UK - OT

[Anony Muzz Azzole]

Seems H.M. Gov. got it wrong when they declassified cannabis to a
class C controlled substance from class B last year.

Your home secretary has ordered a rethink and it looks awfully like
they are going to do a U-turn and reclassify it back to B.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4363075.stm

Do you feel safer?

The irony is that when I googled 'cannabis' in news, when sorted by
relevance and not by date, this is what showed up
http://80.4.36.135/blurb\Google%20Search%20cannabis.htm

Does this mean that it will be ok for people who take cannabis for
pain relief to be at risk of psychosis until such times as the health
secretary gets his act together and sets license to cannabis for
medical use?
*22% of people use it for depression* - go figure.

Oh, the Tories are no better and are bleating 'told you so', so if you
really want a radical rethink to your drug policies you will have the
chance to shout your opinion 1st week in May (?),

but I for one certainly am going to seek out my prospective candidates
to see if I can't get the chance for a natter about their views on the
subject, and if enough like minded people go asking the right
questions (and I mean more t'wards the mushrooms than the weed ), then
it would certainly highlight our plight at the right time, ...when
what 'we' are going to do affects 'them' !!

Take a dictaphone and record the conversation, put them right on the
spot.. they will be only too happy to talk to you... until they
find out what you want to talk about and what side of the fence you
sit on.

I might even go ward-hopping, it should make for some interesting
statistics/research material.

This declassifying and reclassifying of a plant that needs no
preparation or procedure to be effective, is a fiasco at the taxpayers
expense.
To make the same mistake with mushrooms would be unforgivable.

The plant they charge us to argue over is illegal anyway, and
declassification has made no difference to use, and the fact that
smokers are at risk of psychosis has always been widely published and
surely understood by the adult users, so to reclassify is pointless,
unless you want to make carrying a heavier sentence to heap further on
an already overburdened judiciary and overpopulated penal system a
point.

The fact is that the real dangers are in young people using such
substances and alcohol. Better education is what is required, but with
all the facts available and not propaganda on which to come to a
conclusion.

The mushroom they intend to ban also requires no preparation or
procedure to be effective, and at the moment, even the huge surge in
use over the last 3-4 years has not thrown up any real and present
dangers with hallucinogenic mushrooms use and we all know of the risks
that come with use, so as adults make choice, we understand long term
may be a different story ..
but even this has yet to *prove* harmful, in fact it is entirely
possible that the exact opposite might be the case and that mushrooms
are in fact good for you as you get older...

..maybe that's it, maybe they do and the government know this, and
they are shitting themselves at the thought of a pensions supercrisis
above and beyond the bag of shit they are already holding.

If they can get it wrong with cannabis, they can get it wrong with
anything.
If they can get it wrong in favour for, they can get in wrong in
favour against.

I suppose my point is that this is the time when we, the electorate,
have a voice.
They haven't got a clue.
I am going to do my damndest to highlight this to them directly,
personally.
I would encourage others to use this opportunity in whatever way they
see useful.

Rant over.

[me]

"Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
message news:mi9n31hlmbukfu4ad9e6g8gg5o7ddh1ih7@4ax.com...
: Seems H.M. Gov. got it wrong when they declassified cannabis to a
: class C controlled substance from class B last year.
:
: Your home secretary has ordered a rethink and it looks awfully like
: they are going to do a U-turn and reclassify it back to B.
:
: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4363075.stm
:
: Do you feel safer?
:
: The irony is that when I googled 'cannabis' in news, when sorted by
: relevance and not by date, this is what showed up
: http://80.4.36.135/blurb\Google%20Search%20cannabis.htm
:


I googled alcohol related deaths and found that according to latest figures,
25% of deaths among European men aged between 15 and 29 years is
alcohol-related, and a 50% of all deaths due to injury in Europe involve
alcohol....


I also googled tobacco related deaths and found that tobacco has killed 6.3
million people - close to the current population of London across the UK
during the last half century.

I know people that have suffered drug psychosis, they're all alive.........

[o8TY]

"me" <boomshaka@@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xPQ_d.87773$ug2.25556@fe2.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
>
> "Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
> message news:mi9n31hlmbukfu4ad9e6g8gg5o7ddh1ih7@4ax.com...
> : Seems H.M. Gov. got it wrong when they declassified cannabis to a
> : class C controlled substance from class B last year.
> :
> : Your home secretary has ordered a rethink and it looks awfully like
> : they are going to do a U-turn and reclassify it back to B.
> :
> : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4363075.stm
> :
> : Do you feel safer?
> :
> : The irony is that when I googled 'cannabis' in news, when sorted by
> : relevance and not by date, this is what showed up
> : http://80.4.36.135/blurb\Google%20Search%20cannabis.htm
> :
>
>
> I googled alcohol related deaths and found that according to latest
figures,
> 25% of deaths among European men aged between 15 and 29 years is
> alcohol-related, and a 50% of all deaths due to injury in Europe involve
> alcohol....
>

Sounds like a government-sponsored genocide program.

When I die, I want to meet the fungi.

>
> I also googled tobacco related deaths and found that tobacco has killed
6.3
> million people - close to the current population of London across the UK
> during the last half century.
>
> I know people that have suffered drug psychosis, they're all
alive.........
>
>

[Bertrand Russell]

"Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
message news:mi9n31hlmbukfu4ad9e6g8gg5o7ddh1ih7@4ax.com...
> Seems H.M. Gov. got it wrong when they declassified cannabis to a
> class C controlled substance from class B last year.
>
> Your home secretary has ordered a rethink and it looks awfully like
> they are going to do a U-turn and reclassify it back to B.

