934 Scots in drug related deaths last year. Once again the highest in Europe. That is more than 10 times the murder rate, for example. How many have to die before we recognise that what we are doing isn't working?
The difference is that murder victims are innocent victims, dead smack-heads bring it on themselves.
This is a betting site, allegedly, so I'm going to talk about betting.
This is a political betting site, allegedly, but I don't bet on politics any more. I did my proverbials on LD seats in 2015 and learnt a valuable lesson about not betting on sentiment.
If that applies to politics, it must also apply to other things. Looking at Paddy Power, I see England are 10/11 to win the QF in 90 minutes while Sweden are 7/2 and the Draw is 13/8.
This makes absolutely no sense to me from a form and value perspective - I make Sweden favourites and 7/2 looks the bet of the year to me. I also note Croatia are 6/5 favourites and Russia 11/4 which doesn't suggest much sentiment at work from the Paddy odds makers.
I generally bet against England in matches at major tournaments and over the years have made money - last night, I backed Columbia to win in 90 minutes and hedged on the draw. I backed Belgium last week and the draw in the Tunisia match.
It's not a question of not being patriotic - if you are betting you have to leave all that at the door. Should England, on what we've seen, be 10/11 and should Sweden, on what we've seen, be 7/2?
I'm also tempted by Belgium at 13/5 but they'll need 90 minutes plus ET to wear down Brazil so also backing 12/5 the draw looks a sound contingency.
It also provides the advantage of a nice earner to compensate for England losing. This is what I generally do. If England win you can rejoice in the win despite being a little poorer.
This is a betting site, allegedly, so I'm going to talk about betting.
This is a political betting site, allegedly, but I don't bet on politics any more. I did my proverbials on LD seats in 2015 and learnt a valuable lesson about not betting on sentiment.
If that applies to politics, it must also apply to other things. Looking at Paddy Power, I see England are 10/11 to win the QF in 90 minutes while Sweden are 7/2 and the Draw is 13/8.
This makes absolutely no sense to me from a form and value perspective - I make Sweden favourites and 7/2 looks the bet of the year to me. I also note Croatia are 6/5 favourites and Russia 11/4 which doesn't suggest much sentiment at work from the Paddy odds makers.
I generally bet against England in matches at major tournaments and over the years have made money - last night, I backed Columbia to win in 90 minutes and hedged on the draw. I backed Belgium last week and the draw in the Tunisia match.
It's not a question of not being patriotic - if you are betting you have to leave all that at the door. Should England, on what we've seen, be 10/11 and should Sweden, on what we've seen, be 7/2?
I'm also tempted by Belgium at 13/5 but they'll need 90 minutes plus ET to wear down Brazil so also backing 12/5 the draw looks a sound contingency.
Agreed. I didsome back of a fag packet calculations earlier about what I think the percentage chances of each of the eight remaining teams have of winning the WC and then looked at what the bookies say. The difference is astounding! I reckon England have about a 6-10% chance of winning it from here. They are massively poor value. And I reckon it's a 50/50 toss up against Sweden at best. Again, England massively poor value. Lesson: bet against England! That hasn't stopped me today dreaming of how I would feel if they won.
934 Scots in drug related deaths last year. Once again the highest in Europe. That is more than 10 times the murder rate, for example. How many have to die before we recognise that what we are doing isn't working?
The difference is that murder victims are innocent victims, dead smack-heads bring it on themselves.
Fuuuuuck me.
I wonder what drug addicts shot during gang warfare count as by that definition? Innocent victims or dead smackheads?
I think it had an 85% audience share and the figures don't count big groups very well. On Saturday we'll have 30-40 people over for the match. It will count as 3-5 viewers.
Well goodness only knows what the other 15% of the audience were watching. There's not usually any point in we non-football fans even bothering to check the TV listings during a tournament as there's never anything worth watching.
Nonetheless, despite my own aversion to football, I genuinely hope that you and your 40 friends have a good time on Saturday and that you get the result that you want.
We watched the crticket until that more or less ended, then turned over to the football. TBH there wasn;t a lot of alternative.
Conservative MEPs have been criticised for an alliance with a Swedish anti-immigrant party that has its roots in white supremacism.
The European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, the European parliament bloc dreamed up by David Cameron, agreed on Tuesday to welcome two members of the Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigrant populist party that has been advancing in the polls ahead of Swedish elections in September.
When I saw this news earlier today, I thought to myself "the Sweden Democrats are joining a group which contains the Tories?"
934 Scots in drug related deaths last year. Once again the highest in Europe. That is more than 10 times the murder rate, for example. How many have to die before we recognise that what we are doing isn't working?
That's tragic. But it also doesn't mean that a favoured alternative will work any better ...
Well, Portugal have been successful in significantly reducing their death toll during a time when our death toll has doubled. It is not as nearly as simple as legalisation though. Instead the resources that are currently used to prosecute and lock up users and small suppliers have to be redirected towards treatment and withdrawal plans.
The Scottish government's plan of putting heroin addicts on methadone has done a great deal to increase the death toll, particularly amongst long term users who are the main source of the increased deaths. On the other hand I understand that their attempts to have medically regulated and "safe" shooting galleries in Glasgow is being thwarted by the London government. None of our politicians come out well on this for the reasons that @SandyRentool has somewhat uncharacteristically expressed.
Agreed. I didsome back of a fag packet calculations earlier about what I think the percentage chances of each of the eight remaining teams have of winning the WC and then looked at what the bookies say. The difference is astounding! I reckon England have about a 6-10% chance of winning it from here. They are massively poor value. And I reckon it's a 50/50 toss up against Sweden at best. Again, England massively poor value. Lesson: bet against England! That hasn't stopped me today dreaming of how I would feel if they won.
England are ALWAYS poor value in international matches at tournaments. The bookies know they will get all the patriotic money and make the book accordingly.
Once I learnt that nearly 30 years ago it was easy - the value is always to oppose England. Now, there's no point being silly and backing the likes of Panama to beat England (I really wish I'd had more on Iceland at Euro 2016 but even I didn't believe that was possible) but I thought we might be held to a draw by Tunisia and was fairly confident we'd lose to Belgium in the third match.
This is a betting site, allegedly, so I'm going to talk about betting.
This is a political betting site, allegedly, but I don't bet on politics any more. I did my proverbials on LD seats in 2015 and learnt a valuable lesson about not betting on sentiment.
If that applies to politics, it must also apply to other things. Looking at Paddy Power, I see England are 10/11 to win the QF in 90 minutes while Sweden are 7/2 and the Draw is 13/8.
This makes absolutely no sense to me from a form and value perspective - I make Sweden favourites and 7/2 looks the bet of the year to me. I also note Croatia are 6/5 favourites and Russia 11/4 which doesn't suggest much sentiment at work from the Paddy odds makers.
I generally bet against England in matches at major tournaments and over the years have made money - last night, I backed Columbia to win in 90 minutes and hedged on the draw. I backed Belgium last week and the draw in the Tunisia match.
It's not a question of not being patriotic - if you are betting you have to leave all that at the door. Should England, on what we've seen, be 10/11 and should Sweden, on what we've seen, be 7/2?
I'm also tempted by Belgium at 13/5 but they'll need 90 minutes plus ET to wear down Brazil so also backing 12/5 the draw looks a sound contingency.
Agreed. I didsome back of a fag packet calculations earlier about what I think the percentage chances of each of the eight remaining teams have of winning the WC and then looked at what the bookies say. The difference is astounding! I reckon England have about a 6-10% chance of winning it from here. They are massively poor value. And I reckon it's a 50/50 toss up against Sweden at best. Again, England massively poor value. Lesson: bet against England! That hasn't stopped me today dreaming of how I would feel if they won.
For perspective, fivethirtyeight gives England a 62% chance of winning against Sweden and at 15% chance of winning the cup. How their track record has been so far I'm not sure.
It would appear that some PBers consider drug addicts to be victims. I don't see it that way.
Whatever personal responsibility addicts should reasonably be expected to accept, and how much sympathy for going down that path others should reasonable have, an attitude of 'who cares?' and treating such a mass of deaths like we're just decreasing the surplus population, seems unduly blase. Even if we accept they all brought it on themselves, preventing the needless deaths of so many - who might, we can dare hope, have the opportunity to redeem themselves in your eyes if they live - is surely worth trying?
Well, Portugal have been successful in significantly reducing their death toll during a time when our death toll has doubled. It is not as nearly as simple as legalisation though. Instead the resources that are currently used to prosecute and lock up users and small suppliers have to be redirected towards treatment and withdrawal plans.
The Scottish government's plan of putting heroin addicts on methadone has done a great deal to increase the death toll, particularly amongst long term users who are the main source of the increased deaths. On the other hand I understand that their attempts to have medically regulated and "safe" shooting galleries in Glasgow is being thwarted by the London government. None of our politicians come out well on this for the reasons that @SandyRentool has somewhat uncharacteristically expressed.
The issue of drugs is one I've struggled with all my adult political life. I've gone through phases of supporting decriminalisation to advocating the strongest possible measures.
I suppose like all laws it either works via consent or deterrent (we don't go round killing each other because we won't get away with it). A law which people choose not to obey (using mobile phones in cars) and know they have only a low risk of being caught is a useless law.
I've seen the evidence of the damage drug use can do to individuals and communities. Crime of all sorts rises in response to the availability and use of drugs and the addictive process removes the inhibitions of civilisation. I have a close relative who is an alcoholic and I know where that addiction has taken him and what he has done and the lies he has told and the misery he has caused yet he is a victim too.
Yet addiction can and does come in many ways and will always be with us. Managing that dependency in some way to mitigate the personal life-damaging aspects and the communal and familial collateral suffering seems to me to be the logical way forward. Ultimately, I suppose it comes to the market, to supply and demand, as it does with so many other things.
It would appear that some PBers consider drug addicts to be victims. I don't see it that way.
They are victims of an addiction. Of course they are not the only ones. They are surrounded with innocent victims whose lives and families they blight along with being a major source of crime.
934 Scots in drug related deaths last year. Once again the highest in Europe. That is more than 10 times the murder rate, for example. How many have to die before we recognise that what we are doing isn't working?
That's tragic. But it also doesn't mean that a favoured alternative will work any better ...
Well, Portugal have been successful in significantly reducing their death toll during a time when our death toll has doubled. It is not as nearly as simple as legalisation though. Instead the resources that are currently used to prosecute and lock up users and small suppliers have to be redirected towards treatment and withdrawal plans.
The Scottish government's plan of putting heroin addicts on methadone has done a great deal to increase the death toll, particularly amongst long term users who are the main source of the increased deaths. On the other hand I understand that their attempts to have medically regulated and "safe" shooting galleries in Glasgow is being thwarted by the London government. None of our politicians come out well on this for the reasons that @SandyRentool has somewhat uncharacteristically expressed.
There are many questions that you need to answer before you decriminalise: *) What drug(s) are you decriminalising? *) Is it just for possession, or supply? *) When can drugs not be taken (e.g. in front of children, or whilst driving) *) Penalties for such misuse *) Penalties for people providing still-proscribed drugs *) Help for addicts. +more
I would also argue that deaths, whilst tragic, are only one measure of the harm drugs cause.
The experience with legal highs in this country does not fill me with confidence that a simple legalisation process will do f'all good. It has to be part of a very much larger raft of legislation to cope with the the many issues that currently exist, or would arise.
For instance, I would like to see drug drivers, or those taking drugs in front of children, dealt with somewhat harshly. It comes down to a basic: "do what you want to your body, but don't harm others or wider society."
Well, Portugal have been successful in significantly reducing their death toll during a time when our death toll has doubled. It is not as nearly as simple as legalisation though. Instead the resources that are currently used to prosecute and lock up users and small suppliers have to be redirected towards treatment and withdrawal plans.
The Scottish government's plan of putting heroin addicts on methadone has done a great deal to increase the death toll, particularly amongst long term users who are the main source of the increased deaths. On the other hand I understand that their attempts to have medically regulated and "safe" shooting galleries in Glasgow is being thwarted by the London government. None of our politicians come out well on this for the reasons that @SandyRentool has somewhat uncharacteristically expressed.
The issue of drugs is one I've struggled with all my adult political life. I've gone through phases of supporting decriminalisation to advocating the strongest possible measures.
I suppose like all laws it either works via consent or deterrent (we don't go round killing each other because we won't get away with it). A law which people choose not to obey (using mobile phones in cars) and know they have only a low risk of being caught is a useless law.
I've seen the evidence of the damage drug use can do to individuals and communities. Crime of all sorts rises in response to the availability and use of drugs and the addictive process removes the inhibitions of civilisation. I have a close relative who is an alcoholic and I know where that addiction has taken him and what he has done and the lies he has told and the misery he has caused yet he is a victim too.
Yet addiction can and does come in many ways and will always be with us. Managing that dependency in some way to mitigate the personal life-damaging aspects and the communal and familial collateral suffering seems to me to be the logical way forward. Ultimately, I suppose it comes to the market, to supply and demand, as it does with so many other things.
I think, as with most things, we need to be pragmatic and see what works. What we are doing does not work. Being more punitive, as in Russia, doesn't work. A restricted form of legalisation must be worth trying.
To return, technically that means he wants to be an MEP again. Brexit rip.
Not necessarily.
There's been talk about him becoming an MP for the DUP and a DUP MP already being ready to stand down to allow him to contest the seat in a by election...
Now... About that "confidence and supply" deal that's keeping Theresa holed up on Downing St while she sells Brexit down the river...
To return, technically that means he wants to be an MEP again. Brexit rip.
Not necessarily.
There's been talk about him becoming an MP for the DUP and a DUP MP already being ready to stand down to allow him to contest the seat in a by election...
Can't see Arlene Foster being terribly happy with that idea.
Whilst obviously true in some cases (we are parents to our children and children to our parents) I don't think that's true when it comes to nationality. I do however note that others on this site agree with you to some degree, with you and @Alanbrooke adopting different definitions of "we" dependent on whim. I think it's a wealthy person thing.
934 Scots in drug related deaths last year. Once again the highest in Europe. That is more than 10 times the murder rate, for example. How many have to die before we recognise that what we are doing isn't working?
That's tragic. But it also doesn't mean that a favoured alternative will work any better ...
Well, Portugal have been successful in significantly reducing their death toll during a time when our death toll has doubled. It is not as nearly as simple as legalisation though. Instead the resources that are currently used to prosecute and lock up users and small suppliers have to be redirected towards treatment and withdrawal plans.
The Scottish government's plan of putting heroin addicts on methadone has done a great deal to increase the death toll, particularly amongst long term users who are the main source of the increased deaths. On the other hand I understand that their attempts to have medically regulated and "safe" shooting galleries in Glasgow is being thwarted by the London government. None of our politicians come out well on this for the reasons that @SandyRentool has somewhat uncharacteristically expressed.
