Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
Sla#s wrote:
> Sharky wrote:
>> Clough wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering with
>>>> peoples health might make sense but an equal number would argue
>>>> that it is more harmful than beneficial.
>>> I don't think an equal number of people in society are a daft as you.
>>>
>>> At least I hope not.
>>>
>>> Clough
>> If Daft means people who believe being part of decent society is to
>> follow the law, rather than trying to pick and choose elements that
>> suit themselves then I hope there are plenty more around.
>
> Are you seriously trying to say "The Law" right or wrong?
>
> Would you 50 years ago have turned in your friends because they were jewish
> or communist?
> Would you 300 years ago have turned in your friend because he was of the
> "wong" religion?
> I could go on - There are many other examples.
>
>
> Slatts
>
>
Save the Children, won't someone save the children!
Jesus, was that above a sensible arguement?
We, in theory at least, live in a democracy.
This means that we get some choice to elect leaders in the form of MP's
who create Law on our behalf - and we can get them to change it if we
change our minds, and we can change the MP's if they don't.
We have right now, exactly what we want. You voted - you got exactly
what you asked for.
(clearly it is far from perfect, but have any better suggestions?)
Thats the way democracy works, like it or not.
And our current democracy says that it is illegal to provide Cannabis to
others - don't like it - change your MP.
Sidestepping the democratic process is the way to bring on the cut of
your arguement - "fuck the majority, we know best, we're doing it our way".
Sla#s wrote:
> Sharky wrote:
>> Clough wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering with
>>>> peoples health might make sense but an equal number would argue
>>>> that it is more harmful than beneficial.
>>> I don't think an equal number of people in society are a daft as you.
>>>
>>> At least I hope not.
>>>
>>> Clough
>> If Daft means people who believe being part of decent society is to
>> follow the law, rather than trying to pick and choose elements that
>> suit themselves then I hope there are plenty more around.
>
> Are you seriously trying to say "The Law" right or wrong?
>
> Would you 50 years ago have turned in your friends because they were jewish
> or communist?
> Would you 300 years ago have turned in your friend because he was of the
> "wong" religion?
> I could go on - There are many other examples.
>
>
> Slatts
>
>
Save the Children, won't someone save the children!
Jesus, was that above a sensible arguement?
We, in theory at least, live in a democracy.
This means that we get some choice to elect leaders in the form of MP's
who create Law on our behalf - and we can get them to change it if we
change our minds, and we can change the MP's if they don't.
We have right now, exactly what we want. You voted - you got exactly
what you asked for.
(clearly it is far from perfect, but have any better suggestions?)
Thats the way democracy works, like it or not.
And our current democracy says that it is illegal to provide Cannabis to
others - don't like it - change your MP.
Sidestepping the democratic process is the way to bring on the cut of
your arguement - "fuck the majority, we know best, we're doing it our way".
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
Sharky wrote:
> Sla#s wrote:
>> Sharky wrote:
>>> Clough wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering
>>>>> with peoples health might make sense but an equal number would
>>>>> argue that it is more harmful than beneficial.
>>>> I don't think an equal number of people in society are a daft as
>>>> you. At least I hope not.
>>>>
>>>> Clough
>>> If Daft means people who believe being part of decent society is to
>>> follow the law, rather than trying to pick and choose elements that
>>> suit themselves then I hope there are plenty more around.
>>
>> Are you seriously trying to say "The Law" right or wrong?
>>
>> Would you 50 years ago have turned in your friends because they were
>> jewish or communist?
>> Would you 300 years ago have turned in your friend because he was of
>> the "wong" religion?
>> I could go on - There are many other examples.
>>
>>
>> Slatts
>>
>>
> Save the Children, won't someone save the children!
>
> Jesus, was that above a sensible arguement?
>
> We, in theory at least, live in a democracy.
> This means that we get some choice to elect leaders in the form of
> MP's who create Law on our behalf - and we can get them to change it
> if we change our minds, and we can change the MP's if they don't.
> We have right now, exactly what we want. You voted - you got exactly
> what you asked for.
> (clearly it is far from perfect, but have any better suggestions?)
>
> Thats the way democracy works, like it or not.
> And our current democracy says that it is illegal to provide Cannabis
> to others - don't like it - change your MP.
>
> Sidestepping the democratic process is the way to bring on the cut of
> your arguement - "fuck the majority, we know best, we're doing it our
> way".
OK so now we know - With you it it "the Law" that matters whether it is
right or wrong
and ethics have nothing to do with it.
In your opinion The LAW can NEVER be wrong.
Slatts
Sharky wrote:
> Sla#s wrote:
>> Sharky wrote:
>>> Clough wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering
>>>>> with peoples health might make sense but an equal number would
>>>>> argue that it is more harmful than beneficial.
>>>> I don't think an equal number of people in society are a daft as
>>>> you. At least I hope not.
>>>>
>>>> Clough
>>> If Daft means people who believe being part of decent society is to
>>> follow the law, rather than trying to pick and choose elements that
>>> suit themselves then I hope there are plenty more around.
>>
>> Are you seriously trying to say "The Law" right or wrong?
>>
>> Would you 50 years ago have turned in your friends because they were
>> jewish or communist?
>> Would you 300 years ago have turned in your friend because he was of
>> the "wong" religion?
>> I could go on - There are many other examples.
>>
>>
>> Slatts
>>
>>
> Save the Children, won't someone save the children!
>
> Jesus, was that above a sensible arguement?
>
> We, in theory at least, live in a democracy.
> This means that we get some choice to elect leaders in the form of
> MP's who create Law on our behalf - and we can get them to change it
> if we change our minds, and we can change the MP's if they don't.
> We have right now, exactly what we want. You voted - you got exactly
> what you asked for.
> (clearly it is far from perfect, but have any better suggestions?)
>
> Thats the way democracy works, like it or not.
> And our current democracy says that it is illegal to provide Cannabis
> to others - don't like it - change your MP.
>
> Sidestepping the democratic process is the way to bring on the cut of
> your arguement - "fuck the majority, we know best, we're doing it our
> way".
OK so now we know - With you it it "the Law" that matters whether it is
right or wrong
and ethics have nothing to do with it.
In your opinion The LAW can NEVER be wrong.
Slatts
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
Sla#s wrote:
> Sharky wrote:
>> Sla#s wrote:
>>> Sharky wrote:
>>>> Clough wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering
>>>>>> with peoples health might make sense but an equal number would
>>>>>> argue that it is more harmful than beneficial.
>>>>> I don't think an equal number of people in society are a daft as
>>>>> you. At least I hope not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clough
>>>> If Daft means people who believe being part of decent society is to
>>>> follow the law, rather than trying to pick and choose elements that
>>>> suit themselves then I hope there are plenty more around.
>>> Are you seriously trying to say "The Law" right or wrong?
>>>
>>> Would you 50 years ago have turned in your friends because they were
>>> jewish or communist?
>>> Would you 300 years ago have turned in your friend because he was of
>>> the "wong" religion?
>>> I could go on - There are many other examples.
>>>
>>>
>>> Slatts
>>>
>>>
>> Save the Children, won't someone save the children!
>>
>> Jesus, was that above a sensible arguement?
>>
>> We, in theory at least, live in a democracy.
>> This means that we get some choice to elect leaders in the form of
>> MP's who create Law on our behalf - and we can get them to change it
>> if we change our minds, and we can change the MP's if they don't.
>> We have right now, exactly what we want. You voted - you got exactly
>> what you asked for.
>> (clearly it is far from perfect, but have any better suggestions?)
>>
>> Thats the way democracy works, like it or not.
>> And our current democracy says that it is illegal to provide Cannabis
>> to others - don't like it - change your MP.
>>
>> Sidestepping the democratic process is the way to bring on the cut of
>> your arguement - "fuck the majority, we know best, we're doing it our
>> way".
>
> OK so now we know - With you it it "the Law" that matters whether it is
> right or wrong
> and ethics have nothing to do with it.
> In your opinion The LAW can NEVER be wrong.
>
> Slatts
>
>
Who decides right and wrong? the people do by their votes.
Who decides what is ethical - the people do by their votes.
Who decides if a law is right - see above
Something is only right and ethical if over 51% of the population say so!
Like it or lump it, thats the way it works.
I haven't voted for a government winning party in over 25 year, yet I'm
expected to live with the consequences of the shower of shit that have
run the country.
Why can't you drug whingers do so as well, bet most of you vote Labour?
If so, you have exactly what you wanted!
Sla#s wrote:
> Sharky wrote:
>> Sla#s wrote:
>>> Sharky wrote:
>>>> Clough wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering
>>>>>> with peoples health might make sense but an equal number would
>>>>>> argue that it is more harmful than beneficial.
>>>>> I don't think an equal number of people in society are a daft as
>>>>> you. At least I hope not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clough
>>>> If Daft means people who believe being part of decent society is to
>>>> follow the law, rather than trying to pick and choose elements that
>>>> suit themselves then I hope there are plenty more around.
>>> Are you seriously trying to say "The Law" right or wrong?
>>>
>>> Would you 50 years ago have turned in your friends because they were
>>> jewish or communist?
>>> Would you 300 years ago have turned in your friend because he was of
>>> the "wong" religion?
>>> I could go on - There are many other examples.
>>>
>>>
>>> Slatts
>>>
>>>
>> Save the Children, won't someone save the children!
>>
>> Jesus, was that above a sensible arguement?
>>
>> We, in theory at least, live in a democracy.
>> This means that we get some choice to elect leaders in the form of
>> MP's who create Law on our behalf - and we can get them to change it
>> if we change our minds, and we can change the MP's if they don't.
>> We have right now, exactly what we want. You voted - you got exactly
>> what you asked for.
>> (clearly it is far from perfect, but have any better suggestions?)
>>
>> Thats the way democracy works, like it or not.
>> And our current democracy says that it is illegal to provide Cannabis
>> to others - don't like it - change your MP.
>>
>> Sidestepping the democratic process is the way to bring on the cut of
>> your arguement - "fuck the majority, we know best, we're doing it our
>> way".
>
> OK so now we know - With you it it "the Law" that matters whether it is
> right or wrong
> and ethics have nothing to do with it.
> In your opinion The LAW can NEVER be wrong.
>
> Slatts
>
>
Who decides right and wrong? the people do by their votes.
Who decides what is ethical - the people do by their votes.
Who decides if a law is right - see above
Something is only right and ethical if over 51% of the population say so!
Like it or lump it, thats the way it works.
I haven't voted for a government winning party in over 25 year, yet I'm
expected to live with the consequences of the shower of shit that have
run the country.
Why can't you drug whingers do so as well, bet most of you vote Labour?
If so, you have exactly what you wanted!
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
Sharky wrote:
> Sla#s wrote:
> > Sharky wrote:
> >> Sla#s wrote:
> >>> Sharky wrote:
> >>>> Clough wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering
> >>>>>> with peoples health might make sense but an equal number would
> >>>>>> argue that it is more harmful than beneficial.
> >>>>> I don't think an equal number of people in society are a daft as
> >>>>> you. At least I hope not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Clough
> >>>> If Daft means people who believe being part of decent society is to
> >>>> follow the law, rather than trying to pick and choose elements that
> >>>> suit themselves then I hope there are plenty more around.
> >>> Are you seriously trying to say "The Law" right or wrong?
> >>>
> >>> Would you 50 years ago have turned in your friends because they were
> >>> jewish or communist?
> >>> Would you 300 years ago have turned in your friend because he was of
> >>> the "wong" religion?
> >>> I could go on - There are many other examples.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Slatts
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Save the Children, won't someone save the children!
> >>
> >> Jesus, was that above a sensible arguement?
> >>
> >> We, in theory at least, live in a democracy.
> >> This means that we get some choice to elect leaders in the form of
> >> MP's who create Law on our behalf - and we can get them to change it
> >> if we change our minds, and we can change the MP's if they don't.
> >> We have right now, exactly what we want. You voted - you got exactly
> >> what you asked for.
> >> (clearly it is far from perfect, but have any better suggestions?)
> >>
> >> Thats the way democracy works, like it or not.
> >> And our current democracy says that it is illegal to provide Cannabis
> >> to others - don't like it - change your MP.
> >>
> >> Sidestepping the democratic process is the way to bring on the cut of
> >> your arguement - "fuck the majority, we know best, we're doing it our
> >> way".
> >
> > OK so now we know - With you it it "the Law" that matters whether it is
> > right or wrong
> > and ethics have nothing to do with it.
> > In your opinion The LAW can NEVER be wrong.
> >
> > Slatts
> >
> >
> Who decides right and wrong? the people do by their votes.
> Who decides what is ethical - the people do by their votes.
> Who decides if a law is right - see above
>
> Something is only right and ethical if over 51% of the population say so!
> Like it or lump it, thats the way it works.
It might work that way, but that doesn't mean such a democratic society
can be considered
to be a decent society.
Any society that unjustly criminalizes minorities isn't decent,
regardless of whether it's
democratic or totalitarian. In fact, I'd call it a totalitarian
democracy if there are no basic
human rights being guaranteed to protect minorities from the arbitrary
whims of the majority.
>
> I haven't voted for a government winning party in over 25 year, yet I'm
> expected to live with the consequences of the shower of shit that have
> run the country.
> Why can't you drug whingers do so as well, bet most of you vote Labour?
> If so, you have exactly what you wanted!
Sharky wrote:
> Sla#s wrote:
> > Sharky wrote:
> >> Sla#s wrote:
> >>> Sharky wrote:
> >>>> Clough wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering
> >>>>>> with peoples health might make sense but an equal number would
> >>>>>> argue that it is more harmful than beneficial.
> >>>>> I don't think an equal number of people in society are a daft as
> >>>>> you. At least I hope not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Clough
> >>>> If Daft means people who believe being part of decent society is to
> >>>> follow the law, rather than trying to pick and choose elements that
> >>>> suit themselves then I hope there are plenty more around.
> >>> Are you seriously trying to say "The Law" right or wrong?
> >>>
> >>> Would you 50 years ago have turned in your friends because they were
> >>> jewish or communist?
> >>> Would you 300 years ago have turned in your friend because he was of
> >>> the "wong" religion?
> >>> I could go on - There are many other examples.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Slatts
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Save the Children, won't someone save the children!
> >>
> >> Jesus, was that above a sensible arguement?
> >>
> >> We, in theory at least, live in a democracy.
> >> This means that we get some choice to elect leaders in the form of
> >> MP's who create Law on our behalf - and we can get them to change it
> >> if we change our minds, and we can change the MP's if they don't.
> >> We have right now, exactly what we want. You voted - you got exactly
> >> what you asked for.
> >> (clearly it is far from perfect, but have any better suggestions?)
> >>
> >> Thats the way democracy works, like it or not.
> >> And our current democracy says that it is illegal to provide Cannabis
> >> to others - don't like it - change your MP.
> >>
> >> Sidestepping the democratic process is the way to bring on the cut of
> >> your arguement - "fuck the majority, we know best, we're doing it our
> >> way".
> >
> > OK so now we know - With you it it "the Law" that matters whether it is
> > right or wrong
> > and ethics have nothing to do with it.
> > In your opinion The LAW can NEVER be wrong.
> >
> > Slatts
> >
> >
> Who decides right and wrong? the people do by their votes.
> Who decides what is ethical - the people do by their votes.
> Who decides if a law is right - see above
>
> Something is only right and ethical if over 51% of the population say so!
> Like it or lump it, thats the way it works.
It might work that way, but that doesn't mean such a democratic society
can be considered
to be a decent society.
Any society that unjustly criminalizes minorities isn't decent,
regardless of whether it's
democratic or totalitarian. In fact, I'd call it a totalitarian
democracy if there are no basic
human rights being guaranteed to protect minorities from the arbitrary
whims of the majority.
>
> I haven't voted for a government winning party in over 25 year, yet I'm
> expected to live with the consequences of the shower of shit that have
> run the country.
> Why can't you drug whingers do so as well, bet most of you vote Labour?
> If so, you have exactly what you wanted!
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
Sharky wrote:
<SNIP>
> Who decides right and wrong? the people do by their votes.
> Who decides what is ethical - the people do by their votes.
> Who decides if a law is right - see above
> Something is only right and ethical if over 51% of the population say
> so! Like it or lump it, thats the way it works.
>
One cannot 'vote' for something to be ethical.
Slavery or drinking for example, the ethics of neither is changed by a
vote.
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
Slatts
Sharky wrote:
<SNIP>
> Who decides right and wrong? the people do by their votes.
> Who decides what is ethical - the people do by their votes.
> Who decides if a law is right - see above
> Something is only right and ethical if over 51% of the population say
> so! Like it or lump it, thats the way it works.
>
One cannot 'vote' for something to be ethical.
Slavery or drinking for example, the ethics of neither is changed by a
vote.
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
Slatts
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
Sharky wrote:
> Sla#s wrote:
> > Sharky wrote:
> >> Sla#s wrote:
> >>> Sharky wrote:
> >>>> Clough wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering
> >>>>>> with peoples health might make sense but an equal number would
> >>>>>> argue that it is more harmful than beneficial.
