Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory Forums

And the 'shock' comes to whom, exactly?....

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest- ... is-at-home

free_phil_spector wrote:And the 'shock' comes to whom, exactly?....

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest- ... is-at-home

what really pisses me off is the daily mail reporting stupid things like the majority of the growers are cultivating the dangerous skunk variety. These reporters dont have a clue what they are talking about.

Yes, the big point in the article in the daily shagstar bigged up the money making potential and low risk of a 9 plant grow, and you cant deny thats a side of it, but a negative for the anti's. It opens up the conversation though so probably a good thing .

Not sure the Daily Star is the paper of erudite conversation.

Political attitudes haven't changed much since the govt. reception to the Wooton Report. Decriminalisation would have to be a vote winner to ever happen. Not enough people smoke to make an electoral difference.

My issue with 'Skunk' is not the "mind-bending"(©News International) qualities but that it made the weed business a very very greedy game. Why not just grow for yourself and not obsess about the profit motive?

For some historical context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wootton_Report

"Not enough people smoke to make an electoral difference."
I would suggest that not enough people who smoke vote. Perfect example would be California a couple of years ago.
Either stoners were too stoned to vote, aren't registered cause they don't trust the system ( delusional paranoia brought on by excessive cannabis use ), or didn't vote due to visions of grandeur (delusional as well) that someday they will enter the cannabis market and profit like a greedy little stoner (have vs. soon to have mentality).

Half a million grow in the UK, and yet so much shitte weed, and every stoners favorite - soap bar hash.
Perhaps the author made a type-o, one or two errand zeros in the mix...
Happy Farming...
...

Uncle Ron wrote:"Not enough people smoke to make an electoral difference."
I would suggest that not enough people who smoke vote. Perfect example would be California a couple of years ago.
Either stoners were too stoned to vote, aren't registered cause they don't trust the system ( delusional paranoia brought on by excessive cannabis use ), or didn't vote due to visions of grandeur (delusional as well) that someday they will enter the cannabis market and profit like a greedy little stoner (have vs. soon to have mentality).

Half a million grow in the UK, and yet so much shitte weed, and every stoners favorite - soap bar hash.
Perhaps the author made a type-o, one or two errand zeros in the mix...
Happy Farming...
...

swims on by......

Yea a zero or two adrift maybe, but there must be a lot of people, a few mates etc, keeping under the radar .

As you're probably aware our voting system is very different to the US and we dont really have the same political avenues for raising single issues to the point where lawmakers are required to adress them. So we continue to campaign and chip away. And I think it's crumbling.

gronin wrote:Not sure the Daily Star is the paper of erudite conversation.

Agreed, but at the time I posted it was the only online version of the story I could find to provide a link to

treetop wrote:

Uncle Ron wrote:"Not enough people smoke to make an electoral difference."
I would suggest that not enough people who smoke vote. Perfect example would be California a couple of years ago.
Either stoners were too stoned to vote, aren't registered cause they don't trust the system ( delusional paranoia brought on by excessive cannabis use ), or didn't vote due to visions of grandeur (delusional as well) that someday they will enter the cannabis market and profit like a greedy little stoner (have vs. soon to have mentality).

Half a million grow in the UK, and yet so much shitte weed, and every stoners favorite - soap bar hash.
Perhaps the author made a type-o, one or two errand zeros in the mix...
Happy Farming...
...

swims on by......

Stay lucky...

Uncle Ron wrote:"Not enough people smoke to make an electoral difference."
I would suggest that not enough people who smoke vote. Perfect example would be California a couple of years ago.
Either stoners were too stoned to vote, aren't registered cause they don't trust the system ( delusional paranoia brought on by excessive cannabis use ), or didn't vote due to visions of grandeur (delusional as well) that someday they will enter the cannabis market and profit like a greedy little stoner (have vs. soon to have mentality).

Half a million grow in the UK, and yet so much shitte weed, and every stoners favorite - soap bar hash.
Perhaps the author made a type-o, one or two errand zeros in the mix...
Happy Farming...
...

There are alledgedly reliable figures for UK drug usage:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... nabis#data

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_can ... by_country

If any political party advocated, say, decriminalisation it would win them votes but there simply aren't enough smokers to provide a parliamentary majority even if every stoner voted.

California is an interesting case. The US Federal Govt wasn't exactly supportive despite a clear local mandate. The UK electoral system - national or local - doesn't have the facility to ballot a Proposition. eg Gay Marriage wasn't voted for as such but was debated and enacted by our elected representatives. CA did this entirely differently, of course. (I do wish we could 'recall' politicians though.)

The UK does have top coppers and drug czars who speak out against the idiocy of drug prohibition but we lack any credible campaigning group. Good people have tried but the attitudes that met the Wooton Report persist.

UK population c. 63,000,000 - wonder what the other 62,500,000 get up to.