Lmao. It's legal for a 5 year old to drink booze. But as long as it's not in a pub because that would be outrageous.
It depends. The small print says it has to be age appropriate: you're in big trouble if your five-year old ends up in A&E with alcohol poisoning.
That site is a mine of info! But I'm still fairly sure no one goes to prison for smoking weed ... at least the first and second times. Go back 23 years or so and I was caught smoking it - thank the lords/gods/luck I never went to prison for that! (of course, if we are talking a substantial amount of possession, that is different)
The rozzers generally aren't interested if you're not doing other naughty things. Many years ago in my early 20s I was caught by the police parked atop a large hill in the middle of nowhere, at the wheel of my hotbox car along with 3 friends and an ounce or so of something smelly, late at night. After a bit of a dressing down and fairly lacklustre search of the car they told me to sleep it off on the hill and drive home in the morning. Which was good of them. Of course, we continued with the stuff they hadn't found and then buggered off after a couple of hours. In hindsight they probably should have arrested me that night for being in control of a vehicle, but I wasn't on a public highway or operating the vehicle at the time, and the stuff wasn't mine - honest guv In all seriousness though, in general life I keep out of other people's way and they keep out of mine. I was the same when I was a drug user - doing no harm to man, beast or property. Just my short-term memory and lung tissue. I was one of those for whom the illegal status of the drug was merely an annoyance rather than a deterrent, and I could acquire it through dozens of means on a daily basis.
I think feeding them that crap is child abuse. If you're going to introduce them to alcohol, start them off on a good quality wine or spirit.
It's why we have image stabilisation on mobile phone cameras. Prevents blurring of your selfie when you're incoherent.
I had an amazing discussion with an army bloke the other day. He said, "why do you do that ****, you don't know what they put in'em" essentially. We promptly fell out when I pointed out that a) the stuff I've been using gets user reviews, so I kinda do know what I'm getting, obviously never 100%, and b) didn't the horse meat scandal teach any lessons at all? c) all the lives ruined in pursuit of import/export and usage, could easily be avoided if it was legal. Like you said Nexxo, if I go to prison for drug use, what do I do next? You have to bend over and tell everyone you were a drug addict, & that you have recovered, & have changed, as they smash another bottle of Gin on the weekend because they think it is low calorie, which even you aren't allowed to do anymore because you are damaged goods, and need beg forgiveness.
With my scientific skepticism hat on, this isn't even an issue: there is an overwhelming body of evidence supporting legalisation and regulation of drugs. Let's just help people with their addiction instead of making a lifetime criminal out of 18yr old Johnny because he experimented with ganja once. However. This is not a scientific debate - at least not for those who are in the position to make the rules. This is an ideological question and the overwhelming view from Conservative and Labour at the moment is "DRUGS ARE BAD, M'KAY. DON'T DO DRUGS." The Conservatives aren't the only bad guys here either: let's not forget that it was a Labour government which sacked Prof. David Nutt from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for stating a scientific conclusion that contradicted their ideological beliefs. Does anyone seriously think that, with the current political parties and under our current political system, we will ever have a modern progressive government that actually represents and stands with their constituents? No, our politicians are - by and large - beholden to their own ideologies and the interests of whoever donates the big money. This is a tangent, but related, so indulge me... *cough* no they didn't *cough*, only 37% of those who turned out voted Conservative. The Conservatives got 37% of the vote but 51% of the seats - how is that fair? First past the post is an abomination for a modern democracy. Back to your regularly scheduled debate...
Oh well, the UKIP voters are just Conservatives by proxy. My point remains: Tories got the largest share, so this is the government you've got. Enjoy.
Whilst I understand the logic behind the argument for the decriminalisation of drugs which are known and understood, I struggle to see why it'd be a good idea to treat new and unknown substances in the same way. No-one knows anything about the new compounds which these dodgy labs are knocking out at quite a rate, or what the medium/long term affects will be.
The new compounds wouldn't be needed if drugs were legal in some respects. Less people in prisons, less drain on police and hospitals and better control of often heavily diluted substances. Oh and of course more taxes. The first step is to stop treating addicts as criminals, though obviously there are associated crimes that are due to need for the next 'fix', but that is just as true for alcohol in some respects.
Sure, I get that. Let's imagine though, that someone prefers to smoke "monkey chemicals" (untested synthetic cannabinoids and other untested synthetic analogues) from their local head shop rather than grass from a dealer. Should they be able to?
Absolutely. Why would I buy a pill that promises to keep me up all night, with a feeling akin to the power of a thousand red bulls, in a package labelled quite clearly as plant food not fit for human consumption, when I can just buy some cocaine, mdma or whatever floats your boat? If I want to feel like I'm underwater with zero coordination, and wading through an existence smeared in treacle, have some cannabis, or alcohol. Want to spend five hours walking 200 metres through a forest because everything has gone nuts, and you aren't sure if the ants keep turning into buses, and the meaning of life is always just behind the next corner, crack on with the mushrooms, or acid. It's all nonsense. Most people hooked on the hard stuff are doing it because their lives are ****. The only escape is, quite frankly, the disappointing rush & release of a chemical binge. These people, as far as the average person seems concerned, apparently need to be hammered into the ground by massive "get over it" hammers. Policy is to be constantly barraged with the dogma of "obvious right choices," and how easy they are to do as part of Britain's hard working families, despite not having any parents to speak of; a combination I can't see anyone would ever get the nerve to feel down about. Don't worry, just switch on the telly where you'll never feel insignificant next to the chiselled reality of the genetic lottery. That'll help us escape.
I'm not sure It's a case of being able to, I think what bionicgeekgrrl was alluding to is that the people cooking up these synthetic drugs in a lab are only doing so because the alternative is illegal. It's much like when America toyed with prohibition, alcohol was made illegal so people resorted to making their own, often with dangerous consequences.
According to this fellow. What ye have is neither the majority nor is it representative. http://youtu.be/r9rGX91rq5I
I'm not saying everything is dandy, but didn't we turn down proportional representation only a few years ago? So in effect the majority were happy with how a first past the post system works and the outcomes it generates, after all we are told it creates a stable government.