> >>>>> I don't think an equal number of people in society are a daft as
> >>>>> you. At least I hope not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Clough
> >>>> If Daft means people who believe being part of decent society is to
> >>>> follow the law, rather than trying to pick and choose elements that
> >>>> suit themselves then I hope there are plenty more around.
> >>> Are you seriously trying to say "The Law" right or wrong?
> >>>
> >>> Would you 50 years ago have turned in your friends because they were
> >>> jewish or communist?
> >>> Would you 300 years ago have turned in your friend because he was of
> >>> the "wong" religion?
> >>> I could go on - There are many other examples.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Slatts
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Save the Children, won't someone save the children!
> >>
> >> Jesus, was that above a sensible arguement?
> >>
> >> We, in theory at least, live in a democracy.
> >> This means that we get some choice to elect leaders in the form of
> >> MP's who create Law on our behalf - and we can get them to change it
> >> if we change our minds, and we can change the MP's if they don't.
> >> We have right now, exactly what we want. You voted - you got exactly
> >> what you asked for.
> >> (clearly it is far from perfect, but have any better suggestions?)
> >>
> >> Thats the way democracy works, like it or not.
> >> And our current democracy says that it is illegal to provide Cannabis
> >> to others - don't like it - change your MP.
> >>
> >> Sidestepping the democratic process is the way to bring on the cut of
> >> your arguement - "fuck the majority, we know best, we're doing it our
> >> way".
> >
> > OK so now we know - With you it it "the Law" that matters whether it is
> > right or wrong
> > and ethics have nothing to do with it.
> > In your opinion The LAW can NEVER be wrong.
> >
> > Slatts
> >
> >
> Who decides right and wrong? the people do by their votes.
> Who decides what is ethical - the people do by their votes.
> Who decides if a law is right - see above
>
> Something is only right and ethical if over 51% of the population say so!
> Like it or lump it, thats the way it works.
so what you are saying is that the holocause was right and ethical? the
nazi party did afterall have the overwhelming support of the german
people.
Sharky wrote:
> Sla#s wrote:
> > Sharky wrote:
> >> Sla#s wrote:
> >>> Sharky wrote:
> >>>> Clough wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering
> >>>>>> with peoples health might make sense but an equal number would
> >>>>>> argue that it is more harmful than beneficial.
> >>>>> I don't think an equal number of people in society are a daft as
> >>>>> you. At least I hope not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Clough
> >>>> If Daft means people who believe being part of decent society is to
> >>>> follow the law, rather than trying to pick and choose elements that
> >>>> suit themselves then I hope there are plenty more around.
> >>> Are you seriously trying to say "The Law" right or wrong?
> >>>
> >>> Would you 50 years ago have turned in your friends because they were
> >>> jewish or communist?
> >>> Would you 300 years ago have turned in your friend because he was of
> >>> the "wong" religion?
> >>> I could go on - There are many other examples.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Slatts
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Save the Children, won't someone save the children!
> >>
> >> Jesus, was that above a sensible arguement?
> >>
> >> We, in theory at least, live in a democracy.
> >> This means that we get some choice to elect leaders in the form of
> >> MP's who create Law on our behalf - and we can get them to change it
> >> if we change our minds, and we can change the MP's if they don't.
> >> We have right now, exactly what we want. You voted - you got exactly
> >> what you asked for.
> >> (clearly it is far from perfect, but have any better suggestions?)
> >>
> >> Thats the way democracy works, like it or not.
> >> And our current democracy says that it is illegal to provide Cannabis
> >> to others - don't like it - change your MP.
> >>
> >> Sidestepping the democratic process is the way to bring on the cut of
> >> your arguement - "fuck the majority, we know best, we're doing it our
> >> way".
> >
> > OK so now we know - With you it it "the Law" that matters whether it is
> > right or wrong
> > and ethics have nothing to do with it.
> > In your opinion The LAW can NEVER be wrong.
> >
> > Slatts
> >
> >
> Who decides right and wrong? the people do by their votes.
> Who decides what is ethical - the people do by their votes.
> Who decides if a law is right - see above
>
> Something is only right and ethical if over 51% of the population say so!
> Like it or lump it, thats the way it works.
so what you are saying is that the holocause was right and ethical? the
nazi party did afterall have the overwhelming support of the german
people.
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
Sharky wrote:
> Sla#s wrote:
> > Sharky wrote:
> >> Clough wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering with
> >>>> peoples health might make sense but an equal number would argue
> >>>> that it is more harmful than beneficial.
> >>> I don't think an equal number of people in society are a daft as you.
> >>>
> >>> At least I hope not.
> >>>
> >>> Clough
> >> If Daft means people who believe being part of decent society is to
> >> follow the law, rather than trying to pick and choose elements that
> >> suit themselves then I hope there are plenty more around.
> >
> > Are you seriously trying to say "The Law" right or wrong?
> >
> > Would you 50 years ago have turned in your friends because they were jewish
> > or communist?
> > Would you 300 years ago have turned in your friend because he was of the
> > "wong" religion?
> > I could go on - There are many other examples.
> >
> >
> > Slatts
> >
> >
> Save the Children, won't someone save the children!
>
> Jesus, was that above a sensible arguement?
>
> We, in theory at least, live in a democracy.
Hitler's rise to power had a democratic basis.
> This means that we get some choice to elect leaders in the form of MP's
> who create Law on our behalf - and we can get them to change it if we
> change our minds, and we can change the MP's if they don't.
> We have right now, exactly what we want. You voted - you got exactly
> what you asked for.
> (clearly it is far from perfect, but have any better suggestions?)
I'd like to see technology like the internet being used to allow
everyone to influence the
way the country is governed in a more direct way. Provided the same IT
technology is
used to emancipate people, empowering them to exercize this power in a
responsible fashion.
>
> Thats the way democracy works, like it or not.
> And our current democracy says that it is illegal to provide Cannabis to
> others - don't like it - change your MP.
>
> Sidestepping the democratic process is the way to bring on the cut of
> your arguement - "fuck the majority, we know best, we're doing it our way".
The very fact that there are unjust laws against cannabis is evidence
that we live
in a pseudo-democracy at best. If you look into the history of the laws
against cannabis you
will find there aren't any democratic principles being involved in it's
origination.
Besides, what's the worth of a democracy if it doesn't acknowledge
basic human rights?
Like suppose the majority democratically decides to eliminate certain
unwanted minorities (jews, homosexuals, druggies, etc..), does that
still mean it's a decent society just because
it was democratically decided to eradicate those undesirable elements
from society?
Sharky wrote:
> Sla#s wrote:
> > Sharky wrote:
> >> Clough wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering with
> >>>> peoples health might make sense but an equal number would argue
> >>>> that it is more harmful than beneficial.
> >>> I don't think an equal number of people in society are a daft as you.
> >>>
> >>> At least I hope not.
> >>>
> >>> Clough
> >> If Daft means people who believe being part of decent society is to
> >> follow the law, rather than trying to pick and choose elements that
> >> suit themselves then I hope there are plenty more around.
> >
> > Are you seriously trying to say "The Law" right or wrong?
> >
> > Would you 50 years ago have turned in your friends because they were jewish
> > or communist?
> > Would you 300 years ago have turned in your friend because he was of the
> > "wong" religion?
> > I could go on - There are many other examples.
> >
> >
> > Slatts
> >
> >
> Save the Children, won't someone save the children!
>
> Jesus, was that above a sensible arguement?
>
> We, in theory at least, live in a democracy.
Hitler's rise to power had a democratic basis.
> This means that we get some choice to elect leaders in the form of MP's
> who create Law on our behalf - and we can get them to change it if we
> change our minds, and we can change the MP's if they don't.
> We have right now, exactly what we want. You voted - you got exactly
> what you asked for.
> (clearly it is far from perfect, but have any better suggestions?)
I'd like to see technology like the internet being used to allow
everyone to influence the
way the country is governed in a more direct way. Provided the same IT
technology is
used to emancipate people, empowering them to exercize this power in a
responsible fashion.
>
> Thats the way democracy works, like it or not.
> And our current democracy says that it is illegal to provide Cannabis to
> others - don't like it - change your MP.
>
> Sidestepping the democratic process is the way to bring on the cut of
> your arguement - "fuck the majority, we know best, we're doing it our way".
The very fact that there are unjust laws against cannabis is evidence
that we live
in a pseudo-democracy at best. If you look into the history of the laws
against cannabis you
will find there aren't any democratic principles being involved in it's
origination.
Besides, what's the worth of a democracy if it doesn't acknowledge
basic human rights?
Like suppose the majority democratically decides to eliminate certain
unwanted minorities (jews, homosexuals, druggies, etc..), does that
still mean it's a decent society just because
it was democratically decided to eradicate those undesirable elements
from society?
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
Sharky wrote:
> Clough wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering with
> >> peoples health might make sense but an equal number would argue that it
> >> is more harmful than beneficial.
> >
> > I don't think an equal number of people in society are a daft as you.
> >
> > At least I hope not.
> >
> > Clough
>
> If Daft means people who believe being part of decent society is to
> follow the law,
Following the law can be very objectionable in case of unjust laws.
Or would you say people who abided the law in former Nazi Germany by
reporting
the Jewish people hiding at the neighbours were being decent and
respectable citizens?
Mere laws and people abiding those laws is no guarantee whatsoever for
a decent society,
unless those laws are fully justified and in accordance with basic
human rights (like the right
of individual people to govern their own body and mind).
> rather than trying to pick and choose elements that suit
> themselves then I hope there are plenty more around.
People can figure out that the legislative bias in favor of drugs like
alcohol and tobacco
and against drugs like cannabis are totally unjust and they are fully
justified to disrespect that
law because there is no rational basis for it whatsover.
Please explain me the rationale behind a law that prohibits adults,
supposedly to protect them against themselves, from preferring a
non-lethal alternative like cannabis in case those same adults are
legally allowed to drink themselves to death on alcohol?!
Sharky wrote:
> Clough wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering with
> >> peoples health might make sense but an equal number would argue that it
> >> is more harmful than beneficial.
> >
> > I don't think an equal number of people in society are a daft as you.
> >
> > At least I hope not.
> >
> > Clough
>
> If Daft means people who believe being part of decent society is to
> follow the law,
Following the law can be very objectionable in case of unjust laws.
Or would you say people who abided the law in former Nazi Germany by
reporting
the Jewish people hiding at the neighbours were being decent and
respectable citizens?
Mere laws and people abiding those laws is no guarantee whatsoever for
a decent society,
unless those laws are fully justified and in accordance with basic
human rights (like the right
of individual people to govern their own body and mind).
> rather than trying to pick and choose elements that suit
> themselves then I hope there are plenty more around.
People can figure out that the legislative bias in favor of drugs like
alcohol and tobacco
and against drugs like cannabis are totally unjust and they are fully
justified to disrespect that
law because there is no rational basis for it whatsover.
Please explain me the rationale behind a law that prohibits adults,
supposedly to protect them against themselves, from preferring a
non-lethal alternative like cannabis in case those same adults are
legally allowed to drink themselves to death on alcohol?!
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:24:57 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>>
>>> Clough wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>>>>> Why should it be?
>>>> The motivation and character of defendents is a mitigating factor. It
>>>> does have an influence on sentencing.
>>>>
>>>>> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>>>>> a loss. Will this help their case?
>>>> No, I would say it will not help their case. Quite possibly the
>>>> opposite, although I'm pretty sure you are completely baffled as to
>>>> why this should be.
>>>>
>>>> Clough
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Why baffled? - I was pointing out how hypocritical it would be to treat
>>> one bunch of drug dealers more leniently than another.
>>
>> The fact you think that is hypocritical shows that you are baffled.
>>
>> It shows that you really do not understand the principles involved.
>
>No, it show you don't understand my point.
>I don't think they should receive any mitigation - in fact their stance
>(of thinking themselves above the law) should increase their sentence.
You point is (quite correctly IMO) not agreed with by the law.
The fact they were doing it for what they saw as "good" reasons, and
were not attempting to make a profit will be (and should be) major
mitigating factors.
>Were Robin Hood's actions admirable or despicable (robbing the rich to
>give to the poor)?
> From a mitigation point of view your opinion would clearly depend which
>camp you fell into - robbed or aided.
Irrelevant, bad example.
The actions of these people hurt nobody. The actions of Robin Hood
harmed those he robbed.
But even so, in modern courts, if he could show that he genuinely did
only "rob the rich to pay the poor", and took no profits for himself,
that would probably count as a mitigating factor.
>
>Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering with
>peoples health might make sense but an equal number would argue that it
> is more harmful than beneficial.
I doubt very much if anything like an "equal number" would think that.
I know this group is nowhere near representative of the general
public, but I think you will find that these people have a lot of
sympathy from among the general public.
>GM crops have undoubted benefits , but also a huge set of risks.
>Would you support me or shoot me if I decided to run a clandestine
>kibbutz in Wales growing GM crops to feed the poor of Cardiff?
>
Probably neither. I would expect similar treatment to what these
people are getting. Which is neither support nor shooting.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Does killing time damage eternity?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:24:57 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>>
>>> Clough wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>>>>> Why should it be?
>>>> The motivation and character of defendents is a mitigating factor. It
>>>> does have an influence on sentencing.
>>>>
>>>>> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>>>>> a loss. Will this help their case?
>>>> No, I would say it will not help their case. Quite possibly the
>>>> opposite, although I'm pretty sure you are completely baffled as to
>>>> why this should be.
>>>>
>>>> Clough
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Why baffled? - I was pointing out how hypocritical it would be to treat
>>> one bunch of drug dealers more leniently than another.
>>
>> The fact you think that is hypocritical shows that you are baffled.
>>
>> It shows that you really do not understand the principles involved.
>
>No, it show you don't understand my point.
>I don't think they should receive any mitigation - in fact their stance
>(of thinking themselves above the law) should increase their sentence.
You point is (quite correctly IMO) not agreed with by the law.
The fact they were doing it for what they saw as "good" reasons, and
were not attempting to make a profit will be (and should be) major
mitigating factors.
>Were Robin Hood's actions admirable or despicable (robbing the rich to
>give to the poor)?
> From a mitigation point of view your opinion would clearly depend which
>camp you fell into - robbed or aided.
Irrelevant, bad example.
The actions of these people hurt nobody. The actions of Robin Hood
harmed those he robbed.
But even so, in modern courts, if he could show that he genuinely did
only "rob the rich to pay the poor", and took no profits for himself,
that would probably count as a mitigating factor.
>
>Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering with
>peoples health might make sense but an equal number would argue that it
> is more harmful than beneficial.
I doubt very much if anything like an "equal number" would think that.
I know this group is nowhere near representative of the general
public, but I think you will find that these people have a lot of
sympathy from among the general public.
>GM crops have undoubted benefits , but also a huge set of risks.
>Would you support me or shoot me if I decided to run a clandestine
>kibbutz in Wales growing GM crops to feed the poor of Cardiff?
>
Probably neither. I would expect similar treatment to what these
people are getting. Which is neither support nor shooting.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Does killing time damage eternity?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
Alex Heney wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
<SNIP>>>
>> No, it show you don't understand my point.
>> I don't think they should receive any mitigation - in fact their
>> stance (of thinking themselves above the law) should increase their
>> sentence.
>
> You point is (quite correctly IMO) not agreed with by the law.
>
> The fact they were doing it for what they saw as "good" reasons, and
> were not attempting to make a profit will be (and should be) major
> mitigating factors.
You are quite correct. In British law "intent" is very important.
Or should I say "use to be", as I fear we are heading in the direction of
the USA where "The Law" has become more important than the people it is
meant to protect!
Slatts
Alex Heney wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
<SNIP>>>
>> No, it show you don't understand my point.
>> I don't think they should receive any mitigation - in fact their
>> stance (of thinking themselves above the law) should increase their
>> sentence.
>
> You point is (quite correctly IMO) not agreed with by the law.
>
> The fact they were doing it for what they saw as "good" reasons, and
> were not attempting to make a profit will be (and should be) major
> mitigating factors.
You are quite correct. In British law "intent" is very important.
Or should I say "use to be", as I fear we are heading in the direction of
the USA where "The Law" has become more important than the people it is
meant to protect!
Slatts
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
"Marvin" <kilauea3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qNadnVhePOUbrBjYnZ2dnUVZ8sHinZ2d@bt,com ...
> Phil Stovell wrote:
>> < http :// icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaysun/news/tm_headline=choc-bar-drugs-pair-will-appeal&method=full&objectid=18277069&siteid=50081-name_page.html>
>>
>> Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
>>
>> Dec 17 2006
>>
>> By Robert Weatherall, The Sunday Sun
>>
>> A disabled woman found guilty of supplying drugs to fellow multiple
>> sclerosis sufferers said she will appeal against her conviction.
>>
>> Lezley Gibson has not given up her fight to legally supply thousands of
>> MS
>> sufferers with the class-C drug, which she and other campaigners claim is
>> the only effective treatment to alleviate the debilitating condition.
>>
>> Lezley, 42, of Alston, Cumbria, also says that, following her conviction
>> last week, she has been left to celebrate Christmas with the fear that
>> she
>> and her husband Mark - who was also found guilty - will be sent to prison
>> next year.
>>
>> She said: "I am still in shock that we were found guilty.
>>
>> "I thought there would have been at least some of the jury who could see
>> past the black and white regulations of the law and see we were only
>> supplying to people in genuine medical need."
>>
>> Lezley, Mark, also 42, and Marcus Davies, 36, from St Ives in
>> Cambridgeshire, were convicted of two counts each of conspiring to supply
>> cannabis at Carlisle Crown Court on Friday.
>>
>> The trio had distributed by post more than 20,000 chocolate bars, each
>> containing around 3.5g of the drug, to people in the UK.
>>
>> Lezley, who was diag- nosed with the condition at 21, said: "Sentencing
>> has been adjourned until next year.
>>
>> "The judge said we were in no immediate danger of going to jail, but I'm
>> not sure what that means.
>>
>> "If he had ruled it out completely then he should have said so."
>>
>> Lezley also argues that the judgment will effectively fuel street drug
>> dealing.
>>
>> She claims that the thousands of MS sufferers across the UK who she used
>> to supply will now be forced to source the class-C drug from street
>> dealers.
>>
>> She explained: "I used to have to seek drug dealers out in pubs.
>>
>> "There were times I would be given cannabis that I wouldn't use to polish
>> my shoes.
>>
>> "There were other times I handed over money and the dealer just
>> disappeared.
>>
>> "This ruling is a step backwards for MS treatment in this country.
>>
>> "Conventional drugs don't work for a lot of people and I can't think of
>> any other condition where sufferers are denied medicine.
>>
>> "You wouldn't deny an asthmatic an inhaler."
>>
>> And she added: "I will be appealing and my barrister has already started
>> to work on that."
>>
>
> Was she profiting from this little venture?
Like it's any of your business.
"Marvin" <kilauea3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qNadnVhePOUbrBjYnZ2dnUVZ8sHinZ2d@bt,com ...
> Phil Stovell wrote:
>> < http :// icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaysun/news/tm_headline=choc-bar-drugs-pair-will-appeal&method=full&objectid=18277069&siteid=50081-name_page.html>
>>
>> Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
>>
>> Dec 17 2006
>>
>> By Robert Weatherall, The Sunday Sun
>>
>> A disabled woman found guilty of supplying drugs to fellow multiple
>> sclerosis sufferers said she will appeal against her conviction.
>>
>> Lezley Gibson has not given up her fight to legally supply thousands of
>> MS
>> sufferers with the class-C drug, which she and other campaigners claim is
>> the only effective treatment to alleviate the debilitating condition.
>>
>> Lezley, 42, of Alston, Cumbria, also says that, following her conviction
>> last week, she has been left to celebrate Christmas with the fear that
>> she
>> and her husband Mark - who was also found guilty - will be sent to prison
>> next year.
>>
>> She said: "I am still in shock that we were found guilty.
>>
>> "I thought there would have been at least some of the jury who could see
>> past the black and white regulations of the law and see we were only
>> supplying to people in genuine medical need."
>>
>> Lezley, Mark, also 42, and Marcus Davies, 36, from St Ives in
>> Cambridgeshire, were convicted of two counts each of conspiring to supply
>> cannabis at Carlisle Crown Court on Friday.
>>
>> The trio had distributed by post more than 20,000 chocolate bars, each
>> containing around 3.5g of the drug, to people in the UK.
>>
>> Lezley, who was diag- nosed with the condition at 21, said: "Sentencing
>> has been adjourned until next year.
>>
>> "The judge said we were in no immediate danger of going to jail, but I'm
>> not sure what that means.
>>
>> "If he had ruled it out completely then he should have said so."
>>
>> Lezley also argues that the judgment will effectively fuel street drug
>> dealing.
>>
>> She claims that the thousands of MS sufferers across the UK who she used
>> to supply will now be forced to source the class-C drug from street
>> dealers.
>>
>> She explained: "I used to have to seek drug dealers out in pubs.
>>
>> "There were times I would be given cannabis that I wouldn't use to polish
>> my shoes.
>>
>> "There were other times I handed over money and the dealer just
>> disappeared.
>>
>> "This ruling is a step backwards for MS treatment in this country.
>>
>> "Conventional drugs don't work for a lot of people and I can't think of
>> any other condition where sufferers are denied medicine.
>>
>> "You wouldn't deny an asthmatic an inhaler."
>>
>> And she added: "I will be appealing and my barrister has already started
>> to work on that."
>>
>
> Was she profiting from this little venture?
Like it's any of your business.
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:28:47 -0500, "Theoric The Squinter"
<HRH_@hotmail,com > wrote:
>"Marvin" <kilauea3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
<snip>
>>>
>>> And she added: "I will be appealing and my barrister has already started
>>> to work on that."
>>>
>>
>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
>Like it's any of your business.
>
This is, of course, true of almost every post made to this group (or
most others).
It is certainly true of every single post in this thread.
So what? We discuss these things because we are interested, not
because it is "any of our business".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Macho does not prove Mucho.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:28:47 -0500, "Theoric The Squinter"
<HRH_@hotmail,com > wrote:
>"Marvin" <kilauea3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
<snip>
>>>
>>> And she added: "I will be appealing and my barrister has already started
>>> to work on that."
>>>
>>
>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
>Like it's any of your business.
>
This is, of course, true of almost every post made to this group (or
most others).
It is certainly true of every single post in this thread.
So what? We discuss these things because we are interested, not
because it is "any of our business".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Macho does not prove Mucho.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.12.17.10.48.31.742362@stovell.org.uk...
> < http :// icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaysun/news/tm_headline=choc-bar-drugs-pair-will-appeal&method=full&objectid=18277069&siteid=50081-name_page.html>
>
> Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
>
> Dec 17 2006
>
> By Robert Weatherall, The Sunday Sun
>
> A disabled woman found guilty of supplying drugs to fellow multiple
> sclerosis sufferers said she will appeal against her conviction.
>
> Lezley Gibson has not given up her fight to legally supply thousands of MS
> sufferers with the class-C drug, which she and other campaigners claim is
> the only effective treatment to alleviate the debilitating condition.
In that case why isn't it available on the NHS yet?
"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.12.17.10.48.31.742362@stovell.org.uk...
> < http :// icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaysun/news/tm_headline=choc-bar-drugs-pair-will-appeal&method=full&objectid=18277069&siteid=50081-name_page.html>
>
> Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
>
> Dec 17 2006
>
> By Robert Weatherall, The Sunday Sun
>
> A disabled woman found guilty of supplying drugs to fellow multiple
> sclerosis sufferers said she will appeal against her conviction.
>
> Lezley Gibson has not given up her fight to legally supply thousands of MS
> sufferers with the class-C drug, which she and other campaigners claim is
> the only effective treatment to alleviate the debilitating condition.
In that case why isn't it available on the NHS yet?
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:07:44 +0000, mike carley wrote:
>
> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.12.17.10.48.31.742362@stovell.org.uk...
>> < http :// icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaysun/news/tm_headline=choc-bar-drugs-pair-will-appeal&method=full&objectid=18277069&siteid=50081-name_page.html>
>>
>> Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
>>
>> Dec 17 2006
>>
>> By Robert Weatherall, The Sunday Sun
>>
>> A disabled woman found guilty of supplying drugs to fellow multiple
>> sclerosis sufferers said she will appeal against her conviction.
>>
>> Lezley Gibson has not given up her fight to legally supply thousands of
>> MS sufferers with the class-C drug, which she and other campaigners
>> claim is the only effective treatment to alleviate the debilitating
>> condition.
>
> In that case why isn't it available on the NHS yet?
They changed the rules when this case started. Sativex can now be
prescribed on a named-patient basis.
Basically, they're frightened to approve it, as it will go against the all
drugs are evil (except booze and cigs) dogma.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:07:44 +0000, mike carley wrote:
>
> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.12.17.10.48.31.742362@stovell.org.uk...
>> < http :// icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaysun/news/tm_headline=choc-bar-drugs-pair-will-appeal&method=full&objectid=18277069&siteid=50081-name_page.html>
>>
>> Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
>>
>> Dec 17 2006
>>
>> By Robert Weatherall, The Sunday Sun
>>
>> A disabled woman found guilty of supplying drugs to fellow multiple
>> sclerosis sufferers said she will appeal against her conviction.
>>
>> Lezley Gibson has not given up her fight to legally supply thousands of
>> MS sufferers with the class-C drug, which she and other campaigners
>> claim is the only effective treatment to alleviate the debilitating
>> condition.
>
> In that case why isn't it available on the NHS yet?
They changed the rules when this case started. Sativex can now be
prescribed on a named-patient basis.
Basically, they're frightened to approve it, as it will go against the all
drugs are evil (except booze and cigs) dogma.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.12.17.14.19.32.273327@stovell.org.uk...
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:07:44 +0000, mike carley wrote:
>
>>
>> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.12.17.10.48.31.742362@stovell.org.uk...
>>> < http :// icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaysun/news/tm_headline=choc-bar-drugs-pair-will-appeal&method=full&objectid=18277069&siteid=50081-name_page.html>
>>>
>>> Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
>>>
>>> Dec 17 2006
>>>
>>> By Robert Weatherall, The Sunday Sun
>>>
>>> A disabled woman found guilty of supplying drugs to fellow multiple
>>> sclerosis sufferers said she will appeal against her conviction.
>>>
>>> Lezley Gibson has not given up her fight to legally supply thousands of
>>> MS sufferers with the class-C drug, which she and other campaigners
>>> claim is the only effective treatment to alleviate the debilitating
>>> condition.
>>
>> In that case why isn't it available on the NHS yet?
>
> They changed the rules when this case started. Sativex can now be
> prescribed on a named-patient basis.
>
> Basically, they're frightened to approve it, as it will go against the all
> drugs are evil (except booze and cigs) dogma.
>
> --
How did they get painkillers and antidepressants
pass the legislations then?
"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.12.17.14.19.32.273327@stovell.org.uk...
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:07:44 +0000, mike carley wrote:
>
>>
>> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.12.17.10.48.31.742362@stovell.org.uk...
>>> < http :// icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaysun/news/tm_headline=choc-bar-drugs-pair-will-appeal&method=full&objectid=18277069&siteid=50081-name_page.html>
>>>
>>> Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
>>>
>>> Dec 17 2006
>>>
>>> By Robert Weatherall, The Sunday Sun
>>>
>>> A disabled woman found guilty of supplying drugs to fellow multiple
>>> sclerosis sufferers said she will appeal against her conviction.
>>>
>>> Lezley Gibson has not given up her fight to legally supply thousands of
>>> MS sufferers with the class-C drug, which she and other campaigners
>>> claim is the only effective treatment to alleviate the debilitating
>>> condition.
>>
>> In that case why isn't it available on the NHS yet?
>
> They changed the rules when this case started. Sativex can now be
> prescribed on a named-patient basis.
>
> Basically, they're frightened to approve it, as it will go against the all
> drugs are evil (except booze and cigs) dogma.
>
> --
How did they get painkillers and antidepressants
pass the legislations then?
Next: Petition to stop the prosecution of medical cannabis users
Previous: Police knew about drugs in chocolate
