Why is this man the president?

[JPreston]

Hey Rave, as a matter of interest what do you think about renationalising the buses? Running them as a public service seems the way to go, especially in rural areas, and surely it's the easiest one to do - just buy back a load of old buses as franchises expire.

...About the same, I reckon.

Nah come on, you were loads better off (but admittedly how can either of us know for sure).

...the answer is to have a properly graduated scale of earnings vs. benefit reductions....That way they're incentivised to take any work they're offered, and the government pays out less in benefit, so everybody wins.

Course it is...there's always been a benefits trap, but at least Gordy has come up with Tax Credits (*ducks before everyone yells about how badly implemented the IT is*) to actively encourage work. And the minimum wage helps...

...a lot of minimum wage jobs only pay 38 hours a week with no opportunity for overtime...

Oh I get it now . Being self-employed, my boss is a real arsehole , and currently I charge by the hour so shouldn't really complain.

Aren't we forgetting though that someone working 38 hours a week on minimum wage will still be entitled to means-tested benefits - housing benefit, income support, council tax benefit and of course tax credits? The only one they would necessarily give up is job seekers' allowance.

It's not just the premium of wages over benefit that encourage people to work though of course that is important - a high proportion of typical unskilled people will work to learn skills and gain experience. Sitting on your arse all day is much less appealing when you have nothing to look forward to in the future either! For all but the hardest of hard-core unemployed anyway.

[chicken]

Well what a surprise, Tories won the most in T.Wells, I only heard one other seat go to a Lib Dem. I was busy counting in some of the announcements though so I missed a few.

Most of the Tory figures were several hundred higher than the nearest competitor, mainly to the tune of 2 to 3 times their score.

Interestingly enough though, out of the area we were counting I thought the Labour guy deserved to win, but I think he was dragged down by the image of the party as a whole.

[Bazzlad]

If you say so, but WHY? Do you even know? I asked you what Tory policies you were in favour of.

Oh my condescending friend, I do know what policies I like, and I know what I don't like, I was engaging in one of your favourite hobbies, answering a question with another deflecting statement, I'll explain what policies I like, and you can tell me about the success of Labour bringing in the European Human Rights Act, signing away the European rebate that Maggie got us, without a fight, you can also explain while we're on the Europe theme, why, under Labour, we are the only Country out of the big 4 (UK, France, Germany, Italy) that pay more into Europe than we get out.

And that's Labours European policy. Don't get me started on the failings of their "job" they've done here.

I'll compare and contrast some of Labour's problems with the Conservative answer.

Instead of the ridiculous Labour ID card idea the Tories have much better suggestions...

1) Labour. Letting criminals go due to lack of prison space.

Tories: More prison places: Our prisons are desperately overcrowded, meaning serious criminals are escaping prison sentences and prisoners are not being rehabilitated. Instead of wasting billions of pounds on ID cards, shouldn't we use some of the savings to build more prison spaces?

2) Drug users rocketing under Labour

(Re-grading Cannabis was a great idea now wasn't it?! )

We have the highest number of dependant drug users in Europe. Add that to the teenage pregnancy and low and you can see the direction this Country is heading in under Labour. Downhill.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/...on_report_says

Tories: More drug rehab in prisons: Drug addiction is a major cause of crime in society, but there isn't enough effective drug rehab in prisons to help get criminals off drugs for good. Instead of wasting billions of pounds on ID cards, shouldn't we use some of the savings to provide more drug rehabilitation to help prisoners kick the habit?

3) Immigration.
Under Labour? I don't even need to quote the figures (watered down) and the real figures. Every person in the UK knows full well about Labours Failings on Immigration.

Tories: A Border Police Force: At present, many different agencies are responsible for aspects of policing our borders. Instead of wasting billions of pounds on ID cards, shouldn't we use some of the savings to create a new UK border police force to prevent and detect illegal immigration and to stop terrorists and suspected terrorists from entering the country?

Now, there's a few, because, I have a job and am not going to state every Tory Policy for your lazy ass. Go and do some reading:

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do...y.listing.page

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do...licy.home.page

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3718904.stm

If you're referring to an ACTUAL manifesto, it's being written at the moment by Dr Greg Clark and his team.

To be fair, one of my favourite Labour ideas was the Fake Plastic Police. Cost 12k each - Powers include the ability to give directions, the ability to give an on the spot fine (standard money grabbing Labour) and the power to call for real police if trouble arises. Like a normal person. Useful.

Quite a facile statement there. Far from being 'as bad as it can get now', I know a sure-fire way to screw up the NHS at a stroke. How? Slash funding to Tory levels - £20bn instead of £90bn. You can argue that trebling the budget has not been value for money - I know it hasn't; I know what my charge-out rate was - but anyone who seriously claims that there has not been a vast improvement in the NHS over the last 10 years must surely be a product of that great (Tory) idea "care in the community"

I note you didn't respond on the nGMS2 contract. And mate, funding is at an all time high, so are NHS debts, it's a shambles, every Doctor/Nurse in the NHS will and probably have told you the same. Pouring money into a bad idea will not make it a good idea. (The Dome)

Restructure is needed. Cut the un needed pen pushers and ffs hire someone from the private sector who knows how to balance a cheque book and run a business.

Nice guy. Is that this 'compassionate conservatism' I hear so much about? Still seems unpleasant and snobbish to me.

So, you're having a go at me for pointing out the obvious flaws in your stupid statement. "We have intelligent, enlightened voters" - no we do not, whilst constantly attacking America and Christians.

Good for you. That's love.

I don't know where Sandwell is - I'm not that well informed - but I do know which country has the highest teenage pregnancy rates anywhere in the developed world. I wonder why? Which brings us nicely onto:

Again, why attack America? I'm talking about OUR downfalls, this deflecting technique of yours is just annoying - stay on track. If you're laughing at America having the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the world, I wouldn't laugh too loud - guess who's second and catching?

http://www.studentbmj.com/issues/02/07/news/223.php

Yeah. A much more intelligent electorate.

Actually it's not their choice - it's the individual woman in question's choice - HTH. It doesn't matter how many crackpots want to gang together to deny someone else access to medical services to satisfy their own puritanical bigotry, it's not an issue that anyone else should have any say in at all.

Don't quite get this Democracy thing yet do you?
That's your opinion, and yet, although it's right in my eyes, it's NOT more valid than anyone else who lives in the Country. They can equally have a say on when, how and why. Being a bleeding heart liberal does not give your say anymore weight. End of.

Perhaps you think it's 'valid' to substitute all understanding of the real world in favour of a wacky adulation of alleged bronze-age conjuring tricks when deciding who to vote for, but it leads to despicable

So you think it's wrong for, as you just pointed out, the Country with the highest Teenage Pregnancy rate in the world to be worried about a HPV vaccine - a disease that is spread sexually only? This isn't Mumps mate, it's an STD that MAY cause Cancer. I believe the comments below are fair.

"We would oppose any measures to legally require vaccination or to coerce parents into authorising it," wrote the FRC in a recent letter to the US government.

So they want the parent to be able to have the choice whether or not to give it to the child. Crazy. What an idea, they'll do that with the MMR next. Oh....wait...

"Our primary concern is with the message that would be delivered to nine- to 12-year-olds with the administration of the vaccines. Care must be taken not to communicate that such an intervention makes all sex 'safe'."

What's so crazy and wrong with that?

retarded results. I dare you to disagree with that.

I disagree with that.
Again, you're reading the headlines and not the story.

"It is the intent of the Cobb County Board of Education that this policy not be interpreted to restrict the teaching of evolution; to promote or require the teaching of creationism; or to discriminate for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, religion in general or non-religion," a portion of the policy said.

So they're agreeing to allow teachers to teach multiple evolution theories - what's your point?

I learnt about Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism etc
See me crying about it?

You don't have to be an athiest to understand there is something very wrong with this either.

So you're attacking a Country now based on some person's website. It's not in any way affiliated with the President, so what's your point?

You don't have one.

Registrant Name:John Lind
Registrant Organizationresidential Prayer Team, Inc.
Registrant Street1:14500 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite ***

Here's a counter point for you to ignore.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1078

And unlike your random link, mine is from an actual UK Political Party.

We'll even have a Scotch PM next . Won't that be nice?

Hate to be the one to inform you of this, but we already do.

Tony Blair
Born May 6, 1953 (1953-05-06) (age 53)[1]
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

[chicken]

Re-grading Cannabis was a great idea now wasn't it?!

I'm not sure this is really a good thing to use in a political arguement. The problem is that there were calls to legalise cannabis and calls to leave it as it was, they just went somewhere down the middle. Hard drug usage isn't likely to go down by just lowering the class of Cannabis as you're still using a chain of drug-smuggling criminals to get it to the people who are using it. Complete derestriction would lead to legal markets where legit dealers would exist, having nothing to do with any other drugs.

Basically what I'm getting at is that it's a half-baked decision, which could be argued is a negative against them, but it was never going to have much effect. I just think there are too many factors involved to directly link the change in legislation to the figures of dependancy-inducing drugs, they would probably have risen anyway.

[Bazzlad]

I can respect that it's a can of worms, but still a decision which has cost them big, instead of lowering the drug use death rate it raised it, and you can argue that it would have gone up anyway but the facts speak for themselves:

In 1999, the Government promised to reduce drug deaths by 20 per cent over the next five years.
Following the pledge, the numbers fell each year, from 1,571 in 1999, to 1,255 in 2003. At this point, the target was hit a year early. But in 2004 the death toll suddenly shot up by 14 per cent, to 1,427.

So that was down and down, then they reclassified Cannabis and it shot up 14%

So that's my justifaction of that argument.

[JPreston]

...
Instead of the ridiculous Labour ID card idea ...Instead of wasting billions of pounds on ID cards.....Instead of wasting billions of pounds on ID cards..... Instead of wasting billions of pounds on ID cards....

I have said above that ID cards (more strictly; the National Identity Register) are the main reason I will not vote Labour and in fact I will refuse to provide any biometric information regardless - a right that 'soft on crime' Labour have already taken away from everyone who is arrested for any reason even those who are not charged. This includes renewing my UK passport - which I won't do - and should refusing to provide biometric data ever become an arrestable offence I will leave. So duh, of course I will agree that spending the ID card billions on anything else at all will be money better spent.

Instead of the ridiculous Labour ID card idea the Tories have much better suggestions...

1) Labour. Letting criminals go due to lack of prison space.

Tories: More prison places: Our prisons are desperately overcrowded, meaning serious criminals are escaping prison sentences and prisoners are not being rehabilitated.

Quite the opposite to what you think in fact under Labour not only have average prison terms increased but a far higher proportion of convictions now result in a custodial sentence. In fact, because you can now be imprisoned for breach of an ASBO it's possible to be sent to prison without actually breaking any law at all - that is why prisons are full. Also we have an effective split between legislature and judiciary so that we cannot be imprisoned/freed at the whim of the govt - so Labour can't 'let criminals go'. Not to mention that "Tories: more prison places" = more taxes to pay for them. Like taxes, do you?

...We have the highest number of dependant drug users in Europe. Add that to the teenage pregnancy and low and you can see the direction this Country is heading in under Labour. Downhill...

S'funny how the UK already has among the strictest prohibition laws in Europe, and (according to you) has a bigger drug problem than all the other countries many of which have far more liberal drug laws, yet you still call for more strict laws. Makes sense do you, does that? How?

In a free democracy, I don't believe the govt should intervene in teenage fertility too strongly. They do a good job of that in China - perhaps you think that is the way to go? How exactly will the Tories reduce teenage pregnancy then? And for that matter, (but entirely unconnected) drug use?

...Tories: More drug rehab in prisons: Drug addiction is a major cause of crime in society, but there isn't enough effective drug rehab in prisons to help get criminals off drugs for good....

I think you'll find the long standing tory policy is to slash funding for rehabilitation programmes in favour of prison being 'short, sharp shock' - so I think we agree that's a step backwards then? It's pretty hard to reason with someone who makes up tory policies as he goes along. Bring back the birch, I say!

...
3) Immigration.
Under Labour? I don't even need to quote the figures (watered down) and the real figures. Every person in the UK knows full well about Labours Failings on Immigration.
...

It's not an issue for me. Perhaps because I don't read the Daily Heil - 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts!', etc. However I did see 'This is England' last night as it goes, and you know what? People had a problem with immigration back in Thatcher's days too - just fancy!

...Tories: A Border Police Force: ..... create a new UK border police force to prevent and detect illegal immigration and to stop terrorists and suspected terrorists from entering the country?

OMG the terrorists are coming!

Did you notice that the July 7 bombers were UK born? That before them, terrorists were from northern ireland and had UK passports? Do you think that just maybe trafficked prostitutes and takeaway chefs, and card-carrying Al-Quaida 'homocide bombers' are two completely different issues for the police, with very different priorities? The idea of a perimeter to keep out all undesirable johnny-foreigners is a bit simplistic, no?

...To be fair, one of my favourite Labour ideas was the Fake Plastic Police. Cost 12k each...

What an offensive statement to all the CSO's who choose to put themselves at personal risk to help with policing their communties, and at a bargain cost too. A lot of them want the experience to later become a full time copper and a lot of them just want to give something back. What do you do then?

...Pouring money into a bad idea will not make it a good idea. (The Dome)

Restructure is needed. Cut the un needed pen pushers and ffs hire someone from the private sector who knows how to balance a cheque book and run a business...

Think before you write, eh? Labour have spent unprecedented billions on accountants and consultants from the private sector. When money has been thrown anywhere, it's gone to the private sector. That's the money that is normally - correctly - regarded as wasted by critics of the govt. My own personal fees would have bought I think 10 dialysis machines, or a nurse for about 23 years, and would have been far better used in that fashion. I realise this is a fundamental tory belief here but let me spell it out: "Competition, and not the concept of private ownership per se, is what increases efficiency in the private sector".

......your stupid statement. "We have intelligent, enlightened voters" - no we do not...

If I spent all my time with tories, maybe I'd come to the same conclusion as you. But what will you say when we next have a tory govt - 2054 or whenever - will we still all be stupid then?

...So you think it's wrong for, as you just pointed out, the Country with the highest Teenage Pregnancy rate in the world to be worried about a HPV vaccine - a disease that is spread sexually only? This isn't Mumps mate, it's an STD that MAY cause Cancer.....they want the parent to be able to have the choice whether or not to give it to the child....

Ugh.

That's the single most revolting opinion I have ever read on hexus.

Maybe it's because I am apparently a 'bleeding heart liberal' but I think a parent has certain responsibilites to look after their children - for example, I believe a parent should not withold a live-saving treatment to try and prove a point about abstaining from sex before marriage. Any parent who would do so is unfit IMO - "But Daddy, I don't want my womb to rot from cancer and die an agonising preventable death"...."Then do not lie down with Satan, foul daughter of Eve!!!". Yes, very 'valid'. From the christian taliban's perspective, that's some disease though isn't? It lends itself to be spun in favour of a biblical message, it leads to painful death, and it only affects women! I can see why they wouldn't want it eradicated by some evil athiest vaccine.

I don't know what excuses you've heard in your time, but I'll bet no young woman has ever declined an offer of sex because she was worried it might result in cervical cancer years down the line - so a sensible health policy would be one that does not seek to force a choice between 'cancer' and 'abstinence', when a vaccine is so readily available. And besides, on the subject of abstinence...

...Again, you're reading the headlines and not the story.
....
So they're agreeing to allow teachers to teach multiple evolution theories - what's your point?

Are you serious? Young earth creationism and 'intelligent design' aren't 'multiple evolution theories'. I wish you would learn a bit about what is still 'up in the air' about evolution, then you might be able to form a sensible opinion on it.

In the meantime watch this whole episode, because it includes footage of that very hearing.

...I learnt about Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism etc
See me crying about it?

Really - in science lessons?

...Here's a counter point for you to ignore.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1078

And unlike your random link, mine is from an actual UK Political Party.

Nice BNP link, there. I honestly don't know what you are getting at though - do you not think muslims should be allowed to board planes 'flying into, or out of this country'?

I can see how that might solve your immigration concerns above, but....erm...I happen to disagree with that. What are you getting at?

[IBM]

Oh how I wish I had the time and energy to read this thread, I know I would learn so much.

10 points to everyone for trying.

IMO, George W. Bush is president because the democrats couldn't find their arse with both hands....

[JPreston]

I....the numbers fell each year, from 1,571 in 1999, to 1,255 in 2003. At this point, the target was hit a year early. But in 2004 the death toll suddenly shot up by 14 per cent, to 1,427.

So that was down and down, then they reclassified Cannabis and it shot up 14%

So that's my justifaction of that argument.

Well I shouldn't really expect your justification of that argument to hold any more water than any of the others, but how many of those drug deaths are accounted for by cannabis? Answer: none at all.

For that matter, how many people have ever died of a cannabis overdose? Again, none.

"But wait JPreston, YOU GODDAMN STUPID ATHEIST", you may say, "plenty of people are killed by stoned drivers/surgeons/airline pilots every year and besides cannabis is a gateway drug, that leads inexorably to crack cocaine use".

