 | |
Re: Old transport cafe as a cannabis coffee shop
Miscellaneous UK car topics Other UK car topics (uk.rec.cars.misc)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#321
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: OT: Re: Old transport cafe as a cannabis coffee shop -
05-15-2005
, 07:04 PM
|
- given that many in this situation will find getting decent care for the kids while at work will cost more than they could earn. There used to be local authority nursery places. I'd rather fund decent quality childcare than fund someone to sit on their arse. |
single parent to stay at home and look after their kids. That's why things
are as they are.
--
*Isn't it a bit unnerving that doctors call what they do "practice?"
Dave Plowman dave (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
#322
| |||
| |||
|
|
Kev, go down your local job centre and ask what benefits you'd get if penniless. Think you'll be in for a surprise... I was in the position after being made redundant, of not being able to find a job for 6 months. Every place I went to get financial help based their sums on my yearly income from the previous year. A lot of help when my present income had gone down by £35,000. You're on your own if you fall off the job ladder IMO. |
got the most amazing amount of crap while trying to claim the basic dole.
--
*Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant.
Dave Plowman dave (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
#323
| |||
| |||
|
|
they could supply a pure, and therefore safer, product at less than the price it currently commands. |
to sell cannabis at less than the price it currently commands? There is
presumably a widely-known price now for cannabis of uncertain quality. That
sets the floor price, the minimum price the market will easily stand. I If
the product on legal offer were better than it is now, it would be *more*
expensive, not less. I would bet a pound to a pinch of the proverbial that
if cannabis were ever legalised, the users would all be howling for the good
old illegal days back within a matter of weeks. I would also bet that
post-Prohibition in America, booze cost more than it did when it was
illegal.
In the same way, and more on topic for u.r.c.m, we can be sure that if a way
were found to run cars on water, water would cost as much as petrol.
#324
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <6Zedne5yNt_gAxrfRVnyjQ (AT) pipex (DOT) net>, Taz <me@home> wrote: Kev, go down your local job centre and ask what benefits you'd get if penniless. Think you'll be in for a surprise... I was in the position after being made redundant, of not being able to find a job for 6 months. Every place I went to get financial help based their sums on my yearly income from the previous year. A lot of help when my present income had gone down by £35,000. You're on your own if you fall off the job ladder IMO. Yup. When I got made redundant, with full NI contributions from age 17, I got the most amazing amount of crap while trying to claim the basic dole. |
and it is very difficult to go from being one to being the other.
#325
| |||
| |||
|
|
they could supply a pure, and therefore safer, product at less than the price it currently commands. Whoever wrote that has to be kidding, right? Why would the government want to sell cannabis at less than the price it currently commands? There is presumably a widely-known price now for cannabis of uncertain quality. That sets the floor price, the minimum price the market will easily stand. I If the product on legal offer were better than it is now, it would be *more* expensive, not less. |
Firstly I wasn't talking just about cannabis - I was discussing all
recreational drugs, hard and soft, that are currently illegal.
The point of making drugs cheaper is a key one because it does two things;
1. It reduces the cost of maintaining a habit - hopefully to the point
where crime is no longer required.
2. It pushes the current supply chain of criminals out of the picture. If
the government can undercut the criminals then there is no place for the
criminals, but if the criminals can undercut the government then you keep a
lot of the current problems.
I appreciate point 1 is less relevant to cannabis and there is an argument
for making cannabis, as a recreational non-habit forming drug, quite
expensive. I feel however it would be a mistake to make it cheaper to get
high on a hard drug than on a soft one. People wanting to get high as
cheaply as possible should be directed to alcohol or cannabis.
--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1, Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.
#326
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Dave J." <net-news (AT) freeuk (DOT) com> wrote they could supply a pure, and therefore safer, product at less than the price it currently commands. Whoever wrote that has to be kidding, right? Why would the government want to sell cannabis at less than the price it currently commands? There is presumably a widely-known price now for cannabis of uncertain quality. That sets the floor price, the minimum price the market will easily stand. I If the product on legal offer were better than it is now, it would be *more* expensive, not less. I would bet a pound to a pinch of the proverbial that if cannabis were ever legalised, the users would all be howling for the good old illegal days back within a matter of weeks. I would also bet that post-Prohibition in America, booze cost more than it did when it was illegal. In the same way, and more on topic for u.r.c.m, we can be sure that if a way were found to run cars on water, water would cost as much as petrol. Hate to point it out. But if you buy a bottle of water from a garage It |
#327
| |||
| |||
|
|
In MsgID<3ek0fpF3i793U1 (AT) individual (DOT) net> within uk.rec.drugs.cannabis, 'AndrewR' wrote: 2. The illegal drug industry in the UK is a multi-billion pound one and every single person who receives money through it is a criminal. None of that money is taxed, obviously, some of it is the profit of crime and some of it goes to fund other crimes (certainly continuing the supply of illegal drugs). If drugs were legal and the government were to control the supply then they could put thousands of criminals out of work, they could tax the end product, as is done with alcohol and tobacco, they could control who gets the drugs (the government wouldn't hang around by schools offering free samples) and they could supply a pure, and therefore safer, product at less than the price it currently commands. Has anyone else noticed the complete lack of a reply from Kev to this excellent posting? (And I mean the whole posting not just the paragraph I picked at random) Could some of the childish insults thrown at him contain a grain of truth? Pity, as I'd have been interested in a response to those points, though I suspect an intelligent prohibitionist might find that there isn't one. |
they would do what you liked, then there would be a lot less "criminals" doing
it because that wouldn't make them criminals.
But it wouldn't stop happening, it would be more common, most likely.
Legalising* cannabis as a sort of alternative to drink and tobacco is one
thing, but legalising powerfully psychoactive drugs like opium and whatnot is a
completely different question.
(* - or ceasing to prosecute other than in exceptional situations)
But to be honest, this is off topic in this newsgroup so I'll set followups
accordingly.
#328
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
Apparently on date Sun, 15 May 2005 21:16:34 +0100, Dave J.<net-news (AT) freeuk (DOT) com> said: Pity, as I'd have been interested in a response to those points, though I suspect an intelligent prohibitionist might find that there isn't one. Well, it's true that if you made it legal to give hard drugs to schoolgirls so they would do what you liked, then there would be a lot less "criminals" doing it because that wouldn't make them criminals. But it wouldn't stop happening, it would be more common, most likely. |
as an example of what would happen or as an analogy for getting rid of drug
crime by making drugs legal.
If the former then, of course, I'm not suggesting that it should be legal
for minors to buy drugs or for adults to buy drugs for minors or to
administer them to minors. Nor do I see why if it happens at the moment it
should happen more if certain drugs become legal.
If you're simply using it as an analogy then it's a poor one. A lot of drug
crime is a crime only because we chose to make it so; it has no direct
victim so who is the law protecting?
Quote:
|
Legalising* cannabis as a sort of alternative to drink and tobacco is one thing, but legalising powerfully psychoactive drugs like opium and whatnot is a completely different question. |
you're looking at this question from the perspective of "Should people be
allowed to recreationally take opiates?". That's all very well, but the
actual question is "People are already recreationally taking opiates, what
can we do about it?".
The answer to the latter question has strongly gone towards prohibition, but
it's not working and the American model shows that it will continue not to
work even if the level of prohibition is raised to what can only be called
draconian. If prohibition isn't going to work then another plan is needed.
Quote:
|
(* - or ceasing to prosecute other than in exceptional situations) |
no more prohibition, so we get any rise in useage that we'd get with
legalisation, but the supply remains in the hands of the criminals who make
untaxed billions from it.
I don't believe that there is a single good argument in favour of
decriminalisation over legalisation, it's a pointless half-way house for
people who are too spineless or too restrained by their own morality to
allow legalisation.
Quote:
|
But to be honest, this is off topic in this newsgroup so I'll set followups accordingly. |
--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1, Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.
#329
| |||
| |||
|
|
Pity, as I'd have been interested in a response to those points, though I suspect an intelligent prohibitionist might find that there isn't one. I suspect he just got fed up with having to justify his views with smart arse potheads |
There is a difference between smart arse and lucid.
Why don't you try to respond to Andrew's contribution?
Message ID: 3ek0fpF3i793U1 (AT) individual (DOT) net
--
Dave Johnson - requiem (AT) freeuk (DOT) com
#330
| |||
| |||
|
|
People wanting to get high as cheaply as possible should be directed to alcohol or cannabis. |
(and even at illegal prices far more fun per penny) than alcohol.
MDMA is one (though I've got a wariness about it)
Opium is probably another one, addictive but non harmful to the body
unless in OD.
Magic mushrooms is a third
There will be more.
Alcohol is the biggest ripoff going. Addictive, rapidly causal of
fuckwittery, and bearing more resemblance to a general toxin than a drug.
--
Dave Johnson - requiem (AT) freeuk (DOT) com
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.