Jim Murphy has got the backing of the Spectator-Andrew Neil and associates.I wonder how this important right wing backing will play in Scotland with Labour under the accusation of being red Tories and London based.
Exactly my thoughts on reading that piece (amongst others).
Especially after Mr M's been one of the very few SLAB activists to campaign at all consistently and publicly alongside Mr Darling and the Tories in indyref. If you are going to vote against anyone for Tory-hugging, or because you voted Yes, then it's going to affect him more than anyone else.
How far that offsets those who give him an extra mark for his activity is going to be a key issue in this election - never mind the public ones in 2015 and 2016.
[on Farm seizures] ‘What has happened is very cruel and nasty and doesn’t reflect well on anybody. But it is worth trying to understand what is happening, rather than saying it’s the lunatic act of one man. It’s not.’
Today, Zambia is Africa’s biggest producer of copper and China is one of the world’s hungriest consumers of it, and relations between the two are increasingly bitter, as local people struggle to compete against a huge influx of Chinese businesses and unskilled labour
Those Zambians sound awfully racist. Why aren't they celebrating the cultural diversity in food and music that the Chinese immigrants have brought to their country?
There is a lot of resentment in Africa regarding the Chinese policy of non-recruitment of local labour. Contrary to the practice of many other contractors, the Chinese bring in all their own Chinese labour required for the project instead of using local labour.
I wonder how many PBers have ever used drugs? With the notable exception of Sean T who has been remarkably open about his past. I got through plenty of class a's during my raving days of 88-96. After that was a daily weed smoker until early last year when I finally quit. I must confess that I even attended a number of PB drinks do's when absolutely flying.
Never used any recreational drugs. Might have done as a teenager if someone had offered me some.
Ditto - However, I’m always fascinated by these druggy discussions that crop up on PB from time to time, but rarely contribute as I have no personal or social anecdotal stories to add.
Unadventurous maybe, but no regrets either - Indulging, especially with the harder drugs has always struck me as a game of Russian roulette, some live to tell the tale, some don’t.
Not sure what I'd do if I ever find myself in Colorado where they've legalised cannabis. Probably still wouldn't take it because of the recent reports on the negative effects of the drug.
I worked there for a few months in 2011, but that was before they legalised cannabis.
I was in social set that used them a lot - especially speed/LSD. After giving cannabis a reluctant try as I find stoners very dull company - and knowing the odd effect on me - I had no trouble in saying No Thanks. I wasn't seen as puritanical, just someone who didn't feel better and no one tried to persuade me.
I don't smoke either - just doesn't appeal. I'd like to have tried Ecstasy, but was too chicken at the time. Amyl nitrate [think that was it] was very popular in my teens. Now that really does make me horny and reckless, so I wouldn't go anywhere near it again.
I wonder how many PBers have ever used drugs? With the notable exception of Sean T who has been remarkably open about his past. I got through plenty of class a's during my raving days of 88-96. After that was a daily weed smoker until early last year when I finally quit. I must confess that I even attended a number of PB drinks do's when absolutely flying.
Never used any recreational drugs. Might have done as a teenager if someone had offered me some.
Ditto - However, I’m always fascinated by these druggy discussions that crop up on PB from time to time, but rarely contribute as I have no personal or social anecdotal stories to add.
Unadventurous maybe, but no regrets either - Indulging, especially with the harder drugs has always struck me as a game of Russian roulette, some live to tell the tale, some don’t.
I do see where you're coming from and accept your experience in these drug issues.
But.... if prohibition is so successful, why did America repeal it when it failed with alcohol?
Another example is that some argue that boxing is dangerous and damages lives, but it's better to have it legal and with proper safeguards rather than driven underground.
Shouldn't the same apply to recreational drugs?
(Just asking, unsure myself).
It's not easy obviously, but I would say look at what people who have got heavily into drugs and suffered as a result recommend
Total abstinence
Why wait until kids are messed up? This is what I don't understand with Russell brand... He preaches and lives by total abstinence, yet wants drug laws relaxed
I say would you rather your kids were so frightened if the punishment for being caught with drugs that they never took them or that they had a friendly drug counsellor in rehab?
As for prohibition, I don't knew the answer... Certainly the increased availability of alcohol hasn't worked here...
Boxing... Well if it wasn't legal it probably wouldn't be legalised... This is the point I am making really... People saying other drugs are no worse than alcohol so should be legalised are effectively arguing that dog fighting should be legalised because it's safer than the illegal dog fighting governed by criminals that we currently have. They could point to boxing as pro drug lobby do with Alcohol
The Harman t-shirt thing seems to be a very trivial thing to get worried about. Does iSamuel drink?
What has it got to do with you bobajob? I may take drugs for all it matters, I could still say they should remain illegal and that they do untold damage
Isam - You are confusing me with another poster again. Why was my analogy nonsebse by the way?
Other regulars have suggested the same (Neil is as far from Sam as you can get politically I think...)
"Neil Posts: 6,438 June 16 BobaFett said: @isam Am I Tim, Bobajob, the Last Boy Scout or someone else? I lose track with you as you have suggested I am all and none of them over the years ;-)
Two out of three aint bad. "
In fairness to @isam Bobafett/Bobajobb's activity period and your own do make it look a bit Bruce Wayne/Batman / Clarke Kent/Supermanish....
Jim Murphy has got the backing of the Spectator-Andrew Neil and associates.I wonder how this important right wing backing will play in Scotland with Labour under the accusation of being red Tories and London based.
Exactly my thoughts on reading that piece (amongst others).
Especially after Mr M's been one of the very few SLAB activists to campaign at all consistently and publicly alongside Mr Darling and the Tories in indyref. If you are going to vote against anyone for Tory-hugging, or because you voted Yes, then it's going to affect him more than anyone else.
How far that offsets those who give him an extra mark for his activity is going to be a key issue in this election - never mind the public ones in 2015 and 2016.
I see the narrative of "brave" Murphy standing up to the evil nationalist fascists who say mean things is strong in the Spectator. One egg, but for that one egg and no-one would have had any idea what it was Murphy had done in those hundred days at all.
Mr. Pulpstar, not sure trying to run someone off the road with a truck and kill them counts as 'outwitting' them. Reminds me of an appallingly bad piece by Jon Simpson[sp] who said something similar when Mugabe rigged the election and (ahem) won.
It's not out-manoeuvring someone with cunning and wit when you're a dictator and rig the system.
John Simpson has form. Back in 1991 ha described Saddam's Iraq as a not altogether unpleasant place, with images of a nightclub. I am sure it had some positives. But imagine had he said that of 1930s Germany...
I do see where you're coming from and accept your experience in these drug issues.
But.... if prohibition is so successful, why did America repeal it when it failed with alcohol?
Another example is that some argue that boxing is dangerous and damages lives, but it's better to have it legal and with proper safeguards rather than driven underground.
Shouldn't the same apply to recreational drugs?
(Just asking, unsure myself).
It's not easy obviously, but I would say look at what people who have got heavily into drugs and suffered as a result recommend
Total abstinence
Why wait until kids are messed up? This is what I don't understand with Russell brand... He preaches and lives by total abstinence, yet wants drug laws relaxed
It's called free will. I don't like the X Factor but wouldn't ban something that others do enjoy just because I don't. Ok, trivial example but makes the point.
