On WACCOE there was one person who wanted to see Gary go, and I haven't seen a single comment to that effect on twitter. I think you're being paranoid here mate.
I voted, I voted for him to stay actually, based on the fact that it was wrong of the paper to run the story. I did however leave a lengthy comment stating that I was disappointed to see it going to a vote and that Gary should have done the responsible thing and stepped down if he believed that the story was damaging to LUST
Not really - they have probably had both story's ready to run for a while now - what better time than on the eve of New Leeds' biggest game - most journo's would have waited to publish them then
Try... crimes involve actually hurting another human being, and cannabis cultivation does no such thing. I don't give a **** if some Westminster tit decrees it to be punishable by kidknapping and caging (or 'prison', as I believe they call it). It's not a crime.
As long as he's not shot any innocent people with those arms, I don't see the problem. You see, I don't tend to think people should be arrested for merely owning things.
That's fair. That's not a libel case that is just getting what is owed. These cases would have had a much more noticable benefit if bates hadn't spunked the "winnings" on libel cases against him that he didn't need to provoke. He's spent so much money on needless court cases that he had no chance of winning, ever. The cases that we've won, that any club would have taken up, are not an excuse or a "plus point" of kens habit of going to court, because like I said, any club and any chairman in their right mind would make those cases. His actions that caused libel cases are inexcusable.
Cannabis should remain illegal. Personal experience with the drug has convinced me that it is very damaging and significantly worse than alcohol or cigarettes.
I'd be delighted. People who challenge the Westminster and Police bullies deserve a lot of respect in my eyes. So everything 'damaging' should be physically withheld from people on threat of arrest? You make a choice to use brain-altering substances, and are responsible for your actions. Actually your personal experience is far from typical, because alcohol affects the brain more profoundly than cannabis, yet no-one with a right mind dares to call for prohibition once again. Would you be happy to be arrested for your personal experience with weed? Correct. I think shooting people with guns is a crime, but owning pieces of metal arranged in a certain way is not.
My view is if you don't have a gun you can't use it. The USA have got it incredibly wrong, which is why there's so much gun crime. Those 20 dead kids and 7 dead staff members at the school in Newtown wouldn't be dead if the bloke who killed them simply couldn't get hold of a firearm. The unfortunate reality is that alcohol will never be made illegal because of the amount of money in it and the size of the business in general, when maybe perhaps it should be. The same goes for cigarettes. If cannabis was to be made legal, it would be very difficult to make it illegal again because there'd be a lot of money in it and businesses would live and die on it's legality. Cannabis can exacerbate depression as I found out to my own detriment and I feel it has had a long term effect in that it has strengthened a lot of feelings that I wish to let go of and move on. Of course, alcohol can also exacerbate depression, which is why I have stopped drinking entirely. Cigarettes can too, as they reduce testosterone levels and low testosterone in men can cause depression, but I don't smoke. In all honesty I think all these substances should be made illegal. Alcohol is the hardest one as in small amounts it can be a great source of joy for many, especially those who drink in moderation for the flavour of the large variety of beautiful drinks available. Unfortunately, I can't see why the lives of its victims are less important than the enjoyment of a view "connoisseurs". Why should children and countless other innocent people have to die to protect the rights of a few gun enthusiasts to own a gun for shooting squirrels or cans or other inanimate objects?
My view is that if you don't have a knife, you can't use it. The UK have got it incredibly wrong, which is why there's so much knife crime. Those hundreds of inner city stab victims wouldn't be dead if the bloke who killed them simply couldn't get hold of a knife. **** people who want to use them for self-defence, or to cut up their dinner with. How is that unfortunate? People take calculated risks in their lives all the time - it's not human life in a real sense at all if you are restricted from being able to make the choices you want to, and that includes addling your brain with toxins via caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and yes, even cannabis and heroin if people want to. You can NEVER stop people getting hold of these things. The plants and distilleries will never go away. The springs and metals needed for home-made gun production will never go away. It's only when people are suppressed that these things are a problem - if everyone knew it was out in the open, there would quite simply be far less crime, including the casualties inflicted by government raids on entrepreneurial drug and gun vendors. Excess eating, excess sugar, excess caffeine, excess ANYTHING can do the same. But I ask you: should people never be allowed to make mistakes in their life? For every person depressed by cannabis use, there are ninety nine recreational users who enjoy it. To say that government should decide what people do with their own bodies is to say that government is the rightful owner of people's bodies. That people are slaves. Is that your understanding? The lives of its victims are important, that's why they should take responsibility for themselves and not drink excessively. I've learnt that the hard way just like every other regular drinker, and it enrichened my life. They shouldn't, because in a world where everyone can bear arms, a shooting spree idiot would hit the dust within seconds rather than being able to shoot tens of unarmed, vulnerable, unprotected people. It is a tragedy, and one caused by government. Moreover, why should countless innocent people who could have jobs in the gun trade have to be physically repressed by government agents in order to protect the insecurities of socialist bullies? Each to their own, that's my view. Finally, guns aren't truly illegal, because access to them is very widespread in army and elite police units. In other words, instead of them being decentralized and spread around the population who would use them for noble reasons of protecting themselves from crime and tyranny, they are centralized and concentrated in the hands of an unelected and illegitimate select few. These few use them to butcher women and children in illegal foreign wars, and to raid innocent people who refuse to be kowtowed by invalid laws on drugs, taxation and production of other 'illegal material', and they are allowed exclusive access to the top training facilities where they learn to be government killing machines, while the people are powerless as ever to resist this affront to their freedom. The people should side with the people. Always.
Freedom to do whatever you want can only go so far. Alcohol and cigarettes are only legal because they were discovered and turned into big business long before governments started thinking "hang on a minute, this might be harmful to people", and prohibition would cause an economic shift that would likely leave the country in ruins. Either way, you're clearly a political extremist, and extremists are A) almost impossible to argue with and B) half the problem with the world as it is. The question I have for you is where do you draw the line? Should Iran be allowed nuclear weapons just because it is the freedom of a few people at the top of government to do so, even if the potential for usage as weaponry infringes on the rights of millions more? Nobody should be allowed to "learn the hard way" if learning the hard ware harms somebody else who has no control over the events. The only reason people want to "get high" anyway is because life is so horrifically miserable for so many people and they aren't willing to put the effort in to make their lives better. Too busy blaming external factors for their misery instead of doing something about it. Unfortunately the only way to ensure there are no innocent victims in "victimless" activities like owning a gun for no good reason is to stop people from owning guns. Also, if you haven't checked recently, carrying a knife around is a crime, as it is classed as an offensive weapon.
Not comparable to the gun issue. Falacious to try to do so. What is the intended purpose of each? What are the numbers involved in deaths from guns and knives?
I entirely agree. Somebody walks into a school with a knife, it's not a ranged weapon and thus they are easier to neutralise. Thrown a table at their head and they are pretty much ****ed. Bullets go through tables.
Marco, I'm afraid I cannot agree with you re. the prohibition of drugs. You say that it will save lives, and the only casualty will be the enjoyment of a significant part of the community. In that case, would you advocate the prohibition of paracetamol, asprin, glue, bleach, petrol, cars, planes, bridges, high rise buildings, roads, railways ... (the list goes on & on), as each of these is responsible for people losing (or perhaps I should say taking?) their lives? Answer yes or no, as you appear to be arguing in principle, and there can be no grey areas in principle. My personal view is that prohibition has only ever benefited gangsters. Would you have heard of Al Capone, but for the US prohibition of alcohol? No, clearly not. Alcohol & mind bending drugs has been consumed for millenia, and we have all managed to live with the pros & cons. A schoolfriend of mine died from glue addiction. His choice. No mystique to draw him into the world of government-forbidden substances. No dealer (apart from the corner shop). No peer pressure. Personal choice & aware that it could end his life. Very sad, however it was an informed choice, and he had the right to make it. Had he chosen an illegal substance such as hash, he might still be alive today. Also, had glue been banned, it's possible that many more might have died due to the attraction of being nonconformist. As for guns, my principles tell me that anyone should be able to own anything they like. But I take comfort from the fact that I live in the UK where there is tight gun control. There are some very interesting but worrying stats out there: * The US is 5% of the world's population, but owns 50% of the guns! * German police fired 84 shots last year, 47 of which were warning shots * In just one incident, LA police fired 90 shots whilst killing a joyrider * The average number of people shot in the US annually is 97,000. Perhaps there might be a case for the nanny state for some things, but ingestion of liquids or substances, harmful or otherwise seems like a perfectly good activity for personal choice.
