.
>>
>>> I saw one of his colleagues on BBC TV yesterday - and he was very clear 
>>> in his opposition to Nutt's so-called 'research'.
>>>
>>> There is a danger here that because Nutt has disagreed with an unpopular 
>>> government, people will back him - even though he's wrong (or worse!)
>>
>> Professor Nutt has disagreed with no-one. He has stated the truth and
>> stood by it in the face of attack by idiots, ignoramuses and
>> nincompoops
>>
>>> It's a truism that even bad people can sometimes do good things - and 
>>> the decision to reclassify Cannabis is proof of that.
>>
>> The decision to reclassify Cannabis is proof that the government are
>> idiots swayed by cynicism and dishonesty in a scramble to win
>> popularity and votes from other idiots.
>
>
> So, if it's going to win them votes, then most people in the UK would 
> agree with the decision to reclassify Cannabis. yes?


No


> So, why can't the majority have their way?

They don't , they just seem to think better the devil you know............

>
> Or is democracy only tenable when it produces the result that you favour?
>
> Nutt was paid to advise.  He advised, and got paid for so doing. End of 
> story.  He has no God-given right to see his advice implemented.


No but it should be, cigerattes and alchohol kill more peple in this country 
that cannabis does.

Nkosi

The gods have made us mad wrote:

> Wrap it any way you wish - Cannabis consumption is highly dangerous. 

Not nearly as dangerous as drinking alcohol, which is what the professor 
is saying.

He's also saying that taking extacy is less dangerous than riding a horse...


  I
> couldn't care less if psychotic Cannabis users leap from bridges, or 
> hurl themselves under buses - but I *do* care when these deranged 
> creatures roam the streets with machetes looking for a victim.

The demon weed,  the demon weed...

Have you ever actually met a cannabis user?

As a general rule they're pretty passive.

> *That's* when Cannabis becomes a societal problem, and when society has 
> the right to proscribe it.

When it gets as bad a booze I say we ban them both...

-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

Bambleweeny57 wrote:
If he is as rich as
> you suggest (and he is related to the Saudi royal family after all) then 
> it would have been a simple matter for him to acquire something more 
> serious from the remnants of the Soviet Union if he wished.
> 
There is no evidence anywhere that anyone has acquired any nuclear 
material from the late and unlamented Soviet Union or its successors 
without the full permission of the government there.

-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

The gods have made us mad wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>> The gods have made us mad wrote:
>>> William Black wrote:
>>>> The gods have made us mad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nutt is just another hypocritical libertine who is quite happy to 
>>>>> see societal damage inflicted by drugs - as long, presumably, his 
>>>>> own children and grandchildren are not destroyed by them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying his research results are falsified?
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, please!, can't you give it a rest for once?
>>>
>>> Since the 50's, we have been inundated with bogus research - peddling 
>>> everything from pornography to 'wimmin's lib', and behind every 
>>> pernicious attack on Christian morality has been an 'academic'
>>
>> So you're saying a full professor at a British university can falsify 
>> results and get away with it,  even though Gordon Brown has seen 
>> through him...
>>
>> Right...
>>
>>> The only people who welcome this sort of deviancy are those who want 
>>> to see this nation degraded for socio-political ends, and the scum 
>>> (many from the 'sub-continent')  who make a bob or two out of the 
>>> misery, along the way.
>>>
>>> Which of these are you?
>>>
>>
>> Do try and grow up son.
>>
>> The professor seems to be an honest man who has had the misfortune to 
>> fall amongst people who take their view of the world from Daily Mail 
>> leader writers.
>>
>> What's more the professor's colleagues seem to be agreeing with him 
>> and not the politicians,  in a display of professional ethics that is 
>> becoming less and less common as this government continues in office.
>>
>> As for your tirade about 'deviancy' and 'scum',  I suggest you direct 
>> you scorn at the brewers and operators of riding stables who seem to 
>> be killing far more than dealers in soft drugs...
> 
> 
> "Tell me the old, old story...."
> 
> Doubtless Kinsey was an 'honest man' to you, or Leary, or Stopes, or any 
> of the other 'learned' people who devoted their lives to the debasement 
> of society? - or perhaps you prefer the great racial thinkers who 
> promulgated multi-culturalism? plenty of them, all with impeccable 
> credentials, and maggots in their souls.
> 
> Thanks to them, we now enjoy rampant sexual disease, an abortion 
> holocaust, social breakdown - and, of course, not forgetting the 
> swamping of Britain by hate-filled migrants.
> 
> No *wonder* you dislike National Socialism so much, and you're right to 
> fear them - I'm afraid you'd probably be swept up in any national 
> cleansing that they might undertake.
> 
> I'd regret it, of course, but.....

You really do need to take more water with it...


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

The gods have made us mad wrote:

> 
> I don't know if anyone's ever mentioned this, Abelard - but you're 
> actually far more entertaining than one might at first think.
> 
> You dance well - but even funnier is your (apparently sincerely held) 
> belief that you are greater than the common herd, and that you know what 
> is best for them ;)
> 
> Your maxim appears to be, 'Follow me, I am Truth"
> 

Well that didn't take long...


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

The gods have made us mad wrote:

> Nutt was paid to advise.  He advised, and got paid for so doing. End of 
> story.  

Except he didn't get paid...


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:54:05 +0000, White Spirit wrote:

> Bambleweeny57 wrote:
> 
>> So you experience of "Jamaican ganja-puffing murderer's[sic]" is based
>> on nothing but personal prejudice? At least Prof. Nutt has the decency
>> to gather evidence.
> 
> Black people account for 45% of all crime in London and 79% of all
> violent crimes.  What other statistics do you need?

In the context of the discussion, some evidence that their criminality is 
directly caused by the use of cannabis.

BW

>
> Have you ever actually met a cannabis user?
>
> As a general rule they're pretty passive.

Never tried it yourself though, have you, little Miss law abiding?
>
> > *That's* when Cannabis becomes a societal problem, and when society has
> > the right to proscribe it.
>
> When it gets as bad a booze I say we ban them both...
>
> --
Should we really structure our laws around  the sensitivities of
little girls like you?

Bambleweeny57 wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:54:05 +0000, White Spirit wrote:

>> Bambleweeny57 wrote:

>>> So you experience of "Jamaican ganja-puffing murderer's[sic]" is based
>>> on nothing but personal prejudice? At least Prof. Nutt has the decency
>>> to gather evidence.

>> Black people account for 45% of all crime in London and 79% of all
>> violent crimes.  What other statistics do you need?

> In the context of the discussion, some evidence that their criminality is 
> directly caused by the use of cannabis.

There is a clear link between drug use and crime.

Saracene wrote:
> On 1 Nov, 22:27, The gods have made us mad 
> wrote:
> 
>> I hope that I've never claimed to be 'tolerant!  Tolerant societies
>> invariably become sewers.
>>
> Free ones too, I take it you mean.
> 
>> My objection to Cannabis is rooted firmly in the damage it causes -
>> studies  (which, of course, you will airily reject) conducted over many
>> years link Cannabis consumption squarely to mental health problems, and
>> also to a propensity to move on to 'harder' drugs.
> 
> You believe what studies you choose to believe.
>> But, of course, that means banning these things - which upsets the
>> freedom loving crowd.
> 
> It upsets freedom loving people and delights authoritarian cunts.
>> That's where intolerance has to step in.  I don't care tuppence about
>> your perceived right to smoke Cannabis -
> 
> That is because you are an uptight boring shit cares nothing for
> freedom and who upholds his own miserable life as a model the rest of
> us should follow..
> 
>> but I do care about the
>> gruesome crimes that are committed by people who have developed severe
>> personality disorders through using it.
>>
>> I read a study (which I now wish I'd bookmarked) about the amazingly
>> high levels of severe mental illness among Jamaican prisoners - most of
>> whom have smoked themselves stupid with Cannabis.
>>
>> Wrap it any way you wish - Cannabis consumption is highly dangerous.
> 
> So you wrongly assert. More informed people disagree, and have for a
> very long time.
> 
>   > I couldn't care less if psychotic Cannabis users leap from
> bridges, or
>> hurl themselves under buses - but I *do* care when these deranged
>> creatures roam the streets with machetes looking for a victim.
>>
>> *That's* when Cannabis becomes a societal problem, and when society has
>> the right to proscribe it.
> 
> Alcohol is far more dangerous from that point of view than cannabis,.I
> doubt if you'd want to ban that though. One could write
> bloodcurdlingly about the dangers of nazism, though I would not
> presume to try and stop your fun. We are strong enough to afford quite
> a lot of  freedom.


