Topics about a single subject's Daily Mail experience
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
#252752
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:What about someone who decides he has a reason to steal your property? Or a 20 year oldcwho has sex with a 15 year old?

Thats the problem with deciding which laws you are prepared to follow. Other people can do the same.
Have you never exceeded the speed limit? I do sometimes if I consider it safe. And often drive slower than the posted limit. As long as nobody is at risk.
#252762
If I could be bothered, I'm sure I could drag up some stats about the relative dangers of driving at 100 mph in school zones and driving at 80 mph on the motorway, as well as the consequences of crashes in said conditions.

I don't take a deontological approach to the law, as sometimes, it may do more harm than good.
#252765
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:An interesting take on the law. What are your limits? 100mph in a school zone? Because once you start making excuses it's really a discussion about relativity.
I had in mind a particular short rural stretch of an A road with a 40mph limit between two 50 mph sections. For no good reason. Never in urban areas.
#252766
So obeying the law is both relative and tied to topography?

The point I'm making is that you can break the law all you want, that's your choice, but taking the high horse and just saying it's a bad law (in your opinion) and you are therefore justified in breaking it isn't intellectually honest.
#252769
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:So obeying the law is both relative and tied to topography?

The point I'm making is that you can break the law all you want, that's your choice, but taking the high horse and just saying it's a bad law (in your opinion) and you are therefore justified in breaking it isn't intellectually honest.
Pun intended?
#252791
The point is drug laws exist to punish people for commiting acts against themselves, there's no parallel with laws concerning speeding or theft. If body modifications or wanking were outlawed tomorrow would they suddenly become wrong, and would you say 'ah it's all well and good to choose which laws you like....'?
#252892
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:So someone speaking about the tragic loss of her brother is talking crap?
In this example, yes. Yvonne Davies is in a position where she makes decisions that can seriously effect peoples' lives, she should do so impartially and based on the law, not on crackpot theories that have zero medical evidence. She may as well say tea or beer killed her brother, it would be equally daft. Cannabis usage rates fluctuate wildly whilst the percentage of the population effected by psychosis remains constant at around 2%. There is no evidence cannabis causes schizophrenia, there is evidence that it relieves the symptoms so you could arguably say schizophrenia causes cannabis use.
#252985
spindrift wrote: There is no evidence cannabis causes schizophrenia, there is evidence that it relieves the symptoms so you could arguably say schizophrenia causes cannabis use.
No evidence to hand, but that is perhaps a contentious statement. I recall talking to a paediatric psychiatrist recently who said there was evidence it leads to an increased risk of psychosis if consumed in your youth/teens - which makes sense if the brain is still developing.

That said, I think the drugs consumption in this country are archaic and absurd, and I wouldn't have any moral issue with any adult disobeying them. At least, not until we can have a serious discussion about drugs in a bullshit-free environment by politicians who actually want to address the problem rather than being seen as 'moral' or 'tough on crime'.
 
By oboogie
Membership Days Posts
#252986
Winegums wrote:That said, I think the drugs consumption in this country are archaic and absurd, and I wouldn't have any moral issue with any adult disobeying them. At least, not until we can have a serious discussion about drugs in a bullshit-free environment by politicians who actually want to address the problem rather than being seen as 'moral' or 'tough on crime'.
Agreed (although you don't mean "consumption", I presume you mean "legislation").

The term drugs is a particularly unhelpful one as it brackets all illegal drugs together as if they were the same and yet, inconsistently excludes the legal drugs which are just as harmful.

Anyway, the important distinction should surely be about levels of harm rather than legal status which seems irrelevant to intelligent debate.
#253070
Young people who smoke cannabis for years run the risk of a significant and irreversible reduction in their IQ, research suggests.

The findings come from a study of around 1,000 people in New Zealand.

An international team found those who started using cannabis below the age of 18 - while their brains were still developing - suffered a drop in IQ.

A UK expert said the research might explain why people who use the drug often seem to under-achieve.
Young cannabis smokers run risk of lower IQ, report claims
#253075
That's the BBC vs cannabis. Although the Mail has joined in too, but I don't see where they've got the Alzheimer's bit from.
How teenagers addicted to cannabis risk damaging their IQ and show signs normally seen in early Alzheimer's
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... z24pkLyAbg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
Dominic Cummings

As I read it the geography teacher was acting with[…]

Labour, Generally.

Rosie Duffield: Is low profile and therefore eas[…]

Technical Support Issues - Post here

Cool. The service you get here is pretty first-r[…]

Meanwhile in America

What a bunch of twats. https://twitter.com/Selena[…]