Drug Laws

manonthemoon

cannabis "softly, softly" approach to continue in UK as it saves
100's of Police Hours


Time for Common sense in this country


http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_1885000/1885271.stm

Beruthiel

I've never seen the difference between drink and cannabis, I'd even go as far as to say that drink is more dangerous as you can actually die if you overdose on it.
There are those who say if you start on cannabis you are more lightly to move on to more dangerous drugs. I totally disagree, perhaps some will, but it's fair to say that there's many a person out there with major drink problems (I have some rellies who are complete alcos) but this doesn't mean the rest of us don't know when enough's enough.
I'd prefer the coffeeshop to the pub any day!

seamus

Originally posted by Beruthiel
I've never seen the difference between drink and cannabis, I'd even go as far as to say that drink is more dangerous as you can actually die if you overdose on it.

That's not say you can't overdose on cannabis........Although that would be akin to overdosing on nicontine, which has happened, but not with the same frequency of stomach pumping in Irish hospitals.

There are those who say if you start on cannabis you are more lightly to move on to more dangerous drugs. I totally disagree, perhaps some will, but it's fair to say that there's many a person out there with major drink problems (I have some rellies who are complete alcos) but this doesn't mean the rest of us don't know when enough's enough.

I agree too. Most people have a desire to do things illegal, ie to be rebellious. Certainly everyone I know, has at one point or another, tried cannabis, including myself. Some still smoke it, some don't.
Other people though, just have this 'I am invincible' attitude, and will try anything once. This is the same guy who disappears for 3 days and wakes up in a field, or has to go to hospital every 3 weeks for doing something stupid, or who will regularly drive home drunk, and moan about Gardai, etc etc. These people have tried cannabis too, and then go on to heroin, coke, etc.
I think the only reason that they think they've proved a link between cannabis and harder drugs is because most people who take harder drugs have tried cannabis. But most people who have never tried cannabis will never try hard drugs. Am I making sense?
IMO, whether you take hard drugs or not has to do with your own attitude to drugs. Saying 'Taking cannabis can lead you to take harder drugs', is like saying, 'Drinking heavily can lead you to become a student'. It's just that the two things are so closely related and really go hand-in-hand, the perception can be blurred. Oh god I'm ranting again.

I'd prefer the coffeeshop to the pub any day!

Not me, I'm not much of a smoker. I only smoke dope when drunk, never smoke tobacco (Means I get great headrushes from tobacco in joints )

Mills

I think that the only way it acts as a gateway drug to others is because it's illegal and to get it you have to break the law and find someone who sells it etc. etc, so once you've done that once for cannabis it's much easier to get your hands on something else if you want it, and there's less of a mental barrier there.

It's probably true that nearly all of those who use harder drugs started off with cannabis, but I'll bet they tried alcohol and/or nicotine before that...... in fact I saw an interesting program on discovery one night that looked at how to prevent drug addiction and it came to the conclusion that cigarettes acted more as a "gateway drug" than any drugs.

I think that in a society where cigarettes and alcohol are both legal cannabis should be also, or at least de-criminalised, any evidence I've seen (mostly in the form of documentries) suggests that cannabis is much less harmful than cigarettes and no more harmful than alcohol.

bonkey

Originally posted by seamus
That's not say you can't overdose on cannabis........Although that would be akin to overdosing on nicontine, which has happened, but not with the same frequency of stomach pumping in Irish hospitals.

Can you overdose on cannabis (or more correctly, on THC) ???

I seem to recall someone in Uni actually doing a study on it and concluding that the only chance you had of injuring yourself was to get a large enough amount and drop it on you from a height. He could, of course, have been wrong.

Over here in Switzerland, it looks like grass may be legalised in the next few years. In my town, there are a number of hemp-shops, and while they are occasionally raided and closed, they simply re-open elsewhere. We're talking a town the size of Limerick, with over 10 shops dotted around the streets selling Hemp products (which are legal) and grass. There are other shops who only sell grass.

What has the net effect of this been? Well - there is (in my opinion) a growing problem with underage drug taking. This is mostly because the police turn a blind eye to the whole problem, including underage - which I dont like.

Other than that, and the almost constant grass-smell in the smoking section of trains (cept when the cops are on board), it seems to be pretty ok.

I have heard stories about kids graduating from grass to "foil smoking", but it seems to be a very small minority, and mostly because there is still a market for black-market grass sellers. Again - with the police turning a blind eye to the shops, its unrealistic to see a crackdown on street-dealers.

I find it interesting that people often point to Amsterdam as the great failing of the legalisation of cannabis (despite it not being legalised, only decriminalised), and not realise that Switzerland - that bastion of rules-following sensible bankers produce something like 60% of the grass sold in Amsterdam, and smoke almost as much of it themselves.

Switzerland, just for reference, is the largest cannabis producing nation in Europe. Kept awfully quiet though, isnt it.

jc

Clintons Cat

i would have more sympathy for the government policy if they chose to conduct their social experiments in chealsea,greenwich or nottinghill.
to me it seems like the other bourghs are exporting their drugs problem to lambeth and brixton and the police are sweeping up the windfall of Serious drug abusers.
It reminds me of how Westminster council solved their "housing crisis" by hosing down rough sleepers,encoraging them to move on to other boroughs.

But Sir John Stevens said the scheme will not be extended to other areas of London at the moment

Isnt the US opposed to governments legalising maruianna?

Ask Narconews.com

Boston

im allways amused by the level of anti tobaco people out there that dont have a problem with cannabis, a far more deadly drug

i say illegalise it, but huge taxation on it. filter it,and sell it from overment outlets. not because i believe that people have the right to smoke canabis or that its a good thing to have, but because it does nothing but put millions in drug dealers pockets and is usualy how many drug dealers get their feet in the business.

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
im allways amused by the level of anti tobaco people out there that dont have a problem with cannabis, a far more deadly drug

And you can offer proof of this, I assume? There have been a few, highly contested cases which claim it is carcinogenic, except that it is even less carcinogenic than the amount of tobacco you would mix with grass in a typical joint.

There is some evidence that it can heighten certain mental illnesses.

Thats about it.

This is more deadly than nicotine how?

i say illegalise it, <snip>and is usualy how many drug dealers get their feet in the business.

You mean legalise it, I assume.

You may be right on the anti-dealer idea, but I'm not sure though.

I get the feeling that the purveyors of harder drugs would simply alter their pricing models to allow easier entry into the market. Theyre not gonna let themselves disappear because no-one can afford to deal.

Then, if you believe the "progressice substance" theory, you still have cannabis smokers, so they will still want to "progress" to harder drugs. Even if you dont believe that theory (and I dont), it means that all you need are the dealers and you will still have the market.

jc (edited for vbCode)

Boston

ive seen it, people whos lungs are feiced from smoking hte stuff.

now these would be heavy, daily users.
but gram per gram id have to still say canabis is more dangerious. since its seldom pure, probably cut with god knows what crap. not doing the chemical balance in your brain any good either.

see the thing is you never hear of canabis causing canceer because those tests just arent done, and doctors dont put that down in the records

canabis aint candy, smoking a weed cants be smart or healty

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
but gram per gram id have to still say canabis is more dangerious.

Even if this were true, compare the amounts of tobacco heavy "normal" smokers go through compared to the amount of canabis.

see the thing is you never hear of canabis causing canceer because those tests just arent done, and doctors dont put that down in the records

I'm talking about lab research, not medical case analysis. Besides which, if there is no research or evidence (as you say) then how can you know how dangerous it is, or are you just offering an uninformed opinion?

jc

Boston

no ive had along talk with a guy who deals with drug users about the effect of canabis on health once. he gave me a detailed accoutn of his experence with the people who used it. over the long term there were serious effects, and with people starting to smoke it at 14-15-16 the damage is huge.

but that was his exprence not a case study

dathi1

I say legalise the lot!! Heroin should be available to addicts on the health service just like the more powerful tranquillisers on the market. This would not only have an immediate impact on crime levels but would also bring a kilos worth of cut Heroin in a dealers closet to the same price as a bag of sugar.
Not many political parties would subscribe to this cos there's a lot of votes in prohibition.

Shinji

but gram per gram id have to still say canabis is more dangerious.

Interesting that almost every major scientific study into the effects of cannabis prove you wrong on this front, then. Including the last one by the WHO, which was never published officially following complaints by several national governments.

So, do you actually have any evidence to back up your claim? If not, I suggest you wander off to your local newsagent and pick up this weeks New Scientist, which has a couple of good pieces in it on the topic of cannabis. You know, pieces written by people who have researched the issue and found out the relevant facts, rather than talking to "a guy" or making up statements out of thin air.

since its seldom pure, probably cut with god knows what crap

It's all true folks - last week I picked up a bag of skunk, and it had been cut with PARSLEY! Those BASTARDS!

Seriously though, explain to me how the hell you cut cannabis with anything other than a garden herb or, in the case of resin, beef Oxo cubes? Because this amazing phenomenon of cutting cannabis with other dangerous substance is only now coming to light through your brave investigation. Or through your fertile imagination. One or the other.

not doing the chemical balance in your brain any good either

Yes, and obviously we wouldn't want to consume anything that affects the chemical balance of the brain - like, say, chocolate.

see the thing is you never hear of canabis causing canceer because those tests just arent done, and doctors dont put that down in the records

You're honestly claiming that no research is done into cannabis consumption as a cancer cause? Wow. Much as I hate to cause this thread to degenerate into 10,000-line posts, I'd feel a terrible urge to summon Occy here. I know for a fact that you're entirely wrong and just making stuff up on this point, but I'd imagine he can hammer this home far more efficently than I can.

Also, would you care to explain how, exactly, someone smoking a couple of joints of cannabis in an evening is exposing them to more carcinogens than someone going through ten or twenty Marlboro? I'd really love to know, and I'd imagine the medical establishment and the WHO would too!


(I apologise to the reast of the board readers if I'm a little over-acerbic in some responses here, but I'm frankly sick of seeing moronic, unresearched and uneducated viewpoints like these being trotted out as fact every time this debate comes up. My own position on cannabis legalisation is certainly in the "pro" camp, but that aside I'd like at least to see people participating in the discussion knowing what the hell they're talking about, no matter which side of it they fall on.)

Boston

Interesting that almost every major scientific study into the effects of cannabis prove you wrong on this front, then. Including the last one by the WHO, which was never published officially following complaints by several national governments.

that's interesting, I didn't realize thousands of studies where carried out on the effect of cannabis of long periods on humans.
maybe you can post the results of afew

It's all true folks - last week I picked up a bag of skunk, and it had been cut with PARSLEY! Those BASTARDS! Seriously though, explain to me how the hell you cut cannabis with anything other than a garden herb or, in the case of resin, beef Oxo cubes? Because this amazing phenomenon of cutting cannabis with other dangerous substance is only now coming to light through your brave investigation. Or through your fertile imagination. One or the other.

well I've seen it cut with tobacco which you just made a point of saying is far far more dangerous then cannabis.

Yes, and obviously we wouldn't want to consume anything that affects the chemical balance of the brain - like, say, chocolate.

wow chocolate can make you paranoid enough to stab someone in the throat with a pen, im learning new things every day. tell me will milk make you so depressed you lock yourself in a run 24 hours a day 7 days a week

now maybe it doesn't have this effect on you, in that case heres a medal but there are enough cases out there

Also, would you care to explain how, exactly, someone smoking a couple of joints of cannabis in an evening is exposing them to more carcinogens than someone going through ten or twenty Marlboro? I'd really love to know, and I'd imagine the medical establishment and the WHO would too!

I never said that, so read it again.

You're honestly claiming that no research is done into cannabis consumption as a cancer cause? Wow. Much as I hate to cause this thread to degenerate into 10,000-line posts, I'd feel a terrible urge to summon Occy here. I know for a fact that you're entirely wrong and just making stuff up on this point, but I'd imagine he can hammer this home far more efficiently than I can.

nope again im not, im claiming there hasn't been enough solid research over a wide enough section of the population. Why else is there so little solid facts out there about what cannabis exactly will and wont do in every person. I take cannabis and 5 seconds before I react not a scientist in the world can tell me how I will react. they can guess but that's it.

smoking on the other hand is much safer because every smoke is the same(from that brand) you know what exactly is going to happen, doctors can tell you exactly what health effects it will have.

notice I never said cannabis is more likely to cause cancer then tobacco, I never made that statement , I said it was a far more dangerous, and maybe you would see that to if you had bother to read what I said instead of talking crap on #fortress.i.e. about how you were going to slap me down.

now bonkey pointed out the only flaw in my logic, that the reality is people dont smoke it to that level, but whos to say some wouldnt try if it was legalized

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
wow chocolate can make you paranoid enough to stab someone in the throat with a pen, im learning new things every day. tell me will milk make you so depressed you lock yourself in a run 24 hours a day 7 days a week

now maybe it doesn't have this effect on you, in that case heres a medal but there are enough cases out there

No - there arent. There are a very few number of cases, and in pretty much every single one of them, the user suffers from a mental disorder which is accentuated by the cannabis. Now, while you may argue that this means it is dangerous, you can apply the same logic to anything. Just watch :

Peanuts can kill some people, ergo they are deadly.

Televisions and computer monitors can induce epileptic fits leading to death, ergo they are deadly.

Pain Killers can lead to kidney failure, memory loss, and innumerable other side-effects, many of which, in turn, can lead to death. Ergo, they are deadly.

Or how about (for your facetious milk comment) :

Some people are sufficiently lactose intolerant that a glass of milk can kill them. Ergo, milk is deadly.

Of course, thats all complete misrepresentation of the truth. The truth is that these substances are not, in and of themselves, deadly - they simply can react badly with some individuals duew to an abnormality (physical or mental) in said individual.

Cannabis is no different. Of course there are people out there who will have adverse effects from the drug. However, in every single case that has been identified, the adverse effects have been linked to a deficiency or an illness the subject was already suffering from. Blaming this on cannabis is incorrect.

And as for your comment of

that's interesting, I didn't realize thousands of studies where carried out on the effect of cannabis of long periods on humans.

Im afraid it cuts both ways m8. If you deny the studies have been done, then you have absolutely no solid grounds to base your claims of its danger on.

On the other hand, a quick google search on "cannabis report world health organisation" you will find the first page of links all relate directly to the report Shinji was referring to.

You are fighting a losing battle here m8, because quite simply, if you had read up on the subject as most pro-canabis posters have, then you would already know you are wrong. What you appear to be doing is basing you stance on information passed to you from someone who has a vested interest in preventing drug use - which means that their opinion is immediately biased and non-objective.

jc

jc

bonkey

From the very first link I found while looking into that WHO report.

In December 1997 a long-awaited report by the World Health Organisation (WHO) of the United Nations about marijuana came out, the first in 15 years. A scandal erupted when the British science magazine "New Scientist" in its February 1998 issue exposed the suppression of a chapter in the document.

In the censored chapter the authors, three leading addiction researchers, compare the dangers of marijuana, as documented by science, against those of the legal drugs alcohol and nicotine and illegal opiates. In dry, factual language they point out that where risks exist these are actually more serious for these two legal drugs. They exposed the double standards that are being applied in the drug debate, and according to an insider quoted by New Scientist some WHO officials "went nuts". Two WHO bureaucrats opposed to the report were WHO-head Nakajima (retired in June 1998) and narcotics division head Dr. Yoshida.

The conclusion of the New Scientist on the whole issue of marijuana is that legalisation is not a question of "if" but "when".

Pretty damn clear in what it says really, buit lets summarise :

1) Less harmful than the legal comparative drugs of alcohol and nicotine
2) Double standards being applied in the drugs debate
3) This information was suppressed.

Now - would anyone in the anti-marijuana lobby care to step up to the plate and explain what the point of suppressing these scientific findings were?????

jc

Boston

so you really think milk and chocolate is as deadly as canabis, and yes ive seen several people get either extremely depressed or paranoid while using canabis. i dont think it's as rare as you make out.

im fighting a loosing battle cause people dont want to hear what there doing is harmfull. you want to believe that canabis has zero long term effects. while at the say time blowing my comments out of perportion to make them look insane

after all how dare i challenge what you believe. what you said is very through, most pro canabis people here allready believed i was wrong before i said a word.

1) Less harmful than the legal comparative drugs of alcohol and nicotine
2) Double standards being applied in the drugs debate
3) This information was suppressed.

first i didnt say nicotine i said tobacco.

and i dont think canabis and alcohol are in the same leage, but id like to see the reaction times of people driving a car with 2 pints (about the legal limit) is compared to the reaction times of a canabis user jsut after smoke a joint. id bet the guy with the canabis would be slower to respond

Boston

Cannabis is no different. Of course there are people out there who will have adverse effects from the drug. However, in every single case that has been identified, the adverse effects have been linked to a deficiency or an illness the subject was already suffering from. Blaming this on cannabis is incorrect.

i wouldnt say that is true, id say its probably true you would have to have depressive or paranoid tendancies and canabis augments and encreases the effects. but i wouldnt believe in order for it to happen, that you mind would want to be feiced up i nthe first place.

seamus

Originally posted by Boston
no ive had along talk with a guy who deals with drug users about the effect of canabis on health once. he gave me a detailed accoutn of his experence with the people who used it. over the long term there were serious effects, and with people starting to smoke it at 14-15-16 the damage is huge.

Replace 'drug' with 'cigarrette' and 'cannabis' with 'nicotine', and I think this paragraph still reads correctly.

first i didnt say nicotine i said tobacco.

I fail to see a distinction. We are comparing joint and cigs. Cannabis and Tobacco --> THC and nicotine.

Shinji

that's interesting, I didn't realize thousands of studies where carried out on the effect of cannabis of long periods on humans.

I wouldn't say thousands, but certainly hundreds. I think it says something about your level of contribution to this discussion that you're not even aware of the existence of these studies, never mind their conclusions.

And no, I'm not about to go and waste my time hunting for results; I suggest that you do exactly as bonkey has suggested and use a search engine for your research. A little lesson you seem to have yet to learn about debating a topic like this is that if you sit there making ludicrous statements, it's up to YOU to find the evidence to back them up. The WHO reports are freely available on the Internet, as are several other reports - and, I believe, back issues of New Scientist and Scientific American. Go have a read.

well I've seen it cut with tobacco which you just made a point of saying is far far more dangerous then cannabis.

Sometimes people roll joints with tobacco. That's not the same as "cutting" a drug with another substance. You don't actually know anything about illegal drugs in general, do you?

Also, I never stated that tobacco is more dangerous than cannabis. What it is, however, is addictive (which cannabis is not) and most tobacco smokers smoke far more of it than cannabis smokers do - hence increasing the risk of carcinogens.

now maybe it doesn't have this effect on you, in that case heres a medal but there are enough cases out there

bonkey has dealt with this point very thoroughly, but suffice it to say that no, there AREN'T enough cases out there. I presume, by the way, that you're also very strongly anti-alcohol? After all, there are a hell of a lot more violent/depressive drunks out there than there are paranoid/depressive pot smokers.

im claiming there hasn't been enough solid research over a wide enough section of the population

You've just admitted that you haven't the faintest concept what research HAS taken place, and yet you feel qualified to make a judgement like that? Wow!

Why else is there so little solid facts out there about what cannabis exactly will and wont do in every person. I take cannabis and 5 seconds before I react not a scientist in the world can tell me how I will react. they can guess but that's it

Actually the effects of cannabis are quite well researched and documented. I point again at your admission of absolute ignorance when it comes to research into the topic.

Of course there are always people who will have non-standard reactions to any substance, due to chemical imbalance or allergy. These are exceptions rather than the rule.

notice I never said cannabis is more likely to cause cancer then tobacco, I never made that statement , I said it was a far more dangerous

Oh right, so now we're making broad sweeping statements like that based on... What? Tobacco is dangerous because it's carcinogenic. Smoking cannabis poses the same health risks on a smaller scale. So what, now we make up other ways in which cannabis is dangerous just to prove points? Good one!

im fighting a loosing battle cause people dont want to hear what there doing is harmfull

You're fighting a losing battle because you don't actually know any of the facts of the matter and are basing your argument entirely on sweeping generalisations and anecdotal evidence. Here's a hint - having "I talked to a random guy and he said..." as a key point of your argument is generally a bad start.

most pro canabis people here allready believed i was wrong before i said a word

Good lord, imagine that - folk coming to an argument with a pre-formed viewpoint! I suppose you entered the thread without any pre-bias whatsoever, then?

first i didnt say nicotine i said tobacco

You do realise that nicotine is simply the active agent in tobacco, which is the name of the type of leaf in which you find nicotine? The same way that THC is the active agent in Cannabis?

but id like to see the reaction times of people driving a car with 2 pints (about the legal limit) is compared to the reaction times of a canabis user jsut after smoke a joint. id bet the guy with the canabis would be slower to respond

Heh, I see you didn't take my advice about picking up this weeks New Scientist then. Their lead story in the inside news section was a study on the effects of cannabis and alcohol on motor control, which found that after a glass of wine, drivers were worse than after a joint of cannabis - both study groups had increased response times and impaired judgement, but the cannabis smokers were more aware of their condition and drove more slowly and carefully to compensate.

In fact, this awareness was carried through in a subsequent test where drivers were given both a glass of wine AND a joint; the extra care seen in cannabis smokers helped to compensate for the poor responses caused by the alcohol.

Not recommending that anyone smoke a joint before driving obviously - the control group of people who took neither wine nor cannabis prior to driving still fared far better - but an interesting little study regardless. It was aimed at determining what the legal limit for cannabis levels in drivers should be, by the way.

Dustaz

Boston. Do yourself a favour and stop posting on this thread now. You obviously have no idea what your talking about.

On with the opinions. One inaccuracy is that there are no long term harmful effects to cannabis. There certainly are, altho they are nowehere near as harmful as those associated with alcohol and nicotine.

After a good few years of constant cannabis use i had to knock it on the head simply because i didnt enjoy what it was doing to me. I became increasingly paranoid when high (nowhere near as bad as boston seems to think can happen) and apathy crept into my life to a large degree. I know enough about myself to know that im prone to both these symptoms anyway and the drug simply heightened them so as i result i stopped smokin 'da 'erb'. I still think my concentration suffered slightly as a result, but to be honest im not sure if i can fully attribute that to the drug.

Having said all that, Im quite pro-canabis and can see absolutley no reason why it shouldnt be fully legalised assuming proper safeguards are put in place. One of the biggest dangers would be if it were freely available to the under 16's.

Dustaz

Originally posted by bonkey
Now - would anyone in the anti-marijuana lobby care to step up to the plate and explain what the point of suppressing these scientific findings were?????

jc

Anyone think the anti-hemp lobby (paper/textile/pharmaceutical manufacturers) are as powerful as the conspiracy theorists would lead us believe?

Boston

ive never had to read such blatantly bias tripe in my life.

im not even going to bother trying to come back against such a letiney of half truths and flawhoods. you havent provided a single stred of objective commentary. It is imposable to debate with a person who obviously has as much personal experience with drugs as yourself. I myself wouldnt be stupid enough to smoke something in a little bag some guy sold me on a street cornor.

so what exactly have you been baning on about for this whole thread, i said i want it legalized, you said, hey no not unless you see it my way.

so whatever man, you think canabis is about as harmfull as candy fair enough, maybe one day you will wake up.

btw i admire you for finaly having the balls to bitch to my face and not behind my back

Dustaz

Originally posted by Boston

im not even going to bother trying to come back against such a letiney of half truths and flawhoods. you havent provided a single stred of objective commentary.

Which half truths and 'flawhoods' would those be? I think bonkey and Shinji both produced objective results. Unless of course you count the WHO and The New Scientist as communist loving Hippy organisations/publications.

Boston

as far as i can see bonkey the only objective one here

Typedef

Time for common sense?
Time for blearied eyed teenagers to go around getting wacked and pretending that they really are grown up by smoking some joints maybe.

Cannabis is for dopes hence the name 'dope' funnily enough, but hey if you want to nuke your short term memory feel free to visit your local dealer, feel free to stay in bed and waste your life away smoking dope, who cares.
Just don't try and impose your filthy disgusting, mind rotting psychotic drug on me and don't try and make it available on your platform of 'more politically correct than thou' because no one cares nor wants to hear it.
Go find some dope wasted kid who cares, I most certainly do not and more than anything else does this country need yet another way people can give themselves cancer?
The health service is already laden with people riddled with 'self given' lung cancer. What do I feel a burning desire to pay for more of these fools? I think not.

Point of fact that may escape the more dependant gaunga smokers ascenine trolling about their favorite drug.
If you smoke a joint on Monday, seven to fourteen days later your short term memory will still be affected, the same is not true of 'legal' psycoactive drugs.
'Put that in your bong and toke it'
Typedef

Boston

canabis users make baby jesus cry

Dustaz

Perhaps your small mind would be interested to know about the numbers of people in public office who smoke canabis on a regular basis Typedef? (this includes TD's).
How about the large amount of people over the 16-40 demographic who smoke it?
God i could go on , but theres no point.

Noone is asking you to smoke it.

Boston

well if someone in public office was stupid enough to admitt smoking dope then they must be doing it at the time.

its like to see teh stats to back up your claims dustin, or are you just a talking turkey?

amp

Originally posted by Typedef
Time for common sense?

Right, I think we've all been fooled. Typedef is a troll. It's obvious to me now, and I feel a little daft for being taken in by it all. How could anybody in real-life(tm) be so anal?

Boston

bard is anal to the max