International Politics Thread

[raedor 8]

I think that would be really bad. Then youths wouldn't mind trying it, just like no one minds trying alochol. "If it's legal, how could it be dangerous?" Would be pretty bad for the common health and for the national economy.

As opposed to now, when they try weed, figure out that its less harmful than some legal drugs, and think "the government just makes this shit up"

Exactly. What kids get these days is scare propaganda. And it's indiscriminate. Instead of telling horror stories, real information should be provided about the effects of drugs, positive and negative and the associated health risks. Information that they can trust.

And beyond that it should be the responsibility of the individual. The biggest killed is fat, but you don't see a ban on hamburgers, do you?

just watch this movie in your local cinema.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]and it is not forbidden to carry 20g (?). i don't know why it is forbidden...

You wish

20g´s in only in Berlin under discussion.

The rest is 3 g´s and in bavaria, as ever, zero tolerance...

I´d like to see that lifted also. I´ve never seen a weed-one go mad and go for trouble like they do with alcohol.

Not to speak of the health effects weed has compared to alcohol. It´s neither a beginner drug nor does it make physically dependant like alcohol or tobacco.

But, well it´s forbidden. Reasons unknown.

Uh wait, I got a reason, pharmacy industry wants to sell their synthetically fabricated THC for a high price to people who have cancer or other painful illnesses. That has to be the reason

Do you know why it actually got banned ?

I will not say tell you , because everyone will go nuts when I mention the three holy letters USA again

[Brutal_Impact 0]

I hope in 20 or 30 years Europe becomes a confederacy. That would be cool for Europe.

[Bordoy 0]

I think that would be really bad. Then youths wouldn't mind trying it, just like no one minds trying alochol. "If it's legal, how could it be dangerous?" Would be pretty bad for the common health and for the national economy.

As opposed to now, when they try weed, figure out that its less harmful than some legal drugs, and think "the government just makes this shit up"

Exactly. What kids get these days is scare propaganda. And it's indiscriminate. Instead of telling horror stories, real information should be provided about the effects of drugs, positive and negative and the associated health risks. Information that they can trust.

And beyond that it should be the responsibility of the individual. The biggest killed is fat, but you don't see a ban on hamburgers, do you?

Fat is the only thing on the news bout school providing crappy meals n all, but a bigger problem is MRSA

[Longinius 1]

The best way to get a kid to do anything is to just say they cant or must not. Thats almost a fool proof way of making sure that they WILL do it. Another good thing is to warn a kid for something that seems harmless, its a sure way of getting the kid to try it.

Personal opinion: Ban smoking in public places because of secondary inhalation. Allow people to use drugs as long as they are doing it in a legal way (ie not causing harm to others as a primary or secondary result of drug usage). Remove the taboos and some of the problems are sure to disappear as well. Yes, we might create some new ones, but the question is if its worse than what we got. I doubt it.

[Bordoy 0]

The best way to get a kid to do anything is to just say they cant or must not. Thats almost a fool proof way of making sure that they WILL do it. Another good thing is to warn a kid for something that seems harmless, its a sure way of getting the kid to try it.

Personal opinion: Ban smoking in public places because of secondary inhalation. Allow people to use drugs as long as they are doing it in a legal way (ie not causing harm to others as a primary or secondary result of drug usage). Remove the taboos and some of the problems are sure to disappear as well. Yes, we might create some new ones, but the question is if its worse than what we got. I doubt it.

Legalise drugs? for medical reasons or social reasons?

Ban smoking in public places, illaglise all non-medical drugs.

[xawery 0]

I see it as highly unlikely that any significant steps towards lifting soft drugs from the criminal circuit will be taken in Europe any time soon. I'm just hoping that the Dutch government will stand its ground in the EU and retain the opportunity principle. It's really a mervellous example of the traditional Dutch pragmatism - make up a clause that allows to circumvent the laws if the result of a certain (illegal) phenomenon is 'socially desirable'. The coffeeshops in the Netherlands are, technically, illegal. But as they enable the Dutch dept. of justice to exercise quality supervision, collect taxes and generally keep tabs on things, they are being 'tolerated'. That is the official word for it: 'tolerance policy'.

Isn't that fantastic? It's a striking example of how the law does not need to be a stifling dogma, but is actually capable of adapting to the needs.

I don't know the legal technicalities though, and I'm *really* interested how they guard this principle from abuse...

On a sidenote, the Dutch government's policy of tolerance may have been succesful, but it has failed in one respect - it only tolerates the sell of cannabis, not supplying it. In other words, where the coffeeshop owner gets his cannabis from is anybody's guess. He might be growing it himself, but the more likely option is that he is being equipped by professional mass-growers, who are illegal... So, while the Dutch policy has managed to decriminalise the selling and usage of soft drugs, the left end of the supply chain is still in the hands of criminals and the government thus has no supervision over they way the weed is grown. Very, very stupid.

There is also the case of medicinal weed, for people suffering from terminal or chronic diseases like AIDS, cancer or HMS. Tests have proven that pills with THC extracts have very little effect, it is really the smoking that makes the active element of weed so effective. Anyway, this government-manufactured weed is distributed via the apothecary. The problem is, the price is far too high (due to extensive testing, packaging and the permanent quality guarantee) and the weed contains far too much THC, and far too little BDC. Simply put: THC is the bit that makes you drowsy and gives you the munchies & the giggles, while BDC is the stuff that relaxes your muscles. You can probably imagine that such weed is pretty much useless for people suffering from, say, the hypermobility syndrome.

There still is a long way to go... but at least we're on the right track.

regards,

Xawery

[Bordoy 0]

I see it as highly unlikely that any significant steps towards lifting soft drugs from the criminal circuit will be taken in Europe any time soon. I'm just hoping that the Dutch government will stand its ground in the EU and retain the opportunity principle. It's really a mervellous example of the traditional Dutch pragmatism - make up a clause that allows to circumvent the laws if the result of a certain (illegal) phenomenon is 'socially desirable'. The coffeeshops in the Netherlands are, technically, illegal. But as they enable the Dutch dept. of justice to exercise quality supervision, collect taxes and generally keep tabs on things, they are being 'tolerated'. That is the official word for it: 'tolerance policy'.

Isn't that fantastic? It's a striking example of how the law does not need to be a stifling dogma, but is actually capable of adapting to the needs.

I don't know the legal technicalities though, and I'm *really* interested how they guard this principle from abuse...

On a sidenote, the Dutch government's policy of tolerance may have been succesful, but it has failed in one respect - it only tolerates the sell of cannabis, not supplying it. In other words, where the coffeeshop owner gets his cannabis from is anybody's guess. He might be growing it himself, but the more likely option is that he is being equipped by professional mass-growers, who are illegal... So, while the Dutch policy has managed to decriminalise the selling and usage of soft drugs, the left end of the supply chain is still in the hands of criminals and the government thus has no supervision over they way the weed is grown. Very, very stupid.

There is also the case of medicinal weed, for people suffering from terminal or chronic diseases like AIDS, cancer or HMS. Tests have proven that pills with THC extracts have very little effect, it is really the smoking that makes the active element of weed so effective. Anyway, this government-manufactured weed is distributed via the apothecary. The problem is, the price is far too high (due to extensive testing, packaging and the permanent quality guarantee) and the weed contains far too much THC, and far too little BDC. Simply put: THC is the bit that makes you drowsy and gives you the munchies & the giggles, while BDC is the stuff that relaxes your muscles. You can probably imagine that such weed is pretty much useless for people suffering from, say, the hypermobility syndrome.

There still is a long way to go... but at least we're on the right track.

regards,

Xawery

So from what i understand of your post you want to legalise weed?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

So from what i understand of your post you want to legalise weed?

So from what I understand of yours you don't think this is a good idea?

Name a reason weed should be illegal. One that does not apply more so to alcohol or tobacco.

[Bordoy 0]

So from what i understand of your post you want to legalise weed?

So from what I understand of yours you don't think this is a good idea?

Name a reason weed should be illegal.  One that does not apply more so to alcohol or tobacco.

It is already illegal so no reason required mate, but you need reasons to make it legal. And no i don't think its a good idea

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Let me guess... you read the sun.

Do you know why it's illegal? Because tobacco and alcohol companies persuaded the government to make it illegal around the turn of the century. It was legal before that.

Thats the worst excuse I've ever heard 'its already illegal.' That would work really well as a defence for slavery: its already legal, we don't need reasons to make it illegal.

[EiZei 0]

Meanwhile back in the UK:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1263304,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

Barclays closes BNP accounts after secret film exposes racism

James Sturcke and Clare Dyer

Saturday July 17, 2004

The Guardian

Barclays Bank moved to close accounts held by the British National party last night after its members were secretly filmed delivering racist tirades and admitting violence against Muslims.

About five accounts linked to the BNP, not all of which are registered in the party's name, will be closed, a source at Barclays familiar with the matter said. The country's third biggest bank was already reviewing its position on the BNP before the BBC's film, The Secret Agent, was watched by over 4 million viewers on Thursday night.

"The bank had been looking at the situation for some time but the BBC documentary on Thursday provided evidence enabling the bank to act," the source said.

A Barclays spokeswoman declined to comment about individual customers, but said: "As a general rule, Barclays will provide a banking service to legally constituted political or campaigning organisations in regions where there is democratic government and an effective legal and regulatory service."

But action would be taken where the "implications for our business of having such an account - such as consequent loss of other business - are considered to provide sufficient reason to decline to open an account or close an existing one".

The BNP chairman, Nick Griffin, called the move "absolutely scandalous" and said it was an attempt to "ban it by the back door". He said the party's money had, in effect, been "stolen. The next move will be to look at the legal position", he said.

More votes for UKIP in the next euro-election?

[Bordoy 0]

Actually i dont read the sun (worst paper ever)

Nick Griffin Reports there a cool picture at the bottom of the page, lol.

Did the bank give a 14 day warning to the BNP that they was going to close the account which is a legal requirement?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

So all jews are supposed to pack their things and leave France as soon as possible. They are living under constant fear for their life

Strange, when I last visited Paris the jewish district near the Notre Dame (or better St Germain) looked relatively peaceful.

Sorry but the israeli Prime Minister is pretty savage in his way of doing politics...

What a useless comment

[denoir 0]

EU parliament begins new session [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

Members of the newly-enlarged European Parliament meet for the first time in Strasbourg on Tuesday.

A total of 732 members were elected last month from 25 European countries, including the 10 new member states which joined the European Union in May.

Analysts say political clashes are expected after opponents of European integration increased their numbers. Two of the parliament's first jobs will be to elect the heads of the parliament and the European Commission.

Spain's socialist Josep Borrell is expected to succeed Irishman Pat Cox as the parliament's next president, ahead of rival candidates Bronislaw Geremek - a former Polish dissident - and French communist Francis Wurtz. Meanwhile, former Portuguese prime minister Jose Durao Barroso is likely to be confirmed as the next president of the European Commission.

The new parliament will have 20 official languages and will represent 450 million people. But low turnouts for last month's elections indicated growing voter apathy.

The BBC's William Horsley, in Strasbourg, says a heated debate is now foreseen about the purposes and working methods of the EU as a whole. A war of words has begun in advance, our correspondent says, with the British UK Independence Party talking of "wrecking" the work of the Strasbourg parliament and British Liberals asserting that it is more valuable and efficient than the so-called Mother of Parliaments, at Westminster in London.

Horse-trading

The new president must be elected by a majority of the parliament's members, and it is usually the result of backroom agreements between the main political groupings. The Christian Democrats - who remain the biggest group - have struck a deal with the Socialists. So Mr Borrell will enjoy the Christian Democrats' support for the first two-and-a-half years.

He will then go on to support the leader of the Christian Democrats, Germany's MEP Hans-Gert Poettering, for the second half of the parliamentary term. Mr Borrell, an engineer and academic, began his political career in his native Spanish region of Catalonia, and went on to hold various ministerial posts in the Socialist government.

The BBC's Oana Lungescu, also in Strasbourg, says he will try to convince sceptical European voters that the parliament is relevant to their daily lives.  Mr Borrell says it has to "play a fundamental role, to do away with... confusion and explain what type of society we want to build together".

'Sparks fly'

Mr Borrell has no experience in the European parliament and is seen as lacking in charisma, unlike his liberal opponent, Bronislaw Geremek. A historian who specialised in the study of poverty in the Middle Ages, Mr Geremek was a leading dissident and member of the Solidarity trade union, who became foreign minister after the fall of communism.

The other key post - the president of the European Commission - is also the result of horse-trading, this time between EU leaders.

After some bitter debates, the nominated candidate is Mr Barroso, who has just stepped down as Portugal's prime minister. After gruelling hearings involving all five of the parliament's political groups last week, he is generally seen to have done well and is expected to be confirmed by a secret vote. But for Mr Barroso, the hard work is only starting, as he begins to weigh up what jobs to give to whom in the new European executive.

Germany and France have already asked for the main portfolios, and Mr Barroso will need all his diplomatic skills to show he is not in the pocket of the EU's biggest countries.

Albert:

Yeah, Sharon's comments were way out of line. It's something you would expect to hear from neo-nazis, and not from Israel's prime minister. Anyway he has been declared persona non grata in France until he offers an explanation. But it seems like Sharon is backing down since his press people claim that the statement was taken out of context.

[Supah 0]

It is already illegal so no reason required mate, but you need reasons to make it legal. And no i don't think its a good idea

Why do you think it is a bad idea then?

[DarkLight 0]

My personal position is that the government should stay out of it all together and the decision to take drugs, be it alcohol, tobacco or weed should be the decision of the individual.

I think that would be really bad. Then youths wouldn't mind trying it, just like no one minds trying alochol. "If it's legal, how could it be dangerous?" Would be pretty bad for the common health and for the national economy.

bah, if you want to get weed or more dangerous stuff, you'll get it. it does noz matter if it is forbidden or not. here in germany you can get weed on every playground. and it is not forbidden to carry 20g (?). i don't know why it is forbidden...  

and the problem with forbidden drugs is that youths just wanna test it cos it is forbidden...  

20g? That's a lot, you know

I kinda doubt that someone is allowed to carry that around. 20g is enough for dealers who don't sell large amounts. It isn't THAT much but it's enough for a small dealer to earn some cash so i kinda doubt that's legal...

Here in Belgium the law about weed and hasjh is rather confusing. A while ago they said that using these drugs is legal as long as you don't cause any problems, as long as you don't have high amounts (3g max), as long as there aren't any youngsters around, etc

You could also have 3 plants of your own.

Selling the drugs however is still illegal.

Now today i don't have a fucking clue if this law has changed or not. I heared that you're allowed to have 1 plant, no more (of course if there are no youngsters near it).

If they catch you with 3g or less (you must be an adult of course) then you won't get a punishment and you should be allowed to keep your drugs (but that doesn't always happen).

I dunno if all this has changed. Our government can sometimes be rather confusing...

Oh well... I personaly think it should be legalized as long as there are strict conditions about age/amount of drugs/behaviour while under influence of.../no driving/etc

It doesn't matter if it's illegal or not, you can get it anywhere, anytime. That's just the hard reality. A lot of parents might think that THEIR kids never see drugs but that's just total bullshit. My parents once said exactly the same thing. They were surprised when we said that in our school there are drugs.

I can buy weed or hasjh whenever i want in my school, probably some harder stuff too but i don't know about that. I don't know any of those kind of people.

I see people on our school smoking weed between classes and stuff like that And the school i go to isn't one of those "ghettoschools" or something like that. It's a decent school with a pretty good reputation.

It's an illusion that kids won't come in contact with drugs. If you don't want them to ever come in contact with drugs, you'll have to put'm in their chamber and lock the door.

I don't see why everyone complains about this legalisation thing.

For us, the kids, nothing will change because we are too young. If we want drugs we'll still be able to buy it (illegal of course), and if we don't want to then we won't buy it. We just gotta make sure that we don't get caught ;)

Things will change for the grown ups, not for the kids. The same rules still count for youngsters, while adults get the opportunity to enjoy a joint once in a while just like we enjoy a tasty beer nowadays.

Personally i think weed or hasjh is much better than alcohol, ppl who drink alcohol can act in very very veeery strange ways. Drunk people do stupid stuff, they act like morons, they often have no respect, they have no clue what they are doing, they forget everything that they are doing, they get sick and puke all over the place, the day after being drunk they have a huge headache, they sometimes get aggressive, drunk driving, etc etc

Of course this doesn't always happen, friendly drunk ppl exist too

Soft drugs makes you tired and hungry, you laugh a little faster, you feel very happy and your head feels strange. You can sometimes get sick but it doesn't happen that much. You know perfectly well what you are doing so you won't wake up in bed with some ugly ol' lady or with your car smashed into the front door of a house. You don't get aggressive (you're too tired and happy for that) or anything like that.

If you ask me the consequences for your health are pretty much the same as with alcohol. If you smoke one joint with a couple ppl everyone will probably feel rather happy. With beer you need to drink a lot to get drunk, it costs more money and beer causes damage too.

Quote[/b] ]On a sidenote, the Dutch government's policy of tolerance may have been succesful, but it has failed in one respect - it only tolerates the sell of cannabis, not supplying it. In other words, where the coffeeshop owner gets his cannabis from is anybody's guess. He might be growing it himself, but the more likely option is that he is being equipped by professional mass-growers, who are illegal... So, while the Dutch policy has managed to decriminalise the selling and usage of soft drugs, the left end of the supply chain is still in the hands of criminals and the government thus has no supervision over they way the weed is grown. Very, very stupid.

Actually a lot of coffeeshops have their own plants, just check out some websites of coffeeshops (yes they have websites too). A lot of them have pictures of their own plants. Sure some might buy from 'real' dealers but i kinda doubt that it's as serious as you say...

Quote[/b] ]Tests have proven that pills with THC extracts have very little effect, it is really the smoking that makes the active element of weed so effective.

That's strange because spacecake contains pure weed, it has never been burned and yet a small piece of spacecake can make you fly through the sky easily...

Oh well... you're probably right anyway... Maybe the heating of the cake has something to do with it. But heating isn't the same as burning of course...

Oh well...

[Supah 0]

Actually a lot of coffeeshops have their own plants, just check out some websites of coffeeshops (yes they have websites too).  A lot of them have pictures of their own plants.  Sure some might buy from 'real' dealers but i kinda doubt that it's as serious as you say...

It actually is as bad Every now and then you hear about another large scale grower getting busted. Allot of ppl grow plants illegally in rented houses tapping off electricity illegally.

A while back in the town where i live the powercompany complained to the police that a certain neighbourhood was taking WAY more power from the grid then was showing up on the boxes they use to check useage per house (for which you pay). So the police asked the army to fly over the neighbourhood with a heat sensor equipped helicopter and identify hotspots (growers use loads of lamps to make the plants grow faster). They identified around 14 growers.

They then locked off the entire neighbourhood, searching every person that went in and out and raided all the houses they suspected of growing weed beyond the personal use limit.

Aside from the obvious damage to the powercompanies, the cost of which will have to come from somewhere so the prices for honest users will go up, these growers with their massive amounts of lamps are often a fire hazard. Also the plants stink like crazy! So its not nice to life next to one. I remember hearing stories from a friend of mine who is a police officer that they would sometimes walk through the neighbourhood and the place would stink off the plants so badly it would make them laugh. They couldnt just go off and raid houses with out a warrant.

The whole idea was to take softdrugs out of the illegal area and take criminals out of the loop as they were making allot of money out of it and growing powerfull, just like prohibition did with the american maffia. To a large extent this has succeeded but obviously the growing part is still not worked out well. Either they allow large scale growing by farmers (which would also allow the farmers to make a buck) or the government starts its own growing scheme (more money for them!). Either way the current situation is ridiculous.

Having grown up in the netherlands sure I tried weed and hash. It was ok but I dont use it on a daily basis. Very few people i know have continued using it allot past puberty. Sure there are some misfits who use it too much but they would also have done so if it was illegal and under the current situation they are less likely to cause trouble because weed isnt expensive or sold by a pusher who will also try and sell them hard drugs. The entire coffeeshop thing is mainly good for tourisme and pissing off the french (who BTW are a prime source of drugtourisme, talk about hypocritical). The idea of all dutch ppl being stoners is a unfounded and unintelligent american invention.

[Bordoy 0]

It is already illegal so no reason required mate, but you need reasons to make it legal. And no i don't think its a good idea

Why do you think it is a bad idea then?

Because it has been proved people who smoke marijuana reguarly get mental issues (or greater risk) later on in life. I know you are going to say well its there life so they can do what they want but thats why we have laws and nobody can do what they like.

Also when people get "high" they are bigger problem then people who are not on the drug.  Trust me I know alot of people, some of them (minority) smoke weed the rest don't and I can tell you the people who smoke weed cause trouble and is the problems Tony Blair talked about in is speech on crime.

edit: I just read your post. My brother went on a school trip to France and he said there were some Dutch kids smoking weed but they were really causing trouble, if i went over and they were causing trouble near me i would of smacked them

[DarkLight 0]

It is already illegal so no reason required mate, but you need reasons to make it legal. And no i don't think its a good idea

Why do you think it is a bad idea then?

Because it has been proved people who smoke marijuana reguarly get mental issues (or greater risk) later on in life. I know you are going to say well its there life so they can do what they want but thats why we have laws and nobody can do what they like.

Also when people get "high" they are bigger problem then people who are not on the drug.  Trust me I know alot of people, some of them (minority) smoke weed the rest don't and I can tell you the people who smoke weed cause trouble and is the problems Tony Blair talked about in is speech on crime.

edit: I just read your post. My brother went on a school trip to France and he said there were some Dutch kids smoking weed but they were really causing trouble, if i went over and they were causing trouble near me i would of smacked them

Just because your friends cause problems when they're high doesn't mean that everyone does that. I know plenty of people who cause no trouble when they've smoked a joint.

Of course no human being is the same...

[Bordoy 0]

It is already illegal so no reason required mate, but you need reasons to make it legal. And no i don't think its a good idea

Why do you think it is a bad idea then?

Because it has been proved people who smoke marijuana reguarly get mental issues (or greater risk) later on in life. I know you are going to say well its there life so they can do what they want but thats why we have laws and nobody can do what they like.

Also when people get "high" they are bigger problem then people who are not on the drug.  Trust me I know alot of people, some of them (minority) smoke weed the rest don't and I can tell you the people who smoke weed cause trouble and is the problems Tony Blair talked about in is speech on crime.

edit: I just read your post. My brother went on a school trip to France and he said there were some Dutch kids smoking weed but they were really causing trouble, if i went over and they were causing trouble near me i would of smacked them

Just because your friends cause problems when they're high doesn't mean that everyone does that.  I know plenty of people who cause no trouble when they've smoked a joint.  

Of course no human being is the same...

Who said they were my friends?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Because it has been proved people who smoke marijuana reguarly get mental issues (or greater risk) later on in life.

Are you intending to back that up, or is it just something you were once told?

Every unbiased test I've ever seen (New Scientist, Focus, etc) shows no such thing.

They do show some ill effects but they are all associated with smoking - eating, vapourising etc do not show the ill effects.

Quote[/b] ]

I know you are going to say well its there life so they can do what they want but thats why we have laws and nobody can do what they like.

Again you resort to the old 'the law says this' crap without mentioning any good reason for the law to be this way. If the law was changed I take it you'd totally support it, as you do now?

Quote[/b] ]

Also when people get "high" they are bigger problem then people who are not on the drug. Trust me I know alot of people, some of them (minority) smoke weed the rest don't and I can tell you the people who smoke weed cause trouble and is the problems Tony Blair talked about in is speech on crime.

Crap. Trust me, I know more people that smoke(d) weed than you. Oh look, unsupported assertions cancel each other out.

You're confusing two effects here:

People who do illegal things 'just to rebel' - are also going to do things like smoke weed.

You don't notice, or remember, the thousands if not millions of people who smoke but don't make any trouble.

1 PROVEN fact for you (look up any study) - MJ smokers/ users are not aggressive, violent or confrontational.

[Supah 0]

It is already illegal so no reason required mate, but you need reasons to make it legal. And no i don't think its a good idea

Why do you think it is a bad idea then?

Because it has been proved people who smoke marijuana reguarly get mental issues (or greater risk) later on in life. I know you are going to say well its there life so they can do what they want but thats why we have laws and nobody can do what they like.

Mental problems can devellop in people who use different medications, alcohol or caffeine too. Just because it fits in some politicians street weed gets singled out. In every community/population there are people who cause trouble, either under the influence or not. Sure people can cause trouble when stoned. They can also do this when drunk or even when completly sober.

Quote[/b] ]edit: I just read your post. My brother went on a school trip to France and he said there were some Dutch kids smoking weed but they were really causing trouble, if i went over and they were causing trouble near me i would of smacked them

Last time i went on vacation to Ibiza drunken british youths were causing allot of trouble too. I remember Euro2000 when british football "fans" were so very pleasant under the influence of alcohol. Looking at the BBC i get the impression that large majorities of britons around 20 have alcohol problems. Seeing footage from "normal" behaviour in britains inner cities during the weekend nights makes me believe you have more of a problem with alcohol abuse as a nation then with people who like to smoke weed.

Take it from someone who has lived in a nation where you can smoke weed freely for his entire life. Troublemakers will get weed regardless of its legal status and they will cause trouble no matter what.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Last time i went on vacation to Ibiza drunken british youths were causing allot of trouble too. I remember Euro2000 when british football "fans" were so very pleasant under the influence of alcohol.

Please don't confuse Britain with England/ vice versa - the Welsh, N. Irish and Scottish fans are very well behaved.

Quote[/b] ]

Looking at the BBC i get the impression that large majorities of britons around 20 have alcohol problems. Seeing footage from "normal" behaviour in britains inner cities during the weekend nights makes me believe you have more of a problem with alcohol abuse as a nation then with people who like to smoke weed.

I agree.

[Paratrooper 0]

Last time i went on vacation to Ibiza drunken british youths were causing allot of trouble too. I remember Euro2000 when british football "fans" were so very pleasant under the influence of alcohol.

Please don't confuse Britain with England/ vice versa - the Welsh, N. Irish and Scottish fans are very well behaved.  

You wouldn't say that if you had had the misfortune of coming across a gang of drunken Scottish football fans on a dark night. The Scots are capable of football related violence, take the Celtic/Rangers animosity. Not that they are any worse than us English, my point is that football violence and alcoholism are not purely English phenomena.

P.s Hello all, it has been a while!