Again, no. Tobacco and alcohol are gateway drugs - there is barely a drug user in the world that didn't start with one (or both) of those. Yes people shouldn't drive stoned - they go way too slow and in the middle lane - but drunk drivers are far more dangerous. Some studies show that long term cannabis use may lead to chronic health and mental problems - but long term alcoholism definitely does.

In fact there isn't a single argument that you can make in favour of prohibition of cannabis that doesn't apply even more to alcohol. Drug laws that prohibit some drugs while allowing the use of tobacco and alcohol are totally inconsistent. If alcohol were banned, would that unacceptably impinge on your rights, in what is supposedly a free country? Probably. Why is it different for cannabis?

For my money the same is true for ecstasy, cocaine, amphetamines, and LSD to name a few off the top of my head. Heroine is a tricky question. For the record, I no longer use any drugs including alcohol or tobacco....and smoking was the real bitch to give up. But the only problem I have with illegal drugs (cocaine in particular), is that due to prohibition they aren't ethically produced. If Co-Op sold fair-trade cocaine, it'd be fine

[Rave]

I went and watched the video this thread was supposedly about- and thought Bush did well. Danced not unreasonably, acted like he was enjoying himself rather than looking embarrassed and self-conscious. The guy might be a **** but he's a natural politician. Anyway, back to the off-topic nonsense:

Hey Rave, as a matter of interest what do you think about renationalising the buses? Running them as a public service seems the way to go, especially in rural areas, and surely it's the easiest one to do - just buy back a load of old buses as franchises expire.

Well- I'm in favour of regulating buses, not necessarily renationalising them. I drive in London, where the buses are regulated by TfL. TfL give out contracts to run a route (or group of routes); the private companies that win the contracts then get paid according to how succesfully they run the route- there are lots of things they can get 'fined' for from running irregularly to allowing too many fare dodgers on board. A company's overall performance can impact on whether they retain contracts once the term is up, or win new routes- TfL won't necessarily go with the cheapest quote if it's from a company with a poor performance record.

The system does seem to work very well, albeit that there are still a few minor problems (when aren't there?). It's one of the very rare examples of proper competition resulting in better value for the taxpayer- something which is very scarce under New Labour.

What I can't understand is why the bus industry as a whole is so vehemently opposed to regulation across the rest of the country. It works here, they all seem to more or less make a profit, and the service for customers is way better than anywhere else in the country.

Nah come on, you were loads better off (but admittedly how can either of us know for sure).

Who knows? I don't think I was, but it's pointless to speculate unless you can find the figures.

Course it is...there's always been a benefits trap, but at least Gordy has come up with Tax Credits (*ducks before everyone yells about how badly implemented the IT is*) to actively encourage work. And the minimum wage helps...

You're ducking because the IT is bad? How about ducking because it's an utterly, incredibly stupid idea? Rather than employ thousands of civil servants giving people back their tax Gordon, how about taxing them less in the first place. You utter, utter moron.

In any case, the benefits trap is alive and well; I know, because I was trapped by it. According to the Lewisham Council benefit calculator I would have been worse off working. We don't have kids and my wife works just enough that we wouldn't have got any housing benefit or tax credits had I returned to work on the minimum wage.

Aren't we forgetting though that someone working 38 hours a week on minimum wage will still be entitled to means-tested benefits - housing benefit, income support, council tax benefit and of course tax credits? The only one they would necessarily give up is job seekers' allowance.

See above- I wouldn't have. Maybe it's because the system doesn't take account of the fact that rents vary from region to region- here in SE London a minimum wage job would barely pay the rent on a 1-bed flat. My housing benefit (nearly) covered it- but if I'd taken a minimum wage job I'd have lost £385 in housing benefit and dole every two weeks- while earning a bit less than £385 after tax.

It's not just the premium of wages over benefit that encourage people to work though of course that is important - a high proportion of typical unskilled people will work to learn skills and gain experience.

Yeah- but they're not going to do it if they're going to be worse off!

FWIW, although I'm arguing with you here, I agree with a great deal of your arguments in your correspondence with Bazzlad. Especially about the HPV vaccine.

[jamin]

Holy crap dudes! I respect the tenacity of your arguments. However, are you both missing a big point here? The one that is the basis of democracy, the right to freely choose! You are making valid points, and great arguments, this has been some of the best reading in ages. But why argue over it? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and the right to express it freely....

