Disappointment as drug is not banned

Swindon Advertiser: Chris Scott’s family, from left, girlfriend, Rebecca Ball, sister Danielle Scott, mother Wendy Scott,  son Logan Scott and father Mike Scott Chris Scott’s family, from left, girlfriend, Rebecca Ball, sister Danielle Scott, mother Wendy Scott, son Logan Scott and father Mike Scott

THE family of young father Chris Scott are disappointed that the Home Office has still not banned the legal high that killed him.

The 23-year-old died last July after taking synthetic drug, alpha-methyltriptamine – AMT – in the form of a little green bill stamped with a US dollar symbol.

The father-of-three from Park South died from multiple organ failure after trying the drug with friends he met up with at Buckhurst Fields.

Swindon Advertiser:

Chris Scott

Following the inquest into his death last November, coroner David Ridley sent a report to the Minister of State For Crime Prevention, Norman Baker, asking him to consider adding the drug to the list of narcotics banned under the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971.

A response was expected from the Home Office by January 26, and when the letter finally arrived last week the news was not as had been hoped.

It said that AMT had still not been banned, but that the department was reviewing the guidance and expected the next review to include recommendations about the drug.

But it gave no guarantee about whether or not it would continued to be a legal high.

Chris’ father Mike Scott, 48, said: “I have read it a couple of times and I can’t make out what it says.

“It seems to say one thing and then it says another.

“It basically says ‘I am pleased to inform you that we’re doing nothing.’ “The Home Office was meant to reply by the 26th of last month and we have had to wait until now to hear that they aren’t doing anything anyway.”

In the letter sent to the coroner and seen by the Adver, MP Mr Baker explained the work that had been done to examine AMT.

He said: “I am pleased to inform you that on 12 December, I wrote to the Advisory Council On The Misuse Of Drugs, our independent experts, to commission it to keep the generic group definitions we use in the 1971 Act under regular review and fully up to date.

“Due to a slight chemical modification, AMT falls outside the definition for the Class A tryptamine group of drugs.

“The first part of this advice, which is expected to include recommendations, for AMT, will be completed this year.”

Mike wants to see more done to get the drug off the streets.

He said: “There is legislation for drugs to be put on a temporary ban before they go for a review and decide whether to add it to the Misuse Of Drugs Act.

“I want them to put AMT on a temporary ban, then review it to see if they might put a permanent ban on it, not review it first.

“They’ve got to understand that while they are taking all this time over it people are being killed because of this.”

Coroner David Ridley declined to comment on the response from the Home Office.

Comments (49)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:07am Wed 26 Feb 14

house on the hill says...

Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one. house on the hill

8:02am Wed 26 Feb 14

swindondad says...

I am not and do not wish to appear unsympathetic to the family but calling for the "banning" of everything that can possibly cause harm is illogical and will not work.

IMHO we (society) would be better served by educating people (youngsters especially) to **** risk and take informed choices.
I am not and do not wish to appear unsympathetic to the family but calling for the "banning" of everything that can possibly cause harm is illogical and will not work. IMHO we (society) would be better served by educating people (youngsters especially) to **** risk and take informed choices. swindondad

8:22am Wed 26 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them. ChannelX

10:18am Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend? Badgersgetabadname

10:29am Wed 26 Feb 14

benzss says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?[/p][/quote]The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work. benzss

11:20am Wed 26 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
Incorrect.

It is ridiculous to imply that because tobacco and alcohol aren't banned then nothing else can be banned. That's about the worst 'reason' not to ban something anyone could hope to come up with.

Equally, just because other substances are banned doesn't mean tobacco and alcohol should be.

You may as well go the whole hog, if you want to continue your daft standpoint, and claim that until sugar's banned, everything else is fair game.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?[/p][/quote]Incorrect. It is ridiculous to imply that because tobacco and alcohol aren't banned then nothing else can be banned. That's about the worst 'reason' not to ban something anyone could hope to come up with. Equally, just because other substances are banned doesn't mean tobacco and alcohol should be. You may as well go the whole hog, if you want to continue your daft standpoint, and claim that until sugar's banned, everything else is fair game. ChannelX

11:21am Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

benzss wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.
What doesnt work?
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?[/p][/quote]The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]What doesnt work? Badgersgetabadname

11:29am Wed 26 Feb 14

ChаnnelX says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
benzss wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.
What doesnt work?
You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?[/p][/quote]The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]What doesnt work?[/p][/quote]You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work. ChаnnelX

11:31am Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
Incorrect.

It is ridiculous to imply that because tobacco and alcohol aren't banned then nothing else can be banned. That's about the worst 'reason' not to ban something anyone could hope to come up with.

Equally, just because other substances are banned doesn't mean tobacco and alcohol should be.

You may as well go the whole hog, if you want to continue your daft standpoint, and claim that until sugar's banned, everything else is fair game.
You are suggesting that this AMT should be banned why? because it is dangerous? or because people cannot control themselves?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?[/p][/quote]Incorrect. It is ridiculous to imply that because tobacco and alcohol aren't banned then nothing else can be banned. That's about the worst 'reason' not to ban something anyone could hope to come up with. Equally, just because other substances are banned doesn't mean tobacco and alcohol should be. You may as well go the whole hog, if you want to continue your daft standpoint, and claim that until sugar's banned, everything else is fair game.[/p][/quote]You are suggesting that this AMT should be banned why? because it is dangerous? or because people cannot control themselves? Badgersgetabadname

11:35am Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
benzss wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.
What doesnt work?
You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.
Your not reading again are you?
making up the argument in your head again?
Who brought up sugar?
[quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?[/p][/quote]The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]What doesnt work?[/p][/quote]You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]Your not reading again are you? making up the argument in your head again? Who brought up sugar? Badgersgetabadname

11:39am Wed 26 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
benzss wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.
What doesnt work?
You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.
Your not reading again are you?
making up the argument in your head again?
Who brought up sugar?
The person who cloned my account did.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?[/p][/quote]The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]What doesnt work?[/p][/quote]You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]Your not reading again are you? making up the argument in your head again? Who brought up sugar?[/p][/quote]The person who cloned my account did. ChannelX

11:54am Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
benzss wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.
What doesnt work?
You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.
Your not reading again are you?
making up the argument in your head again?
Who brought up sugar?
The person who cloned my account did.
This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again.
I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?[/p][/quote]The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]What doesnt work?[/p][/quote]You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]Your not reading again are you? making up the argument in your head again? Who brought up sugar?[/p][/quote]The person who cloned my account did.[/p][/quote]This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again. I honestly dont understand what you get out of this? Badgersgetabadname

12:01pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ChаnnelX says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
benzss wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.
What doesnt work?
You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.
Your not reading again are you?
making up the argument in your head again?
Who brought up sugar?
The person who cloned my account did.
This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again.
I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?
Not a great deal to be honest, it not much fun being schizophrenic.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?[/p][/quote]The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]What doesnt work?[/p][/quote]You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]Your not reading again are you? making up the argument in your head again? Who brought up sugar?[/p][/quote]The person who cloned my account did.[/p][/quote]This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again. I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?[/p][/quote]Not a great deal to be honest, it not much fun being schizophrenic. ChаnnelX

12:11pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
benzss wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.
What doesnt work?
You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.
Your not reading again are you?
making up the argument in your head again?
Who brought up sugar?
The person who cloned my account did.
This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again.
I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?
Not a great deal to be honest, it not much fun being schizophrenic.
If thats what it is then fair enough and would explain an awful lot.
[quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?[/p][/quote]The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]What doesnt work?[/p][/quote]You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]Your not reading again are you? making up the argument in your head again? Who brought up sugar?[/p][/quote]The person who cloned my account did.[/p][/quote]This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again. I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?[/p][/quote]Not a great deal to be honest, it not much fun being schizophrenic.[/p][/quote]If thats what it is then fair enough and would explain an awful lot. Badgersgetabadname

12:15pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
benzss wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.
What doesnt work?
You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.
Your not reading again are you?
making up the argument in your head again?
Who brought up sugar?
The person who cloned my account did.
This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again.
I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?
No, you really DON'T get it, do you.

I don't *claim* my account has been cloned for the fun of it.

It HAS been cloned.

Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?!
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?[/p][/quote]The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]What doesnt work?[/p][/quote]You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]Your not reading again are you? making up the argument in your head again? Who brought up sugar?[/p][/quote]The person who cloned my account did.[/p][/quote]This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again. I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?[/p][/quote]No, you really DON'T get it, do you. I don't *claim* my account has been cloned for the fun of it. It HAS been cloned. Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?! ChannelX

12:16pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
benzss wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.
What doesnt work?
You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.
Your not reading again are you?
making up the argument in your head again?
Who brought up sugar?
The person who cloned my account did.
This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again.
I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?
Not a great deal to be honest, it not much fun being schizophrenic.
You're not schizophrenic and making jokes about mental health isn't really very funny.

Go back to the amusing parody stuff, it worked better for you.
[quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?[/p][/quote]The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]What doesnt work?[/p][/quote]You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]Your not reading again are you? making up the argument in your head again? Who brought up sugar?[/p][/quote]The person who cloned my account did.[/p][/quote]This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again. I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?[/p][/quote]Not a great deal to be honest, it not much fun being schizophrenic.[/p][/quote]You're not schizophrenic and making jokes about mental health isn't really very funny. Go back to the amusing parody stuff, it worked better for you. ChannelX

12:26pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
benzss wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.
What doesnt work?
You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.
Your not reading again are you?
making up the argument in your head again?
Who brought up sugar?
The person who cloned my account did.
This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again.
I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?
Not a great deal to be honest, it not much fun being schizophrenic.
You're not schizophrenic and making jokes about mental health isn't really very funny.

Go back to the amusing parody stuff, it worked better for you.
Who made jokes about mental health?
No I understand just fine.
You make unsupported knee jerk comments then when you only get support from yourself you claim you have been cloned...the timing of when you get cloned in uncanny it really is.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?[/p][/quote]The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]What doesnt work?[/p][/quote]You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]Your not reading again are you? making up the argument in your head again? Who brought up sugar?[/p][/quote]The person who cloned my account did.[/p][/quote]This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again. I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?[/p][/quote]Not a great deal to be honest, it not much fun being schizophrenic.[/p][/quote]You're not schizophrenic and making jokes about mental health isn't really very funny. Go back to the amusing parody stuff, it worked better for you.[/p][/quote]Who made jokes about mental health? No I understand just fine. You make unsupported knee jerk comments then when you only get support from yourself you claim you have been cloned...the timing of when you get cloned in uncanny it really is. Badgersgetabadname

12:33pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
benzss wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.
What doesnt work?
You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.
Your not reading again are you?
making up the argument in your head again?
Who brought up sugar?
The person who cloned my account did.
This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again.
I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?
Not a great deal to be honest, it not much fun being schizophrenic.
You're not schizophrenic and making jokes about mental health isn't really very funny.

Go back to the amusing parody stuff, it worked better for you.
Who made jokes about mental health?
No I understand just fine.
You make unsupported knee jerk comments then when you only get support from yourself you claim you have been cloned...the timing of when you get cloned in uncanny it really is.
That comment wasn't directed at you.

I know you're not the sharpest, but do try and at least keep up.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?[/p][/quote]The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]What doesnt work?[/p][/quote]You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]Your not reading again are you? making up the argument in your head again? Who brought up sugar?[/p][/quote]The person who cloned my account did.[/p][/quote]This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again. I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?[/p][/quote]Not a great deal to be honest, it not much fun being schizophrenic.[/p][/quote]You're not schizophrenic and making jokes about mental health isn't really very funny. Go back to the amusing parody stuff, it worked better for you.[/p][/quote]Who made jokes about mental health? No I understand just fine. You make unsupported knee jerk comments then when you only get support from yourself you claim you have been cloned...the timing of when you get cloned in uncanny it really is.[/p][/quote]That comment wasn't directed at you. I know you're not the sharpest, but do try and at least keep up. ChannelX

12:34pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?!

A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.
I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?! A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice. ChannelX

12:39pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
benzss wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.
What doesnt work?
You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.
Your not reading again are you?
making up the argument in your head again?
Who brought up sugar?
The person who cloned my account did.
This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again.
I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?
Not a great deal to be honest, it not much fun being schizophrenic.
You're not schizophrenic and making jokes about mental health isn't really very funny.

Go back to the amusing parody stuff, it worked better for you.
Who made jokes about mental health?
No I understand just fine.
You make unsupported knee jerk comments then when you only get support from yourself you claim you have been cloned...the timing of when you get cloned in uncanny it really is.
That comment wasn't directed at you.

I know you're not the sharpest, but do try and at least keep up.
You put no reference on your comments its just mindless dribble.
Its difficult to know who you are addressing at times.
There are many examples of this in your comments oh sorry thats right....your account get cloned at random times and people unfairly think you are a moron?
The timing is amazing.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?[/p][/quote]The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]What doesnt work?[/p][/quote]You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]Your not reading again are you? making up the argument in your head again? Who brought up sugar?[/p][/quote]The person who cloned my account did.[/p][/quote]This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again. I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?[/p][/quote]Not a great deal to be honest, it not much fun being schizophrenic.[/p][/quote]You're not schizophrenic and making jokes about mental health isn't really very funny. Go back to the amusing parody stuff, it worked better for you.[/p][/quote]Who made jokes about mental health? No I understand just fine. You make unsupported knee jerk comments then when you only get support from yourself you claim you have been cloned...the timing of when you get cloned in uncanny it really is.[/p][/quote]That comment wasn't directed at you. I know you're not the sharpest, but do try and at least keep up.[/p][/quote]You put no reference on your comments its just mindless dribble. Its difficult to know who you are addressing at times. There are many examples of this in your comments oh sorry thats right....your account get cloned at random times and people unfairly think you are a moron? The timing is amazing. Badgersgetabadname

12:42pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?!

A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.
yes, moron
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?! A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.[/p][/quote]yes, moron Badgersgetabadname

12:42pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
benzss wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned.

Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high.
It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last.
Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?
The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.
What doesnt work?
You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.
Your not reading again are you?
making up the argument in your head again?
Who brought up sugar?
The person who cloned my account did.
This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again.
I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?
Not a great deal to be honest, it not much fun being schizophrenic.
You're not schizophrenic and making jokes about mental health isn't really very funny.

Go back to the amusing parody stuff, it worked better for you.
Who made jokes about mental health?
No I understand just fine.
You make unsupported knee jerk comments then when you only get support from yourself you claim you have been cloned...the timing of when you get cloned in uncanny it really is.
That comment wasn't directed at you.

I know you're not the sharpest, but do try and at least keep up.
You put no reference on your comments its just mindless dribble.
Its difficult to know who you are addressing at times.
There are many examples of this in your comments oh sorry thats right....your account get cloned at random times and people unfairly think you are a moron?
The timing is amazing.
It really is uncanny how you get cloned at random times.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]The reason it is relevant is that if you are calling for harmful products to be banned so that we as society can no longer hurt ourselves then alcohol and cigarettes must also be looked at to be banned. Yes there are many variations of how these drugs can be made, there are many ways people can choose to get high. It is a tragic set of events that has taken a father away from his family but was this the first time recreational drugs have been used with horrendous results no and it wont be the last. Would be interesting to see figures for illegal drugs deaths vs legal high in the last 10 years it will be different regionally I am sure but there will be a trend?[/p][/quote]The main reason it is irrelevant is because it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]What doesnt work?[/p][/quote]You can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process and *that's* why it doesn't work.[/p][/quote]Your not reading again are you? making up the argument in your head again? Who brought up sugar?[/p][/quote]The person who cloned my account did.[/p][/quote]This is pointless you make massive ignorant, biased sweeping comments then when presented with a counter argument you have suddenly been cloned again. I honestly dont understand what you get out of this?[/p][/quote]Not a great deal to be honest, it not much fun being schizophrenic.[/p][/quote]You're not schizophrenic and making jokes about mental health isn't really very funny. Go back to the amusing parody stuff, it worked better for you.[/p][/quote]Who made jokes about mental health? No I understand just fine. You make unsupported knee jerk comments then when you only get support from yourself you claim you have been cloned...the timing of when you get cloned in uncanny it really is.[/p][/quote]That comment wasn't directed at you. I know you're not the sharpest, but do try and at least keep up.[/p][/quote]You put no reference on your comments its just mindless dribble. Its difficult to know who you are addressing at times. There are many examples of this in your comments oh sorry thats right....your account get cloned at random times and people unfairly think you are a moron? The timing is amazing.[/p][/quote]It really is uncanny how you get cloned at random times. Badgersgetabadname

12:43pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?!

A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.
No, I don't.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?! A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.[/p][/quote]No, I don't. Badgersgetabadname

12:45pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

Make your mind up!
Make your mind up! ChannelX

12:49pm Wed 26 Feb 14

house on the hill says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?!

A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.
yes, moron
So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then!
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?! A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.[/p][/quote]yes, moron[/p][/quote]So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then! house on the hill

12:50pm Wed 26 Feb 14

house on the hill says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?!

A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.
yes, moron
So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then!
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?! A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.[/p][/quote]yes, moron[/p][/quote]So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then! house on the hill

12:53pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

house on the hill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?!

A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.
yes, moron
So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then!
People did try... but then Badgersgetabadname entered the conversation...
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?! A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.[/p][/quote]yes, moron[/p][/quote]So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then![/p][/quote]People did try... but then Badgersgetabadname entered the conversation... ChannelX

12:58pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ChаnnelX says...

Anyway, as I was saying, you can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process, that's just plain wrong.
Anyway, as I was saying, you can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process, that's just plain wrong. ChаnnelX

1:06pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChаnnelX wrote:
Anyway, as I was saying, you can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process, that's just plain wrong.
Can't believe I'm agreeing with you, but yes, that's true. Maybe you're not so ignorant after all. I apologise for calling your a 'moron'.
[quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: Anyway, as I was saying, you can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process, that's just plain wrong.[/p][/quote]Can't believe I'm agreeing with you, but yes, that's true. Maybe you're not so ignorant after all. I apologise for calling your a 'moron'. Badgersgetabadname

1:07pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
Make your mind up!
The difference is when I make a comment it is themed to my opinion. What you have done is obvious and childish.
your apparent cloner has the same right wing opinions as you...
Also I couldnt care less of the opinions of an anonymous forum.
Maybe you could add some thumbs up and down as you also seem to be one of the only people caring about that as well.
Hahahahahaha cretin.
you will know my comments by the insults I send you.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: Make your mind up![/p][/quote]The difference is when I make a comment it is themed to my opinion. What you have done is obvious and childish. your apparent cloner has the same right wing opinions as you... Also I couldnt care less of the opinions of an anonymous forum. Maybe you could add some thumbs up and down as you also seem to be one of the only people caring about that as well. Hahahahahaha cretin. you will know my comments by the insults I send you. Badgersgetabadname

1:11pm Wed 26 Feb 14

BigBarry says...

ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
You should know all about all drugs and the dealing of them.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]You should know all about all drugs and the dealing of them. BigBarry

1:11pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChаnnelX wrote:
Anyway, as I was saying, you can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process, that's just plain wrong.
That wasnt your comment though was it?
I asked why are you calling for a ban on this drug?
Then it went back to being all about your games.
Would you like a return to topic?
[quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: Anyway, as I was saying, you can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process, that's just plain wrong.[/p][/quote]That wasnt your comment though was it? I asked why are you calling for a ban on this drug? Then it went back to being all about your games. Would you like a return to topic? Badgersgetabadname

1:14pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
Anyway, as I was saying, you can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process, that's just plain wrong.
That wasnt your comment though was it?
I asked why are you calling for a ban on this drug?
Then it went back to being all about your games.
Would you like a return to topic?
Couldn't agree more.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: Anyway, as I was saying, you can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process, that's just plain wrong.[/p][/quote]That wasnt your comment though was it? I asked why are you calling for a ban on this drug? Then it went back to being all about your games. Would you like a return to topic?[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more. ChannelX

1:15pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ChаnnelX says...

BigBarry wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
You should know all about all drugs and the dealing of them.
Well, yes, I would, but not because I'm a dealer, it's because I know a great deal about a great many things.

It's called 'life experience' and you would do well to educate yourself about life before coming on here trying to be clever.
[quote][p][bold]BigBarry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]You should know all about all drugs and the dealing of them.[/p][/quote]Well, yes, I would, but not because I'm a dealer, it's because I know a great deal about a great many things. It's called 'life experience' and you would do well to educate yourself about life before coming on here trying to be clever. ChаnnelX

1:18pm Wed 26 Feb 14

house on the hill says...

ChаnnelX wrote:
Anyway, as I was saying, you can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process, that's just plain wrong.
and at the end of the day it shouldn't be about banning things it should be about people making educated decisions, but sadly we can ban being stupid!
[quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: Anyway, as I was saying, you can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process, that's just plain wrong.[/p][/quote]and at the end of the day it shouldn't be about banning things it should be about people making educated decisions, but sadly we can ban being stupid! house on the hill

1:20pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

ChаnnelX wrote:
BigBarry wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
You should know all about all drugs and the dealing of them.
Well, yes, I would, but not because I'm a dealer, it's because I know a great deal about a great many things.

It's called 'life experience' and you would do well to educate yourself about life before coming on here trying to be clever.
Nice response, thanks for that.
[quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigBarry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]You should know all about all drugs and the dealing of them.[/p][/quote]Well, yes, I would, but not because I'm a dealer, it's because I know a great deal about a great many things. It's called 'life experience' and you would do well to educate yourself about life before coming on here trying to be clever.[/p][/quote]Nice response, thanks for that. ChannelX

1:24pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

house on the hill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?!

