Guest RAZ Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 So on a lighter note, what would the LCA be called if cannabis "was" legalised? RAZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazlo woodbine Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Its hard to conceive how it would be, but I could see Cadburies weekend selection, delight your dinner party guests with a variety of subtile exotic experiences from round the world, from bitter sweet orange cream with extract from real Californian orange bud, to the delights of the tingling snowmelt crispmint with Himalayan sativa extract to the steamy tropical fruit delight with a hint of cerebral Kerala’s high mountain extract. OT..... did you work in marketing/advertising in a former life.... because I really want to buy those chocs..... ...serious drooling..... Laz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justagirl Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 my constructive point is why all of a sudden are you ppl hounding the site trying to make yer point across ? ur tolling i hit refresh last nigth and 5 lca thread bounced into the top 8 threads ? whats that all about i know what its showing me yer just upsetting peeps u cant take the fact others have a diffrent view us seem admement when ppl here jsut dont believe in yas going by the magority of whats been posted fromv members they couldnt give a flyign fook WHY becuase they know deep down in the large scale of it u wont produce the goods this is my opinion tbh im stickign to it win i hope we meet one day id like to discuse scottish politics with ya 308242[/snapback] fuck me, and there you have it "I was on this forum first, get off it is mine all mine" prehaps the LCA is getting SUCH a huge response is because people like you will continuously add threads to MY subjects giving us your opinions, which is great, but you are MISSING the WHOLE point of the threads. So now its us upseting folk, i thought i was taking things to personally in your opion? By comming into anythread and saying, "you take things personally, you dont know what your talking about, you are not a grower, your lca only, you are a medi supporter, you are a pain in the arse, you are a troll..." you are contributing what help to the LCA? Oh no hold on, you dont actually support the LCA do you, so lets sort something out once and for all, this thread was about licencing and growing weed legally, if it doesnt intrest you, WHY the F are you bothering to spend so much time, quoting, slating and telling people to stop Trolling your site...didnt know you were behind UK420, congratulations, you have done a GREAT job of welcoming your new members, i am sure with that attitude you will gain a few freinds in real life too. Remind yourself, you dont know us either, you are making alot of assumptions, and i hope to be honest I dont have to meet you, you seem to be very angry with the world because your favourite website has new guests, what the F will happen if something BIG happens in your life? I mean god forbid it, but it could you know, far worse things have happened! So lighten up, or leave us to it dude, i think that because we have different opinions and you do not understand ours, this is your only way of trying to win... Poor little billy goats gruff, Chill mate, i mean dooesnt cannabis help you do that at least? i mean it was YOU that told the rest of this thread not to PICK on other people and turn it into a row, and then you start it up all over again.... YAWN!!! And nope, I am not replying to any more of these unrelated spurts of complete crap, trolls eh, back at school. Lets hope for both our sakes we never meet, i may be justagirl, but you wont shut me up just cause you want too..... nuff said me thinks, jag x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bish Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 nuff said me thinks, 308456[/snapback] I'd say so! Did you read OT's post by any chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pd666 Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 erm right justagirls if u go back i was quoting twealvays form you otherthread i for one never wrote that i mean it was YOU that told the rest of this thread not to PICK on other people and turn it into a row, and then you start it up all over again.... ull find it was twelvways that wrote that dear open your eyes now and actually read you threads plz before you start saying ppl wrote stuff they never its got nothing to do with keeping new ppl from the site u nutter ? erm hows that possible as ppl will tell you i spea k to all members and help them to grow as much as i can theres on occasion ppl come on the forums and ram right in and spew alot of shite thats of little intrest the fact u post thread upon thread about basiclly the same mince means ur trolling if im seeign htis wrong site mods and im out of turn message me ill disscontinue but i see what i see and