Being serious, while I think that all drugs should be legalised and treated as a taxed healthcare issue rather than a law and order issue, with their use discouraged firmly and socially ostracised ideally; coke (the drug) has to be by far the worst of all the drugs in my eyes.
Not because its addictive, nor because its deadly, but because anyone who abuses coke is almost inevitably a complete and utter douchebag.
I'm not sure whether coke is just attractive to douchebags, or if coke makes you a douchebag, but the two are inextricably linked.
It’s the drug equivalent of Colin Hunt from the Fast Show. Tragic person with no personality tries to be a bit whacky but stripped of the coke/bow tie and crazy clothes is a dull salesman from Swindon. They dream of going full wolf of Wall Street and snorting it off a girl’s arse but their wife won’t let them as they’ve just changed the bedsheets that week and don’t want a mess before the next change, and they really gave up showing their arse to Colin after the second child.
What have the cool crowd moved onto now then?
The stringy bits from bananas- you toast them and then smoke them in a roll-up. True story.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
Being serious, while I think that all drugs should be legalised and treated as a taxed healthcare issue rather than a law and order issue, with their use discouraged firmly and socially ostracised ideally; coke (the drug) has to be by far the worst of all the drugs in my eyes.
Not because its addictive, nor because its deadly, but because anyone who abuses coke is almost inevitably a complete and utter douchebag.
I'm not sure whether coke is just attractive to douchebags, or if coke makes you a douchebag, but the two are inextricably linked.
It’s the drug equivalent of Colin Hunt from the Fast Show. Tragic person with no personality tries to be a bit whacky but stripped of the coke/bow tie and crazy clothes is a dull salesman from Swindon. They dream of going full wolf of Wall Street and snorting it off a girl’s arse but their wife won’t let them as they’ve just changed the bedsheets that week and don’t want a mess before the next change, and they really gave up showing their arse to Colin after the second child.
What have the cool crowd moved onto now then?
Commenting on PB
Now that'd really liven up a dinner party. Not!
Dinner party? They're not a thing either these days, are they? My lingo is stuck in the past. World's moved on.
My dissertation is due in two weeks. I’m 4/5 of the way through it. None of it makes any sense anymore…
Aaaargh!
Eldest Granddaughter has finally finished hers, handed in and made the minor alterations felt necessary and been told everything is satisfactory. New job at around twice her current salary beckons!
I'm doing this for "fun". In the middle of Lockdown 2 I decided that I would broaden my mind with all the spare time I had from not commuting and so started a 2 year part time MA at Birkbeck in Sept '21. Guest what two years after Sept '21 is... deadline 4 Sept.
I did something similar in my late 50’s. I was working for the NHS and our Trust offered to pay a significant part of the costs of a further degree so I ‘gave it a go’. Anglia Ruskin were offering a part-time Masters around Management so I signed up. All went well until I was about where you are now and my father-in-law died which meant I had to take Mrs C to the ‘festivities’ 300 miles away in the week I’d booked off to write-up! I did graduate, though.
Best of luck!
I'm planning to retire in a couple of years and thinking of taking a history degree. I'll be living near Oxford so I've been wondering whether they'd consider me - is a maths PhD helpful, or would I have to start with A-levels??
An answer I’d be interested in, too. (Though I don’t even have a degree.)
It’s going to be much harder without a degree.
I run a Master’s course (not in history). We might take someone without an undergrad degree if they had very relevant work experience, but that would be unusual. Whereas if someone has an undergrad degree in the “wrong” subject, we’re much less bothered,
To do an undergrad degree, I don’t know. Do you have A’levels? That you’re an adult, you can show you really want to do this, and you have a proven ability to hold down a job will count for a lot, but I’m uncertain how much.
The admissions tutor will be happy to discuss if you drop them an email.
Being serious, while I think that all drugs should be legalised and treated as a taxed healthcare issue rather than a law and order issue, with their use discouraged firmly and socially ostracised ideally; coke (the drug) has to be by far the worst of all the drugs in my eyes.
Not because its addictive, nor because its deadly, but because anyone who abuses coke is almost inevitably a complete and utter douchebag.
I'm not sure whether coke is just attractive to douchebags, or if coke makes you a douchebag, but the two are inextricably linked.
It’s the drug equivalent of Colin Hunt from the Fast Show. Tragic person with no personality tries to be a bit whacky but stripped of the coke/bow tie and crazy clothes is a dull salesman from Swindon. They dream of going full wolf of Wall Street and snorting it off a girl’s arse but their wife won’t let them as they’ve just changed the bedsheets that week and don’t want a mess before the next change, and they really gave up showing their arse to Colin after the second child.
What have the cool crowd moved onto now then?
The stringy bits from bananas- you toast them and then smoke them in a roll-up. True story.
My dissertation is due in two weeks. I’m 4/5 of the way through it. None of it makes any sense anymore…
Aaaargh!
Eldest Granddaughter has finally finished hers, handed in and made the minor alterations felt necessary and been told everything is satisfactory. New job at around twice her current salary beckons!
I'm doing this for "fun". In the middle of Lockdown 2 I decided that I would broaden my mind with all the spare time I had from not commuting and so started a 2 year part time MA at Birkbeck in Sept '21. Guest what two years after Sept '21 is... deadline 4 Sept.
I did something similar in my late 50’s. I was working for the NHS and our Trust offered to pay a significant part of the costs of a further degree so I ‘gave it a go’. Anglia Ruskin were offering a part-time Masters around Management so I signed up. All went well until I was about where you are now and my father-in-law died which meant I had to take Mrs C to the ‘festivities’ 300 miles away in the week I’d booked off to write-up! I did graduate, though.
Best of luck!
I'm planning to retire in a couple of years and thinking of taking a history degree. I'll be living near Oxford so I've been wondering whether they'd consider me - is a maths PhD helpful, or would I have to start with A-levels??
An answer I’d be interested in, too. (Though I don’t even have a degree.)
No degree! Are you like Morse - went to Oxford then got sent down…
Just back from Oppenheimer. What a movie. The best I have seen for several years. Surely going to sweep the board at the Oscars.
Not seen it yet, it would have been my pick personally but as a father to two young girls I was kind of obliged to go to the other half of 'Barbenheimer' first.
The things you do for your family.
Actually that film wasn't too bad, it had clearly been written actually with the fact parents would go to see it too in mind and had some quite funny bits.
Oppenheimer not really my cup of tea. I know the story and haven't ever really liked any of Nolans previous works.
I went to see Barbie though, and rather enjoyed it. Some great gags for the grown ups, particularly in spotting the other film references.
Not sure about the ending though, but presumably setting up Barbie 2 Loose in Los Angeles.
Coming back to Prince William's failure to go to the world cup, this has now been the most-read story on the BBC News website all evening:
My mind is still boggling at the scale of the potential disaster here. If England win tomorrow, and the most senior person in attendance is.... Lucy Frazer (who?!), then all hell is going to break loose.
And rightly so - England teams have only ever reached the finals of international competitions for the 1966 world cup and Euro 2020. Royals and senior politicians were in attendance on both occasions.
Baldy is the President of the English FA. I assume that he'll be resigning on Monday morning.
Being serious, while I think that all drugs should be legalised and treated as a taxed healthcare issue rather than a law and order issue, with their use discouraged firmly and socially ostracised ideally; coke (the drug) has to be by far the worst of all the drugs in my eyes.
Not because its addictive, nor because its deadly, but because anyone who abuses coke is almost inevitably a complete and utter douchebag.
I'm not sure whether coke is just attractive to douchebags, or if coke makes you a douchebag, but the two are inextricably linked.
It’s the drug equivalent of Colin Hunt from the Fast Show. Tragic person with no personality tries to be a bit whacky but stripped of the coke/bow tie and crazy clothes is a dull salesman from Swindon. They dream of going full wolf of Wall Street and snorting it off a girl’s arse but their wife won’t let them as they’ve just changed the bedsheets that week and don’t want a mess before the next change, and they really gave up showing their arse to Colin after the second child.
What have the cool crowd moved onto now then?
The stringy bits from bananas- you toast them and then smoke them in a roll-up. True story.
That doesn't sound very cool.
That’s why it’s cool. Do it/wear it before it’s cool and you are cool. If you do it/wear it when it’s cool then it’s no longer cool.
Being serious, while I think that all drugs should be legalised and treated as a taxed healthcare issue rather than a law and order issue, with their use discouraged firmly and socially ostracised ideally; coke (the drug) has to be by far the worst of all the drugs in my eyes.
Not because its addictive, nor because its deadly, but because anyone who abuses coke is almost inevitably a complete and utter douchebag.
I'm not sure whether coke is just attractive to douchebags, or if coke makes you a douchebag, but the two are inextricably linked.
It’s the drug equivalent of Colin Hunt from the Fast Show. Tragic person with no personality tries to be a bit whacky but stripped of the coke/bow tie and crazy clothes is a dull salesman from Swindon. They dream of going full wolf of Wall Street and snorting it off a girl’s arse but their wife won’t let them as they’ve just changed the bedsheets that week and don’t want a mess before the next change, and they really gave up showing their arse to Colin after the second child.
What have the cool crowd moved onto now then?
The stringy bits from bananas- you toast them and then smoke them in a roll-up. True story.
That doesn't sound very cool.
That’s why it’s cool. Do it/wear it before it’s cool and you are cool. If you do it/wear it when it’s cool then it’s no longer cool.
If you never care about being cool, it never matters if you are not.
My dissertation is due in two weeks. I’m 4/5 of the way through it. None of it makes any sense anymore…
Aaaargh!
Eldest Granddaughter has finally finished hers, handed in and made the minor alterations felt necessary and been told everything is satisfactory. New job at around twice her current salary beckons!
I'm doing this for "fun". In the middle of Lockdown 2 I decided that I would broaden my mind with all the spare time I had from not commuting and so started a 2 year part time MA at Birkbeck in Sept '21. Guest what two years after Sept '21 is... deadline 4 Sept.
I did something similar in my late 50’s. I was working for the NHS and our Trust offered to pay a significant part of the costs of a further degree so I ‘gave it a go’. Anglia Ruskin were offering a part-time Masters around Management so I signed up. All went well until I was about where you are now and my father-in-law died which meant I had to take Mrs C to the ‘festivities’ 300 miles away in the week I’d booked off to write-up! I did graduate, though.
Best of luck!
I'm planning to retire in a couple of years and thinking of taking a history degree. I'll be living near Oxford so I've been wondering whether they'd consider me - is a maths PhD helpful, or would I have to start with A-levels??
An answer I’d be interested in, too. (Though I don’t even have a degree.)
No degree! Are you like Morse - went to Oxford then got sent down…
Twice.
Wow. Now there's a story. I know you're not a big "I" sort of poster so I'll imagine rather than probe further.
Being serious, while I think that all drugs should be legalised and treated as a taxed healthcare issue rather than a law and order issue, with their use discouraged firmly and socially ostracised ideally; coke (the drug) has to be by far the worst of all the drugs in my eyes.
Not because its addictive, nor because its deadly, but because anyone who abuses coke is almost inevitably a complete and utter douchebag.
I'm not sure whether coke is just attractive to douchebags, or if coke makes you a douchebag, but the two are inextricably linked.
It’s the drug equivalent of Colin Hunt from the Fast Show. Tragic person with no personality tries to be a bit whacky but stripped of the coke/bow tie and crazy clothes is a dull salesman from Swindon. They dream of going full wolf of Wall Street and snorting it off a girl’s arse but their wife won’t let them as they’ve just changed the bedsheets that week and don’t want a mess before the next change, and they really gave up showing their arse to Colin after the second child.
What have the cool crowd moved onto now then?
Commenting on PB
Now that'd really liven up a dinner party. Not!
Dinner party? They're not a thing either these days, are they? My lingo is stuck in the past. World's moved on.
@viewcode "He's rich. He lives in the right area and knows the right people. Michael Gove admitted to cocaine use and was never even arrested. There are known photos of a famous politician with [redacted] and in the company of [redacted]. The list goes on and on..."
Thank you all for your replies. My responses are in italics below
* @Phil "Cocaine use is rampant in the UK & casual use is effectively decriminalised." - If one of my nieces and nephews did it they'd be in jail * @BartholomewRoberts "Why the heck would Gove be arrested? Saying "I took drugs 20 years ago" isn't something anyone should be arrested for." - you want to argue for drug criminalisation/legalisation I'd agree with you. But as long as the law is on the books, it should be enforced * @Gardenwalker "What does “lives in the right area” mean? He lived in Loughton, apparently." - In or around London. Loughton is within the M25 and has a Tube
1) Your niece or nephew, if charged with possession of a small amount of cocaine (i.e. enough for a couple of personal doses), with no aggravating circumstances would receive a Band C fine, probably reduced to Band A on account of their youth & remorse if they were sensible enough to take the advice of their lawyer on how to present themselves in court:
2) We do not enforce every law on the books to the fullest extent of the law - if we did, the courts would overflow even more than they already do & the prisons likewise. It simply isn’t in the public interest to take many crimes to court & the CPS therefore (rightly) declines to prosecute.
3) Loughton is hardly metropolitan elite central though, is it? I suspect what you really meant is that he /knows/ the right people. This might be true, but the NCA prosecuted him nonetheless & I suspect if you read the sentencing guidelines for possession of child pornography of the relevant grades you’d find his sentence was within the expected guidelines.
Just back from Oppenheimer. What a movie. The best I have seen for several years. Surely going to sweep the board at the Oscars.
Not seen it yet, it would have been my pick personally but as a father to two young girls I was kind of obliged to go to the other half of 'Barbenheimer' first.
The things you do for your family.
Actually that film wasn't too bad, it had clearly been written actually with the fact parents would go to see it too in mind and had some quite funny bits.
Oppenheimer not really my cup of tea. I know the story and haven't ever really liked any of Nolans previous works.
I went to see Barbie though, and rather enjoyed it. Some great gags for the grown ups, particularly in spotting the other film references.
Not sure about the ending though, but presumably setting up Barbie 2 Loose in Los Angeles.
Being serious, while I think that all drugs should be legalised and treated as a taxed healthcare issue rather than a law and order issue, with their use discouraged firmly and socially ostracised ideally; coke (the drug) has to be by far the worst of all the drugs in my eyes.
Not because its addictive, nor because its deadly, but because anyone who abuses coke is almost inevitably a complete and utter douchebag.
I'm not sure whether coke is just attractive to douchebags, or if coke makes you a douchebag, but the two are inextricably linked.
It’s the drug equivalent of Colin Hunt from the Fast Show. Tragic person with no personality tries to be a bit whacky but stripped of the coke/bow tie and crazy clothes is a dull salesman from Swindon. They dream of going full wolf of Wall Street and snorting it off a girl’s arse but their wife won’t let them as they’ve just changed the bedsheets that week and don’t want a mess before the next change, and they really gave up showing their arse to Colin after the second child.
What have the cool crowd moved onto now then?
The stringy bits from bananas- you toast them and then smoke them in a roll-up. True story.
That doesn't sound very cool.
That’s why it’s cool. Do it/wear it before it’s cool and you are cool. If you do it/wear it when it’s cool then it’s no longer cool.
Ah ok. Yes. Like if you walk faster than the rain falls you never get wet.
Being serious, while I think that all drugs should be legalised and treated as a taxed healthcare issue rather than a law and order issue, with their use discouraged firmly and socially ostracised ideally; coke (the drug) has to be by far the worst of all the drugs in my eyes.
Not because its addictive, nor because its deadly, but because anyone who abuses coke is almost inevitably a complete and utter douchebag.
I'm not sure whether coke is just attractive to douchebags, or if coke makes you a douchebag, but the two are inextricably linked.
It’s the drug equivalent of Colin Hunt from the Fast Show. Tragic person with no personality tries to be a bit whacky but stripped of the coke/bow tie and crazy clothes is a dull salesman from Swindon. They dream of going full wolf of Wall Street and snorting it off a girl’s arse but their wife won’t let them as they’ve just changed the bedsheets that week and don’t want a mess before the next change, and they really gave up showing their arse to Colin after the second child.
What have the cool crowd moved onto now then?
The stringy bits from bananas- you toast them and then smoke them in a roll-up. True story.
That doesn't sound very cool.
That’s why it’s cool. Do it/wear it before it’s cool and you are cool. If you do it/wear it when it’s cool then it’s no longer cool.
If you never care about being cool, it never matters if you are not.
For me the definition of Cool is Bob Dylan in Don't Look Back. That's the benchmark.
According to a poll of more than 5,000 people by YouGov, Labour now has a 28-point lead over the Tories among women, compared with a 21-point advantage among men.
The survey found that 60% of women voters who describe themselves as “very worried” about their finances now say they would vote Labour – six times more than would vote Conservative. The only group where the Tories retain a lead is those with no financial worries at all.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Just back from Oppenheimer. What a movie. The best I have seen for several years. Surely going to sweep the board at the Oscars.
What did you think of the "nuclear" explosion? The copies I've seen online are underwhelming
I thought it was ok. People getting caught out by the light and then the delay until the noise and the wind. In a cinema I think it worked. But the cast was just outstanding, Cillian Murphy, Matt Damon and Robert Downey Jnr in particular. It built to a tremendous crescendo. Whilst the threads of the various time lines were a bit confusing at the beginning they came together superbly. Complicated characters, dramatic background, moral dilemmas, it really had it all.
According to a poll of more than 5,000 people by YouGov, Labour now has a 28-point lead over the Tories among women, compared with a 21-point advantage among men.
The survey found that 60% of women voters who describe themselves as “very worried” about their finances now say they would vote Labour – six times more than would vote Conservative. The only group where the Tories retain a lead is those with no financial worries at all.
Worth noting that 2/3 of DKs are women, yet they are equally likely to vote.
1) Your niece or nephew, if charged with possession of a small amount of cocaine (i.e. enough for a couple of personal doses), with no aggravating circumstances would receive a Band C fine, probably reduced to Band A on account of their youth & remorse if they were sensible enough to take the advice of their lawyer on how to present themselves in court:
2) We do not enforce every law on the books to the fullest extent of the law - if we did, the courts would overflow even more than they already do & the prisons likewise. It simply isn’t in the public interest to take many crimes to court & the CPS therefore (rightly) declines to prosecute.
3) Loughton is hardly metropolitan elite central though, is it? I suspect what you really meant is that he /knows/ the right people. This might be true, but the NCA prosecuted him nonetheless & I suspect if you read the sentencing guidelines for possession of child pornography of the relevant grades you’d find his sentence was within the expected guidelines.
1) Your niece or nephew, if charged with possession of a small amount of cocaine...
That's subsectioning[1]. How about a large amount of cocaine?
2) We do not enforce every law on the books to the fullest extent of the law...
As per my reply to Barty above, we should. You are not going to persuade me that wealth and influence do not play a part in the decision to decline.
3) Loughton is hardly metropolitan elite central though, is it?...
It's within the M25 and has a tube. I wasn't expecting the King's bedroom.
[1] "Subsectioning: taking a part of a concept in response to an argument originally about the whole" - Oxford Dictionary Of Words I Made Up.
Being serious, while I think that all drugs should be legalised and treated as a taxed healthcare issue rather than a law and order issue, with their use discouraged firmly and socially ostracised ideally; coke (the drug) has to be by far the worst of all the drugs in my eyes.
Not because its addictive, nor because its deadly, but because anyone who abuses coke is almost inevitably a complete and utter douchebag.
I'm not sure whether coke is just attractive to douchebags, or if coke makes you a douchebag, but the two are inextricably linked.
It’s the drug equivalent of Colin Hunt from the Fast Show. Tragic person with no personality tries to be a bit whacky but stripped of the coke/bow tie and crazy clothes is a dull salesman from Swindon. They dream of going full wolf of Wall Street and snorting it off a girl’s arse but their wife won’t let them as they’ve just changed the bedsheets that week and don’t want a mess before the next change, and they really gave up showing their arse to Colin after the second child.
What have the cool crowd moved onto now then?
The stringy bits from bananas- you toast them and then smoke them in a roll-up. True story.
That doesn't sound very cool.
That’s why it’s cool. Do it/wear it before it’s cool and you are cool. If you do it/wear it when it’s cool then it’s no longer cool.
Ah ok. Yes. Like if you walk faster than the rain falls you never get wet.
1) Your niece or nephew, if charged with possession of a small amount of cocaine (i.e. enough for a couple of personal doses), with no aggravating circumstances would receive a Band C fine, probably reduced to Band A on account of their youth & remorse if they were sensible enough to take the advice of their lawyer on how to present themselves in court:
2) We do not enforce every law on the books to the fullest extent of the law - if we did, the courts would overflow even more than they already do & the prisons likewise. It simply isn’t in the public interest to take many crimes to court & the CPS therefore (rightly) declines to prosecute.
3) Loughton is hardly metropolitan elite central though, is it? I suspect what you really meant is that he /knows/ the right people. This might be true, but the NCA prosecuted him nonetheless & I suspect if you read the sentencing guidelines for possession of child pornography of the relevant grades you’d find his sentence was within the expected guidelines.
1) Your niece or nephew, if charged with possession of a small amount of cocaine...
That's subsectioning[1]. How about a large amount of cocaine?
2) We do not enforce every law on the books to the fullest extent of the law...
As per my reply to Barty above, we should. You are not going to persuade me that wealth and influence do not play a part in the decision to decline.
3) Loughton is hardly metropolitan elite central though, is it?...
It's within the M25 and has a tube. I wasn't expecting the King's bedroom.
[1] "Subsectioning: taking a part of a concept in response to an argument originally about the whole" - Oxford Dictionary Of Words I Made Up.
Gove didn’t confess to a large amount of cocaine, so why bring up a large amount of cocaine?
Just back from Oppenheimer. What a movie. The best I have seen for several years. Surely going to sweep the board at the Oscars.
Not seen it yet, it would have been my pick personally but as a father to two young girls I was kind of obliged to go to the other half of 'Barbenheimer' first.
The things you do for your family.
Actually that film wasn't too bad, it had clearly been written actually with the fact parents would go to see it too in mind and had some quite funny bits.
Oppenheimer not really my cup of tea. I know the story and haven't ever really liked any of Nolans previous works.
I went to see Barbie though, and rather enjoyed it. Some great gags for the grown ups, particularly in spotting the other film references.
Not sure about the ending though, but presumably setting up Barbie 2 Loose in Los Angeles.
Some of the gags for grown ups were pretty risqué for a kids film. Like old jokes about Captain Pugwash and Master Bates. My wife and I were both nearly spitting out our soft drinks at one point.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
1) Your niece or nephew, if charged with possession of a small amount of cocaine (i.e. enough for a couple of personal doses), with no aggravating circumstances would receive a Band C fine, probably reduced to Band A on account of their youth & remorse if they were sensible enough to take the advice of their lawyer on how to present themselves in court:
2) We do not enforce every law on the books to the fullest extent of the law - if we did, the courts would overflow even more than they already do & the prisons likewise. It simply isn’t in the public interest to take many crimes to court & the CPS therefore (rightly) declines to prosecute.
