<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Cannabis: We couldn't give an F if it's B or C?</title>
		<description>Comments for Cannabis: We couldn't give an F if it's B or C? at http://cannazine.co.uk , comment 0 to 1 out of 1 comments</description>
		<link>http://cannazine.co.uk</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:33:16 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>FeedCreator 1.7.2</generator>
		<item>
			<title>how to gloss over the facts..</title>
			<link>http://cannazine.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=4213&amp;Itemid=1585#pc_74</link>
			<description>Controlled drugs? Now there's a mis-nomer if ever there was one.

[i]&quot;&quot;There can, of course, be an antisocial side to booze. 

But there is also a far more sociable aspect. It is conducive to having a laugh with friends in the pub rather than a lonely fit of giggles in the corner of a dope-smoke- filled room, and tends to make people feel confident and amorous rather than insecure and useless.&quot;&quot;[/i]

Proof if ever it were needed that the cannabis issue hinges on life-style choice.

As a recovering alcoholic my-self, alcohol has absolutely nothing to do with &quot;having a laugh&quot;, and everything to do with drinking myself into an early grave.

Seems to me the sooner government realises the need to recognise alternative life-styles the sooner we can get an adult debate on the table regarding cannabis.

Currently its a case of &quot;my way or the highway&quot;, and so long as the law is based around those 5 words, drugs in general cannot possibly be &quot;controlled&quot; in any sense of the word.

Red Dragon - red dragon</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 12:02:53 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