ithink what i want to no babble u have will make that any diffrent justagirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad (the impala) Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 (edited) "how to win friends and influence people"..................... imho you've set the LCA back by several years with your immature outbursts, and insistence on either making or taking things as "personal" I have never subscribed to the LCA arguments, and will undoubtedly vote Lib Dem next time, in the vain hope that they are a fraction more "sound" than the other dangerous fuckwits from whom we have to choose! If you wish to influence someone's opinion, you do so by finding parallels, some common ground, and working from there...............to be "in your face" (I believe that is the correct phrase in modern parlance) in the way that you are just alienates people, however good your arguments may be! My response to such things is quite simple - if people can't debate peacefully, and with good humour, then they are undoubtedly intellectually ill-equipped to have reached a valid conclusion about anything, and as such deserve to be dismissed out of hand! Edited February 15, 2005 by Vlad (the impala) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stone win Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 even I am saying Yawn now, this is getting childish, if we don't stop soon, I am going to stamp my feet......Your all right, I haven't got much idea, how to present the Lca to you guys, but I know that the other parties, will procrastinate, on the cannabis issue, as it's not a vote winner, but please I just would like to take cannabis, so I am trying, so are a lot of others, I hope I am getting better at this debating thing, on mass, however, were I , we wouldn't be giving it all blah on this and that, come on Prohibitions, wrong,and we have to stop it as a society. As the years go by I see the damage the drug Alcohol does, we all know the figures,,,, Also the drug nicoteen.... Also Tranquilizers, and all the other precription drugs... We are a drug culture,and drug sub cultures, derive choices, ours is cannabis, dagga, marijuana, marihuana,and so many different name for the herb its, hard to keep track world wide what is going on in our culture..... a drug culture cannot dictate to a subversive drug culture, this is wrong in essence I will keep asking for cannabis to be legalised , for all our sakes,,,,, winstone lets stop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justagirl Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 whats the point of this thread? To ask about licencing cannabis and revenue. Whats the point of reading it now? Absolutly no point at all, anyone who was interested in giving valued points has to also read aload of peoples personal problems... Whats the point of me trying to rectify myself if there will always be someone waiting to bring me back down about the smallest of opinions just to start an argument? None, So what i'll do is this. I apologise to all those who were activly involved with the starting discussion on this thread, I will also apologise to anyone who feels a point they made about licencing, growing or money, has been ignored by me. This was not my intention, I wanted to have a discussion about all the points bought up about the regulation of cannabis. However it seems that no matter what i say or do, someone will always find a problem with the way i have said it or what i have said, and this quickly turns into a confrontation, this is not what i am about. So i'll apologise once more if people have misunderstood everything i type, but i will not be responding to any more unrelated arguments about who what or why i am what i am or i say what i say... and thats about it, so again, to all those on the thread who added thoughts to this threads TOPIC, i apologise if i didnt respond, i was a bit busy trying to rectify some on going argument about something else completely unrelated, and its getting to difficult to distinguish what is actually a helpfull remark and what is not, its swamped with alot of stuff that just shouldnt be here.. Bye for now, Justagirl x Quoted from another thread! Sorry to bring this up, but I dont think this is very nice. Just A Girl had some points to make and got her head ripped off in the process. The LCA has been set up to help a lot of the people who use this forum, all of them I suppose but mostly the medi users. Legal Herb is what we all want (except the dealers obviously, but I doubt that you would find anyone like that here). Im no Dimbleby but I know that if thats what you want, then someone is gonna have to fight for it on the political forum. Thats what the LCA (and similar organisations) have been set up for. You may have sen my other posts on other threads, I, personally, dont think that the LCA are doing it the right way, a single policy party is NEVER gonna win anything and I dont like the idea of wasting votes on them to show other parties what they are missing out on (I know you didnt use those exact words Winstone but that was the result that you seemed to get at)(an issue that was raised on another thread earlier). People died for their vote after all and it is the only sword we are able to wield in the arena we call politics. but I cant think of another way to get cannabis legalised, can you? If you can, or you think you know better than the LCA then let them know, maybe PM Justagirl or Winstoned or the others or maybe write or email people within their organisation and let them know what they are doing wrong. Please lets not see these boards degenerate into personal slanging matches, its childish and accomplishes nothing. We all want the same result. (and EO, Justagirl is right, if I run out of gear, I run to my mate, a grower, and he sorts me out, maybe no money passes hands, sometimes it does, whatever, he will be sent down as a dealer if he is caught. So am I if I do the same, we all are and we all run that risk if we help out fellow stoners/tokers/medi users) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pez Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 In an ideal world... I would need to go to the post office to pick up a cannabis cultivation license (CCL)application form. Take it home and sell my soul to it through the power of writing - give everything they could possibly want to know ever (bit like the housing benefit form).. then send it by recorded delivery along with a cheque for £250 with your passport, birth certificate (& possibly a blood sample) to 'them'. 'They' would then have the right to randomly check your premises at anytime and may do this before sending you your CCL weeks later in similar form to the driving license possibly containing details of your sould in a magnetic trip on the back that 'they' could read. This CCL would give you the right to grow 2 plants at a time indoors(plus up to 5 under the age of 4 weeks for growers to attempt to eliminate poor crop). The weed produced could not be sold and can only be smoked by permanent members of the household. No more than 2 Liscense issused per house. Each liscence would need to be renewed after 1 year. Optional £75 extra to grow 1 plant outdoors. They would make a mint. The people would be happy. Soap bar would become a dodo. I would be famous for thinking of such a far out concept using the amazing bizarre technique 'common sense'.. who'd of thought it... not the government obviously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pez Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 just read some of this back and think you lot have gone on a tangent.. shame, thought the initial post would create some interesting debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HvyFuel Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 In your ideal world Pez, you'd pay two hundred and fifty pounds to be allowed to grow two plants? In mine cannabis returns to being just another plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justagirl Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 In an ideal world...I would need to go to the post office to pick up a cannabis cultivation license (CCL)application form. Take it home and sell my soul to it through the power of writing - give everything they could possibly want to know ever (bit like the housing benefit form).. then send it by recorded delivery along with a cheque for £250 with your passport, birth certificate (& possibly a blood sample) to 'them'. 'They' would then have the right to randomly check your premises at anytime and may do this before sending you your CCL weeks later in similar form to the driving license possibly containing details of your sould in a magnetic trip on the back that 'they' could read. This CCL would give you the right to grow 2 plants at a time indoors(plus up to 5 under the age of 4 weeks for growers to attempt to eliminate poor crop). The weed produced could not be sold and can only be smoked by permanent members of the household. No more than 2 Liscense issused per house. Each liscence would need to be renewed after 1 year. Optional £75 extra to grow 1 plant outdoors. They would make a mint. The people would be happy. Soap bar would become a dodo. I would be famous for thinking of such a far out concept using the amazing bizarre technique 'common sense'.. who'd of thought it... not the government obviously 308572[/snapback] now thats more like it, this is the sort of comment that can be worked on and discussed quite openly.....prehaps somepeople might not like the cash aspect but these are just figures that have become a starting point to work from, and allthough i know many do not agree with licencing it is worth discuusing it as an OPTION, not the ONLY ANSWER! Thanks for your thoughts mate, i appreciate them, and am pondering upon them... love jag In your ideal world Pez, you'd pay two hundred and fifty pounds to be allowed to grow two plants? In mine cannabis returns to being just another plant. 