Making news out of UN-attributable comments on your own website?

Slow news say then

Three pros and one anti reported.

The Libertarian argument could also extend to cover the rights of those who get their kicks by looking at pictures of scantily clad eight year olds.

It would further have to suggest that if such images were posed voluntarily by paid models there would be no crime or harm done to the greater society.

It would also be up in arms against people being given jail sentences for secretly filming in changing rooms and using the footage privately(the equivalent to "homegrown").
So why isn't it?

Why should one group of criminals be allowed so much time to justify their behaviour whilst slamming the lid closed on other criminals engaging in similarly "harmless" behaviour?

A "victimless crime " is a victimless crime after all isnt it? Or is libertarianism simply another form of self interested bullshit?

I think it is clearly the latter.

Keep rounding the self deluded cretins up.

COPS SAY LEGALIZE DRUGS!
ASK US WHY
After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 37 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled making building prisons the fastest growing industry in the United States. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.9 million more guaranteeing those prisons will be bursting at their seams. Every year we choose to continue this war will cost U.S. taxpayers another 69 billion dollars. Despite all the lives we have destroyed and all the money so ill spent, today illicit drugs are cheaper, more potent, and far easier to get than they were 35 years ago at the beginning of the war on drugs. Meanwhile, people continue dying in our streets while drug barons and terrorists continue to grow richer than ever before. We would suggest that this scenario must be the very definition of a failed public policy. This madness must cease!


The stated goals of current U.S.drug policy -- reducing crime, drug addiction, and juvenile drug use -- have not been achieved, even after nearly four decades of a policy of "war on drugs". This policy, fueled by over a trillion of our tax dollars has had little or no effect on the levels of drug addiction among our fellow citizens, but has instead resulted in a tremendous increase in crime and in the numbers of Americans in our prisons and jails. With 4.6% of the world's population, America today has 22.5% of the worlds prisoners. But, after all that time, after all the destroyed lives and after all the wasted resources, prohibited drugs today are cheaper, stronger, and easier to get than they were thirty-five years ago at the beginning of the so-called "war on drugs". With this in mind, we current and former members of law enforcement have created a drug-policy reform movement -- LEAP. We believe that to save lives and lower the rates of disease, crime and addiction. as well as to conserve tax dollars, we must end drug prohibition. LEAP believes that a system of regulation and control of production and distribution will be far more effective and ethical than one of prohibition. We do this in hopes that we in Law Enforcement can regain the public's respect and trust, which have been greatly diminished by our involvement in imposing drug prohibition. Please consider joining us. You don't have to be a cop to join LEAP! Find out more about us by reading some of the articles in our Publications section or by watching and listening to some of our multimedia clips,. You can also read about the men and women who speak for LEAP, and see what we have on the calendar for the near future.

"Tax dollars"??
Obviously cut and paste from an American website.

The aim being to make dollars from addiction and misery.

If the yanks were that concerned about health care they would do something about their "pay or die" health system over there before presuming to lecture us.
Don't be fooled, the spectre of Milton Friedman and free market economics lies behind this. Not social justice.

'prompted a flood of comments from people who read the story on the Oxford Mail's website'
Yes all three comments!! Just report the news, don't make it. Nothing to do today then.

"Prompted a flood of comments."

Just the headline some unlucky householders in and around Oxford need, bearing in mind recent events.

Well done, yet again, Oxford Mail.

You could not make it up!

alan..

a man with a video camera filming someone is not a victimless crime because there are 2 people involved , whether the person knows they are being filmed or not is of no importance..

a man growing and smoking his own cannabis in his own home only has 1 person involved so its a victimless crime..

And quite clearly a crime that the law courts regard as very miner..

a complete and utter waste of police time and money.

It would also be up in arms against people being given jail sentences for secretly filming in changing rooms and using the footage privately(the equivalent to "homegrown").
So why isn't it?

hardly the same is it Alan! obviously one involves another person being filmed without their consent, when growing something for your own use there is no-one else involved.

alan page wrote:
"Tax dollars"?? Obviously cut and paste from an American website. The aim being to make dollars from addiction and misery. If the yanks were that concerned about health care they would do something about their "pay or die" health system over there before presuming to lecture us. Don't be fooled, the spectre of Milton Friedman and free market economics lies behind this. Not social justice.

Alan, why are you so determined to see that other people be banned from doing something in their own home?

This guy grew his own in his house and smoked it himself. He wasn't making millions out of the misery of others.

What else do you want to ban that you don't approve of?

Read the Daily Mail a lot as well, do you?

But spokesman Don Barnard added users of the drug should respect the job police were doing. He said: "Laws are there to
protect society from people who do dangerous things and harm others."

Mr Barnard, who was this cannabis grower and smoker harming exactly in society?..

he didn't buy his cannabis from a dealer.

he wasn't selling it to anybody.

and he was smoking it in his own home.

its a completely victimless crime.

If all people that smoked cannabis did this it would make your job remarkably easier and more effective, you could use your resources to arrest hard drug dealers and make a real contribution to society.. .

Cannabis lead me onto harder drugs. Luckly I've managed to quit tobacco now.

Kids will experiment with smoking. They really should be taught that if they are going to smoke cannabis they should use a pipe or other such method.

Heavy cannabis use is often a phase for young people. The biggest long term problem is if it leads to nicotine addiction.

This alan page chap seems to have something of a Chris Langham thing going on ...

How dare you compare personal use and/or cultivation of cannabis with paedophilia? What a ridiculous arguement! How could anyone argue that paedophilia is a victimless crime? Maybe if the police weren't spending so much time chasing easy cannabis convictions they could apprehend more real criminals - like paedophiles!!

Characteristics of Cannabis Users Who Have Never Smoked Tobacco
J. C. Suris, MD, PhD; Christina Akre, MA; André Berchtold, PhD; André Jeannin, MA; Pierre-André Michaud, MD

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007


Objectives.
To estimate the prevalence of youth who use cannabis but have never been tobacco smokers and to assess the characteristics that differentiate them from those using both substances or neither substance.

Participants.
A total of 5263 students (2439 females) aged 16 to 20 years divided into cannabis-only smokers (n = 455), cannabis and tobacco smokers (n = 1703), and abstainers (n = 3105).

Outcome Measures.
Regular tobacco and cannabis use; and personal, family, academic, and substance use characteristics.

Results.
Compared with those using both substances, cannabis-only youth were younger and more likely to be male, to play sports, to live with both parents, to be students, and to have good grades and less likely to have been drunk, to have used cannabis more than once or twice in the previous month, and to perceive their pubertal timing as early. Compared with abstainers, they were more likely to be male, to have a good relationship with friends, to be sensation seeking, and to practice sports and less likely to have a good relationship with their parents. They were more likely to attend high school and to skip class

Conclusions.
Cannabis-only adolescents show better functioning than those who also use tobacco. Compared with abstainers, they are more socially driven and do not seem to have psychosocial problems at a higher rate.

Interestingly, our results do not confirm our hypothesis of better overall functioning among abstainers. In fact, what our research indicates is that the main difference between COG youth and abstainers is that the former are more socially driven: they are significantly more likely to practice sports, and they have a better relationship with their peers. Moreover, even though they are more likely to skip class, they have the same level of good grades; and although they have a worse relationship with their parents, they are not more likely to be depressed.

In addition, and contrary to previous research, our study does not confirm the negative effect of cannabis on academic performance among COG youth. In our case, they are more likely to be school students and they report similar grades as abstainers, even though they skip class more often.

While our results confirm that CTG youth tend to present psychosocial problems at a higher rate than COG youth and as such constitute a potential target for preventive interventions, the fact that COG youth, compared with abstainers, seem to do at least as well, if not better, in some areas raises questions. those adolescents who only use cannabis but who may also use some tobacco to prepare their cannabis cigarettes should be advised about the possibility of becoming addicted to nicotine.

I have to agree with Dilys Wood to compare cannabis with paedophilia, I can really find annoying!
So would millions of user like myself in this country.
Which shows to me you really don't know what you are talking about Mr Page, and using examples like this to make up a paedophiliac crime seem trivial, by leveling it with cannabis use/growing Mr Alan Page, would leave to consider you evaluate your morals, and seek education.

As a victim of a paedophile at 9 years old, I have a particular reason to find alan's obsession deeply offensive. It takes surprisingly little child abuse to change the course of a life.

alan page you need help

also i feel that the police would do well to show you some attention. as you seem to have paedophilia on your mind

done a search for his name on the site

It is illegal
On behalf of Little Foxes Wildlife Rescue, I must correct Alan Page's assertion (Oxford Mail, June 14) that it is legal to poison foxes.