If people have the information on which to base a judgement, the capacity to make one, and are willing to accept the consequences of that decision, it's no business of the state to get involved beyond reasonable regulation and taxation unless third parties may be affected.
I say would you rather your kids were so frightened if the punishment for being caught with drugs that they never took them or that they had a friendly drug counsellor in rehab?
I'd rather they didn't take them because they understood the negative health consequences, not because they lived in fear of arrest and imprisonment.
I'm sure it will be a scrupulously fair representation of UKIP's goals.
I just look forward to Channel 4's mockumentary on what will happen to energy supply in this country when Ed Miliband tries to cap prices, ramp up renewable requirements and limits government spending at the same time.
You forgot how letting in another 3m Labour voting immigrants will affect housing, education and the NHS.
Isam - You are confusing me with another poster again. Why was my analogy nonsebse by the way?
Other regulars have suggested the same (Neil is as far from Sam as you can get politically I think...)
"Neil Posts: 6,438 June 16 BobaFett said: @isam Am I Tim, Bobajob, the Last Boy Scout or someone else? I lose track with you as you have suggested I am all and none of them over the years ;-)
Two out of three aint bad. "
In fairness to @isam Bobafett/Bobajobb's activity period and your own do make it look a bit Bruce Wayne/Batman / Clarke Kent/Supermanish....
I wonder how many PBers have ever used drugs? With the notable exception of Sean T who has been remarkably open about his past. I got through plenty of class a's during my raving days of 88-96. After that was a daily weed smoker until early last year when I finally quit. I must confess that I even attended a number of PB drinks do's when absolutely flying.
Never used any recreational drugs. Might have done as a teenager if someone had offered me some.
Ditto - However, I’m always fascinated by these druggy discussions that crop up on PB from time to time, but rarely contribute as I have no personal or social anecdotal stories to add.
Unadventurous maybe, but no regrets either - Indulging, especially with the harder drugs has always struck me as a game of Russian roulette, some live to tell the tale, some don’t.
Not sure what I'd do if I ever find myself in Colorado where they've legalised cannabis. Probably still wouldn't take it because of the recent reports on the negative effects of the drug.
I worked there for a few months in 2011, but that was before they legalised cannabis.
@MonikerDiCanio The Romans were big on Aminita Muscaria, and would quite often give it to their slaves. One of our classicists will fill you in on the details.
Isam - You are confusing me with another poster again. Why was my analogy nonsebse by the way?
Other regulars have suggested the same (Neil is as far from Sam as you can get politically I think...)
"Neil Posts: 6,438 June 16 BobaFett said: @isam Am I Tim, Bobajob, the Last Boy Scout or someone else? I lose track with you as you have suggested I am all and none of them over the years ;-)
Two out of three aint bad. "
In fairness to @isam Bobafett/Bobajobb's activity period and your own do make it look a bit Bruce Wayne/Batman / Clarke Kent/Supermanish....
[on Farm seizures] ‘What has happened is very cruel and nasty and doesn’t reflect well on anybody. But it is worth trying to understand what is happening, rather than saying it’s the lunatic act of one man. It’s not.’
Today, Zambia is Africa’s biggest producer of copper and China is one of the world’s hungriest consumers of it, and relations between the two are increasingly bitter, as local people struggle to compete against a huge influx of Chinese businesses and unskilled labour
Those Zambians sound awfully racist. Why aren't they celebrating the cultural diversity in food and music that the Chinese immigrants have brought to their country?
I wonder how many PBers have ever used drugs? With the notable exception of Sean T who has been remarkably open about his past. I got through plenty of class a's during my raving days of 88-96. After that was a daily weed smoker until early last year when I finally quit. I must confess that I even attended a number of PB drinks do's when absolutely flying.
Never used any recreational drugs. Might have done as a teenager if someone had offered me some.
Ditto - However, I’m always fascinated by these druggy discussions that crop up on PB from time to time, but rarely contribute as I have no personal or social anecdotal stories to add.
Unadventurous maybe, but no regrets either - Indulging, especially with the harder drugs has always struck me as a game of Russian roulette, some live to tell the tale, some don’t.
Not sure what I'd do if I ever find myself in Colorado where they've legalised cannabis. Probably still wouldn't take it because of the recent reports on the negative effects of the drug.
I worked there for a few months in 2011, but that was before they legalised cannabis.
Did working there tempt you to use cannabis?!
Not really, though I did walk past a number of shops in downtown Boulder that smelt as if they were, ah, "dispensing" medicinal products
I do see where you're coming from and accept your experience in these drug issues.
But.... if prohibition is so successful, why did America repeal it when it failed with alcohol?
Another example is that some argue that boxing is dangerous and damages lives, but it's better to have it legal and with proper safeguards rather than driven underground.
Shouldn't the same apply to recreational drugs?
(Just asking, unsure myself).
It's not easy obviously, but I would say look at what people who have got heavily into drugs and suffered as a result recommend
Total abstinence
Why wait until kids are messed up? This is what I don't understand with Russell brand... He preaches and lives by total abstinence, yet wants drug laws relaxed
It's called free will. I don't like the X Factor but wouldn't ban something that others do enjoy just because I don't. Ok, trivial example but makes the point.
If people have the information on which to base a judgement, the capacity to make one, and are willing to accept the consequences of that decision, it's no business of the state to get involved beyond reasonable regulation and taxation unless third parties may be affected.
I say would you rather your kids were so frightened if the punishment for being caught with drugs that they never took them or that they had a friendly drug counsellor in rehab?
I'd rather they didn't take them because they understood the negative health consequences, not because they lived in fear of arrest and imprisonment.
On your first point, people don't get mentally ill, commit suicide or die from watching X factor
Your second point is a dangerous misunderstanding. Kids esp teenagers think they are indestructable... They need more than someone telling them the side effects. What you're suggesting doesn't work on its own
Jim Murphy has got the backing of the Spectator-Andrew Neil and associates.I wonder how this important right wing backing will play in Scotland with Labour under the accusation of being red Tories and London based.
Exactly my thoughts on reading that piece (amongst others).
Especially after Mr M's been one of the very few SLAB activists to campaign at all consistently and publicly alongside Mr Darling and the Tories in indyref. If you are going to vote against anyone for Tory-hugging, or because you voted Yes, then it's going to affect him more than anyone else.
How far that offsets those who give him an extra mark for his activity is going to be a key issue in this election - never mind the public ones in 2015 and 2016.
I see the narrative of "brave" Murphy standing up to the evil nationalist fascists who say mean things is strong in the Spectator. One egg, but for that one egg and no-one would have had any idea what it was Murphy had done in those hundred days at all.
Except for those whom his loudhailer disturbed!
Just noticed Wings over Scotland has posted a sample video of "how Jim listens to Scotland and avoids shouting about the SNP" from his Irn-Bru crate-supported anabasis, if anyone wants a sample of his rhetorical skills:
@isam Just pointing out the stupidity of most of the anti drugs laws. Someone enjoying a few pints, or whatever is acceptable, but in all probability, mankind was using other drugs well before it's invention. (look up the lethal dose of alcohol, and compare it to cannabis)
Cannabis overdose isn't a direct killer, it just causes mental illness
Anyhow my basic point is that drugs are bad for the individual, and for society and so should be strongly discouraged. Legalisation is giving up the war on drugs (that was never fought)
Imagine we spent the money we waste fighting wars that are nothing to do with us on educating kids on the perils of drug use... I think we would be a lot better off
There are far more effective and less expensive ways of discouraging drug use than prohibition. For one thing, in a legal trade, you could mark every packet of drugs with factual information on exactly the damage you're doing, and provide a phone number for an addiction helpline.
The war on drugs never being fought line is a nonsense one. It has certainly been fought in the US and didn't achieve anything there. You get drug use in maximum security prisons - if you can't control it in what is the equivalent of a police state, why on Earth do you think you can control it in a free society?
Typically off-message comment from Tory MP Michael Fabricant:
" Mark Reckless retweeted Michael Fabricant @Mike_Fabricant Oct 28 I'm looking forward to visiting #RochesterandStrood again on Thursday. Thanks @MarkReckless for some good restaurant recommendations!"
Typically off-message comment from Tory MP Michael Fabricant:
" Mark Reckless retweeted Michael Fabricant @Mike_Fabricant Oct 28 I'm looking forward to visiting #RochesterandStrood again on Thursday. Thanks @MarkReckless for some good restaurant recommendations!"
[on Farm seizures] ‘What has happened is very cruel and nasty and doesn’t reflect well on anybody. But it is worth trying to understand what is happening, rather than saying it’s the lunatic act of one man. It’s not.’
Today, Zambia is Africa’s biggest producer of copper and China is one of the world’s hungriest consumers of it, and relations between the two are increasingly bitter, as local people struggle to compete against a huge influx of Chinese businesses and unskilled labour
Those Zambians sound awfully racist. Why aren't they celebrating the cultural diversity in food and music that the Chinese immigrants have brought to their country?
There is a lot of resentment in Africa regarding the Chinese policy of non-recruitment of local labour. Contrary to the practice of many other contractors, the Chinese bring in all their own Chinese labour required for the project instead of using local labour.
A tricky one. African regimes tend to prefer Chinese to Western companies as they don't come with "baggage". None of those nonsense worries about back handers, or commitment to democracy or the environment.
Western companies on the other hand do, or are forced to (Bribery Act, FCPA, etc). They also normally take environmental standards seriously as well as CSR. They also hire locally. Even if they are "neo-Colonialist".
When I hear someone arguing for the legalisation of drugs, I first ask myself 'are they a user/abuser, or do they stand to benefit financially from any changes to the law?'
I stand to benefit.
I anticipate less crime from addicts scouring the local residences for felonious opportunities, I would hope to benefit from less street crime or shop lifting. It would be nice if some of the profits from the nefarious dishonest and illegal trade was regularised taxed and made legal.
I would hope crime figures fall, police have time to attend to child rape and things like that, there are less poisons added to the drugs, helping the NHS as well.
We should all be better off, including the users, with the exceptions of the scum that trade in illegal drugs.
Typically off-message comment from Tory MP Michael Fabricant:
" Mark Reckless retweeted Michael Fabricant @Mike_Fabricant Oct 28 I'm looking forward to visiting #RochesterandStrood again on Thursday. Thanks @MarkReckless for some good restaurant recommendations!"
Western civilization was founded on alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. They are the holy trinity of human progress.
I thought it was founded on slavery?
The unstimulated slave empires of antiquity argue against your thesis.
It could be argued that slavery and the *growth* of empires can happily go hand-in-hand (except for the slaves), and act as a stimulant to development. Egypt, Greece and Rome of antiquity, and Spain, France and Britain more recently would suggest so. (Greece wasn't an empire as such but was arguably the most developed society within a thousand miles).
Martin Kettle laments Labour's lack of ambition in Rochester:
"The north Kent constituency of Rochester and Strood, where probably the most consequential byelection of this parliament will take place in three weeks’ time, is a seat that a strong Labour party could win. A confident Labour party certainly ought to be in strong contention. Instead, Ed Miliband seems resigned to finishing third behind the Conservatives and Ukip. No part of what this says about the Labour party’s condition is good.
If you know your postwar political history, the conclusion is pretty obvious. To get a Labour government, you have to win Rochester and Strood. It is one of the seats in Kent – like Dartford and Dover – that help to make the difference between Labour general election victory and general election defeat. Without wins in the marginals in such counties as Kent, Berkshire, Essex and Hertfordshire, you don’t get Labour governments."
by your logic we would also ban dangerous sports such as rock fishing and mountaineering because some come to harm while doing them. Education is a better tool than prohibition
Bobajob
The first part is complete nonsense , I'd agree education is better than prohibition, but prohibition is better than legalisation
Prohibition certainly isn't better than legalisation. It does nothing to restrict supply, means there are dealers who are incentivised to push harsher drugs on soft drug uses, provides the start up capital for gangs to get into worse activities, and provides an apparently more attractive lifestyle for kids on sink estate than going to legal work. It's a miserable, failed policy.
I have to ask, as it seems that the PB view in drug usage is read from a government pamphlet, has anyone any real life experience of the issue... I have and I don't recognise any of what you are saying
Drugs are legal in all but name anyway, passing a law will make no positive difference
What are you talking about, "read from a government pamphlet"? The government sacked the last drugs advisor that recommended legalisation. It is the government that does not want to listen to the arguments for legalisation.
And, as you asked, yes I have real life experience of the issue. Many of my friends have taken drugs over the years, and several still do.
Western civilization was founded on alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. They are the holy trinity of human progress.
I thought it was founded on slavery?
The unstimulated slave empires of antiquity argue against your thesis.
It could be argued that slavery and the *growth* of empires can happily go hand-in-hand (except for the slaves), and act as a stimulant to development. Egypt, Greece and Rome of antiquity, and Spain, France and Britain more recently would suggest so. (Greece wasn't an empire as such but was arguably the most developed society within a thousand miles).
Slavery is disastrous for economic growth. Just look at the southern US vs the northern US. The line of industrial development directly tracked the free state vs slave state divide.
When I hear someone arguing for the legalisation of drugs, I first ask myself 'are they a user/abuser, or do they stand to benefit financially from any changes to the law?'
I stand to benefit.
I anticipate less crime from addicts scouring the local residences for felonious opportunities, I would hope to benefit from less street crime or shop lifting. It would be nice if some of the profits from the nefarious dishonest and illegal trade was regularised taxed and made legal.
I would hope crime figures fall, police have tome to attend to child rape and things like that, there are less poisons added to the drugs, helping the NHS as well.
We should all be better off, including the users, with the exceptions of the scum that trade in illegal drugs.
The dealers will still be there, but on the right side of the law when their trade is legalised. Shell suits traded up for Saville Row.
Plod will love it - less work for lazy coppers to do, whilst waiting to collect their pensions. Don't believe any nonsense about other crimes being solved.
Western civilization was founded on alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. They are the holy trinity of human progress.
I thought it was founded on slavery?
The unstimulated slave empires of antiquity argue against your thesis.
It could be argued that slavery and the *growth* of empires can happily go hand-in-hand (except for the slaves), and act as a stimulant to development. Egypt, Greece and Rome of antiquity, and Spain, France and Britain more recently would suggest so. (Greece wasn't an empire as such but was arguably the most developed society within a thousand miles).
I can't remember the exact words, but the blurb to one of the exhibits at the Museum of London Docklands says something on the lines of: "A considerable proportion of London's wealth was obtained through slavery."
I don’t think my ‘social set’ was immune to taking drugs, it was just never readily apparent, to me at least and no one proffered them around. – I remember visiting Amsterdam several times in the early 80’s with friends; the standing joke at the time was that I was the only member of the group not approached by pushers – very odd, as I didn't look like a plod on holiday, imho....
I was in social set that used them a lot - especially speed/LSD. After giving cannabis a reluctant try as I find stoners very dull company - and knowing the odd effect on me - I had no trouble in saying No Thanks. I wasn't seen as puritanical, just someone who didn't feel better and no one tried to persuade me.
I wonder how many PBers have ever used drugs? With the notable exception of Sean T who has been remarkably open about his past. I got through plenty of class a's during my raving days of 88-96. After that was a daily weed smoker until early last year when I finally quit. I must confess that I even attended a number of PB drinks do's when absolutely flying.
Never used any recreational drugs. Might have done as a teenager if someone had offered me some.
Ditto - However, I’m always fascinated by these druggy discussions that crop up on PB from time to time, but rarely contribute as I have no personal or social anecdotal stories to add.
Unadventurous maybe, but no regrets either - Indulging, especially with the harder drugs has always struck me as a game of Russian roulette, some live to tell the tale, some don’t.
When I hear someone arguing for the legalisation of drugs, I first ask myself 'are they a user/abuser, or do they stand to benefit financially from any changes to the law?'
I stand to benefit.
I anticipate less crime from addicts scouring the local residences for felonious opportunities, I would hope to benefit from less street crime or shop lifting. It would be nice if some of the profits from the nefarious dishonest and illegal trade was regularised taxed and made legal.
I would hope crime figures fall, police have tome to attend to child rape and things like that, there are less poisons added to the drugs, helping the NHS as well.
We should all be better off, including the users, with the exceptions of the scum that trade in illegal drugs.
The dealers will still be there, but on the right side of the law when their trade is legalised. Shell suits traded up for Saville Row.
When I hear someone arguing for the legalisation of drugs, I first ask myself 'are they a user/abuser, or do they stand to benefit financially from any changes to the law?'
by your logic we would also ban dangerous sports such as rock fishing and mountaineering because some come to harm while doing them. Education is a better tool than prohibition
Bobajob
The first part is complete nonsense , I'd agree education is better than prohibition, but prohibition is better than legalisation
Prohibition certainly isn't better than legalisation. It does nothing to restrict supply, means there are dealers who are incentivised to push harsher drugs on soft drug uses, provides the start up capital for gangs to get into worse activities, and provides an apparently more attractive lifestyle for kids on sink estate than going to legal work. It's a miserable, failed policy.
I have to ask, as it seems that the PB view in drug usage is read from a government pamphlet, has anyone any real life experience of the issue... I have and I don't recognise any of what you are saying
Drugs are legal in all but name anyway, passing a law will make no positive difference
What are you talking about, "read from a government pamphlet"? The government sacked the last drugs advisor that recommended legalisation. It is the government that does not want to listen to the arguments for legalisation.
And, as you asked, yes I have real life experience of the issue. Many of my friends have taken drugs over the years, and several still do.
Your example of scary drug pushers is very wide of the mark that's all
Most drug dealers are normal people who provide what they're asked for, not pushers who force them selves on precious flowers
Drugs are legal anyway. No one goes to prison for having or taking them. They are a net bad for society, why legalise them?
Western civilization was founded on alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. They are the holy trinity of human progress.
IBelieve that alcohol goes back to ancient China through self-fermentation of fruit, but may well have happened to other similar civilisations. Tobacco dates back to the early inhabitants of the Americas where probably it was chewed before it was burned. Caffeine (coffee) was first discovered by the West from Ethiopia and was known throughout a lot of the Muslim world.
Quite Ironic really that one of the major issues of the day, public finances, has been perceived to have been resolved. The public concern has certainly reduced in this area and polls are showing that the Tories and GO are more trusted. this actually in many ways plays into the hands of Labour because unintentionally the memories of the electorate are steadily being eroded from the serious issues of that period of government.
On the other side of this fiscal coin the Tories are now, simply by nullyfying this area of the politic, losing a good weapon that they could have used against the opposition in the run up tothe next election. They have to all intents and purposes eliminated one of the best cases for not voting Labour and reducing this threat / risk factor within the electorate as a whole.
Meanwhile Labour and Andy Burnham are more trusted on the NHS. Mmmmm........go figure?
When I hear someone arguing for the legalisation of drugs, I first ask myself 'are they a user/abuser, or do they stand to benefit financially from any changes to the law?'
I stand to benefit.
I anticipate less crime from addicts scouring the local residences for felonious opportunities, I would hope to benefit from less street crime or shop lifting. It would be nice if some of the profits from the nefarious dishonest and illegal trade was regularised taxed and made legal.
I would hope crime figures fall, police have tome to attend to child rape and things like that, there are less poisons added to the drugs, helping the NHS as well.
We should all be better off, including the users, with the exceptions of the scum that trade in illegal drugs.
The dealers will still be there, but on the right side of the law when their trade is legalised. Shell suits traded up for Saville Row.
Plod will love it - less work for lazy coppers to do, whilst waiting to collect their pensions. Don't believe any nonsense about other crimes being solved.
You mean to say the nasty criminals who deal drugs now won't all go straight if drugs are legalised???
Western civilization was founded on alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. They are the holy trinity of human progress.
I thought it was founded on slavery?
The unstimulated slave empires of antiquity argue against your thesis.
It could be argued that slavery and the *growth* of empires can happily go hand-in-hand (except for the slaves), and act as a stimulant to development. Egypt, Greece and Rome of antiquity, and Spain, France and Britain more recently would suggest so. (Greece wasn't an empire as such but was arguably the most developed society within a thousand miles).
Slavery is disastrous for economic growth. Just look at the southern US vs the northern US. The line of industrial development directly tracked the free state vs slave state divide.
Slavery is probably incompatible with an industrialised society, which requires relatively free movement of people, capital and information - all of which become difficult if not impossible to reconcile with slavery. That said, for pre-industrial societies, it made economic, if not moral, sense.
Western civilization was founded on alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. They are the holy trinity of human progress.
I thought it was founded on slavery?
The unstimulated slave empires of antiquity argue against your thesis.
It could be argued that slavery and the *growth* of empires can happily go hand-in-hand (except for the slaves), and act as a stimulant to development. Egypt, Greece and Rome of antiquity, and Spain, France and Britain more recently would suggest so. (Greece wasn't an empire as such but was arguably the most developed society within a thousand miles).
I can't remember the exact words, but the blurb to one of the exhibits at the Museum of London Docklands says something on the lines of: "A considerable proportion of London's wealth was obtained through slavery."
I don't think this is accurate. The vast majority of economic growth is down to total factor productivity (i.e. technological change), not capital deepening. The discovery of advances in agriculture, railways, electrical power etc was not caused by slavery.
Crawling sycophancy is tortology. I have not been sycophantic as I recall - merely thanked people for welcoming me back. Your posts have been the opposite rather blunt and saying my analogies are nonsense without saying why.
Western civilization was founded on alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. They are the holy trinity of human progress.
I thought it was founded on slavery?
The unstimulated slave empires of antiquity argue against your thesis.
It could be argued that slavery and the *growth* of empires can happily go hand-in-hand (except for the slaves), and act as a stimulant to development. Egypt, Greece and Rome of antiquity, and Spain, France and Britain more recently would suggest so. (Greece wasn't an empire as such but was arguably the most developed society within a thousand miles).
I can't remember the exact words, but the blurb to one of the exhibits at the Museum of London Docklands says something on the lines of: "A considerable proportion of London's wealth was obtained through slavery."
I don't think this is accurate. The vast majority of economic growth is down to total factor productivity (i.e. technological change), not capital deepening. The discovery of advances in agriculture, railways, electrical power etc was not caused by slavery.
Well, they didn't say "a majority", merely "considerable".
Western civilization was founded on alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. They are the holy trinity of human progress.
IBelieve that alcohol goes back to ancient China through self-fermentation of fruit, but may well have happened to other similar civilisations. Tobacco dates back to the early inhabitants of the Americas where probably it was chewed before it was burned. Caffeine (coffee) was first discovered by the West from Ethiopia and was known throughout a lot of the Muslim world.
Typically off-message comment from Tory MP Michael Fabricant:
" Mark Reckless retweeted Michael Fabricant @Mike_Fabricant Oct 28 I'm looking forward to visiting #RochesterandStrood again on Thursday. Thanks @MarkReckless for some good restaurant recommendations!"
Typically off-message comment from Tory MP Michael Fabricant:
" Mark Reckless retweeted Michael Fabricant @Mike_Fabricant Oct 28 I'm looking forward to visiting #RochesterandStrood again on Thursday. Thanks @MarkReckless for some good restaurant recommendations!"
Crawling sycophancy is tortology. I have not been sycophantic as I recall - merely thanked people for welcoming me back. Your posts have been the opposite rather blunt and saying my analogies are nonsense without saying why.
I think you mean tautology. So your comment is a tautological tautology
Slavery is probably incompatible with an industrialised society, which requires relatively free movement of people, capital and information - all of which become difficult if not impossible to reconcile with slavery. That said, for pre-industrial societies, it made economic, if not moral, sense.
It made economic sense for individual slave-owners, but not for societies as a whole. In the southern US, low skill labour was held back from moving to its most productive usage (self-employment on the frontier), huge expense had to be used on a police state to recapture escaped slaves, free labour had its wage undermined (reducing consumption spending), and the occasional revolt caused a lot of capital damage.
When I hear someone arguing for the legalisation of drugs, I first ask myself 'are they a user/abuser, or do they stand to benefit financially from any changes to the law?'
I stand to benefit.
I anticipate less crime from addicts scouring the local residences for felonious opportunities, I would hope to benefit from less street crime or shop lifting. It would be nice if some of the profits from the nefarious dishonest and illegal trade was regularised taxed and made legal.
I would hope crime figures fall, police have time to attend to child rape and things like that, there are less poisons added to the drugs, helping the NHS as well.
We should all be better off, including the users, with the exceptions of the scum that trade in illegal drugs.
I presume you are an avid supporter then of the tobacco companies and abhor recent laws against tobacco use. I cannot understand the LD strategy here - for every switcher brought back from Labour 2 or 3 more will be lost to Con/UKIP. I think Clegg has got carried back to the 60s after wearing the harperson t-shirt the other day. BTW how silly did it make Miliband look - so not what he needs!
Ha! The default of my group was to be stoned/tripping/coming down - I was a novelty and hence my tedium with their company unless taking the pee.
I had a vg friend who became quite different when he was stoned - angry, dark and vengeful. and drew a lot of ugly cartoons like Gerald Scarfe. It made me very uncomfortable - I felt like I was seeing his inner self.
I don’t think my ‘social set’ was immune to taking drugs, it was just never readily apparent, to me at least and no one proffered them around. – I remember visiting Amsterdam several times in the early 80’s with friends; the standing joke at the time was that I was the only member of the group not approached by pushers – very odd, as I didn't look like a plod on holiday, imho....
I don’t think my ‘social set’ was immune to taking drugs, it was just never readily apparent, to me at least and no one proffered them around. – I remember visiting Amsterdam several times in the early 80’s with friends; the standing joke at the time was that I was the only member of the group not approached by pushers – very odd, as I didn't look like a plod on holiday, imho....
I wonder how many PBers have ever used drugs? With the notable exception of Sean T who has been remarkably open about his past. I got through plenty of class a's during my raving days of 88-96. After that was a daily weed smoker until early last year when I finally quit. I must confess that I even attended a number of PB drinks do's when absolutely flying.
Never used any recreational drugs. Might have done as a teenager if someone had offered me some.
Ditto - However, I’m always fascinated by these druggy discussions that crop up on PB from time to time, but rarely contribute as I have no personal or social anecdotal stories to add.
Unadventurous maybe, but no regrets either - Indulging, especially with the harder drugs has always struck me as a game of Russian roulette, some live to tell the tale, some don’t.
I do see where you're coming from and accept your experience in these drug issues.
But.... if prohibition is so successful, why did America repeal it when it failed with alcohol?
Another example is that some argue that boxing is dangerous and damages lives, but it's better to have it legal and with proper safeguards rather than driven underground.
Shouldn't the same apply to recreational drugs?
(Just asking, unsure myself).
It's not easy obviously, but I would say look at what people who have got heavily into drugs and suffered as a result recommend
Total abstinence
Why wait until kids are messed up? This is what I don't understand with Russell brand... He preaches and lives by total abstinence, yet wants drug laws relaxed
It's called free will. I don't like the X Factor but wouldn't ban something that others do enjoy just because I don't. Ok, trivial example but makes the point.
If people have the information on which to base a judgement, the capacity to make one, and are willing to accept the consequences of that decision, it's no business of the state to get involved beyond reasonable regulation and taxation unless third parties may be affected.
I say would you rather your kids were so frightened if the punishment for being caught with drugs that they never took them or that they had a friendly drug counsellor in rehab?
I'd rather they didn't take them because they understood the negative health consequences, not because they lived in fear of arrest and imprisonment.
Very well said. Sadly, I don't see many of our politicians, of any party, willing to stand up and make the libertarian case on this.
There is a theory that beer was the driving force behind the foundation of agricultural civilisation. The idea is that nomadic men discovered that grain would ferment in water and that the result tastes nice, so they settled down to cultivate the grain so that they could make more of the stuff.
Western civilization was founded on alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. They are the holy trinity of human progress.
I thought it was founded on slavery?
The unstimulated slave empires of antiquity argue against your thesis.
It could be argued that slavery and the *growth* of empires can happily go hand-in-hand (except for the slaves), and act as a stimulant to development. Egypt, Greece and Rome of antiquity, and Spain, France and Britain more recently would suggest so. (Greece wasn't an empire as such but was arguably the most developed society within a thousand miles).
I can't remember the exact words, but the blurb to one of the exhibits at the Museum of London Docklands says something on the lines of: "A considerable proportion of London's wealth was obtained through slavery."
I don't think this is accurate. The vast majority of economic growth is down to total factor productivity (i.e. technological change), not capital deepening. The discovery of advances in agriculture, railways, electrical power etc was not caused by slavery.
Well, they didn't say "a majority", merely "considerable".
My point is that the vast, vast majority of London's wealth is down to technological improvement, with only a fraction due to added capital. And of that added capital, only a fraction of that can be said to be down to slavery. Thus I don't think even a "considerable proportion" is down to it.
Crawling sycophancy is tortology. I have not been sycophantic as I recall - merely thanked people for welcoming me back. Your posts have been the opposite rather blunt and saying my analogies are nonsense without saying why.
I did say why they were nonsense, you haven't been anywhere just here using similar names so I don't see why people are welcoming you back
Just throwing this out there to all PBers.. Anyone have experience of living in the UAE? A mate of mine is over there and his wife is a nurse... Is it easy for her to find work ? Preferably in midwifery
Very well said. Sadly, I don't see many of our politicians, of any party, willing to stand up and make the libertarian case on this.
That's because most of the public aren't libertarians, acknowledging that there are knock-on effects to others. There's a far stronger case to be made against prohibition, which hasn't been made, which is that prohibition doesn't reduce drug usage, and causes all sorts of other costs.
I do see where you're coming from and accept your experience in these drug issues.
But.... if prohibition is so successful, why did America repeal it when it failed with alcohol?
Another example is that some argue that boxing is dangerous and damages lives, but it's better to have it legal and with proper safeguards rather than driven underground.
Shouldn't the same apply to recreational drugs?
(Just asking, unsure myself).
It's not easy obviously, but I would say look at what people who have got heavily into drugs and suffered as a result recommend
Total abstinence
Why wait until kids are messed up? This is what I don't understand with Russell brand... He preaches and lives by total abstinence, yet wants drug laws relaxed
It's called free will. I don't like the X Factor but wouldn't ban something that others do enjoy just because I don't. Ok, trivial example but makes the point.
If people have the information on which to base a judgement, the capacity to make one, and are willing to accept the consequences of that decision, it's no business of the state to get involved beyond reasonable regulation and taxation unless third parties may be affected.
I say would you rather your kids were so frightened if the punishment for being caught with drugs that they never took them or that they had a friendly drug counsellor in rehab?
I'd rather they didn't take them because they understood the negative health consequences, not because they lived in fear of arrest and imprisonment.
Very well said. Sadly, I don't see many of our politicians, of any party, willing to stand up and make the libertarian case on this.
I don't drink and probably never will, but I don't believe in prohibition. Just like bungee-jumping. I'm not into that, but just because I'm not, I wouldn't dream of banning it for other people!
Western civilization was founded on alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. They are the holy trinity of human progress.
IBelieve that alcohol goes back to ancient China through self-fermentation of fruit, but may well have happened to other similar civilisations. Tobacco dates back to the early inhabitants of the Americas where probably it was chewed before it was burned. Caffeine (coffee) was first discovered by the West from Ethiopia and was known throughout a lot of the Muslim world.
It was the meeting of the three that catalysed understanding and perspective.
anyone voted yet in the South Yorkshire PCC election?
Well we know the LDs are boycotting the poll, so chances are Nick Clegg hasn't made it to the polling station yet.
Incidentally, the LDs are part of the government that foisted PCCs and these silly elections onto us, and now they are boycotting them! Typical nonsense from the pot-head party.
Crawling sycophancy is tortology. I have not been sycophantic as I recall - merely thanked people for welcoming me back. Your posts have been the opposite rather blunt and saying my analogies are nonsense without saying why.
I did say why they were nonsense, you haven't been anywhere just here using similar names so I don't see why people are welcoming you back
Just throwing this out there to all PBers.. Anyone have experience of living in the UAE? A mate of mine is over there and his wife is a nurse... Is it easy for her to find work ? Preferably in midwifery
I don't know about the healthcare market there, but I've been to Dubai several times. They generally seem to have a policy of allowing anyone who gets a job a visa, but they'll kick you out as soon as you lose it.
Western civilization was founded on alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. They are the holy trinity of human progress.
I thought it was founded on slavery?
The unstimulated slave empires of antiquity argue against your thesis.
It could be argued that slavery and the *growth* of empires can happily go hand-in-hand (except for the slaves), and act as a stimulant to development. Egypt, Greece and Rome of antiquity, and Spain, France and Britain more recently would suggest so. (Greece wasn't an empire as such but was arguably the most developed society within a thousand miles).
I can't remember the exact words, but the blurb to one of the exhibits at the Museum of London Docklands says something on the lines of: "A considerable proportion of London's wealth was obtained through slavery."
I don't think this is accurate. The vast majority of economic growth is down to total factor productivity (i.e. technological change), not capital deepening. The discovery of advances in agriculture, railways, electrical power etc was not caused by slavery.
Well, they didn't say "a majority", merely "considerable".
I'd still think the claim questionable. London was not one of the ports seriously engaged in the slave trade, especially when compared with Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow. Furthermore, whilst London was always an important trading hub it really grew into a massive port in the nineteenth century well after the slave trade was banned in the UK or by UK shipping.
Here is a genuine question to those who would legalize drugs but have them regulated enough to be only sold by certain approved sources.
I think its fair to say most people who argue the above (like Nick Palmer earlier I think) state an example of an addict who will get better treatment by this approach. Fair enough but would the approved seller sell to somebody who has never tried drugs before? If so then you have to say that the state would effectively start people off on drugs as well as easing them off
anyone voted yet in the South Yorkshire PCC election?
Well we know the LDs are boycotting the poll, so chances are Nick Clegg hasn't made it to the polling station yet.
Incidentally, the LDs are part of the government that foisted PCCs and these silly elections onto us, and now they are boycotting them! Typical nonsense from the pot-head party.
yes I agree they are a nonsense and costly exercise . They are also probably a bit dangerous in terms of polarising power in one person
Very well said. Sadly, I don't see many of our politicians, of any party, willing to stand up and make the libertarian case on this.
That's because most of the public aren't libertarians, acknowledging that there are knock-on effects to others. There's a far stronger case to be made against prohibition, which hasn't been made, which is that prohibition doesn't reduce drug usage, and causes all sorts of other costs.
We know the horrendous consequences of alcohol and tobacco abuse and the costs it brings to our health system so why would we choose to add to this by encouraging more drug use. The LDs are totally schizophrenic on this - Nanny state one minute and now they want flower power and purple haze the next- do me a favour.
If we legalise drugs, will it give a boost to GDP?
Expect a surprise announcement in the Autumn* Statement
*December isn't in Autumn
This depends on how you define Autumn.
I did once see a definition of Autumn where it was October, November and December. This was in the context of Arctic sea-ice, where the temperature of the ocean is the determining factor, and the greater thermal inertia of the oceans mean that you would expect the seasons to be delayed compared to a land-based perspective.
I favour Hubert Lamb's definition of the seasons, which is based on an analysis of weather patterns. He's not quite as pessimistic as made out, though, as he gives an alternative naming of his five seasons that has two summer seasons, rather than the two winter seasons used in my link above.
However, in either case he has winter starting on 20th November, earlier than the meteorological standard.
If we legalise drugs, will it give a boost to GDP?
Expect a surprise announcement in the Autumn* Statement
*December isn't in Autumn
This depends on how you define Autumn.
I did once see a definition of Autumn where it was October, November and December. This was in the context of Arctic sea-ice, where the temperature of the ocean is the determining factor, and the greater thermal inertia of the oceans mean that you would expect the seasons to be delayed compared to a land-based perspective.
I favour Hubert Lamb's definition of the seasons, which is based on an analysis of weather patterns. He's not quite as pessimistic as made out, though, as he gives an alternative naming of his five seasons that has two summer seasons, rather than the two winter seasons used in my link above.
However, in either case he has winter starting on 20th November, earlier than the meteorological standard.
If we legalise drugs, will it give a boost to GDP?
Expect a surprise announcement in the Autumn* Statement
*December isn't in Autumn
This depends on how you define Autumn.
I did once see a definition of Autumn where it was October, November and December. This was in the context of Arctic sea-ice, where the temperature of the ocean is the determining factor, and the greater thermal inertia of the oceans mean that you would expect the seasons to be delayed compared to a land-based perspective.
I favour Hubert Lamb's definition of the seasons, which is based on an analysis of weather patterns. He's not quite as pessimistic as made out, though, as he gives an alternative naming of his five seasons that has two summer seasons, rather than the two winter seasons used in my link above.
However, in either case he has winter starting on 20th November, earlier than the meteorological standard.
If June 21st is Mid-Summer, and Dec 21st is Mid-Winter, than Mid-Autumn would be Sep 21st and Mid-Spring would be March 21st
anyone voted yet in the South Yorkshire PCC election?
Well we know the LDs are boycotting the poll, so chances are Nick Clegg hasn't made it to the polling station yet.
Incidentally, the LDs are part of the government that foisted PCCs and these silly elections onto us, and now they are boycotting them! Typical nonsense from the pot-head party.
yes I agree they are a nonsense and costly exercise . They are also probably a bit dangerous in terms of polarising power in one person
As opposed to the totally unrepresentative and unelected bodies they replaced. Typical Labour - opposing democracy here!
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole 53s53 seconds ago "The only thing i'm interested in is getting rid of losing Labour" says Jim Murphy. He says, deserting Miliband.
Western civilization was founded on alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. They are the holy trinity of human progress.
I thought it was founded on slavery?
The unstimulated slave empires of antiquity argue against your thesis.
It could be argued that slavery and the *growth* of empires can happily go hand-in-hand (except for the slaves), and act as a stimulant to development. Egypt, Greece and Rome of antiquity, and Spain, France and Britain more recently would suggest so. (Greece wasn't an empire as such but was arguably the most developed society within a thousand miles).
I can't remember the exact words, but the blurb to one of the exhibits at the Museum of London Docklands says something on the lines of: "A considerable proportion of London's wealth was obtained through slavery."
I don't think this is accurate. The vast majority of economic growth is down to total factor productivity (i.e. technological change), not capital deepening. The discovery of advances in agriculture, railways, electrical power etc was not caused by slavery.
Well, they didn't say "a majority", merely "considerable".
I'd still think the claim questionable. London was not one of the ports seriously engaged in the slave trade, especially when compared with Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow. Furthermore, whilst London was always an important trading hub it really grew into a massive port in the nineteenth century well after the slave trade was banned in the UK or by UK shipping.
Avast, Mr Llama - I am well aware of 1807 and all that! Belike!
Comments
Especially after Mr M's been one of the very few SLAB activists to campaign at all consistently and publicly alongside Mr Darling and the Tories in indyref. If you are going to vote against anyone for Tory-hugging, or because you voted Yes, then it's going to affect him more than anyone else.
How far that offsets those who give him an extra mark for his activity is going to be a key issue in this election - never mind the public ones in 2015 and 2016.
I don't smoke either - just doesn't appeal. I'd like to have tried Ecstasy, but was too chicken at the time. Amyl nitrate [think that was it] was very popular in my teens. Now that really does make me horny and reckless, so I wouldn't go anywhere near it again.
Total abstinence
Why wait until kids are messed up? This is what I don't understand with Russell brand... He preaches and lives by total abstinence, yet wants drug laws relaxed
I say would you rather your kids were so frightened if the punishment for being caught with drugs that they never took them or that they had a friendly drug counsellor in rehab?
As for prohibition, I don't knew the answer... Certainly the increased availability of alcohol hasn't worked here...
Boxing... Well if it wasn't legal it probably wouldn't be legalised... This is the point I am making really... People saying other drugs are no worse than alcohol so should be legalised are effectively arguing that dog fighting should be legalised because it's safer than the illegal dog fighting governed by criminals that we currently have. They could point to boxing as pro drug lobby do with Alcohol
The Harman t-shirt thing seems to be a very trivial thing to get worried about.
Does iSamuel drink?
Mr. Camel, I was just asking. Camelry were used by the Romans, you know.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/animals-in-ancient-warfare.html
Does anyone know why you can't sign into Vanilla on Safari? Just tried to do it in an Apple Shop. Usually I use Chrome.
Your analogy was nonsense because you are making the old mistake of pretending that only the user is affected by the effects of their drug taking
And a whole bunch of interesting plants and fungi, a good book on herbalism and "witchcraft" is fun to take on a country walk.
Other regulars have suggested the same (Neil is as far from Sam as you can get politically I think...)
"Neil Posts: 6,438
June 16
BobaFett said:
@isam
Am I Tim, Bobajob, the Last Boy Scout or someone else? I lose track with you as you have suggested I am all and none of them over the years ;-)
Two out of three aint bad. "
In fairness to @isam Bobafett/Bobajobb's activity period and your own do make it look a bit Bruce Wayne/Batman / Clarke Kent/Supermanish....
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/profile/790/BobaFett
Username BobaFett Joined February 27
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/profile/736/TheLastBoyScout
Last Active February 27
I wouldn't mind if @PBModerator or @Rcs1000 can clear it up (He can do reverse? dns lookups iirc)
John Simpson has form. Back in 1991 ha described Saddam's Iraq as a not altogether unpleasant place, with images of a nightclub. I am sure it had some positives. But imagine had he said that of 1930s Germany...
If people have the information on which to base a judgement, the capacity to make one, and are willing to accept the consequences of that decision, it's no business of the state to get involved beyond reasonable regulation and taxation unless third parties may be affected. I'd rather they didn't take them because they understood the negative health consequences, not because they lived in fear of arrest and imprisonment.
If something is nonsense it is nonsense regardless of which nonsensical poster wrote it, so identity is rather superfluous.
You forgot how letting in another 3m Labour voting immigrants will affect housing, education and the NHS.
Did working there tempt you to use cannabis?!
The Romans were big on Aminita Muscaria, and would quite often give it to their slaves.
One of our classicists will fill you in on the details.
The lastboyscout, bobajob and Bobafett are the same person
Watch for sycophantic crawling and a Love of London that only someone who isn't from there could invent etc
Now now. You know only whites can be racist.
Your second point is a dangerous misunderstanding. Kids esp teenagers think they are indestructable... They need more than someone telling them the side effects. What you're suggesting doesn't work on its own
Just noticed Wings over Scotland has posted a sample video of "how Jim listens to Scotland and avoids shouting about the SNP" from his Irn-Bru crate-supported anabasis, if anyone wants a sample of his rhetorical skills:
http://wingsoverscotland.com/painted-out-of-a-corner/
The war on drugs never being fought line is a nonsense one. It has certainly been fought in the US and didn't achieve anything there. You get drug use in maximum security prisons - if you can't control it in what is the equivalent of a police state, why on Earth do you think you can control it in a free society?
" Mark Reckless retweeted
Michael Fabricant @Mike_Fabricant Oct 28
I'm looking forward to visiting #RochesterandStrood again on Thursday. Thanks @MarkReckless for some good restaurant recommendations!"
https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant
A tricky one. African regimes tend to prefer Chinese to Western companies as they don't come with "baggage". None of those nonsense worries about back handers, or commitment to democracy or the environment.
Western companies on the other hand do, or are forced to (Bribery Act, FCPA, etc). They also normally take environmental standards seriously as well as CSR. They also hire locally. Even if they are "neo-Colonialist".
I anticipate less crime from addicts scouring the local residences for felonious opportunities, I would hope to benefit from less street crime or shop lifting. It would be nice if some of the profits from the nefarious dishonest and illegal trade was regularised taxed and made legal.
I would hope crime figures fall, police have time to attend to child rape and things like that, there are less poisons added to the drugs, helping the NHS as well.
We should all be better off, including the users, with the exceptions of the scum that trade in illegal drugs.
"The north Kent constituency of Rochester and Strood, where probably the most consequential byelection of this parliament will take place in three weeks’ time, is a seat that a strong Labour party could win. A confident Labour party certainly ought to be in strong contention. Instead, Ed Miliband seems resigned to finishing third behind the Conservatives and Ukip. No part of what this says about the Labour party’s condition is good.
If you know your postwar political history, the conclusion is pretty obvious. To get a Labour government, you have to win Rochester and Strood. It is one of the seats in Kent – like Dartford and Dover – that help to make the difference between Labour general election victory and general election defeat. Without wins in the marginals in such counties as Kent, Berkshire, Essex and Hertfordshire, you don’t get Labour governments."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/29/miliband-point-of-no-return-rochester-come-out-fighting
And, as you asked, yes I have real life experience of the issue. Many of my friends have taken drugs over the years, and several still do.
So the immigrants are now arriving before they are even conceived! I blame the last Labour government.
Plod will love it - less work for lazy coppers to do, whilst waiting to collect their pensions. Don't believe any nonsense about other crimes being solved.
"A considerable proportion of London's wealth was obtained through slavery."
And we could tax/regulate them - rather then be exploited/harmed by criminals.
Would I drink less if another form of social anaesthetic was available - probably.
Most drug dealers are normal people who provide what they're asked for, not pushers who force them selves on precious flowers
Drugs are legal anyway. No one goes to prison for having or taking them. They are a net bad for society, why legalise them?
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/10/29/concerns-about-health-and-immigration-rise-as-the-economy-drops-to-six-year-low-in-the-ipsos-mori-issues-index/
Quite Ironic really that one of the major issues of the day, public finances, has been perceived to have been resolved. The public concern has certainly reduced in this area and polls are showing that the Tories and GO are more trusted. this actually in many ways plays into the hands of Labour because unintentionally the memories of the electorate are steadily being eroded from the serious issues of that period of government.
On the other side of this fiscal coin the Tories are now, simply by nullyfying this area of the politic, losing a good weapon that they could have used against the opposition in the run up tothe next election. They have to all intents and purposes eliminated one of the best cases for not voting Labour and reducing this threat / risk factor within the electorate as a whole.
Meanwhile Labour and Andy Burnham are more trusted on the NHS. Mmmmm........go figure?
DUEMA
ABL
Scouts honour?..... ;-)
You're kidding me????!!
Crawling sycophancy is tortology. I have not been sycophantic as I recall - merely thanked people for welcoming me back. Your posts have been the opposite rather blunt and saying my analogies are nonsense without saying why.
It's recommended that you take a chateaux d'brady 1922, to accompany it.
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurants-g635679-Rochester_Kent_England.html
Elephants get drunk (along with several other species) claiming to have "invented" it, is typical of the semi evolved apes!
https://www.britainfirst.org/help-us-expose-john-gartland-royal-mail-commissar-thinks-owns-democracy/
I had a vg friend who became quite different when he was stoned - angry, dark and vengeful. and drew a lot of ugly cartoons like Gerald Scarfe. It made me very uncomfortable - I felt like I was seeing his inner self.
https://www.britainfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/jayda-leaflet3.jpg
Doesn't tell us much.
Just throwing this out there to all PBers.. Anyone have experience of living in the UAE? A mate of mine is over there and his wife is a nurse... Is it easy for her to find work ? Preferably in midwifery
Incidentally, the LDs are part of the government that foisted PCCs and these silly elections onto us, and now they are boycotting them! Typical nonsense from the pot-head party.
It's a horrible place though.
I'd still think the claim questionable. London was not one of the ports seriously engaged in the slave trade, especially when compared with Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow. Furthermore, whilst London was always an important trading hub it really grew into a massive port in the nineteenth century well after the slave trade was banned in the UK or by UK shipping.
I think its fair to say most people who argue the above (like Nick Palmer earlier I think) state an example of an addict who will get better treatment by this approach. Fair enough but would the approved seller sell to somebody who has never tried drugs before? If so then you have to say that the state would effectively start people off on drugs as well as easing them off
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/uk-facing-sperm-donor-shortage/
I would assume it would be exactly the same as our current legal drugs?
I did once see a definition of Autumn where it was October, November and December. This was in the context of Arctic sea-ice, where the temperature of the ocean is the determining factor, and the greater thermal inertia of the oceans mean that you would expect the seasons to be delayed compared to a land-based perspective.
I favour Hubert Lamb's definition of the seasons, which is based on an analysis of weather patterns. He's not quite as pessimistic as made out, though, as he gives an alternative naming of his five seasons that has two summer seasons, rather than the two winter seasons used in my link above.
However, in either case he has winter starting on 20th November, earlier than the meteorological standard.
Stop getting so worked up about it all. Have a large brandy and relax. ;-)
I hope Neil Findlay wins
"The only thing i'm interested in is getting rid of losing Labour" says Jim Murphy. He says, deserting Miliband.