FWIW, cannabis is a far more dangerous drug to drive on than alcohol. Alcohol has a legal limit, cannabis doesn't, therin lies the danger IMHO.

[TheAnimus]

JPreston, do you mind me asking how much tax you payed in the last 6 months?

Its just I for one am sick of where my money is going.

For instance, secondary school failed me something wrotten, i ended up in the care of social services providing my schooling. Not a good fate. Why, because i was dislexic, a slightly rare iq, and a slight bit of ADD.

So with my 5 GCSEs i managed too get into a 3rd rate uni. Grants not fees. Why the hell do we want 50% of the population too have a degree, when over 50% of the degrees are useless, yes sure we all want a degree in english/philosophy or worse yet "Web Technologies" that don't even cover SOAP (i kid you not!).

Under tories, going back too 95 say, i would off been 25k better off this year at least in income/NI/stamp alone.

Yet the NHS is soo piss poor, i have to have private health, the public transport costs me a further 1,200 a year..... etc.

I will vote for which ever party excepts you can't solve a problem by throwing money at it, that it takes understanding and problemsolving, not just money alone.

Looks like it will be anything but labour/lib dem then.

[Brucelles]

For my money the same is true for ecstasy, cocaine, amphetamines, and LSD to name a few off the top of my head. Heroine is a tricky question. For the record, I no longer use any drugs including alcohol or tobacco....and smoking was the real bitch to give up. But the only problem I have with illegal drugs (cocaine in particular), is that due to prohibition they aren't ethically produced. If Co-Op sold fair-trade cocaine, it'd be fine

I agree with you in general, but not about the amphetamines and coke when in crack form or freebased. Bear in mind that the American pilots responsible for the friendly fire incident where they attacked a British convoy in Iraq were on speed at the time. Even USAF-prescribed amphetamines can dangerously alter ones ability to function well in situations where judgement is crucial.

I normally want the government to F-off and leave me alone, but I do believe that in the case of some of the more dangerous drugs they have a responsibility to prevent metaphorical babies from putting their hand on the stove. By the time kids have learned for themselves that amphetamines are highly addictive it's a bit late. Crystal Meth is another I would rather see locked away, but I believe that if cannabis, LSD, Ecstacy and a few others were legal we would have a much reduced problem with the illegal harder drugs.

Re: Cannabis, though, I have tried one of the new super breeds with an estimated strength of three times what I used to smoke when I was at university, and I find that you just need less. It's no more dangerous than Afghani black hash was then. I'm not recommending that we should all drive around stoned, but I would prefer to meet a stoned driver coming the other way than a drunk one. And a stoned person is less likely to want to get up and go to the hassle of driving somewhere (unless it's the corner sweet shop).

[Bazzlad]

I don't have time to reply to you (JPreston) right now, as it'll be another, but don't worry - I'll get there. But before I do I'd like to point out this statement you made:

Tories: more prison places" = more taxes to pay for them. Like taxes, do you?

Coming from a man who voted LABOUR.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...17/cmpen17.xml

[Perfectionist]

Illegal drugs should stay illegal, hospitals are always getting idiots who've had messups with drugs, or simply their addiction has caused them to get seriously ill.

As well as damaging your lungs even more than cigarettes, cannabis also tends to lead to mental illness which then means even more people are wasting their time dealing with easily avoidable injury.

[chicken]

The trouble is that hospitals get these idiots whether the drug is legal or not. All of the statistics are of a society where the drugs they're about ARE illegal already.

The arguement about Cannabis is that making it legal would disassociate it from the black market, so your "dealer" would be someone like the local Tobacconist, who is unlikely to have a stash of E's or Cocaine in his stock. By having it illegal, anyone who is used to getting it is only one step away from giving something harder a go. The arguement for legalisation of cannabis is often more to reduce the deaths from hard drugs rather than reduce the use of cannabis itself.

I do agree though that it can have a permenantly damaging effect, I have seen it in many people. On the other hand though I have seen many more people use it in moderation and be fine. Much like the situation with Alcohol, but where do you draw the line?

[Noxvayl]

Wow this topic went far from Goerge Bush is a pansy to legalising drugs... crazy what happens to conversations.

I don't agree with using drugs at all because you become dependant on them to deal with problems and the like which is a major sign of weakness to me, people need to get some back bone in this world there are too many weaners around and that's what is wrong with our world at the moment.