24 hour drinking - hypocrasy - may turn into rant

[[SD] Bob Plisskin]

I don't know if people around the globe know but there is talk in the UK of introducing 24 hour drinking in certain cities. Now aside from my own personal views which I will get into later I was reading a story in The Daily Mail this weekend which stated that the advisors to the government had taken huge payoffs from brewing companies. Why oh why is the world like this, give the corporations what they want but take away what the public want?

Now I'm not a huge fan of binge drinking, I've never been a big social drinker. I like going the pub with my friends but I've never been up for getting blatted and the whole 'lad' culture, I've had my problems with drink and depression which was unavoidable with the current laws (basically sat in with a litre of vodka, self harm, girl troubles etc etc) but personally I hate drunk people, I think when people get drunk whilst clubbing they lose all respect for everyone around them.

This leads me onto a further point ie. the hypocrasy surrounding weed, I've been a smoker since my teens and am going to Amsterdam this weekend for a bit of a smoke and I have never harmed anyone or myself whilst under the influence of this drug but on alchohol I have had many drunken fights when younger and as I stated earlier harmed myself. The thing I can't understand is that it makes economical sense to legalise weed (we'll get to how to do this later) due to the amount of tax the government could be making off it and the criminality it currently encourages by funding organised crime.

Now, I'm not for the Amsterdam culture in this country or anywhere else in the world, what I would like to see is somewhat like an off-licencse where people can buy weed and take it home for consumption there. People would abuse a system like they have in amsterdam but by selling it for home consumption you can contain the drug to how it is contained at the moment, basically stoners in there own home doing no harm to anyone else.

I'm sure I've got further thoughts on both these subjects that I've forgotten to write so will probably add more later.

one more fact to remeber - nobody has ever died of a direct consequence of smoking weed yet how many times do we hear about people dying from over drinking?

<OB>

[The Postmaster General]

In Miami the cut-off was from 6am to 7am --- One hour to sober up.

Yeah, I never got it either.

24 drinking doesn't bother me, as I'm not at all like the type you mention above. Not to say I haven't been obnoxious, but that was always a one-time learning experience, and part of being young, dumb, and full of cum. Now, I know to only need just enough to keep me swerving through the night.

You are right about the weed thing, and in relating it to corporate pay-offs.

Is it only coincidence that weed, an intoxicant that ANYONE can make with minimum effort -- scratch that - no effort --- That is illegal. But somethign that you need lots of gear and know-how --- Well, that's legal.

There is much more capital involved with producing alcohol (in any quantity worth it) and there are more profits to be made because anyone can't go out and open a brewery.

As you can see, I"m very much sold on the idea that it has nothing to do with the intoxicating effects --- what you said in talking about fights and deaths should be evidence of that. The part that sort of steams me is that pot has been stigmitized very unfairly if you ask me --- I mean, it's always had a stigma, but since the 80s it's been placed on a pedastal next to drugs like cocaine. This was after coming really far from the Reefer Madness mentality.

Don't get me wrong, there is reason for the term 'burnouts', but that still doesn't seem that bad when you consider there is also good reason there is the term 'abusive drunk'. Having one of either won't make you into a worse case, but it seems that one case is clearly worse than the other.