308588[/snapback] and thats what the LCA wants in an ideal world, and i think most other people too, including me...lets keep this in proportion its only a discussion thread about what if's and maybe's nothing on this thread about licencing is part of the LCA's policies, they will not change, it's just about pushing a debate and saying to the government... "Hey if you let people grow weed by licence did you know you could make X ammount, erradicate dealing and provide a much needed medicine, and environmental material...." And then see what they say to it, either... a, we couldnt give a fig how much money we make we aint legalising cannabis or b, mmmm, noe you've sparked an intrest with us, that much cash could pay for... you see? Love and respect jag xx just read some of this back and think you lot have gone on a tangent.. shame, thought the initial post would create some interesting debates. 308574[/snapback] your telling me mate, its been a real battle....to get people to understand what this thread was started for.. hope it hasnt disuaded you too much, which was my main concern, that people interested would lose interest in the thread because of some of the pap remarks that have been made.... apologies pez,hope you stick with it... love jag xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shug Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I think the reason the LCA doesn't have many people voting for them is because they can get what they want by voting Lib Dems. LCA only stands for the legalisation of cannabis and nothing else and are not very well known. Maybe if you tried to get the message across about the benefits of cannabis to people who don't use it, by doing interviews etc. Its not us tokers that need convincing its the non tokers that think the weed is badl and there should be people out there getting the message across to the general public about the benefits of weed. I actually thought that was what the LCA was about. 308328[/snapback] As Hir puts it: The rich own the media, the right hate what cannibis does to our heads. They don't care if it causes cancer, makes you mad. These are things that are used to vilify it because our heads oppose thier mindset.This isn't personal theory is a resonably well established Sociological fact. Look at it, fags cause cancer, how long did it take to 'prove' this, probably not long but decades in our term because.... because the rich liked fags, they made them rich. The journalists control the agenda. We can (and sometimes do) bombard them with Press Releases but its only when something is happening that they are interested in, only then do they decide to let us put over our POV. Take last January - reclassification time - 1 February 2004 Don Barnard, Oxford's Radio Passion Don Barnard30 January 2004 Clara O Donnell, Sky TV News Clara O'Donnell 29 January 2004 Marcus Davies & Clara O'Donnell Sky News Marcus Davies & Clara O'Donnell 29 January 2004 Steve Pank BBC3 Steve Pank 29 January 2004 Carl Wagner Calender TV Carl Wagner 29 January 2004 Carl Wagner Viking FM Carl Wagner 29 January 2004 Don Barnard BBC Radio Solent Don Barnard 27 January 2004 Mark & Lezley Gibson on Border TV News and Lookaround ITV News Mark & Lezley Gibson 27 January 2004 Winston Matthews, Sarah Chalk Meridian TV news Winston Matthews & Sarah Chalk 25 January 2004 Don Barnard Today TV show Don Barnard 24 January 2004 Mark Gibson spoke at "Think Green" conference of pharmacy students at Aston University Mark Gibson 22 January 2004 Independent Radio Don Barnard 22 January 2004 Virgin Radio Don Barnard 22 January 2004 Radio 4 Don Barnard 22 January 2004 Greater Manchester radio Don Barnard 22 January 2004 BBC Radio Cambridge Don Barnard 22 January 2004 BBC Radio Essex Don Barnard 22 January 2004 Don Barnard Radio Leeds phone-in Don Barnard 21 January 2004 Sarah Chalk Sky TV Sarah Chalk 19 January 2004 Mark Gibson London FM Mark Gibson 19 January 2004 Alun Buffry Radio Norfolk Alun Buffry Thats just some. There were numerous phone-ins etc that various of us were on. "The benefits of weed" - I like that. You have no idea how many arguemnts I have had over the years about this. There are many people who don't believe that - yes they want it legal, but "no its not good for you - its dangerous" and they get most upset when I throw around quotes like Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1894 The commission has come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all. ...moderate use of hemp... appears to cause no appreciable physical injury of any kind,... no injurious effects on the mind... [and] no moral injury whatever. -- Panama Canal Zone Report, 1925 There is no evidence... that any deleterious influence on the individual using [cannabis] -- Siler Commission, Panama Canal Zone Report, 1930 [Reported that cannabis use was harmless, and, having subjected to medico-scientific clinical monitoring, heavy cannabis smoking produced no effect upon motivation or performance.- FCDA Europe Report, 1997] -- LaGuardia Commission Report, 1944 [Cannabis smoking] does not lead directly to mental or physical deterioration... Those who have consumed marijuana for a period of years showed no mental or physical deterioration which may be attributed to the drug. -- The Wootton Report, 1969 The long term consumption of cannabis in moderate doses has no harmful effect. -- NIMH Jamaican Study, 1972 No impairment of physiological, sensory and perceptual performance, concept formation, abstracting ability and cognitive style and tests of memory. -- Jamaican Studies, 1975 [Cannabis] is smoked over a longer period in heavier quantities with greater THC potency than in the United States without deleterious social or psychological consequences. -- Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church Study, 1980 [some participants had smoked at least two to four large cigarettes (each containing 1/4 to 1/2 ounce of cannabis) over 16 hours a day for periods of up to 50 years. - 'Hemp, Lifeline to the Future', C Conrad, 1994] ...the most impressive thing... is the true paucity of neurological abnormalities. [Heavy cannabis consumers suffered no apparent psychological or physical harm. - - 'Hemp, Lifeline to the Future', C Conrad, 1994] -- Costa Rican Study, 1982 Users in our matched-pair sample smoked marihuana in addition to as many tobacco cigarettes as did their matched non-using pairs. Yet their small airways were, if anything, a bit healthier than their matches. We must tentatively conclude either that marihuana has no harmful effect on such passages or that it actually offers some slight protection against the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. [Found that there was no distinguishable harm that could be attributed to cannabis usage - 'Hemp, Lifeline to the Future', C Conrad, 1994] -- DEA Administrative Law Judge, FL Young, 1988 Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity. In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. -- The Lancet, Volume 346, Number 8985, November 11, 1995 (Editorial) The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health. Leaving politics aside, where is the harm in decriminalising cannabis? There is none to the health of consumers. Sooner or later politicians will have to stop running scared and address the evidence: cannabis per se is not a hazard to society but driving it further underground may well be. -- 'Marihuana Reconsidered', Prof. L Grinspoon, 1996 ...as in the case of psychiatric illness, no level of use has yet been discovered that qualifies as obviously so immoderate that it causes physical disease. -- The Report of the FCDA Europe, 1997 It is factually incorrect to say that "all" smoking is unhealthy; categorically, cannabis is not only safe, but the research also shows that cannabis is beneficial to the lungs. As is demonstrated by both the specific laboratory/clinical research and long term empirical evidence, no amount of use of cannabis incurs harm to the user, it being both non-addictive and non-toxic. The studies, and mankind's experience throughout history confirm cannabis in any quantity for short-term, long-term or lifetime use has no deleterious effects on the users, either directly, or as a side-effect. (... Also, long-term use, "even prolonged and excessive", shows no harm to users, as in reports by Allentuck 1942; Freedman 1946; Chopras 1957...) Never mind the research which indicates cancer reducing properties - "you can't say its beneficial - people will think we're all mad and will never support legalisation" etc RAZ So on a lighter note, what would the LCA be called if cannabis "was" legalised? Around here it would probably be something like .... that bunch of %^&*%^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justagirl Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Around here it would probably be something like .... that bunch of %^&*%^ 308638[/snapback] , prehaps shug, i'd like to think we could retire from the politics if they legalised it but if the people demand we are the government, prehaps we will elvove to some crazy fangled name like the "common Sense Party" then we could work some common sense magic into the rest of the countries major problems, but, hey this is a while off, unless the whole 40% of the british public who dont vote are reading this thread and give us a go, shit then we will have to get our socks on.. but maybe when people realise we have ABSOLUTLY NO HIDDEN AGENDAS, they'll give us another chance eh? keep smilling shuggie, i am ! time for bed me thinks... jag xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twelveways Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 "common Sense Party" I like it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts