Belgian politicians rather indulge in them drugs man...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

The tabloid press are all over this, as you would expect. They couldn't give a monkeys that it costs the NHS £5 million a year to treat smoking induced diseases, all they want to do is to stir up the debate to sell more newspapers.

The whole post is worthy of a +1 except for the above. Now please provide the total annual cost for the NHS for an over bloated bureaucracy & health tourists.

I think you'll find it is a hell of a lot more than £5,000,000 a year!

Ah that's better. So a well deserved +1.

There was a time when this was a free country...

Oh please don't be so melodramatic.

If you wished you could go to Hyde park Corner in London, and wear a placard that proclaimed "Down with the Government!". Provided that you were not causing a public affray or disturbance, you would be "free" to do so. Now, go try doing that in North Korea, China, Russia, or any typical Eastern European country, and see how quickly you get imprisoned for a crime against the State. Oh, and we might add South America and a lot of Africa to that list as well.

The UK probably has more Civil Liberty than any Western world country, but if you are unhappy living here, and think that there is somewhere else that would be better for you, then you know where the port of Dover is, and we wish you Bon Voyage! You come across like an ex left wing student with a chip on their shoulder against the establishment, if that is not the case and you would like to change things for what you would see as the better, then lets hear some proposals.

That things are worse elsewhere is not an excuse for eroding civil liberties here.

I want the Government to stick to fixing roads, making the trains run on time, catching criminals, and other such administrative duties.

What i object to is them micromanaging every aspect of our lives, don't do this, don't do that...
Lets stick to big things like don't knife people or do 130 mph past a primary school after drinking a bottle of scotch.
When they get down to nitty things like what i want to put into my own body, that should be up to me and no-one else.

I wouldn't say we don't need a government, that would be ridiculous.
I would say we don't need as much government.
But this is getting off topic.

In the meantime the Surgeon General and the government have come up with some suggestions as to the way forward regarding smoking, and safeguarding the nations health, which is their responsibility to do.

They're welcome to suggest that people should smoke less.
When they start bringing in laws prohibiting stuff, that is beyond suggesting, that is curbing freedom.

Next they'll be "suggesting" that people don't leave their house at night to reduce public disturbances; then bam, curfews.

I'm worried about this being the thin end of the wedge.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

The tabloid press are all over this, as you would expect. They couldn't give a monkeys that it costs the NHS £5 Billion a year to treat smoking induced diseases, all they want to do is to stir up the debate to sell more newspapers.

And the government rakes in £9.7 billion p.a. in tobacco duty plus another £2.6 billion from the VAT. Total: £12.3 billion.
12.3 - 5 = £7.3 billion left over.
I think the NHS can easily afford to treat them.

(figures)

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

A little light relief anyone...?

I read somewhere that smoking still raises about twice as much in tax revenue as it costs the NHS - and that HMRC are more than a little alarmed at the hit their revenues are taking from e-cigarettes. Suppose it won't be long before they're just as heavily taxed. Think alcohol taxes are a similar cash cow. No bans today then folks...

Am I off-topic? I don't know... earache leaves me a bit woolly-brained...

edit: Oh! There... what Simonator said :) (sorry - must have come in whilst I was watching Yes Prime Minister :))

@anniet

must have come in whilst I was watching Yes Prime Minister :))

Great show. I used to watch it (and its earlier seasons titled 'Yes Minister').

Funny in the extreme.

@CLYDE

It might not end the small 'mom&pop' operations. They do still exist now even though it is illegal.

But, I do agree that, if legalized, 'Big Tobacco' will undoubtedly move in. Financially, tobacco isn't all that attractive any more due to the legal climate. But think about it. 'Big Tobacco' has a worldwide distribution and retail network all set up. Why shouldn't they move into the market if it opens on cannabis?

Perhaps in principle, the ban would be a good thing, but it would be totally unenforceable over 20,000 acres in practice. Although in 2011, New York introduced a ban on smoking in Central Park's 843 acres and all of the city's other parks and beaches. How is that working?

In the 1950's in Los Angeles county, 12,308 km², nearly everyone had an incinerator for their trash. They banned them. It is working out very well.

---

I would suggest that one of the main reasons for the incidences of rape in India is because of how their society views women. They are seen as mere chattels to be "used" for work, giving birth and sex. The dowry system is still in widespread use there despite the 1961 Dowry Prohibition Act in Indian civil law, and subsequently by Sections 304B and 498a of the Indian Penal Code. That attitude to women in general is the main reason why the laws are not enforced, because Indian society doesn't want them to be. But there is another thread for this discussion.

I agree. But it still suits my point. Es asked whether I would start raping and murdering if there wasn't a law against it. I wouldn't, but as India proves, if you got a society that basically tells its men that rape is 'okay' you can see the result.