A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.
yes, moron
So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then!
All you have done is prove you are happy and able to manipulate the forum. having a conversation with yourself seems to be fine for you.

Now even though this is an annon forum much like twitter or reddit it is protected by laws your racist ignorant bullying attitude has thankfully had processes put in place to combat this small man thinking.
Now as offence and slander even on a forum such as this can and are considered a crime your continued abuse of this could well be deemed as cyber bullying and an offence. Once upheld and it will be your IP will be tracked and traced and you will have to explain comments in person to a judge.
Once again something that could of been a really interesting topic has been hijacked by "someone cloned my account" how about actually have some thought out input to a discussion and the person making inaccurate statements will stand out as they will be far from the intelligent insight you bring.
Moron.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?! A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.[/p][/quote]yes, moron[/p][/quote]So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then![/p][/quote]All you have done is prove you are happy and able to manipulate the forum. having a conversation with yourself seems to be fine for you. Now even though this is an annon forum much like twitter or reddit it is protected by laws your racist ignorant bullying attitude has thankfully had processes put in place to combat this small man thinking. Now as offence and slander even on a forum such as this can and are considered a crime your continued abuse of this could well be deemed as cyber bullying and an offence. Once upheld and it will be your IP will be tracked and traced and you will have to explain comments in person to a judge. Once again something that could of been a really interesting topic has been hijacked by "someone cloned my account" how about actually have some thought out input to a discussion and the person making inaccurate statements will stand out as they will be far from the intelligent insight you bring. Moron. Badgersgetabadname

1:27pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?!

A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.
No, I don't.
and you still score it....
hahahha I bet its laugh a minute at the home for you.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?! A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.[/p][/quote]No, I don't.[/p][/quote]and you still score it.... hahahha I bet its laugh a minute at the home for you. Badgersgetabadname

1:31pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChаnnelX wrote:
BigBarry wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
You should know all about all drugs and the dealing of them.
Well, yes, I would, but not because I'm a dealer, it's because I know a great deal about a great many things.

It's called 'life experience' and you would do well to educate yourself about life before coming on here trying to be clever.
"LIfe experience" are you honestly saying that you know more because you are older?
Lets hope that was one of your cloned comments or that would really come across as not only ignorant but really really stupid.
[quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigBarry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]You should know all about all drugs and the dealing of them.[/p][/quote]Well, yes, I would, but not because I'm a dealer, it's because I know a great deal about a great many things. It's called 'life experience' and you would do well to educate yourself about life before coming on here trying to be clever.[/p][/quote]"LIfe experience" are you honestly saying that you know more because you are older? Lets hope that was one of your cloned comments or that would really come across as not only ignorant but really really stupid. Badgersgetabadname

1:40pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

house on the hill wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
Anyway, as I was saying, you can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process, that's just plain wrong.
and at the end of the day it shouldn't be about banning things it should be about people making educated decisions, but sadly we can ban being stupid!
That is exactly the point, society needs to make informed choices based on what consequences can happen.
Is that what we are taught in school?
Why does society continue to make poor choices?
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: Anyway, as I was saying, you can't simply ban sugar because it turns to alcohol as part of the brewing process, that's just plain wrong.[/p][/quote]and at the end of the day it shouldn't be about banning things it should be about people making educated decisions, but sadly we can ban being stupid![/p][/quote]That is exactly the point, society needs to make informed choices based on what consequences can happen. Is that what we are taught in school? Why does society continue to make poor choices? Badgersgetabadname

1:59pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?!

A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.
yes, moron
So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then!
All you have done is prove you are happy and able to manipulate the forum. having a conversation with yourself seems to be fine for you.

Now even though this is an annon forum much like twitter or reddit it is protected by laws your racist ignorant bullying attitude has thankfully had processes put in place to combat this small man thinking.
Now as offence and slander even on a forum such as this can and are considered a crime your continued abuse of this could well be deemed as cyber bullying and an offence. Once upheld and it will be your IP will be tracked and traced and you will have to explain comments in person to a judge.
Once again something that could of been a really interesting topic has been hijacked by "someone cloned my account" how about actually have some thought out input to a discussion and the person making inaccurate statements will stand out as they will be far from the intelligent insight you bring.
Moron.
You are the one referring to people as 'ignorant', 'racist' and 'moron'.

And yet you claim I'm the bully and offering abuse.

Interesting way of looking at it.

Not that it excuses your abusive name calling, but since when was being 'ignorant' a criminal offence? You've also yet to offer any evidence of me being 'racist' beyond you simply deciding that I am and labelling me as such.

Any IP records traced would quite clearly show somebody else posting under the ChannelX name.

Although, of course, anyone can fake an IP and anyone could allow anyone else to use their login details or internet connection. Not to mention unauthorised use of Wi-Fi access.

Would you like to tell everyone about how abusive slander is a criminal offence and then call me a 'moron' again?
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?! A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.[/p][/quote]yes, moron[/p][/quote]So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then![/p][/quote]All you have done is prove you are happy and able to manipulate the forum. having a conversation with yourself seems to be fine for you. Now even though this is an annon forum much like twitter or reddit it is protected by laws your racist ignorant bullying attitude has thankfully had processes put in place to combat this small man thinking. Now as offence and slander even on a forum such as this can and are considered a crime your continued abuse of this could well be deemed as cyber bullying and an offence. Once upheld and it will be your IP will be tracked and traced and you will have to explain comments in person to a judge. Once again something that could of been a really interesting topic has been hijacked by "someone cloned my account" how about actually have some thought out input to a discussion and the person making inaccurate statements will stand out as they will be far from the intelligent insight you bring. Moron.[/p][/quote]You are the one referring to people as 'ignorant', 'racist' and 'moron'. And yet you claim I'm the bully and offering abuse. Interesting way of looking at it. Not that it excuses your abusive name calling, but since when was being 'ignorant' a criminal offence? You've also yet to offer any evidence of me being 'racist' beyond you simply deciding that I am and labelling me as such. Any IP records traced would quite clearly show somebody else posting under the ChannelX name. Although, of course, anyone can fake an IP and anyone could allow anyone else to use their login details or internet connection. Not to mention unauthorised use of Wi-Fi access. Would you like to tell everyone about how abusive slander is a criminal offence and then call me a 'moron' again? ChannelX

2:15pm Wed 26 Feb 14

BigBarry says...

ChаnnelX wrote:
BigBarry wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else.

The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time.

And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
You should know all about all drugs and the dealing of them.
Well, yes, I would, but not because I'm a dealer, it's because I know a great deal about a great many things.

It's called 'life experience' and you would do well to educate yourself about life before coming on here trying to be clever.
Are you quite sure you have never been involved in the supply of Cocaine?
[quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigBarry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]You should know all about all drugs and the dealing of them.[/p][/quote]Well, yes, I would, but not because I'm a dealer, it's because I know a great deal about a great many things. It's called 'life experience' and you would do well to educate yourself about life before coming on here trying to be clever.[/p][/quote]Are you quite sure you have never been involved in the supply of Cocaine? BigBarry

2:33pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?!

A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.
yes, moron
So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then!
All you have done is prove you are happy and able to manipulate the forum. having a conversation with yourself seems to be fine for you.

Now even though this is an annon forum much like twitter or reddit it is protected by laws your racist ignorant bullying attitude has thankfully had processes put in place to combat this small man thinking.
Now as offence and slander even on a forum such as this can and are considered a crime your continued abuse of this could well be deemed as cyber bullying and an offence. Once upheld and it will be your IP will be tracked and traced and you will have to explain comments in person to a judge.
Once again something that could of been a really interesting topic has been hijacked by "someone cloned my account" how about actually have some thought out input to a discussion and the person making inaccurate statements will stand out as they will be far from the intelligent insight you bring.
Moron.
You are the one referring to people as 'ignorant', 'racist' and 'moron'.

And yet you claim I'm the bully and offering abuse.

Interesting way of looking at it.

Not that it excuses your abusive name calling, but since when was being 'ignorant' a criminal offence? You've also yet to offer any evidence of me being 'racist' beyond you simply deciding that I am and labelling me as such.

Any IP records traced would quite clearly show somebody else posting under the ChannelX name.

Although, of course, anyone can fake an IP and anyone could allow anyone else to use their login details or internet connection. Not to mention unauthorised use of Wi-Fi access.

Would you like to tell everyone about how abusive slander is a criminal offence and then call me a 'moron' again?
That is a new record for leaving topic....
A started to copy and paste examples of your past crimes and after 4 paragraphs just thought urghhhh.

Its so tiresome to try and discuss anything with you, ignoring the topic seems to be the go to but your ignorance comes form the sweeping unsupported claims you make (sorry when its rambling madness its the cloner) you make claim against people stating the political party they represent with no idea of what you are saying. It is possible you are basing your opinions on what you think is the sterotype of a "lefttie" as you so often state (thats pretty ignorant) but you also attempt to put words into other peoples mouth`s (bullying).

You have also made sweeping statements based on the origin of birth.
Your personal log on details are yours to be responsible with and not allow to be used in a malicious manner.
If your comments were deemed to be damaging to a person that would be a crime.

As a possible solution to the topic maybe an outright ban on all non prescribed stimulants? making a vast majority of legal highs illegal.
The real problem is why are people stuffing this crap into themselves anyway? If its to escape the reality of what is happening surely there is a need to look at the circumstance of why the need to escape?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?! A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.[/p][/quote]yes, moron[/p][/quote]So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then![/p][/quote]All you have done is prove you are happy and able to manipulate the forum. having a conversation with yourself seems to be fine for you. Now even though this is an annon forum much like twitter or reddit it is protected by laws your racist ignorant bullying attitude has thankfully had processes put in place to combat this small man thinking. Now as offence and slander even on a forum such as this can and are considered a crime your continued abuse of this could well be deemed as cyber bullying and an offence. Once upheld and it will be your IP will be tracked and traced and you will have to explain comments in person to a judge. Once again something that could of been a really interesting topic has been hijacked by "someone cloned my account" how about actually have some thought out input to a discussion and the person making inaccurate statements will stand out as they will be far from the intelligent insight you bring. Moron.[/p][/quote]You are the one referring to people as 'ignorant', 'racist' and 'moron'. And yet you claim I'm the bully and offering abuse. Interesting way of looking at it. Not that it excuses your abusive name calling, but since when was being 'ignorant' a criminal offence? You've also yet to offer any evidence of me being 'racist' beyond you simply deciding that I am and labelling me as such. Any IP records traced would quite clearly show somebody else posting under the ChannelX name. Although, of course, anyone can fake an IP and anyone could allow anyone else to use their login details or internet connection. Not to mention unauthorised use of Wi-Fi access. Would you like to tell everyone about how abusive slander is a criminal offence and then call me a 'moron' again?[/p][/quote]That is a new record for leaving topic.... A started to copy and paste examples of your past crimes and after 4 paragraphs just thought urghhhh. Its so tiresome to try and discuss anything with you, ignoring the topic seems to be the go to but your ignorance comes form the sweeping unsupported claims you make (sorry when its rambling madness its the cloner) you make claim against people stating the political party they represent with no idea of what you are saying. It is possible you are basing your opinions on what you think is the sterotype of a "lefttie" as you so often state (thats pretty ignorant) but you also attempt to put words into other peoples mouth`s (bullying). You have also made sweeping statements based on the origin of birth. Your personal log on details are yours to be responsible with and not allow to be used in a malicious manner. If your comments were deemed to be damaging to a person that would be a crime. As a possible solution to the topic maybe an outright ban on all non prescribed stimulants? making a vast majority of legal highs illegal. The real problem is why are people stuffing this crap into themselves anyway? If its to escape the reality of what is happening surely there is a need to look at the circumstance of why the need to escape? Badgersgetabadname

2:43pm Wed 26 Feb 14

house on the hill says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?!

A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.
yes, moron
So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then!
All you have done is prove you are happy and able to manipulate the forum. having a conversation with yourself seems to be fine for you.

Now even though this is an annon forum much like twitter or reddit it is protected by laws your racist ignorant bullying attitude has thankfully had processes put in place to combat this small man thinking.
Now as offence and slander even on a forum such as this can and are considered a crime your continued abuse of this could well be deemed as cyber bullying and an offence. Once upheld and it will be your IP will be tracked and traced and you will have to explain comments in person to a judge.
Once again something that could of been a really interesting topic has been hijacked by "someone cloned my account" how about actually have some thought out input to a discussion and the person making inaccurate statements will stand out as they will be far from the intelligent insight you bring.
Moron.
You are the one referring to people as 'ignorant', 'racist' and 'moron'.

And yet you claim I'm the bully and offering abuse.

Interesting way of looking at it.

Not that it excuses your abusive name calling, but since when was being 'ignorant' a criminal offence? You've also yet to offer any evidence of me being 'racist' beyond you simply deciding that I am and labelling me as such.

Any IP records traced would quite clearly show somebody else posting under the ChannelX name.

Although, of course, anyone can fake an IP and anyone could allow anyone else to use their login details or internet connection. Not to mention unauthorised use of Wi-Fi access.

Would you like to tell everyone about how abusive slander is a criminal offence and then call me a 'moron' again?
That is a new record for leaving topic....
A started to copy and paste examples of your past crimes and after 4 paragraphs just thought urghhhh.

Its so tiresome to try and discuss anything with you, ignoring the topic seems to be the go to but your ignorance comes form the sweeping unsupported claims you make (sorry when its rambling madness its the cloner) you make claim against people stating the political party they represent with no idea of what you are saying. It is possible you are basing your opinions on what you think is the sterotype of a "lefttie" as you so often state (thats pretty ignorant) but you also attempt to put words into other peoples mouth`s (bullying).

You have also made sweeping statements based on the origin of birth.
Your personal log on details are yours to be responsible with and not allow to be used in a malicious manner.
If your comments were deemed to be damaging to a person that would be a crime.

As a possible solution to the topic maybe an outright ban on all non prescribed stimulants? making a vast majority of legal highs illegal.
The real problem is why are people stuffing this crap into themselves anyway? If its to escape the reality of what is happening surely there is a need to look at the circumstance of why the need to escape?
Couldnt agree more with your last paragraph.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?! A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.[/p][/quote]yes, moron[/p][/quote]So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then![/p][/quote]All you have done is prove you are happy and able to manipulate the forum. having a conversation with yourself seems to be fine for you. Now even though this is an annon forum much like twitter or reddit it is protected by laws your racist ignorant bullying attitude has thankfully had processes put in place to combat this small man thinking. Now as offence and slander even on a forum such as this can and are considered a crime your continued abuse of this could well be deemed as cyber bullying and an offence. Once upheld and it will be your IP will be tracked and traced and you will have to explain comments in person to a judge. Once again something that could of been a really interesting topic has been hijacked by "someone cloned my account" how about actually have some thought out input to a discussion and the person making inaccurate statements will stand out as they will be far from the intelligent insight you bring. Moron.[/p][/quote]You are the one referring to people as 'ignorant', 'racist' and 'moron'. And yet you claim I'm the bully and offering abuse. Interesting way of looking at it. Not that it excuses your abusive name calling, but since when was being 'ignorant' a criminal offence? You've also yet to offer any evidence of me being 'racist' beyond you simply deciding that I am and labelling me as such. Any IP records traced would quite clearly show somebody else posting under the ChannelX name. Although, of course, anyone can fake an IP and anyone could allow anyone else to use their login details or internet connection. Not to mention unauthorised use of Wi-Fi access. Would you like to tell everyone about how abusive slander is a criminal offence and then call me a 'moron' again?[/p][/quote]That is a new record for leaving topic.... A started to copy and paste examples of your past crimes and after 4 paragraphs just thought urghhhh. Its so tiresome to try and discuss anything with you, ignoring the topic seems to be the go to but your ignorance comes form the sweeping unsupported claims you make (sorry when its rambling madness its the cloner) you make claim against people stating the political party they represent with no idea of what you are saying. It is possible you are basing your opinions on what you think is the sterotype of a "lefttie" as you so often state (thats pretty ignorant) but you also attempt to put words into other peoples mouth`s (bullying). You have also made sweeping statements based on the origin of birth. Your personal log on details are yours to be responsible with and not allow to be used in a malicious manner. If your comments were deemed to be damaging to a person that would be a crime. As a possible solution to the topic maybe an outright ban on all non prescribed stimulants? making a vast majority of legal highs illegal. The real problem is why are people stuffing this crap into themselves anyway? If its to escape the reality of what is happening surely there is a need to look at the circumstance of why the need to escape?[/p][/quote]Couldnt agree more with your last paragraph. house on the hill

2:48pm Wed 26 Feb 14

swindondad says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChаnnelX wrote:
BigBarry wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.
It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.
You should know all about all drugs and the dealing of them.
Well, yes, I would, but not because I'm a dealer, it's because I know a great deal about a great many things. It's called 'life experience' and you would do well to educate yourself about life before coming on here trying to be clever.
"LIfe experience" are you honestly saying that you know more because you are older? Lets hope that was one of your cloned comments or that would really come across as not only ignorant but really really stupid.
“There is a difference between 20 years of experience and the same year’s experiences 20 times”.

IMHO simple age is no substitute for or indicator of knowledge and maturity.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigBarry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Difficult to ban it when they condone the sale of alcohol, a far more dangerous drug. And people who choose to do that sort of thing would just find something else anyway. Blame the people who take it not the drug which is designed for another purpose. Sadly we all want freedom of choice so we have to accept that sometime that choice will be the wrong one.[/p][/quote]It's actually not at all 'difficult' for the government to ban any substance they feel like banning. Alcohol has nothing to do with the banning, or not, of anything else. The real problem here, for the government, is that there are literally an infinite number of variants of drugs that can be sold as legal highs. The chemists will win, every time. And, in any case, we have known for decades that banning things does not stop people from taking/using them.[/p][/quote]You should know all about all drugs and the dealing of them.[/p][/quote]Well, yes, I would, but not because I'm a dealer, it's because I know a great deal about a great many things. It's called 'life experience' and you would do well to educate yourself about life before coming on here trying to be clever.[/p][/quote]"LIfe experience" are you honestly saying that you know more because you are older? Lets hope that was one of your cloned comments or that would really come across as not only ignorant but really really stupid.[/p][/quote]“There is a difference between 20 years of experience and the same year’s experiences 20 times”. IMHO simple age is no substitute for or indicator of knowledge and maturity. swindondad

3:58pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

house on the hill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?!

A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.
yes, moron
So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then!
All you have done is prove you are happy and able to manipulate the forum. having a conversation with yourself seems to be fine for you.

Now even though this is an annon forum much like twitter or reddit it is protected by laws your racist ignorant bullying attitude has thankfully had processes put in place to combat this small man thinking.
Now as offence and slander even on a forum such as this can and are considered a crime your continued abuse of this could well be deemed as cyber bullying and an offence. Once upheld and it will be your IP will be tracked and traced and you will have to explain comments in person to a judge.
Once again something that could of been a really interesting topic has been hijacked by "someone cloned my account" how about actually have some thought out input to a discussion and the person making inaccurate statements will stand out as they will be far from the intelligent insight you bring.
Moron.
You are the one referring to people as 'ignorant', 'racist' and 'moron'.

And yet you claim I'm the bully and offering abuse.

Interesting way of looking at it.

Not that it excuses your abusive name calling, but since when was being 'ignorant' a criminal offence? You've also yet to offer any evidence of me being 'racist' beyond you simply deciding that I am and labelling me as such.

Any IP records traced would quite clearly show somebody else posting under the ChannelX name.

Although, of course, anyone can fake an IP and anyone could allow anyone else to use their login details or internet connection. Not to mention unauthorised use of Wi-Fi access.

Would you like to tell everyone about how abusive slander is a criminal offence and then call me a 'moron' again?
That is a new record for leaving topic....
A started to copy and paste examples of your past crimes and after 4 paragraphs just thought urghhhh.

Its so tiresome to try and discuss anything with you, ignoring the topic seems to be the go to but your ignorance comes form the sweeping unsupported claims you make (sorry when its rambling madness its the cloner) you make claim against people stating the political party they represent with no idea of what you are saying. It is possible you are basing your opinions on what you think is the sterotype of a "lefttie" as you so often state (thats pretty ignorant) but you also attempt to put words into other peoples mouth`s (bullying).

You have also made sweeping statements based on the origin of birth.
Your personal log on details are yours to be responsible with and not allow to be used in a malicious manner.
If your comments were deemed to be damaging to a person that would be a crime.

As a possible solution to the topic maybe an outright ban on all non prescribed stimulants? making a vast majority of legal highs illegal.
The real problem is why are people stuffing this crap into themselves anyway? If its to escape the reality of what is happening surely there is a need to look at the circumstance of why the need to escape?
Couldnt agree more with your last paragraph.
Thanks feels like need to start with comment about odd stuff and shoe horn in on topic discussion.
These things are awful and need to be removed but until there is no demand its not going to happen.
Lets hope this story will bring to light how dangerous this stuff is.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?! A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.[/p][/quote]yes, moron[/p][/quote]So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then![/p][/quote]All you have done is prove you are happy and able to manipulate the forum. having a conversation with yourself seems to be fine for you. Now even though this is an annon forum much like twitter or reddit it is protected by laws your racist ignorant bullying attitude has thankfully had processes put in place to combat this small man thinking. Now as offence and slander even on a forum such as this can and are considered a crime your continued abuse of this could well be deemed as cyber bullying and an offence. Once upheld and it will be your IP will be tracked and traced and you will have to explain comments in person to a judge. Once again something that could of been a really interesting topic has been hijacked by "someone cloned my account" how about actually have some thought out input to a discussion and the person making inaccurate statements will stand out as they will be far from the intelligent insight you bring. Moron.[/p][/quote]You are the one referring to people as 'ignorant', 'racist' and 'moron'. And yet you claim I'm the bully and offering abuse. Interesting way of looking at it. Not that it excuses your abusive name calling, but since when was being 'ignorant' a criminal offence? You've also yet to offer any evidence of me being 'racist' beyond you simply deciding that I am and labelling me as such. Any IP records traced would quite clearly show somebody else posting under the ChannelX name. Although, of course, anyone can fake an IP and anyone could allow anyone else to use their login details or internet connection. Not to mention unauthorised use of Wi-Fi access. Would you like to tell everyone about how abusive slander is a criminal offence and then call me a 'moron' again?[/p][/quote]That is a new record for leaving topic.... A started to copy and paste examples of your past crimes and after 4 paragraphs just thought urghhhh. Its so tiresome to try and discuss anything with you, ignoring the topic seems to be the go to but your ignorance comes form the sweeping unsupported claims you make (sorry when its rambling madness its the cloner) you make claim against people stating the political party they represent with no idea of what you are saying. It is possible you are basing your opinions on what you think is the sterotype of a "lefttie" as you so often state (thats pretty ignorant) but you also attempt to put words into other peoples mouth`s (bullying). You have also made sweeping statements based on the origin of birth. Your personal log on details are yours to be responsible with and not allow to be used in a malicious manner. If your comments were deemed to be damaging to a person that would be a crime. As a possible solution to the topic maybe an outright ban on all non prescribed stimulants? making a vast majority of legal highs illegal. The real problem is why are people stuffing this crap into themselves anyway? If its to escape the reality of what is happening surely there is a need to look at the circumstance of why the need to escape?[/p][/quote]Couldnt agree more with your last paragraph.[/p][/quote]Thanks feels like need to start with comment about odd stuff and shoe horn in on topic discussion. These things are awful and need to be removed but until there is no demand its not going to happen. Lets hope this story will bring to light how dangerous this stuff is. Badgersgetabadname

4:26pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Localboy86 says...

Children please
Children please Localboy86

12:37pm Thu 27 Feb 14

benzss says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?!

A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.
yes, moron
So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then!
All you have done is prove you are happy and able to manipulate the forum. having a conversation with yourself seems to be fine for you.

Now even though this is an annon forum much like twitter or reddit it is protected by laws your racist ignorant bullying attitude has thankfully had processes put in place to combat this small man thinking.
Now as offence and slander even on a forum such as this can and are considered a crime your continued abuse of this could well be deemed as cyber bullying and an offence. Once upheld and it will be your IP will be tracked and traced and you will have to explain comments in person to a judge.
Once again something that could of been a really interesting topic has been hijacked by "someone cloned my account" how about actually have some thought out input to a discussion and the person making inaccurate statements will stand out as they will be far from the intelligent insight you bring.
Moron.
You are the one referring to people as 'ignorant', 'racist' and 'moron'.

And yet you claim I'm the bully and offering abuse.

Interesting way of looking at it.

Not that it excuses your abusive name calling, but since when was being 'ignorant' a criminal offence? You've also yet to offer any evidence of me being 'racist' beyond you simply deciding that I am and labelling me as such.

Any IP records traced would quite clearly show somebody else posting under the ChannelX name.

Although, of course, anyone can fake an IP and anyone could allow anyone else to use their login details or internet connection. Not to mention unauthorised use of Wi-Fi access.

Would you like to tell everyone about how abusive slander is a criminal offence and then call me a 'moron' again?
That is a new record for leaving topic....
A started to copy and paste examples of your past crimes and after 4 paragraphs just thought urghhhh.

Its so tiresome to try and discuss anything with you, ignoring the topic seems to be the go to but your ignorance comes form the sweeping unsupported claims you make (sorry when its rambling madness its the cloner) you make claim against people stating the political party they represent with no idea of what you are saying. It is possible you are basing your opinions on what you think is the sterotype of a "lefttie" as you so often state (thats pretty ignorant) but you also attempt to put words into other peoples mouth`s (bullying).

You have also made sweeping statements based on the origin of birth.
Your personal log on details are yours to be responsible with and not allow to be used in a malicious manner.
If your comments were deemed to be damaging to a person that would be a crime.

As a possible solution to the topic maybe an outright ban on all non prescribed stimulants? making a vast majority of legal highs illegal.
The real problem is why are people stuffing this crap into themselves anyway? If its to escape the reality of what is happening surely there is a need to look at the circumstance of why the need to escape?
Couldnt agree more with your last paragraph.
Thanks feels like need to start with comment about odd stuff and shoe horn in on topic discussion.
These things are awful and need to be removed but until there is no demand its not going to happen.
Lets hope this story will bring to light how dangerous this stuff is.
I think there needs to be a discussion on the wider drug policy, and whether it really is reducing harm. In addition, we could perhaps have a discussion on the civil liberties of the matter - i.e. why should you or anybody else be the arbiter of what a person does with their own body?

Let's roll.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?! A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.[/p][/quote]yes, moron[/p][/quote]So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then![/p][/quote]All you have done is prove you are happy and able to manipulate the forum. having a conversation with yourself seems to be fine for you. Now even though this is an annon forum much like twitter or reddit it is protected by laws your racist ignorant bullying attitude has thankfully had processes put in place to combat this small man thinking. Now as offence and slander even on a forum such as this can and are considered a crime your continued abuse of this could well be deemed as cyber bullying and an offence. Once upheld and it will be your IP will be tracked and traced and you will have to explain comments in person to a judge. Once again something that could of been a really interesting topic has been hijacked by "someone cloned my account" how about actually have some thought out input to a discussion and the person making inaccurate statements will stand out as they will be far from the intelligent insight you bring. Moron.[/p][/quote]You are the one referring to people as 'ignorant', 'racist' and 'moron'. And yet you claim I'm the bully and offering abuse. Interesting way of looking at it. Not that it excuses your abusive name calling, but since when was being 'ignorant' a criminal offence? You've also yet to offer any evidence of me being 'racist' beyond you simply deciding that I am and labelling me as such. Any IP records traced would quite clearly show somebody else posting under the ChannelX name. Although, of course, anyone can fake an IP and anyone could allow anyone else to use their login details or internet connection. Not to mention unauthorised use of Wi-Fi access. Would you like to tell everyone about how abusive slander is a criminal offence and then call me a 'moron' again?[/p][/quote]That is a new record for leaving topic.... A started to copy and paste examples of your past crimes and after 4 paragraphs just thought urghhhh. Its so tiresome to try and discuss anything with you, ignoring the topic seems to be the go to but your ignorance comes form the sweeping unsupported claims you make (sorry when its rambling madness its the cloner) you make claim against people stating the political party they represent with no idea of what you are saying. It is possible you are basing your opinions on what you think is the sterotype of a "lefttie" as you so often state (thats pretty ignorant) but you also attempt to put words into other peoples mouth`s (bullying). You have also made sweeping statements based on the origin of birth. Your personal log on details are yours to be responsible with and not allow to be used in a malicious manner. If your comments were deemed to be damaging to a person that would be a crime. As a possible solution to the topic maybe an outright ban on all non prescribed stimulants? making a vast majority of legal highs illegal. The real problem is why are people stuffing this crap into themselves anyway? If its to escape the reality of what is happening surely there is a need to look at the circumstance of why the need to escape?[/p][/quote]Couldnt agree more with your last paragraph.[/p][/quote]Thanks feels like need to start with comment about odd stuff and shoe horn in on topic discussion. These things are awful and need to be removed but until there is no demand its not going to happen. Lets hope this story will bring to light how dangerous this stuff is.[/p][/quote]I think there needs to be a discussion on the wider drug policy, and whether it really is reducing harm. In addition, we could perhaps have a discussion on the civil liberties of the matter - i.e. why should you or anybody else be the arbiter of what a person does with their own body? Let's roll. benzss

12:54pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

benzss wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?!

A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.
yes, moron
So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then!
All you have done is prove you are happy and able to manipulate the forum. having a conversation with yourself seems to be fine for you.

Now even though this is an annon forum much like twitter or reddit it is protected by laws your racist ignorant bullying attitude has thankfully had processes put in place to combat this small man thinking.
Now as offence and slander even on a forum such as this can and are considered a crime your continued abuse of this could well be deemed as cyber bullying and an offence. Once upheld and it will be your IP will be tracked and traced and you will have to explain comments in person to a judge.
Once again something that could of been a really interesting topic has been hijacked by "someone cloned my account" how about actually have some thought out input to a discussion and the person making inaccurate statements will stand out as they will be far from the intelligent insight you bring.
Moron.
You are the one referring to people as 'ignorant', 'racist' and 'moron'.

And yet you claim I'm the bully and offering abuse.

Interesting way of looking at it.

Not that it excuses your abusive name calling, but since when was being 'ignorant' a criminal offence? You've also yet to offer any evidence of me being 'racist' beyond you simply deciding that I am and labelling me as such.

Any IP records traced would quite clearly show somebody else posting under the ChannelX name.

Although, of course, anyone can fake an IP and anyone could allow anyone else to use their login details or internet connection. Not to mention unauthorised use of Wi-Fi access.

Would you like to tell everyone about how abusive slander is a criminal offence and then call me a 'moron' again?
That is a new record for leaving topic....
A started to copy and paste examples of your past crimes and after 4 paragraphs just thought urghhhh.

Its so tiresome to try and discuss anything with you, ignoring the topic seems to be the go to but your ignorance comes form the sweeping unsupported claims you make (sorry when its rambling madness its the cloner) you make claim against people stating the political party they represent with no idea of what you are saying. It is possible you are basing your opinions on what you think is the sterotype of a "lefttie" as you so often state (thats pretty ignorant) but you also attempt to put words into other peoples mouth`s (bullying).

You have also made sweeping statements based on the origin of birth.
Your personal log on details are yours to be responsible with and not allow to be used in a malicious manner.
If your comments were deemed to be damaging to a person that would be a crime.

As a possible solution to the topic maybe an outright ban on all non prescribed stimulants? making a vast majority of legal highs illegal.
The real problem is why are people stuffing this crap into themselves anyway? If its to escape the reality of what is happening surely there is a need to look at the circumstance of why the need to escape?
Couldnt agree more with your last paragraph.
Thanks feels like need to start with comment about odd stuff and shoe horn in on topic discussion.
These things are awful and need to be removed but until there is no demand its not going to happen.
Lets hope this story will bring to light how dangerous this stuff is.
I think there needs to be a discussion on the wider drug policy, and whether it really is reducing harm. In addition, we could perhaps have a discussion on the civil liberties of the matter - i.e. why should you or anybody else be the arbiter of what a person does with their own body?

Let's roll.
Good idea would be a good discussion.
Maybe mail the adver and ask for new thread rather than on the page of the death of a father.
Just a thought in my own opinion.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: I'll ask again... Do you *actually* think the same person is making all of the posts attributed to ChannelX? I mean, do you *seriously* think that's the case?! A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.[/p][/quote]yes, moron[/p][/quote]So much for an intelligent discussion on Legal High's then![/p][/quote]All you have done is prove you are happy and able to manipulate the forum. having a conversation with yourself seems to be fine for you. Now even though this is an annon forum much like twitter or reddit it is protected by laws your racist ignorant bullying attitude has thankfully had processes put in place to combat this small man thinking. Now as offence and slander even on a forum such as this can and are considered a crime your continued abuse of this could well be deemed as cyber bullying and an offence. Once upheld and it will be your IP will be tracked and traced and you will have to explain comments in person to a judge. Once again something that could of been a really interesting topic has been hijacked by "someone cloned my account" how about actually have some thought out input to a discussion and the person making inaccurate statements will stand out as they will be far from the intelligent insight you bring. Moron.[/p][/quote]You are the one referring to people as 'ignorant', 'racist' and 'moron'. And yet you claim I'm the bully and offering abuse. Interesting way of looking at it. Not that it excuses your abusive name calling, but since when was being 'ignorant' a criminal offence? You've also yet to offer any evidence of me being 'racist' beyond you simply deciding that I am and labelling me as such. Any IP records traced would quite clearly show somebody else posting under the ChannelX name. Although, of course, anyone can fake an IP and anyone could allow anyone else to use their login details or internet connection. Not to mention unauthorised use of Wi-Fi access. Would you like to tell everyone about how abusive slander is a criminal offence and then call me a 'moron' again?[/p][/quote]That is a new record for leaving topic.... A started to copy and paste examples of your past crimes and after 4 paragraphs just thought urghhhh. Its so tiresome to try and discuss anything with you, ignoring the topic seems to be the go to but your ignorance comes form the sweeping unsupported claims you make (sorry when its rambling madness its the cloner) you make claim against people stating the political party they represent with no idea of what you are saying. It is possible you are basing your opinions on what you think is the sterotype of a "lefttie" as you so often state (thats pretty ignorant) but you also attempt to put words into other peoples mouth`s (bullying). You have also made sweeping statements based on the origin of birth. Your personal log on details are yours to be responsible with and not allow to be used in a malicious manner. If your comments were deemed to be damaging to a person that would be a crime. As a possible solution to the topic maybe an outright ban on all non prescribed stimulants? making a vast majority of legal highs illegal. The real problem is why are people stuffing this crap into themselves anyway? If its to escape the reality of what is happening surely there is a need to look at the circumstance of why the need to escape?[/p][/quote]Couldnt agree more with your last paragraph.[/p][/quote]Thanks feels like need to start with comment about odd stuff and shoe horn in on topic discussion. These things are awful and need to be removed but until there is no demand its not going to happen. Lets hope this story will bring to light how dangerous this stuff is.[/p][/quote]I think there needs to be a discussion on the wider drug policy, and whether it really is reducing harm. In addition, we could perhaps have a discussion on the civil liberties of the matter - i.e. why should you or anybody else be the arbiter of what a person does with their own body? Let's roll.[/p][/quote]Good idea would be a good discussion. Maybe mail the adver and ask for new thread rather than on the page of the death of a father. Just a thought in my own opinion. Badgersgetabadname

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree