Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Tobacco banned, marijuana allowed even though illegal
Tobacco banned, marijuana allowed even though illegal
http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
"But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
illegal.
"Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
still be allowed. "
No cheers.
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
"But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
illegal.
"Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
still be allowed. "
No cheers.
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
Re: Tobacco banned, marijuana allowed even though illegal
On Jul 1, 9:53 pm, Jim Beard <jdbe...@patriot,net > wrote:
> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>
> "But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
> Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
> and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
> illegal.
>
> "Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
> tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
> still be allowed. "
>
> No cheers.
>
> jim b.
>
> --
> UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
> expects users to be computer-friendly.
Hopefully tobacco use will also be tolerated under this draconian
law. I think the government should stay out of the business of drug
and tobacco regulation, but I'm just a silly liberal. :-)
On Jul 1, 9:53 pm, Jim Beard <jdbe...@patriot,net > wrote:
> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>
> "But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
> Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
> and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
> illegal.
>
> "Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
> tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
> still be allowed. "
>
> No cheers.
>
> jim b.
>
> --
> UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
> expects users to be computer-friendly.
Hopefully tobacco use will also be tolerated under this draconian
law. I think the government should stay out of the business of drug
and tobacco regulation, but I'm just a silly liberal. :-)
Re: Tobacco banned, marijuana allowed even though illegal
Col. CraggyBlast wrote:
> On Jul 1, 9:53 pm, Jim Beard <jdbe...@patriot,net > wrote:
>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>>
>> "But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
>> Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
>> and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
>> illegal.
>>
>> "Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
>> tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
>> still be allowed. "
>>
>> No cheers.
>>
> Hopefully tobacco use will also be tolerated under this draconian
> law. I think the government should stay out of the business of drug
> and tobacco regulation, but I'm just a silly liberal. :-)
>
Silly liberal? That's redundant! ;-)
Regards,
Tim Parker ... Butera - Royal Vintage Golden Cake in a basket billiard
--
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of
his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others who have not
exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first
principle of association: the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of
his industry and the fruits acquired by it." - Thomas Jefferson.
Col. CraggyBlast wrote:
> On Jul 1, 9:53 pm, Jim Beard <jdbe...@patriot,net > wrote:
>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>>
>> "But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
>> Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
>> and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
>> illegal.
>>
>> "Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
>> tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
>> still be allowed. "
>>
>> No cheers.
>>
> Hopefully tobacco use will also be tolerated under this draconian
> law. I think the government should stay out of the business of drug
> and tobacco regulation, but I'm just a silly liberal. :-)
>
Silly liberal? That's redundant! ;-)
Regards,
Tim Parker ... Butera - Royal Vintage Golden Cake in a basket billiard
--
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of
his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others who have not
exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first
principle of association: the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of
his industry and the fruits acquired by it." - Thomas Jefferson.
Re: Tobacco banned, marijuana allowed even though illegal
In article <NI6dnYhJCpEuQvfVnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@posted.lerostechnologies>,
Jim Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>
> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>
>"But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
>Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
>and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
>illegal.
>
>"Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
>tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
>still be allowed. "
What do you make of this?
To me it's evidence that tobacco is dispised as a useless drug
that does nothing but cause you to use more of it. I mean,
what exactly does it do? Smokers claim it calms them, but
nicotine is a stimulant--albeit a mild stimulant, milder than caffeine.
Is the "calming" effect simply the relief of craving and
not the effects of the drug? If so, the smoker has created
an artificial dependence the nonsmoker doesn't have to address.
Also, it would seem, the marijuana smoker doesn't want to
share his smoke with a nonsmoker, he wants to get as much
of it into his system as possible. Hence, the deep inhaling
and holding in. Whereas, the tobacco smoker probably inhales
only half the smoke, the other half drifting uselessly away.
And marijuana is supposed to be far less dependence
producing. That's counterintuitive because we have for so long
thought a drug was more addictive if its effects were stronger.
We find out that addiction doesn't correlate with physical
effects. We have badly underestimated nicotine.
But the bottom line is probably those shops make more money
from MJ than tobacco.
In article <NI6dnYhJCpEuQvfVnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@posted.lerostechnologies>,
Jim Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>
> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>
>"But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
>Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
>and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
>illegal.
>
>"Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
>tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
>still be allowed. "
What do you make of this?
To me it's evidence that tobacco is dispised as a useless drug
that does nothing but cause you to use more of it. I mean,
what exactly does it do? Smokers claim it calms them, but
nicotine is a stimulant--albeit a mild stimulant, milder than caffeine.
Is the "calming" effect simply the relief of craving and
not the effects of the drug? If so, the smoker has created
an artificial dependence the nonsmoker doesn't have to address.
Also, it would seem, the marijuana smoker doesn't want to
share his smoke with a nonsmoker, he wants to get as much
of it into his system as possible. Hence, the deep inhaling
and holding in. Whereas, the tobacco smoker probably inhales
only half the smoke, the other half drifting uselessly away.
And marijuana is supposed to be far less dependence
producing. That's counterintuitive because we have for so long
thought a drug was more addictive if its effects were stronger.
We find out that addiction doesn't correlate with physical
effects. We have badly underestimated nicotine.
But the bottom line is probably those shops make more money
from MJ than tobacco.
Re: Tobacco banned, marijuana allowed even though illegal
On 02 Jul 2008 02:19:52 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson)
wrote:
>In article <NI6dnYhJCpEuQvfVnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@posted.lerostechnologies>,
>Jim Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>>
>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>>
>>"But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
>>Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
>>and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
>>illegal.
>>
>>"Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
>>tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
>>still be allowed. "
>
>What do you make of this?
>
>To me it's evidence that tobacco is dispised as a useless drug
>that does nothing but cause you to use more of it. I mean,
>what exactly does it do? Smokers claim it calms them, but
>nicotine is a stimulant--albeit a mild stimulant, milder than caffeine.
>
>But the bottom line is probably those shops make more money
>from MJ than tobacco.
Please take your head out of your ass for just one minute please. As
someone who has access too and can smoke both just as easily, I pick
fine cigars over pot any day of the week,
Pot- Play video games and PlayStation-3, whilst you live with your
parents at age forty and fifty.
Cigars- Relax, keep your lung hairs intact, keep your wits about you,
make money, become an executive of industry, and generally ride your
pot smoking asses, in managerial positions.
On 02 Jul 2008 02:19:52 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson)
wrote:
>In article <NI6dnYhJCpEuQvfVnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@posted.lerostechnologies>,
>Jim Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>>
>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>>
>>"But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
>>Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
>>and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
>>illegal.
>>
>>"Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
>>tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
>>still be allowed. "
>
>What do you make of this?
>
>To me it's evidence that tobacco is dispised as a useless drug
>that does nothing but cause you to use more of it. I mean,
>what exactly does it do? Smokers claim it calms them, but
>nicotine is a stimulant--albeit a mild stimulant, milder than caffeine.
>
>But the bottom line is probably those shops make more money
>from MJ than tobacco.
Please take your head out of your ass for just one minute please. As
someone who has access too and can smoke both just as easily, I pick
fine cigars over pot any day of the week,
Pot- Play video games and PlayStation-3, whilst you live with your
parents at age forty and fifty.
Cigars- Relax, keep your lung hairs intact, keep your wits about you,
make money, become an executive of industry, and generally ride your
pot smoking asses, in managerial positions.
Re: Tobacco banned, marijuana allowed even though illegal
On Jul 1, 10:19 pm, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
> In article <NI6dnYhJCpEuQvfVnZ2dnUVZ uudn...@posted.lerostechnologies>,
> Jim Beard <jdbe...@patriot,net > wrote:
>
>
>
> > http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>
> >"But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
> >Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
> >and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
> >illegal.
>
> >"Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
> >tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
> >still be allowed. "
>
> What do you make of this?
>
> To me it's evidence that tobacco is dispised as a useless drug
> that does nothing but cause you to use more of it. I mean,
> what exactly does it do? Smokers claim it calms them, but
> nicotine is a stimulant--albeit a mild stimulant, milder than caffeine.
>
> Is the "calming" effect simply the relief of craving and
> not the effects of the drug? If so, the smoker has created
> an artificial dependence the nonsmoker doesn't have to address.
>
> Also, it would seem, the marijuana smoker doesn't want to
> share his smoke with a nonsmoker, he wants to get as much
> of it into his system as possible. Hence, the deep inhaling
> and holding in. Whereas, the tobacco smoker probably inhales
> only half the smoke, the other half drifting uselessly away.
>
> And marijuana is supposed to be far less dependence
> producing. That's counterintuitive because we have for so long
> thought a drug was more addictive if its effects were stronger.
> We find out that addiction doesn't correlate with physical
> effects. We have badly underestimated nicotine.
>
> But the bottom line is probably those shops make more money
> from MJ than tobacco.
Maybe a foreign country is the place for you then.
Your a posting maniac, your spazzing out.
Losing touch with reality?
Is the world falling apart for you because the
economy is going under now?
Smoker's BUY your smokes on the net the best way you can
and let the tax assholes find out it hit them right in the
pocketbook in the end.
My take is Bluce got priced out of smoking.
He just couldn't afford a pack of cigarettes any longer.
So he quit and just wants to bark his fuckin ass off now.
That's all he's got left.
Maybe a job loss, layoff,or fired for lack of concentration,
loss of a loved one, who knows but it is a sure bet he's
just had a mojor life change and all his discourse is
falling here...
Such a weak minded puke.
Maybe Wallmart will find you some work Bluce
for $6.15 an hour...If you can still do any work.
(and they don't see your internet abuse)
They'd hate to have you write about them everyday.
Then again, maybe your current employer may reconsider
your actions.
http :// arizona.indymedia.org/print.php?id=9278
A coward from Glendale Az. & not a very good anarchist
http :// tinyurl,com /yujq49
Handles
anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net
troll record
http :// tinyurl,com /2qqe4f
My group
alt.bonehead.bruce-watson
http :// tinyurl,com /222dkl trolling rec
http :// tinyurl,com /yvsl65 trolling rec
I got some smartz
http :// tinyurl,com /yurhth
http :// tinyurl,com /3dj3hz
On Jul 1, 10:19 pm, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
> In article <NI6dnYhJCpEuQvfVnZ2dnUVZ uudn...@posted.lerostechnologies>,
> Jim Beard <jdbe...@patriot,net > wrote:
>
>
>
> > http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>
> >"But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
> >Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
> >and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
> >illegal.
>
> >"Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
> >tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
> >still be allowed. "
>
> What do you make of this?
>
> To me it's evidence that tobacco is dispised as a useless drug
> that does nothing but cause you to use more of it. I mean,
> what exactly does it do? Smokers claim it calms them, but
> nicotine is a stimulant--albeit a mild stimulant, milder than caffeine.
>
> Is the "calming" effect simply the relief of craving and
> not the effects of the drug? If so, the smoker has created
> an artificial dependence the nonsmoker doesn't have to address.
>
> Also, it would seem, the marijuana smoker doesn't want to
> share his smoke with a nonsmoker, he wants to get as much
> of it into his system as possible. Hence, the deep inhaling
> and holding in. Whereas, the tobacco smoker probably inhales
> only half the smoke, the other half drifting uselessly away.
>
> And marijuana is supposed to be far less dependence
> producing. That's counterintuitive because we have for so long
> thought a drug was more addictive if its effects were stronger.
> We find out that addiction doesn't correlate with physical
> effects. We have badly underestimated nicotine.
>
> But the bottom line is probably those shops make more money
> from MJ than tobacco.
Maybe a foreign country is the place for you then.
Your a posting maniac, your spazzing out.
Losing touch with reality?
Is the world falling apart for you because the
economy is going under now?
Smoker's BUY your smokes on the net the best way you can
and let the tax assholes find out it hit them right in the
pocketbook in the end.
My take is Bluce got priced out of smoking.
He just couldn't afford a pack of cigarettes any longer.
So he quit and just wants to bark his fuckin ass off now.
That's all he's got left.
Maybe a job loss, layoff,or fired for lack of concentration,
loss of a loved one, who knows but it is a sure bet he's
just had a mojor life change and all his discourse is
falling here...
Such a weak minded puke.
Maybe Wallmart will find you some work Bluce
for $6.15 an hour...If you can still do any work.
(and they don't see your internet abuse)
They'd hate to have you write about them everyday.
Then again, maybe your current employer may reconsider
your actions.
http :// arizona.indymedia.org/print.php?id=9278
A coward from Glendale Az. & not a very good anarchist
http :// tinyurl,com /yujq49
Handles
anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net
troll record
http :// tinyurl,com /2qqe4f
My group
alt.bonehead.bruce-watson
http :// tinyurl,com /222dkl trolling rec
http :// tinyurl,com /yvsl65 trolling rec
I got some smartz
http :// tinyurl,com /yurhth
http :// tinyurl,com /3dj3hz
Re: Tobacco banned, marijuana allowed even though illegal
Bruce Watson wrote:
> In article
> <NI6dnYhJCpEuQvfVnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@posted.lerostechnologies>, Jim
> Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>>
>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>>
>> "But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
>> Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
>> and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
>> illegal.
>>
>> "Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
>> tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
>> still be allowed. "
>
> What do you make of this?
>
The current crusade is strictly anti-tobacco.
They don't want to lose their focus by including other substances.
bernie
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
Bruce Watson wrote:
> In article
> <NI6dnYhJCpEuQvfVnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@posted.lerostechnologies>, Jim
> Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>>
>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>>
>> "But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
>> Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
>> and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
>> illegal.
>>
>> "Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
>> tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
>> still be allowed. "
>
> What do you make of this?
>
The current crusade is strictly anti-tobacco.
They don't want to lose their focus by including other substances.
bernie
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
Re: Tobacco banned, marijuana allowed even though illegal
In article <6d1f6jFc0bsU1@mid.individual,net >,
btorvik2 <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> In article
>> <NI6dnYhJCpEuQvfVnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@posted.lerostechnologies>, Jim
>> Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>>>
>>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>>>
>>> "But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
>>> Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
>>> and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
>>> illegal.
>>>
>>> "Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
>>> tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
>>> still be allowed. "
>>
>> What do you make of this?
>
>The current crusade is strictly anti-tobacco.
And so where is "Nanny State" supposed to be?
Not in the US and not in the Netherlands.
In article <6d1f6jFc0bsU1@mid.individual,net >,
btorvik2 <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> In article
>> <NI6dnYhJCpEuQvfVnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@posted.lerostechnologies>, Jim
>> Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>>>
>>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>>>
>>> "But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
>>> Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
>>> and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
>>> illegal.
>>>
>>> "Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
>>> tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
>>> still be allowed. "
>>
>> What do you make of this?
>
>The current crusade is strictly anti-tobacco.
And so where is "Nanny State" supposed to be?
Not in the US and not in the Netherlands.
Re: Tobacco banned, marijuana allowed even though illegal
Bruce Watson wrote:
> In article <6d1f6jFc0bsU1@mid.individual,net >,
> btorvik2 <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote:
>
>>Bruce Watson wrote:
>>
>>>In article
>>><NI6dnYhJCpEuQvfVnZ2dnUVZ uudnZ2d@posted.lerostechnologies>, Jim
>>>Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>>>
>>>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>>>>
>>>>"But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
>>>>Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
>>>>and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
>>>>illegal.
>>>>
>>>>"Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
>>>>tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
>>>>still be allowed. "
>>>
>>>What do you make of this?
>>
>>The current crusade is strictly anti-tobacco.
>
>
> And so where is "Nanny State" supposed to be?
>
> Not in the US and not in the Netherlands.
Yes, it is in the US AND in the Netherlands, but more so in the US.
For argument's sake, let's say you even once left your mother's basement
and got married and had kids
I would say it would be reasonable for you to prohibit smoking in your
children's rooms.
But let's say you wanted to bring your children to a bar. Well, the
bar allows smoking which is not good for your kids, so you petition the
government to protect you from the bar which allows smoking that you -
of your own volition - willingly entered.
And let's say the government goes along with your argument.
That, asshole, is a nanny state.
NOBODY forced you to go into that bar or to bring your kids there.
It used to be that if you didn't like how a business was run, you simply
didn't go there. Now assholes like you try - and sometimes succeed - to
pass laws telling the businesses to be more "friendly" towards you.
What's next? Nationalization of the oil business? Yep - that has
actually been seriously proposed in the United States.
Bruce Watson wrote:
> In article <6d1f6jFc0bsU1@mid.individual,net >,
> btorvik2 <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote:
>
>>Bruce Watson wrote:
>>
>>>In article
>>><NI6dnYhJCpEuQvfVnZ2dnUVZ uudnZ2d@posted.lerostechnologies>, Jim
>>>Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>>>
>>>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>>>>
>>>>"But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
>>>>Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
>>>>and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
>>>>illegal.
>>>>
>>>>"Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
>>>>tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
>>>>still be allowed. "
>>>
>>>What do you make of this?
>>
>>The current crusade is strictly anti-tobacco.
>
>
> And so where is "Nanny State" supposed to be?
>
> Not in the US and not in the Netherlands.
Yes, it is in the US AND in the Netherlands, but more so in the US.
For argument's sake, let's say you even once left your mother's basement
and got married and had kids
I would say it would be reasonable for you to prohibit smoking in your
children's rooms.
But let's say you wanted to bring your children to a bar. Well, the
bar allows smoking which is not good for your kids, so you petition the
government to protect you from the bar which allows smoking that you -
of your own volition - willingly entered.
And let's say the government goes along with your argument.
That, asshole, is a nanny state.
NOBODY forced you to go into that bar or to bring your kids there.
It used to be that if you didn't like how a business was run, you simply
didn't go there. Now assholes like you try - and sometimes succeed - to
pass laws telling the businesses to be more "friendly" towards you.
What's next? Nationalization of the oil business? Yep - that has
actually been seriously proposed in the United States.
Re: Tobacco banned, marijuana allowed even though illegal
Bruce Watson wrote:
> In article <NI6dnYhJCpEuQvfVnZ2dnUVZ uudnZ2d@posted.lerostechnologies>,
> Jim Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>
>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>>
>>"But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
>>Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
>>and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
>>illegal.
>>
>>"Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
>>tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
>>still be allowed. "
>
>
> What do you make of this?
>
> To me it's evidence that tobacco is dispised as a useless drug
> that does nothing but cause you to use more of it.
That's because you are an auntie - it doesn't matter what pleasure it
brings to the users - it is a natural human right to be able to use it.
Nobody is asking or forcing you to use it - it is quite simply none of
your business.
> I mean,
> what exactly does it do?
Try it - you'll like it.
> Smokers claim it calms them,
End of story - who are you to question the habits of other people?
> but
> nicotine is a stimulant--albeit a mild stimulant, milder than caffeine.
>
Caffeine calms me too - so fucking what?
Are you going to go after that next?
Other aunties are certainly adamant about quashing alcohol usage. Who
cares why anyone drinks? It is not your business and it is NOT the
business of the state.
> Is the "calming" effect simply the relief of craving and
> not the effects of the drug?
That is a possibility, but it has nothing to do with your stated goal of
enacting smoking bans.
If so, the smoker has created
> an artificial dependence the nonsmoker doesn't have to address.
>
> Also, it would seem, the marijuana smoker doesn't want to
> share his smoke with a nonsmoker,
WTF are you talking about?
Neither tobacco smokers nor marijuana smokers try to force their
pasttimes on those who do not wish to engage in such activity.
Both are generally willing to share if others are desiring of their
smoke, but what the fuck does this have to do with anything?
> he wants to get as much
> of it into his system as possible.
WRONG.
> Hence, the deep inhaling
> and holding in.
Let me guess - you were indoctrinated by DARE, right?
> Whereas, the tobacco smoker probably inhales
> only half the smoke, the other half drifting uselessly away.
>
You know nothing about what you speak of.
> And marijuana is supposed to be far less dependence
> producing.
It is - so what?
> That's counterintuitive because we have for so long
> thought a drug was more addictive if its effects were stronger.
Define "stronger" - you are quite simply a dumbass. Who told you
marijuana was "stronger" than the drugs found in tobacco? Oh yeah -
that would be your DARE counselor wouldn't it.
It would explain a lot. Even if that's not the case, I suggest you hold
onto that explanation because it's the only reasonable one.
> We find out that addiction doesn't correlate with physical
> effects. We have badly underestimated nicotine.
>
Don't use the "royal we" unless you are actually royalty and no, being a
drag queen doesn't count.
> But the bottom line is probably those shops make more money
> from MJ than tobacco.
So you're an idiot when it comes to economics also. Thanks for sharing.
But why don't you tell us what you really think? Do you think
marijuana should be legal? If not, why not? And if it should be
legal, why shouldn't shops that sell not be allowed to let their
customers consume it on the premises?
You have a lot to answer. Remember, even a fool is considered wise
when he keeps his mouth shut.
Bruce Watson wrote:
> In article <NI6dnYhJCpEuQvfVnZ2dnUVZ uudnZ2d@posted.lerostechnologies>,
> Jim Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>
>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>>
>>"But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
>>Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
>>and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
>>illegal.
>>
>>"Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
>>tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
>>still be allowed. "
>
>
> What do you make of this?
>
> To me it's evidence that tobacco is dispised as a useless drug
> that does nothing but cause you to use more of it.
That's because you are an auntie - it doesn't matter what pleasure it
brings to the users - it is a natural human right to be able to use it.
Nobody is asking or forcing you to use it - it is quite simply none of
your business.
> I mean,
> what exactly does it do?
Try it - you'll like it.
> Smokers claim it calms them,
End of story - who are you to question the habits of other people?
> but
> nicotine is a stimulant--albeit a mild stimulant, milder than caffeine.
>
Caffeine calms me too - so fucking what?
Are you going to go after that next?
Other aunties are certainly adamant about quashing alcohol usage. Who
cares why anyone drinks? It is not your business and it is NOT the
business of the state.
> Is the "calming" effect simply the relief of craving and
> not the effects of the drug?
That is a possibility, but it has nothing to do with your stated goal of
enacting smoking bans.
If so, the smoker has created
> an artificial dependence the nonsmoker doesn't have to address.
>
> Also, it would seem, the marijuana smoker doesn't want to
> share his smoke with a nonsmoker,
WTF are you talking about?
Neither tobacco smokers nor marijuana smokers try to force their
pasttimes on those who do not wish to engage in such activity.
Both are generally willing to share if others are desiring of their
smoke, but what the fuck does this have to do with anything?
> he wants to get as much
> of it into his system as possible.
WRONG.
> Hence, the deep inhaling
> and holding in.
Let me guess - you were indoctrinated by DARE, right?
> Whereas, the tobacco smoker probably inhales
> only half the smoke, the other half drifting uselessly away.
>
You know nothing about what you speak of.
> And marijuana is supposed to be far less dependence
> producing.
It is - so what?
> That's counterintuitive because we have for so long
> thought a drug was more addictive if its effects were stronger.
Define "stronger" - you are quite simply a dumbass. Who told you
marijuana was "stronger" than the drugs found in tobacco? Oh yeah -
that would be your DARE counselor wouldn't it.
It would explain a lot. Even if that's not the case, I suggest you hold
onto that explanation because it's the only reasonable one.
> We find out that addiction doesn't correlate with physical
> effects. We have badly underestimated nicotine.
>
Don't use the "royal we" unless you are actually royalty and no, being a
drag queen doesn't count.
> But the bottom line is probably those shops make more money
> from MJ than tobacco.
So you're an idiot when it comes to economics also. Thanks for sharing.
But why don't you tell us what you really think? Do you think
marijuana should be legal? If not, why not? And if it should be
legal, why shouldn't shops that sell not be allowed to let their
customers consume it on the premises?
You have a lot to answer. Remember, even a fool is considered wise
when he keeps his mouth shut.
Re: Tobacco banned, marijuana allowed even though illegal
In article <Qo6dnUhzAIhjV_bVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@comcast,com >,
not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> nicotine is a stimulant--albeit a mild stimulant, milder than caffeine.
>
>Caffeine calms me too - so fucking what?
How can a stimulant calm you?
Read below.
>> Is the "calming" effect simply the relief of craving and
>> not the effects of the drug?
>
>That is a possibility, but it has nothing to do with your stated goal of
>enacting smoking bans.
Not my goal. I've got a ban. My goal is to warn smokers, and
those considering smoking, of the fraud nicotine use is.
It doesn't do anything but addict.
>If so, the smoker has created
>> an artificial dependence the nonsmoker doesn't have to address.
In article <Qo6dnUhzAIhjV_bVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@comcast,com >,
not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> nicotine is a stimulant--albeit a mild stimulant, milder than caffeine.
>
>Caffeine calms me too - so fucking what?
How can a stimulant calm you?
Read below.
>> Is the "calming" effect simply the relief of craving and
>> not the effects of the drug?
>
>That is a possibility, but it has nothing to do with your stated goal of
>enacting smoking bans.
Not my goal. I've got a ban. My goal is to warn smokers, and
those considering smoking, of the fraud nicotine use is.
It doesn't do anything but addict.
>If so, the smoker has created
>> an artificial dependence the nonsmoker doesn't have to address.
Re: Tobacco banned, marijuana allowed even though illegal
Bruce Watson wrote:
> In article <Qo6dnUhzAIhjV bVnZ2dnUVZ t7inZ2d@comcast,com >,
> not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>
>>Bruce Watson wrote:
>
>
>>>nicotine is a stimulant--albeit a mild stimulant, milder than caffeine.
>>
>>Caffeine calms me too - so fucking what?
>
>
> How can a stimulant calm you?
Oh, I'm sorry - I thought you were pretending you had a clue.
>
> Read below.
>
I can't wait.
>
>>>Is the "calming" effect simply the relief of craving and
>>>not the effects of the drug?
>>
>>That is a possibility, but it has nothing to do with your stated goal of
>>enacting smoking bans.
>
>
> Not my goal. I've got a ban. My goal is to warn smokers, and
> those considering smoking, of the fraud nicotine use is.
>
> It doesn't do anything but addict.
>
In the words of your sock puppet.
"Opinion noted".
>
>>If so, the smoker has created
>>
>>>an artificial dependence the nonsmoker doesn't have to address.
Bruce Watson wrote:
> In article <Qo6dnUhzAIhjV bVnZ2dnUVZ t7inZ2d@comcast,com >,
> not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>
>>Bruce Watson wrote:
>
>
>>>nicotine is a stimulant--albeit a mild stimulant, milder than caffeine.
>>
>>Caffeine calms me too - so fucking what?
>
>
> How can a stimulant calm you?
Oh, I'm sorry - I thought you were pretending you had a clue.
>
> Read below.
>
I can't wait.
>
>>>Is the "calming" effect simply the relief of craving and
>>>not the effects of the drug?
>>
>>That is a possibility, but it has nothing to do with your stated goal of
>>enacting smoking bans.
>
>
> Not my goal. I've got a ban. My goal is to warn smokers, and
> those considering smoking, of the fraud nicotine use is.
>
> It doesn't do anything but addict.
>
In the words of your sock puppet.
"Opinion noted".
>
>>If so, the smoker has created
>>
>>>an artificial dependence the nonsmoker doesn't have to address.
Re: Tobacco banned, marijuana allowed even though illegal
In article <iOqdnR6FQruWd_bVnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast,com >,
not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> In article <Qo6dnUhzAIhjV_bVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@comcast,com >,
>> not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>>
>>>Bruce Watson wrote:
>>
>>>>nicotine is a stimulant--albeit a mild stimulant, milder than caffeine.
>>>
>>>Caffeine calms me too - so fucking what?
>>
>> How can a stimulant calm you?
>
>Oh, I'm sorry - I thought you were pretending you had a clue.
Come on, answer the question.
Can't? Thought so.
>> Read below.
>
>I can't wait.
>
>>
>>>>Is the "calming" effect simply the relief of craving and
>>>>not the effects of the drug?
>>>
>>>That is a possibility, but it has nothing to do with your stated goal of
>>>enacting smoking bans.
>>
>> Not my goal. I've got a ban. My goal is to warn smokers, and
>> those considering smoking, of the fraud nicotine use is.
>>
>> It doesn't do anything but addict.
>
>In the words of your sock puppet.
>
>"Opinion noted".
>>>If so, the smoker has created
>>>
>>>>an artificial dependence the nonsmoker doesn't have to address.
Think about it. You claim a stimulant calms you.
That's contradictory. What you're really doing is relieving
the craving which put at a deficit. When you fix you're back
where the nonsmoker was all the time.
In article <iOqdnR6FQruWd_bVnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast,com >,
not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> In article <Qo6dnUhzAIhjV_bVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@comcast,com >,
>> not much of anyone <no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>>
>>>Bruce Watson wrote:
>>
>>>>nicotine is a stimulant--albeit a mild stimulant, milder than caffeine.
>>>
>>>Caffeine calms me too - so fucking what?
>>
>> How can a stimulant calm you?
>
>Oh, I'm sorry - I thought you were pretending you had a clue.
Come on, answer the question.
Can't? Thought so.
>> Read below.
>
>I can't wait.
>
>>
>>>>Is the "calming" effect simply the relief of craving and
>>>>not the effects of the drug?
>>>
>>>That is a possibility, but it has nothing to do with your stated goal of
>>>enacting smoking bans.
>>
>> Not my goal. I've got a ban. My goal is to warn smokers, and
>> those considering smoking, of the fraud nicotine use is.
>>
>> It doesn't do anything but addict.
>
>In the words of your sock puppet.
>
>"Opinion noted".
>>>If so, the smoker has created
>>>
>>>>an artificial dependence the nonsmoker doesn't have to address.
Think about it. You claim a stimulant calms you.
That's contradictory. What you're really doing is relieving
the craving which put at a deficit. When you fix you're back
where the nonsmoker was all the time.
Re: Tobacco banned, marijuana allowed even though illegal
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:44:07 -0700, not much of anyone
<no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> In article <NI6dnYhJCpEuQvfVnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@posted.lerostechnologies>,
>> Jim Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>>
>>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>>>
>>>"But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
>>>Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
>>>and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
>>>illegal.
>>>
>>>"Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
>>>tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
>>>still be allowed. "
>>
>>
>> What do you make of this?
>>
>> To me it's evidence that tobacco is dispised as a useless drug
>> that does nothing but cause you to use more of it.
>
>
>That's because you are an auntie - it doesn't matter what pleasure it
>brings to the users - it is a natural human right to be able to use it.
>
>Nobody is asking or forcing you to use it - it is quite simply none of
>your business.
>
>> I mean,
>> what exactly does it do?
>
>Try it - you'll like it.
>
>
>> Smokers claim it calms them,
>
>End of story - who are you to question the habits of other people?
>
>
>> but
>> nicotine is a stimulant--albeit a mild stimulant, milder than caffeine.
>>
>
>Caffeine calms me too - so fucking what?
>
>Are you going to go after that next?
>
Ever seen the movie Demolition Man?
Anything not good for you is bad, hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine,
contact sports, meat, bad language, child play, gasoline,
uneducational toys, and anything spicy.
I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into
freedom of speech, and freedom of choice.
I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder,
"Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue
ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?"
I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon and butter and buckets of
cheese, okay?!
I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking
section!
I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my
body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the
need to. Okay, pal?
I've seen the future. You know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin,
sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake,
singing, "I'm an Oscar Meyer wiener."
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:44:07 -0700, not much of anyone
<no.spam@pl.ease> wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> In article <NI6dnYhJCpEuQvfVnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@posted.lerostechnologies>,
>> Jim Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>>
>>> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7478243.stm
>>>
>>>"But now, there is a cloud on the horizon. From Tuesday 1 July, the
>>>Dutch will impose a nationwide ban on smoking tobacco in cafes, bars
>>>and restaurants - meaning any joints rolled using tobacco will be
>>>illegal.
>>>
>>>"Strictly speaking, marijuana is illegal as well - but it is
>>>tolerated. So, perhaps oddly, the smoking of pure grass or hash will
>>>still be allowed. "
>>
>>
>> What do you make of this?
>>
>> To me it's evidence that tobacco is dispised as a useless drug
>> that does nothing but cause you to use more of it.
>
>
>That's because you are an auntie - it doesn't matter what pleasure it
>brings to the users - it is a natural human right to be able to use it.
>
>Nobody is asking or forcing you to use it - it is quite simply none of
>your business.
>
>> I mean,
>> what exactly does it do?
>
>Try it - you'll like it.
>
>
>> Smokers claim it calms them,
>
>End of story - who are you to question the habits of other people?
>
>
>> but
>> nicotine is a stimulant--albeit a mild stimulant, milder than caffeine.
>>
>
>Caffeine calms me too - so fucking what?
>
>Are you going to go after that next?
>
Ever seen the movie Demolition Man?
Anything not good for you is bad, hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine,
contact sports, meat, bad language, child play, gasoline,
uneducational toys, and anything spicy.
I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into
freedom of speech, and freedom of choice.
I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder,
"Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue
ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?"
I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon and butter and buckets of
cheese, okay?!
I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking
section!
I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my
body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the
need to. Okay, pal?
I've seen the future. You know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin,
sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake,
singing, "I'm an Oscar Meyer wiener."
Re: Tobacco banned, marijuana allowed even though illegal
Ray wrote:
>
> I've seen the future. You know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin,
> sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake,
> singing, "I'm an Oscar Meyer wiener."
You have a problem with that!?? ;-)
bernie..oh to be 47 again
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
Ray wrote:
>
> I've seen the future. You know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin,
> sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake,
> singing, "I'm an Oscar Meyer wiener."
You have a problem with that!?? ;-)
bernie..oh to be 47 again
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
Next: Just For Him Revamps Web Site
Previous: AD: some Murray's Nightcap and GLP Raven's Wing on eBay