Yeah, so they say. OTOH it might just be pre-election tough-talk. Look how
hard we are on crime etc etc

>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4363075.stm
>
> Do you feel safer?

Do I detect a touch of sarcasm?


>
> The irony is that when I googled 'cannabis' in news, when sorted by
> relevance and not by date, this is what showed up
> http://80.4.36.135/blurb\Google%20Search%20cannabis.htm
>
> Does this mean that it will be ok for people who take cannabis for
> pain relief to be at risk of psychosis until such times as the health
> secretary gets his act together and sets license to cannabis for
> medical use?
> *22% of people use it for depression* - go figure.
>
> Oh, the Tories are no better and are bleating 'told you so', so if you
> really want a radical rethink to your drug policies you will have the
> chance to shout your opinion 1st week in May (?),

No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even considered
reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty for
smoking...

>
> but I for one certainly am going to seek out my prospective candidates
> to see if I can't get the chance for a natter about their views on the
> subject, and if enough like minded people go asking the right
> questions (and I mean more t'wards the mushrooms than the weed ), then
> it would certainly highlight our plight at the right time, ...when
> what 'we' are going to do affects 'them' !!
>
> Take a dictaphone and record the conversation, put them right on the
> spot.. they will be only too happy to talk to you... until they
> find out what you want to talk about and what side of the fence you
> sit on.
>
> I might even go ward-hopping, it should make for some interesting
> statistics/research material.

And they very best of luck - I reckon that the Greens and the Lib Dems might
well be up for a chat. But neither will ever get voted in by our horrible
electorate.
They'd rather set fire to gypsies, most of 'em.

>
> This declassifying and reclassifying of a plant that needs no
> preparation or procedure to be effective, is a fiasco at the taxpayers
> expense.
> To make the same mistake with mushrooms would be unforgivable.
>
> The plant they charge us to argue over is illegal anyway, and
> declassification has made no difference to use, and the fact that
> smokers are at risk of psychosis has always been widely published and
> surely understood by the adult users, so to reclassify is pointless,
> unless you want to make carrying a heavier sentence to heap further on
> an already overburdened judiciary and overpopulated penal system a
> point.
>
> The fact is that the real dangers are in young people using such
> substances and alcohol. Better education is what is required, but with
> all the facts available and not propaganda on which to come to a
> conclusion.

Although I'd guess most of us here used these things when young-ish. I've
had a few bouts of major paranoia/weirdness when smoking a lot when I was
younger, and these days I still very rarely smoke. It can still get too
weird/alienated if I have too much.

But mushrooms I always got on very well with.

And I've never seen any conclusive studies linking mushrooms to mental
illness, there might be some, but I've never seen em. IMHO, if used
carefully mushrooms are safer even than cannabis

>
> The mushroom they intend to ban also requires no preparation or
> procedure to be effective, and at the moment, even the huge surge in
> use over the last 3-4 years has not thrown up any real and present
> dangers with hallucinogenic mushrooms use and we all know of the risks
> that come with use, so as adults make choice, we understand long term
> may be a different story ..
> but even this has yet to *prove* harmful, in fact it is entirely
> possible that the exact opposite might be the case and that mushrooms
> are in fact good for you as you get older...
>
> ..maybe that's it, maybe they do and the government know this, and
> they are shitting themselves at the thought of a pensions supercrisis
> above and beyond the bag of shit they are already holding.
>
> If they can get it wrong with cannabis, they can get it wrong with
> anything.
> If they can get it wrong in favour for, they can get in wrong in
> favour against.
>
> I suppose my point is that this is the time when we, the electorate,
> have a voice.
> They haven't got a clue.
> I am going to do my damndest to highlight this to them directly,
> personally.
> I would encourage others to use this opportunity in whatever way they
> see useful.

As I say, best of luck to you.

Bert

>
> Rant over.
>
>
>
>

[Bertrand Russell]

"Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
message news:mi9n31hlmbukfu4ad9e6g8gg5o7ddh1ih7@4ax.com...
> Seems H.M. Gov. got it wrong when they declassified cannabis to a
> class C controlled substance from class B last year.
>
> Your home secretary has ordered a rethink and it looks awfully like
> they are going to do a U-turn and reclassify it back to B.

Yeah, so they say. OTOH it might just be pre-election tough-talk. Look how
hard we are on crime etc etc

>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4363075.stm
>
> Do you feel safer?

Do I detect a touch of sarcasm?


>
> The irony is that when I googled 'cannabis' in news, when sorted by
> relevance and not by date, this is what showed up
> http://80.4.36.135/blurb\Google%20Search%20cannabis.htm
>
> Does this mean that it will be ok for people who take cannabis for
> pain relief to be at risk of psychosis until such times as the health
> secretary gets his act together and sets license to cannabis for
> medical use?
> *22% of people use it for depression* - go figure.
>
> Oh, the Tories are no better and are bleating 'told you so', so if you
> really want a radical rethink to your drug policies you will have the
> chance to shout your opinion 1st week in May (?),

No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even considered
reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty for
smoking...

>
> but I for one certainly am going to seek out my prospective candidates
> to see if I can't get the chance for a natter about their views on the
> subject, and if enough like minded people go asking the right
> questions (and I mean more t'wards the mushrooms than the weed ), then
> it would certainly highlight our plight at the right time, ...when
> what 'we' are going to do affects 'them' !!
>
> Take a dictaphone and record the conversation, put them right on the
> spot.. they will be only too happy to talk to you... until they
> find out what you want to talk about and what side of the fence you
> sit on.
>
> I might even go ward-hopping, it should make for some interesting
> statistics/research material.

And they very best of luck - I reckon that the Greens and the Lib Dems might
well be up for a chat. But neither will ever get voted in by our horrible
electorate.
They'd rather set fire to gypsies, most of 'em.

>
> This declassifying and reclassifying of a plant that needs no
> preparation or procedure to be effective, is a fiasco at the taxpayers
> expense.
> To make the same mistake with mushrooms would be unforgivable.
>
> The plant they charge us to argue over is illegal anyway, and
> declassification has made no difference to use, and the fact that
> smokers are at risk of psychosis has always been widely published and
> surely understood by the adult users, so to reclassify is pointless,
> unless you want to make carrying a heavier sentence to heap further on
> an already overburdened judiciary and overpopulated penal system a
> point.
>
> The fact is that the real dangers are in young people using such
> substances and alcohol. Better education is what is required, but with
> all the facts available and not propaganda on which to come to a
> conclusion.

Although I'd guess most of us here used these things when young-ish. I've
had a few bouts of major paranoia/weirdness when smoking a lot when I was
younger, and these days I still very rarely smoke. It can still get too
weird/alienated if I have too much.

But mushrooms I always got on very well with.

And I've never seen any conclusive studies linking mushrooms to mental
illness, there might be some, but I've never seen em. IMHO, if used
carefully mushrooms are safer even than cannabis

>
> The mushroom they intend to ban also requires no preparation or
> procedure to be effective, and at the moment, even the huge surge in
> use over the last 3-4 years has not thrown up any real and present
> dangers with hallucinogenic mushrooms use and we all know of the risks
> that come with use, so as adults make choice, we understand long term
> may be a different story ..
> but even this has yet to *prove* harmful, in fact it is entirely
> possible that the exact opposite might be the case and that mushrooms
> are in fact good for you as you get older...
>
> ..maybe that's it, maybe they do and the government know this, and
> they are shitting themselves at the thought of a pensions supercrisis
> above and beyond the bag of shit they are already holding.
>
> If they can get it wrong with cannabis, they can get it wrong with
> anything.
> If they can get it wrong in favour for, they can get in wrong in
> favour against.
>
> I suppose my point is that this is the time when we, the electorate,
> have a voice.
> They haven't got a clue.
> I am going to do my damndest to highlight this to them directly,
> personally.
> I would encourage others to use this opportunity in whatever way they
> see useful.

As I say, best of luck to you.

Bert

>
> Rant over.
>
>
>
>

[pj]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:51:01 -0000, "Bertrand Russell"
<Bertie@spimmer> wrote:

>No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even considered
>reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty for
>smoking...

Certainly the current tory leadership are like that. I'm continually
amazed with every "policy" announcement they make. Do they realise the
80s are over?

The whole party isn't like that though - there has always been a
strong libertarian wing, but people like Peter Lilley
(pro-legalisation) don't have a hope these days - the problem isn't
really the parties, it's the fact that a large portion of the
population really seems to believe they're better off when the
government tells them how to live their lives, and then watches on
CCTV to make sure they're doing it right.

pj
--
http://www.psychedelicjones.com/

[pj]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:51:01 -0000, "Bertrand Russell"
<Bertie@spimmer> wrote:

>No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even considered
>reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty for
>smoking...

Certainly the current tory leadership are like that. I'm continually
amazed with every "policy" announcement they make. Do they realise the
80s are over?

The whole party isn't like that though - there has always been a
strong libertarian wing, but people like Peter Lilley
(pro-legalisation) don't have a hope these days - the problem isn't
really the parties, it's the fact that a large portion of the
population really seems to believe they're better off when the
government tells them how to live their lives, and then watches on
CCTV to make sure they're doing it right.

pj
--
http://www.psychedelicjones.com/

[Bertrand Russell]

"Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
message news:mi9n31hlmbukfu4ad9e6g8gg5o7ddh1ih7@4ax.com...
> Seems H.M. Gov. got it wrong when they declassified cannabis to a
> class C controlled substance from class B last year.
>
> Your home secretary has ordered a rethink and it looks awfully like
> they are going to do a U-turn and reclassify it back to B.

Yeah, so they say. OTOH it might just be pre-election tough-talk. Look how
hard we are on crime etc etc

>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4363075.stm
>
> Do you feel safer?

Do I detect a touch of sarcasm?


>
> The irony is that when I googled 'cannabis' in news, when sorted by
> relevance and not by date, this is what showed up
> http://80.4.36.135/blurb\Google%20Search%20cannabis.htm
>
> Does this mean that it will be ok for people who take cannabis for
> pain relief to be at risk of psychosis until such times as the health
> secretary gets his act together and sets license to cannabis for
> medical use?
> *22% of people use it for depression* - go figure.
>
> Oh, the Tories are no better and are bleating 'told you so', so if you
> really want a radical rethink to your drug policies you will have the
> chance to shout your opinion 1st week in May (?),

No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even considered
reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty for
smoking...

>
> but I for one certainly am going to seek out my prospective candidates
> to see if I can't get the chance for a natter about their views on the
> subject, and if enough like minded people go asking the right
> questions (and I mean more t'wards the mushrooms than the weed ), then
> it would certainly highlight our plight at the right time, ...when
> what 'we' are going to do affects 'them' !!
>
> Take a dictaphone and record the conversation, put them right on the
> spot.. they will be only too happy to talk to you... until they
> find out what you want to talk about and what side of the fence you
> sit on.
>
> I might even go ward-hopping, it should make for some interesting
> statistics/research material.

And they very best of luck - I reckon that the Greens and the Lib Dems might
well be up for a chat. But neither will ever get voted in by our horrible
electorate.
They'd rather set fire to gypsies, most of 'em.

>
> This declassifying and reclassifying of a plant that needs no
> preparation or procedure to be effective, is a fiasco at the taxpayers
> expense.
> To make the same mistake with mushrooms would be unforgivable.
>
> The plant they charge us to argue over is illegal anyway, and
> declassification has made no difference to use, and the fact that
> smokers are at risk of psychosis has always been widely published and
> surely understood by the adult users, so to reclassify is pointless,
> unless you want to make carrying a heavier sentence to heap further on
> an already overburdened judiciary and overpopulated penal system a
> point.
>
> The fact is that the real dangers are in young people using such
> substances and alcohol. Better education is what is required, but with
> all the facts available and not propaganda on which to come to a
> conclusion.

Although I'd guess most of us here used these things when young-ish. I've
had a few bouts of major paranoia/weirdness when smoking a lot when I was
younger, and these days I still very rarely smoke. It can still get too
weird/alienated if I have too much.

But mushrooms I always got on very well with.

And I've never seen any conclusive studies linking mushrooms to mental
illness, there might be some, but I've never seen em. IMHO, if used
carefully mushrooms are safer even than cannabis

>
> The mushroom they intend to ban also requires no preparation or
> procedure to be effective, and at the moment, even the huge surge in
> use over the last 3-4 years has not thrown up any real and present
> dangers with hallucinogenic mushrooms use and we all know of the risks
> that come with use, so as adults make choice, we understand long term
> may be a different story ..
> but even this has yet to *prove* harmful, in fact it is entirely
> possible that the exact opposite might be the case and that mushrooms
> are in fact good for you as you get older...
>
> ..maybe that's it, maybe they do and the government know this, and
> they are shitting themselves at the thought of a pensions supercrisis
> above and beyond the bag of shit they are already holding.
>
> If they can get it wrong with cannabis, they can get it wrong with
> anything.
> If they can get it wrong in favour for, they can get in wrong in
> favour against.
>
> I suppose my point is that this is the time when we, the electorate,
> have a voice.
> They haven't got a clue.
> I am going to do my damndest to highlight this to them directly,
> personally.
> I would encourage others to use this opportunity in whatever way they
> see useful.

As I say, best of luck to you.

Bert

>
> Rant over.
>
>
>
>

[pj]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:51:01 -0000, "Bertrand Russell"
<Bertie@spimmer> wrote:

>No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even considered
>reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty for
>smoking...

Certainly the current tory leadership are like that. I'm continually
amazed with every "policy" announcement they make. Do they realise the
80s are over?

The whole party isn't like that though - there has always been a
strong libertarian wing, but people like Peter Lilley
(pro-legalisation) don't have a hope these days - the problem isn't
really the parties, it's the fact that a large portion of the
population really seems to believe they're better off when the
government tells them how to live their lives, and then watches on
CCTV to make sure they're doing it right.

pj
--
http://www.psychedelicjones.com/

[Anony Muzz Azzole]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:05:43 +0000, pj <pj@psychedelicjones.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:51:01 -0000, "Bertrand Russell"
><Bertie@spimmer> wrote:
>
>>No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even considered
>>reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty for
>>smoking...
>
>Certainly the current tory leadership are like that. I'm continually
>amazed with every "policy" announcement they make. Do they realise the
>80s are over?
>
>The whole party isn't like that though - there has always been a
>strong libertarian wing, but people like Peter Lilley
>(pro-legalisation) don't have a hope these days - the problem isn't
>really the parties, it's the fact that a large portion of the
>population really seems to believe they're better off when the
>government tells them how to live their lives, and then watches on
>CCTV to make sure they're doing it right.
LMAO, .. yet again I am so very grateful to be older, I don't fancy
the future much tbh, a time when I fancy 'freedom' will be an outmoded
philosophy and whispered only on pain of death

It'd be a romantic idealism to think that my lone, wee voice, however
respected it might or might not be, could carry sufficient clout as to
cause any of the parties to alter their perception of the situation.
But I am no romantic idealist.

I am resigned already, and intend only therefore to maximise a rare
opportunity to go 'noise up' the prospectives on a subject where,
unbeknown to the aforementioned, the deck is already stacked against
them.

>
>pj

[Anony Muzz Azzole]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:05:43 +0000, pj <pj@psychedelicjones.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:51:01 -0000, "Bertrand Russell"
><Bertie@spimmer> wrote:
>
>>No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even considered
>>reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty for
>>smoking...
>
>Certainly the current tory leadership are like that. I'm continually
>amazed with every "policy" announcement they make. Do they realise the
>80s are over?
>
>The whole party isn't like that though - there has always been a
>strong libertarian wing, but people like Peter Lilley
>(pro-legalisation) don't have a hope these days - the problem isn't
>really the parties, it's the fact that a large portion of the
>population really seems to believe they're better off when the
>government tells them how to live their lives, and then watches on
>CCTV to make sure they're doing it right.
LMAO, .. yet again I am so very grateful to be older, I don't fancy
the future much tbh, a time when I fancy 'freedom' will be an outmoded
philosophy and whispered only on pain of death

It'd be a romantic idealism to think that my lone, wee voice, however
respected it might or might not be, could carry sufficient clout as to
cause any of the parties to alter their perception of the situation.
But I am no romantic idealist.

I am resigned already, and intend only therefore to maximise a rare
opportunity to go 'noise up' the prospectives on a subject where,
unbeknown to the aforementioned, the deck is already stacked against
them.

>
>pj

[o8TY]

"Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
message news:jc1341d40f1v4h5vpu7osdbphiua3a1hhr@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:05:43 +0000, pj <pj@psychedelicjones.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:51:01 -0000, "Bertrand Russell"
> ><Bertie@spimmer> wrote:
> >
> >>No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even considered
> >>reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty for
> >>smoking...
> >
> >Certainly the current tory leadership are like that. I'm continually
> >amazed with every "policy" announcement they make. Do they realise the
> >80s are over?
> >
> >The whole party isn't like that though - there has always been a
> >strong libertarian wing, but people like Peter Lilley
> >(pro-legalisation) don't have a hope these days - the problem isn't
> >really the parties, it's the fact that a large portion of the
> >population really seems to believe they're better off when the
> >government tells them how to live their lives, and then watches on
> >CCTV to make sure they're doing it right.
> LMAO, .. yet again I am so very grateful to be older, I don't fancy
> the future much tbh, a time when I fancy 'freedom' will be an outmoded
> philosophy and whispered only on pain of death
>
> It'd be a romantic idealism to think that my lone, wee voice, however
> respected it might or might not be, could carry sufficient clout as to
> cause any of the parties to alter their perception of the situation.
> But I am no romantic idealist.
>
> I am resigned already, and intend only therefore to maximise a rare
> opportunity to go 'noise up' the prospectives on a subject where,
> unbeknown to the aforementioned, the deck is already stacked against
> them.
>
> >
> >pj
>

No! This will just not do. Desist. Breath. Smile. Go suck a fungus.

The following are two short pages showing the beginning of western
civilisation was based on a fungus. I hope they help, or better still,
inspire and enthuse.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/introduction.htm

http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/doric-style.htm

At least tell me I am not dreaming!

[o8TY]

"Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
message news:jc1341d40f1v4h5vpu7osdbphiua3a1hhr@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:05:43 +0000, pj <pj@psychedelicjones.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:51:01 -0000, "Bertrand Russell"
> ><Bertie@spimmer> wrote:
> >
> >>No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even considered
> >>reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty for
> >>smoking...
> >
> >Certainly the current tory leadership are like that. I'm continually
> >amazed with every "policy" announcement they make. Do they realise the
> >80s are over?
> >
> >The whole party isn't like that though - there has always been a
> >strong libertarian wing, but people like Peter Lilley
> >(pro-legalisation) don't have a hope these days - the problem isn't
> >really the parties, it's the fact that a large portion of the
> >population really seems to believe they're better off when the
> >government tells them how to live their lives, and then watches on
> >CCTV to make sure they're doing it right.
> LMAO, .. yet again I am so very grateful to be older, I don't fancy
> the future much tbh, a time when I fancy 'freedom' will be an outmoded
> philosophy and whispered only on pain of death
>
> It'd be a romantic idealism to think that my lone, wee voice, however
> respected it might or might not be, could carry sufficient clout as to
> cause any of the parties to alter their perception of the situation.
> But I am no romantic idealist.
>
> I am resigned already, and intend only therefore to maximise a rare
> opportunity to go 'noise up' the prospectives on a subject where,
> unbeknown to the aforementioned, the deck is already stacked against
> them.
>
> >
> >pj
>

No! This will just not do. Desist. Breath. Smile. Go suck a fungus.

The following are two short pages showing the beginning of western
civilisation was based on a fungus. I hope they help, or better still,
inspire and enthuse.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/introduction.htm

http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/doric-style.htm

At least tell me I am not dreaming!

[Anony Muzz Azzole]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:05:43 +0000, pj <pj@psychedelicjones.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:51:01 -0000, "Bertrand Russell"
><Bertie@spimmer> wrote:
>
>>No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even considered
>>reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty for
>>smoking...
>
>Certainly the current tory leadership are like that. I'm continually
>amazed with every "policy" announcement they make. Do they realise the
>80s are over?
>
>The whole party isn't like that though - there has always been a
>strong libertarian wing, but people like Peter Lilley
>(pro-legalisation) don't have a hope these days - the problem isn't
>really the parties, it's the fact that a large portion of the
>population really seems to believe they're better off when the
>government tells them how to live their lives, and then watches on
>CCTV to make sure they're doing it right.
LMAO, .. yet again I am so very grateful to be older, I don't fancy
the future much tbh, a time when I fancy 'freedom' will be an outmoded
philosophy and whispered only on pain of death

It'd be a romantic idealism to think that my lone, wee voice, however
respected it might or might not be, could carry sufficient clout as to
cause any of the parties to alter their perception of the situation.
But I am no romantic idealist.

I am resigned already, and intend only therefore to maximise a rare
opportunity to go 'noise up' the prospectives on a subject where,
unbeknown to the aforementioned, the deck is already stacked against
them.

>
>pj

[Anony Muzz Azzole]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:34:24 +1100, "o8TY" <o8ty@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
>message news:jc1341d40f1v4h5vpu7osdbphiua3a1hhr@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:05:43 +0000, pj <pj@psychedelicjones.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:51:01 -0000, "Bertrand Russell"
>> ><Bertie@spimmer> wrote:
>> >
>> >>No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even considered
>> >>reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty for
>> >>smoking...
>> >
>> >Certainly the current tory leadership are like that. I'm continually
>> >amazed with every "policy" announcement they make. Do they realise the
>> >80s are over?
>> >
>> >The whole party isn't like that though - there has always been a
>> >strong libertarian wing, but people like Peter Lilley
>> >(pro-legalisation) don't have a hope these days - the problem isn't
>> >really the parties, it's the fact that a large portion of the
>> >population really seems to believe they're better off when the
>> >government tells them how to live their lives, and then watches on
>> >CCTV to make sure they're doing it right.
>> LMAO, .. yet again I am so very grateful to be older, I don't fancy
>> the future much tbh, a time when I fancy 'freedom' will be an outmoded
>> philosophy and whispered only on pain of death
>>
>> It'd be a romantic idealism to think that my lone, wee voice, however
>> respected it might or might not be, could carry sufficient clout as to
>> cause any of the parties to alter their perception of the situation.
>> But I am no romantic idealist.
>>
>> I am resigned already, and intend only therefore to maximise a rare
>> opportunity to go 'noise up' the prospectives on a subject where,
>> unbeknown to the aforementioned, the deck is already stacked against
>> them.

>No! This will just not do. Desist. Breath. Smile. Go suck a fungus.
When I say I am resigned, it is only to the impending and ominous
change to the law to which I am resigned.. not use of the mushroom.


>
>The following are two short pages showing the beginning of western
>civilisation was based on a fungus. I hope they help, or better still,
>inspire and enthuse.
>
>http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/introduction.htm
>
>http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/doric-style.htm
>
>At least tell me I am not dreaming!
>

[Anony Muzz Azzole]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:34:24 +1100, "o8TY" <o8ty@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
>message news:jc1341d40f1v4h5vpu7osdbphiua3a1hhr@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:05:43 +0000, pj <pj@psychedelicjones.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:51:01 -0000, "Bertrand Russell"
>> ><Bertie@spimmer> wrote:
>> >
>> >>No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even considered
>> >>reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty for
>> >>smoking...
>> >
>> >Certainly the current tory leadership are like that. I'm continually
>> >amazed with every "policy" announcement they make. Do they realise the
>> >80s are over?
>> >
>> >The whole party isn't like that though - there has always been a
>> >strong libertarian wing, but people like Peter Lilley
>> >(pro-legalisation) don't have a hope these days - the problem isn't
>> >really the parties, it's the fact that a large portion of the
>> >population really seems to believe they're better off when the
>> >government tells them how to live their lives, and then watches on
>> >CCTV to make sure they're doing it right.
>> LMAO, .. yet again I am so very grateful to be older, I don't fancy
>> the future much tbh, a time when I fancy 'freedom' will be an outmoded
>> philosophy and whispered only on pain of death
>>
>> It'd be a romantic idealism to think that my lone, wee voice, however
>> respected it might or might not be, could carry sufficient clout as to
>> cause any of the parties to alter their perception of the situation.
>> But I am no romantic idealist.
>>
>> I am resigned already, and intend only therefore to maximise a rare
>> opportunity to go 'noise up' the prospectives on a subject where,
>> unbeknown to the aforementioned, the deck is already stacked against
>> them.

>No! This will just not do. Desist. Breath. Smile. Go suck a fungus.
When I say I am resigned, it is only to the impending and ominous
change to the law to which I am resigned.. not use of the mushroom.


>
>The following are two short pages showing the beginning of western
>civilisation was based on a fungus. I hope they help, or better still,
>inspire and enthuse.
>
>http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/introduction.htm
>
>http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/doric-style.htm
>
>At least tell me I am not dreaming!
>

[o8TY]

"Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
message news:jc1341d40f1v4h5vpu7osdbphiua3a1hhr@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:05:43 +0000, pj <pj@psychedelicjones.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:51:01 -0000, "Bertrand Russell"
> ><Bertie@spimmer> wrote:
> >
> >>No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even considered
> >>reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty for
> >>smoking...
> >
> >Certainly the current tory leadership are like that. I'm continually
> >amazed with every "policy" announcement they make. Do they realise the
> >80s are over?
> >
> >The whole party isn't like that though - there has always been a
> >strong libertarian wing, but people like Peter Lilley
> >(pro-legalisation) don't have a hope these days - the problem isn't
> >really the parties, it's the fact that a large portion of the
> >population really seems to believe they're better off when the
> >government tells them how to live their lives, and then watches on
> >CCTV to make sure they're doing it right.
> LMAO, .. yet again I am so very grateful to be older, I don't fancy
> the future much tbh, a time when I fancy 'freedom' will be an outmoded
> philosophy and whispered only on pain of death
>
> It'd be a romantic idealism to think that my lone, wee voice, however
> respected it might or might not be, could carry sufficient clout as to
> cause any of the parties to alter their perception of the situation.
> But I am no romantic idealist.
>
> I am resigned already, and intend only therefore to maximise a rare
> opportunity to go 'noise up' the prospectives on a subject where,
> unbeknown to the aforementioned, the deck is already stacked against
> them.
>
> >
> >pj
>

No! This will just not do. Desist. Breath. Smile. Go suck a fungus.

The following are two short pages showing the beginning of western
civilisation was based on a fungus. I hope they help, or better still,
inspire and enthuse.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/introduction.htm

http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/doric-style.htm

At least tell me I am not dreaming!

[Anony Muzz Azzole]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:34:24 +1100, "o8TY" <o8ty@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
>message news:jc1341d40f1v4h5vpu7osdbphiua3a1hhr@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:05:43 +0000, pj <pj@psychedelicjones.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:51:01 -0000, "Bertrand Russell"
>> ><Bertie@spimmer> wrote:
>> >
>> >>No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even considered
>> >>reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty for
>> >>smoking...
>> >
>> >Certainly the current tory leadership are like that. I'm continually
>> >amazed with every "policy" announcement they make. Do they realise the
>> >80s are over?
>> >
>> >The whole party isn't like that though - there has always been a
>> >strong libertarian wing, but people like Peter Lilley
>> >(pro-legalisation) don't have a hope these days - the problem isn't
>> >really the parties, it's the fact that a large portion of the
>> >population really seems to believe they're better off when the
>> >government tells them how to live their lives, and then watches on
>> >CCTV to make sure they're doing it right.
>> LMAO, .. yet again I am so very grateful to be older, I don't fancy
>> the future much tbh, a time when I fancy 'freedom' will be an outmoded
>> philosophy and whispered only on pain of death
>>
>> It'd be a romantic idealism to think that my lone, wee voice, however
>> respected it might or might not be, could carry sufficient clout as to
>> cause any of the parties to alter their perception of the situation.
>> But I am no romantic idealist.
>>
>> I am resigned already, and intend only therefore to maximise a rare
>> opportunity to go 'noise up' the prospectives on a subject where,
>> unbeknown to the aforementioned, the deck is already stacked against
>> them.

>No! This will just not do. Desist. Breath. Smile. Go suck a fungus.
When I say I am resigned, it is only to the impending and ominous
change to the law to which I am resigned.. not use of the mushroom.


>
>The following are two short pages showing the beginning of western
>civilisation was based on a fungus. I hope they help, or better still,
>inspire and enthuse.
>
>http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/introduction.htm
>
>http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/doric-style.htm
>
>At least tell me I am not dreaming!
>

[o8TY]

"Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
message news:pde34115bbs2s5vkeadbgu0f9d66ha61st@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:34:24 +1100, "o8TY" <o8ty@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
> >message news:jc1341d40f1v4h5vpu7osdbphiua3a1hhr@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:05:43 +0000, pj <pj@psychedelicjones.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:51:01 -0000, "Bertrand Russell"
> >> ><Bertie@spimmer> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even
considered
> >> >>reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty
for
> >> >>smoking...
> >> >
> >> >Certainly the current tory leadership are like that. I'm continually
> >> >amazed with every "policy" announcement they make. Do they realise the
> >> >80s are over?
> >> >
> >> >The whole party isn't like that though - there has always been a
> >> >strong libertarian wing, but people like Peter Lilley
> >> >(pro-legalisation) don't have a hope these days - the problem isn't
> >> >really the parties, it's the fact that a large portion of the
> >> >population really seems to believe they're better off when the
> >> >government tells them how to live their lives, and then watches on
> >> >CCTV to make sure they're doing it right.
> >> LMAO, .. yet again I am so very grateful to be older, I don't fancy
> >> the future much tbh, a time when I fancy 'freedom' will be an outmoded
> >> philosophy and whispered only on pain of death
> >>
> >> It'd be a romantic idealism to think that my lone, wee voice, however
> >> respected it might or might not be, could carry sufficient clout as to
> >> cause any of the parties to alter their perception of the situation.
> >> But I am no romantic idealist.
> >>
> >> I am resigned already, and intend only therefore to maximise a rare
> >> opportunity to go 'noise up' the prospectives on a subject where,
> >> unbeknown to the aforementioned, the deck is already stacked against
> >> them.
>
> >No! This will just not do. Desist. Breath. Smile. Go suck a fungus.
> When I say I am resigned, it is only to the impending and ominous
> change to the law to which I am resigned.. not use of the mushroom.
>

The way I look at it is that the authorities are playing at Brave New World
but have many novices who do not realise the ground they are founded upon is
as liquid as mud (mush). Being the good citizens that we are, it is our
responsibility to inform them of the situation as much as possible ... and
then let them bear the responsiblility for having disenfranchised the
masses. The game is not over by a long shot.


>
> >
> >The following are two short pages showing the beginning of western
> >civilisation was based on a fungus. I hope they help, or better still,
> >inspire and enthuse.
> >
> >http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/introduction.htm
> >
> >http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/doric-style.htm
> >
> >At least tell me I am not dreaming!
> >
>

[o8TY]

"Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
message news:pde34115bbs2s5vkeadbgu0f9d66ha61st@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:34:24 +1100, "o8TY" <o8ty@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
> >message news:jc1341d40f1v4h5vpu7osdbphiua3a1hhr@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:05:43 +0000, pj <pj@psychedelicjones.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:51:01 -0000, "Bertrand Russell"
> >> ><Bertie@spimmer> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even
considered
> >> >>reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty
for
> >> >>smoking...
> >> >
> >> >Certainly the current tory leadership are like that. I'm continually
> >> >amazed with every "policy" announcement they make. Do they realise the
> >> >80s are over?
> >> >
> >> >The whole party isn't like that though - there has always been a
> >> >strong libertarian wing, but people like Peter Lilley
> >> >(pro-legalisation) don't have a hope these days - the problem isn't
> >> >really the parties, it's the fact that a large portion of the
> >> >population really seems to believe they're better off when the
> >> >government tells them how to live their lives, and then watches on
> >> >CCTV to make sure they're doing it right.
> >> LMAO, .. yet again I am so very grateful to be older, I don't fancy
> >> the future much tbh, a time when I fancy 'freedom' will be an outmoded
> >> philosophy and whispered only on pain of death
> >>
> >> It'd be a romantic idealism to think that my lone, wee voice, however
> >> respected it might or might not be, could carry sufficient clout as to
> >> cause any of the parties to alter their perception of the situation.
> >> But I am no romantic idealist.
> >>
> >> I am resigned already, and intend only therefore to maximise a rare
> >> opportunity to go 'noise up' the prospectives on a subject where,
> >> unbeknown to the aforementioned, the deck is already stacked against
> >> them.
>
> >No! This will just not do. Desist. Breath. Smile. Go suck a fungus.
> When I say I am resigned, it is only to the impending and ominous
> change to the law to which I am resigned.. not use of the mushroom.
>

The way I look at it is that the authorities are playing at Brave New World
but have many novices who do not realise the ground they are founded upon is
as liquid as mud (mush). Being the good citizens that we are, it is our
responsibility to inform them of the situation as much as possible ... and
then let them bear the responsiblility for having disenfranchised the
masses. The game is not over by a long shot.


>
> >
> >The following are two short pages showing the beginning of western
> >civilisation was based on a fungus. I hope they help, or better still,
> >inspire and enthuse.
> >
> >http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/introduction.htm
> >
> >http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/doric-style.htm
> >
> >At least tell me I am not dreaming!
> >
>

[o8TY]

"Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
message news:pde34115bbs2s5vkeadbgu0f9d66ha61st@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:34:24 +1100, "o8TY" <o8ty@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Anony Muzz Azzole" <If_you_want_it_then_ask@fake-addie.com> wrote in
> >message news:jc1341d40f1v4h5vpu7osdbphiua3a1hhr@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:05:43 +0000, pj <pj@psychedelicjones.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:51:01 -0000, "Bertrand Russell"
> >> ><Bertie@spimmer> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>No, the Tories are VERY MUCH WORSE and would never have even
considered
> >> >>reclassifying cannabis. Except maybe to bring in the death penalty
for
> >> >>smoking...
> >> >
> >> >Certainly the current tory leadership are like that. I'm continually
> >> >amazed with every "policy" announcement they make. Do they realise the
> >> >80s are over?
> >> >
> >> >The whole party isn't like that though - there has always been a
> >> >strong libertarian wing, but people like Peter Lilley
> >> >(pro-legalisation) don't have a hope these days - the problem isn't
> >> >really the parties, it's the fact that a large portion of the
> >> >population really seems to believe they're better off when the
> >> >government tells them how to live their lives, and then watches on
> >> >CCTV to make sure they're doing it right.
> >> LMAO, .. yet again I am so very grateful to be older, I don't fancy
> >> the future much tbh, a time when I fancy 'freedom' will be an outmoded
> >> philosophy and whispered only on pain of death
> >>
> >> It'd be a romantic idealism to think that my lone, wee voice, however
> >> respected it might or might not be, could carry sufficient clout as to
> >> cause any of the parties to alter their perception of the situation.
> >> But I am no romantic idealist.
> >>
> >> I am resigned already, and intend only therefore to maximise a rare
> >> opportunity to go 'noise up' the prospectives on a subject where,
> >> unbeknown to the aforementioned, the deck is already stacked against
> >> them.
>
> >No! This will just not do. Desist. Breath. Smile. Go suck a fungus.
> When I say I am resigned, it is only to the impending and ominous
> change to the law to which I am resigned.. not use of the mushroom.
>

The way I look at it is that the authorities are playing at Brave New World
but have many novices who do not realise the ground they are founded upon is
as liquid as mud (mush). Being the good citizens that we are, it is our
responsibility to inform them of the situation as much as possible ... and
then let them bear the responsiblility for having disenfranchised the
masses. The game is not over by a long shot.


>
> >
> >The following are two short pages showing the beginning of western
> >civilisation was based on a fungus. I hope they help, or better still,
> >inspire and enthuse.
> >
> >http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/introduction.htm
> >
> >http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/doric-style.htm
> >
> >At least tell me I am not dreaming!
> >
>