When it comes to drugs, I'd very much like to stop your fun.

abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:12:11 -0800 (PST), Saracene 
> wrote:
> 
>> On 1 Nov, 22:27, The gods have made us mad 
> 
>>> Wrap it any way you wish - Cannabis consumption is highly dangerous.
>> So you wrongly assert. More informed people disagree, and have for a
>> very long time.
> 
> how about defining 'highly dangerous'
> 
>>  > I couldn't care less if psychotic Cannabis users leap from
>>> bridges, or hurl themselves under buses - but I *do* care when these deranged
>>> creatures roam the streets with machetes looking for a victim.
> 
> rotfl...reefer madness strikes again
> 
>>> *That's* when Cannabis becomes a societal problem, and when society has
>>> the right to proscribe it.
>> Alcohol is far more dangerous from that point of view than cannabis,.I
>> doubt if you'd want to ban that though. 
> 
> ps, while dealing with the brain donors i have restrained
>     myself from putting a pov...
> however, now they've retired in confusion and blithering
>    i will add a bit...
> 
> i've worked with druggies....quite a lot...and i dislike cannabis more
>     than any other drug i've dealt with....
> imv it undermines intelligence


Then is your own hypocrisy revealed (not that such a revelation was, 
actually, necessary)

William Black wrote:
> The gods have made us mad wrote:
> 
>>
>> I don't know if anyone's ever mentioned this, Abelard - but you're 
>> actually far more entertaining than one might at first think.
>>
>> You dance well - but even funnier is your (apparently sincerely held) 
>> belief that you are greater than the common herd, and that you know 
>> what is best for them ;)
>>
>> Your maxim appears to be, 'Follow me, I am Truth"
>>
> 
?> Well that didn't take long...


Er, *what* didn't take long, William?

On 2 Nov, 12:44, The gods have made us mad 
wrote:


>
> When it comes to drugs, I'd very much like to stop your fun.

I know. Because you are a fascist and an odious piece of shit. QED.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:46:51 +0000, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:12:11 -0800 (PST), Saracene 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1 Nov, 22:27, The gods have made us mad 
>> 
>>>> Wrap it any way you wish - Cannabis consumption is highly dangerous.
>>> So you wrongly assert. More informed people disagree, and have for a
>>> very long time.
>> 
>> how about defining 'highly dangerous'
>> 
>>>  > I couldn't care less if psychotic Cannabis users leap from
>>>> bridges, or hurl themselves under buses - but I *do* care when these deranged
>>>> creatures roam the streets with machetes looking for a victim.
>> 
>> rotfl...reefer madness strikes again
>> 
>>>> *That's* when Cannabis becomes a societal problem, and when society has
>>>> the right to proscribe it.
>>> Alcohol is far more dangerous from that point of view than cannabis,.I
>>> doubt if you'd want to ban that though. 
>> 
>> ps, while dealing with the brain donors i have restrained
>>     myself from putting a pov...
>> however, now they've retired in confusion and blithering
>>    i will add a bit...
>> 
>> i've worked with druggies....quite a lot...and i dislike cannabis more
>>     than any other drug i've dealt with....
>> imv it undermines intelligence
>
>
>Then is your own hypocrisy revealed (not that such a revelation was, 
>actually, necessary)

you remain a mindless babbler

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gods have made us mad wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>> The gods have made us mad wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't know if anyone's ever mentioned this, Abelard - but you're 
>>> actually far more entertaining than one might at first think.
>>>
>>> You dance well - but even funnier is your (apparently sincerely held) 
>>> belief that you are greater than the common herd, and that you know 
>>> what is best for them ;)
>>>
>>> Your maxim appears to be, 'Follow me, I am Truth"
>>>
>>
> ?> Well that didn't take long...
> 
> 
> Er, *what* didn't take long, William?

Working out that Abelard is  self obsessed,  and wrong,  always...


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

The gods have made us mad wrote:

> When it comes to drugs, I'd very much like to stop your fun.

An interesting view.

Why?

I assume you feel much the same way about booze and tobacco,  but if 
not,  why not?


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

abelard wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:46:51 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>  wrote:
> 
>> abelard wrote:
>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:12:11 -0800 (PST), Saracene 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1 Nov, 22:27, The gods have made us mad 
>>>>> Wrap it any way you wish - Cannabis consumption is highly dangerous.
>>>> So you wrongly assert. More informed people disagree, and have for a
>>>> very long time.
>>> how about defining 'highly dangerous'
>>>
>>>>  > I couldn't care less if psychotic Cannabis users leap from
>>>>> bridges, or hurl themselves under buses - but I *do* care when these deranged
>>>>> creatures roam the streets with machetes looking for a victim.
>>> rotfl...reefer madness strikes again
>>>
>>>>> *That's* when Cannabis becomes a societal problem, and when society has
>>>>> the right to proscribe it.
>>>> Alcohol is far more dangerous from that point of view than cannabis,.I
>>>> doubt if you'd want to ban that though. 
>>> ps, while dealing with the brain donors i have restrained
>>>     myself from putting a pov...
>>> however, now they've retired in confusion and blithering
>>>    i will add a bit...
>>>
>>> i've worked with druggies....quite a lot...and i dislike cannabis more
>>>     than any other drug i've dealt with....
>>> imv it undermines intelligence
>>
>> Then is your own hypocrisy revealed (not that such a revelation was, 
>> actually, necessary)
> 
> you remain a mindless babbler<<


LOL! - *why*?

Because I point out that someone who opposes stricter control of 
Cannabis, also claims to believe that Cannabis 'undermines intelligence'?

Such inconsistency, fresh from the addled mind of Abe.

It would appear to me, Abelard, that far from 'working with druggies', 
you are a long term devotee of Cannabis yourself! ;)

On 2 Nov, 13:38, The gods have made us mad 
wrote:
> abelard wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:46:51 퍍, The gods have made us mad
> >  wrote:
>
> >> abelard wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:12:11 -0800 (PST), Saracene  >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 1 Nov, 22:27, The gods have made us mad 
> >>>>> Wrap it any way you wish - Cannabis consumption is highly dangerous> >>>> So you wrongly assert. More informed people disagree, and have for a
> >>>> very long time.
> >>> how about defining 'highly dangerous'
>
> >>>>  > I couldn't care less if psychotic Cannabis users leap from
> >>>>> bridges, or hurl themselves under buses - but I *do* care when these deranged
> >>>>> creatures roam the streets with machetes looking for a victim.
> >>> rotfl...reefer madness strikes again
>
> >>>>> *That's* when Cannabis becomes a societal problem, and when society has
> >>>>> the right to proscribe it.
> >>>> Alcohol is far more dangerous from that point of view than cannabis,.I
> >>>> doubt if you'd want to ban that though.
> >>> ps, while dealing with the brain donors i have restrained
> >>>     myself from putting a pov...
> >>> however, now they've retired in confusion and blithering
> >>>    i will add a bit...
>
> >>> i've worked with druggies....quite a lot...and i dislike cannabis more
> >>>     than any other drug i've dealt with....
> >>> imv it undermines intelligence
>
> >> Then is your own hypocrisy revealed (not that such a revelation was,
> >> actually, necessary)
>
> > you remain a mindless babbler<<
>
> LOL! - *why*?
>
> Because I point out that someone who opposes stricter control of
> Cannabis, also claims to believe that Cannabis 'undermines intelligence'?
>
> Such inconsistency, fresh from the addled mind of Abe.

It only appears inconsistent to a fascist pig such as yourself who
wants to ban everything he dislikes. I spit on  your views and despise
you deeply, yet defend your right to express yourself.
>
> It would appear to me, Abelard, that far from 'working with druggies',
> you are a long term devotee of Cannabis yourself! ;)

William Black wrote:
> The gods have made us mad wrote:
>> William Black wrote:
>>> The gods have made us mad wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if anyone's ever mentioned this, Abelard - but you're 
>>>> actually far more entertaining than one might at first think.
>>>>
>>>> You dance well - but even funnier is your (apparently sincerely 
>>>> held) belief that you are greater than the common herd, and that you 
>>>> know what is best for them ;)
>>>>
>>>> Your maxim appears to be, 'Follow me, I am Truth"
>>>>
>>>
>> ?> Well that didn't take long...
>>
>>
>> Er, *what* didn't take long, William?
> 
> Working out that Abelard is  self obsessed,  and wrong,  always...


Oh, right - I though you were digging at me.

Sorry.

Perhaps, after some consideration, I might recommend that you don't go 
to the Elvaston Castle relocation centre, after all   ;)

Svenne wrote:

> The Home Secretary can ignore the scientific evidence and tailor the
> law according to his own personal prejudices if he wants to, but he
> shouldn't try to pretend that what he is doing is based on science
> when it is not.

> The professor is quite within his rights to say that the Government is
> not basing it's policy on what science says and that the governments
> pronouncements on the dangers of drugs are not scientifically correct.

> It would be a dereliction of duty for the professor to leave the
> public with the impression that government policy was based on the
> evidence of its scientific advisory committee when it is not.

> This in no way detracts for the right of the government to pull policy
> based on pure nonsense out of its hat, it should just be more honest
> and straightforward about what it is doing.

I agree that the Government should be more forthcoming in this regard. 
However, I think that looking at the issue based on the relative safety 
of each drug is somewhat myopic.  Certain drugs have serious social 
problems associated with them and legalisation won't make those problems 
go away.  With regard to cannabis, they should make up their minds one 
way or the other whether they want to legalise it or not, but bear in 
mind that we're already the preferred choice of destination for third 
world migrants...

The gods have made us mad wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>> The gods have made us mad wrote:
>>> William Black wrote:
>>>> The gods have made us mad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if anyone's ever mentioned this, Abelard - but you're 
>>>>> actually far more entertaining than one might at first think.
>>>>>
>>>>> You dance well - but even funnier is your (apparently sincerely 
>>>>> held) belief that you are greater than the common herd, and that 
>>>>> you know what is best for them ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Your maxim appears to be, 'Follow me, I am Truth"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> ?> Well that didn't take long...
>>>
>>>
>>> Er, *what* didn't take long, William?
>>
>> Working out that Abelard is  self obsessed,  and wrong,  always...
> 
> 
> Oh, right - I though you were digging at me.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> Perhaps, after some consideration, I might recommend that you don't go 
> to the Elvaston Castle relocation centre, after all   ;)

Well as I,  my parents and all my grandparents were all born in England 
I somehow think you'd have a problem justifying such a decision.

Not that such details ever bothered people like yourself.


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

William Black wrote:
> The gods have made us mad wrote:
> 
>> When it comes to drugs, I'd very much like to stop your fun.
> 
> An interesting view.
> 
> Why?
> 
> I assume you feel much the same way about booze and tobacco,  but if 
> not,  why not?


Booze, certainly.

This nation has been debased by the deliberate supply of cheap alcohol. 
  It's very similar to the USSR, where Vodka was subsidised, and a 
suffering populace encouraged to exist in state of semi-drunkenness in 
order to keep them docile.

It seems only a few years ago tat alcohol was 'special', and could only 
be purchased from 'special' outlets.  The advent of supermarket shelves 
piled high with cut-price drink, that could be popped into a shopping 
cart along with the cornflakes, did a great deal to destroy the 
perception that alcohol is a powerful drug, and should be consumed (if 
at all) with restraint.

Tobacco? - well, I've yet to hear about the nicotine addict committing 
crimes to fund his addiction.

William Black wrote:
> The gods have made us mad wrote:
>> William Black wrote:
>>> The gods have made us mad wrote:
>>>> William Black wrote:
>>>>> The gods have made us mad wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know if anyone's ever mentioned this, Abelard - but you're 
>>>>>> actually far more entertaining than one might at first think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You dance well - but even funnier is your (apparently sincerely 
>>>>>> held) belief that you are greater than the common herd, and that 
>>>>>> you know what is best for them ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your maxim appears to be, 'Follow me, I am Truth"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ?> Well that didn't take long...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Er, *what* didn't take long, William?
>>>
>>> Working out that Abelard is  self obsessed,  and wrong,  always...
>>
>>
>> Oh, right - I though you were digging at me.
>>
>> Sorry.
>>
>> Perhaps, after some consideration, I might recommend that you don't go 
>> to the Elvaston Castle relocation centre, after all   ;)
> 
> Well as I,  my parents and all my grandparents were all born in England 
> I somehow think you'd have a problem justifying such a decision.
> 
> Not that such details ever bothered people like yourself.


Crumbs! - I've already said that I'll exclude you from the transports!!, 
yet you *still* berate me!

Ungrateful, or what!?

On 2 Nov, 14:13, The gods have made us mad 
wrote:
> William Black wrote:
> > The gods have made us mad wrote:
>
> >> When it comes to drugs, I'd very much like to stop your fun.
>
> > An interesting view.
>
> > Why?
>
> > I assume you feel much the same way about booze and tobacco,  but if
> > not,  why not?
>
> Booze, certainly.
>
> This nation has been debased by the deliberate supply of cheap alcohol.
>   It's very similar to the USSR, where Vodka was subsidised, and a
> suffering populace encouraged to exist in state of semi-drunkenness in
> order to keep them docile.
>
> It seems only a few years ago tat alcohol was 'special', and could only
> be purchased from 'special' outlets.  The advent of supermarket shelves
> piled high with cut-price drink, that could be popped into a shopping
> cart along with the cornflakes, did a great deal to destroy the
> perception that alcohol is a powerful drug, and should be consumed (if
> at all) with restraint.
>
Why not ban it completely? Think of all those drunken negroes.

> Tobacco? - well, I've yet to hear about the nicotine addict committing
> crimes to fund his addiction.

The gods have made us mad wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>> The gods have made us mad wrote:
>>
>>> When it comes to drugs, I'd very much like to stop your fun.
>>
>> An interesting view.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> I assume you feel much the same way about booze and tobacco,  but if 
>> not,  why not?
> 
> 
> Booze, certainly.
> 
> This nation has been debased by the deliberate supply of cheap alcohol. 
>  It's very similar to the USSR, where Vodka was subsidised, and a 
> suffering populace encouraged to exist in state of semi-drunkenness in 
> order to keep them docile.
> 
> It seems only a few years ago tat alcohol was 'special', and could only 
> be purchased from 'special' outlets.  The advent of supermarket shelves 
> piled high with cut-price drink, that could be popped into a shopping 
> cart along with the cornflakes, did a great deal to destroy the 
> perception that alcohol is a powerful drug, and should be consumed (if 
> at all) with restraint.

So you're teetotal?

> Tobacco? - well, I've yet to hear about the nicotine addict committing 
> crimes to fund his addiction.

They don't need to.

The cost to the NHS is such that making smoking a crime would save a 
fortune...




-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On 2 Nov, 13:10, abelard  wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:46:51 퍍, The gods have made us mad
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >abelard wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:12:11 -0800 (PST), Saracene 
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 1 Nov, 22:27, The gods have made us mad 
>
> >>>> Wrap it any way you wish - Cannabis consumption is highly dangerous.
> >>> So you wrongly assert. More informed people disagree, and have for a
> >>> very long time.
>
> >> how about defining 'highly dangerous'
>
> >>>  > I couldn't care less if psychotic Cannabis users leap from
> >>>> bridges, or hurl themselves under buses - but I *do* care when these deranged
> >>>> creatures roam the streets with machetes looking for a victim.
>
> >> rotfl...reefer madness strikes again
>
> >>>> *That's* when Cannabis becomes a societal problem, and when society has
> >>>> the right to proscribe it.
> >>> Alcohol is far more dangerous from that point of view than cannabis,.I
> >>> doubt if you'd want to ban that though.
>
> >> ps, while dealing with the brain donors i have restrained
> >>     myself from putting a pov...
> >> however, now they've retired in confusion and blithering
> >>    i will add a bit...
>
> >> i've worked with druggies....quite a lot...and i dislike cannabis more
> >>     than any other drug i've dealt with....
> >> imv it undermines intelligence
>
> >Then is your own hypocrisy revealed (not that such a revelation was,
> >actually, necessary)
>
> you remain a mindless babbler
>
What was he called before he got his latest moniker?

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:10:43 +0000, White Spirit
 wrote:

>Svenne wrote:

>> It would be a dereliction of duty for the professor to leave the
>> public with the impression that government policy was based on the
>> evidence of its scientific advisory committee when it is not.

>> This in no way detracts for the right of the government to pull policy
>> based on pure nonsense out of its hat, it should just be more honest
>> and straightforward about what it is doing.

>I agree that the Government should be more forthcoming in this regard. 
>However, I think that looking at the issue based on the relative safety 
>of each drug is somewhat myopic.  Certain drugs have serious social 
>problems associated with them and legalisation won't make those problems 
>go away.  With regard to cannabis, they should make up their minds one 
>way or the other whether they want to legalise it or not, but bear in 
>mind that we're already the preferred choice of destination for third 
>world migrants...

The evidence points to prohibition being the main cause of social
problems associated with drugs.

I don't see legally regulated cannabis affecting immigration, unless
we were overrun with Rastafarian refugees.

Actually, that wouldn't be so bad, much better than Muslims anyway.

Svenne

The gods have made us mad  wrote in news:hcmpf1
$20f6$1@energise.enta.net:

> William Black wrote:
>> The gods have made us mad wrote:
>> 
>>> When it comes to drugs, I'd very much like to stop your fun.
>> 
>> An interesting view.
>> 
>> Why?
>> 
>> I assume you feel much the same way about booze and tobacco,  but if 
>> not,  why not?
> 
> 
> Booze, certainly.
> 
> This nation has been debased by the deliberate supply of cheap alcohol. 
>   It's very similar to the USSR, where Vodka was subsidised, and a 
> suffering populace encouraged to exist in state of semi-drunkenness in 
> order to keep them docile.
> 
> It seems only a few years ago tat alcohol was 'special', and could only 
> be purchased from 'special' outlets.  The advent of supermarket shelves 
> piled high with cut-price drink, that could be popped into a shopping 
> cart along with the cornflakes, did a great deal to destroy the 
> perception that alcohol is a powerful drug, and should be consumed (if 
> at all) with restraint.
> 
> Tobacco? - well, I've yet to hear about the nicotine addict committing 
> crimes to fund his addiction.

They may not commit crimes to fund their addiction, but there are 
certainly plenty who commit crimes to service it. Excise duty evasion, 
buying cut-price, probably stolen, fags at the local market, etc.

Svenne wrote:

> The evidence points to prohibition being the main cause of social
> problems associated with drugs.

What if heroin were legalised?

> I don't see legally regulated cannabis affecting immigration, unless
> we were overrun with Rastafarian refugees.

> Actually, that wouldn't be so bad, much better than Muslims anyway.

Well, a Rasta tried to kidnap my girlfriend so I'm not particularly well 
disposed to them relative to the Muzzies.  I don't really want to be 
surrounded by either.

Saracene wrote:
> On 2 Nov, 13:10, abelard  wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:46:51 +0000, The gods have made us mad
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>>> abelard wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:12:11 -0800 (PST), Saracene 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 1 Nov, 22:27, The gods have made us mad 
>>>>>> Wrap it any way you wish - Cannabis consumption is highly dangerous.
>>>>> So you wrongly assert. More informed people disagree, and have for a
>>>>> very long time.
>>>> how about defining 'highly dangerous'
>>>>>  > I couldn't care less if psychotic Cannabis users leap from
>>>>>> bridges, or hurl themselves under buses - but I *do* care when these deranged
>>>>>> creatures roam the streets with machetes looking for a victim.
>>>> rotfl...reefer madness strikes again
>>>>>> *That's* when Cannabis becomes a societal problem, and when society has
>>>>>> the right to proscribe it.
>>>>> Alcohol is far more dangerous from that point of view than cannabis,.I
>>>>> doubt if you'd want to ban that though.
>>>> ps, while dealing with the brain donors i have restrained
>>>>     myself from putting a pov...
>>>> however, now they've retired in confusion and blithering
>>>>    i will add a bit...
>>>> i've worked with druggies....quite a lot...and i dislike cannabis more
>>>>     than any other drug i've dealt with....
>>>> imv it undermines intelligence
>>> Then is your own hypocrisy revealed (not that such a revelation was,
>>> actually, necessary)
>> you remain a mindless babbler
>>
> What was he called before he got his latest moniker?<<


I'm afraid it's no good expecting an answer from Abe-the-thinker until 
later.

Like most Philosophers, he rarely rises until the early evening, Then, 
of course, there's the time needed for another joint as he prepares to 
spend another full night giving a startled world the benefit of his 
insight ;)

He should be in full flow at, what, 8pm? - probably best to wait until 
9pm, just to be sure....

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:07:59 +0000, White Spirit
 wrote:

>Svenne wrote:
>
>> The evidence points to prohibition being the main cause of social
>> problems associated with drugs.

>What if heroin were legalised?

If herioin were legalised under a properly regulated system it would
lead to a tremendous drop in crime and massive improvements in the
health and social functionality of heroin addicts.

>> I don't see legally regulated cannabis affecting immigration, unless
>> we were overrun with Rastafarian refugees.
>
>> Actually, that wouldn't be so bad, much better than Muslims anyway.

>Well, a Rasta tried to kidnap my girlfriend so I'm not particularly well 
>disposed to them relative to the Muzzies.  I don't really want to be 
>surrounded by either.

He sounds like a nasty Rasta.

The ones I've known were very friendly and held a philosophy of peace
and brotherly love. I don't know what they were like when they weren't
stoned, though. 

If they ever were not stoned, that is.

Svenne

Svenne wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:07:59 +0000, White Spirit
>  wrote:
> 
>> Svenne wrote:
>>
>>> The evidence points to prohibition being the main cause of social
>>> problems associated with drugs.
> 
>> What if heroin were legalised?
> 
> If herioin were legalised under a properly regulated system it would
> lead to a tremendous drop in crime and massive improvements in the
> health and social functionality of heroin addicts.

True.

>>> I don't see legally regulated cannabis affecting immigration, unless
>>> we were overrun with Rastafarian refugees.
>>> Actually, that wouldn't be so bad, much better than Muslims anyway.
> 
>> Well, a Rasta tried to kidnap my girlfriend so I'm not particularly well 
>> disposed to them relative to the Muzzies.  I don't really want to be 
>> surrounded by either.
> 
> He sounds like a nasty Rasta.
> 
> The ones I've known were very friendly and held a philosophy of peace
> and brotherly love. I don't know what they were like when they weren't
> stoned, though. 
> 
> If they ever were not stoned, that is.

They can be aggressive and more than a touch defensive, especially about 
religion.

But as a general rule they're usually wacked out of reality

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:07:59 +0000, White Spirit
 wrote:

>Svenne wrote:
>
>> The evidence points to prohibition being the main cause of social
>> problems associated with drugs.
>
>What if heroin were legalised?
>
>> I don't see legally regulated cannabis affecting immigration, unless
>> we were overrun with Rastafarian refugees.
>
>> Actually, that wouldn't be so bad, much better than Muslims anyway.
>
>Well, a Rasta tried to kidnap my girlfriend 

What you really mean is a black man tried to chat up your girlfriend
and he was almost successful so now you fear all coloured people
because you know you don't measure up? LOL.


>so I'm not particularly well 
>disposed to them relative to the Muzzies.  I don't really want to be 
>surrounded by either.
>

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:49:15 +0000, William Black
 wrote:


>> He sounds like a nasty Rasta.
>> 
>> The ones I've known were very friendly and held a philosophy of peace
>> and brotherly love. I don't know what they were like when they weren't
>> stoned, though. 
>> 
>> If they ever were not stoned, that is.
>
>They can be aggressive and more than a touch defensive, especially about 
>religion.

Just as well the ones I knew were permanently stoned.

>But as a general rule they're usually wacked out of reality

With a crazy religion like they've got they're wacked out of reality
wether or not they're stoned.

Svenne

Anthropy wrote:

>> Well, a Rasta tried to kidnap my girlfriend 

> What you really mean is a black man tried to chat up your girlfriend
> and he was almost successful so now you fear all coloured people
> because you know you don't measure up? LOL.

What I mean is that he tried to grab her off the street and bundle her 
into his flat.  Fortunately, she managed to fight free of him.

Only a cunt would find that something to laugh about.  I hope you die of 
cancer.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:13:33 +0000, White Spirit
 wrote:

>Anthropy wrote:
>
>>> Well, a Rasta tried to kidnap my girlfriend 
>
>> What you really mean is a black man tried to chat up your girlfriend
>> and he was almost successful so now you fear all coloured people
>> because you know you don't measure up? LOL.
>
>What I mean is that he tried to grab her off the street and bundle her 
>into his flat.  Fortunately, she managed to fight free of him.

Well, that's what she told you anyway.  Do you really think she would
tell you the truth knowing you are a racist?  She knows how terrified
you are of black people and how you feel threatened by every coloured
person you see so of course she will lie to you about her black lover.

>
>Only a cunt would find that something to laugh about.  I hope you die of 
>cancer.

I can see why she wants another man. Have you ever considered "self
esteem" classes?

Jon° wrote:
> I cannot normally stand Johnson but in this instance I think he is
> right. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, ordered  Professor David Nutt
> out after a series of criticisms of Government policy including the
> reclassification of cannabis against the body’s advice.
> 
> Scientists and all the other paraphernalia of professionals in
> science, medical studies and the law have not been elected by the
> people.
> 
> The judges nowadays seem to want to rule the country by using the
> Human Rights Act as a weapon. Now the scientists are telling the
> government that only they are qualified to make decisions on what
> drugs the public should have easy access to.
> 
> What next, will beauticians be telling the government that everybody
> should be able to obtain free face lifts on the NHS.
> 
> It is ridiculous, in a democracy we vote in a government to rule……Not
> to have their decisions set aside by any that think they know better.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6480843/Two-members-of-drugs-panel-quit.html
> 
> 

In a democracy the people get to vote on what drugs they want

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show