Mr Page has put into the public arena dangerous and false information.

he is not dealing from a full deck

Jane wrote:
alan.. a man with a video camera filming someone is not a victimless crime because there are 2 people involved , whether the person knows they are being filmed or not is of no importance.. a man growing and smoking his own cannabis in his own home only has 1 person involved so its a victimless crime.. And quite clearly a crime that the law courts regard as very miner.. a complete and utter waste of police time and money.

Somebody who chooses to develop a psychosis through
Cannabis use is NOT a single person.

His actions impact on the world around him.

The holes in my mother's doors and walls testify to that fact.

You are 40 years out of date with your assertions.

How is a person unaware of a situation a "victim"?

I am not justifying such behaviour merely questioning the logic behind why one group choosing to inflict their psychoses on the people around any diferent to somebody who chooses to inflict his sexuality on other people.

Mind you it is hilarious to see all the drooling vegetables emerging from their darkened rooms.

Pitiful really. I have never taken drugs, have never needed to take drugs, can see little point in taking drugs. An expensive waste of money.

The people I have seen on drugs have all been reduced to shadows of their former selves and been unable to construct sentences or talk coherently.

I think people ae starting to see through all the bullshit now, with more of their friends being sectioned.

Keep toking away junkies. You are the only losers in the end.

Five0 wrote:
alan page you need help also i feel that the police would do well to show you some attention. as you seem to have paedophilia on your mind done a search for his name on the site It is illegal On behalf of Little Foxes Wildlife Rescue, I must correct Alan Page\'s assertion (Oxford Mail, June 14) that it is legal to poison foxes. Mr Page has put into the public arena dangerous and false information. he is not dealing from a full deck

Er no. The information about poisoning foxes was taken from a documentary called "The Lie of The Land". Hardly a deliberate attempt to misinform unlike the crap you are spouting.

I assume that you are connected in some way to those who firebomb animal labs or fund groups that do?

The amount of crap being spouted on that topic could only be made by junkies anyway.

The whole legalise drugs argument is based around a bunch of right wingers whining about their taxes being wasted on police actions.

It is the same kind of mentality that thinks speed cameras should be abolished.

Why dont you want to discuss paedophilia by the way? Trying to pretend it doesn't go on isn't going to help the victims.

Besides if prohibition doesnt work as you are fond of claiming, there is a lot of illegal material out there that supports criminals. Or are you saying that prohibition works in certain cases? In which case I am perfectly entitled to support prohibition of narcotics despite all the propaganda right wing market worshipping loonies like you hurl at me.

Good old Amy Whitehouse, off her head on Cannabis, Ecstasy, Cocaine and god knows what else. All at once. Nothing liked getting smacked to the tits eh?

"Prohibition doesnt work- ban fox hunting."

Deeerrrrr!!!If it doesnt work why bother??!!!

M wrote:

alan page wrote: \"Tax dollars\"?? Obviously cut and paste from an American website. The aim being to make dollars from addiction and misery. If the yanks were that concerned about health care they would do something about their \"pay or die\" health system over there before presuming to lecture us. Don\'t be fooled, the spectre of Milton Friedman and free market economics lies behind this. Not social justice.

Alan, why are you so determined to see that other people be banned from doing something in their own home? This guy grew his own in his house and smoked it himself. He wasn\'t making millions out of the misery of others. What else do you want to ban that you don\'t approve of? Read the Daily Mail a lot as well, do you?

So do you believe people should also have unlimited access to stuff online?

Or do you oppose the ban on fox hunting?

After all the latter is totally harmless, it has no impact on society whatsoever.

That personal choice should be the determining factor?

Actually the only two things in life I believe prohibition is justified is drugs and child pornography.

The Daily Mail jibe is out of date now the Indie has sensibly backed away from its decriminalisation stance.

It seems to me that the people who argue that prohibition doesnt work with regards to their crutches are the one who have been imposing prohibitions left right and centre.

Jane wrote:
Characteristics of Cannabis Users Who Have Never Smoked Tobacco J. C. Suris, MD, PhD; Christina Akre, MA; André Berchtold, PhD; André Jeannin, MA; Pierre-André Michaud, MD Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007 Objectives. To estimate the prevalence of youth who use cannabis but have never been tobacco smokers and to assess the characteristics that differentiate them from those using both substances or neither substance. Participants. A total of 5263 students (2439 females) aged 16 to 20 years divided into cannabis-only smokers (n = 455), cannabis and tobacco smokers (n = 1703), and abstainers (n = 3105). Outcome Measures. Regular tobacco and cannabis use; and personal, family, academic, and substance use characteristics. Results. Compared with those using both substances, cannabis-only youth were younger and more likely to be male, to play sports, to live with both parents, to be students, and to have good grades and less likely to have been drunk, to have used cannabis more than once or twice in the previous month, and to perceive their pubertal timing as early. Compared with abstainers, they were more likely to be male, to have a good relationship with friends, to be sensation seeking, and to practice sports and less likely to have a good relationship with their parents. They were more likely to attend high school and to skip class Conclusions. Cannabis-only adolescents show better functioning than those who also use tobacco. Compared with abstainers, they are more socially driven and do not seem to have psychosocial problems at a higher rate. Interestingly, our results do not confirm our hypothesis of better overall functioning among abstainers. In fact, what our research indicates is that the main difference between COG youth and abstainers is that the former are more socially driven: they are significantly more likely to practice sports, and they have a better relationship with their peers. Moreover, even though they are more likely to skip class, they have the same level of good grades; and although they have a worse relationship with their parents, they are not more likely to be depressed. In addition, and contrary to previous research, our study does not confirm the negative effect of cannabis on academic performance among COG youth. In our case, they are more likely to be school students and they report similar grades as abstainers, even though they skip class more often. While our results confirm that CTG youth tend to present psychosocial problems at a higher rate than COG youth and as such constitute a potential target for preventive interventions, the fact that COG youth, compared with abstainers, seem to do at least as well, if not better, in some areas raises questions. those adolescents who only use cannabis but who may also use some tobacco to prepare their cannabis cigarettes should be advised about the possibility of becoming addicted to nicotine.

Similar highly selective pseudo scientific bullshit is put forward to justify firebombing animal labs.

Perhaps it's time the scientists took a stand against this highly dangerous self deluded crap before another generation fall prey to drug dealers.

Flo wrote:
Cannabis lead me onto harder drugs. Luckly I've managed to quit tobacco now. Kids will experiment with smoking. They really should be taught that if they are going to smoke cannabis they should use a pipe or other such method. Heavy cannabis use is often a phase for young people. The biggest long term problem is if it leads to nicotine addiction.

Well it appears to have done wonders for Amy Winehouse as well.

My brother was smoking long before he started playing around with skunk. He still smokes.

It does not affect him in anyway, he can be bright and funny with a fag, he couldn't when he was skunked out of his brain.

You still cant distinguish a mental from a physical illness. A physical illness impacts on the individual alone. A mental illness impacts on the people around him.

Winston Matthews wrote:
I have to agree with Dilys Wood to compare cannabis with paedophilia, I can really find annoying! So would millions of user like myself in this country. Which shows to me you really don't know what you are talking about Mr Page, and using examples like this to make up a paedophiliac crime seem trivial, by leveling it with cannabis use/growing Mr Alan Page, would leave to consider you evaluate your morals, and seek education.

Greetings to leafy Horley!!
Nice area, well away from council estates I bet.
No I am making the points being out forward in Libertarian circles concerning what constitutes"victimle
ss" crime.
A certain section are putting forward (based on Kinsey's findings on the topic) that adult child contacts are not all bad.

I virulently beg to differ but as exactly the same kinds of logic are being used by druggies the similarities are worth pointing out.

After all Kinsey's study laid the foundation for gay liberation et al so has some clout.

As for my morals, I'm not the one supporting criminal gangs to feel good about myself.

No have another G and T like the good little bourgeois you are. Oh and the shipment from Columbia WILL be ready in time for your next dinner party so don't worry yourself.

Incidentally I hope the tobacco smokers out there are reading this.

It points up the long term plans of the zealots who banned smoking in pubs.

It is also why people are smoking 10 to 15 joints a day. Scum like these putting it around that it is less harmful than tobacco.

As I have said, the middle classes are determined that the lower classes discover the " higher tastes" i.e Heroin and Crack. They can't do that whilst the lowers stick to their "fags".

On the vexed topic of paedophilia, Lord Byron and the author Simon Raven were both seduced at the age of 9. It had no adverse effect on them whatsoever. The latter even wrote that he enjoyed the experience.

According to Kinsey this is more typical of such encounters than lifetimes of trauma. These latter only accounted for some 20% of the cases he studied. The other victims he interviewed saw it as a positive learning experience.

Strange how druggies claim the same thing isnt it?

Science can be used to justify any position. In the end it is down to the will of the populace to decide what they believe to be right.

As people are reporting these factories, these legal moves represent the will of the majority.

Somebody who CHOOSES to cultivate something they know to be illegal, know what they are doing. They cannot whine or complain if the police intervene.

The issue is between themselves, their consciences and the authorities. Which is as it should be.

The criminalisation of opiates destroyed a nice little earner for them, they ahve been smarting about it ever since.

Five0 wrote:
alan page you need help also i feel that the police would do well to show you some attention. as you seem to have paedophilia on your mind done a search for his name on the site It is illegal On behalf of Little Foxes Wildlife Rescue, I must correct Alan Page's assertion (Oxford Mail, June 14) that it is legal to poison foxes. Mr Page has put into the public arena dangerous and false information. he is not dealing from a full deck

Besides somebody who breeches the law in regards to narcotics, like this anonymous coward has no right to lecture the rest of us on legal matters.

Alan Page, you are one sad tosser. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than write endless comments on this website? I would suggest that you get a life. Perhaps you could spend your time making friends with people who live nearby? If unable to do this perhaps you should consider using the time engaging in therapy for your narcissistic personality disorder which is so evident.

Alan page wrote:

M wrote:

alan page wrote: \"Tax dollars\"?? Obviously cut and paste from an American website. The aim being to make dollars from addiction and misery. If the yanks were that concerned about health care they would do something about their \"pay or die\" health system over there before presuming to lecture us. Don\'t be fooled, the spectre of Milton Friedman and free market economics lies behind this. Not social justice.

Alan, why are you so determined to see that other people be banned from doing something in their own home? This guy grew his own in his house and smoked it himself. He wasn\'t making millions out of the misery of others. What else do you want to ban that you don\'t approve of? Read the Daily Mail a lot as well, do you?

So do you believe people should also have unlimited access to stuff online? Or do you oppose the ban on fox hunting? After all the latter is totally harmless, it has no impact on society whatsoever. That personal choice should be the determining factor? Actually the only two things in life I believe prohibition is justified is drugs and child pornography. The Daily Mail jibe is out of date now the Indie has sensibly backed away from its decriminalisation stance. It seems to me that the people who argue that prohibition doesnt work with regards to their crutches are the one who have been imposing prohibitions left right and centre.

I beleive people should have unlimited access to legal "stuff" online. Child pornography wasn't legal last time I looked.

Fox hunting is pointless, however, if people want to I couldn't care less if they used horse & hound, poison or a gun.

The Daily Mail Jibe is entirely relevant as like that paper you wish that everybody lived the way you do, 'I assume when you say you don't use drugs you've never had a coffee or an alcoholic drink in your life' and if they disagree ban the activity so you can beleive that the problem's been solved.

Prohibition doesn't work, never has and never ever will. If you can give an example of one thing, drug or action, that has been banned and its use completely stopped as a result I will reconsider my opinion. However, Please consider your crass use of child pornography as a comparable evil to smoking weed as a starting point. Last time I looked people were still being arrested for that disgusting crime and it's clearly banned.

For those in the high chairs let me put this as simply as I can.

Junkies argue that the harm in their habit come from its prohibition.

If that was to be lifted the whole world would become a Utopian Paradise.

That was not the case in the 19th century when this crap was legal.

Kinsey made exactly the same claims for paedophilia, citing this historical record of Ancient Greece, saying that it was essentially harmless in itself, and it was societies prohibition of it along with the distorted image given by the media of such cases that caused the trauma. Criminalising violence and coercion would ensure that the right people were dragged through the courts instead of filling prisons with people who had essentially done no long term harm.

Both positions, in my eyes, fly in the face of empirical reality and both (despite all the pseudo science being dredged up by adherents of both causes)are equally dangerous to society as a whole.

People who play around with illegal drugs know their status. They know they are breaking the law.

They have no excuse if the police come knocking.


Cue the usual round of chemically deranged mumbo jumbo from the poor persecuted bourgeois drug abusers.

M wrote:

Alan page wrote:

M wrote:

alan page wrote: \"Tax dollars\"?? Obviously cut and paste from an American website. The aim being to make dollars from addiction and misery. If the yanks were that concerned about health care they would do something about their \"pay or die\" health system over there before presuming to lecture us. Don\'t be fooled, the spectre of Milton Friedman and free market economics lies behind this. Not social justice.

Alan, why are you so determined to see that other people be banned from doing something in their own home? This guy grew his own in his house and smoked it himself. He wasn\'t making millions out of the misery of others. What else do you want to ban that you don\'t approve of? Read the Daily Mail a lot as well, do you?

So do you believe people should also have unlimited access to stuff online? Or do you oppose the ban on fox hunting? After all the latter is totally harmless, it has no impact on society whatsoever. That personal choice should be the determining factor? Actually the only two things in life I believe prohibition is justified is drugs and child pornography. The Daily Mail jibe is out of date now the Indie has sensibly backed away from its decriminalisation stance. It seems to me that the people who argue that prohibition doesnt work with regards to their crutches are the one who have been imposing prohibitions left right and centre.

I beleive people should have unlimited access to legal "stuff" online. Child pornography wasn't legal last time I looked. Fox hunting is pointless, however, if people want to I couldn't care less if they used horse & hound, poison or a gun. The Daily Mail Jibe is entirely relevant as like that paper you wish that everybody lived the way you do, 'I assume when you say you don't use drugs you've never had a coffee or an alcoholic drink in your life' and if they disagree ban the activity so you can beleive that the problem's been solved. Prohibition doesn't work, never has and never ever will. If you can give an example of one thing, drug or action, that has been banned and its use completely stopped as a result I will reconsider my opinion. However, Please consider your crass use of child pornography as a comparable evil to smoking weed as a starting point. Last time I looked people were still being arrested for that disgusting crime and it's clearly banned.

So prohibition works for child pornography then.
Well if it works for that then it must work for drugs as well.

Simple really when you think about it.

Anon wrote:
Alan Page, you are one sad tosser. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than write endless comments on this website? I would suggest that you get a life. Perhaps you could spend your time making friends with people who live nearby? If unable to do this perhaps you should consider using the time engaging in therapy for your narcissistic personality disorder which is so evident.

More fan mail!!
At least I have the courage of my convictions, anonymous loser!!

alan page wrote:

M wrote:

Alan page wrote:

M wrote:

alan page wrote: \"Tax dollars\"?? Obviously cut and paste from an American website. The aim being to make dollars from addiction and misery. If the yanks were that concerned about health care they would do something about their \"pay or die\" health system over there before presuming to lecture us. Don\'t be fooled, the spectre of Milton Friedman and free market economics lies behind this. Not social justice.

Alan, why are you so determined to see that other people be banned from doing something in their own home? This guy grew his own in his house and smoked it himself. He wasn\'t making millions out of the misery of others. What else do you want to ban that you don\'t approve of? Read the Daily Mail a lot as well, do you?

So do you believe people should also have unlimited access to stuff online? Or do you oppose the ban on fox hunting? After all the latter is totally harmless, it has no impact on society whatsoever. That personal choice should be the determining factor? Actually the only two things in life I believe prohibition is justified is drugs and child pornography. The Daily Mail jibe is out of date now the Indie has sensibly backed away from its decriminalisation stance. It seems to me that the people who argue that prohibition doesnt work with regards to their crutches are the one who have been imposing prohibitions left right and centre.

I beleive people should have unlimited access to legal "stuff" online. Child pornography wasn't legal last time I looked. Fox hunting is pointless, however, if people want to I couldn't care less if they used horse & hound, poison or a gun. The Daily Mail Jibe is entirely relevant as like that paper you wish that everybody lived the way you do, 'I assume when you say you don't use drugs you've never had a coffee or an alcoholic drink in your life' and if they disagree ban the activity so you can beleive that the problem's been solved. Prohibition doesn't work, never has and never ever will. If you can give an example of one thing, drug or action, that has been banned and its use completely stopped as a result I will reconsider my opinion. However, Please consider your crass use of child pornography as a comparable evil to smoking weed as a starting point. Last time I looked people were still being arrested for that disgusting crime and it's clearly banned.

So prohibition works for child pornography then. Well if it works for that then it must work for drugs as well. Simple really when you think about it.

No, it doesn't work for child pornography, read the post you idiot.

As far as I'm aware sick perverts are still producing and looking at child pornography, so clearly banning it hasn't stopped it.

The anger at your comments is that you equate the sick practice of using children for sexual pleasure with someone smoking a spliff in their own house.

The first is a crime and rightly so, the marijuana bears no relation to child pornograpphy and never will.

The fact that you think a ban will solve the problem means you ignore facts on all levels to ensure your neat little 'Alan page' world isn't compromised.

M wrote:

alan page wrote:

M wrote:

Alan page wrote:

M wrote:

alan page wrote: \"Tax dollars\"?? Obviously cut and paste from an American website. The aim being to make dollars from addiction and misery. If the yanks were that concerned about health care they would do something about their \"pay or die\" health system over there before presuming to lecture us. Don\'t be fooled, the spectre of Milton Friedman and free market economics lies behind this. Not social justice.

Alan, why are you so determined to see that other people be banned from doing something in their own home? This guy grew his own in his house and smoked it himself. He wasn\'t making millions out of the misery of others. What else do you want to ban that you don\'t approve of? Read the Daily Mail a lot as well, do you?

So do you believe people should also have unlimited access to stuff online? Or do you oppose the ban on fox hunting? After all the latter is totally harmless, it has no impact on society whatsoever. That personal choice should be the determining factor? Actually the only two things in life I believe prohibition is justified is drugs and child pornography. The Daily Mail jibe is out of date now the Indie has sensibly backed away from its decriminalisation stance. It seems to me that the people who argue that prohibition doesnt work with regards to their crutches are the one who have been imposing prohibitions left right and centre.

I beleive people should have unlimited access to legal "stuff" online. Child pornography wasn't legal last time I looked. Fox hunting is pointless, however, if people want to I couldn't care less if they used horse & hound, poison or a gun. The Daily Mail Jibe is entirely relevant as like that paper you wish that everybody lived the way you do, 'I assume when you say you don't use drugs you've never had a coffee or an alcoholic drink in your life' and if they disagree ban the activity so you can beleive that the problem's been solved. Prohibition doesn't work, never has and never ever will. If you can give an example of one thing, drug or action, that has been banned and its use completely stopped as a result I will reconsider my opinion. However, Please consider your crass use of child pornography as a comparable evil to smoking weed as a starting point. Last time I looked people were still being arrested for that disgusting crime and it's clearly banned.

So prohibition works for child pornography then. Well if it works for that then it must work for drugs as well. Simple really when you think about it.

No, it doesn't work for child pornography, read the post you idiot. As far as I'm aware sick perverts are still producing and looking at child pornography, so clearly banning it hasn't stopped it. The anger at your comments is that you equate the sick practice of using children for sexual pleasure with someone smoking a spliff in their own house. The first is a crime and rightly so, the marijuana bears no relation to child pornograpphy and never will. The fact that you think a ban will solve the problem means you ignore facts on all levels to ensure your neat little 'Alan page' world isn't compromised.

Well if it doesn't work why ban it?

Prohibition either works or it doesn't.

Your position is inconsistent.

As far as I am concerned somebody growing cannabis is in the same boat as somebody CHOOSING to view child pornography in the privacy of their own home.

According to Kinsey it is the prohibition of paedophilia which is the issue with the latter.

Both parties know the law and know they are taking a risk.

I think you should stick to discussing comparative rizla thickness with your druggie mates and leave rational thought to those capable of it.

Scientists believe that paedophilic tendencies may be conditioned by a neurochemical imbalance. In other words it might not be a case of choice in their case but a compulsion they cannot help.

Have a stable job, a mortgage, wife, kids, savings in the bank etc.. normal tax paying member of society you narrow-minded idiot. Haven't smoked dope for several years now, don't think it should be illegal.

As to the consistency of my argument, I suggest you've got some selective reading disorder.

If you believe banning things stops them happening, you're very very wrong, does that mean we stop banning, clearly not, that would mean any crime should be decriminalised.

Now please, read this bit very very carefully, better still go get a child to read to you, making people criminals for choosing to smoke marijuana is a pointless waste of time. It doesn't stop people smoking it and the police waste valuable resources which would be better spent chasing real criminals, you know the ones I mean, the people who rob, mug, murder, rape and commit other forms of crimes which affect others. Having child pornography as a crime has a point because the victims need redress.

I shall now move away from this forum, because I now suspect you will come back and tell me the poor guy whose arrest kicked this whole debate off was hurting somebody, somehow, and on that point I'm very happy to say I disagree with you completely.