Toffeepot
Player Valuation: £35m
Probably went there to shout abuse at a boat load of refugeesBeen to Guernsey.
Ranting and raving about (not yet) illegal drugs.
Probably has notifications from mail online.
Massive, massive tory vibes.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Probably went there to shout abuse at a boat load of refugeesBeen to Guernsey.
Ranting and raving about (not yet) illegal drugs.
Probably has notifications from mail online.
Massive, massive tory vibes.
That report is just a harms assessment and not the legislation. 1.7 and 1.8 are them stating what the law is. 1.9 is the report writers clarifying that for the purposes of the report, they are going to refer to use of nitrous oxide for its psychoactive effects as ‘non-legitimate use’.”Again you have missed the subtle point. It is not illegal to posses, however if you posses for psychoactive purposes then it is. That means what you have quoted can be true and what I am saying is true.
From your document:
Funny how quoted 1.7 and 1.8 let’s see what 1.9 says:
“1.9. To note, in this report we refer to use of nitrous oxide for its psychoactive effects as ‘non-legitimate use’.”
Anyway let’s assume what you are saying is true, it’s still an illegal drug. And is not something you would ever see a professional like say Gareth Barry doing what Dele is doing.
As for the daily mail, back to your Guardian echo chamber.
You like saying 'implied term'. Express term too when discussing the Legislative Act earlierThere is an implied term in mass debating. Notice I’m not taking part in it. Winkers
Didn’t Gareth Barry steal a taxi while hammered at West Brom? Not very professional that is it?Again you have missed the subtle point. It is not illegal to posses, however if you posses for psychoactive purposes then it is. That means what you have quoted can be true and what I am saying is true.
From your document:
Funny how quoted 1.7 and 1.8 let’s see what 1.9 says:
“1.9. To note, in this report we refer to use of nitrous oxide for its psychoactive effects as ‘non-legitimate use’.”
Anyway let’s assume what you are saying is true, it’s still an illegal drug. And is not something you would ever see a professional like say Gareth Barry doing what Dele is doing.
As for the daily mail, back to your Guardian echo chamber.
...and mic dropOh, and going back to the first link you shared as evidence: https://www.abbeycarefoundation.com/hippy-crack-faq/
It literally states in that link that you were using as evidence to it being illegal:
In addition, possession of Nitrous Oxide/Hippy Crack is not illegal
But possessing it with intent to sell it as a (party) drug is illegal.
The line where it states it is illegal to use for recreational purposes (which they do twice) is reinforced by referencing a BBC news article.
Which is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-46591871
That BBC news article, does not once state it is illegal for possession or personal consumption, it is all about the governance of supply, despite the website using it as a reference for their evidence.
So maybe you should try reading things.
BBC article from 2 days ago. Possession is currently not illegal but supply is. It will be illegal. But at this point isn’t. And the ban goes against advice from the drugs advisory board anyway.
Dele he literally been pictured once using a non illegal substance. No evidence he has ever done it again or does it regularly.Laughing gas to be illegal by end of year - BBC News
Nitrous oxide will become a class C drug in the UK and carry up to two years in jail for possession.www.bbc.co.uk
You are wrong, accept it and move on.
Again you have missed the subtle point. It is not illegal to posses, however if you posses for psychoactive purposes then it is. That means what you have quoted can be true and what I am saying is true.
From your document:
Funny how quoted 1.7 and 1.8 let’s see what 1.9 says:
“1.9. To note, in this report we refer to use of nitrous oxide for its psychoactive effects as ‘non-legitimate use’.”
Anyway let’s assume what you are saying is true, it’s still an illegal drug. And is not something you would ever see a professional like say Gareth Barry doing what Dele is doing.
As for the daily mail, back to your Guardian echo chamber.
The act has implications like all law, even if it is not explicitly stated which it is all over the actual act on parliament. The main provision of the act is supply, doesn’t mean it doesn’t cover other things as stated.That report is just a harms assessment and not the legislation. 1.7 and 1.8 are them stating what the law is. 1.9 is the report writers clarifying that for the purposes of the report, they are going to refer to use of nitrous oxide for its psychoactive effects as ‘non-legitimate use’.”
Again, basic comprehension skills.
Money, or rather lots of it, is not the Utopia most believe it is.Yeah of course you’d rather have money than not, that just goes without saying. But that’s different to arguing that money literally equals happiness. There are some situations in life that no amount of money could ever fix.
The act has implications like all law, even if it is not explicitly stated which it is all over the actual act on parliament. The main provision of the act is supply, doesn’t mean it doesn’t cover other things as stated. Dele had illegal drugs fact.
No point debating ideologically minded people who refuse to believe evidence.
View attachment 226642
This is tiresomeThe act has implications like all law, even if it is not explicitly stated which it is all over the actual act on parliament. The main provision of the act is supply, doesn’t mean it doesn’t cover other things as stated.
Dele had illegal drugs fact. You can debate the ins and outs of how illegal, the fact remains.
No point debating ideologically minded people who refuse to believe evidence.
View attachment 226642
ImplieddddddddThat is under the section on importing and exporting. So unless you know that Dele brought the Nitrous Oxide in across a border....
NOImpliedddddddd
If it is illegal to sell someone must have bought so illegal to possess is it really that hard
Whatever what you twist it the implications of the act are clear.NO
Possession and Supply have long been treated very differently under law
Nope. Again, read the PSA - nowhere does it refer to POSESSION except with intent to supply (or in a custodial setting) for psychoactive effects.
Once more for those at the back: USE OF NITROUS OXIDE FOR PSYCHOACTIVE EFFECTS IS NOT ILLEGAL.