3) Loughton is hardly metropolitan elite central though, is it? I suspect what you really meant is that he /knows/ the right people. This might be true, but the NCA prosecuted him nonetheless & I suspect if you read the sentencing guidelines for possession of child pornography of the relevant grades you’d find his sentence was within the expected guidelines.
1) Your niece or nephew, if charged with possession of a small amount of cocaine...
That's subsectioning[1]. How about a large amount of cocaine?
2) We do not enforce every law on the books to the fullest extent of the law...
As per my reply to Barty above, we should. You are not going to persuade me that wealth and influence do not play a part in the decision to decline.
3) Loughton is hardly metropolitan elite central though, is it?...
It's within the M25 and has a tube. I wasn't expecting the King's bedroom.
[1] "Subsectioning: taking a part of a concept in response to an argument originally about the whole" - Oxford Dictionary Of Words I Made Up.
You made the universal claim that possession would lead to a prison sentence for your relatives, not me! Pointing out that the sentencing guidelines are very clear that possession of small amounts (i.e. low single digit doses) would result in a fine is all that’s required to counter that claim. Obviously, were there to be aggravating circumstances then a prison sentence might be appropriate. Again, the sentencing guidelines are there to be read if you want the details.
Once again I don’t see where the public interest is in prosecuting a 20 year old offence with no evidence except the hearsay of the accused who is simply going to refuse to incriminate themselves if interviewed by the police. The CPS clearly agrees with me & not you. Feel free to lobby your local MP to change their view: I doubt you’ll get very far.
More than 10 million people live within the M25. I don’t think that makes them automatically posh, nor does it make them plugged into the systems of power. This individual might have had influence for other reasons than where they lived, but it didn’t help them much when the NCA came knocking.
1) Your niece or nephew, if charged with possession of a small amount of cocaine (i.e. enough for a couple of personal doses), with no aggravating circumstances would receive a Band C fine, probably reduced to Band A on account of their youth & remorse if they were sensible enough to take the advice of their lawyer on how to present themselves in court:
2) We do not enforce every law on the books to the fullest extent of the law - if we did, the courts would overflow even more than they already do & the prisons likewise. It simply isn’t in the public interest to take many crimes to court & the CPS therefore (rightly) declines to prosecute.
3) Loughton is hardly metropolitan elite central though, is it? I suspect what you really meant is that he /knows/ the right people. This might be true, but the NCA prosecuted him nonetheless & I suspect if you read the sentencing guidelines for possession of child pornography of the relevant grades you’d find his sentence was within the expected guidelines.
1) Your niece or nephew, if charged with possession of a small amount of cocaine...
That's subsectioning[1]. How about a large amount of cocaine?
2) We do not enforce every law on the books to the fullest extent of the law...
As per my reply to Barty above, we should. You are not going to persuade me that wealth and influence do not play a part in the decision to decline.
3) Loughton is hardly metropolitan elite central though, is it?...
It's within the M25 and has a tube. I wasn't expecting the King's bedroom.
[1] "Subsectioning: taking a part of a concept in response to an argument originally about the whole" - Oxford Dictionary Of Words I Made Up.
Gove didn’t confess to a large amount of cocaine, so why bring up a large amount of cocaine?
Being serious, while I think that all drugs should be legalised and treated as a taxed healthcare issue rather than a law and order issue, with their use discouraged firmly and socially ostracised ideally; coke (the drug) has to be by far the worst of all the drugs in my eyes.
Not because its addictive, nor because its deadly, but because anyone who abuses coke is almost inevitably a complete and utter douchebag.
I'm not sure whether coke is just attractive to douchebags, or if coke makes you a douchebag, but the two are inextricably linked.
It’s the drug equivalent of Colin Hunt from the Fast Show. Tragic person with no personality tries to be a bit whacky but stripped of the coke/bow tie and crazy clothes is a dull salesman from Swindon. They dream of going full wolf of Wall Street and snorting it off a girl’s arse but their wife won’t let them as they’ve just changed the bedsheets that week and don’t want a mess before the next change, and they really gave up showing their arse to Colin after the second child.
What have the cool crowd moved onto now then?
The stringy bits from bananas- you toast them and then smoke them in a roll-up. True story.
That doesn't sound very cool.
That’s why it’s cool. Do it/wear it before it’s cool and you are cool. If you do it/wear it when it’s cool then it’s no longer cool.
If you never care about being cool, it never matters if you are not.
For me the definition of Cool is Bob Dylan in Don't Look Back. That's the benchmark.
The scene where Dylan gets out of the limo to stretch his legs while waiting for the Awst Ferry with the uncompleted Severn Bridge in the background. That's what I call cool. I even took a detour to find the old ferry terminal. Ten years ago it was still visible behind the weeds and brambles. That really is the Shock Of The Old.
1) Your niece or nephew, if charged with possession of a small amount of cocaine (i.e. enough for a couple of personal doses), with no aggravating circumstances would receive a Band C fine, probably reduced to Band A on account of their youth & remorse if they were sensible enough to take the advice of their lawyer on how to present themselves in court:
2) We do not enforce every law on the books to the fullest extent of the law - if we did, the courts would overflow even more than they already do & the prisons likewise. It simply isn’t in the public interest to take many crimes to court & the CPS therefore (rightly) declines to prosecute.
3) Loughton is hardly metropolitan elite central though, is it? I suspect what you really meant is that he /knows/ the right people. This might be true, but the NCA prosecuted him nonetheless & I suspect if you read the sentencing guidelines for possession of child pornography of the relevant grades you’d find his sentence was within the expected guidelines.
1) Your niece or nephew, if charged with possession of a small amount of cocaine...
That's subsectioning[1]. How about a large amount of cocaine?
2) We do not enforce every law on the books to the fullest extent of the law...
As per my reply to Barty above, we should. You are not going to persuade me that wealth and influence do not play a part in the decision to decline.
3) Loughton is hardly metropolitan elite central though, is it?...
It's within the M25 and has a tube. I wasn't expecting the King's bedroom.
[1] "Subsectioning: taking a part of a concept in response to an argument originally about the whole" - Oxford Dictionary Of Words I Made Up.
Gove didn’t confess to a large amount of cocaine, so why bring up a large amount of cocaine?
Because Phil subsectioned.
But the bigger discussion is about Gove, and about whether wealth and influence played a part in the lack of action.
If you want to know the sentencing guidelines for large amounts of cocaine, you can look them up. But they’re not relevant to the question at hand.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different view, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
Just back from Oppenheimer. What a movie. The best I have seen for several years. Surely going to sweep the board at the Oscars.
What did you think of the "nuclear" explosion? The copies I've seen online are underwhelming
I thought it was ok. People getting caught out by the light and then the delay until the noise and the wind. In a cinema I think it worked. But the cast was just outstanding, Cillian Murphy, Matt Damon and Robert Downey Jnr in particular. It built to a tremendous crescendo. Whilst the threads of the various time lines were a bit confusing at the beginning they came together superbly. Complicated characters, dramatic background, moral dilemmas, it really had it all.
The thing that annoyed me was the lack of scale - it gave the impression the Manhattan Project was a one horse town in the desert. Rather than a vast industrial enterprise with factories miles long, using all the silver in the US for magnet wiring etc etc.
Bit like the Dunkirk film - which gave the impression that the beach was empty. Rather containing whole French and English armies.
I would agree with that. You never get the scale of the whole enterprise thrown at you. $2bn in 1943 dollars. A huge industrial achievement. It looked a bit like the whole thing was thrown together by a bunch of whacky and egotistical scientists over a long weekend. Marbles being thrown into a bowl reflecting the quantity of uranium and plutonium available without any concept of what an effort that was. But is a brilliant film.
I know its a myth, but it being long before my time I've never seen that show but the only reason I've ever heard about that show is because people have still joked about it [for the myth] for decades, hence old jokes about that ...
If I wanted to go for one that's not a myth, I could have used Rainbow's four skin banana gag (which of course was also never televised as a part of Rainbow but the cast did genuinely make it).
They were pushing that sort of line in the movie at one point.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
At the moment we have the direct health impact of drugs, plus the huge criminal enterprise that supports and benefits from the supply of drugs. At least with northern_monkey's approach the quality of drugs could be regulated and the spend on them taxed.
Coming back to Prince William's failure to go to the world cup, this has now been the most-read story on the BBC News website all evening:
My mind is still boggling at the scale of the potential disaster here. If England win tomorrow, and the most senior person in attendance is.... Lucy Frazer (who?!), then all hell is going to break loose.
And rightly so - England teams have only ever reached the finals of international competitions for the 1966 world cup and Euro 2020. Royals and senior politicians were in attendance on both occasions.
Baldy is the President of the English FA. I assume that he'll be resigning on Monday morning.
The 1966 world cup was in England, Euro 2020 was also in London for the final.
Neither were over the other side of the world in another continent as tomorrow's will be in Australia at a time of rising concern over unnecessary flights adding to climate change
viewcode said: "Surely [Oppenheimer is] going to sweep the board at the Oscars."
So, probably even worse than I have been fearing.
(In recent years, I have come to the unhappy conclusion that the journalism Pulitzers and the Oscars are both -- usually -- awarded to works that an intelligent and sensible person should avoid.)
Just back from Oppenheimer. What a movie. The best I have seen for several years. Surely going to sweep the board at the Oscars.
Not seen it yet, it would have been my pick personally but as a father to two young girls I was kind of obliged to go to the other half of 'Barbenheimer' first.
The things you do for your family.
Actually that film wasn't too bad, it had clearly been written actually with the fact parents would go to see it too in mind and had some quite funny bits.
Oppenheimer not really my cup of tea. I know the story and haven't ever really liked any of Nolans previous works.
I went to see Barbie though, and rather enjoyed it. Some great gags for the grown ups, particularly in spotting the other film references.
Not sure about the ending though, but presumably setting up Barbie 2 Loose in Los Angeles.
Some of the gags for grown ups were pretty risqué for a kids film. Like old jokes about Captain Pugwash and Master Bates. My wife and I were both nearly spitting out our soft drinks at one point.
There was even a joke going around at Westminster about an MP called Mr Pincher.
Apropos nothing in particular I've just had a drunken reverie in which Brighton were top of the Premier League. I promise not to touch Montepulciano d'Abruzzo ever again.
Being serious, while I think that all drugs should be legalised and treated as a taxed healthcare issue rather than a law and order issue, with their use discouraged firmly and socially ostracised ideally; coke (the drug) has to be by far the worst of all the drugs in my eyes.
Not because its addictive, nor because its deadly, but because anyone who abuses coke is almost inevitably a complete and utter douchebag.
I'm not sure whether coke is just attractive to douchebags, or if coke makes you a douchebag, but the two are inextricably linked.
It’s the drug equivalent of Colin Hunt from the Fast Show. Tragic person with no personality tries to be a bit whacky but stripped of the coke/bow tie and crazy clothes is a dull salesman from Swindon. They dream of going full wolf of Wall Street and snorting it off a girl’s arse but their wife won’t let them as they’ve just changed the bedsheets that week and don’t want a mess before the next change, and they really gave up showing their arse to Colin after the second child.
What have the cool crowd moved onto now then?
The stringy bits from bananas- you toast them and then smoke them in a roll-up. True story.
That doesn't sound very cool.
That’s why it’s cool. Do it/wear it before it’s cool and you are cool. If you do it/wear it when it’s cool then it’s no longer cool.
Ah ok. Yes. Like if you walk faster than the rain falls you never get wet.
48% to form a majority, 46% a minority so it's far from a foregone conclusion the Conservatives will be able to form a Government if the Liberals, NDP and BQ can get enough seats.
Yes, Polievre is an effective Opposition Leader if a little nerdy to Trudeau's more charismatic Liberal PM but he may face the same problem the Spanish PP leader had last month, he wins most seats but not enough to be sure of becoming PM without a majority (and Trudeau like Sanchez should not be written off, both have won tough elections before).
It is certainly hard to see the NDP allowing Polilievre to become PM now they have a confidence and supply deal with Trudeau's minority Liberal government
viewcode said: "Surely [Oppenheimer is] going to sweep the board at the Oscars."
So, probably even worse than I have been fearing.
(In recent years, I have come to the unhappy conclusion that the journalism Pulitzers and the Oscars are both -- usually -- awarded to works that an intelligent and sensible person should avoid.)
Coming back to Prince William's failure to go to the world cup, this has now been the most-read story on the BBC News website all evening:
My mind is still boggling at the scale of the potential disaster here. If England win tomorrow, and the most senior person in attendance is.... Lucy Frazer (who?!), then all hell is going to break loose.
And rightly so - England teams have only ever reached the finals of international competitions for the 1966 world cup and Euro 2020. Royals and senior politicians were in attendance on both occasions.
Baldy is the President of the English FA. I assume that he'll be resigning on Monday morning.
The 1966 world cup was in England, Euro 2020 was also in London for the final.
Neither were over the other side of the world in another continent as tomorrow's will be in Australia at a time of rising concern over unnecessary flights adding to climate change
It’s a trap! If POW or Rishi go then there’s a whole raft of articles about “so the big guns only care about women and women’s football when they get to the final and they want the upside by association” alongside the guardian article bemoaning a waste of taxpayer money and damage to the environment flying for 20 hours to watch a football match.
As I said before the moment England got to the final a plan that had been planned should have been announced to host a huge outdoor screening in one of the royal parks with loads of kids and sunny delight for all. Say “we give lots of shits about the environment so we aren’t flying but we love women and love football etc etc”.
I (unexpectedly) had a couple of hours to kill in Birmingham yesterday and ended up watching L’Immensita (at the Electric). Lovely film. If you’re looking for an alternative to the ubiquitous Barbenheimer I’d recommend it.
I'm planning to retire in a couple of years and thinking of taking a history degree. I'll be living near Oxford so I've been wondering whether they'd consider me - is a maths PhD helpful, or would I have to start with A-levels??
An answer I’d be interested in, too. (Though I don’t even have a degree.)
I've had several interesting replies to follow up. If you drop me a line (nickmp1@aol.com) I'll keep you posted.
A PhD demonstrates you’re clever and know how to study. I am imagine your CV as an ex-MP will more than make up for any lack of specific history qualifications. You probably need to write a personal statement explaining that you have informally studied history. But I think you’d be accepted happily.
Postgrad would be lovely...I'll investigate. Thank you for the encouragement!
Coming back to Prince William's failure to go to the world cup, this has now been the most-read story on the BBC News website all evening:
My mind is still boggling at the scale of the potential disaster here. If England win tomorrow, and the most senior person in attendance is.... Lucy Frazer (who?!), then all hell is going to break loose.
And rightly so - England teams have only ever reached the finals of international competitions for the 1966 world cup and Euro 2020. Royals and senior politicians were in attendance on both occasions.
Baldy is the President of the English FA. I assume that he'll be resigning on Monday morning.
The 1966 world cup was in England, Euro 2020 was also in London for the final.
Neither were over the other side of the world in another continent as tomorrow's will be in Australia at a time of rising concern over unnecessary flights adding to climate change
Yeah and its not as if the President of the Football Association is part of the monarchy for Australia too.
Oh wait ...
From your attitude it sounds like you want Australia to be a republic.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
At the moment we have the direct health impact of drugs, plus the huge criminal enterprise that supports and benefits from the supply of drugs. At least with northern_monkey's approach the quality of drugs could be regulated and the spend on them taxed.
Though the evidence from places that have legalised is mixed at best, and shows harm at worst.
Click on any stop on the map or stop name on the table on the right for the video
That's 501 centre Manc plus 100 Metrolink = 601
6 are duplicates
2024 I do 405 pubs around Greater Manc to get to 1,000 unique bars / pubs in Manc
Good man. You'll get your reward in heaven if not in Manchester. My favourite Mancs pub is Peveril of the Peak. Wonderfully preserved on a triangular plot worth trillions:
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
At the moment we have the direct health impact of drugs, plus the huge criminal enterprise that supports and benefits from the supply of drugs. At least with northern_monkey's approach the quality of drugs could be regulated and the spend on them taxed.
Though the evidence from places that have legalised I'd mixed at best, and shows harm at worst.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
At the moment we have the direct health impact of drugs, plus the huge criminal enterprise that supports and benefits from the supply of drugs. At least with northern_monkey's approach the quality of drugs could be regulated and the spend on them taxed.
Though the evidence from places that have legalised I'd mixed at best, and shows harm at worst.
[Citation Needed]
Decades of "war on drugs" certainly has failed and caused immense harm.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
At the moment we have the direct health impact of drugs, plus the huge criminal enterprise that supports and benefits from the supply of drugs. At least with northern_monkey's approach the quality of drugs could be regulated and the spend on them taxed.
Would the regulate and tax scenario lead to an increase or a decrease in drugs usage, do we think?
A PhD demonstrates you’re clever and know how to study. I am imagine your CV as an ex-MP will more than make up for any lack of specific history qualifications. You probably need to write a personal statement explaining that you have informally studied history. But I think you’d be accepted happily.
Postgrad would be lovely...I'll investigate. Thank you for the encouragement!
Suggest that, instead of writing "a personal statement explaining that you have informally studied history" you tell 'em, that you MADE history.
Many thanks to Still Waters, Carnyx, Malmesbury, Nigelb and Peter for their very helpful thoughts, which I'll explore.
What I tentatively had in mind was some research on politics in interwar Eastern Europe, which I imagine isn't that heavily researched in Britain but of course has echoes today. My mother grew up in the Polish Corridor and had extensive stories about life and attitudes then. But perhaps I'll find the available themes are quite different.
Coming back to Prince William's failure to go to the world cup, this has now been the most-read story on the BBC News website all evening:
My mind is still boggling at the scale of the potential disaster here. If England win tomorrow, and the most senior person in attendance is.... Lucy Frazer (who?!), then all hell is going to break loose.
And rightly so - England teams have only ever reached the finals of international competitions for the 1966 world cup and Euro 2020. Royals and senior politicians were in attendance on both occasions.
Baldy is the President of the English FA. I assume that he'll be resigning on Monday morning.
The 1966 world cup was in England, Euro 2020 was also in London for the final.
Neither were over the other side of the world in another continent as tomorrow's will be in Australia at a time of rising concern over unnecessary flights adding to climate change
Yeah and its not as if the President of the Football Association is part of the monarchy for Australia too.
Oh wait ...
From your attitude it sounds like you want Australia to be a republic.
Royalty don't go to Australia in August. They go in January. They're not stupid.
The US drug overdose problem has gotten so bad that even our junior senator, Maria Cantwell, has caught on to it, and was doing a listening tour.
I don't think the second paragraph is intentionally ironic: "Drug deaths nationwide hit a new record in 2022. 109,680 people died as the fentanyl crisis continued to deepen, according to preliminary data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. . . . There is some good news in this report. Overdose fatalities rose in 2022 at a much slower rate." (Link omitted.) Brian Mann and I have different definitions of good news. source: https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176830906/overdose-death-2022-record
Coming back to Prince William's failure to go to the world cup, this has now been the most-read story on the BBC News website all evening:
My mind is still boggling at the scale of the potential disaster here. If England win tomorrow, and the most senior person in attendance is.... Lucy Frazer (who?!), then all hell is going to break loose.
And rightly so - England teams have only ever reached the finals of international competitions for the 1966 world cup and Euro 2020. Royals and senior politicians were in attendance on both occasions.
Baldy is the President of the English FA. I assume that he'll be resigning on Monday morning.
The 1966 world cup was in England, Euro 2020 was also in London for the final.
Neither were over the other side of the world in another continent as tomorrow's will be in Australia at a time of rising concern over unnecessary flights adding to climate change
Sorry, but that's rubbish. The additional carbon footprint of Baldy & Hatchet taking a jumpseat or an unfilled Club World seat on a flight that's going anyway would have been miniscule compared to all the other flights they've taken.
Are you saying that he should never fly again?
He's President of the FA, ffs. If he's ever going to fly abroad, this was the time to have done it.
Many thanks to Still Waters, Carnyx, Malmesbury, Nigelb and Peter for their very helpful thoughts, which I'll explore.
What I tentatively had in mind was some research on politics in interwar Eastern Europe, which I imagine isn't that heavily researched in Britain but of course has echoes today. My mother grew up in the Polish Corridor and had extensive stories about life and attitudes then. But perhaps I'll find the available themes are quite different.
Not sure how it works in the arts, but in my field, for a PhD, you find the supervisor first, and worry about everything else later. Especially since, as a mature student, you're less worried about prestige of institution.
Find who's in your subfield, and meet them in person. As a former MP they're probably much more likely to give you the time of day. Offer them lunch.
Oh, and as a self-funded student, don't let yourself be bounced into anything - any hobbyhorse or preconceived theme of the supervisor.
Ridiculous criticism of Prince William for not going to the football match, when we all know he would have received just as much criticism if he had gone.
Ridiculous criticism of Prince William for not going to the football match, when we all know he would have received just as much criticism if he had gone.
President of the Football Association goes to see England in the World Cup Final would have got no criticism.
Its his job, and he's not doing it. He shouldn't be President of the FA then, let a civilian who will do their job do it.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different view, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
It just strikes me as futile to continue to ban recreational drugs - particularly when they are, to all intents and purposes, let’s be honest, decriminalised for personal use anyway - when one particular, legal, recreational drug is so central to our culture. Think of all the lovely tax we could be raking in. There is no moral difference between taking one or the other. The damage alcohol does dwarves that of any other drug.
What constitutes a dope head, what level of consumption? 1 joint on an evening? 2, 3? What strength would they need to be? What amount will cause national decline? ‘Cos I know a lot of folk who are doing a lot of boozing every night and there can’t be great for UK PLC. How many MPs, in their subsidised bars, are fighting national decline by drinking less than 14 units a week? How many millions of people across the country, in responsible positions, are habitually doing a bottle of wine a night? A few large whiskies?
Millions of people wake up every day slightly fuzzy round the edges from a few drinks the night before. The impact on any putative national decline of a few spliffs or lines here and there is tiny in comparison, I’d say.
I (unexpectedly) had a couple of hours to kill in Birmingham yesterday and ended up watching L’Immensita (at the Electric). Lovely film. If you’re looking for an alternative to the ubiquitous Barbenheimer I’d recommend it.
I used to haunt arthouse cinemas like they were bomb shelters. But they are not a big thing where I am now. I am thinking of taking a part day off tomorrow as I have to go to town to fill a scrip. I may go and see a film, and I was wondering whether to see Meg 2 or Blue Beetle. I really wasn't expecting my life to end up like this...
[Verse 1] I will build myself a home Out of the cinders and the dust I won't surface for a year I'll drink rainwater from my cup And I will dream a whole new scenery So far from what I love To see myself in dreams just standing Staring at these doors long shut
And I will count my fucking blessings That I am even here at all And I'll take comfort in each misery I'll cherish each stumble, each fall's A little closer to the beginning To the start of every song That sleeps so silent in your chest That sleeps so silent in your soul
[Chorus] And I won't pray for you I won't long for your safe return And I won't pine for you I won't wait to be told to run
[Verse 2] I will suffocate all notion Of an existence without this I will negate an understanding Between free will and realising That anything I had ever prayed on Anything I had ever loved Was just the echo of some other That I swore I'd never touch And I will call myself an army And I will call myself a king And I will never love another I won't recall a single thing
[Chorus] And I won't pray for you I won't long for your safe return And I won't pine for you I won't wait to be told to run
Many thanks to Still Waters, Carnyx, Malmesbury, Nigelb and Peter for their very helpful thoughts, which I'll explore.
What I tentatively had in mind was some research on politics in interwar Eastern Europe, which I imagine isn't that heavily researched in Britain but of course has echoes today. My mother grew up in the Polish Corridor and had extensive stories about life and attitudes then. But perhaps I'll find the available themes are quite different.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different view, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
It just strikes me as futile to continue to ban recreational drugs - particularly when they are, to all intents and purposes, let’s be honest, decriminalised for personal use anyway - when one particular, legal, recreational drug is so central to our culture. Think of all the lovely tax we could be raking in. There is no moral difference between taking one or the other. The damage alcohol does dwarves that of any other drug.
What constitutes a dope head, what level of consumption? 1 joint on an evening? 2, 3? What strength would they need to be? What amount will cause national decline? ‘Cos I know a lot of folk who are doing a lot of boozing every night and there can’t be great for UK PLC. How many MPs, in their subsidised bars, are fighting national decline by drinking less than 14 units a week? How many millions of people across the country, in responsible positions, are habitually doing a bottle of wine a night? A few large whiskies?
Millions of people wake up every day slightly fuzzy round the edges from a few drinks the night before. The impact on any putative national decline of a few spliffs or lines here and there is tiny in comparison, I’d say.
Legalisation absolutely should happen and I hope Labour do it when they're in charge.
1. Tax it. Billions in tax revenues, instead of billions spent on a futile and failed war on drugs. 2. Education and healthcare beats police and prison. 3. Prohibition has failed. 4. Legalisation allows regulation. People know what they're getting, and the strength they're getting, rather than something stronger or laced with another product.
There is no good reason not to legalise and tax it.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
At the moment we have the direct health impact of drugs, plus the huge criminal enterprise that supports and benefits from the supply of drugs. At least with northern_monkey's approach the quality of drugs could be regulated and the spend on them taxed.
Would the regulate and tax scenario lead to an increase or a decrease in drugs usage, do we think?
I imagine it'd be like the end of alcohol prohibition in the USA: an increase in total consumption, not much change in individual peak consumption, and a substantial decrease in the amount of gangsterism around it.
Who would play you in the film of your life? I’ve got to go for Colin Firth because he played Mark Darcy, the human-rights lawyer in Bridget Jones’s Diary. There’s been this rumour going on for years that he’s modelled on me – and the honest answer is, I don’t know.
The best single piece I have seen on the drug overdose problem in the US is a column by Megan McArdle, which ends as follows: "Drug users must understand that if they cannot take drugs without also committing crimes, injecting in public places or camping on the street, they will be forced into treatment.
Now, as a libertarian, I was pretty uncomfortable writing that last sentence, and reading it might well have made you uneasy, too. Many people will no doubt be equally wary of giving up on controlling the use of indisputably harmful drugs. But overdose has become the leading cause of nonmedical death in the United States, and we seem to be out of comfortable options. We might have to settle for one that results in fewer deaths." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/25/legalize-fentanyl-overdose-deaths/
Who would play you in the film of your life? I’ve got to go for Colin Firth because he played Mark Darcy, the human-rights lawyer in Bridget Jones’s Diary. There’s been this rumour going on for years that he’s modelled on me – and the honest answer is, I don’t know.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different view, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
It just strikes me as futile to continue to ban recreational drugs - particularly when they are, to all intents and purposes, let’s be honest, decriminalised for personal use anyway - when one particular, legal, recreational drug is so central to our culture. Think of all the lovely tax we could be raking in. There is no moral difference between taking one or the other. The damage alcohol does dwarves that of any other drug.
What constitutes a dope head, what level of consumption? 1 joint on an evening? 2, 3? What strength would they need to be? What amount will cause national decline? ‘Cos I know a lot of folk who are doing a lot of boozing every night and there can’t be great for UK PLC. How many MPs, in their subsidised bars, are fighting national decline by drinking less than 14 units a week? How many millions of people across the country, in responsible positions, are habitually doing a bottle of wine a night? A few large whiskies?
Millions of people wake up every day slightly fuzzy round the edges from a few drinks the night before. The impact on any putative national decline of a few spliffs or lines here and there is tiny in comparison, I’d say.
Legalisation absolutely should happen and I hope Labour do it when they're in charge.
1. Tax it. Billions in tax revenues, instead of billions spent on a futile and failed war on drugs. 2. Education and healthcare beats police and prison. 3. Prohibition has failed. 4. Legalisation allows regulation. People know what they're getting, and the strength they're getting, rather than something stronger or laced with another product.
There is no good reason not to legalise and tax it.
It always baffles me as to how 'all powerful' the treasury is supposed to be, and yet we're not not taxing the f**k out of the drug trade.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different view, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
Is that in dispute ?
The real question is how best to address that. We didn’t ban cigarettes - but smoking has dropped massively.
Coming back to Prince William's failure to go to the world cup, this has now been the most-read story on the BBC News website all evening:
My mind is still boggling at the scale of the potential disaster here. If England win tomorrow, and the most senior person in attendance is.... Lucy Frazer (who?!), then all hell is going to break loose.
And rightly so - England teams have only ever reached the finals of international competitions for the 1966 world cup and Euro 2020. Royals and senior politicians were in attendance on both occasions.
Baldy is the President of the English FA. I assume that he'll be resigning on Monday morning.
The 1966 world cup was in England, Euro 2020 was also in London for the final.
Neither were over the other side of the world in another continent as tomorrow's will be in Australia at a time of rising concern over unnecessary flights adding to climate change
Yeah and its not as if the President of the Football Association is part of the monarchy for Australia too.
Oh wait ...
From your attitude it sounds like you want Australia to be a republic.
Australia aren't in the final, why on earth would they be impressed the Prince only goes over to watch the Pommies in the final who knocked out their own Matildas team?
Just back from Oppenheimer. What a movie. The best I have seen for several years. Surely going to sweep the board at the Oscars.
What did you think of the "nuclear" explosion? The copies I've seen online are underwhelming
I thought it was ok. People getting caught out by the light and then the delay until the noise and the wind. In a cinema I think it worked. But the cast was just outstanding, Cillian Murphy, Matt Damon and Robert Downey Jnr in particular. It built to a tremendous crescendo. Whilst the threads of the various time lines were a bit confusing at the beginning they came together superbly. Complicated characters, dramatic background, moral dilemmas, it really had it all.
The thing that annoyed me was the lack of scale - it gave the impression the Manhattan Project was a one horse town in the desert. Rather than a vast industrial enterprise with factories miles long, using all the silver in the US for magnet wiring etc etc.
Bit like the Dunkirk film - which gave the impression that the beach was empty. Rather containing whole French and English armies.
I would agree with that. You never get the scale of the whole enterprise thrown at you. $2bn in 1943 dollars. A huge industrial achievement. It looked a bit like the whole thing was thrown together by a bunch of whacky and egotistical scientists over a long weekend. Marbles being thrown into a bowl reflecting the quantity of uranium and plutonium available without any concept of what an effort that was. But is a brilliant film.
You could have done something eirie and cool with the plutonium separation “Canyons”, for example. Factories with no people.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
At the moment we have the direct health impact of drugs, plus the huge criminal enterprise that supports and benefits from the supply of drugs. At least with northern_monkey's approach the quality of drugs could be regulated and the spend on them taxed.
Would the regulate and tax scenario lead to an increase or a decrease in drugs usage, do we think?
I imagine it'd be like the end of alcohol prohibition in the USA: an increase in total consumption, not much change in individual peak consumption, and a substantial decrease in the amount of gangsterism around it.
And possibly a decrease in the strength that most people consume.
With alcohol the worst physically for you is spirits (like gin) and those are the easiest to smuggle due to their compact nature under prohibition. Or worse spirits laced with other things.
Most legalised drinking now is lower strength. Beer or wine rather than spirits.
Same has happened with drugs under prohibition. The strength of cannabis etc has been getting stronger and stronger.
Legalise it, tax it by its strength (like alcohol) and we'll probably find people consuming lower strength versions of it. The beer version, not the high strength skunk.
The best single piece I have seen on the drug overdose problem in the US is a column by Megan McArdle, which ends as follows: "Drug users must understand that if they cannot take drugs without also committing crimes, injecting in public places or camping on the street, they will be forced into treatment.
Now, as a libertarian, I was pretty uncomfortable writing that last sentence, and reading it might well have made you uneasy, too. Many people will no doubt be equally wary of giving up on controlling the use of indisputably harmful drugs. But overdose has become the leading cause of nonmedical death in the United States, and we seem to be out of comfortable options. We might have to settle for one that results in fewer deaths." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/25/legalize-fentanyl-overdose-deaths/
Surely this is ignoring the problem. "If they cannot take drugs without also committing crimes, injecting in public places or camping on the street" it's because they're cannon fodder in the War Against Drugs, not because they're inherently unreliable.
Is it just me, or does this Trump rant not actually come across as authentically from him? It seems a little too coherent, the rhetorical question about such behaviour being horrible and whether he could do it if elected seems out of keeping with his other statements that he'd definitely weaponise the DoJ to do it, and the final line is rather milquetoast as far as Trump warnings go, not to mention there isn't a single allcaps word in the entire thing.
I know Brexit is all so boring now blah blah blah, and the article does point out that there are other factors, but things like this really does make you wonder what the hell was the bloody point:
Liberty is like that. You may think it was a shit decision, but that’s what the voters decided.
As Ben Franklin put it:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the result.
The Brexit referendum gave the voters the chance to contest the settled consensus among the leading political parties
The voters get a chance to contest the settled consensus among the leading political parties every five years.
Not on a single issue. That’s exactly the point. A general election is about selecting a government. Until 2016, for all of my adult life, all of the top 3/4 political parties were in favour of remaining in the EU.
Unless someone was willing to vote for ukip or Veritas, the Referendum Party or the BNP (and there are lots of good reasons for not wanting to vote for any of those parties) there was no way to support leaving the EU at a general election.
You’ve listed several parties you could have voted for. UKIP began winning significant numbers of seats, and even their vote tallies without winning seats exerted democratic pressure. The Referendum Party before then won the fourth most votes at the 1997 general election, and they didn’t have the same right-wing baggage on other policy issues.
You are mistaken, however, in suggesting those were the only Eurosceptic options. There were other parties that also favoured leaving the EU. The Greens were firmly anti-EU in the 1980s and into the 1990s. Even later, they weren’t proposing leaving, but we’re still very critical. I believe both the twice recreated SDP and the recreated Liberal Party were and are also anti-EU. The DUP, TUV and PBP were all anti-EU in Northern Ireland.
I don’t know when your adult life began, but Labour opposed EU membership from 1951 to past 1983. So, you have a top 2 party option until 1983. In 1987 and 1992, the 4th biggest party in England, the Greens, were an option for you. In 1997, the 4th placed party nationally was the Referendum Party. In 2001, UKIP were 5th nationally, 4th in England.
I mean, FPTP sucks and the options are usually limited under it, but that’s a broader problem!
Outside of Northern Ireland, none of those parties had a realistic chance of forming a government. Additionally they all had baggage - Goldsmith was a dreadful man, UKIP were closet loons and racists, the Greens had ludicrous economic policies and I don’t recall the new SDP or Liberals ever standing in a constituency I could vote in.
The point is that only 2 parties(Lab, Con) could realistically lead the government with 2 others (LD, SNP) possibly playing a role. All of them were supportive of playing a full role in the EU.
On that issue specifically there was no way to change the outcome through traditional democratic politics. UKIP was only successful effectively as a pressure group that forced the Conservatives to change their position, not because of their own electoral success
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different view, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
It just strikes me as futile to continue to ban recreational drugs - particularly when they are, to all intents and purposes, let’s be honest, decriminalised for personal use anyway - when one particular, legal, recreational drug is so central to our culture. Think of all the lovely tax we could be raking in. There is no moral difference between taking one or the other. The damage alcohol does dwarves that of any other drug.
What constitutes a dope head, what level of consumption? 1 joint on an evening? 2, 3? What strength would they need to be? What amount will cause national decline? ‘Cos I know a lot of folk who are doing a lot of boozing every night and there can’t be great for UK PLC. How many MPs, in their subsidised bars, are fighting national decline by drinking less than 14 units a week? How many millions of people across the country, in responsible positions, are habitually doing a bottle of wine a night? A few large whiskies?
Millions of people wake up every day slightly fuzzy round the edges from a few drinks the night before. The impact on any putative national decline of a few spliffs or lines here and there is tiny in comparison, I’d say.
On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of middle-class parents compete to get their children a supply of amphetamines, which reliably add 10-20 points onto IQ test scores (Leon's not around, so I can safely mention IQ tests, right?).
And tens of millions of us use caffeine every day, which gives much less of a boost but is generally enough to counteract the fuzziness from the night before.
There's a huge amount of humbug and hypocrisy about drug use. But whatever your view, no-one is seriously proposing to give the police the resources needed to end their use. No-one actually wants us to be Singapore, let alone Saudi Arabia.
Is it just me, or does this Trump rant not actually come across as authentically from him? It seems a little too coherent, the rhetorical question about such behaviour being horrible and whether he could do it if elected seems out of keeping with his other statements that he'd definitely weaponise the DoJ to do it, and the final line is rather milquetoast as far as Trump warnings go, not to mention there isn't a single allcaps word in the entire thing.
Sounds like a massive threat. He will spend most of his presidency fighting vendettas.
I guess that means less time to cause a world war.
Also previously editor of the Independent on Sunday.
Hundreds of child abuse images over many years.
Why is he not in jail?
Because the jails are full & people who are not deemed an actual current threat are not going to be imprisoned when they would take up cell space that could be used to house someone else.
Our jails are horrendously overcrowded. There’s great outcry whenever the public gets to hear apparently lenient sentences handed out, but very little willingness to fund the prison building program that would house more prisoners:
I'd quite like to see a current analysis of jail population vs crime committed for various countries.
There are various groups that should obviously not be such a large group in prison, and some that need to have significantly more in prison.
The biggest obvious group is that in June 2023 a prison population of 85,851, fully 17% or 15,523 are on remand. That was under 9500 in 2018 and 2019. It should be 10% of prison capacity lower.
There are still people in prison from the New Labour Indeterminate Sentences debacle, though perhaps only ~1% of the prison population (My estimate). Yet another one where this Govt has sloped its shoulders.
And there is a group who now get suspended sentences in significant numbers, who should be in custody, which is dangerous drivers who kill with their motor vehicles. The system allows a lot to get off with a guaranteed guilty plea to Causing Death by Careless Driving. Again not a huge number compared to on remand, and admittedly a particular issue I try and keep an eye on.
The huge one is the on remand category, which is a post-Covid thing. Get the Court throughput resolved and the prison population pressure would go away.
I think I hard disagree on the driving issue. Yes, there is a level of recklessness which does justify custodial sentences, but the bar for this is should be pretty high. Very few people who kill someone in a road accident set out to do so*, most are just really unlucky whilst doing something slightly foolish or careless which under most circumstances would have zero consequences. If we lock these people up, what are we trying to achieve? Are we penalising them for being unlucky (for many people it will have already messed up enough of their lives in all sorts of ways anyway)? Are we seeking retribution? I'd think it's vanishingly unlikely many people will re-offend, so locking them up isn't making the public safer. In many cases, all we're doing if we jail someone is compounding the original tragedy by wrecking a second life, family, business etc.
*the exception to this is drink/drug driving. That's not unfortunate carelessness, it's a deliberate decision to do something endangering others - and those who are convicted often re-offend. Kill someone because of this, and I'm fine with locking you up and throwing away the key.
The best single piece I have seen on the drug overdose problem in the US is a column by Megan McArdle, which ends as follows: "Drug users must understand that if they cannot take drugs without also committing crimes, injecting in public places or camping on the street, they will be forced into treatment.
Now, as a libertarian, I was pretty uncomfortable writing that last sentence, and reading it might well have made you uneasy, too. Many people will no doubt be equally wary of giving up on controlling the use of indisputably harmful drugs. But overdose has become the leading cause of nonmedical death in the United States, and we seem to be out of comfortable options. We might have to settle for one that results in fewer deaths." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/25/legalize-fentanyl-overdose-deaths/
Surely this is ignoring the problem. "If they cannot take drugs without also committing crimes, injecting in public places or camping on the street" it's because they're cannon fodder in the War Against Drugs, not because they're inherently unreliable.
The best single piece I have seen on the drug overdose problem in the US is a column by Megan McArdle, which ends as follows: "Drug users must understand that if they cannot take drugs without also committing crimes, injecting in public places or camping on the street, they will be forced into treatment.
Now, as a libertarian, I was pretty uncomfortable writing that last sentence, and reading it might well have made you uneasy, too. Many people will no doubt be equally wary of giving up on controlling the use of indisputably harmful drugs. But overdose has become the leading cause of nonmedical death in the United States, and we seem to be out of comfortable options. We might have to settle for one that results in fewer deaths." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/25/legalize-fentanyl-overdose-deaths/
In America overdoses now kill more people than guns and cars combined, in the land of guns and cars.
Not much sign there that legalisation has either reduced consumption or stamped out the illegal trade.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different view, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
It just strikes me as futile to continue to ban recreational drugs - particularly when they are, to all intents and purposes, let’s be honest, decriminalised for personal use anyway - when one particular, legal, recreational drug is so central to our culture. Think of all the lovely tax we could be raking in. There is no moral difference between taking one or the other. The damage alcohol does dwarves that of any other drug.
What constitutes a dope head, what level of consumption? 1 joint on an evening? 2, 3? What strength would they need to be? What amount will cause national decline? ‘Cos I know a lot of folk who are doing a lot of boozing every night and there can’t be great for UK PLC. How many MPs, in their subsidised bars, are fighting national decline by drinking less than 14 units a week? How many millions of people across the country, in responsible positions, are habitually doing a bottle of wine a night? A few large whiskies?
Millions of people wake up every day slightly fuzzy round the edges from a few drinks the night before. The impact on any putative national decline of a few spliffs or lines here and there is tiny in comparison, I’d say.
On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of middle-class parents compete to get their children a supply of amphetamines, which reliably add 10-20 points onto IQ test scores (Leon's not around, so I can safely mention IQ tests, right?).
And tens of millions of us use caffeine every day, which gives much less of a boost but is generally enough to counteract the fuzziness from the night before.
There's a huge amount of humbug and hypocrisy about drug use. But whatever your view, no-one is seriously proposing to give the police the resources needed to end their use. No-one actually wants us to be Singapore, let alone Saudi Arabia.
Sure the War on Drugs has failed, but that doesn't mean that drugs are harmless, just that we have failed to protect our people.
The best single piece I have seen on the drug overdose problem in the US is a column by Megan McArdle, which ends as follows: "Drug users must understand that if they cannot take drugs without also committing crimes, injecting in public places or camping on the street, they will be forced into treatment.
Now, as a libertarian, I was pretty uncomfortable writing that last sentence, and reading it might well have made you uneasy, too. Many people will no doubt be equally wary of giving up on controlling the use of indisputably harmful drugs. But overdose has become the leading cause of nonmedical death in the United States, and we seem to be out of comfortable options. We might have to settle for one that results in fewer deaths." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/25/legalize-fentanyl-overdose-deaths/
Walking around big British cities, it's actually quite unusual to see anyone who looks like a drug addict these days.
There were 4,859 drug deaths in England and Wales in 2021, which would be equivalent to about 27,000 in the United States.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different view, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
It just strikes me as futile to continue to ban recreational drugs - particularly when they are, to all intents and purposes, let’s be honest, decriminalised for personal use anyway - when one particular, legal, recreational drug is so central to our culture. Think of all the lovely tax we could be raking in. There is no moral difference between taking one or the other. The damage alcohol does dwarves that of any other drug.
What constitutes a dope head, what level of consumption? 1 joint on an evening? 2, 3? What strength would they need to be? What amount will cause national decline? ‘Cos I know a lot of folk who are doing a lot of boozing every night and there can’t be great for UK PLC. How many MPs, in their subsidised bars, are fighting national decline by drinking less than 14 units a week? How many millions of people across the country, in responsible positions, are habitually doing a bottle of wine a night? A few large whiskies?
Millions of people wake up every day slightly fuzzy round the edges from a few drinks the night before. The impact on any putative national decline of a few spliffs or lines here and there is tiny in comparison, I’d say.
Legalisation absolutely should happen and I hope Labour do it when they're in charge.
1. Tax it. Billions in tax revenues, instead of billions spent on a futile and failed war on drugs. 2. Education and healthcare beats police and prison. 3. Prohibition has failed. 4. Legalisation allows regulation. People know what they're getting, and the strength they're getting, rather than something stronger or laced with another product.
There is no good reason not to legalise and tax it.
As it applies to mariajuana it might be different if it was still perceived as a huge societal ill, but whilst not everyone sees it as on a par with alcohol and the like a lot of people do, other countries are going full tilt on legalisation, and quite frankly general attitudes even from the police seems to be to just turn a blind eye to it. Some might see that as the degredation of society, but I suspect enough people know others or see others who use it without it being at the extreme end that they just don't fear it enough to make a war on drugs viable anymore, if it ever was.
So even if just that was legalised and not some others which still carry both more stigma and are considered to be more harmful despite similar logical arguments applying around legalisation being better than a war on drugs, it would still be worth doing.
Being serious, while I think that all drugs should be legalised and treated as a taxed healthcare issue rather than a law and order issue, with their use discouraged firmly and socially ostracised ideally; coke (the drug) has to be by far the worst of all the drugs in my eyes.
Not because its addictive, nor because its deadly, but because anyone who abuses coke is almost inevitably a complete and utter douchebag.
I'm not sure whether coke is just attractive to douchebags, or if coke makes you a douchebag, but the two are inextricably linked.
It’s the drug equivalent of Colin Hunt from the Fast Show. Tragic person with no personality tries to be a bit whacky but stripped of the coke/bow tie and crazy clothes is a dull salesman from Swindon. They dream of going full wolf of Wall Street and snorting it off a girl’s arse but their wife won’t let them as they’ve just changed the bedsheets that week and don’t want a mess before the next change, and they really gave up showing their arse to Colin after the second child.
What have the cool crowd moved onto now then?
The stringy bits from bananas- you toast them and then smoke them in a roll-up. True story.
That doesn't sound very cool.
That’s why it’s cool. Do it/wear it before it’s cool and you are cool. If you do it/wear it when it’s cool then it’s no longer cool.
If you never care about being cool, it never matters if you are not.
For me the definition of Cool is Bob Dylan in Don't Look Back. That's the benchmark.
The scene where Dylan gets out of the limo to stretch his legs while waiting for the Awst Ferry with the uncompleted Severn Bridge in the background. That's what I call cool. I even took a detour to find the old ferry terminal. Ten years ago it was still visible behind the weeds and brambles. That really is the Shock Of The Old.
So many great scenes. Debuting 'Baby Blue' to Donovan in the hotel room. Jousting with the journos. 'How can I answer that if you have the cheek to ask me?' This new modern minstrel, fizzing with youth and talent, plugged in but slightly apart, intense, relaxed, aloof, goofy, cynical, wide eyed, intimidating, the film really captured his magic imo.
Is it just me, or does this Trump rant not actually come across as authentically from him? It seems a little too coherent, the rhetorical question about such behaviour being horrible and whether he could do it if elected seems out of keeping with his other statements that he'd definitely weaponise the DoJ to do it, and the final line is rather milquetoast as far as Trump warnings go, not to mention there isn't a single allcaps word in the entire thing.
Sounds like a massive threat. He will spend most of his presidency fighting vendettas.
I guess that means less time to cause a world war.
That depends on the vendettas (though I suppose his disinterest in things outside america was considered a plus by many during his term).
I mean, we know he would spend all his time focusing on his own personal grudges because that's what he has done for years. He tries to destroy people who are not loyal to him, even if there is no reason for them to be, he has incredibly thin skin, and we know he tried to weaponise the justice system to stay in office in the first place and fortunately sufficient numbers refused, and he has never forgiven that and does anyone think he could be dissuaded by threat of mass resignations etc this time?
The best single piece I have seen on the drug overdose problem in the US is a column by Megan McArdle, which ends as follows: "Drug users must understand that if they cannot take drugs without also committing crimes, injecting in public places or camping on the street, they will be forced into treatment.
Now, as a libertarian, I was pretty uncomfortable writing that last sentence, and reading it might well have made you uneasy, too. Many people will no doubt be equally wary of giving up on controlling the use of indisputably harmful drugs. But overdose has become the leading cause of nonmedical death in the United States, and we seem to be out of comfortable options. We might have to settle for one that results in fewer deaths." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/25/legalize-fentanyl-overdose-deaths/
Walking around big British cities, it's actually quite unusual to see anyone who looks like a drug addict these days.
There were 4,859 drug deaths in England and Wales in 2021, which would be equivalent to about 27,000 in the United States.
The best single piece I have seen on the drug overdose problem in the US is a column by Megan McArdle, which ends as follows: "Drug users must understand that if they cannot take drugs without also committing crimes, injecting in public places or camping on the street, they will be forced into treatment.
Now, as a libertarian, I was pretty uncomfortable writing that last sentence, and reading it might well have made you uneasy, too. Many people will no doubt be equally wary of giving up on controlling the use of indisputably harmful drugs. But overdose has become the leading cause of nonmedical death in the United States, and we seem to be out of comfortable options. We might have to settle for one that results in fewer deaths." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/25/legalize-fentanyl-overdose-deaths/
In America overdoses now kill more people than guns and cars combined, in the land of guns and cars.
Not much sign there that legalisation has either reduced consumption or stamped out the illegal trade.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different view, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
It just strikes me as futile to continue to ban recreational drugs - particularly when they are, to all intents and purposes, let’s be honest, decriminalised for personal use anyway - when one particular, legal, recreational drug is so central to our culture. Think of all the lovely tax we could be raking in. There is no moral difference between taking one or the other. The damage alcohol does dwarves that of any other drug.
What constitutes a dope head, what level of consumption? 1 joint on an evening? 2, 3? What strength would they need to be? What amount will cause national decline? ‘Cos I know a lot of folk who are doing a lot of boozing every night and there can’t be great for UK PLC. How many MPs, in their subsidised bars, are fighting national decline by drinking less than 14 units a week? How many millions of people across the country, in responsible positions, are habitually doing a bottle of wine a night? A few large whiskies?
Millions of people wake up every day slightly fuzzy round the edges from a few drinks the night before. The impact on any putative national decline of a few spliffs or lines here and there is tiny in comparison, I’d say.
On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of middle-class parents compete to get their children a supply of amphetamines, which reliably add 10-20 points onto IQ test scores (Leon's not around, so I can safely mention IQ tests, right?).
And tens of millions of us use caffeine every day, which gives much less of a boost but is generally enough to counteract the fuzziness from the night before.
There's a huge amount of humbug and hypocrisy about drug use. But whatever your view, no-one is seriously proposing to give the police the resources needed to end their use. No-one actually wants us to be Singapore, let alone Saudi Arabia.
Sure the War on Drugs has failed, but that doesn't mean that drugs are harmless, just that we have failed to protect our people.
How many of those overdose deaths have occurred from legalised drugs like cannabis?
And how many of those overdose deaths have occurred from prohibited drugs that are still illegal or prescription only?
Seems to me like it is prohibition that has failed.
The best single piece I have seen on the drug overdose problem in the US is a column by Megan McArdle, which ends as follows: "Drug users must understand that if they cannot take drugs without also committing crimes, injecting in public places or camping on the street, they will be forced into treatment.
Now, as a libertarian, I was pretty uncomfortable writing that last sentence, and reading it might well have made you uneasy, too. Many people will no doubt be equally wary of giving up on controlling the use of indisputably harmful drugs. But overdose has become the leading cause of nonmedical death in the United States, and we seem to be out of comfortable options. We might have to settle for one that results in fewer deaths." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/25/legalize-fentanyl-overdose-deaths/
In America overdoses now kill more people than guns and cars combined, in the land of guns and cars.
Not much sign there that legalisation has either reduced consumption or stamped out the illegal trade.
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different view, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
It just strikes me as futile to continue to ban recreational drugs - particularly when they are, to all intents and purposes, let’s be honest, decriminalised for personal use anyway - when one particular, legal, recreational drug is so central to our culture. Think of all the lovely tax we could be raking in. There is no moral difference between taking one or the other. The damage alcohol does dwarves that of any other drug.
What constitutes a dope head, what level of consumption? 1 joint on an evening? 2, 3? What strength would they need to be? What amount will cause national decline? ‘Cos I know a lot of folk who are doing a lot of boozing every night and there can’t be great for UK PLC. How many MPs, in their subsidised bars, are fighting national decline by drinking less than 14 units a week? How many millions of people across the country, in responsible positions, are habitually doing a bottle of wine a night? A few large whiskies?
Millions of people wake up every day slightly fuzzy round the edges from a few drinks the night before. The impact on any putative national decline of a few spliffs or lines here and there is tiny in comparison, I’d say.
On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of middle-class parents compete to get their children a supply of amphetamines, which reliably add 10-20 points onto IQ test scores (Leon's not around, so I can safely mention IQ tests, right?).
And tens of millions of us use caffeine every day, which gives much less of a boost but is generally enough to counteract the fuzziness from the night before.
There's a huge amount of humbug and hypocrisy about drug use. But whatever your view, no-one is seriously proposing to give the police the resources needed to end their use. No-one actually wants us to be Singapore, let alone Saudi Arabia.
Sure the War on Drugs has failed, but that doesn't mean that drugs are harmless, just that we have failed to protect our people.
How many of those overdose deaths have occurred from legalised drugs like cannabis?
And how many of those overdose deaths have occurred from prohibited drugs that are still illegal or prescription only?
Seems to me like it is prohibition that has failed.
How happy would you be if your daughters became cokeheads or smackheads?
The thing about taking drugs is that, for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of times they do it, it is very enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
I have seen too many lives destroyed to be so complacent about drugs.
Yeah I get that. But, with respect, you’re at the sharp end. You see the very worst outcomes.
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
I see it at work, but also in family and friends.
When young I took a different view, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
It just strikes me as futile to continue to ban recreational drugs - particularly when they are, to all intents and purposes, let’s be honest, decriminalised for personal use anyway - when one particular, legal, recreational drug is so central to our culture. Think of all the lovely tax we could be raking in. There is no moral difference between taking one or the other. The damage alcohol does dwarves that of any other drug.
What constitutes a dope head, what level of consumption? 1 joint on an evening? 2, 3? What strength would they need to be? What amount will cause national decline? ‘Cos I know a lot of folk who are doing a lot of boozing every night and there can’t be great for UK PLC. How many MPs, in their subsidised bars, are fighting national decline by drinking less than 14 units a week? How many millions of people across the country, in responsible positions, are habitually doing a bottle of wine a night? A few large whiskies?
Millions of people wake up every day slightly fuzzy round the edges from a few drinks the night before. The impact on any putative national decline of a few spliffs or lines here and there is tiny in comparison, I’d say.
I've just started David Nutts new book on the use of psychedelics for treating mental illness.
Only at the beginning but he points out that there was basically no research for 50 years because the "establishment" panicked over LSD and made the whole lot Category A and the equivalent in USA.
Comments
Most of us like a drink. That is taking a drug and it is very enjoyable and is usually perfectly safe. Smoking dope, snorting coke or taking MDMA is very enjoyable and most of the time is perfectly safe.
The war on drugs has manifestly failed.
We know that it isn’t good if you are pouring whisky on your cornflakes, but as a society we accept that some people will end up addicted to alcohol because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We tolerate the costs to the police, to the NHS, of the fights and the battered women and the people killed by drunk drivers, because for most people, most of the time, taking alcohol is very enjoyable and perfectly safe. We control the strength of alcoholic drinks - so people have an idea of how much they’re taking on board - and tax them.
Why can’t we do the same for other recreational drugs? Because for most people, most of the time, taking recreational drugs is very pleasant and perfectly safe. Yes some people will become addicts. Yes drug drivers will kill people. Yes coke, sadly, does make you an arsehole. Feels very pleasant though, which is some consolation.
But why do we tolerate a certain level of those unfortunate occurrences, the millions it costs us as a society, when the drug is alcohol, but contemplate it for any other drug and everyone clutches their pearls?
Decriminalise, regulate and tax. Control them. If someone wants to take drugs, they will take drugs. They are everywhere. Coke is cheap as fuck. You can get middling coke for £30 a gram, banging coke for £60 a gram plus. I haven’t taken any drugs for ages - it’s a young persons game really I can’t handle the lack of sleep anymore, it’s shit getting old - but if I really wanted some I could have some within 30 minutes, delivered to my door. It’s easy. They’re everywhere. A phone call to a mate, he’ll give me a number of someone else, bosh.
Oh, and educate. Smoking a spliff isn’t the same as doing a gram of coke. It’s like having a small sherry compared to doing a pint of absinthe. People need to know that shit. I smoked dope pretty much every day for 20 years and got two degrees, learned to drive, got a job, got a mortgage, lived a perfectly normal life. But I knew not to smoke skunk all fucking day long. Like I don’t have a double gin and tonic every half hour.
And fund all addiction services properly.
Dinner party? They're not a thing either these days, are they? My lingo is stuck in the past. World's moved on.
I run a Master’s course (not in history). We might take someone without an undergrad degree if they had very relevant work experience, but that would be unusual. Whereas if someone has an undergrad degree in the “wrong” subject, we’re much less bothered,
To do an undergrad degree, I don’t know. Do you have A’levels? That you’re an adult, you can show you really want to do this, and you have a proven ability to hold down a job will count for a lot, but I’m uncertain how much.
The admissions tutor will be happy to discuss if you drop them an email.
Edit one in Kensington as well.
My mind is still boggling at the scale of the potential disaster here. If England win tomorrow, and the most senior person in attendance is.... Lucy Frazer (who?!), then all hell is going to break loose.
And rightly so - England teams have only ever reached the finals of international competitions for the 1966 world cup and Euro 2020. Royals and senior politicians were in attendance on both occasions.
Baldy is the President of the English FA. I assume that he'll be resigning on Monday morning.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/possession-of-a-controlled-drug-2/
A prison sentence is vanishingly unlikely.
2) We do not enforce every law on the books to the fullest extent of the law - if we did, the courts would overflow even more than they already do & the prisons likewise. It simply isn’t in the public interest to take many crimes to court & the CPS therefore (rightly) declines to prosecute.
3) Loughton is hardly metropolitan elite central though, is it? I suspect what you really meant is that he /knows/ the right people. This might be true, but the NCA prosecuted him nonetheless & I suspect if you read the sentencing guidelines for possession of child pornography of the relevant grades you’d find his sentence was within the expected guidelines.
According to a poll of more than 5,000 people by YouGov, Labour now has a 28-point lead over the Tories among women, compared with a 21-point advantage among men.
The survey found that 60% of women voters who describe themselves as “very worried” about their finances now say they would vote Labour – six times more than would vote Conservative. The only group where the Tories retain a lead is those with no financial worries at all.
Decriminalisation is not the panacea either.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/07/oregon-drug-decriminalization-results-overdoses/674733/
I think most will go Labour on the day.
That's subsectioning[1]. How about a large amount of cocaine?
2) We do not enforce every law on the books to the fullest extent of the law...
As per my reply to Barty above, we should. You are not going to persuade me that wealth and influence do not play a part in the decision to decline.
3) Loughton is hardly metropolitan elite central though, is it?...
It's within the M25 and has a tube. I wasn't expecting the King's bedroom.
[1] "Subsectioning: taking a part of a concept in response to an argument originally about the whole" - Oxford Dictionary Of Words I Made Up.
| How to End the War in Ukraine — Even If Vladimir Putin Wants to Keep Fighting
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/18/how-to-end-ukraine-war-00111752
The point is, it’s happening anyway. Millions of people take drugs everyday. Or at the weekend. Or more rarely, every few weeks, or maybe only once or twice a year. Most people don’t, but a lot of people do. And the vast majority of people who do never have any ill effects.
The police don’t care. For the casual user the possibility of any legal consequences are vanishingly remote. It’s not worth their time to do you for a bit of personal. They’re too busy, they don’t have the resources.
I have an alcoholic relative. It’s horrendous. They’ve lost 60% of their liver function but they’re still boozing. Many people want to get intoxicated, and some will go too far and get addicted, or cause themselves, or someone else, permanent damage. It’s awful, it destroys lives, tears families apart, but it happens anyway.
Once again I don’t see where the public interest is in prosecuting a 20 year old offence with no evidence except the hearsay of the accused who is simply going to refuse to incriminate themselves if interviewed by the police. The CPS clearly agrees with me & not you. Feel free to lobby your local MP to change their view: I doubt you’ll get very far.
More than 10 million people live within the M25. I don’t think that makes them automatically posh, nor does it make them plugged into the systems of power. This individual might have had influence for other reasons than where they lived, but it didn’t help them much when the NCA came knocking.
If you want to know the sentencing guidelines for large amounts of cocaine, you can look them up. But they’re not relevant to the question at hand.
When young I took a different view, but as time has gone on, I have seen more and more damage.
There is also the economics and politics. A nation of dopeheads is destined for decline.
If I wanted to go for one that's not a myth, I could have used Rainbow's four skin banana gag (which of course was also never televised as a part of Rainbow but the cast did genuinely make it).
They were pushing that sort of line in the movie at one point.
Neither were over the other side of the world in another continent as tomorrow's will be in Australia at a time of rising concern over unnecessary flights adding to climate change
So, probably even worse than I have been fearing.
(In recent years, I have come to the unhappy conclusion that the journalism Pulitzers and the Oscars are both -- usually -- awarded to works that an intelligent and sensible person should avoid.)
It is certainly hard to see the NDP allowing Polilievre to become PM now they have a confidence and supply deal with Trudeau's minority Liberal government
Back in 2019 I did a pub crawl around all the bars in the centre of Manchester
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/man-who-went-never-ending-17753605
This year I drank a pint at all 99(+1) Metrolink stops
http://kurtsmetrolinkcrawl.infinityfreeapp.com/
Click on any stop on the map or stop name on the table on the right for the video
That's 501 centre Manc plus 100 Metrolink = 601
6 are duplicates
2024 I do 405 pubs around Greater Manc to get to 1,000 unique bars / pubs in Manc
As I said before the moment England got to the final a plan that had been planned should have been announced to host a huge outdoor screening in one of the royal parks with loads of kids and sunny delight for all. Say “we give lots of shits about the environment so we aren’t flying but we love women and love football etc etc”.
(Though I don’t even have a degree.)
I've had several interesting replies to follow up. If you drop me a line (nickmp1@aol.com) I'll keep you posted.
https://circlelinepubcrawl.co.uk/
Oh wait ...
From your attitude it sounds like you want Australia to be a republic.
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g187069-d8652341-Reviews-Peveril_Of_The_Peak-Manchester_Greater_Manchester_England.html
Decades of "war on drugs" certainly has failed and caused immense harm.
Prohibition doesn't work.
Education and awareness does.
What I tentatively had in mind was some research on politics in interwar Eastern Europe, which I imagine isn't that heavily researched in Britain but of course has echoes today. My mother grew up in the Polish Corridor and had extensive stories about life and attitudes then. But perhaps I'll find the available themes are quite different.
I don't think the second paragraph is intentionally ironic:
"Drug deaths nationwide hit a new record in 2022. 109,680 people died as the fentanyl crisis continued to deepen, according to preliminary data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
. . .
There is some good news in this report. Overdose fatalities rose in 2022 at a much slower rate."
(Link omitted.)
Brian Mann and I have different definitions of good news.
source: https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176830906/overdose-death-2022-record
Are you saying that he should never fly again?
He's President of the FA, ffs. If he's ever going to fly abroad, this was the time to have done it.
Find who's in your subfield, and meet them in person. As a former MP they're probably much more likely to give you the time of day. Offer them lunch.
Oh, and as a self-funded student, don't let yourself be bounced into anything - any hobbyhorse or preconceived theme of the supervisor.
Its his job, and he's not doing it. He shouldn't be President of the FA then, let a civilian who will do their job do it.
What constitutes a dope head, what level of consumption? 1 joint on an evening? 2, 3? What strength would they need to be? What amount will cause national decline? ‘Cos I know a lot of folk who are doing a lot of boozing every night and there can’t be great for UK PLC. How many MPs, in their subsidised bars, are fighting national decline by drinking less than 14 units a week? How many millions of people across the country, in responsible positions, are habitually doing a bottle of wine a night? A few large whiskies?
Millions of people wake up every day slightly fuzzy round the edges from a few drinks the night before. The impact on any putative national decline of a few spliffs or lines here and there is tiny in comparison, I’d say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I66RciLQuY
1. Tax it. Billions in tax revenues, instead of billions spent on a futile and failed war on drugs.
2. Education and healthcare beats police and prison.
3. Prohibition has failed.
4. Legalisation allows regulation. People know what they're getting, and the strength they're getting, rather than something stronger or laced with another product.
There is no good reason not to legalise and tax it.
Who would play you in the film of your life?
I’ve got to go for Colin Firth because he played Mark Darcy, the human-rights lawyer in Bridget Jones’s Diary. There’s been this rumour going on for years that he’s modelled on me – and the honest answer is, I don’t know.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/aug/19/keir-starmer-interview
"Drug users must understand that if they cannot take drugs without also committing crimes, injecting in public places or camping on the street, they will be forced into treatment.
Now, as a libertarian, I was pretty uncomfortable writing that last sentence, and reading it might well have made you uneasy, too. Many people will no doubt be equally wary of giving up on controlling the use of indisputably harmful drugs. But overdose has become the leading cause of nonmedical death in the United States, and we seem to be out of comfortable options. We might have to settle for one that results in fewer deaths."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/25/legalize-fentanyl-overdose-deaths/
The real question is how best to address that.
We didn’t ban cigarettes - but smoking has dropped massively.
With alcohol the worst physically for you is spirits (like gin) and those are the easiest to smuggle due to their compact nature under prohibition. Or worse spirits laced with other things.
Most legalised drinking now is lower strength. Beer or wine rather than spirits.
Same has happened with drugs under prohibition. The strength of cannabis etc has been getting stronger and stronger.
Legalise it, tax it by its strength (like alcohol) and we'll probably find people consuming lower strength versions of it. The beer version, not the high strength skunk.
The point is that only 2 parties(Lab, Con) could realistically lead the government with
2 others (LD, SNP) possibly playing a role. All of them were supportive of playing a full role in the EU.
On that issue specifically there was no way to change the outcome through traditional democratic politics. UKIP was only successful effectively as a pressure group that forced the Conservatives to change their position, not because of their own electoral success
And tens of millions of us use caffeine every day, which gives much less of a boost but is generally enough to counteract the fuzziness from the night before.
There's a huge amount of humbug and hypocrisy about drug use. But whatever your view, no-one is seriously proposing to give the police the resources needed to end their use. No-one actually wants us to be Singapore, let alone Saudi Arabia.
I guess that means less time to cause a world war.
*the exception to this is drink/drug driving. That's not unfortunate carelessness, it's a deliberate decision to do something endangering others - and those who are convicted often re-offend. Kill someone because of this, and I'm fine with locking you up and throwing away the key.
Not much sign there that legalisation has either reduced consumption or stamped out the illegal trade. Sure the War on Drugs has failed, but that doesn't mean that drugs are harmless, just that we have failed to protect our people.
There were 4,859 drug deaths in England and Wales in 2021, which would be equivalent to about 27,000 in the United States.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsrelatedtodrugpoisoninginenglandandwales/2021registrations
So even if just that was legalised and not some others which still carry both more stigma and are considered to be more harmful despite similar logical arguments applying around legalisation being better than a war on drugs, it would still be worth doing.
I mean, we know he would spend all his time focusing on his own personal grudges because that's what he has done for years. He tries to destroy people who are not loyal to him, even if there is no reason for them to be, he has incredibly thin skin, and we know he tried to weaponise the justice system to stay in office in the first place and fortunately sufficient numbers refused, and he has never forgiven that and does anyone think he could be dissuaded by threat of mass resignations etc this time?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/03/cocaine-and-opiates-drive-record-high-drug-deaths-in-england-and-wales?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
And how many of those overdose deaths have occurred from prohibited drugs that are still illegal or prescription only?
Seems to me like it is prohibition that has failed.
Only at the beginning but he points out that there was basically no research for 50 years because the "establishment" panicked over LSD and made the whole lot Category A and the equivalent in USA.