There are many questions that you need to answer before you decriminalise: *) What drug(s) are you decriminalising? *) Is it just for possession, or supply? *) When can drugs not be taken (e.g. in front of children, or whilst driving) *) Penalties for such misuse *) Penalties for people providing still-proscribed drugs *) Help for addicts. +more
I would also argue that deaths, whilst tragic, are only one measure of the harm drugs cause.
The experience with legal highs in this country does not fill me with confidence that a simple legalisation process will do f'all good. It has to be part of a very much larger raft of legislation to cope with the the many issues that currently exist, or would arise.
For instance, I would like to see drug drivers, or those taking drugs in front of children, dealt with somewhat harshly. It comes down to a basic: "do what you want to your body, but don't harm others or wider society."
Last year ten thousand people in Scotland died from smoking related diseases. 1235 died from conditions caused by alcohol.
Of course, more people smoke than take heroin - one in five of all people in Scotland. But I would suggest that's the obvious place to start in terms of reducing drug-related deaths.
That's tragic. But it also doesn't mean that a favoured alternative will work any better ...
Well, Portugal have been successful in significantly reducing their death toll during a time when our death toll has doubled. It is not as nearly as simple as legalisation though. Instead the resources that are currently used to prosecute and lock up users and small suppliers have to be redirected towards treatment and withdrawal plans.
The Scottish government's plan of putting heroin addicts on methadone has done a great deal to increase the death toll, particularly amongst long term users who are the main source of the increased deaths. On the other hand I understand that their attempts to have medically regulated and "safe" shooting galleries in Glasgow is being thwarted by the London government. None of our politicians come out well on this for the reasons that @SandyRentool has somewhat uncharacteristically expressed.
There are many questions that you need to answer before you decriminalise: *) What drug(s) are you decriminalising? *) Is it just for possession, or supply? *) When can drugs not be taken (e.g. in front of children, or whilst driving) *) Penalties for such misuse *) Penalties for people providing still-proscribed drugs *) Help for addicts. +more
I would also argue that deaths, whilst tragic, are only one measure of the harm drugs cause.
The experience with legal highs in this country does not fill me with confidence that a simple legalisation process will do f'all good. It has to be part of a very much larger raft of legislation to cope with the the many issues that currently exist, or would arise.
For instance, I would like to see drug drivers, or those taking drugs in front of children, dealt with somewhat harshly. It comes down to a basic: "do what you want to your body, but don't harm others or wider society."
I certainly agree that legalisation is not a simple answer and would need to be a part of the package. I don't think anyone would be suggesting that being unfit to drive through drugs would not remain a crime, as would child neglect. We need to decide if we are willing to offer drugs on a prescription basis so that (a) we eliminate the market for illegal suppliers; (b) ensure that they are not contaminated, (c) remove the need to commit criminal offences to generate the money to pay for them and (d) where possible, taken in safe conditions.
None of this was done with legal highs but I agree that was an unhappy experience that we should reflect on.
To return, technically that means he wants to be an MEP again. Brexit rip.
Not necessarily.
There's been talk about him becoming an MP for the DUP and a DUP MP already being ready to stand down to allow him to contest the seat in a by election...
Can't see Arlene Foster being terribly happy with that idea.
It also provides the advantage of a nice earner to compensate for England losing. This is what I generally do. If England win you can rejoice in the win despite being a little poorer.
A bit of a nonsense way to bet I'm afraid, if you want to win money that is.
Well, Portugal have been successful in significantly reducing their death toll during a time when our death toll has doubled. It is not as nearly as simple as legalisation though. Instead the resources that are currently used to prosecute and lock up users and small suppliers have to be redirected towards treatment and withdrawal plans.
The Scottish government's plan of putting heroin addicts on methadone has done a great deal to increase the death toll, particularly amongst long term users who are the main source of the increased deaths. On the other hand I understand that their attempts to have medically regulated and "safe" shooting galleries in Glasgow is being thwarted by the London government. None of our politicians come out well on this for the reasons that @SandyRentool has somewhat uncharacteristically expressed.
There are many questions that you need to answer before you decriminalise: *) What drug(s) are you decriminalising? *) Is it just for possession, or supply? *) When can drugs not be taken (e.g. in front of children, or whilst driving) *) Penalties for such misuse *) Penalties for people providing still-proscribed drugs *) Help for addicts. +more
I would also argue that deaths, whilst tragic, are only one measure of the harm drugs cause.
The experience with legal highs in this country does not fill me with confidence that a simple legalisation process will do f'all good. It has to be part of a very much larger raft of legislation to cope with the the many issues that currently exist, or would arise.
For instance, I would like to see drug drivers, or those taking drugs in front of children, dealt with somewhat harshly. It comes down to a basic: "do what you want to your body, but don't harm others or wider society."
Last year ten thousand people in Scotland died from smoking related diseases. 1235 died from conditions caused by alcohol.
Of course, more people smoke than take heroin - one in five of all people in Scotland. But I would suggest that's the obvious place to start in terms of reducing drug-related deaths.
It also provides the advantage of a nice earner to compensate for England losing. This is what I generally do. If England win you can rejoice in the win despite being a little poorer.
A bit of a nonsense way to bet I'm afraid, if you want to win money that is.
Well obviously, but what he's talking about is a bet serving as an emotional hedge.
It also provides the advantage of a nice earner to compensate for England losing. This is what I generally do. If England win you can rejoice in the win despite being a little poorer.
A bit of a nonsense way to bet I'm afraid, if you want to win money that is.
Well obviously, but what he's talking about is a bet serving as an emotional hedge.
No worries, I've backed England at 20-21 because I think we're much better than Sweden. Also Croatia at 5-4.
Should England, on what we've seen, be 10/11 and should Sweden, on what we've seen, be 7/2?
I think 4-7, 7-1 would be more like fair prices inside 90 minutes personally.
I take it you've never been a bookmaker.
If it were me, I'd have Sweden at 11/10, the draw at 2/1 and England at 5/2 in the 90 minutes market but I'd be knocked over in the rush to back England and be forced to adjust the book accordingly.
I'm NOT suggesting the bookies are being greedy in offering the prices they are about England - they are trying to make a book and the weight of likely money suggests to make a reasonable book you need to have England at shorter odds than the form would suggest and their opponents (and the draw) at longer prices.
The odds on going through to the next round are England 2/5 and Sweden 15/8.
I merely argue that backing against England in major football tournaments over the past 30 years has been profitable if you are prepared to leave patriotism and sentiment at the door - the value is always against England and it is so again for Saturday's game.
I certainly agree that legalisation is not a simple answer and would need to be a part of the package. I don't think anyone would be suggesting that being unfit to drive through drugs would not remain a crime, as would child neglect. We need to decide if we are willing to offer drugs on a prescription basis so that (a) we eliminate the market for illegal suppliers; (b) ensure that they are not contaminated, (c) remove the need to commit criminal offences to generate the money to pay for them and (d) where possible, taken in safe conditions.
None of this was done with legal highs but I agree that was an unhappy experience that we should reflect on.
"I don't think anyone would be suggesting that being unfit to drive through drugs would not remain a crime"
I have heard people say exactly that, mostly in relation to the way you can drive after 'one drink', and drugs affect them less than drink. It's not exactly a view I agree with, and one person in particular who said it was a drug-addled tw@t back then, and remains a drug-addled tw@t.
I'm also unconvinced that your a), b) and c) would necessarily follow.
Like Mr Stodge below, I have wavered considerably on this subject over the years; currently I could be persuaded by the legalisation case, but I fear that people with evil intent will continue to make money and misery.
That's tragic. But it also doesn't mean that a favoured alternative will work any better ...
Well, Portugal have been successful in significantly reducing their death toll during a time when our death toll has doubled. It is not as nearly as simple as legalisation though. Instead the resources that are currently used to prosecute and lock up users and small suppliers have to be redirected towards treatment and withdrawal plans.
The Scottish government's plan of putting heroin addicts on methadone has done a great deal to increase the death toll, particularly amongst long term users who are the main source of the increased deaths. On the other hand I understand that their attempts to have medically regulated and "safe" shooting galleries in Glasgow is being thwarted by the London government. None of our politicians come out well on this for the reasons that @SandyRentool has somewhat uncharacteristically expressed.
There are many questions that you need to answer before you decriminalise: *) What drug(s) are you decriminalising? *) Is it just for possession, or supply? *) When can drugs not be taken (e.g. in front of children, or whilst driving) *) Penalties for such misuse *) Penalties for people providing still-proscribed drugs *) Help for addicts. +more
I would also argue that deaths, whilst tragic, are only one measure of the harm drugs cause.
The experience with legal highs in this country does not fill me with confidence that a simple legalisation process will do f'all good. It has to be part of a very much larger raft of legislation to cope with the the many issues that currently exist, or would arise.
For instance, I would like to see drug drivers, or those taking drugs in front of children, dealt with somewhat harshly. It comes down to a basic: "do what you want to your body, but don't harm others or wider society."
I certainly agree that legalisation is not a simple answer and would need to be a part of the package. I don't think anyone would be suggesting that being unfit to drive through drugs would not remain a crime, as would child neglect. We need to decide if we are willing to offer drugs on a prescription basis so that (a) we eliminate the market for illegal suppliers; (b) ensure that they are not contaminated, (c) remove the need to commit criminal offences to generate the money to pay for them and (d) where possible, taken in safe conditions.
None of this was done with legal highs but I agree that was an unhappy experience that we should reflect on.
High Time drugs policy was changed. Legalise then with safeguards, controls etc. All of them, not just some of them.
I certainly agree that legalisation is not a simple answer and would need to be a part of the package. I don't think anyone would be suggesting that being unfit to drive through drugs would not remain a crime, as would child neglect. We need to decide if we are willing to offer drugs on a prescription basis so that (a) we eliminate the market for illegal suppliers; (b) ensure that they are not contaminated, (c) remove the need to commit criminal offences to generate the money to pay for them and (d) where possible, taken in safe conditions.
None of this was done with legal highs but I agree that was an unhappy experience that we should reflect on.
"I don't think anyone would be suggesting that being unfit to drive through drugs would not remain a crime"
I have heard people say exactly that, mostly in relation to the way you can drive after 'one drink', and drugs affect them less than drink. It's not exactly a view I agree with, and one person in particular who said it was a drug-addled tw@t back then, and remains a drug-addled tw@t.
I'm also unconvinced that your a), b) and c) would necessarily follow.
Like Mr Stodge below, I have wavered considerably on this subject over the years; currently I could be persuaded by the legalisation case, but I fear that people with evil intent will continue to make money and misery.
I did not have these views myself 5 years ago. It’s not an easy problem to solve but particularly here in Scotland it is killing unacceptable numbers of people.
Last year ten thousand people in Scotland died from smoking related diseases. 1235 died from conditions caused by alcohol.
Of course, more people smoke than take heroin - one in five of all people in Scotland. But I would suggest that's the obvious place to start in terms of reducing drug-related deaths.
it is the obvious model for legalised drugs, heavily regulated, full of warnings, lots of encouragement to stop but not illegal.
Around 6% of the population of Scotland admit to using illegal drugs. For obvious reasons that figure is almost certainly too low.
So at most three times as many people smoke as take drugs, yet it is responsible for at least ten times as many deaths.
I don't think that's an encouraging sign of a model that should be followed elsewhere.
Of course, you can prove anything with statistics, as 87.4% of people know. That doesn't take into account that the illegal drug deaths may be one shot, while smoking is something that accumulates over many years of heavy use.
But I still think it's easy to get carried away by looking at the shock factor without considering, actually, smoking is a bigger killer and drinking a major social problem.
Equally, it could support your argument insofar as nobody is suggesting banning cigarettes and alcohol (although wasn't there a campaign to ban Bucky not so long ago)?
Should England, on what we've seen, be 10/11 and should Sweden, on what we've seen, be 7/2?
I think 4-7, 7-1 would be more like fair prices inside 90 minutes personally.
I take it you've never been a bookmaker.
If it were me, I'd have Sweden at 11/10, the draw at 2/1 and England at 5/2 in the 90 minutes market but I'd be knocked over in the rush to back England and be forced to adjust the book accordingly.
I'm NOT suggesting the bookies are being greedy in offering the prices they are about England - they are trying to make a book and the weight of likely money suggests to make a reasonable book you need to have England at shorter odds than the form would suggest and their opponents (and the draw) at longer prices.
I don't know what the PP odds are excluding the draw but I imagine it would be England 4/7 Sweden 6/4 or something similar - that's to go through either in normal time, after extra time or even after a penalty shoot out.
I merely argue that backing against England in major football tournaments over the past 30 years has been profitable if you are prepared to leave patriotism and sentiment at the door - the value is always against England and it is so again for Saturday's game.
How much have you got on Sweden, or laid on England? And if not, why not, if you believe your odds?
Should England, on what we've seen, be 10/11 and should Sweden, on what we've seen, be 7/2?
I think 4-7, 7-1 would be more like fair prices inside 90 minutes personally.
I take it you've never been a bookmaker.
If it were me, I'd have Sweden at 11/10, the draw at 2/1 and England at 5/2 in the 90 minutes market but I'd be knocked over in the rush to back England and be forced to adjust the book accordingly.
I'm NOT suggesting the bookies are being greedy in offering the prices they are about England - they are trying to make a book and the weight of likely money suggests to make a reasonable book you need to have England at shorter odds than the form would suggest and their opponents (and the draw) at longer prices.
The odds on going through to the next round are England 2/5 and Sweden 15/8.
I merely argue that backing against England in major football tournaments over the past 30 years has been profitable if you are prepared to leave patriotism and sentiment at the door - the value is always against England and it is so again for Saturday's game.
You think Sweden are twice as likely as England to win in 90 minutes?
Interesting poll on who people blame for Brexit going badly. The main takeaway is that Conservative voters are much more likely to blame the EU and anti-Brexit politicians and voters of other parties are much more likely to blame the government.
Should England, on what we've seen, be 10/11 and should Sweden, on what we've seen, be 7/2?
I think 4-7, 7-1 would be more like fair prices inside 90 minutes personally.
I take it you've never been a bookmaker.
If it were me, I'd have Sweden at 11/10, the draw at 2/1 and England at 5/2 in the 90 minutes market but I'd be knocked over in the rush to back England and be forced to adjust the book accordingly.
I'm NOT suggesting the bookies are being greedy in offering the prices they are about England - they are trying to make a book and the weight of likely money suggests to make a reasonable book you need to have England at shorter odds than the form would suggest and their opponents (and the draw) at longer prices.
The odds on going through to the next round are England 2/5 and Sweden 15/8.
I merely argue that backing against England in major football tournaments over the past 30 years has been profitable if you are prepared to leave patriotism and sentiment at the door - the value is always against England and it is so again for Saturday's game.
You think Sweden are twice as likely as England to win in 90 minutes?
Why not? The Swedes are world famous for their ability to score anywhere, any time.
Should England, on what we've seen, be 10/11 and should Sweden, on what we've seen, be 7/2?
I think 4-7, 7-1 would be more like fair prices inside 90 minutes personally.
I take it you've never been a bookmaker.
If it were me, I'd have Sweden at 11/10, the draw at 2/1 and England at 5/2 in the 90 minutes market but I'd be knocked over in the rush to back England and be forced to adjust the book accordingly.
I'm NOT suggesting the bookies are being greedy in offering the prices they are about England - they are trying to make a book and the weight of likely money suggests to make a reasonable book you need to have England at shorter odds than the form would suggest and their opponents (and the draw) at longer prices.
The odds on going through to the next round are England 2/5 and Sweden 15/8.
I merely argue that backing against England in major football tournaments over the past 30 years has been profitable if you are prepared to leave patriotism and sentiment at the door - the value is always against England and it is so again for Saturday's game.
There is no way on God's green earth Sweden should be favourites for the match, not one of their players would make it into our side.
Should England, on what we've seen, be 10/11 and should Sweden, on what we've seen, be 7/2?
I think 4-7, 7-1 would be more like fair prices inside 90 minutes personally.
I take it you've never been a bookmaker.
If it were me, I'd have Sweden at 11/10, the draw at 2/1 and England at 5/2 in the 90 minutes market but I'd be knocked over in the rush to back England and be forced to adjust the book accordingly.
I'm NOT suggesting the bookies are being greedy in offering the prices they are about England - they are trying to make a book and the weight of likely money suggests to make a reasonable book you need to have England at shorter odds than the form would suggest and their opponents (and the draw) at longer prices.
The odds on going through to the next round are England 2/5 and Sweden 15/8.
I merely argue that backing against England in major football tournaments over the past 30 years has been profitable if you are prepared to leave patriotism and sentiment at the door - the value is always against England and it is so again for Saturday's game.
You think Sweden are twice as likely as England to win in 90 minutes?
Why not? The Swedes are world famous for their ability to score anywhere, any time.
< How much have you got on Sweden, or laid on England? And if not, why not, if you believe your odds?
I'm only just looking at the markets and found the Paddy Power prices as an example. I'll obviously look round the market and see if anyone is prepared to offer 4s on Sweden - if not, the plan is to back Sweden at 7/2 to win in 90 minutes and perhaps a little on the draw.
As to how much, it won't be a fiver but it won't be a monkey either but somewhere between the two.
To return, technically that means he wants to be an MEP again. Brexit rip.
He remains President and lead spokesperson of the EFDD parliamentary group - similar to the role Verhofstadt holds for the ELDR Liberal group. So in theory he remains in front line European Parliament politics even now. This group continues to include the 5 star movement in Italy - now in government - and the Sweden Democrats.
Of course if we don't leave next March and it drifts beyond May do we keep our existing MEPs or elect new ones who may serve just a few weeks. It also messes up the group formations in Brussels as well as they depend on having support from members in at least seven member states.
Perhaps EFDD just loses 5 star and UKIP merges with the ENF which includes La Lega as well as other nationalist parties including Wilders and Le Pen.
< How much have you got on Sweden, or laid on England? And if not, why not, if you believe your odds?
I'm only just looking at the markets and found the Paddy Power prices as an example. I'll obviously look round the market and see if anyone is prepared to offer 4s on Sweden - if not, the plan is to back Sweden at 7/2 to win in 90 minutes and perhaps a little on the draw.
As to how much, it won't be a fiver but it won't be a monkey either but somewhere between the two.
I bet Pulpstar will give you odds for Sweden 90 mins.
Last year ten thousand people in Scotland died from smoking related diseases. 1235 died from conditions caused by alcohol.
Of course, more people smoke than take heroin - one in five of all people in Scotland. But I would suggest that's the obvious place to start in terms of reducing drug-related deaths.
it is the obvious model for legalised drugs, heavily regulated, full of warnings, lots of encouragement to stop but not illegal.
Around 6% of the population of Scotland admit to using illegal drugs. For obvious reasons that figure is almost certainly too low.
So at most three times as many people smoke as take drugs, yet it is responsible for at least ten times as many deaths.
I don't think that's an encouraging sign of a model that should be followed elsewhere.
Of course, you can prove anything with statistics, as 87.4% of people know. That doesn't take into account that the illegal drug deaths may be one shot, while smoking is something that accumulates over many years of heavy use.
But I still think it's easy to get carried away by looking at the shock factor without considering, actually, smoking is a bigger killer and drinking a major social problem.
Equally, it could support your argument insofar as nobody is suggesting banning cigarettes and alcohol (although wasn't there a campaign to ban Bucky not so long ago)?
I thought it was only 64.2% but I take your point. One of main reasons Portugal is so interesting is that their limited legalisation has reduced drug consumption rather than normalising it. We need to learn how they did that and do the same.
< How much have you got on Sweden, or laid on England? And if not, why not, if you believe your odds?
I'm only just looking at the markets and found the Paddy Power prices as an example. I'll obviously look round the market and see if anyone is prepared to offer 4s on Sweden - if not, the plan is to back Sweden at 7/2 to win in 90 minutes and perhaps a little on the draw.
As to how much, it won't be a fiver but it won't be a monkey either but somewhere between the two.
I bet Pulpstar will give you odds for Sweden 90 mins.
I did not have these views myself 5 years ago. It’s not an easy problem to solve but particularly here in Scotland it is killing unacceptable numbers of people.
And mucking up a change in the law might lead to killing more people, with even more long-term consequences. Or not. But it's one heck of an experiment.
There is no way on God's green earth Sweden should be favourites for the match, not one of their players would make it into our side.
The point is the disparity in odds isn't reflective of the actual difference between the teams. I would also contend the whole has to be greater than the sum of the parts - you could have said in 2016 none of the Icelanders would have got into the England side on their own but that isn't and wasn't the point.
< How much have you got on Sweden, or laid on England? And if not, why not, if you believe your odds?
I'm only just looking at the markets and found the Paddy Power prices as an example. I'll obviously look round the market and see if anyone is prepared to offer 4s on Sweden - if not, the plan is to back Sweden at 7/2 to win in 90 minutes and perhaps a little on the draw.
As to how much, it won't be a fiver but it won't be a monkey either but somewhere between the two.
I bet Pulpstar will give you odds for Sweden 90 mins.
Lol Nah we're both happy enough with the bookies.
Oh that's a shame, I was looking forward to Stodge V Pulpstar!
You think Sweden should be 7/1, he thinks 11/10; that's a proper disagreement.
There is no way on God's green earth Sweden should be favourites for the match, not one of their players would make it into our side.
The point is the disparity in odds isn't reflective of the actual difference between the teams. I would also contend the whole has to be greater than the sum of the parts - you could have said in 2016 none of the Icelanders would have got into the England side on their own but that isn't and wasn't the point.
Iceland played as a team, England didn't.
England are playing as a team too - and we're definitely not the best team, far from it - Belgium, France, Brazil are all definitely better than us with Uruguay closish.. Thing is they're all in the top half of the draw. If we're favourites against Croatia then there may well be value laying us in the semi (God only knows how to assess ourselves vs Russia if they get there) - but Sweden just ain't great.
Last year ten thousand people in Scotland died from smoking related diseases. 1235 died from conditions caused by alcohol.
Of course, more people smoke than take heroin - one in five of all people in Scotland. But I would suggest that's the obvious place to start in terms of reducing drug-related deaths.
it is the obvious model for legalised drugs, heavily regulated, full of warnings, lots of encouragement to stop but not illegal.
Around 6% of the population of Scotland admit to using illegal drugs. For obvious reasons that figure is almost certainly too low.
So at most three times as many people smoke as take drugs, yet it is responsible for at least ten times as many deaths.
I don't think that's an encouraging sign of a model that should be followed elsewhere.
Of course, you can prove anything with statistics, as 87.4% of people know. That doesn't take into account that the illegal drug deaths may be one shot, while smoking is something that accumulates over many years of heavy use.
But I still think it's easy to get carried away by looking at the shock factor without considering, actually, smoking is a bigger killer and drinking a major social problem.
Equally, it could support your argument insofar as nobody is suggesting banning cigarettes and alcohol (although wasn't there a campaign to ban Bucky not so long ago)?
Yet drug related deaths (outside smoking and alcohol) are incredibly low in Portugal.
Last year ten thousand people in Scotland died from smoking related diseases. 1235 died from conditions caused by alcohol.
Of course, more people smoke than take heroin - one in five of all people in Scotland. But I would suggest that's the obvious place to start in terms of reducing drug-related deaths.
it is the obvious model for legalised drugs, heavily regulated, full of warnings, lots of encouragement to stop but not illegal.
Around 6% of the population of Scotland admit to using illegal drugs. For obvious reasons that figure is almost certainly too low.
So at most three times as many people smoke as take drugs, yet it is responsible for at least ten times as many deaths.
I don't think that's an encouraging sign of a model that should be followed elsewhere.
Of course, you can prove anything with statistics, as 87.4% of people know. That doesn't take into account that the illegal drug deaths may be one shot, while smoking is something that accumulates over many years of heavy use.
But I still think it's easy to get carried away by looking at the shock factor without considering, actually, smoking is a bigger killer and drinking a major social problem.
Equally, it could support your argument insofar as nobody is suggesting banning cigarettes and alcohol (although wasn't there a campaign to ban Bucky not so long ago)?
Yet drug related deaths (outside smoking and alcohol) are incredibly low in Portugal.
It's a mystery.
Okaaaay...
So apart from all the drug related deaths, not many people die of drug related problems in Portugal.
You know, Dr Crippen was a good husband apart from the fact he murdered his wife.
(Yes, I know you didn't mean it that way! But still, really...)
I thought it was only 64.2% but I take your point. One of main reasons Portugal is so interesting is that their limited legalisation has reduced drug consumption rather than normalising it. We need to learn how they did that and do the same.
"... is that their limited legalisation has reduced drug consumption rather than normalising it. "
Is that right? The following seems interesting:
"Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%[19] It has been proposed[by whom?] that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use.[20] However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalised many years earlier than in Portugal [20][21] while the use of Cannabis and heroin decreased in the rest of Western Europe.[22][23] The increase in drug use observed among adults in Portugal was not greater than that seen in nearby countries that did not change their drug laws.[24]"
Last year ten thousand people in Scotland died from smoking related diseases. 1235 died from conditions caused by alcohol.
Of course, more people smoke than take heroin - one in five of all people in Scotland. But I would suggest that's the obvious place to start in terms of reducing drug-related deaths.
it is the obvious model for legalised drugs, heavily regulated, full of warnings, lots of encouragement to stop but not illegal.
Around 6% of the population of Scotland admit to using illegal drugs. For obvious reasons that figure is almost certainly too low.
So at most three times as many people smoke as take drugs, yet it is responsible for at least ten times as many deaths.
I don't think that's an encouraging sign of a model that should be followed elsewhere.
Of course, you can prove anything with statistics, as 87.4% of people know. That doesn't take into account that the illegal drug deaths may be one shot, while smoking is something that accumulates over many years of heavy use.
But I still think it's easy to get carried away by looking at the shock factor without considering, actually, smoking is a bigger killer and drinking a major social problem.
Equally, it could support your argument insofar as nobody is suggesting banning cigarettes and alcohol (although wasn't there a campaign to ban Bucky not so long ago)?
Yet drug related deaths (outside smoking and alcohol) are incredibly low in Portugal.
It's a mystery.
Okaaaay...
So apart from all the drug related deaths, not many people die of drug related problems in Portugal.
You know, Dr Crippen was a good husband apart from the fact he murdered his wife.
(Yes, I know you didn't mean it that way! But still, really...)
Well, Portugal's alcohol related death rate is lower than the UK's so it rather suggest their model is a fuck sight better than ours.
Last year ten thousand people in Scotland died from smoking related diseases. 1235 died from conditions caused by alcohol.
Of course, more people smoke than take heroin - one in five of all people in Scotland. But I would suggest that's the obvious place to start in terms of reducing drug-related deaths.
it is the obvious model for legalised drugs, heavily regulated, full of warnings, lots of encouragement to stop but not illegal.
Around 6% of the population of Scotland admit to using illegal drugs. For obvious reasons that figure is almost certainly too low.
So at most three times as many people smoke as take drugs, yet it is responsible for at least ten times as many deaths.
I don't think that's an encouraging sign of a model that should be followed elsewhere.
Of course, you can prove anything with statistics, as 87.4% of people know. That doesn't take into account that the illegal drug deaths may be one shot, while smoking is something that accumulates over many years of heavy use.
But I still think it's easy to get carried away by looking at the shock factor without considering, actually, smoking is a bigger killer and drinking a major social problem.
Equally, it could support your argument insofar as nobody is suggesting banning cigarettes and alcohol (although wasn't there a campaign to ban Bucky not so long ago)?
Yet drug related deaths (outside smoking and alcohol) are incredibly low in Portugal.
Last year ten thousand people in Scotland died from smoking related diseases. 1235 died from conditions caused by alcohol.
Of course, more people smoke than take heroin - one in five of all people in Scotland. But I would suggest that's the obvious place to start in terms of reducing drug-related deaths.
it is the obvious model for legalised drugs, heavily regulated, full of warnings, lots of encouragement to stop but not illegal.
Around 6% of the population of Scotland admit to using illegal drugs. For obvious reasons that figure is almost certainly too low.
So at most three times as many people smoke as take drugs, yet it is responsible for at least ten times as many deaths.
I don't think that's an encouraging sign of a model that should be followed elsewhere.
Of course, you can prove anything with statistics, as 87.4% of people know. That doesn't take into account that the illegal drug deaths may be one shot, while smoking is something that accumulates over many years of heavy use.
But I still think it's easy to get carried away by looking at the shock factor without considering, actually, smoking is a bigger killer and drinking a major social problem.
Equally, it could support your argument insofar as nobody is suggesting banning cigarettes and alcohol (although wasn't there a campaign to ban Bucky not so long ago)?
Yet drug related deaths (outside smoking and alcohol) are incredibly low in Portugal.
It's a mystery.
Okaaaay...
So apart from all the drug related deaths, not many people die of drug related problems in Portugal.
You know, Dr Crippen was a good husband apart from the fact he murdered his wife.
(Yes, I know you didn't mean it that way! But still, really...)
Well, Portugal's alcohol related death rate is lower than the UK's so it rather suggest their model is a fuck sight better than ours.
Or it might just be, given their average wage is less than half of ours, they can't afford as much alcohol as we can.
I thought it was only 64.2% but I take your point. One of main reasons Portugal is so interesting is that their limited legalisation has reduced drug consumption rather than normalising it. We need to learn how they did that and do the same.
"... is that their limited legalisation has reduced drug consumption rather than normalising it. "
Is that right? The following seems interesting:
"Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%[19] It has been proposed[by whom?] that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use.[20] However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalised many years earlier than in Portugal [20][21] while the use of Cannabis and heroin decreased in the rest of Western Europe.[22][23] The increase in drug use observed among adults in Portugal was not greater than that seen in nearby countries that did not change their drug laws.[24]"
Last year ten thousand people in Scotland died from smoking related diseases. 1235 died from conditions caused by alcohol.
Of course, more people smoke than take heroin - one in five of all people in Scotland. But I would suggest that's the obvious place to start in terms of reducing drug-related deaths.
it is the obvious model for legalised drugs, heavily regulated, full of warnings, lots of encouragement to stop but not illegal.
Around 6% of the population of Scotland admit to using illegal drugs. For obvious reasons that figure is almost certainly too low.
So at most three times as many people smoke as take drugs, yet it is responsible for at least ten times as many deaths.
I don't think that's an encouraging sign of a model that should be followed elsewhere.
Of course, you can prove anything with statistics, as 87.4% of people know. That doesn't take into account that the illegal drug deaths may be one shot, while smoking is something that accumulates over many years of heavy use.
But I still think it's easy to get carried away by looking at the shock factor without considering, actually, smoking is a bigger killer and drinking a major social problem.
Equally, it could support your argument insofar as nobody is suggesting banning cigarettes and alcohol (although wasn't there a campaign to ban Bucky not so long ago)?
Yet drug related deaths (outside smoking and alcohol) are incredibly low in Portugal.
It's a mystery.
Citation required.
Citation required for drug deaths being low?
The EMCDAA will sort you out there. Link in previous post.
I thought it was only 64.2% but I take your point. One of main reasons Portugal is so interesting is that their limited legalisation has reduced drug consumption rather than normalising it. We need to learn how they did that and do the same.
"... is that their limited legalisation has reduced drug consumption rather than normalising it. "
Is that right? The following seems interesting:
"Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%[19] It has been proposed[by whom?] that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use.[20] However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalised many years earlier than in Portugal [20][21] while the use of Cannabis and heroin decreased in the rest of Western Europe.[22][23] The increase in drug use observed among adults in Portugal was not greater than that seen in nearby countries that did not change their drug laws.[24]"
Different time period? Different ways of measuring? Natural variations over time? Wikipedia being an arse?
I don't have time atm, but it would be interesting to compare the EMCDAA reports over the years to see trends, and compare with other countries. Someone's probably already done it...
I'm not sure legal highs are something to look at when it comes to our future legislation of recreational drugs as they weren't illegal to begin with, they moved from being legal to being decriminalised which is kind of different to what may happen (or has elsewhere) with recreational drugs.
Legals highs are also probably one of the worse drugs*, quite a few of the softer recreational drugs are bad for you (like alcohol) but in a legal system with standards on the product (like alcohol) can actually be used by the majority of people with little negative effect (like alcohol). I don't think you can actually get away with using legal highs for a decent length of time without it taking a toll.
Legals highs belong more to the category of very hard drugs, I wouldn't be surprised if you had a system with clean heroin supplied that a person may do better** on that than on legal highs, if anything I generally think of legal highs as an argument for legalising cannabis at least as some people seem to think it is a replacement for it, which is like shooting up because the local off licence is shut...
*Of the mainstream ones I've heard of anyway.
**Just to clarify still very bad, just not as bad.
I merely argue that backing against England in major football tournaments over the past 30 years has been profitable if you are prepared to leave patriotism and sentiment at the door - the value is always against England and it is so again for Saturday's game.
With respect, the market has changed enormously in the last 30 years. The prices you see now are international, largely driven by the Asian market. And the British bookmakers are all betting to such tight margins that there isn't much room for them to crimp the odds on England.
In the "good old days" of shop coupons, priced to c. 112%, you'd have seen England 8/11 Sweden 10/3 Draw 9/4. Not any more.
Personally I think we were excellent yesterday, with the exception* of the period between the Dier & Rashford subs (80' - 110' or thereabouts). Sweden looked poor against pretty poor opposition. On balance I'd back England on Saturday, though not to any great stakes.
I thought it was only 64.2% but I take your point. One of main reasons Portugal is so interesting is that their limited legalisation has reduced drug consumption rather than normalising it. We need to learn how they did that and do the same.
"... is that their limited legalisation has reduced drug consumption rather than normalising it. "
Is that right? The following seems interesting:
"Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%[19] It has been proposed[by whom?] that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use.[20] However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalised many years earlier than in Portugal [20][21] while the use of Cannabis and heroin decreased in the rest of Western Europe.[22][23] The increase in drug use observed among adults in Portugal was not greater than that seen in nearby countries that did not change their drug laws.[24]"
Different time period? Different ways of measuring? Natural variations over time? Wikipedia being an arse?
I don't have time atm, but it would be interesting to compare the EMCDAA reports over the years to see trends, and compare with other countries. Someone's probably already done it...
They provide a plot of the last 10 years in each yearly report.
Portugal has all the key metrics looking like a downhill ski slope.
They do give a range of options, 25% say they are ‘very proud’, and 16% are ‘Moderately proud’ so with that plus the 47% that’s quite a lot of people. I think it’s the ‘extremely proud’ being at record low, that’s what caused some on the right to see the poll as depressing.
I don’t know if there are comparable surveys in the UK.
I thought it was only 64.2% but I take your point. One of main reasons Portugal is so interesting is that their limited legalisation has reduced drug consumption rather than normalising it. We need to learn how they did that and do the same.
"... is that their limited legalisation has reduced drug consumption rather than normalising it. "
Is that right? The following seems interesting:
"Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%[19] It has been proposed[by whom?] that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use.[20] However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalised many years earlier than in Portugal [20][21] while the use of Cannabis and heroin decreased in the rest of Western Europe.[22][23] The increase in drug use observed among adults in Portugal was not greater than that seen in nearby countries that did not change their drug laws.[24]"
Different time period? Different ways of measuring? Natural variations over time? Wikipedia being an arse?
I don't have time atm, but it would be interesting to compare the EMCDAA reports over the years to see trends, and compare with other countries. Someone's probably already done it...
They provide a plot of the last 10 years in each yearly report.
Portugal has all the key metrics looking like a downhill ski slope.
They do give a range of options, 25% say they are ‘very proud’, and 16% are ‘Moderately proud’ so with that plus the 47% that’s quite a lot of people. I think it’s the ‘extremely proud’ being at record low, that’s what caused some on the right to see the poll as depressing.
I don’t know if there are comparable surveys in the UK.
See, the British attitudes survey collects similar data. Back in 2014 35 per cent of Brits were very proud to be British.
Comments
That hasn't stopped me today dreaming of how I would feel if they won.
But decriminalisation definitely doesnt work. Sure.
Conservative MEPs have been criticised for an alliance with a Swedish anti-immigrant party that has its roots in white supremacism.
The European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, the European parliament bloc dreamed up by David Cameron, agreed on Tuesday to welcome two members of the Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigrant populist party that has been advancing in the polls ahead of Swedish elections in September.
When I saw this news earlier today, I thought to myself "the Sweden Democrats are joining a group which contains the Tories?"
The Scottish government's plan of putting heroin addicts on methadone has done a great deal to increase the death toll, particularly amongst long term users who are the main source of the increased deaths. On the other hand I understand that their attempts to have medically regulated and "safe" shooting galleries in Glasgow is being thwarted by the London government. None of our politicians come out well on this for the reasons that @SandyRentool has somewhat uncharacteristically expressed.
Once I learnt that nearly 30 years ago it was easy - the value is always to oppose England. Now, there's no point being silly and backing the likes of Panama to beat England (I really wish I'd had more on Iceland at Euro 2016 but even I didn't believe that was possible) but I thought we might be held to a draw by Tunisia and was fairly confident we'd lose to Belgium in the third match.
EDIT: Lampard in 115th minute. I think Sol Campbell had a goal disallowed too.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1014591285926166528
I suppose like all laws it either works via consent or deterrent (we don't go round killing each other because we won't get away with it). A law which people choose not to obey (using mobile phones in cars) and know they have only a low risk of being caught is a useless law.
I've seen the evidence of the damage drug use can do to individuals and communities. Crime of all sorts rises in response to the availability and use of drugs and the addictive process removes the inhibitions of civilisation. I have a close relative who is an alcoholic and I know where that addiction has taken him and what he has done and the lies he has told and the misery he has caused yet he is a victim too.
Yet addiction can and does come in many ways and will always be with us. Managing that dependency in some way to mitigate the personal life-damaging aspects and the communal and familial collateral suffering seems to me to be the logical way forward. Ultimately, I suppose it comes to the market, to supply and demand, as it does with so many other things.
*) What drug(s) are you decriminalising?
*) Is it just for possession, or supply?
*) When can drugs not be taken (e.g. in front of children, or whilst driving)
*) Penalties for such misuse
*) Penalties for people providing still-proscribed drugs
*) Help for addicts.
+more
I would also argue that deaths, whilst tragic, are only one measure of the harm drugs cause.
The experience with legal highs in this country does not fill me with confidence that a simple legalisation process will do f'all good. It has to be part of a very much larger raft of legislation to cope with the the many issues that currently exist, or would arise.
For instance, I would like to see drug drivers, or those taking drugs in front of children, dealt with somewhat harshly. It comes down to a basic: "do what you want to your body, but don't harm others or wider society."
There's been talk about him becoming an MP for the DUP and a DUP MP already being ready to stand down to allow him to contest the seat in a by election...
Now... About that "confidence and supply" deal that's keeping Theresa holed up on Downing St while she sells Brexit down the river...
Of course, more people smoke than take heroin - one in five of all people in Scotland. But I would suggest that's the obvious place to start in terms of reducing drug-related deaths.
None of this was done with legal highs but I agree that was an unhappy experience that we should reflect on.
it is the obvious model for legalised drugs, heavily regulated, full of warnings, lots of encouragement to stop but not illegal.
If it were me, I'd have Sweden at 11/10, the draw at 2/1 and England at 5/2 in the 90 minutes market but I'd be knocked over in the rush to back England and be forced to adjust the book accordingly.
I'm NOT suggesting the bookies are being greedy in offering the prices they are about England - they are trying to make a book and the weight of likely money suggests to make a reasonable book you need to have England at shorter odds than the form would suggest and their opponents (and the draw) at longer prices.
The odds on going through to the next round are England 2/5 and Sweden 15/8.
I merely argue that backing against England in major football tournaments over the past 30 years has been profitable if you are prepared to leave patriotism and sentiment at the door - the value is always against England and it is so again for Saturday's game.
I have heard people say exactly that, mostly in relation to the way you can drive after 'one drink', and drugs affect them less than drink. It's not exactly a view I agree with, and one person in particular who said it was a drug-addled tw@t back then, and remains a drug-addled tw@t.
I'm also unconvinced that your a), b) and c) would necessarily follow.
Like Mr Stodge below, I have wavered considerably on this subject over the years; currently I could be persuaded by the legalisation case, but I fear that people with evil intent will continue to make money and misery.
So at most three times as many people smoke as take drugs, yet it is responsible for at least ten times as many deaths.
I don't think that's an encouraging sign of a model that should be followed elsewhere.
Of course, you can prove anything with statistics, as 87.4% of people know. That doesn't take into account that the illegal drug deaths may be one shot, while smoking is something that accumulates over many years of heavy use.
But I still think it's easy to get carried away by looking at the shock factor without considering, actually, smoking is a bigger killer and drinking a major social problem.
Equally, it could support your argument insofar as nobody is suggesting banning cigarettes and alcohol (although wasn't there a campaign to ban Bucky not so long ago)?
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/e2modsksu0/InternalResults_180628_Brexit(excluding DKs answers)_w.pdf
And they're not bad at football either...
As to how much, it won't be a fiver but it won't be a monkey either but somewhere between the two.
Of course if we don't leave next March and it drifts beyond May do we keep our existing MEPs or elect new ones who may serve just a few weeks. It also messes up the group formations in Brussels as well as they depend on having support from members in at least seven member states.
Perhaps EFDD just loses 5 star and UKIP merges with the ENF which includes La Lega as well as other nationalist parties including Wilders and Le Pen.
Republicans are complaining about this on twitter. With Trump in power, don’t think this decline is that much of a surprise.
Iceland played as a team, England didn't.
You think Sweden should be 7/1, he thinks 11/10; that's a proper disagreement.
Thing is they're all in the top half of the draw.
If we're favourites against Croatia then there may well be value laying us in the semi (God only knows how to assess ourselves vs Russia if they get there) - but Sweden just ain't great.
It's a mystery.
So apart from all the drug related deaths, not many people die of drug related problems in Portugal.
You know, Dr Crippen was a good husband apart from the fact he murdered his wife.
(Yes, I know you didn't mean it that way! But still, really...)
If that is not a victim I honestly don't know what is.
Is that right? The following seems interesting:
"Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%[19] It has been proposed[by whom?] that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use.[20] However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalised many years earlier than in Portugal [20][21] while the use of Cannabis and heroin decreased in the rest of Western Europe.[22][23] The increase in drug use observed among adults in Portugal was not greater than that seen in nearby countries that did not change their drug laws.[24]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/countries/drug-reports/2018/portugal_en
The EMCDAA will sort you out there. Link in previous post.
Edit: here it is again as I fucked it up last time http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/countries/drug-reports/2018/portugal_en
I don't have time atm, but it would be interesting to compare the EMCDAA reports over the years to see trends, and compare with other countries. Someone's probably already done it...
Legals highs are also probably one of the worse drugs*, quite a few of the softer recreational drugs are bad for you (like alcohol) but in a legal system with standards on the product (like alcohol) can actually be used by the majority of people with little negative effect (like alcohol). I don't think you can actually get away with using legal highs for a decent length of time without it taking a toll.
Legals highs belong more to the category of very hard drugs, I wouldn't be surprised if you had a system with clean heroin supplied that a person may do better** on that than on legal highs, if anything I generally think of legal highs as an argument for legalising cannabis at least as some people seem to think it is a replacement for it, which is like shooting up because the local off licence is shut...
*Of the mainstream ones I've heard of anyway.
**Just to clarify still very bad, just not as bad.
In the "good old days" of shop coupons, priced to c. 112%, you'd have seen England 8/11 Sweden 10/3 Draw 9/4. Not any more.
Personally I think we were excellent yesterday, with the exception* of the period between the Dier & Rashford subs (80' - 110' or thereabouts). Sweden looked poor against pretty poor opposition. On balance I'd back England on Saturday, though not to any great stakes.
* Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?
Do we do similar surveys in the UK - are you proud or extremely proud to be British?
https://youtu.be/Ps7xmW-9LXQ
Portugal has all the key metrics looking like a downhill ski slope.
They do give a range of options, 25% say they are ‘very proud’, and 16% are ‘Moderately proud’ so with that plus the 47% that’s quite a lot of people. I think it’s the ‘extremely proud’ being at record low, that’s what caused some on the right to see the poll as depressing.
I don’t know if there are comparable surveys in the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2014/apr/14/proud-to-be-british-somewhat
This survey for the BBC last month found older people and those living furthest from London were most likely to be proud to be English.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44142843
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44719639
This is a little bit scary.