KOYAANISQATSI Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 tlady wrote:I hardly think that the 1 surviving barred person would make a huge increase in the profits get them hooked on the booze then jack up the prices. I wonder....If I went on the dole would the goverment pay me extra money cause Im an addict? huv you no seen scarface yet "Dont get high on your own supply".After all you are involved in the supply and distribution of one of the most dangerous drugs out there; perhaps you should have practiced a little moderation, but I know how tricky these things can be, so if I see you on the street struggling I shall be sure to chuck 50p your way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlady Posted April 8, 2007 Report Share Posted April 8, 2007 tlady wrote:I hardly think that the 1 surviving barred person would make a huge increase in the profits get them hooked on the booze then jack up the prices. believe it or not...it is against the law to serve "drunks" responsible bar staff/managers know this, our customers are not "pushed" alcohol, I wonder....If I went on the dole would the goverment pay me extra money cause Im an addict? huv you no seen scarface yet "Dont get high on your own supply".After all you are involved in the supply and distribution of one of the most dangerous drugs out there; perhaps you should have practiced a little moderation, but I know how tricky these things can be, so if I see you on the street struggling I shall be sure to chuck 50p your way. If you read my post correctly you would have seen I am a smoker, not an alcoholic but if I do fall on hard times your 50p would be much appreciated to buy myself 2 fags, thank you xx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pooks Posted April 8, 2007 Report Share Posted April 8, 2007 Yet another fatal addiction to drugs. How many smokers have you banned? How many are still alive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlady Posted April 8, 2007 Report Share Posted April 8, 2007 Yet another fatal addiction to drugs. How many smokers have you banned? How many are still alive? Yes I know its a fatal addiction to drugs. and I know I should quit.. I ve never had to ban anyone for smoking tobacco either before or after the ban of smoking in public places .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted April 8, 2007 Report Share Posted April 8, 2007 tlady wrote:I have passed on my "real life" statistics to the last remaining cannabis addict and warned them what will happen if they dont kick the habit! and went on to say: I am a smoker. Yes I know its a fatal addiction to drugs. and I know I should quit But the truth is current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke. It should be noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated.But if like Sherlock you see no sense or rationality in what I say dont take my word for it. http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/21 As I am not payed by any Government body to remove those who exercise personal choice unlike Serlock&co I do care what happens to people I share my air space with and long for the day when education replaces blind enforcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
judgeknott Posted April 9, 2007 Report Share Posted April 9, 2007 Recreational drugs are the new religion of the masses.I certainly think it is now time to legalise and tax them.The other taxes for the poor and unwashed - National Lotto and Tobacco are now losing their attraction - and we, the established ruling class will need to find new ways of bringing in revenue from the poorest in society and by the same hand shorten the lives of the proletariat and thereby ease the potential future pensions shortfall. Thank heavens for Gin and Tonic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medziotojas Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 Beware the down side of drugs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 Just reading between the lines here, but, Pooks just locked a thread about a Junky Bas***d supplying drugs.The name of the said Bas***d is now in public domain, so why Mod Edit his name and lock the thread?????Is Shetlink trying to protect the said person, instead of protecting the public by making such information as widely available as possible???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pooks Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 The name may well be in the public domain and I don't agree with what he has done but Shetlink's Terms & Conditions quite explicitly state the following:- 1. You agree, through your use of the Shetlink website, that you will not post (or hyperlink to) any material or use language which is defamatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, inciting of violence, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or in violation of ANY UK law. Personal attacks, inflammatory posts, harrassment, impersonation and trolling will not be tolerated. Had it been a conversation on the topic at hand I may well have let it run, in this case it was a personal attack on the person in question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 If your 17 year old daughter had just died as a result of drugs supplied by such a person, would you be so quick to protect them?This is one case where human rights, and Shetlink protocol should be waived.Any parent, as I am, who wants to protect their children will say the same. For God's sake Shetlink, wake up, and see that in cases like this, you can help protect the children of Shetland by making issues like this stand out in the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 His full title is on full display in this weeks Shetland times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 Maybe in cases such as this, where names and facts are already in the public domain, it would be more in the public interest to edit out the specific terms which constitute the "personal attack" element(s) to protect Shetlink's position, but leave in name(s) and fact(s) already published elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepshagger Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 The name may well be in the public domain and I don't agree with what he has done but Shetlink's Terms & Conditions quite explicitly state the following:- 1. You agree, through your use of the Shetlink website, that you will not post (or hyperlink to) any material or use language which is defamatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, inciting of violence, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or in violation of ANY UK law. Personal attacks, inflammatory posts, harrassment, impersonation and trolling will not be tolerated. Had it been a conversation on the topic at hand I may well have let it run, in this case it was a personal attack on the person in question.It wis a personal attack, wan dat I'm no ashamed o. but my feelings are no restricted tae him but ony bar steward dat feeds bairns wi yun sharn. I hae nae worries wi sum een haaen a puff o a joint (is lang is its kept awa fae bairns) dirs no really ony harm wi dat, but fir too bloody lang folk ir been burryin dir heads in da sand is far is smack is concerned.maybe it's time for da law ta be taen inta wir ain hands cause da court seems ta be unwillin ta lock yun filthy bar steward up fir whitever reason.I moved back ta da isle 3 year ago an it wis weel kent roond da toon dat he wis gein smack ta bairns den. so whit wye can da legal system no tak care o him.An as fur da medical proffesion handin oot pills ta da darlingers whin dae canna get ony gear. yun shud be pit a stop till ana. If dae hid ta gan cauld turkey every time da supply dried up dae mite no be sae bloody keen ta kerry on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 sheepshagger wroteI moved back ta da isle 3 year ago an it wis weel kent roond da toon dat he wis gein smack ta bairns den.The above sentence well illustrates the problem moderators share with the likes of newspaper publishers. However "weel kent" something may be publishing that information as a "fact" could lead to something like an action in court alleging defamation of character or something similar, or worse, an appeal against a conviction on the grounds of such "weel kent" information prejudicing a fair trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepshagger Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 "defamation of character" ta say yun muckle sphincter is nae better dan dug sharn on me shun wid be considered high praise indeed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.