So clearly you need laws and strictly enforce those laws in order to combat rape.

Rape is technically illegal in India. So clearly having a law against something doesn't have as much effect as public attitudes to it. It does make it easier to enforce something. However, why do we feel the need to enforce something that doesn't actually harm anyone (if indeed it does) but the user?

Enforce laws against smoking weed and driving. That seems fair.

Enforce laws about smoking around children or in public spaces. Why not?

A blanket ban on weed is actually ridiculous and disproportionate.

Of course we shall see what happens in Washington State and Colorado, but so far it hasn't been awful.

---

Reality Internet Personality

141 miles south of Vancouver I have noticed no change.

---

A blanket ban on weed is actually ridiculous and disproportionate.

+1, wouldn't work either. How many people are using heroin or other illegal drugs? They 'score' everyday...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

A blanket ban on weed is actually ridiculous and disproportionate.

+1, wouldn't work either. How many people are using heroin or other illegal drugs? They 'score' everyday...

There are 'Recreational' Users of Heroin and Crack?

No.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

A blanket ban on weed is actually ridiculous and disproportionate.

+1, wouldn't work either. How many people are using heroin or other illegal drugs? They 'score' everyday...

There are 'Recreational' Users of Heroin and Crack?

There are, but they don't tend to stay that way because Heroin and Crack are so physically addictive. Alchohol is also physically addictive which is why Amy Winehouse died when she tried to go cold turkey.

Marijuana and Cocaine are not actually physically addictive, but they can be psychologically addictive. Cocaine more so because of the nature of the high. However there are plenty of people who use weed and cocaine at weekends and it doesn't effect their lives in a negative way at all. Cocaine, however has been shown to be far more harmful to health than weed.

As far as recreational drugs go, weed really is less harmful than regular trips to Mc Donalds.

---

Reality Internet Personality

A blanket ban on weed is actually ridiculous and disproportionate.

+1, wouldn't work either. How many people are using heroin or other illegal drugs? They 'score' everyday...

There are 'Recreational' Users of Heroin and Crack?

There are, but they don't tend to stay that way because Heroin and Crack are so physically addictive. Alchohol is also physically addictive which is why Amy Winehouse died when she tried to go cold turkey.

Marijuana and Cocaine are not actually physically addictive, but they can be psychologically addictive. Cocaine more so because of the nature of the high. However there are plenty of people who use weed and cocaine at weekends and it doesn't effect their lives in a negative way at all. Cocaine, however has been shown to be far more harmful to health than weed.

As far as recreational drugs go, weed really is less harmful than regular trips to Mc Donalds.

Must +1 that, food has the same impact on our system, speaking in terms of addiction, as weed.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

A blanket ban on weed is actually ridiculous and disproportionate.

+1, wouldn't work either. How many people are using heroin or other illegal drugs? They 'score' everyday...

There are 'Recreational' Users of Heroin and Crack?

There are, but they don't tend to stay that way because Heroin and Crack are so physically addictive. Alchohol is also physically addictive which is why Amy Winehouse died when she tried to go cold turkey.

Marijuana and Cocaine are not actually physically addictive, but they can be psychologically addictive. Cocaine more so because of the nature of the high. However there are plenty of people who use weed and cocaine at weekends and it doesn't effect their lives in a negative way at all. Cocaine, however has been shown to be far more harmful to health than weed.

As far as recreational drugs go, weed really is less harmful than regular trips to Mc Donalds.

Uhh.. Es99:

Crack IS Cocaine.

Cocaine dependance is primarily psychological, with a much smaller physical dependance component. 'Crack' is considered by some to be more 'addictive', primarily due to the rapidity of it entering the system compared to powder cocaine, but there is a good amount of dispute on that topic.

For most intents and purposes, they can be considered the SAME drug.

A blanket ban on weed is actually ridiculous and disproportionate.

+1, wouldn't work either. How many people are using heroin or other illegal drugs? They 'score' everyday...

There are 'Recreational' Users of Heroin and Crack?

There are, but they don't tend to stay that way because Heroin and Crack are so physically addictive. Alchohol is also physically addictive which is why Amy Winehouse died when she tried to go cold turkey.

Marijuana and Cocaine are not actually physically addictive, but they can be psychologically addictive. Cocaine more so because of the nature of the high. However there are plenty of people who use weed and cocaine at weekends and it doesn't effect their lives in a negative way at all. Cocaine, however has been shown to be far more harmful to health than weed.

As far as recreational drugs go, weed really is less harmful than regular trips to Mc Donalds.

Uhh.. Es99:

Crack IS Cocaine.

Cocaine dependance is primarily psychological, with a much smaller physical dependance component. 'Crack' is considered by some to be more 'addictive', primarily due to the rapidity of it entering the system compared to powder cocaine, but there is a good amount of dispute on that topic.

For most intents and purposes, they can be considered the SAME drug.

fair enough..but the process that is done to cocaine to make it crack does change the drug.

---

Reality Internet Personality

A blanket ban on weed is actually ridiculous and disproportionate.

+1, wouldn't work either. How many people are using heroin or other illegal drugs? They 'score' everyday...

There are 'Recreational' Users of Heroin and Crack?

There are, but they don't tend to stay that way because Heroin and Crack are so physically addictive. Alchohol is also physically addictive which is why Amy Winehouse died when she tried to go cold turkey.

Marijuana and Cocaine are not actually physically addictive, but they can be psychologically addictive. Cocaine more so because of the nature of the high. However there are plenty of people who use weed and cocaine at weekends and it doesn't effect their lives in a negative way at all. Cocaine, however has been shown to be far more harmful to health than weed.

As far as recreational drugs go, weed really is less harmful than regular trips to Mc Donalds.

Uhh.. Es99:

Crack IS Cocaine.

Cocaine dependance is primarily psychological, with a much smaller physical dependance component. 'Crack' is considered by some to be more 'addictive', primarily due to the rapidity of it entering the system compared to powder cocaine, but there is a good amount of dispute on that topic.

For most intents and purposes, they can be considered the SAME drug.

Crack is not cocaine. To obtain crack, one must cook the cocaine in ammonia. Cocaine is injected or sniffed, crack would be for smoking. Crack is also way more dangerous than cocaine.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

A blanket ban on weed is actually ridiculous and disproportionate.

+1, wouldn't work either. How many people are using heroin or other illegal drugs? They 'score' everyday...

There are 'Recreational' Users of Heroin and Crack?

There are, but they don't tend to stay that way because Heroin and Crack are so physically addictive. Alchohol is also physically addictive which is why Amy Winehouse died when she tried to go cold turkey.

Marijuana and Cocaine are not actually physically addictive, but they can be psychologically addictive. Cocaine more so because of the nature of the high. However there are plenty of people who use weed and cocaine at weekends and it doesn't effect their lives in a negative way at all. Cocaine, however has been shown to be far more harmful to health than weed.

As far as recreational drugs go, weed really is less harmful than regular trips to Mc Donalds.

Uhh.. Es99:

Crack IS Cocaine.

Cocaine dependance is primarily psychological, with a much smaller physical dependance component. 'Crack' is considered by some to be more 'addictive', primarily due to the rapidity of it entering the system compared to powder cocaine, but there is a good amount of dispute on that topic.

For most intents and purposes, they can be considered the SAME drug.

fair enough..but the process that is done to cocaine to make it crack does change the drug.

+1

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

A blanket ban on weed is actually ridiculous and disproportionate.

+1, wouldn't work either. How many people are using heroin or other illegal drugs? They 'score' everyday...

There are 'Recreational' Users of Heroin and Crack?

There are, but they don't tend to stay that way because Heroin and Crack are so physically addictive. Alchohol is also physically addictive which is why Amy Winehouse died when she tried to go cold turkey.

Marijuana and Cocaine are not actually physically addictive, but they can be psychologically addictive. Cocaine more so because of the nature of the high. However there are plenty of people who use weed and cocaine at weekends and it doesn't effect their lives in a negative way at all. Cocaine, however has been shown to be far more harmful to health than weed.

As far as recreational drugs go, weed really is less harmful than regular trips to Mc Donalds.

Uhh.. Es99:

Crack IS Cocaine.

Cocaine dependance is primarily psychological, with a much smaller physical dependance component. 'Crack' is considered by some to be more 'addictive', primarily due to the rapidity of it entering the system compared to powder cocaine, but there is a good amount of dispute on that topic.

For most intents and purposes, they can be considered the SAME drug.

Crack is not cocaine. To obtain crack, one must cook the cocaine in ammonia. Cocaine is injected or sniffed, crack would be for smoking. Crack is also way more dangerous than cocaine.

Julie:

cocaine powder is "Cocaine Hydrochloride" (C17H21NO4)H+ Cl-
crack cocaine is "Cocaine" (C17H21NO4)

The act of "cooking" you mentioned converts the salt cocaine hydrochloride into
cocaine. But I wouldn't use ammonia (NH3) to do it.

As to more dangerous... maybe. Undoubtedly it is easier to OD on crack. I already commented on the 'addictiveness'.

But I wouldn't use ammonia (NH3) to do it.

Ammonia is the only substance that can turn cocaine into crack.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures