h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oh- are there many pleasure domes in Canada, then?

In Canada and NewFunLand
a state we pleasure bong dooby
and too trunkless legs do stand.
Graze on our grass ye might e' disappear.

Uhm ..sorry! Whassa question again..?

peace (careful, I think Mycroft's brother is a detective )
~jwf~

Super, that's all we need. A virtual raid.
We'll have to invest in a big virtual fierce dog...
Woof!
Don't even start me on Alice and the Caterpillar.

I wouldn't worry about him - he's too busy snorting coke to take much of an interest

It's the lethargy. Been blowin since 74. So what? Still. Ever so still. Give up smoking, give up the blow? How? Life without smoking...wunderbar. Without the blow? Out of it you see. Completely lethargy enhancingly out of it. I don't need this anymore. This stuff. This fluffy stuff. Head stuffed with fluff.

Just to be clear about an apparent contradiction, did you say 'I dont need this anymore'? Or is there an echo echo echo in here?

What You Need of course is what Mick Jagger says you'll get ..if ya try ..sometimes. It's What You Want that he says you don't always get. Seems to me if those are the rules, it's important to know for sure which it is.

But then Hey, who made Mick Jagger boss, eh?

peace
~jwf~

Well John, it must have made sence last night, coming in from a session of trying to keep up with my niece and her boyfriend. I should know better by now. Anymore room on that hill?

The world would certainly be a bizarre place if Mick Jagger were the boss.
Back in Serious Land, there was a big TV debate on last night here (in cheesy mock-trial format), discussing whether British drug laws worked or not. It was pretty obvious that they didn't- the 'defence' didn't have a case (outright untruths, fabrications, dodgy stats etc.), their main argument being 'It'd be worse if we didn't have the laws... even though they are not working... we don't have much evidence but do have the scary power of Anne Widdecombe. So there.'
The people called to 'give evidence' included a devout Christian woman, member of the Women's Institute (pillars of the community, make jam) who had bought heroin for her son to stop him from stealing. And the big 'ask the audience' climax revealed that 65 to 35 were in favour of changing the laws in some way.
Every poll they do comes up with those results- notice a pattern there?
(How come they say cannabis is 4 times as carcinogenic as cigarettes? You'd have though it would be better-publicised.)

That's not an outright lie, it's a statistic .

What you'll find they actually say is that smoking cannabis is much more carcinogenic, not that cannabis is carcinogenic. What they mean is that if you roll a joint with hash and cigarette tobacco, the lack of a filter means the tobacco is more carcinogenic than in a regular cigarette.

I'm not surprised they're not winning the argument on this one...

surely the point is that it's dangerous, but not a great deal more so than cigarette smoking, and certainly a lot less so than alcohol. Hence the silliness of making it illegal. Nevertheless, you shouldn't be complacent. There are lots of negative side-effects, and cannabis smokers, just like cigarette smokers and alcoholics, like to kid themselves.

wow. what a wonderfully sensible posting.

I bet you weren't stoned when you wrote that...

I, like many, see no reason at all for criminalising a leaf that some people like to smoke. As Bill Hicks once said, the notion of outlawing a plant seems a little - uh - unnatural.

Yes its a bit dangerous, (so are lots of lifes other pleasures) and yes its can be really dull to meet a perpetual stoner. They tend to repeat themselves repeat themselves and can talk a lot of nonsense. Still, mostly more fun and causes less damage than getting drunk.

(IMHO)

Why is it that smoking hash for recreation is illegal and drinking alcohol is not? Prohibition is only making the dangerous drugs more dangerous. And since this is consistently found to be the majority viewpoint why will no party contemplate anything more than 'a bit of a think about it' which is the big concession of the libdems!

Grr.

PJ
pj

Complete this famous quotation: '****, **** **** and statistics.'
Since I hate tobacco in all its forms- for many reasons- I would never ever use it with cannabis. (Besides, that's mixing your drugs, and we all know that's bad for you. Don't we, children. )
Cannabis isn't just 'not as dangerous' as tobacco, it's not even halfway there. It doesn't cause physical addiction in a matter of hours, no one dies from it etc. drones on.
I have a book of poisons and antidotes, with a comparative toxicity rating for each one. Alcohol is of moderate toxicity (use it wisely). Tobacco is listed as toxicity 6- less than 7 drops will kill an adult-along with morphine and its derivative, heroin. And cannabis- toxicity 1, practically non-toxic!
Everything that alters your perception, mood etc needs to be treated wisely. Even caffeine. This is what bugs me most of all about the staunch antis- they fail to distinguish between 'use' and 'abuse', thus making their argument nonsense.

Anyone up for restarting this thread? I've been placed in position of authority on this matter (well, sorto') and want to check my facts.
So... don't bogart me, friends.

Ooooo. A position of authority!

Does this involve spreading your feet and placing one hands on the car or perhaps getting hurled 'Up against the wall mudderfu...'?

peace
~jwf~ (always happy to rap about weed)

No, silly!
Parents have decided I am more qualified to answer all of The Boy (13)'s questions about Life. I am trying to at least be a little responsible.
So let's rap...