Archive of topics from before June 2012. PM a mod to get one reopened.
  •  
  •  
 
By Killer Whale
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#22359
Stoner 1: "Oh no man, I really, really need some Hobnobs man. I got the munchies bad man."
Stoner 2: "I ain't got no money, man."
Stoner 1: "Shit. Where we gonna get Hobnobs?"
Stoner 2: "Let's, like, find some granny, man, on the street, man."
Stoner 1: "With Hobnobs?"
Stoner 2: "No, I mean, like... like... Oh, fuck it... Got any cornflakes?"
Stoner 1: [giggles uncontrollably for no apparent reason]
By tuber
Membership Days Membership Days
#22360
Peter Hitchens published a similar column to that Heffer one this Sunday - The cure for dopeheads...Dubai-style fear

It opens:
Even the soppy liberal media, and their flapping, punctured hero David Cameron, now admit that cannabis is a nasty poison.

For many shameful years they lied that it was harmless fun.
The first sentence makes it sound like there is a consensus, when there isn't one. The second is outright wrong - who has ever said they were lying?
By famaf
Membership Days Membership Days
#22411
tuber - i think Hitchins is talking about the Independent on Sunday front the other week where they decided that actually cannabis is the cause of all ills and they were wrong to call for its decriminalisation twelfty years ago....

This type of woolyness annoys me, especially when the article seemed so ill-informed and not nearly as considered as their original stance.

...did anyone see the programme the other night about heroin and how it should be prescribed?
Can't remember what it was called but it was presented by a former addict who is now a doctor and made for a pretty compelling argument.
By tuber
Membership Days Membership Days
#22423
Famaf yes, the Independent say they got it wrong, but they do not say "OK guys we were lying all these years". Quite different, I feel. Should we accuse Hitchens of lying over his now-discarded socialist beliefs?

Anyway, bonus blog from yesterday:
Finally, somebody called Fj suggests there is a contradiction between favouring liberty of speech and thought, and being in favour of laws punishing the possession of stupefying narcotics. Why? First, drug taking leads to a serf-like complacency and helps people to bear the unbearable rather than criticising it or reforming it, and oppressors love a stupefied population for that reason. Perhaps the drug pandemic among the middle classes plays a part in our current political passivity. Also, I must say I should prefer a morally literate society in which people refused to stupefy themselves on principle and no law was needed to help them decide. But in our current state, demoralised by decades of pro-drug propaganda from the sixties generation and from the rock music industry, we need a force to protect the gullible young from doing themselves - and everyone who loves them - terrible harm.

We are not wholly our own property. We have responsibilities to others which ought to be governed by moral law but sometimes aren't - not least because people are sometimes ignorant of the possible consequences of their actions. If a child is seduced by propaganda and peer pressure into smoking dope, unaware of its possible dangers, deluded into a belief that there is no risk, and then develops a permanent and incurable mental illness which destroys his or her hopes of a full life and of parenthood, and turns the later years of his or her parents' life into a permanent grief (and such cases do most definitely happen), then it seems to me that we need a counterbalance to that peer pressure and false propaganda. Straightforward fear of legal punishment, clearly stated and warned of, seems to me to the best available.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/ ... point.html
By potsy70
Membership Days Membership Days
#22525
Hitchens comes out with the same old argument against drugs - and a rather weak defence about why, in light of those arguments, we should continue to allow alcohol.

I always get the impression that he knows his arguments are a bit weak, but he's arguing from middle class prejudice.

Still, as we've said before, at least he comes on to his blog and answers his critics. Which is more than Mad mel or Littlebrain ever do.
By Mr Mordon
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#23028
tuber wrote:Famaf yes, the Independent say they got it wrong, but they do not say "OK guys we were lying all these years". Quite different, I feel. Should we accuse Hitchens of lying over his now-discarded socialist beliefs?

Anyway, bonus blog from yesterday:
Finally, somebody called Fj suggests there is a contradiction between favouring liberty of speech and thought, and being in favour of laws punishing the possession of stupefying narcotics. Why? First, drug taking leads to a serf-like complacency and helps people to bear the unbearable rather than criticising it or reforming it, and oppressors love a stupefied population for that reason. Perhaps the drug pandemic among the middle classes plays a part in our current political passivity. Also, I must say I should prefer a morally literate society in which people refused to stupefy themselves on principle and no law was needed to help them decide. But in our current state, demoralised by decades of pro-drug propaganda from the sixties generation and from the rock music industry, we need a force to protect the gullible young from doing themselves - and everyone who loves them - terrible harm.

We are not wholly our own property. We have responsibilities to others which ought to be governed by moral law but sometimes aren't - not least because people are sometimes ignorant of the possible consequences of their actions. If a child is seduced by propaganda and peer pressure into smoking dope, unaware of its possible dangers, deluded into a belief that there is no risk, and then develops a permanent and incurable mental illness which destroys his or her hopes of a full life and of parenthood, and turns the later years of his or her parents' life into a permanent grief (and such cases do most definitely happen), then it seems to me that we need a counterbalance to that peer pressure and false propaganda. Straightforward fear of legal punishment, clearly stated and warned of, seems to me to the best available.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/ ... point.html
Dosn't the Hitch ever check his dictonary when he attempts to use big words?

(from Wiki) 'pandemic (from Greek παν pan all + δήμος demos people) is an epidemic (an outbreak of an infectious disease) that spreads across a large region (for example a continent), or even worldwide.'
Since when has drug use been an infectious disease ?
The Sun

If David Cameron's memoirs are so poor why did a[…]

Richard Littlejohn

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7471163[…]

Boris Johnson

^^This. All along the Tories have kept saying &quo[…]

The LibDems, generally

Is Swinson safe from the SNP in her seat? She ou[…]